According to dispensationalism, who is 'the dragon' and what are the differences between 'the dragon' and 'the beast'? Based in the question: According to full preterism, who is 'the dragon' and what are the differences between 'the dragon' and 'the beast'?

In some passages from the Bible there exists sentences such as: Revelation 12:9

  The great dragon was hurled down—that ancient serpent called the devil, or Satan, who leads the whole world astray. He was hurled to the earth, and his angels with him.

and Revelation 13:4

  People worshiped the dragon because he had given authority to the beast, and they also worshiped the beast and asked, “Who is like the beast? Who can wage war against it?"

Since I am assuming that 'Satan', 'the beast', etc are the same entity then

  Who is 'the dragon' and what are the differences between 'the dragon' and 'the beast'?

I have been a classical Dispensationalist for forty-eight years, so I am quite familiar with the answer to this question. Most Dispensationalists believe that "the Dragon" is Satan, and "the Beast" is the Antichrist and his government. He is a man possessed by Satan who will be given a brief period to rule the entire world. According to Dana & Mantey's A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament the prefix "anti" can mean "instead of" as well as "against", so this may lend support to the idea that the Antichrist is a counterfeit of Christ. The usage of the term "the Beast" in the question refers to "the Beast from the Sea" of Revelation 13:1-10.  There is another Beast from the Earth (Revelation 13:11-18) identified by Dispensationalists as the False Prophet (Revelation 16:13), a man who will lead the world to worship the first Beast from the Sea as god. Some Dispensationalists hold that the False Prophet is the Antichrist, but since "Christ" is actually a political term meaning "King" (Luke 23:2), most believe the first Beast is the Antichrist. Thus there is a kind of unholy trinity: the Dragon (anti-God the Father), the Beast from the Sea (anti-Christ the Son), and the Beast from the Earth (anti-Holy Spirit).

There are a large number of Dispensationalist writings on these issues, and I recommend a couple of good places to start that are a bit old, but still very relevant: Jesus is Coming by W.E.B. (William E. Blackstone)[1898; third edition 1932], and Things to Come: A Study in Biblical Eschatology (1958) by J. Dwight Pentecost.


When did the Church in the West begin communicating in Latin, instead of Greek? Since the Gospels, Paul's epistles, and the other books of the New Testament were written mostly in Greek, as well as much writing of early Church fathers, it stands to reason that much – if not most – of the early Christian scholarly writings were in the Greek language. In addition, the languages that were spoken by those Christians are Syriac and Greek.

By the early middle ages, however, it is clear that nearly all scholarly writing in the West was done in Latin.

When did Christian scholars in the West begin writing and publishing works primarily in the Latin language, instead of the Greek language? Why?

The first major Christian theologian to write primarily in Latin was Tertullian (155–240): his association with a heretical movement is all that prevents him from being universally considered the first of the "Latin Fathers." Jerome provides a brief summary of his early life:

  Tertullian the presbyter, now regarded as chief of the Latin writers after Victor and Apollonius, was from the city of Carthage in the province of Africa, and was the son of a proconsul or Centurion. (On Illustrious Men, chapter 53)

Carthage was a Roman city at the time, so Latin would have been Tertullian's native language.  As a result, it's not surprising that he would write in that language, not just for his own comfort but also to reach an audience that did not speak Greek.

Perhaps the most important cause of Latin's dominance in the Western church is Constantine's conversion in the 4th century and the subsequent official status that Christianity enjoyed in the Roman Empire.  Latin served as the Western Empire's lingua franca, and the dominance of the language continued in Europe even after the Western Empire declined and finally fell in the 5th century.

In the Greek-speaking Eastern Empire, Greek fathers like Maximus the Confessor and John of Damascus wrote into the early medieval period.  Their influence on the Western church was perhaps not as great as that of Latin fathers like Jerome, Augustine and Gregory the Great, who were more associated with, and geographically close to, Rome.  But it was Great Schism, beginning in the 11th century, that ultimately resulted in Greek-speaking populations disassociating themselves from the Catholic Church, leaving Latin without a significant competitor.


Is it a valid Christian concept to attribute subjectively attactive physical characteristics, as blessings from God? In conversation with a fellow Christian the other day, she used the phrase, "God has blessed her with very attractive looks" describing a mutual friend of ours (about whom I agree on the attractive aspect).

If someone is considered very attractive (to narrow that word down - opinion held by the majority, subjectively within a culture, that the person is good looking) is it correct to automatically classify this as a blessing from God?

A few reasons this question comes up is because what does that mean for another female who is at the lower end of that spectrum, where it causes her much pain in her life - from finding a mate to how self-esteem carves her reality? Would that be considered a lack of blessing, of the enemy, or simply chance of the physical world? Or, does it have nothing to do with blessings and is more like a slang Christian phrase?

Yes, it is completely valid to attribute any blessing to God from a variety of Christian perspectives. In short, all things are ordained by God.

As for the "less attractive" person, God has most likely blessed her with other attributes.

And if not, a perfectly Christian answer to why some are blessed with certain things and other are not is the one God gave to Job... "Where were you when I laid the foundations of the earth?". In other words, who are we to question God?  Rather, according to most Christian teachings, we should thank God for what we have, realize that all blessings come from Him,  and not complain about what we didn't get.


According to Catholicism, does the eighth commandment (Do not bear false witness) obligate us to always tell the truth? According to Catholic Teaching, does the eighth commandment

  You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.

obligate us to always tell the truth?

Are there times when we are under no obligation to speak the truth?

Can one withhold the truth without violating the commandment?

In questioning whether it is ever right to lie, there are usually two distinct questions:

What exactly is a lie? Is it necessary to always tell the whole truth, or can you withhold the truth if needed?
Is it always wrong to lie, or is it permissible to lie to prevent a greater evil? The classically debated case of this would be when a Nazi soldier comes to your door and asks if you are hiding any Jews. If you say "Yes", or refuse to answer, then the Jews will be killed. Is this sufficient reason to lie?

This article from Catholic Answers provides a great over view on the subject. I will do no more than summarize, and pull out some quotes. If you want a very quick summary, then it is: "there is no universal agreement on the matter; Catholic theologians disagree, and there is no definitive pronouncement from the church"

The first thing to be said is that the biblical text of the eighth commandment is strictly about telling untruths in a legal setting. There is good reason that even modern translations render it as "Do not bear false witness", rather than "Do not lie". The original quote is not about lying under everyday circumstances, but about lying in the courts. Nevertheless, most Christians would extend the prohibition to telling untruths in normal settings by 'moral reasoning' even if there isn't a clear biblical prohibition (though there are presumably some Bible-only Christians who would not).

Early Catholic theologians, e.g. Augustine and Aquinas, were mostly against the "necessary lie", and come down on the side of telling the truth in all circumstances. They took the view that God is capable of protecting those who might be harmed through your truth-telling - in our example example the Jews hidden in your house. However they did also agree that it was necessary to 'prudently protect the truth' - i.e. to avoid answering the question if at all possible.

More modern theologians have moved away from this view, and would argue for the 'necessary lie'. Most modern Catholics would also argue that it is right to tell a lie in the Nazi soldier example given above, even if they cannot articulate a philosophical reason why. The evil that results from the truth would be perhaps greater than the evil of the lie. One approach that was popular early in the century was the 'mental reservation', in which the speaker mentally interprets their answer to mean something different from what the answer might take it as. Thus the person would answer the Nazi soldier "No", and interprets their own answer to mean "There are no Jews here which you should be arresting and killing". (It goes without saying, and is universally agreed, that lying for your own personal gain, or except to prevent an evil, is always wrong, whatever 'mental reservations' you might employ.)

Another approach from some theologians is to replace the current definition of a lie from the Catholic Catechism, which is

  "To lie is to speak or act against the truth in order to lead someone into error" (CCC 2482, 2483)

with a slight variant:

  "To lie is to speak or act against the truth in order to lead into error someone who has the right to know the truth."


Are there any specific rules on everyday life at all in Christianity? Christianity seems to be one big category with a long list of denominations. To my knowledge, there is no "Christian language" in the same way as in Islam (Arabic) or Judaism (Hebrew) or Hinduism (Sanskrit). I have noticed that some Christians do recite verses from the Bible, but they do so in the vernacular language rather than some obscure or archaic liturgical language that is typically the language of the scriptures. For Christianity, I would probably expect that Christians would recite the verses in koine Greek and biblical Aramaic. Nope, more often than not, they recite in the vernacular. Are there any specific rules at all in any denomination of Christianity?

Rules about prayer, meditation, and devotion (when to pray, how to pray, how many times to pray per day, where to pray, in which direction to pray)
Rules about diet and fasting (when to eat, how to eat, how many times to eat, where to eat, what to eat and what not to eat)
Rules about pilgrimages (which sites are holy, how to behave on the holy site, whom to meet on the holy site, what to expect on the holy site, how to pay respects on the holy site)

As broad as it may appear, here is how we can summarize it.

  Matthew 22:35-40 (NIV)

  One of them, an expert in the law, tested him
  with this question: “Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the
  Law?” Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and
  with all your soul and with all your mind.’ This is the first and
  greatest commandment. And the second is like it: ‘Love your
  neighbor as yourself.’ All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two
  commandments.”

