When did the Oriental Orthodox Churches start being called 'Orthodox'? The Eastern Orthodox (Greek, Russian and so on) are distinct from the Oriental Orthodox (Syriac, Armenian, Coptic and so on).

Do we know when the term "Oriental Orthodox" started being used for these churches as a group? Likewise, do we know when the individual churches started referring to themselves as "Orthodox"? I'm curious if the term "Orthodox" was first used in other languages (possibly by missionaries) and then later adopted by the churches.

I believe that the Syriac Orthodox, for example, only started using the word Orthodox fairly recently, in the 19th century.

The Greek adjective orthodox (ὀρθόδοξος) is dated to the late third/early fourth centuries, and the derived Latin word (orthodoxus or ortodoxus) was also first used at about that time. There is an earlier verb ὀρθοδοξεῖν, meaning "to have correct beliefs", used by Aristotle in the Nicomachean Ethics. As far as I know, Aristotle's coining is original, not based on any other language.

In Christianity, the term originally became popular to describe those groups that adhered to the definition of the Council of Chalcedon (451 AD), even though the Oriental Orthodox churches that you mention are exactly the opposite, not accepting the Chalcedonian dogmatic definition. The Oxford English Dictionary (under orthodox, 3) suggests that this is due to a later assumption that "Orthodox" refers to anybody who was not on the Catholic side at the time of the Great Schism (1054). So it seems that "Orthodox" was first associated with the Eastern Orthodox churches, and only later became applied to the Oriental Orthodox.

For the reasons set out below, I think that the group term "Oriental Orthodox" was invented or at least popularized in the 1960s; and that at least some of the churches in question had Orthodox in their name for some years before that, though probably not earlier than the eighteenth century.

It is a bit hard to distinguish between a church that uses Orthodox as part of its name, and one that merely describes itself as orthodox. Certainly, people have been calling themselves small-o orthodox for centuries, and in some cases that shifted from "we are orthodox" to "we are the Orthodox". The unambiguous use of Orthodox in the name is comparatively recent, in all cases.

"Orthodox" as a title of the Eastern Orthodox churches

From what I can see, the term "Orthodox" was not used as a distinctive term until many years after the Schism. The more normal way was to talk about the Eastern Church and the Western Church. The everyday usage was "the Greeks", though this is of course inaccurate since not all Greeks are Orthodox and not all Orthodox are Greek. Meanwhile, Christians in general could be called orthodox or catholic for some centuries, regardless of their east-west allegiance.

For example, in the proceedings of the Council of Basel (1431-5), we read "the Greeks" as the standard term for the Greek Orthodox delegates, as opposed to "the Romans"; but "the orthodox faith" and "the catholic church" are both used to mean Christianity in general.

The Orthodox churches were certainly using the term as part of their identity by 1672, since the record of the Synod of Jerusalem contains many references to Orthodoxy as a tradition and as a communion (eg, talking about "our Orthodox religion", "Orthodox bishops", etc.). They were undoubtedly trying to use the term to distinguish themselves from the Roman Catholics, and to a lesser extent the Protestants. But even then, "Orthodox" was not part of the name of the church: the synod talks of "the Eastern Church", which holds "the Orthodox faith", but they don't use the title "Orthodox" for the church itself.

So at least in this period, the Orthodox placed additional emphasis on themselves holding to Orthodoxy as an ideal, in opposition to other groups. I suspect that the position of the Feast of Orthodoxy in the liturgy helped to establish this as a critical part of their identity. However, it seems that it may not have been used as a church title until a bit later. It was definitely established by the time of Nicodemus of the Holy Mountain, who used it in The Rudder (1800). Tentatively, I would say that it became used as a distinctive title at some point in the late seventeenth or early eighteenth century, though as set out above, there is a much longer history of the use of the word in the eastern Christian tradition. (The first OED appearance of "the Orthodox Church" is 1772, with "the Orthodox Confession" in 1679. Of course, that says nothing about non-English sources).

The Oriental Orthodox

As mentioned above, the application of "Orthodox" to these churches is quite unusual! There's even some evidence that the Eastern Orthodox deprecated the use of "Eastern Church" because they didn't want to be confused with non-Chalcedonian people (heretics!) who happened to also live in the east. Probably they were quite annoyed when those same groups started calling themselves Orthodox too.

I would assume from the chronology that the individual Oriental Orthodox churches only started using the title a while after the Eastern Orthodox did. That would place the earliest use probably no sooner than the eighteenth century, and perhaps quite a bit later. Again, it may be that other people called them that, partly out of confusion as the OED suggests, before they called themselves that. So a 19th century date, in the case of the Syriacs, certainly makes sense.

Confusingly enough, "Oriental Orthodox" was also used as an exotic synonym for the Eastern Orthodox. The Oxford History of Christian Worship (Geoffrey Wainwright, 2006) says that the umbrella term "Oriental Orthodox" for the Syriac, etc., churches, was established in the 1960s, as a replacement for calling them "Monophysite". It certainly seems that pre-1950 references to "Oriental Orthodox" that I've found are actually talking about the Eastern Orthodox. Moreover, I imagine that the term "Oriental Orthodox" would only be invented if several of the churches in question were already calling themselves Orthodox.


According to the Bible where exactly did God create Adam? Where did God create Adam according to scripture?
Is this in the garden or somewhere else according to scripture.

Where was Adam created, according to the Scriptures?
In the Book of Geneses, we can find a little indication as to where Adam was created.

7then the Lord God formed the man of dust from the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living creature. 8And the Lord God planted a garden in Eden, in the east, and there he put the man whom he had formed. Geneses 2:7-8 (ESV)

In the visions of Anne Catherine Emmerich we can see that she believed that Adam was created not in the Earthly Paradise, but in the region in which Jerusalem.

3. Adam and Eve
I saw Adam created, not in Paradise, but in the region in which Jerusalem was subsequently situated. I saw him come forth glittering and white from a mound of yellow earth, as if out of a mold. The sun was shining and I thought (I was only a child when I saw it) that the sunbeams drew Adam out of the hillock. He was, as it were, born of the virgin earth. God blessed the earth, and it became his mother. He did not instantly step forth from the earth. Some time elapsed before his appearance. He lay in the hillock on his left side, his arm thrownover his head, a light vapor covering him as with a veil. I saw a figure in his right side, and I became conscious that it was Eve, and that she would be drawn from him in Paradise by God. God called him. The hillock opened, and Adam stepped gently forth. There were no trees around, only little flowers. I had seen the animals also, coming forth from the earth in pure singleness, the females separate from the males.
And now I saw Adam borne up on high to a garden, to Paradise.
God led all the animals before him in Paradise, and he named them. They followed him and gamboled around him, for all things served him before he sinned. All that he named, afterward followed him to earth. Eve had not yet been formed from him.
I saw Adam in Paradise among the plants and flowers, and not far from the fountain that played in its center. He was awaking, as if from sleep. Although his person was more like to flesh than to spirit, yet he was dazzlingly white. He wondered at nothing, nor was he astonished at his own existence. He went around among the trees and the animals, as if he were used to them all, like a man inspecting his fields.
Near the tree by the water arose a hill. On it I saw Adam reclining on his left side, his left hand under his cheek. God sent a deep sleep on him and he was rapt in vision. Then from his right side, from the same place in which the side of Jesus was opened by the lance, God drew Eve. I saw her small and delicate. But she quickly increased in size until full grown. She was exquisitely beautiful. Were it not for the Fall, all would be born in the same way, in tranquil slumber.
The hill opened, and at Adam's side arose a crystalline rock, formed apparently of precious stones. At Eve's, lay a white valley covered with something like fine white pollen.

Lambert Dolphin writes that Adam after he was created was placed in the Garden which lay to the East. Because of this statement Jewish sages have long claimed that Adam was created in what is now the land of Israel.

Earliest Legends about the Promised Land
No one knows exactly where the Garden of Eden described in the Bible was located. The general area is generally thought to be in the Tigris-Euphrates Valleys. Sedimentary deposits from the flood of Noah are thousands of feet deep now in the entire area, so the "ruins" of the Garden of Eden are not likely to turn up by accident.
However, Adam after he was created was placed in the Garden which lay to the East. Because of this statement Jewish sages have long claimed that Adam was created in what is now the land of Israel. Adam's footprint in stone is said by Muslim guides to still exist in the bedrock of the Macpelah in Hebron. Early Jewish legends state that Adam himself was buried in the Cave Abraham later purchased for burying his wife.
On Mt. Moriah, the present-day Temple Mount in Jerusalem the exposed bedrock under the Dome of the Rock is known as "the Foundation Stone"in Hebrew Even ha-Shetiyah. Although the Jewish Temples were later built on the same foundation stone, or an extension of this same bedrock elsewhere on Mt. Moriah, the term "foundation stone" refers to the creation of the earth by God on the First Day.

And it was called the Foundation Stone because the world was founded on it. For Isaiah the prophet said, "Thus saith the Lord, 'Behold I lay in Zion a foundation for a stone...a costly corner-stone of sure foundation."' The Almighty, blessed be He, dropped a rock in the waters, and from thence the world expanded.

The Almighty created the world in the same manner as a child is formed in its mother's womb. Just as a child begins to grow from its navel and then develops into its full form, so the world began from its central point and then developed in all direction. (Ref. 2: Zev Vilnay, Legends of Jerusalem, The Jewish Publication Society of America, Philadelphia, 1973.)

The Foundation Stone in known in Arabic es-Sakhra (and the Dome of the Rock, Kubbat es-Sakhra). On the western facade of the Dome of the Rock is the following Arabic inscription, The Rock of the Temple from the garden of Eden. The northern gate of the mosque facing the foundation stone is named the Gate of Paradise, Bab ej-Jinah. On the floor in front of this gate is a stone of green jasper about half a meter square called by the Arabs "the Stone of Eden."