Christians should live their every day life by following two simple commandments,

Love your God with all your soul and with all your mind
Love others as yourself

Our customs/rituals on how we show our love to God may vary but they all fall under the same command. Christians should practically demonstrate God's love to others.


What is meant by "order" in reference to ministries within the Church, and how did its usage come about? FMS' answer to What are the positions relative to each other in the Catholic church's clerical hierarchy? mentioned a twofold hierarchy in the Church, that of order and that of jurisdiction.

Given examples from the secular world, it is a bit easier to understand what is meant by jurisdiction.

The question is, what is meant by order and how did its usage come about?

Note:

Please note @curiousdannii's comment that Anglicans also have a three fold order of ordination and a book called the Ordinal. Perhaps the answer will speak to the Anglican meaning so long doing so will not make this post off-topic.

"Order" comes from the Latin word "ordo", which can mean "rank", "class", "grade"—things of that sort. The Catechism, in its discussion of the Sacrament of Holy Orders, says:

The word order [sic, sc. ordo] in Roman antiquity designated an established civil body, especially a governing body. Ordinatio means incorporation into an ordo. In the Church there are established bodies which Tradition, not without a basis in Sacred Scripture, has since ancient times called taxeis (Greek) or ordines. And so the liturgy speaks of the ordo episcoporum, the ordo presbyterorum, the ordo diaconorum [respectively the "order of bishops", "order of priests", "order of deacons"]. Other groups also receive this name of ordo: catechumens, virgins, spouses, widows,....
Integration into one of these bodies in the Church was accomplished by a rite called ordinatio, a religious and liturgical act which was a consecration, a blessing or a sacrament. Today the word "ordination" is reserved for the sacramental act which integrates a man into the order of bishops, presbyters, or deacons, and goes beyond a simple election, designation, delegation, or institution by the community, for it confers a gift of the Holy Spirit that permits the exercise of a "sacred power" (sacra potestas) which can come only from Christ himself through his Church. Ordination is also called consecratio, for it is a setting apart and an investiture by Christ himself for his Church. The laying on of hands by the bishop, with the consecratory prayer, constitutes the visible sign of this ordination.

(Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraphs 1537–38)
So an "order" generally speaking is simply one of the groups the Church recognizes as having a particular purpose or charism; and "order" in respect of the clerical hierarchy means one of the three groups set apart for the ministerial priesthood: bishops, priests, deacons.


Why does the Pope not issue letters on the lines of Pastorals? Catholic Bishops  have been, from time to time, issuing  a Pastoral Letter, often called simply a pastoral, which is  an open letter addressed  to the clergy and/or laity of a diocese, containing general admonitions, instructions, consolations or directions for behaviour in particular circumstances. Each letter would be read on a designated date in all churches across the diocese. One is curious to know as to why the Pope does not issue such letters, in spite of the fact  that  information technology has enabled us to download any letter issued by the Vatican,  in  any part of the world and to have read it out in churches on a designated date. In fact, such letters would go a long way in guiding the clergy and the faithful alike on different issues of importance.

My question therefore, is : Why does the Pope not issue letters on the lines of Pastorals to all churches across the globe?

Why does the Pope not issue letters on the lines of Pastorals?

Perhaps it does happen from time to time. However, when the pope or the Holy See are involved it takes on a much greater degree of seriousness or urgency. Since such documents come from the pope and the Vatican it would certainly carry a different name. One such occasion was the Encyclical Letter of Pope Pius XI On the Church and the German Reich: Mit brennender Sorge.

Written in German, Pope Pius XI, it was smuggled into Germany for fear of censorship and was read from the pulpits of all German Catholic churches on one of the Church's busiest Sundays, Palm Sunday (21 March that year). Some pastors hid the encyclical inside the tabernacle, in order that the German authorities would not find it.

  Mit brennender Sorge ("With burning concern") On the Church and the German Reich is an encyclical of Pope Pius XI, issued during the Nazi era on 10 March 1937 (but bearing a date of Passion Sunday, 14 March). Written in German, not the usual Latin, it was smuggled into Germany for fear of censorship and was read from the pulpits of all German Catholic churches on one of the Church's busiest Sundays, Palm Sunday (21 March that year).

  The encyclical condemned breaches of the 1933 Reichskonkordat agreement signed between the German Reich and the Holy See. It condemned "pantheistic confusion", "neopaganism", "the so-called myth of race and blood", and the idolizing of the State. It contained a vigorous defense of the Old Testament with the belief that it prepares the way for the New. The encyclical states that race is a fundamental value of the human community, which is necessary and honorable but condemns the exaltation of race, or the people, or the state, above their standard value to an idolatrous level. The encyclical declares "that man as a person possesses rights he holds from God, and which any collectivity must protect against denial, suppression or neglect." National Socialism, Adolf Hitler and the Nazi Party are not named in the document. The term for the German government (Reichsregierung) is used.

  The effort to produce and distribute over 300,000 copies of the letter was entirely secret, allowing priests across Germany to read the letter without interference. The Gestapo raided the churches the next day to confiscate all the copies they could find, and the presses that had printed the letter were closed. According to historian Ian Kershaw, an intensification of the general anti-church struggle began around April in response to the encyclical. Scholder wrote: "state officials and the Party reacted with anger and disapproval. Nevertheless the great reprisal that was feared did not come. The concordat remained in force and despite everything the intensification of the battle against the two churches which then began remained within ordinary limits." The regime further constrained the actions of the Church and harassed monks with staged prosecutions. Though Hitler is not named in the encyclical, it does refer to a "mad prophet" that some claim refers to Hitler himself.

The actual encyclical can be read here.

More closer to our own day and age, Pope John Paul II called the Great, wrote a number of pastoral letters. For example, his Letters to Priests were published every Holy Thursday for all priests throughout the world.

  Pastoral letters (Wikipedia)

  Letter to Children, 1994
  Letter to Families (Gratissima Sane), 1994
  Letter to Priests, 1994
  Letter to the Secretary General of the International Conference on Population and Development, 1994
  Letter to Women, 1995.
  Link to other letters on the Vatican website.


According to Orthodox trinitarianism, can the Father exist without the Son or Holy Spirit? According to the answer at Is the Eastern Orthodox doctrine of "the Monarchy of the Father" consistent with the Athanasian creed?, the Revised Catechism says...

094 What difference is there between the Persons of the Holy Trinity?
God the Father is neither begotten nor proceeds from any other Person, he is the cause, source and principle. This is called the Monarchy of the Father.
etc.

Does this this mean the father does not require the son or holy spirit to exist, but the son and holy spirit are dependent on the father for their existence?

Your statement is correct in principle, but the vocabulary could lead to some incorrect conclusions.

  the father does not require the son or holy spirit to exist

could be understood to mean that at some time the Father could have existed (or possibly even did exist) without the Son or the Spirit existing. This is not correct as the Son and the Spirit are co-eternal and co-uncreated with the Father.

Likewise,

  the son and holy spirit are dependent on the father for their existence

is true as the Father is the source of the Trinity. However we must not understand 'dependent' to mean the Son and the Spirit are in someway conditional -- that if things had gone differently there could have been (for example) a Father, Sister, and Heartbeat instead.

The Father is the Fountainhead of the Holy Trinity, and it is not possible for there to be a Fountainhead without that which flows from it, the Son begotten and the Spirit proceeding.


What prophets came from Galilee? This question talks about how in John 7:52, the Pharisees claimed that "no prophet comes out of Galilee." The accepted answer discusses how commentators often point out the Pharisees' mistake, and N.T. Wright points out that "both the prophets Jonah and Hosea came from Galilee." In addition, I found this link, which says that 5 prophets came from Galilee:  Jonah, Nahum, Hosea, Elijah, and Elisha. BibleStudyTools.org has an article with a discussion about how Micah, Elijah, and Jonah being from Galilee, and how Nahum and Hosea could possibly have come from Galilee.

Which prophets are from Galilee, and how do we know? An associated question, what is the source of the uncertainty surrounding this question? Perhaps I could word the question, what is the (Biblical and archeological) basis for saying that these 5 prophets are from Galilee?

Jonah from Gath-hepher

  2 Kings 14:25 "He was the one who restored the boundaries of Israel from Lebo Hamath to the Dead Sea, in accordance with the word of the Lord, the God of Israel, spoken through his servant Jonah son of Amittai, the prophet from Gath Hepher."

Wikipedia on Gath-hepher says it is in modern-day Galilee (maybe that's what it is saying?). Joshua 29:13 describes more where this place is.

Micah from Moresheth

  Micah 1:1 The word of the Lord that came to Micah of Moresheth during the reigns of Jotham, Ahaz and Hezekiah, kings of Judah—the vision he saw concerning Samaria and Jerusalem.

BibleAtlas.org doesn't mention Galilee at all in the article on Moresheth, nor does Wikipedia in their article on Moresheth-Gath. Wikipedia says Moresheth = Moresheth-Gath.

Elijah from Gilead

  1 Kings 17:1 "Now Elijah the Tishbite, from Tishbe in Gilead, said to Ahab, 'As the Lord, the God of Israel, lives, whom I serve, there will be neither dew nor rain in the next few years except at my word.'"

2 Kings 15:29 actually seems to differentiate between Gilead and Galilee, which suggests that Gilead is not contained within Galilee.

Wikipedia on Gilead makes no mention of Galilee, and the Bible Atlas also seems to differentiate Gilead from Galilee by saying that in Gilead there is "the white chalk of the desert plateau, the same as that found in Samaria and Lower Galilee."

Elisha

(I don't know the basis).

Hosea

(I don't know the basis).

I would like to see the basis for 4 and 5 (Elisha and Hosea) being from Galilee, and I would like to see how we can know 1-3 are actually from Galilee. I would also be interested if there are any other claims that additional prophets are from Galilee. My questions stems from the fact that none the verses say explicitly from Galilee, and I have seen almost nothing supporting the connection between the city mentioned and Galilee. Pardon my lack of knowledge in biblical geography. Perhaps it is obvious that these cities are contained in the region that is Galilee. There may also be a notable difference between the geographical boundaries in Galilee between the Old and New Testament timeframes or even within the Old Testament timeframe, which contains several thousand years of history on its own.

I don't see how any denominational restriction will affect the answers, so I don't propose any.

The passage demonstrates how disputes arise from ignorance. Some identfied Jesus as the Prophet (v41, spoken of by Moses). Some asserted that Christ must arise from Bethlehem (v42, spoken of by Micah). And there was a division as to whether Jesus was the Messiah.

The truth is that Jesus was born Bethlehem even though he lived in Galilee.

The wonderful thing about honest and open seeking into the truth, greater truths are revealed.

The Pharisees mishandled the truth by making and maintaining mistaken assumptions.

Is anything much different today?


To what extent can you be forgiven? Is it really true that no matter what you do, you can still be saved, go to heaven, if you confess and repent? And, what if, due to crappy circumstances, you've become detached, and lost the ability (or maybe forgotten how) to believe/hope/have faith in things? Will He be understanding?

1Jn 1:9  If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.
Mat 18:21  Then came Peter to him, and said, Lord, how oft shall my brother sin against me, and I forgive him? till seven times?
Mat 18:22  Jesus saith unto him, I say not unto thee, Until seven times: but, Until seventy times seven.
Jer 3:12  Go and proclaim these words toward the north, and say, Return, thou backsliding Israel, saith the LORD; and I will not cause mine anger to fall upon you: for I am merciful, saith the LORD, and I will not keep anger for ever.
Php 2:13  For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure.

From a purely Biblical perspective, based on the Scripture quoted above and the teachings of a Word of Faith church.
Yes the Lord will forgive and take anyone back as long as they repent. 70x7 was the equivalent of infinity during days of Jesus on the earth. When God required an infinite amount of daily forgiveness from His people He naturally requires such of Himself also. Any normal sin or mistake can be corrected with repentance. The Lord is understanding and merciful to faults and backslides and will help anyone do and want to do the things which please Him. All one must do is start with repentance make Jesus the personal King and Friend of their life, then read the Bible and go to church.


Would aliens invalidate Christianity as we know it? If we discover other intelligent life forms in the universe, would this change Christianity in any way or not?

For the sake of the argument, let's presume we will find human-like life in a newly discovered planet in our solar system.

It wouldn't change Christianity it all.  The Bible does not suggest that it contains all knowledge and all revelation.  There is a lot it does not reveal.

The presence of other intelligent life elsewhere in the universe would not change our own reality, which includes the following:

The Eternal Triune God created the universe of time, space and matter and everything in it.
Mankind was created in the image of God.  (Genesis 1:26-27)
Mankind sinned against God and thereby incurred God's punishment.  (Genesis 3)
God the Son, the Third Person of the Trinity, entered into creation through the virgin birth and then received the name Jesus (Yeshua/God saves).
Jesus died on the Cross to take upon Himself the punishment incurred by us.
By faith in Jesus, Christ's work on the Cross is credited to our account, freeing us from the penalty of sin and making us sons and daughters of God.
There is a final judgment for every person where those who follow Christ are rewarded and those who reject Christ will pay the penalty for sin themselves.

This is the reality for us.  The reality for other intelligent life would have no impact on our reality, other than that our reality would acknowledge that there was other intelligent life.

Is it impossible for God to enter into His creation again?  No.  It wouldn't matter to us if He did, though.

So, no, Christianity would not change at all.


Once a Catholic always a Catholic? According to the Roman Catholic church, what is the status of someone who was baptised as a baby and left the church as a teen? Does it matter if he had Confirmation? Does it matter if he claims no religion or if he converted to another one?

I've heard that "once a Christian always a Christian", but I've also heard that people who die not in a state of Christian grace are in trouble. What does the church teach about a person who leaves?

I'll start with the "state of Christian grace" bit. The common teaching (and probably not limited to Catholics) is that people who die not in a state of grace do not go to heaven. BUT, the church also teaches that we don't know who is in a state of Christian grace, or not.

One of the teachings of the Roman Catholic church is that once a person has been baptized, he or she remains baptized for life.  The church also teaches that just not going to church is not sufficient to leave the Catholic church; in order to leave, one must formally renounce one's membership in the church, but even this does not undo baptism.

The church would say that one who has renounced membership will probably not be in a state of grace at the time of death, but that there is no way for a human to know for sure whether the dying person is, or is not in a state of grace.


The order of Communion in Luke 22:17-20 versus Mark 14:22-25 and Matthew 26:26-29 In Matt. 26:26-29 and Mark 14:22-25, Jesus presents the bread before the wine in the performance of Communion.

Matt. 26:26-29

  26 While they were eating, Jesus took some bread, and after a blessing, He broke it and gave it to the disciples, and said, “Take, eat; this is My body.” 27 And when He had taken a cup and given thanks, He gave it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you; 28 for this is My blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for forgiveness of sins. 29 But I say to you, I will not drink of this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it new with you in My Father’s kingdom.”

Mark 14:22-25

  22 While they were eating, He took some bread, and after a blessing He broke it, and gave it to them, and said, “Take it; this is My body.” 23 And when He had taken a cup and given thanks, He gave it to them, and they all drank from it. 24 And He said to them, “This is My blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many. 25 Truly I say to you, I will never again drink of the fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new in the kingdom of God.”

But, in Luke 22:17-20 the wine is presented prior to the bread.

Luke 22:17-20

  17 And when He had taken a cup and given thanks, He said, “Take this and share it among yourselves; 18 for I say to you, I will not drink of the fruit of the vine from now on until the kingdom of God comes.” 19 And when He had taken some bread and given thanks, He broke it and gave it to them, saying, “This is My body which is given for you; do this in remembrance of Me.” **20 And in the same way He took the cup after they had eaten, saying, “This cup which is poured out for you is the new covenant in My blood.

Can anyone explain this supposed discrepancy?

The Marcan-Matthean tradition and the (earlier) Pauline-Lucan tradition vary in how they record the institution of the Eucharist. Compare the reading from Mark and Matthew with Luke and Paul, where Paul records the institution of the Eucharist in 1 Corinthians 11:23-25:

  23 For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread, 24 and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, "This is my body which is broken for you. Do this in remembrance of me." 25 In the same way also the chalice, after supper, saying, "This chalice is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me."

I bring this up because you will note that both Mark and Matthew record the institution of the Eucharist while they were eating. In contrast, neither Luke nor Paul are entirely clear as to whether Jesus ate at all. Regardless, both Luke and Paul are very careful to point out that the eucharistic cup is instituted after the meal had concluded (μετα το δειπνησαι, 'after they had eaten'). Luke identifies this meal as the Passover (Luke 22:15). Luke's mention of another cup is consonant with Jewish custom during Passover (which included more than just one cup during the ceremony), but the intercalation of two cups surrounding the breaking of the bread highlights that particular action as theologically significant. Indeed, we will see that later on, in the Acts of the Apostles, Luke will use the term 'breaking of the bread' to reference the entire Eucharistic feast (cf. Acts 2:42 & 20:7).


How can we tell when Scripture is talking about one of the persons of the Trinity and when it's talking about all three? I am very interested in learning more about the Trinity. I love God, and really want to understand Them better.

..I mean Him.  This came to my mind earlier, and I laughed, but then caught myself, because Scripture speaks of God in the plural in at least one place:

  Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness -Genesis 1:26

I realized, this passage must be talking about "The Godhead" which is comprised of the Father, Son and Spirit.  (explained here),

There are other passages which clearly identify one or all of them distinctly, for example:

  Whoever confesses that Jesus is the Son of God, God abides in him, and he in God. -1 John 4:15

My question is, what about all the other verses (especially in the Old Testament) that are not so obviously talking about the Godhead or one of the Persons?

In light of the doctrine of the Trinity how can we tell if a passage is referring to one of them or all of them?  And if one, how can we tell which one?  For example, is "YHWH" always referring to the Father?

Basically, when the bible talks about God, it means the Trinity or Godhead, while when it says one of their names, such as the Father, it means the Father. But as the Trinity is known--Three in person, One in essence--Then if you talk about the Father, you must be talking in a round-about way, of the Son, and the Holy Spirit, though all are separate.
One link I found, says that there are 4 rules to the Trinity:

There are three persons who have a complete divinity, not a part of divinity, therefore, The Father is a complete God, the Son is a complete God and Holy Spirit is also a Complete God.