For further information may be gleaned from the following sources:

Early Links between the the Temple and the Garden of Eden
Where was Adam created? (Biblical Hermeneutics)


What are origins and when did the tradition of the Yule Candles come into existence as a Christian tradition? What are origins and when did the tradition of the Yule Candles come into existence as a Christian tradition?
I stumble upon this Christmas Candle idea as a tradition. Can anyone help find more information on it?
When did this become a Christian tradition?

The Yule Log

One potential answer: It may have been popularized at Oxford.

On [Christmas Eve] our ancestors were wont to light up Candles of an uncommon size, called Christmas Candles*[...]
*In the Butter of St John's College, Oxford, an ancient candle-socket of one still remains, ornamented with the figure of the Holy Lamb. It was formerly used to burn the Christmas Candle in, on the high-table, at supper, during the twelve nights of that festival.

--Observations on Popular Antiquities: Chiefly Illustrating the Origin of Our Vulgar Customs, Ceremonies, and Superstitions, 1877
But yes, it could be of pagan origin as well.

On the eve of the winter solstice, the Anglo-Saxons burnt a large block of wood, as an emblem of returning light and heat, from whence may be traced the custom of burning a yule-clog on the eve of Christmas. On the introduction of candles, numerous large candles were lighted, to afford light to the in-door festivity, together with the log. Hence the Christmas Candle, and the denomination of the Feast of Lights sometimes given to the Christmas festival.

--History of the Christmas Festival, the New Year, and their peculiar customs, 1843


Why aren't there any examples of a child or teen conversion in the NT? For instance, in the book of Acts, we can read about men and women converting to Christianity but never about children or teenagers:

Acts 5:14
14 And all the more believers in the Lord, multitudes of men and women, were constantly added to their number,
Acts 8:12
12 But when they believed Philip preaching the good news about the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, they were being baptized, men and women alike.
Acts 17:4
4 And some of them were persuaded and joined Paul and Silas, along with a large number of the God-fearing Greeks and a number of the leading women.

All the figures of the New Testament seem to be adults only: Apollos, Aquila, Cornelius, Gamaliel, Joseph of Arimathea, Lazarus, Luke, Lydia, Mark, Martha, Mary Magdalene, Nicodemus, Philemon, Priscilla, Silas, Stephen, Timothy, Titus...
Why aren't teen and child conversions never mentioned? Did they ever occur?
Maybe minors where not candidates for discipleship.

We do know of a youth ("νεανίας" in Greek, "adulescens" in Latin) called Eutichus who fell off the third floor window in Acts 20:9. He was a disciple of St. Paul, so presumably he or his parents had been converted previously.

  9 And there sat in a window a certain young man named Eutychus, being fallen into a deep sleep: and as Paul was long preaching, he sunk down with sleep, and fell down from the third loft, and was taken up dead.

This is, of course, just to illustrate the point that the sacred authors did not think it relevant to stress whether any of the converts were young or old. We also know of the man who was healed by St. Peter in Acts 3:6–7, that in Acts 4:22 it is said:

  22 For the man was above forty years old, on whom this miracle of healing was shewed.

Now, at that time, forty was quite old, and he was older than that when he became a disciple after being healed. However, it doesn't matter. His age is merely mentioned to reinforce the fact that the people of Jerusalem long knew him and knew that he was not faking either his disability or his cure.

So we can assume that, of the people who heard in Acts 4:4 of this miracle and became believers, there were indeed young and old men and women within that number — note, however, that the number of five thousand refers only to the number of men (ἀνδρῶν). The number of women and children was probably a like amount.

  4 Howbeit many of them which heard the word believed; and the number of the men was about five thousand.


Is church attendance and/or participation in Communion a requirement for Roman Catholics? Is church attendance and/or participation in Communion (i.e., Lord's Supper, Eucharist, Mass) considered a requirement for Roman Catholics?

Attending church on the Lord's Day (Sunday) and other holy days of obligation is a requirement for Roman Catholic Christians.
According to the Code of Canon Law (CIC) 1247 (cp. Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC), 2180),

On Sundays and other holy days of obligation, the faithful are obliged to participate in the Mass.

Frequent participation in the Communion (i.e., Eucharist, Lord's Supper) is encouraged, as long as the pre-requisites for participation are satisifed (CIC, 912-923).
According to the Code of Canon Law, 898,

The Christian faithful are to hold the Most Holy Eucharist in highest honor, taking an active part in the celebration of the most august sacrifice, receiving this sacrament most devoutly and frequently, and worshiping it with the highest adoration. In explaining the doctrine about this sacrament, pastors of souls are to teach the faithful diligently about this obligation.

In particular, Roman Catholic Christians are obliged to participate in Communion annually.
According to Code of Canon Law, 920 §1-2,

§1. After being initiated into the Most Holy Eucharist, each of the faithful is obliged to receive holy communion at least once a year.
§2. This precept must be fulfilled during the Easter season unless it is fulfilled for a just cause at another time during the year.


A Question Regarding the Variation of Doctrines within Christendom All Christians (Protestants, Orthodox, and Catholics) have access to the canonized 66 books of the OT and NT.

Putting that into perspective, why is there such a great amount of variation in doctrines, and consequently, so many denominations?

Furthermore, how should a new believer  in Christ be expected to choose from all these denominations without risking his/her eternal well-being?

For example,

Methodists, and several other denominations, believe that a person can lose his salvation whereas Baptists maintain that once a person saved, the person is always saved and cannot fall from grace.

Neither of the above viewpoints are affirmed or refuted directly by Scripture.

Another example,

Baptists do not practice infant Baptism giving the reason that the Bible has neither commanded nor exemplified infant Baptism as a practice in Christianity,  whereas Presbyterians baptize infants on the belief that the same is equivalent to the circumcision of Hebrew infants, showing that they have become a part of the covenant community.

Again, neither of the above viewpoints are affirmed or refuted directly by Scripture.

There are a number of reasons for the various denominations (Catholic, Orthodox, Protestant).

1) Different groups believe and don't believe in a thing called Tradition that they use for their members.

2) Different groups accept and reject some parts of a variety of Councils over the centuries.

3) Different groups have different "lines of authority" to determine what the Bible says.

4) Different groups do not believe there was a "faith once delivered", but rather it developed and needed defining.

5) Different groups believe there are false teachers, but not in their group.

6) Different groups have different canons.

What should a new believer do?  It is you after all, not your priest, patriarch, pastor, or prophet who will have to stand in front of God and give an account.

  Romans 14:12 YLT- so, then, each of us concerning himself shall give reckoning to God;

If one has a vertical relationship with God reconciled in Christ, then also a horizontal relationship that involves brothers/sisters in Christ.  One should be mindful not to be a stumbling block.

Remember it is the teacher, not necessarily directly the student, who has the burden to face greater judgment.

  James 3:1 YLT- Many teachers become not, my brethren, having known that greater judgment we shall receive,

So, those teachers in a denomination who, for example, teach baby baptism as necessary for a baby's salvation apart from which he/she goes to hell versus those who teach, say, 1 Cor. 7:14, then it is those teachers who will answer.  One is right; the other wrong.

In the meantime, I'd suggest focusing on the seven fundamentals that are given at Hebrews 6:1-2.


Which Orthodox Churches Accept the Baptism of Heretics? Primary Question:

Orthodoxy is divided on whether to baptize converts who were baptized by heretics under the Trinitarian formula. Some groups baptize them; some groups only require chrismation. Which groups accept the baptism of heretics and only require chrismation?

Secondary Question (not necessary for the answer):

From my understanding, the split can be divided on Old Calendar, anti-Ecumenical vs. New Calendar, pro-Ecumenical grounds. Churches adhering to the New Calendar will accept heretical converts via chrismation, but not baptism; churches adhering to the Old Calendar will accept heretical converts via baptism (and then chrismation).

Is this an incorrect way to categorize the question --- I would be very interested in examples of either Old Calendarists/anti-Ecumenists who accept heretical converts via chrismation and of New Calendarists/pro-Ecumenists who accept heretical converts via baptism. EDIT -- I was informed today that there is a monastary under the authority of Constantinople (New Calendar/pro-Ecumenical) in my area that baptizes heretical converts (in opposition to those who they are under the authority of). While I found it interesting, I would prefer examples of churches, not monasteries, for purposes of this secondary question.

I'll answer your two questions simultaneously. Trinitarian baptism is canonically valid, always. Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, and Moscow Patriarchate within Eastern Orthodox communion accepts the validity of baptism under the Trinitarian formalism. Because the validity is rested on the formula not on the professed faith.
St. Athanasius initially accepts Arian baptism, they just need to confess Nicene faith and do penance before received communion and/or restored to their canonical rank. But later as Arians started to develop their heresy further than what Arius started, Athanasius began to reject the validity of their baptism not because Trinitarian formalism is void of efficacy when performed by Arians but because they changed the Apostolic baptismal formalism.

For the Arians do not baptize into Father and Son, but into Creator
and creature, and into Maker and work. And as a creature is other than
the Son, so the Baptism, which is supposed to be given by them, is
other than the truth, though they pretend to name the Name of the
Father and the Son, because of the words of Scripture, For not he who
simply says, 'O Lord,' gives Baptism; but he who with the Name has
also the right faith. On this account therefore our Saviour also did
not simply command to baptize, but first says, 'Teach;' then thus:
'Baptize into the Name of Father, and Son, and Holy Ghost;' that the
right faith might follow upon learning, and together with faith might
come the consecration of Baptism.
St. Athanasius, Against the Arians, 2:18:42.

Because of this some fundamentalists erroneously insist that baptismal efficacy rested not on Apostolic baptismal formalism but on the confessed faith. This is why Greek Orthodox Synod of Resistance and Russian Orthodox Church Abroad (not in communion with Moscow Patriarchate) are plain and simple committing the heresy of Donatism.
When Arians began to have baptized in the name of the Creator and creatures, they changed the Apostolic form of sacramental baptism. The Anomaeans, a further development of Arianism, baptized with the new formula:

In the name of the uncreated God and in the name of the created Son,
and in the name of the Sanctifying Spirit, created by the created Son
St. Epiphanius of Salamis, Against Heresies, 77.