Each person is separated from the others, i.e. the Father is not the Son, the Father is not the Holy Spirit, and the Son is neither of them.

There is only one true God,

There is an equality characteristic between the persons of trinity

As the Orthodox Church believes:

Following the Holy Scriptures and the Church Fathers, the Church believes that the Trinity is three divine persons (hypostases) who share one essence (ousia). It is paradoxical to believe thus, but that is how God has revealed himself. All three persons are consubstantial with each other, that is, they are of one essence (homoousios) and coeternal. There never was a time when any of the persons of the Trinity did not exist. God is beyond and before time and yet acts within time, moving and speaking within history.
The source and unity of the Holy Trinity is the Father, from whom the Son is begotten and also from whom the Spirit proceeds. Thus, the Father is both the ground of unity of the Trinity and also of distinction. To try to comprehend unbegottenness (Father), begottenness (Son), or procession (Holy Spirit) leads to insanity, says the holy Gregory the Theologian, and so the Church approaches God in divine mystery, approaching God apophatically, being content to encounter God personally and yet realize the inadequacy of the human mind to comprehend Him.

So don't get exasperated when you can't comprehend the Godhead. God are impossible to fully realize and know. Here is a nice story that shows this (Actually only the first part is the story, but it is all good).
In response to this:

My question is, what about all the other verses (especially in the Old Testament) that are not so obviously talking about The Godhead or one of the Persons?

If it just says God, then take them all, they're all One though Three. If it just says the Father, then take them all, they're all Three though One.
By the way, have you ever read or watched Flatland? Somewhat on topic.


Will the Earth last forever? (Catholic perspective) In Ecclesiastes 1:4, it is mentioned that the Earth will remain forever:

  A generation goes and a generation comes, But the earth remains
  forever.

But in 2 Peter 3:10, it is mentioned that the Earth will be burned up:

  But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night, in which
  the heavens will pass away with a great noise, and the elements will
  melt with fervent heat; both the earth and the works that are in it
  will be burned up.

According to the Catholic Church, will the earth remain or will it be burned up?

The Church certainly believes the Earth will be burned up; otherwise the Messianic hope which Christ has promised us cannot pass. Yet it will endure for ever, because the burning up of the Earth in the day of the Lord is not a destruction but a renewal; and all imperfect things will pass away and God's vision for His Creation will be made manifest.
From the Catechism:

671 Though already present in his Church, Christ's reign is nevertheless yet to be fulfilled "with power and great glory" by the King's return to earth.Lk 21:27; cf. Mt 25:31 This reign is still under attack by the evil powers, even though they have been defeated definitively by Christ's Passover.Cf. II Th 2:7 Until everything is subject to him, "until there be realized new heavens and a new earth in which justice dwells, the pilgrim Church, in her sacraments and institutions, which belong to this present age, carries the mark of this world which will pass, and she herself takes her place among the creatures which groan and travail yet and await the revelation of the sons of God."Lumen Gentium 48 #3; cf. II Pt 3:13; Rom 8:19-22; I Cor 15:28 That is why Christians pray, above all in the Eucharist, to hasten Christ's return by saying to him:Cf. I Cor 11:26; II Pt 3:11–12 Maranatha! "Our Lord, come!"I Cor 16:22; Rev 22:17,20
672 Before his Ascension Christ affirmed that the hour had not yet come for the glorious establishment of the messianic kingdom awaited by IsraelCf. Acts 1:6–7 which, according to the prophets, was to bring all men the definitive order of justice, love and peace.Cf. Is 11:1–9 According to the Lord, the present time is the time of the Spirit and of witness, but also a time still marked by "distress" and the trial of evil which does not spare the ChurchCf. Acts 1:8; I Cor 7:26; Eph 5:16; I Pt 4:17 and ushers in the struggles of the last days. It is a time of waiting and watching.Cf. Mt 25:1,13; Mk 13:33–37; I Jn 2:18, 4:3; I Tim 4:1
676 The Antichrist's deception already begins to take shape in the world every time the claim is made to realize within history that messianic hope which can only be realized beyond history through the eschatological judgement. the Church has rejected even modified forms of this falsification of the kingdom to come under the name of millenarianism,Cf. Dentzingen-Schönmetzer 3839 especially the "intrinsically perverse" political form of a secular messianism.Pius XI, Divini Redemptoris, condemning the "false mysticism" of this "counterfeit of the redemption of the lowly"; cf. Gaudium et Spes 20–21.
677 The Church will enter the glory of the kingdom only through this final Passover, when she will follow her Lord in his death and Resurrection.Cf. Rev 19:1–9. The kingdom will be fulfilled, then, not by a historic triumph of the Church through a progressive ascendancy, but only by God's victory over the final unleashing of evil, which will cause his Bride to come down from heaven.Cf. Rev 13:8; 20:7–10; 21:2–4 God's triumph over the revolt of evil will take the form of the Last Judgement after the final cosmic upheaval of this passing world.Cf. Rev 20:12, II Pt 3:12–13

Therefore, the Church believes that this world will be renewed, but that which is imperfect must pass away then (cf. I Cor 13:10). The Earth will endure forever, beyond its final purification in the Coming of the Lord.


Is there a doctrinally supported name for a designated "home prayer space" in the RCC? Some Catholics set up "prayer stations" in their homes, placing crucifixes, candles, and sometimes a few small saint statues for their particular devotions. In doing so, they create a special place for the family to offer their prayer. But, they often call these stations a family altar, or home altar, or sometimes a shrine.

However, in Roman Catholicism, a Christian altar is "a table upon which the eucharistic sacrifice is celebrated ..."

And a shrine is "a church or other sacred place to which numerous members of the faithful make pilgrimage for a special reason of piety, with the approval of the local ordinary." (Or the bishops in the case of a national shrine, or the Holy See in the case of an international one).

Within the scope of Roman Catholic doctrine, then, is it permissible to call these home prayer-centers altars or shrines of any sort? If not, what terms have been used by Roman Catholic Officials or Documents to refer to such a space in the home?

Prayer Corner

The term "prayer corner" is used in the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

See Part 4, Section 1, Chapter 2, Article 3, 2691

Catechism Compendium:

  One can pray anywhere but the choice of an appropriate place is not a
  matter of indifference when it comes to prayer. The church is the
  proper place for liturgical prayer and Eucharistic adoration. Other
  places also help one to pray, such as a “prayer corner” at home, a
  monastery or a shrine.

Catechism:

  For personal prayer, this can be a "prayer corner" with the Sacred Scriptures and icons, in order to be there, in secret, before our
  Father [Matt 6:6]. In a Christian family, this kind of little oratory fosters
  prayer in common.

The verse cited (Matthew 6:6) is as follows in the New American Bible:

  But when you pray, go to your inner room, close the door, and pray to
  your Father in secret. And your Father who sees in secret will repay
  you.

This suggests that "prayer corner" is a loose-fitting term for an "inner room" in one's home in order to foster private prayer.

According to the Catechism, a "prayer corner" may include Scripture and icons, is the private home counterpart to a shrine or monastery, and may be used to foster common family prayer.

I would also point out that the term is in quotes in the catechism, and is a rather "quaint" term. This suggests to me that the term is being specifically contrasted against more "official" modes of prayer. The humble prayer of a family in private is designated by a term with like humility.


How much variation is in the Hebrew language of the Old Testament? Is there a difference in the Hebrew between the earliest Old Testament books and the relatively newer books? In other words: are there linguistic differences (syntax, grammar, word usage) in older books like Job, when compared with more recent books like Isaiah?

I am particularly interested in this because of any light it might shed on our modern process of periodically updating our translations to keep pace with current usage of language. Languages are never static. The writing, editing and compiling of the Old Testament canon spans a vast window of time -- long enough for the language(s) it was written in to change dramatically. Do we have any reference points that show how much the language usage was updated during the various redacting processes that the various books went through?