This is why the efficacy of baptism is not founded on the professed faith but on the Apostolic formalism. When a sect changed this sacramental form their baptism is invalid. Baptism in the name of Christ only is also canonically valid but I will not discuss it here unless asked.

Baptism is the only sacrament which, in the absence of a priest, may be administered by the layman (man or woman) by virtue of the universal Christian priesthood. ... All Christian baptism conferred in the name of the Holy Trinity is valid, not only within Orthodoxy, but outside its limits; the practice of the Church, ancient and modern, is sufficient testimony to this. As a general rule those who have been baptized once are not re-baptized....
Fr. Sergius Bulgakov, The Orthodox Church, 1988, p. 112.

To see whether or not New Calendarist's baptism is valid or not, we can see a simple case from the baptism of Emperor St. Constantine the Great by a semi Arian Eusebius of Nicomedia. During Nicene council out of 320 bishops, two refused to sign Nicene faith: Theonas of Marmarica and Secundus of Ptolemais. From 318 Nicene Fathers, three who signed the Nicene faith refused to excommunicate Arius: Theognis of Nicaea, Maris of Chalcedon, and Eusebius of Nicomedia. All five were deposed and exiled. But later the Church canonically exonerated all three who signed Nicene faith plus Arius who then accepted Nicene faith but died by poison because of politic before received back his canonical rank. Despite of Nicomedia's past history and his allegiance to Arius before, during, and after Nicaea, the Church unanimously accept his baptism of Constantine to be canonically valid whether or not they're New or Old Calendarists for both venerate him as a great saint of Orthodoxy.

I disagree with the many Orthodox who claim a non-Orthodox Baptism is merely an empty shell which is filled with grace only after being Chrismated into the Orthodox Church. Indeed, Orthodox call Emperor Constantine (d.337) as "Saint and Christian", but he only accepted Baptism near his death, and then it was done by a heretical Arian bishop...leading one to understand that "economia" (a phrase Eastern Christians use which means "through God's grace for the good of the whole Church") gave Constantine's Baptism validity and grace.
Daniel Joseph Barton, My Belief in the Immaculate Conception: Part 1.


Why was God so specific about how to make the Tabernacle? The Book of Exodus (ch 25–27) spends quite a bit of time describing how to build the Tabernacle, right down to the type of metal and wood to use for minor parts, all straight from the mouth of God.  Why did God go into such great detail about seemingly trivial matters?  Besides the obvious reason of, "It was important," what reasons have published Christian commentaries suggested for the amount of text devoted to a physical description of the Tabernacle?

A number of different answers to this question have been given by Christians through history.  Broadly speaking, the reasons for the extensive detail given by Moses might be categorized as follows: (1) to foreshadow future events and entities, (2) to demonstrate the importance of religious worship, and (3) to display God's glory.
Foreshadowing
Christians widely recognize, based on passages Hebrews 9, that some aspects of the tabernacle are types of New Testament realities. However, from the days of the church fathers, many have attempted to seek out a spiritual interpretation or foreshadowing for every detail of the Tabernacle.  Gregory the Great, for example, sees the Ark of the Covenant's features as significant:

What but the holy Church is figured by the ark? To which four rings of gold in the four corners are ordered to be adjoined, because, in that it is thus extended towards the four quarters of the globe, it is declared undoubtedly to be equipped for journeying with the four books of the holy Gospel.1

Similarly, the two cherubim, Gregory says, signify "the two testaments," since the word means "fullness of knowledge."2
Examples of this sort of interpretation apparently abounded in the early church, since Origen, no stranger to allegorical exegesis, warned about some who go too far:

When the (description of the) fitting out of the tabernacle is read, believing that what is written is a type, they seek to adapt what they can to each particular related about the tabernacle,— not being wrong so far as regards their belief that the tabernacle is a type of something, but erring sometimes in adapting the description of that of which the tabernacle is a type, to some special thing in a manner worthy of Scripture.3

Importance of worship
Some argue that the level of detail here is an indication of the importance of worship to God.  Matthew Henry contrasts the amount of detail mentioned in the Creation account:

He that gave us no account of the lines and circles of the globe, the diameter of the earth, or the height and magnitude of the stars, has told us particularly the measure of every board and curtain of the tabernacle; for God’s church and instituted religion are more precious to him and more considerable than all the rest of the world.4

Matthew Poole reasons that the additional detail was necessary here because man on his own could not deduce what was necessary to properly worship God:

the light of reason implanted in all men, gives him greater help in the discovery of moral and judicial things than in ceremonial matters, or in the external way and manner of God’s worship; which is a thing depending wholly upon God’s institution, and not left to man’s invention, which is a very incompetent judge of those things, as appears from hence, because the wittiest men, destitute of God’s revelation, have been guilty of most foolery in their devices of God’s worship.5

God's glory
A third explanation is that the detailed instructions ensured that the tabernacle best displayed God's glory.  Coffman writes:

Despite the fact of the tabernacle, where God would dwell (in a figure) with his people, being in essence a portable tent with an enclosure about it, its holiness was emphasized in the fact that only the choicest materials were to be used in its construction.6

Keil and Delitzsch argue that the specifics had to come from God, not man:

If the sanctuary was to answer its purpose, the erection of it could not be left to the inventive faculty of any man whatever, but must proceed from Him, who was there to manifest Himself to the nation, as the Holy One, in righteousness and grace.7

Young likewise sees the completed tabernacle as something that would cause the world to praise God:

These Israelites, when all was finished according to the pattern in the mount, had then something to show which would make an impression on men of the right sort in the outside world. Here was an answer to the question, "Where is now your God?" Visible he himself is not; but here is a dwelling-place not in anything constructed after art and man's device, but entirely of Divine direction. All our institutions are nothing unless we can trace them to the inspiration and control of God.8

Summary
Different Christians will tend to emphasize one or another of these views, at the expense of the others, but it seems likely that there is some truth to each of them.  Christians can usually agree that the tabernacle points to Christ, and that it indicates the importance of the worship and glory of God.

References

Pastoral Care 2.11
Homily 25
First Principles, Book 4
Complete Commentary
Annotations
Commentaries
Commentary
Pulpit Commentaries


When were the Fasting Patterns of the Eastern Orthodox Church Established? I am under the impression that the fasting patterns of the Orthodox church were established over the course of several centuries. I am interested in some sources that would clarify when the pattern was "cemented". I am having a difficult time googling this question.

I would like to know a general date of when the pattern was established.

By "the fasting patterns", I mean the Lenten fast, the Apostle's fast, the Dormition fast, the Nativity fast, the fasting prior to receiving the mysteries/sacraments, and the normal fasting on Wednesday and Friday.

According to Wikipedia:

  The time and type of fast is generally uniform for all Orthodox Christians; the times of fasting are part of the ecclesiastical calendar, and the method of fasting is set by the Holy Canons and Sacred Tradition.

Sacred tradition could mean just about anytime (well, within reason...), but I found some things on fasting within the Orthodox Canons. In the LXIX Canon from the 85 apostolic canons:

  Canon LXIX.

  If any Bishop, or Presbyter, or Deacon, or sub-deacon, or Anagnost, or Psalt fails to fast throughout the forty days of Holy Lent, or on Wednesday, or on Friday, let him be deposed from office. Unless he be prevented from doing so by reason of bodily illness.

Since this canon (to the best of my knowledge) dates 'from 375 to 380 AD'1, we can say that the Wednesday and Friday fasts and Holy Lent were already established by that time.

One thing I might mention: I would be wary before I just went and read through the Canons of the Orthodox Church, looking for a certain thing (even if I used a search feature), because now-a-days, the Canons are really meant to be interpreted only by Bishops and clergy, and they are considered "more like guidelines anyway" by most people.

To continue where I left off, when I use my reasoning (uh oh...) it seems to me, that fasts such as the Dormition Fast, Great Lent, and The Nativity Fast would have been established much earlier than that specified date. Why? For instance, picture what would have happened after the death of the Theotokos. Personally, I can picture the Apostles reverently commemorating her repose every year, and gradually deciding to fast before that date... Not sure if that seems like logic to anyone besides me...

Well, that's all I have for now... If I learn anymore I will certainly update this answer.

For a little more on the Orthodox Fasts go to this link. Has about one sentence under the history, but oh well.

Also interesting to note is why Orthodox normally fast on Wednesdays and Fridays (Wikipedia):

  In addition to these fasting seasons, Orthodox Christians fast on every Wednesday (in commemoration of Christ's betrayal by Judas Iscariot), and Friday (in commemoration of Christ's Crucifixion) throughout the year. Monastics often fast on Mondays (in imitation of the Angels, who are commemorated on that day in the weekly cycle, since monastics are striving to lead an angelic life on earth, and angels neither eat nor drink).

Perhaps those also were established early on...

Here is a link to the version of the Orthodox Canons which I used in my Answer.


According to Catholicism, does saying "God loves everyone equally" mean that God *likes* everyone equally? I have question about God's love:

When, in the Catholic Church, we say "God loves everyone equally", is it same as "God likes each of us to the same extent, and He loves us equally by His action"? or does it mean "God does not like each of us to the same extent, but He loves us equally by His action"?

Someone told me that God's love (or agape love) is an "act of will", which is not dependent on emotion of affection or fondness (or is different than affection or fondness); but I am having a hard time separating agape love from what we would call affection or fondness - and here is my logic:  if agape love is an "act of will", that means it is a loving action that is driven by desire.  But if we are to truly desire the good of someone, we must have affection or fondness towards that someone. If I force myself to conduct a good deed for someone who I dislike, I am not really desiring the good of the person, as my good deed is being carried out forcefully, not from the bottom of my heart. So we cannot really separate God's love from the affection or fondness that He has for us - thus "God loves everyone equally" means "God likes each of us to the same extent, and He loves us equally also by His action".

But I guess if the definition of agape as an "act of will" is to be interpreted as "loving action driven by determination" rather than "loving action driven by desire", then agape is indeed independent of emotions like affection or fondness. Going back to our previous example, if I force myself to conduct a good deed for someone whom I dislike, that means I am "determined" to do good things for him, regardless of my emotion. Is this what God's love is about? Liking some more than the others (more affection towards some of us than the others), but determined to carry out the same loving deeds to all of us? But I have always thought that God likes all of us very much to the same extent, although he does dislike our sins. It would be pretty depressing to think of the possibility that God not liking me at all, but Him carrying out all His loving actions towards me purely out of His "determination".

So again, I am back to my question: According to Catholicism, when we say "God loves everyone equally", is it same as "God likes each of us to the same extent, and He loves us equally by His action"? or does it mean "God does not like each of us to the same extent, but He loves us equally by His action"?

PS: Some may object that God does not have affection or fondness because he is impassible; but there is also a view that God is impassible but also impassioned. However, that is a whole different discussion.

St. Thomas Aquinas answers this question in his Summa Theologica I q. 20 a. 3 ("Whether God loves all things equally?") c., making a twofold distinction:

Since to love a thing is to will it good, in a twofold way anything may be loved more, or less.

In one way on the part of the act of the will itself, which is more or less intense. In this way God does not love some things more than others, because He loves all things by an act of the will that is one, simple, and always the same.

In another way on the part of the good itself that a person wills for the beloved. In this way we are said to love that one more than another, for whom we will a greater good, though our will is not more intense. In this way we must needs say that God loves some things more than others. For since God's love is the cause of goodness in things, as has been said (Article [2]), no one thing would be better than another, if God did not will greater good for one than for another.


Does the priest have the power to forgive sins? John 20:22-23 (KJV)
  22  And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost:
  23  Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained.

I know that the sacrament of confession of the Catholic Church is based on this verse. Do we have any other verses similar to this?

In Catholic teaching, does the priest have the power to remit sins? If not, what do they believe is happening during confession? If so, is this verse the sole basis of the teaching or is there a larger Biblical corpus that they cite for this?

The Catholic Church teaches  that man's sins may be absolved by the Church.  Absolution from sin means "To free from sin", which is pretty much the same as forgiveness of sins.

In lay-person's terms, as I understand it, the Priest is acting under the authority and power of the Church, which, in turn, is acting under the authority and power of Christ.

This is probably a really poor analogy, but it helps me to keep principles simple, so here goes...

In my household, my oldest child has no authority over the younger ones.  She can't tell them what to do under normal circumstances, because she simply has no authority to do so.

However, if I leave her to babysit the younger ones, I give her the authority, and the younger ones understand the principle that she is acting under my authority, and that "to be naughty for her is the same as being naughty for me when I am in charge."  But if my oldest tells a younger one to hit another one, or to steal, or do anything I would not authorize, then she would not be acting under the authority I've given her because she is asking them to do something contrary to my will.

Applying the anology...

The way I understand it, the teaching is that the Priest is just a man, not a supernatural being with the power to forgive sins on his own, but when acing under the authority of the Church, which, in turn has been given authority from Christ, and when the Priest is acting in harmony with Christ's instructions, then he has the power to absolve since through the means described and established by the Church in Christ's authority.

The Catholic Encyclopedia says this (small excerpt):

  Absolution proper is that act of the priest whereby, in the Sacrament
  of Penance, he frees man from sin. It presupposes on the part of the
  penitent, contrition, confession, and promise at least of
  satisfaction; on the part of the minister, valid reception of the
  Order of Priesthood and jurisdiction, granted by competent authority,
  over the person receiving the sacrament. That there is in the Church
  power to absolve sins committed after baptism the Council of Trent
  thus declares: "But the Lord then principally instituted the Sacrament
  of Penance, when, being raised from the dead, He breathed upon His
  disciples saying, 'Receive ye the Holy Ghost. Whose sins you shall
  forgive, they are forgiven them, and whose sins you shall retain, they
  are retained.' By which action so signal, and words so clear the
  consent of all the Fathers has ever understood that the power of
  forgiving and retaining sins was communicated to the Apostles, and to
  their lawful successors for the reconciling of the faithful who have
  fallen after baptism" (Sess. XIV, i).


What view of eschatology did the early church believe? I have recently been studying eschatology and have been looking at the main views of eschatology.

So far, I have found four (I apologize in advance if I have misrepresented your view.  I would appreciate any corrections, but that is beyond the scope of this question.):

Amillenialism: Jesus' Ascension began the "Church Age/Millennial Kingdom"; this age will be one of peace but will eventually turn into a period of tribulation against the Christians.  Armageddon, the Rapture, Jesus' Return, and the White Throne will end this age and usher in eternity.
Post-Millennialism: The period between Jesus' Ascension and the Destruction of Jerusalem will be the Tribulation.  The "Church Age" began in A.D. 70; at some point, the earth will develop a "Christian" culture ushering in a spiritual millennium of peace.  The Great Rebellion, the Rapture, Jesus' Return, and the White Throne Pit will end the millennium and begin eternity.
Historic Pre-Millennialism:  Jesus' Ascension began the "Church Age"; this age will be one of peace but will eventually turn into a period of tribulation against the Christians.  Armageddon, the Rapture, Jesus' Return, and the Bottomless Pit will end this age and will begin Jesus' physical reign on earth of exactly 1000 years.  The reign will end with the Great Rebellion and the White Throne to usher in eternity.
Dispensational Pre-Millennialism: Jesus' Ascension began the "Church Age"; this age will end unexpectedly with the Rapture.  A literal tribulation of 7 years will begin on earth.  Armageddon, Jesus' Return, and the Bottomless Pit will end the tribulation, and Jesus will begin his physical reign on earth of exactly 1000 years.  The reign will end with the Great Rebellion and the White Throne to usher in eternity.

What view did the early church have?  Did they hold on to one of these views or did they hold on to a view that I have not listed?

I appreciate the help.

This is a difficult question to answer, because the early church did not approach the question in the same way that many people do today.  The earliest fathers expressed their belief in various eschatological views, like the immortality of souls, the return of Christ, the resurrection of God's people, and a general judgment, but they did not develop systematic understandings of eschatological doctrine.  Louis Berkhof summarizes the situation this way:

In the very first period the Church was perfectly conscious of the separate elements of the Christian hope [...] but these elements were simply seen as so many separate parts of the future hope, and were not yet dogmatically construed. Though the various elements were quite well understood, their interrelation was not yet clearly seen. (Systematic Theology, 6.1.B)

Thus, the best we are going to be able to do is gain a high-level understanding of what eschatological aspects the fathers accepted, and maybe the order in which such things would happen.
Millennium
The first big question is, what did the church fathers believe about the millennium of Revelation 20?  That in itself is a big question, but I'll briefly describe the two major views: Chiliasm (post-tribulation premillennialism) and amillennialism.
Some of the earliest Christian writers appear to have believed in a thousand year earthly reign of Christ.  Fragments from Papias (d. ~163) say that he believed:

that there will be a millennium after the resurrection from the dead, when the personal reign of Christ will be established on this earth. (VI)

Several other major church fathers appear to have been of the same opinion, including Irenaeus (d. 202).  A later writer, Eusebius (d. 340), critiques them but gives us some insight as to the extent of these beliefs:

To these [writings] belong [Papias's] statement that there will be a period of some thousand years after the resurrection of the dead, and that the kingdom of Christ will be set up in material form on this very earth. I suppose he got these ideas through a misunderstanding of the apostolic accounts, not perceiving that the things said by them were spoken mystically in figures.

For he appears to have been of very limited understanding, as one can see from his discourses. But it was due to him that so many of the Church Fathers after him adopted a like opinion, urging in their own support the antiquity of the man; as for instance Irenæus and any one else that may have proclaimed similar views. (Ecc. History, 3.39)

As the quote from Eusebius suggests, after the first couple centuries, Chiliasm was largely superseded by amillennialism.  Clement of Alexandria (d. 215), Origen (d. 254), and especially Augustine (d. 430) contributed to establishing amillennialism as the standard view of the church.  Augustine believed that the millennium of Revelation 20 referred to the church age:

the whole time which this book embraces,—that is, from the first coming of Christ to the end of the world, when He shall come the second time,— [...] during this interval, which goes by the name of a thousand years. (City of God, 20.8)

Tribulation
Among those who believed in an earthly millennial reign, the fathers believed that the church would undergo the tribulation.  Hippolytus (see his Treatise on Christ and Antichrist, 64) and Irenaeus are two good examples, the latter of which wrote:

And therefore, when in the end the Church shall be suddenly caught up from this, it is said, “There shall be tribulation such as has not been since the beginning, neither shall be.” For this is the last contest of the righteous, in which, when they overcome they are crowned with incorruption. (Against Heresies, 5.29)

Preterism
Preterism is not one of the views you listed, probably because you are focusing on futurist understandings of the eschatological passages in the Bible.  However, there is evidence that at least some early Christians understood Jesus's predictions in the Olivet discourse (Matthew 24, Mark 13, and Luke 21) as fulfilled in the AD 70 fall of Jerusalem.  Eusebius discusses this at length, arguing that the tribulation, death, and famine described by Jesus had already happened.  For example:

[Josephus] also shews plainly the fulfilment of the prediction of our Saviour [...] for he has put it on record, how the women roasted their children by the fire and ate them, on account of the pressure of the famine which prevailed in the city. (On the Theophania, 4.18–20)

In the interest of brevity, I won't analyze other writings that proponents of preterism argue are evidence of early support for their viewpoint.  Suffice to say that an understanding of early church eschatology requires realizing that a futurist interpretation was not always applied to passages commonly considered to be unfulfilled prophecy today.
Summary
We need to avoid the temptation of attempting to squeeze the views of the church fathers into our convenient little boxes.  They did not approach eschatology in the same systematic way that many do today.  Furthermore, many of the earliest writings have been lost, making an analysis like this even more challenging.
For more information, I'd recommend Gregg Allison's Historical Theology.


Does the Catholic church allow a previously divorced man to remarry? Suppose a Catholic guy marries a non-Catholic outside the Catholic church, then years later they divorce. Can that Catholic guy get married again to someone else (a Catholic female) in the Catholic church?