Overview of Hebrew history
Although not specifically asked for, it is profitable to start with a brief overview of the history of the Hebrew language.  For more details on the subject, see A History of the Hebrew Language by A. Sáenz-Badillo (from which the following information comes).
Hebrew is a member of the Semitic language family, a group of about 70 languages historically spoken in Northeast Africa and the Middle East.  According to the field of Linguistics, the Semitic languages derive from a single mother language, labelled as Proto-Semitic.  Although unattested from archaeology, linguists have largely reconstructed the language and believe it was spoken throughout the region from 3500-3000 BC.
Around 3000 BC, the oldest Semitic language, Akkadian split off in the east.  The northwestern (which includes Hebrew) and southern branches split around 2000 BC.  The Canaanite languages in the north then diverged from Arabic in the central region.  In the far north, the cultural center of Damascus eventually enabled the local dialect, Aramaic, to become the lingua franca of the north.  The lack of a major political center to the west meant that none of the other Canaanite dialects achieved dominance.  Thus each area had its own language, although they were mostly mutually intelligible.  (Biblical Hebrew shares ~80% words in common with nearby languages such as Phoenician and Ugaritic.)
It is hard to say exactly when Hebrew became a distinct language.  The oldest accepted inscription dates from 1000 BC, but the archaeological record for the second millennium BC is pretty sparse in the area, so it could have diverged earlier than that.  The oldest form of Hebrew is generally labelled proto-Hebrew or Archaic Biblical Hebrew (ABH).  Conventional wisdom is that this form is represented in the Bible in only a few poetic passages.
The form of Hebrew used from ~950 BC until the start of the Babylonian exile in 586 BC is known as Classical Biblical Hebrew (CBH), Standard Biblical Hebrew (SBH), or Early Biblical Hebrew (EBH).  During this period, the language shows minimal outside influence.  For example, there are few attested loanwords.  This form of Hebrew is certainly found in the Bible, although there are disagreements about just how much of the Old Testament is written in EBH.  (More on this in later sections.)
The period from the Babylonian exile until about Alexander conquered Judah in 332 BC saw the use of what is known as Late Biblical Hebrew (LBH).  This period shows influence from Persian and to a lesser degree Aramaic.  The majority of the Old Testament is usually assigned to this period. (Again, see below for a critique of this position and further details.)
Hebrew from 332 BC until the destruction of the Temple in 70 AD is labeled Dead-Sea-Scroll Hebrew, so named because it is primarily attested to from the Dead Sea Scrolls.  This period saw heavy influence from Aramaic and some influence from Greek.
The final period of Ancient Hebrew is known as Mishnaic Hebrew and lasts until the 2nd or 3rd century AD, when the language ceased to exist as a spoken language.  Hebrew remained a scholarly language, however, leading to Medieval Hebrew.  Finally, a resurgence in interest in the language in the 19th century led to the creation of Modern Hebrew which again became a living language, culminating in the (re-)creation of the Israeli state in 1948.
It should be noted that the above distinctions and especially the start/end dates are for convenience - people obviously did not just stop speaking a language one day.  Language change is a slow process that is only observable in retrospect.
Difficulties of dating the Old Testament
Having now outlined different periods of Hebrew, one might think it would now be easy to get a rough idea when a book was written.  One would be wrong, as there are several significant difficulties in dating based on linguistics. Among them, Craig Davis (Dating the Old Testament) lists:

The corpus to compare from is extremely small.  In particular, the entirety of the extra-Biblical pre-exhilic text amounts to a couple pages worth.  This makes it very difficult to say how much variation is from different authorial styles and genres and how much is from language change.

It is possible that later writers purposely imitated the style of the older, accepted texts.

There is solid evidence that it was acceptable for scribes to update the text, at minimum in regards to spelling and possibly also word choice and grammar, for a period of time.

Our understanding of the language's history has been derived primarily from the estimated (on other grounds) dates of Biblical books, making linguistic arguments "confirming" such dates in danger of exhibiting circular reasoning.

To this Gary Rendsburg ("Late Biblical Hebrew and the Date of 'P'"), based on the work of Joshua Blau, adds:

The difference between different Biblical texts is unexpectedly slight.  That is, the language is largely uniform despite surely spanning at least several hundred years.

Proposed differences
To simplify things a bit, scholars generally divide the Old Testament into just two categories: Early Biblical Hebrew and Late Biblical Hebrew.  In 1976, Robert Polzin (Late Biblical Hebrew) attempted to systematically define the differences between EBH and LBH by comparing Chronicles with Kings & Samuel.  The approach has some merit: Chronicles being significantly more recent than Kings/Samuel is one of the few relative dates that don't rely on presuppositions and\or the reliability/historicity of internal evidence (Chronicles is certainly dependent on Kings/Samuel).  It also has a significant weakness: Chronicles copies wholesale from Kings in places and also says it is utilizing other sources, so it is hard to say how much of the language is contemporary and how much comes from sources.
Anyway, Polzin's work attracted a significant amount of attention, so it is worth looking at his conclusions.  He proposes 19 differences in LBH as compared to EBH based on his study.
A. Differences not from Aramaic influence:

Radically reduced use of 'et with pronominal suffix.
Increased use of 'et before noun in the nominative case: 'et emphatic.
Expression of possession by prospective pronominal suffix with a following noun, or lə plus noun, or sel plus noun.
Collectives are construed as plurals almost without exception.
A preference for plural forms of words and phrases which the earlier
languages uses in the singular.
The use of an infinitive absolute in immediate connection with a finite verb of the same stem is almost completely lacking in the Chronicler; the infinitive absolute used as a command is not found at all in Chronicles.
The Chronicler's use of the infinitive construct with bə, and kə; as Segal (l927) points out, the later books of the OT show less frequent use of the infinitive construct with bə and kə even in the cases when LBH does use the introductory infinitive with bə, and kə, the usage is different from earlier constructions.
Repetition of a singular word = Latin quivis (to express distributive).
The Chronicler shows a merging (i.e., a tendency to replace) the third feminine plural suffix with the third masculine plural suffix.
The first person singular imperfect with -ah (the lengthened imperfect or cohortative) is found but once in the Chronicler's language.
The use of wayhi greatly recedes in Chronicles and in the younger language.
In appositional relationship the Chronicler prefers to place the substantive before the numeral and almost always puts it in the plural; this is contrary to the older practice of putting the number first.
The Chronicler shows an increased use of the infinitive construct with lə.

B. Differences from Aramaic influence:

In citing material and its weight or measure, the Chronicler often has the order, material weighed or measured + its weight or measure (+ number).
lə is used often as a mark of the accusative.
In min 'from', the nun is often not assimilated before a noun without an article.
The Chronicler uses the emphatic lə before the last element of a list.
In an attributive usage, rabbim is twice placed before the substantive.
The use of 'ad lə, [for 'up to', 'until'].

Few, if any, scholars have accepted all the criteria as being valid markers of EBH vs LBH, as opposed to authorial style (or nothing at all).  However, many have accepted at least some of them.  For example, Rendsburg finds A1, A5, B2, & B3 to be correct; A2, A4, A6, A11, A13, & B5 to be unconvincing and/or likely to be from authorial style; A7 & A8 to be mixed (true for some expressions, invalid for others); and A3, A9, A10, A12, B1, & B4 to be completely invalid.  (For a more detailed statistical analysis of Polzin's conclusions, see "Dating Second Zechariah: A
Linguistic Reexamination.")
Subsequent researchers (Avi Hurvitz is a leader in this area) have come up with other markers by broadening the number of texts for comparison in each category.  Unfortunately, using more texts to form hypotheses leaves less texts to test the hypotheses generated and creates more danger of conclusions thus being entirely circular.
More recent work
The 2003 volume Biblical Hebrew: Studies in Chronology and Typology (ed. Ian Young) attempted to provide an overview of current scholarship by presenting essays from people with a variety of views on Biblical Hebrew.  In the process, the work reignited debate in the field about how valid the existing paradigm really was.
The first half of the the work presents the views of those who support the "standard" chronological framework.  These essays primarily focus on loanwords and "Aramaicisms" to support the critical view of most of the Old Testament being dated late.  At least one contributor, Frank Polak, does make an argument on grammar, but it isn't the dominant tactic.  This suggests to me that efforts to define clear, grammatical difference between EBH and LBH, like those outlined in the previous section, have largely failed to produce persuasive evidence.
The second half of the work presents essays by scholars who challenge the "standard" chronological framework.  These authors don't find any substantial difference between Biblical texts (in contrast with, for example, noticeable differences between the Bible and the Dead Sea Scrolls).  They variously argue that this means that EBH continued to be used in literary circles in the post-exhilic times or that the language changes of the period were primarily phonetic and thus not reflected in the written text.
Further work by Young, Rezetko, and Ehrensvärd (Linguistic Dating of Biblical Texts) has proposed a new idea: the so-called EBH and LBH variations don't represent different time periods, but rather dialectal variants that co-existed throughout the Biblical period.  A chief tenant of their argument is that texts typically labelled as LBH almost universally contain some so-called EBH elements, a fact that supporters of the chronological framework readily admit but attribute to intentional "archaicizing" or "patriarchal coloring".
They challenge whether the accepted LBH features actually mean anything or are just the result of statistical anomalies.  Given a small corpus and a predetermination that certain texts are late/early, there are bound to be some features that occur much more often in one set than the other, even if there is no real difference in the language used.  They note that conclusions about dating are often circular arguments. For example, Job is supposed to be a late work, so the small amount of late elements in it proves the author was trying to imitate earlier styles but failed to do so completely, while Kings is supposed to be an early work, so the small amount of late elements it in must be from later scribal changes.  (Their analysis shows that every book of the Old Testament contains at least some so-called LBH features.)
Young et al. suggest such data is more easily explained by multiple dialects of Hebrew being in active use rather than by authors imitating old grammar.  From there, they strongly challenge the idea that the amount of loanwords in a text is a reliable indication of date.  For example, they show that many works universally dated late have few or no loanwords.  They also challenge how reliably one can really determine loanwords from Persian, noting that certain words in early texts could be considered loanwords based on having the same form, but are rejected as such because borrowing is considered impossible for the time period.  (They also say that dating by Aramaicisms is already out-of-style, so spend little time on it.)
Naturally, the work of Young et al. has been challenged by those who hold other views.  For example, the 2012 compilation Diachrony in Biblical Hebrew is largely a response to Young's critiques, featuring essay that seek to defend the chronological framework with more vigorous methodology.  The dialects hypothesis certainly has not displaced the chronology framework, but the work has had a noticeable effect.  Specifically, researchers are generally more cautious about drawing conclusions on linguistic evidence.  For example, Robert Holmstedt (who supports the chronological framework) writes:

In a nutshell, while we [Holmstedt and John Cook] agree with the weaker hypothesis that texts cannot be dated absolutely by linguistic means, we disagree with the stronger hypotheses is that no dating at all is possible and argue that the relative dating of features, and the texts in which they cluster, is possible if the analysis is carried out with a sound linguistic and philological methodology. ("Biblical Hebrew Diachrony (continued, again)")

A very recent work, Early Biblical Hebrew, Late Biblical Hebrew, and Linguistic Variability takes yet another approach, seeking to explain the observed differences in style via sociolinguistics.  Author Dong-Hyuk Kim concludes that while to texts to exhibit changes that appear to be time-dependent, it is virtually impossible to use those clues to date a given work because it is impossible to say whether a given author was an early or late adopter of a particular feature.
In summary, I think it is fair to say that the question of how much linguistic difference between books of the Old Testament reflects language change is an open question with no strong consensus one way or another.
Conclusion
To directly answer the question of "How much variation is in the Hebrew Language of the Old Testament?" the answer is not much (after controlling for genre differences - naturally poetry uses quite different syntax than prose.)  Biblical scholars have proposed dividing the Biblical language into two basic categories - Early (pre-exhilic) Biblical Hebrew and Late (post-exhilic) Biblical Hebrew.  A number of markers have been proposed, but there is a wide variation between scholars as to which constitute useful markers and which are false positives.  Nonetheless, for a while this distinction was generally accepted as valid.
More recently, the framework has come under attack on the basis of it being largely based on circular reasoning - text dates were largely decided before the markers were identified and those dates were used to search for the linguistic differences.  Furthermore, the small corpus makes any conclusions quite tentative.  Thus, there is significant doubt about the applicability of using linguistic clues to date the Old Testament.
That is not to say Hebrew did not evolve over the Biblical period - it certainly did.  But, the change was probably not very substantial and what change there was is not well reflected in the Bible because of a combination of literary Hebrew not matching spoken Hebrew, authors possibly using archaic forms on purpose, and scribes possibly updating texts over time.
Sources

"Biblical Hebrew Diachrony (continued, again)" (2011) by Robert Holmstedt

Biblical Hebrew: Studies in Chronology and Typology (2003) by Ian Young (ed.)

Dating the Old Testament (2007) by Craig Davis

Early Biblical Hebrew, Late Biblical Hebrew, and Linguistic Variability (2013) by Dong-Hyuk Kim

A History of the Hebrew Language (1993) by A.Sáenz-Badillos

Late Biblical Hebrew (1976) by Robert Polzin

"Late Biblical Hebrew and the Date of 'P'" (1980) by Gary Rendsburg

Linguistic Dating of Biblical Texts (2009) by Ian Young, Robert Rezetko, and Martin Ehrensvaerd


Why are there no longer large-scale miracles from God? I'll put my frustrations as concisely as I can. I would really appreciate all below points being addressed to some extent.

Why are things not the way they were?

In the old testament, literally millions watched a sea split in two, bread fall from heaven, the earth torn asunder while rebels fell into it, fortress walls crumble on prophetic queue, fire from heaven on more than one occasion, and a number of other miracles (dead raised, axe head floating, leper healed on prophetic queue, etc.) which do not happen anymore...ever.

The prophets of old were legit. They said "x will happen". "x" was very specific and very significant and it was a big deal for their own necks if "x" did not happen. e.g. "Tomorrow the dogs will lick up your blood in this very spot." (somewhere in Kings I think). And boom. It happened. Modern "prophets"? They're panzy and soft. They "prophecy" that "new beginnings will come" and "your family will have a spiritual revival" etc.

I know that Jesus said "the law and the prophets were until John." But why? And why then did John later mention the 2 prophets of revelation (the 2 witnesses)?

Some say that God demands faith and that's just the way it works. We get no "solid proof". But you don't need much faith when a sea is split in two and opens a trail for you, right after a wall of fire spawns itself to separate you from your enemies.

Jesus said "this generation will not be given a sign" when the pharisees asked for one. If I can be frank, Jesus had already given quite a few signs before their request, and after. Voices from heaven, earthquake at crucifixion, dead raised, many many sick healed, transfiguration...

My point is, why has God left the scene of humanity for the past 2000 years, apparently?

It seriously leads one to believe that the ancient stories never happened. But I for one continue in the dilemma because I've researched the Bible quite extensively, and at the least it is quite a legit historical book. The sheer detail in all these stories leads one to believe that they are legit stories. But the sheer absence of such events nowadays leads one to believe they're not.

My struggle would be a lot easier if I watched the Red Sea split in two. You see?

Are we ("this generation", post-Christ) just being subjected to the biggest test of faith in humanity, per Jesus' words, "When the Son of Man returns, will he find faith on the earth?"

And finally -- I have seen documentaries on modern "miracles". First, they pale in comparison to the above-mentioned, and second, they are highly dubious. They are fluffy and questionable, much like those modern "prophecies".

All the miracles haven't gone, rather The Miracle has come.

  John 1:14 (ESV)
  14  And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth.

All your questions come down to this. The incarnation of Christ changed the tangible state of our relationship to God. The primary job of the prophets was to inform the people about God and his ways and point them towards the salvation found only in Him. When Christ finally came, there was left nothing more that needed revealing.

  Colossians 1:19 (ESV)
  19  For in him all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell,

The job that remains is not the job of revelation that the prophets had but  one of declaration. We proclaim that which has already been revealed.

  Acts 4:20 (ESV)
  20  for we cannot but speak of what we have seen and heard.”

The miracles of the Old Testament were given as signs to validate the truth of the prophets message and that it was indeed from God. Then God himself came and gave the greatest sign of all.

  Acts 2:32 (ESV)
  32  This Jesus God raised up, and of that we all are witnesses.

If you do not believe in the resurrection based on the evidence you have been provided, no miracle will help you.

  My struggle would be a lot easier if I watched the Red Sea split in two. You see?

No, actually, according to the Bible it would not be. Do you seriously think that you are somehow superior to the Israelites? Do you think the nature of man has evolved to be more rational, more pure? Those that watched the Red Sea part and walked across on dry land quickly fell into dis-belief. They promptly doubted God's good intentions and ability to save. You are no different and your faith would not be any easier for having watched it in your lifetime.

  Psalm 78:32 (ESV)
  32  In spite of all this, they still sinned;
         despite his wonders, they did not believe.

The people of Jesus time made the same demand that you are trying to make. You would do well to head Jesus' answer.

  Matthew 12:38-40 (ESV)
  38  Then some of the scribes and Pharisees answered him, saying, “Teacher, we wish to see a sign from you.” 39  But he answered them, “An evil and adulterous generation seeks for a sign, but no sign will be given to it except the sign of the prophet Jonah. 40  For just as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the great fish, so will the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.

If the resurrection of Christ from the grave is not enough to convince you, no supernatural intervention into your space and time will help. Those who were in a position to know best if the resurrection was a fraud were willing to go to their deaths proclaiming that it was legitimate. You have their testimony.

  John 20:31 (ESV)
  31  but these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.

According to the Bible, you do not need a miracle. You have what you need to believe, you lack only faith and that is something you cannot conjure up on your own.

  Ephesians 2:8-9 (ESV)
  8  For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, 9  not a result of works, so that no one may boast.

So pray — not that God would show you a miracle for he has done that in spades — but that he would grant you faith.

Endnotes:

This answer glosses over a number of issues that are bound to come up. The apostles also did miracles that were used to validate their witness and the authority with which they spoke (which is part of why their words are added to the Old Testament to make the canon of Scripture we have today). It also avoids the issue of New Testament gifts and whether it's possible that some gifts continued to be used as miraculous signs after the incarnation. While those issues surely deserve examination, they must be secondary to the realization that the main miracle happened and that we are have been given enough evidence to believe without a miracle. After we come to grips with the fact that our unbelief is sin whether we've seen a miracle with our own eyes or not, then the other issues can be discussed. I focused the body of this answer on the main story line. Get that straight and the other pieces will be easier to fit in the puzzle. Miss the main plot and they will only serve to confuse and confound.


According to Protestants, what is the biblical basis of Jesus being "one substance with the father"? The only place in scripture where the relationship of the substance of Jesus with the substance of God that I can find in the scriptures is To the Hebrews:1:3 which actually says that they are of similar substance:

  Heb 1:3  He is the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint
  of his nature, and he upholds the universe by the word of his power.
  After making purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of
  the Majesty on high,

So where did they come up with the notion, according to "sola scriptura" Protestants?

Introduction

In language, words convey a meaning or idea. Much like the word Trinity conveys a theological concept that most protestants believe is found in scripture, the word "Trinity" itself is never found. This word was coined to describe an idea which previously had no accurate descriptor.