Sometimes.

Canon 1059 of the Code of Canon Law states:

  Even if only one party is Catholic, the marriage of Catholics is governed not only by divine law but also by canon law, without prejudice to the competence of civil authority concerning the merely civil effects of the same marriage.

Therefore, the canons concerning marriage in the Catholic Church will be applied to the first marriage.

Now, in this case, the man's marriage will be assumed to be valid in the Catholic Church unless evidence to the contrary is presented:

  Marriage possesses the favor of law; therefore, in a case of doubt, the validity of a marriage must be upheld until the contrary is proven.

(Canon 1060)

And therefore, the second marriage would not be valid:

  A person bound by the bond of a prior marriage, even if it was not consummated, invalidly attempts marriage.

(Canon 1085, section 1)

However, the Catholic man is free to request a judgment for an annulment of the first marriage. Whether or not this would be granted is uncertain, and I can't comment on it in the absence of additional information about the first relationship; it may depend to some extent on the reasons for the civil divorce. If the annulment is granted (i.e. if it is judged that there was no valid Catholic marriage in the first instance) then the marriage to the Catholic woman would be valid; otherwise not.


What is the biblical basis for relics? In Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy, relics are typically objects that were either parts of the bodies of saints (e.g. fragments of bone) or are associated with their lives (e.g. clothing). Many miracles have been reported in association with these relics, such as people touching them and being cured of terminal diseases.

What is the biblical basis for these relics and the miracles associated with them?

The bones of Elisha raised a dead man
The earliest reference to a divine miracle happening through the remains of a holy person is in the Old Testament when a dead man came into contact with the bones of Elisha the prophet and the man was resurrected.

Elisha died and was buried. Now Moabite raiders used to enter the country every spring. Once while some Israelites were burying a man, suddenly they saw a band of raiders; so they threw the man's body into Elisha's tomb. When the body touched Elisha's bones, the man came to life and stood up on his feet.
—2 Kings 13:20-21 (NIV)

The cloak of Jesus healed a woman with twelve years of hemmoraging
In the New Testament, a woman touched Jesus' cloak and was healed of bleeding of twelve years.

And a woman was there who had been subject to bleeding for twelve years. She had suffered a great deal under the care of many doctors and had spent all she had, yet instead of getting better she grew worse. When she heard about Jesus, she came up behind him in the crowd and touched his cloak, because she thought, “If I just touch his clothes, I will be healed.” Immediately her bleeding stopped and she felt in her body that she was freed from her suffering.
—Mark 5:25-29 (NIV)

The story is also described in in Luke 8:43-48. Although in that account, Jesus says to her that "your faith has healed you", this is consistent with the belief that it is not the relics themselves that contain the power, but rather that God chooses to work through them in response to the faithful.
Handkerchiefs and aprons touched by Paul healed sick people

God did extraordinary miracles through Paul, so that even handkerchiefs and aprons that had touched him were taken to the sick, and their illnesses were cured and the evil spirits left them.
—Acts 19:11-12 (NIV)

The three examples are also the basis for the three classifications of relics that Catholicism uses. The bones of Elisha would be a first-class relic, the cloak of Jesus a second-class relic, and handkerchiefs that Paul touched would be a third-class relic.


Does the concept of Gentile exist in Christianity? Judaism and Bani Israel have concept of Gentile to represent the pagans and Idolaters with a corpus of rules dealing with them, So does Christianity inherit this concept? If yes where ? and Are Jews considered to Be gentiles by Christians as its known that Jews consider the Christians to be Gentiles and Avodah Zarah?

The term Gentile in the Bible simply means non-Jew or non-Hebrew. In Old Testament times, the Hebrews called the other non-Hebrews as Gentiles and in the New Testament, non-Jews are Gentiles.

In the New Testament, Paul was famous for preaching to the Gentiles. Because Paul was a Jew, he was zealous for his own people and preached the gospel mostly to the Jews first. But later, as his own people rejected him, his focus shifted towards the Gentiles.

  Romans 10:1 (NIV) Brothers and sisters, my heart’s desire and prayer
  to God for the Israelites is that they may be saved.

  Acts 18:5-6 (NIV) When Silas and Timothy came from Macedonia, Paul devoted himself exclusively to preaching, testifying to the Jews that
  Jesus was the Messiah. But when they opposed Paul and became abusive,
  he shook out his clothes in protest and said to them, “Your blood be
  on your own heads! I am innocent of it. From now on I will go to the
  Gentiles.”

  Romans 11:11 (NIV) Again I ask: Did they stumble so as to fall beyond recovery? Not at all! Rather, because of their transgression,
  salvation has come to the Gentiles to make Israel envious.

According to New Testament, anyone who is not a Jew is a Gentile, whether he is a Christian or not. And believe it or not, most of the users in this site are Gentile Christians.

Some recent new Christian sects call all non-Christians including Jews as Gentiles but it's not biblical. All non-Jews are Gentiles but non-Jews who are non-Christians are more appropriate to be referred to as Pagans, Heathens, Infidels or simply non-believers, depending on the target.


What is the Roman Catholic method of salvation? Evangelicals believe that salvation is by grace alone through faith, that Christ's death and resurrection alone is the basis of their Salvation.  Is this comparable to the Roman Catholic concept of salvation?

The Catechism is quite clear. Faith is absolutely necessary.

  161 Believing in Jesus Christ and in the One who sent him for our salvation is necessary for obtaining that salvation.42 'Since "without faith it is impossible to please (God)" and to attain to the fellowship of his sons, therefore without faith no one has ever attained justification, nor will anyone obtain eternal life "But he who endures to the end".'43

The Catholic Church subscribes to the historic creeds, including the Athanasian Creed (see CCC192)

42 Cf. Mk 16:16; Jn 3:36, 6:40 et al.
43 Dei Filius 3; cf Mt 10:22, 24:13; Heb 11:6; Council of Trent

See also the related questions about works flowing from faith and sanctifying grace. Faith comes first. Everything else comes from that.


Has Catholic Church always taught that our corporeal nature necessary for humans to experience affection? (Catholic) Has Catholic Church always taught that our corporeal nature is a necessary requirement for us to experience affection? or is the thought mainly coming from St. Thomas Aquinas?

Thank you,

Passions of the soul
The OED defines "affection" as:

I. Senses relating to the mind.
1.
a. The action or result of affecting the mind in some way; a mental state brought about by any influence; an emotion, feeling.

By "affection," it seems you mean what St. Thomas calls "passion" (passio) in his Treatise on the Passions (Summa Theologica I-II qq. 22-48). Passio literally means "suffering" (as in Passio Christi, the Passion of Christ), but more generally it means "passive"—i.e., able to suffer something, receive something from an active agent.
Summa Theologica I-II q. 22 a. 1 ("Whether any passion is in the soul?") c.:

The word "passive" [pati = "to be suffered"] is used in three ways. First, in a general way, according as whatever receives something is passive, although nothing is taken from it: thus we may say that the air is passive when it is lit up [because it receives the light]. But this is to be perfected rather than to be passive. Secondly, the word "passive" [pati] is employed in its proper sense, when something is received, while something else is taken away: and this happens in two ways. For sometimes that which is lost is unsuitable to the thing: thus when an animal's body is healed, and loses sickness. At other times the contrary occurs: thus to ail is to be passive; because the ailment is received and health is lost. And here we have passion in its most proper acceptation. For a thing is said to be passive from its being drawn to the agent: and when a thing recedes from what is suitable to it, then especially does it appear to be drawn to something else. Moreover in De Generat. i, 3 it is stated that when a more excellent thing is generated from a less excellent, we have generation simply, and corruption in a particular respect: whereas the reverse is the case, when from a more excellent thing, a less excellent is generated. In these three ways it happens that passions are in the soul. For in the sense of mere reception, we speak of "feeling and understanding as being a kind of passion" (De Anima i, 5). But passion, accompanied by the loss of something, is only in respect of a bodily transmutation; wherefore passion properly so called cannot be in the soul, save accidentally, in so far, to wit, as the [body+soul] "composite" [compositum] is passive. But here again we find a difference; because when this transmutation is for the worse, it has more of the nature of a passion, than when it is for the better: hence sorrow is more properly a passion than joy.

Dogma that a human is a body+soul composites
As I mentioned here, the Council of Vienne (1311-1312), under the authority of Clement V, defined the dogma that the soul is the form of the human body (Denzinger 481):

Moreover, with the approval of the said council, we reject as erroneous and contrary to the truth of the catholic faith every doctrine or proposition rashly asserting that the substance of the rational or intellectual soul is not of itself and essentially the form of the human body, or casting doubt on this matter. In order that all may know the truth of the faith in its purity and all error may be excluded, we define that anyone who presumes henceforth to assert defend or hold stubbornly that the rational or intellectual soul is not the form of the human body of itself and essentially, is to be considered a heretic.

"Form" is "the actualizing principle that makes a thing to be what it is." Thus, a body without the substantial form of a human being (a soul) is a corpse.
The Oxford English Dictionary defines form as:

In the Scholastic philosophy: The essential determinant principle of a thing; that which makes anything (matter) a determinate species or kind of being; the essential creative quality.
This use of form (Aristotle's μορϕή or εἶδος) and matter (ὕλη) is a metaphorical extension of their popular use. In ordinary speech, a portion of matter, stuff, or material, becomes a ‘thing’ by virtue of having a particular ‘form’ or shape; by altering the form, the matter remaining unchanged, we make a new ‘thing’. This language, primarily applied only to objects of sense, was in philosophical use extended to objects of thought: every ‘thing’ or entity was viewed as consisting of two elements, its form by virtue of which it was different from, and its matter which it had in common with, others.

Read St. Thomas's short work On the Principles of Nature (De principiis naturæ) for more information on matter and form (hylemorphism).


What is the source of the quote attributed to Origen, that "the soul has neither beginning nor end"? Related answer: Is there any substance to the claim that Origen supported reincarnation?

The following quote is widely attributed to Origen in books and on the internet  (e.g., here and here):

  The soul has neither beginning nor end. [They] come into this world strengthened by the victories or weakened by the defeats of their previous lives.

It's sometimes attributed to Origen's De Principiis, but a simple text search of that work does not reveal this quote.

From the answer linked above, it's pretty clear that Origen taught at least some doctrine of preexistence of souls, but this quote is often used to say that Origen believed in full-blown reincarnation.

Where does this quote come from?  Is it actually in the writings of Origen? If not, when/where did it originate?

Note: Some might argue that the quote in this question is a fair summary of Origen's teaching.  That's irrelevant.  I'm interested in the origin of the quote itself, accounting for the possibility of minor differences due to translation into English from the original language. None of the "real" Origen quotes listed in the linked answer are anywhere close enough, in my opinion, to be considered the source of the quote in this question.

I believe the second part of this quote is original to Hatch, Edwin, and A M. Fairbairn. The Influence of Greek Ideas and Usages Upon the Christian Church. London: Williams and Norgate, 1891, as follows:

Every soul has existed from the beginning; it has therefore passed
through some worlds already, and will pass through others before it
reaches final consummation. It comes into this world strengthened by
its victories or weakened by the defeats of its previous life. Its
place in this world as a vessel appointed to honor or to dishonour is
determined by its previous merits or demerits. Its work in this world
determines its place in the world which is to follow. (page 235f)

Hatch and Fairbairn were presenting a summary and pastiche of various Origen texts in such a way that it was not apparent to readers that it was not entirely a direct quote. In this passage, I believe they refer at least to the following passages from Origen's own work, De Principiis:

there were certain causes of prior existence, in consequence of which
the souls, before their birth in the body, contracted a certain amount
of guilt in their sensitive nature, or in their movements, on account
of which they have been judged worthy by Divine Providence of being
placed in this condition. ... And it is probable that these movements
furnish grounds for merit even before they do anything in this world.
(De Principiis III.iii.5)
the cause of each one's actions is a pre-existing one; and then every
one, according to his deserts, is made by God either a vessel unto
honour or dishonour. (De Principiis III.i.20)
we are of opinion that, seeing the soul, as we have frequently said,
is immortal and eternal, it is possible that, in the many and endless
periods of duration in the immeasurable and different worlds, it may
descend from the highest good to the lowest evil, or be restored from
the lowest evil to the highest good. (De Principiis III.i.21)
I am, indeed, of opinion that, as the end and consummation of the
saints will be in those (ages) which are not seen, and are eternal, we
must conclude (as frequently pointed out in the preceding pages), from
a contemplation of that very end, that rational creatures had also a
similar beginning. And if they had a beginning such as the end for
which they hope, they existed undoubtedly from the very beginning in
those (ages) which are not seen, and are eternal. (De Principiis
III.v.4)
we are to suppose that at the consummation and restoration of all
things, those who make a gradual advance, and who ascend (in the scale
of improvement), will arrive in due measure and order at that land.
(De Principiis III.vi.9)

Regarding the editorial practices of Hatch and Fairbairn, Cruttwell writes regarding this section:

Dr. Hatch has ably pieced it together from several of Origen's works
in his own words.
Cruttwell, Charles Thomas. The heretical sects: Volume 2 of A Literary History of Early Christianity. Scribner, 1893, p. 505

The first part of this quote ("The soul has neither beginning nor end.") is known from Eastern philosophy. (eg. The Brahmavâdin. Madras: Brahmavadin Press, 1895, page 8), but I don't know when or how it became attributed to Origen.


What are the mechanics of interaction with the Holy Spirit? Context

  John 14:25 These things have I spoken unto you, being yet present with you. 26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you. 27 Peace I leave with you, my peace I give unto you: not as the world giveth, give I unto you. Let not your heart be troubled, neither let it be afraid.—KJV

Question

According to the doctrine of the trinity, God consists of: God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. Much has been written about the Father and the Son—yet, there seems to be surprisingly little about the Holy Spirit. This seems somewhat unfortunate given that the Holy Spirit is sent to help and guide us.

We are told to pray to the Father, to study and be conformed to the image of Christ. What are we to do with the Holy Spirit? How do we interact with the Holy Spirit?

Note: I'm only interested in well-respected theologians who expound on the dynamics & interaction with the Holy Spirit.  Please cite your sources.

Note: This response was written in response to the question as it was originally worded, which was in the form of a request for reference works.

It sounds like you're looking for works in the discipline of "pneumatology," the study of the Holy Spirit.

Prefatory blathering, because I like to write:

Great men have lamented the extent to which scholars' pens have neglected the work of the Holy Spirit throughout history. The protests of venerable Christian leaders notwithstanding, books about the one whom the Bible calls the "Spirit of Truth" are almost rare when compared with the vast numbers of pages devoted to the Father and the Son.

It's worth reflecting on the fact that the Holy Spirit is the one who enables, encourages, and facilitates Christians' efforts to grow in conformity to God's Son, and one of the primary resources provided for Christians who seek to do so is the Bible -- that is, disciples follow Christ by learning (through reading and/or hearing) about his life and teaching, and putting what they learn into practice. One of the primary roles of the Holy Spirit is to enable Christians to understand what they learn about the triune God; AFAIK, he does not provide separate teachings distinct from what is offered through the Father and the Son.

A few actual resources:

Volume 1, chapter 8 of Hodge's Systematic Theology is about the Holy Spirit.
John Owen, an important Reformer, wrote a thousand-plus page book called Pneumatologia that could keep anyone busy for a lifetime.
Abraham Kuyper wrote a book called The Work of the Holy Spirit that looks interesting. He was a nineteenth century Dutch Calvinist, and I'm not familiar with his work, but the biographical sketch that I read looks clear.
Spurgeon sermons, numbers: 278, 738, 167, 630, 465, 2907, 3048, 2382, 1532, 1708, 1662, 2074, 1870, 1877, 201, 574, 178 -- and more.

There are, of course, many more resources out there, but those titles provide a good place to start.


LDS Church view of 1 Timothy 3:2 and 3:12 when they supported polygamy I have a question regarding what the LDS Church view of 1 Timothy 3:2 and 3:12 was during the times when they supported polygamy.

Background information for my question:

One of the earliest formal statements about polygamy by the Mormon church was the 1943 revelation by the founder of the church, Joseph Smith. This revelation was codified in the 1870s in the church's Doctrine and Covenants section 132.

Paragraphs 61-63 of this section is quoted below.

  61 And again, as pertaining to the law of the priesthood—if any man
  espouse a virgin, and desire to espouse another, and the first give
  her consent, and if he espouse the second, and they are virgins, and
  have vowed to no other man, then is he justified; he cannot commit
  adultery for they are given unto him; for he cannot commit adultery
  with that that belongeth unto him and to no one else.

  62 And if he have ten virgins given unto him by this law, he cannot
  commit adultery, for they belong to him, and they are given unto him;
  therefore is he justified.

  63 But if one or either of the ten virgins, after she is espoused,
  shall be with another man, she has committed adultery, and shall be
  destroyed; for they are given unto him to multiply and replenish the
  earth, according to my commandment, and to fulfil the promise which
  was given by my Father before the foundation of the world, and for
  their exaltation in the eternal worlds, that they may bear the souls
  of men; for herein is the work of my Father continued, that he may be
  glorified.

The LDS Church did eventually stop promoting polygamy however. The final nail to its coffin seems to have been the Second Manifesto of 1904 by then President of the Church, Joseph Fielding Smith.

Still the article "After the Manifesto: Mormon Polygamy 1890-1906" makes claims that indicate support for polygamy high in the Church hierarchy as late as 1898. The article says on pp. 28-29:

  Among the Quorum of the Twelve and the First Presidency between 1890
  and 1898, at least 58 percent of the members took an active part in
  post-Manifesto polygamy. If Matthias Cowley and Owen Woodruff are
  included, the proportion is 70 percent.[17] Historical records
  indicate that only two men seem to have had qualms about the
  continuation of polygamy during President Woodruff’s lifetime: Francis
  M. Lyman and Lorenzo Snow.[18]

Qualifications for bishops and deacons in 1 Timothy chapter 3:

1 Timothy chapter 3 lists the qualifications expected from those assigned to the positions of deacons and bishops in the first century congregations.

1 Timothy 3:2 lists some of the qualifications for bishops:

  A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife,
  vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to
  teach;

And 1 Timothy 3:12 includes similar requirements for deacons:

  Let the deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children
  and their own houses well.

Questions:

Considering the paragraphs quoted from Doctrine and Covenants section 132, and the overall support for polygamy in the Church hierarchy until late 1800's, it seems that at that time a church member could be in good standing with more than one wife.

This seems different from the expectations listed in 1 Timothy ch. 3.

What would have been the LDS Church view of these requirements in 1 Timothy ch. 3 during the time they supported polygamy?

There does not seem to be any LDS view on 1 Timothy 3 requirements during the time they practiced polygamy (searched LDS website and Joseph Smith Papers).

The LDS believe in modern prophets who receive revelation.

As members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, we are blessed to be led by living prophets—inspired men called to speak for the Lord, as did Moses, Isaiah, Peter, Paul, Nephi, Mormon, and other prophets of the scriptures.

Related to this is that the Bible is not the only scripture or wholey translated correctly (doesn't apply to this verse). Article of Faith 8:

8 We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly; we also believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God.

See this Answer on the purpose of Polygamy or from the LDS website:

The Bible and the Book of Mormon teach that the marriage of one man to one woman is God’s standard, except at specific periods when He has declared otherwise.
...
Latter-day Saints do not understand all of God’s purposes for instituting, through His prophets, the practice of plural marriage during the 19th century. The Book of Mormon identifies one reason for God to command it: to increase the number of children born in the gospel covenant in order to “raise up seed unto [the Lord]” (Jacob 2:30). Plural marriage did result in the birth of large numbers of children within faithful Latter-day Saint homes. ...