Similarly, while the word ὁμοούσιος (homooúsios) which means in greek "Of similar substance" may not appear in scripture, the idea does. And this is not an altogether uncommon occurrence with words like transubstantiation, rapture, consubstantial, predestination and many other theological terms not actually being found in scripture that instead may (or may not) be found as concepts only.

Background: The Arian Controversy

So where does this word come from?  As it turns out, while the idea may come from scripture, the term that was selected to encompass this idea in the early church was a response to a specific teaching being most famously made by a priest named Arius. Arius taught that Jesus was a creation, stating

  If the Father begat the Son, he that was begotten had a beginning of existence: and from this it is evident, that there was a time when the Son was not. It therefore necessarily follows, that he had his substance from nothing.

In short, Arius was teaching that Jesus was ὁμοιούσιος (Homoioúsios) or "of a similar substance" to God. These teachings began to drive a rift in the Church, so emperor Constantine, who had legalized Christianity in the Edict of Milan convened a council to settle the matter.

Concerns of the Council

The use of the root -ὅμοιος (oúsios) clearly had philsophical/theological significance within Roman culture, which was undoubtedly influenced by platonic discussions of metaphysics and creatio ex nihilo, creatio ex materia, and creatio ex deo. In other words, this council was discussing how to formulate their theology in the context of the conversations and epiphanies of Roman philosophers. But, to extend the allegory of Plato's Cave, the terminology used - ὅμοιος (oúsios) is merely a shadow cast by ideas that are in scripture - the jargon are not the source of the idea itself.

For modern readers the question then is: Did Jesus claim to be

The same as God (The same substance)
Something like God (Similar in substance)
Nothing like a god or God at all (Of an altogether different substance)

And accordingly, within the council there were three major viewpoints:

ὁμοούσιος (Homooúsios), the position of Athanasius of Alexandria, writer of the Athenasian Creed which was similar to the Nicene Creed. He and his followers adhered to the prevailing view of the council which was reflected in their final statement, the Nicene Creed.
ὁμοιούσιος (Homoioúsios, note the one letter difference) (True Arianism) and ὅμοιος (hómoios) (the Acacians sect of Arianism). †
ἑτεροούσιος (Heterooúsios), the position of The Anomoean sect of Arianism

As you can see, the three viewpoints correspond to the three possible conclusions on the deity (or lack thereof as it may be) of Christ. Essentially, this just comes back to the very basic question of the Trinity and the question "Who was Jesus and who did he claim to be". As such, I will not re-hash here the discussion of whether or not the Son is Triune and if there is a Biblical basis for this as this topic has been well covered here on Christianity.SE.

The aftermath

While it is tempting to believe that Constantine influenced the decision of the council so that it resulted in a Trinitarian statement, despite only two dissenters (not including Arius) to the Nicene Creed, the emperor's cousin Eusebius of Nicomedia persuaded the emperor to exile the major proponents of the prevailing view of the council. This indicates the Emperor's disfavor with the result of the council and his opposition to the Nicene Creed.

Furthermore, Emperor Valens, one of the emperors after Constantine was a noted Arianist and the persecution of Christianity was resumed under Emperor Julian until Emperor Theodosius I made Nicene Christianity the official state religion in the Edict of Thessalonica. All of these instances provided opportunities for the church to change to Arian beliefs or revive discussions should the Nicene Creed have been published disingenuously or under coercion.

Conclusion

While the actual word ὁμοούσιος (Homooúsios; of the same substance) doesn't have a basis in scripture, adherents to the five solas and Triniteriansm believe that the idea of Jesus being the same as the Father does come from scripture (scriptura) alone (sola).

† Within Ariansim, there were actually three sects, but I have lumped together  ὁμοιούσιος (Homoioúsios) and ὅμοιος (hómoios). These two groups distinguished each other in that the Homoioúsions thought Jesus was of similar substance, while Hómoeans believed Jesus was just similar. They simply didn't buy the philosophy that things had to be created from a substance in the first place, and so their references were void of substance. Functionally however if Jesus is similar to the Father, he is of similar deity of substance ὁμοιούσιος (Homoioúsios) or he is nothing like God and is therefore ἑτεροούσιος (Heterooúsios). As you can see, this clearly breaks down logically, hence why they are lumped together. This helps my second list of 3 correspond to my first list of 3.


What is the meaning of the Psalm 37:29? What does Psalm 37:29 mean when it said "The righteous themselves will possess the earth, and they will reside forever upon it.” Does this mean an earthly paradise that God has promised to    restore?

Theologically speaking, the first two verses of this Psalm give away the whole point:

  1 Do not fret because of those who are evil
     or be envious of those who do wrong;
  2 for like the grass they will soon wither,
     like green plants they will soon die away.

It is so tempting to see "the wicked prosper," and forget that even Jesus said that his Father causes "the rain to fall on the just and unjust alike."  The author of Ecclesiates frets that the wicked propser. The author of Psalm 73 cries out with the same question.

Habbakuk even demands that God answer, "How long, O Lord?!"

  How long, LORD, must I call for help,
     but you do not listen?
  Or cry out to you, “Violence!”
     but you do not save?
  3 Why do you make me look at injustice?
     Why do you tolerate wrongdoing?
  Destruction and violence are before me;
     there is strife, and conflict abounds.
  4 Therefore the law is paralyzed,
     and justice never prevails.
  The wicked hem in the righteous,
     so that justice is perverted.

The Psalmist is not blind to the present situation. Indeed, he is all too aware of the problem that doing good doesn't seem to help out!  As we would say nowadays, no good deed goes unpunished.

But the Psalmist also knows what Peter will put into words later on (2 Peter 3:8-9)

  But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day. 9 The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. Instead he is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance.

It may not be today, but it will happen.  There will be a time when the evil are defeated.  And when that occurs, it will be as Jesus says in the Sermon on the Mount:

  Blessed are the meek, for they will inherit the earth.

The righteous - the meek - those who could match injustice with power, but will not - they will eventually get it all. In God's time, the unrighteous will be destroyed, and the just will have everything that's left.

Is the planet on which we stand? Well, that might be part of it - but the point is that evil will be defeated, and the righteous will prevail, if only we stick to God.

It's going to feel like an eternity, but justice will be served.


Is there any truth to the story that Martin Luther claimed he "bought" hell from a priest? We have this in our country, I googled it but didn’t find something like this, just found that Martin Luther had something to do with Indulgences.
So is it true or is just some nice writing and good enough relation to Martin Luther?
Rough Translation:

In medieval times, priests sold pieces of heaven to people for a hundred coins, and people bought them.
A wise man was frustrated that people were buying them so he found a solution.
He went to a priest and asked, "How much is all of hell?
The priest looked surprised and asked, "Hell?"
"Yes," he said.
The priest without hesitation said: "Fifty coins."
The man gave him the coins and took the certificate.
He went and put it in town square, and said: "I have bought all of hell and I won't let any of you in."
This man was Martin Luther.

I cannot verify that this specific incident is historical, but it is built on solid fact and is "true" in the sense of legend. The religious and social setting is certainly accurate and it may well have happened. More on this below.

Theology of Indulgences

"Buying pieces of heaven" most likely refers to the Roman Catholic Church's tradition of selling Indulgences. This tradition was based on the belief that a faithful Christian whose sins were forgiven still suffers the consequence of sin and:

  must be purified either here on earth, or after death in the state
  called Purgatory. This purification frees one from what is called the
  "temporal punishment" of sin (Catechism of the Catholic Church).

From Wikipedia

  It may reduce the "temporal punishment for sin" after death, in the
  state or process of purification called purgatory.

Wikipedia's article is based on Edward N. Peters in A Modern Guide to Indulgences: Rediscovering This Often-Misinterpreted Teaching and the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

"Buying a Piece of Heaven"

Thus, when parishioners paid one hundred coins for an Indulgence, they believed they were "buying a piece of heaven." The parishioners were illiterate peasants who barely had enough for the necessities of life. Martin Luther felt they were manipulated by the church to pay for their own salvation and the salvation of their loved ones; he was outraged. Luther was an educated priest who could read the Bible. He believed salvation was free and that the Church was ripping off the peasants to line its own pockets.

It is not for me to judge the RCC's motivations and theology regarding Indulgences. However, judging from the Catechism of the Catholic Church, the concept of "buying a piece of heaven" is a crude interpretation of the Church's theology, so crude as to be called a misunderstanding. All the same, it was possibly the only way the illiterate peasant farmers could understand the complex theology of Indulgences, familiar as they might have been with buying a piece of land. From there, it would have been but a tiny step to say that Luther "bought hell"; it's merely bringing in Luther's "free salvation" theology in the language of Indulgences.

The Nature of a Folk Legend

As stated, I cannot verify that this story is historically true, though "buying hell" would have spoken to the people's fear of hell and their obligation to buy Indulgences for salvation. Janez Usenik, a writer on Quora, calls this story "an anecdote circulating in some places" and:

  fictional propaganda story that meant to demonstrate how protestants
  were wiser and better than the catholics

Usenik provides no documentation but I remember my father telling the story when I was growing up in the 1960's; he may have read it somewhere since we were Mennonite and not Lutheran. That is the nature of legends; they are stories that are told and retold down through the generations, sometimes written down, but can never be actually documented and pinned to a specific time and place.