What is the difference between the grave and Hades? Do not be amazed at this, for a time is coming when all who are in their graves will hear his voice and come out those who have done good will rise to live, and those who have done evil will rise to be condemned. (John 5:28-29, NIV)
The sea gave up the dead that were in it, and death and Hades gave up the dead that were in them, and each person was judged according to what he had done. (Revelation 20:13 NIV)

You did not ask, "What is the meaning of 'the grave'?" or "What is Hades?", so I won't answer those questions.

Simple answer: the difference between "the grave" and "Hades" depends on what translation of the Bible you are reading. In the NIV, there is usually no difference between "the grave" and "Hades". It seems that the NIV mostly uses "the grave" in the Old Testament, and mostly Hades in the New Testament; in both testaments, it often uses "the realm of the dead", but these three refer to the same thing.

The NIV regularly translates the Hebrew word sheol as "the grave".
Here's a page that lists all NIV translations of the Hebrew sheol: http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H7585&t=NIV (click the links for "Continued Search Results" for more results). In contrast, the NIV normally transliterates the Greek word hades as "Hades", though it sometimes renders it as "the realm of the dead": http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G86&t=NIV. However, these two words are the same, as is seen in the fact that the Septuagint translates sheol as hades. (The Septuagint is the Greek translation of the Old Testament that the New Testament normally quotes from.) As I mentioned, in both testaments it often renders either word as "the realm of the dead".

For the verses that you quoted, please note that in the NIV, "the grave" is different from just "grave" or "graves". In particular, "the grave" as a translation of Sheol/Hades seems to occur only in the Old Testament; in the New Testament, the NIV mostly uses Hades. "Graves" in John 5:28-29 is from a completely different Greek word (mnēmeion), which is often translated as "tomb": http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G3419&t=NIV. It should be understood as grave or tomb in the literal, physical sense.

A side note: if you want to do word studies like this, I recommend that you not use the NIV. Although it is quite readable, it is very inconsistent and often inaccurate. Rather, I recommend more literal yet highly readable translations like the Recovery Version and the New King James Version. I say this from my personal experience. My first five years as a Christian I used the NIV almost exclusively, but the more I got into word studies with interlinear Bibles and Greek and Hebrew, the more I realized how inaccurate and inconsistent the NIV was. I eventually dropped it completely. (And the TNIV which came later is in fact much worse than the original NIV.)


Is there a quote/saying in bible "Do not close the mouth of a bull which threshes the grain"? I am wondering if there is a quote in Bible saying "Do not mask/close the mouth of a bull which threshes the grain"?  Meaning, let the animal have its food while it works . When it comes to human, pay well to the workers.

The original verse is Deuteronomy 25:4:

Do not muzzle an ox while it is treading out the grain.(NIV)

The verse is referenced twice in the New Testament where it is explicitly said to apply to workers and wages:

For it is written in the Law of Moses: “Do not muzzle an ox while it is treading out the grain.” Is it about oxen that God is concerned? (1 Cor 9:9)
For Scripture says, “Do not muzzle an ox while it is treading out the grain,” and “The worker deserves his wages.” (1 Tim 5:8)


If Christ took our sins on him, why do we still need an imputation of God's righteousness on us? I always thought that the imputation of our sins on Jesus so that we are free from sin is what justified us. But according to several passages in the Bible (What is the biblical basis for the imputation of Christ's righteousness to believers?) there is also an imputation of God's righteousness onto us.

It seems strange to me that the imputation of our sins on Christ isn't enough to make us righteous before God, but that we would still need an imputation of God's righteousness on us despite our sins having been washed away.
Are these actually two separate acts or are they identical?

The words ‘righteousness of Christ’ never occur in scripture. What does occur is ‘the righteousness of God’ And that is the answer to your question - why if sins were borne by Christ , do we still need an ‘imputation’ ? That is a very intelligent question; very valid.

The righteousness of God is revealed in the gospel, Romans 1:17. It is revealed at Golgotha. It is revealed when God drew near and resolved all righteousness in the sufferings and death and bloodshed of Jesus Christ, his own beloved Son.

Jesus Christ bore the sins of others, in his body, on the tree, I Peter 2:24. And Jesus Christ was made sin - sin, as such, the thing itself  was contained within him, unto death, II Corinthians 5:21. When he died, it was taken away. Behold the Lamb of God which taketh away the sin of the world, John 1:29.

When one believes this gospel, sees and believes that God’s own righteousness was met and satisfied in Jesus Christ himself as he suffered and died - then God sees that faith and sees, within that faith, his own righteousness.

The righteousness of God is seen within the faith of the believer. And God, seeing that faith, seeing his own righteousness reflected in that faith - God accounts that person to be right. For he is right. He is right to believe that he is a sinner. And he is right to believe in Jesus Christ. And he is right to see that God’s rightness was fully met and satisfied within Christ.

This is a massively important subject. This is the heart of the gospel.
The gospel reveals this. Nothing else does.

And I am not ashamed of this gospel; for therein is the righteousness of God revealed - out of faith - unto faith. Romans 1:16.


Why do literalist Protestants reject transubstantiation? In both Orthodox Christianity and Catholicism, the words of Jesus, "This is My body" and "This is My blood" referring to communion bread and wine, respectively, are taken literally, and transubstantiation is believed to occur.  I know that many Protestants do not believe this.  For non-literalist Protestants, this is not surprising.  However, there are many Protestants, of course, who regard the Bible as the literal word of God.  One might think that all of the literalist Protestants accept transubstantiation.  But I think that is not true.

So my questions are:

Do all literalist Protestants accept transubstantiation?  Do most of them?  Do any of them?
For the ones who don't, how do they explain what appears to be the plain words of Jesus on this?

To understand this answer, we will look at just two aspects.

One, Christ speaks literally about many things many times, yet no one believes He turned into a literal door or into a nebulous ghost of a concept like truth.

Two, Protestants disagree with transubstantiation not because they don't believe the bible, but because they believe that Christ's sacrifice was done once for all time.

Literalism

When Christ said, I am the way, life, truth, what did those three things look like?  What ghost can one conjour to represent truth?  Rather, they looked stedfastly at Christ who was clearly standing there in front of them.

  Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man
  cometh unto the Father, but by me.
  John 14:6

When Jesus said, I am the door or you are a sheep, do you take this literally?  Is He wood, rock, blanket, or what as that literal door?

  Then said Jesus unto them again, Verily, verily, I say unto you, I am the door of the sheep.
  John 10:7

So likewise when Jesus said this, did He disappear and become a loaf of bread?

  And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body.

So, it is clear enough that Christ speaks specifically at all times, but that is not to say literally at all times.

Sacrificial

With lovely irony, when the bible does literally say Christ sat down as an offering priest because of His own one sacrifice, Protestants believe this, while Roman Catholics do not.

  But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God;
  Heb 10:12

There is no priest presuming to be Christ on earth who offers the "same" sacrifice that Christ did some 2,000 years ago.

Though time wouldn't permit, it is interesting enough to view this contrast between the two views of a literal piece of bread and a literal ongoing sacrifice done daily versus a metaphor and one sacrifice of Christ's body done once for all time.

So for Protestants, the plain words of Christ about this is My body and what it represents are clear enough.


Is the song Baba Yetu actually used by African churches? Recently I encountered someone who, upon hearing the song "Baba Yetu," a rendition of the Lord's Prayer in Swahili, assumed that it is widely used in the Swahili-speaking church in Africa.

However, the song was actually written by an American for a video game – not the church.  The song went on to win a Grammy and is now performed around the world by professional choirs and ensembles.

Wikipedia indicates that there have been some high-profile performances of the song in Africa.  But I want to know: To what extent has the Swahili-speaking African church actually incorporated this song into their worship?

I realize a definitive answer is likely difficult, but here are a few thoughts on what kinds of evidence might be good indicators:

inclusion in a published Swahili-language/African church songbook/hymnal,
demonstrated use in Christian conferences/seminars taking place in Africa
testimony of a local church leader/missionary

Maybe, a little bit, apparently(?)...

Based on the only clear evidence I could find, i.e. a couple of online video clips, there are, perhaps, at least two instances of such use of the song in question, one in Kenya and the other in Tanzania, which happen to be the two countries in which Kiswahili (the Swahili language) is most widely spoken.

On YouTube, the video from Kenya comes from the Kahawa Sukari Baptist Church's channel, where it is entitled "Baba Yetu by Peter Hollens" and its description reads, simply: "Kahawa Sukari Baptist Kids singing along to Baba Yetu".

Peter Hollens, an American, is one of the "various YouTube artists" listed as having performed the song according to the Wikipedia article to which your Question is linked. It's unclear what relationship he might have to the church. He has been to Kenya at least once some years before Kahawa Sukari Baptist published their video (Oct 19, 2016) which credits him (presumably because they're singing along to his 2014 track). He offers them a counter-acknowledgement in the Comments section of their video.

It's difficult to tell whether the video represents a regular occurrence at the church or rather is a special performance specifically for the video. The children's dance routine accompanying the music incidentally matches the one in the video from Tanzania, entitled "Baba Yetu - Gospel Choir in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania". The only additional information thereon is that the video is published (Feb 17, 2011) by African Solar Rise, which "is a German-based non-profit organization" connected with the generation of solar energy.

Beyond this it is quite difficult (viz. impossible?) to prove the negative that the song is in fact not used by African churches (an extremely vast scope, even if we narrow it down to only "the Swahili-speaking African church," since that covers no less than six countries, and even up to nine if we include the fringes of Mozambique, Malawi and Zambia to which the spread of the language extends), at least not without some kind of in-depth survey on this particular song in that region's churches.

For whatever it's worth, I lived in the region for some years after the song's release, and interacted with various church circles, but I had never heard of the song before reading this Question. This is probably not saying much, however, since I'm just one person, and the area in question is huge. In one neighbourhood I lived in there were no less than five little churches in a 1-Km radius. For all I know, at least one of them did use this song.


Can a non-Catholic be Canonized by the Catholic Church? While listening to Peter Kreeft talking about Thomistic personalism [PDF], he joked that C.S. Lewis isn't "canonized on earth yet." I know it's a joke, but it seems it would only be funny if it is possible he may one day be canonized, though he was Anglican.

Can a non-Catholic be canonized by the Catholic Church? If so, have they ever done so?

Possibly related: What does the Catholic Church teach about the fate of non-Catholic Christians?

The present regime for canonization comes from Divinus Perfectionis Magister, an apostolic constitution of John Paul II (25 January 1983). More detailed rules for the diocesan stages are in Sanctorum Mater (17 May 2007).

At first glance, it would seem that the present process does not allow for a non-Catholic to even be considered, since SM article 4 says:

  The cause of beatification and canonization regards a Catholic who in life, in death and after death has enjoyed a reputation of holiness by living all the Christian virtues in an heroic manner; or enjoys a reputation of martyrdom because, having followed Christ more closely, he has sacrificed his life in the act of martyrdom.

Following the Code of Canon Law, "a Catholic" would be someone described by Canon 205: "Those baptized are fully in the communion of the Catholic Church on this earth who are joined with Christ in its visible structure by the bonds of the profession of faith, the sacraments, and ecclesiastical governance." This is more specific than "the Christian faithful", meaning "those who, inasmuch as they have been incorporated in Christ through baptism, have been constituted as the people of God" (Canon 204). Since C. S. Lewis was baptized as an Anglican, and did not join the Catholic Church, he counts as a member of the Christian faithful but not a Catholic.

This in itself does not exclude him from being a saint, since the Church recognizes the possibility of salvation even for someone outside the visible structures of the Church (in certain circumstances). The language in DPM is all about "followers of Christ" (Christi asseclae; qui Christi exemplum proximius secuti; qui Christum fidelitur sunt secuti). The issue, then, is not whether he really is a saint in heaven, but whether the Church would recognize him as such, given that part of her purpose is described in DPM as follows:

  Faithful to the serious duty entrusted to her of teaching, sanctifying and governing the People of God, she proposes to the faithful for their imitation, veneration and invocation, men and women who are outstanding in the splendor of charity and other evangelical virtues and, after due investigations, she declares them, in the solemn act of canonization, to be Saints.

Since saints are meant to be imitated, the Church would have to be satisfied that Lewis was outstanding in virtue and doctrine. I don't think the Church would be ready to admit as an example of heroic virtue somebody who didn't join her when presented with the option. The theological test (which involves detailed examination of everything the candidate ever wrote) would surely also be difficult for a non-Catholic to pass - especially one who sometimes publicly disagreed with the Church, and who held some opinions that were distinctively Protestant, alongside others that were fairly idiosyncratic or even heterodox. So I think there are other people the Church is more likely to canonize first.

The second part of your question is about whether anyone who was not in communion with the Church has ever been canonized. I think this hasn't happened. The closest examples would be:

Individuals who gained some degree of local recognition, but who were never actually recognized by the proper authorities. Curiously, one Saint Josaphat, who had a degree of recognition, was actually Gautama Buddha (Josaphat = Bodhisattva).
Certain figures from years BC have feast days and are sometimes called saints, as well as featuring in the liturgy (see for example the Litany of the Saints). Abraham's day is 9 October, for example (in the 1749 Martyrology: memoria sancti Abrahae, Patriarchae et omnium credentium Patris).
Angels, like Saint Michael, may be called Saints but aren't in quite the same category as human believers.

Somewhere else where this might crop up is if there's anyone who one of the Eastern Catholic Churches recognized as a saint, between the Great Schism and their reunion with Rome, who was separated from the Roman Catholic Church during his or her lifetime and who remains venerated today. I don't know of an actual example but perhaps this has happened.


Where does Jesus stand on war and peace? I see this quote

  “Do not think that I came to bring peace on Earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I came to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and a man’s enemies will be the members of his household. He who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me; and he who loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me. And he who does not take his cross and follow Me is not worthy of Me. He who has found his life will lose it, and he who has lost his life for My sake will find it.” (Matthew 10:34-39 NASB)

And there are many interpretations (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/But_to_bring_a_sword#Interpretations)

Also, Jesus is known as the Prince of Peace (Isaiash 9:6), so this is quite confusing. What then, does the "sword" refer to? Does it mean that Jesus is por-war? Or does it just mean that Christianity is a contentious doctrine that will lead SOME people to wage war?

Jesus advocates peace, right?

This is not about war, as in killing people, but about the coming struggle to bring people into the Christian faith, when the faith will deny their previous beliefs, whether Jewish or Pagan. Jesus is likening the struggle to spread the faith to a war. I believe this interpretation is pretty much universal to all denominations.

This verse is sometimes cited by non-Christians as evidence that Jesus was a historical  militaristic guy, like Bar-Kochva. This is just not a reasonable interpretation.


What is the significance of the Tree of Life in the Garden of Eden? If Adam and Eve were created perfect and without death (immortal), then what is the significance and purpose of the Tree of Life in the middle of the Garden of Eden?

Here's the verse in question:

  Genesis 2:16-17 NIV

  16 And the LORD God commanded the man, “You are free to eat from any
  tree in the garden; 17 but you must not eat from the tree of the
  knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat from it you will
  certainly die.”

The opportunity to live forever

What I find most interesting is that God didn't command Adam to keep away from the tree of good and evil life. When Adam did finally eat from the tree he was commanded not to eat from, here's what Jesus had to say to His Father:

  Genesis 3:22 NIV

  And the LORD God said, “The man has now become like one of us, knowing
  good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take
  also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever.”

This verse sheds some light on what's happening. Adam certainly had been allowed to eat from the tree of life and live forever prior to this sin event. But because God is a just and Righteous God, He could not allow Adam to go unpunished, therefore taking away the opportunity for Adam to live forever in eternal damnation.

The fruit of righteousness

If we continue reading we find that there is another way to experience the fruit from this tree of life.

  Proverbs 11:30 NIV

  The fruit of the righteous is a tree of life, and the one who is wise
  saves lives.

  Proverbs 15:4 NIV

  The soothing tongue is a tree of life, but a perverse tongue crushes
  the spirit.

The paradise of God

  Revelation 2:7

  Whoever has ears, let them hear what the Spirit says to the churches.
  To the one who is victorious, I will give the right to eat from the
  tree of life, which is in the paradise of God.

Wow, I absolutely love this last verse and I don't know why. We will actually once again have the opportunity to eat from this tree of life. Lastly this tree of life is displayed along the main street in the kingdom of God that leads from the entrance to the throne room. Signifying that everybody can freely eat of the tree of life and have it abundantly.

  Revelation 22:2

  down the middle of the great street of the city. On each side of the
  river stood the tree of life, bearing twelve crops of fruit, yielding
  its fruit every month. And the leaves of the tree are for the healing
  of the nations.

The significance

I believe that God, being a fair and Righteous God, had not deprived man of the opportunity to be righteous from day one. However, man chose his own path, to sin. I don't have any doubts that God knew man would do this, but I also know that God would have been subjected to accusations from creation if he had locked the mouse in the cage with cheese and told the mouse not to eat of it.

As it is, no man can hold accusations against God, because God had given a fair opportunity to man.


Which groups of Christians hold signs about Jesus or Christianity in public, and why? I often see people standing on the sides of the road holding signs that say things like "Trust Jesus".

Is this something that Christian groups do regularly? Is it specific to a particular denomination?

What is the intent of doing that? What is the motivation that these people have?

I am not aware of any denominations that display such signs as an official part of their teaching or practices, so the only way of knowing why someone displays such a sign is to ask them.

Beyond that, we can only speculate...

There are two legitimate reasons I can think of to possibly do this:

The most obvious would be simple evangelism.  That is, fullfilment of the great commission, to make disciples.  Many people, I suspect, see such signs and advertisements as a way to spread the good news of Christ's salvation to the world.

Whether such methods are effective evangelism tools is not really on-topic for this question. (And I suspect their effectiveness is very cultural-dependent).
The other legitimate reason I can imagine is praise and worship.  Billboards that read "Jesus is Lord" might be there for the purpose of evangelizing to non-believers, or they might be there simply as a public expression of praise.

And one other possibly legitimate, or possibly illegitimate reason I can imagine:

To earn favor with God. Some Christians might feel it is their duty to do such a thing.  Whether this is legitimate or not may depend on which denomination you ask, as well as specific motives, and is beyond the scope of this question.

Some Christians feel it is a duty to "stand boldly for Christ" in the "culture wars," and might feel this is one way to do that.

And there are many illegitimate reasons I can imagine one might do this.

To look cool. Someone might think waving such a sign makes them look cool.  If not to the general public, perhaps to other members of their church, a love interest, or to themselves.
To look lame. Someone might intentionally put themselves in a situation where they might be ridiculed, so as to be a victim of "religious persecution"... sort of a "martyr mentality."


Sola Scriptura and the Biblical Canon The basic argument of Sola Scriptura is that all Christian teachings and traditions are to be founded in and subservient to the Bible, and in nothing else. Obviously this does not mean that there are to be no Christian traditions, but rather that they are to be biblically-based.

How does this tally with the history of how the Biblical canon was formed and the criteria (tradition) according to which the canon was chosen and closed? How can this formation have been founded on the Bible, if there was no Biblical canon to start with (especially with regards to the Gospels and the NT in general)?

From a historical perspective, the texts which became canonical were those which proto-orthodox Christians accepted and based their practices and traditions upon. Therefore the practices and traditions are in keeping with books which became part of the Bible.

If you think about it some Christian traditions must predate the writing of certain texts. In 1 Corithinians 11:17-34, the Lord's supper does not seem to be introduced as a new idea so this tradition must predate the text which was later accepted as canonical. So it is the proto-orthodox ideas which are found in the Bible because they picked the texts that became canonical.

All this being said, I'm not sure that Sola Scriptura really demands that all traditions are founded on the Bible - more than they can in no way run contrary to it and that anything not in the Bible is peripheral and not necessary for salvation or holiness.

It should also be noted that what is canonical does vary e.g. the Ethiopian Orthodox Church accepts more books than the Roman Catholic Church which accepts more books than most mainline Protestant denominations.