In The Guardian's article Thank Martin Luther for exposing the church’s great salvation sell-off, Giles Fraser may also be referring to this story, though he does not say it in so many words. He mentions a "letter of protest."

  Martin Luther was an unknown monk in an ecclesiastical backwater
  before he wrote Albert a letter of protest. People in the pews were
  being ripped off. And worse still, the church was twisting authentic
  Christian theology for financial gain. Salvation wasn’t for the church
  to buy and sell. First, it was free. And second, it was entirely the
  gift of God. The letter was sent on 31 October 1517, and, as legend
  has it, nailed to the door of All Saints, Wittenberg.

It is unclear whether "the letter of protest" was a cover letter to accompany the 95 Theses, or whether Fraser called the 95 Theses themselves a letter of protest. The 95 Theses are well-documented and historical, according to the Waterloo Lutheran Seminary where I studied in the early 2000's.

95 Theses

From Wikipedia:

  The Ninety-five Theses or Disputation on the Power of Indulgences
  is a list of propositions for an academic disputation written in 1517
  by Martin Luther, professor of moral theology at the University of
  Wittenberg, Germany. They advance Luther's positions against what he
  saw as the abuse of the practice of clergy selling plenary
  indulgences, which were certificates believed to reduce the temporal
  punishment in purgatory for sins committed by the purchasers or their
  loved ones. (Emphasis added.)

This ties together the idea of buying Indulgences for money, and that a certificate represents (is) the Indulgence. In other words, the story in the Question says the priest gave Martin Luther a certificate when he paid for Hell. My point: It was normal for the priest to give the purchaser of an Indulgence a certificate upon purchase. We might call it a proof of purchase.

For more background on the religious situation of the time, go to this page and scroll down to "The 95 Theses: Martin Luther Challenges the Church."


Does Jude 1:9 mean that Moses went to hell? Jude 1:9

  Yet Michael the archangel, in contending with the devil, when he
  disputed about the body of Moses, dared not bring against him a
  reviling accusation, but said, “The Lord rebuke you!”

What!? Michael and Satan are disputing about the body of Moses? What does this mean? Did Moses go to hell because he hit the rock twice and not just once as was ordered? What's going on here?

This question presumes that the devil only exists in hell, which is clearly a false presumption.

If we look at Jesus' temptation in the wilderness (in Matthew 4:1-11), we see that Satan exists here on earth as well:

  Matthew 4:1-3 (NIV)
  Then Jesus was led by the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted by the devil. After fasting forty days and forty nights, he was hungry. The tempter came to him and said, “If you are the Son of God, tell these stones to become bread.”

It's clear and obvious that the devil exists here on Earth from the above passage.  However, if you read the full passage, it's even more clear.

Therefore, this verse does not indicate that Moses went to hell.


How is Derek Prince viewed by mainstream Christianity The goal here is NOT to compare preachers/pastors, and create arguments.

This question came from the following:

I found a book on Amazon on a topic on Christianity that I like
the author is Derek Prince
I know nothing about the person
I looked at Wikipedia, it's not obvious to me if this person is mainstream christianity or heretic

To a first approximation, I don't know how to judge a book besides by the reputation of the author.

Thus, I'm curious of how Derek Prince is viewed in mainstream Christianity (as compared to the likes of John Piper, John MacArthur, Paul Washer).

Thanks!

When I was young I was tormented by many false teachers so I looked the guy up for you. Derek Prince looks like a not so bad guy among some pretty bad ones.  Yet he also seems pretty bad under the names you provided.

As an Arminian with a very strong almost hyper Charismatic bent and bizarre over emphasis and horrible obsession with demonic activity, you can be sure people like John Piper and John MacArthur would throw up red flags all over.

To show how this guy is at his worst he claims to have cast seventy some demons out of a woman and each demon had a name of a false doctrine, and one was called 'eternal security.' Well that is more or less saying Calvinism is demonic and Piper and MacArthur are in bondage to demonic heresies.

Anyway safe to say, I would stick to more mainstream people as you mentioned. They would not get along with this guy. To supplement people like Piper and MacArthur I would also find out what older Bible commentaries they like to read and read one. Christian books are ok, but Christian Bible commentaries are generally much, much better.

Note: I found almost your same question and a few insightful responses here while I was looking.


Why is so hard to find a print version of ASV bible? I started to study the bible recently, and I wanted to buy a print copy of the American Standard Version. The bible is available online but I wanted a print version as a backup. To my surprise the bible is out of print. I looked online for print copies and only found one or two sellers. Why is this bible not widely available in print form? Is it because of the expired copyright? The KJV is in the public domain outside of the U.K and is available in print form. It is difficult to find a second hand copy as well, even though I understand that millions of copies were printed in the past.

The primary reasons that this translation is relatively difficult to find in hard copy are:

It was never especially popular to begin with
It was superseded many years ago by much more popular translations

Initial popularity
The ASV is based on the English Revision (1881–85), a version meant to revise the King James Version for use in the Church of England. However, people continued to prefer the King James, and so the English Revision was not particularly popular, and neither was its cousin the ASV (1901).  H. L. Wilmington writes:

Although it enjoyed better permanent reception than the [English Revision], it still has not seriously cut into the lead of the King James Version. (Guide to the Bible, 809)

Interestingly, in part because of its use of the word "Jehovah," the ASV did achieve popularity with one group, the Jehovah's Witnesses.
Subsequent translations
The ASV's popularity declined even further as new translations appeared.  The Revised Standard Version (1952) dropped the Elizabethan style of the ASV, making it more accessible.  It was the first serious challenger to the KJV, and was used by Protestants and Catholics alike.
Not long after, other translations appeared based on the ASV.  The New American Standard Bible (1971), for example, quickly displaced the RSV in conservative circles due to perceived textual issues, and it is still a top-ten Bible translation.  Similarly, the Jehovah's Witnesses largely moved on to the New World Translation (1961).
Concluding thoughts
One of the main reasons people today use the ASV is due to its public domain status: it is freely available in many Bible software packages and online.
However, this popularity does not carry over to print copies.  Relatively few used copies exist because the ASV failed to supplant the KJV early on, and it was largely replaced by more modern translations over 40 years ago.
Michael C. Armour, in A Newcomer's Guide to the Bible, describes how the ASV simply didn't find a niche—it is too different from the KJV for purists, but too similar to it for most modern readers:

Due to the great popularity of the King James Version, with its Elizabethan English, the translators of the ERV and the ASV felt they needed to retain the Elizabethan style.  This decision, unfortunately, limited the period of time in which these two versions would be influential.  Even though both were quite popular prior to the Second World War, neither is widely read any more.  There style is too antiquated for most modern readers, and those who like the Elizabethan style have shown a preference to continue using the King James Version. (240)


The Blessing of Herbs on the Feast of the Assumption? Is there any confirmed historical evidence as to the origins to support the tradition that the Blessing of Herbs and Fruit is associated with the Feast of the Assumption?

It's currently celebrated as a holiday in Bavaria and Saarsland in Germany

There are special traditions about trees and plants on the Feast of the Assumption of Mary. The first ripe walnuts or hazelnuts are called Mary's nuts (Mariennuesse) and are given to children. People may go out into the fields and meadows to collect herbs with medicinal and culinary properties.

https://www.timeanddate.com/holidays/germany/assumption

The Vatican registry acknowledges the tradition as a legitimate Christianization of a pagan tradition.

In the Germanic countries, the custom of blessing herbs is associated with 15 August. This custom, received into the Rituale Romanum(200), represents a clear example of the genuine evangelization of pre-Christian rites and beliefs: one must turn to God, through whose word "the earth produced vegetation: plants bearing seeds in their several kinds, and trees bearing fruit with their seed inside in their several kinds"(Gen 1, 12) in order to obtain what was formerly obtained by magic rites; to stem the damages deriving from poisonous herbs, and benefit from the efficacy of curative herbs.

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/ccdds/documents/rc_con_ccdds_doc_20020513_vers-direttorio_en.html

And it appears to be cataloged in some German almanac of superstitions (or maybe pious belief, I don't speak German much) in 1534

“an unser frawen himmelfart da tregt alle welt obs / büschel allerley kreuter / in die kirchen zu weihen / für alle sucht und plag uberlegt / bewert. Mit disen kreutern geschicht seer vil zauberey“

https://www.brauchtum.de/de/sommer/mariae-himmelfahrt.html
Which seems to mean that everyone would come to Churches on Our Lady of the Assumption's day and bring their herbs to ward of plagues and consecrate the churches.


Does God have a form as seen by John the Apostle? Revelation 4

  2 At once I was in the Spirit, and there before me was a throne in
  heaven with someone sitting on it. 3 And the one who sat there had the
  appearance of jasper and ruby. A rainbow that shone like an emerald
  encircled the throne.

  Revelation 5

  1 Then I saw in the right hand of him who sat on the throne a scroll
  with writing on both sides and sealed with seven seals.
  6 Then I saw a Lamb, looking as if it had been slain, standing at the
  center of the throne, encircled by the four living creatures and the
  elders. The Lamb had seven horns and seven eyes, which are the seven
  spirits of God sent out into all the earth. 7 He went and took the
  scroll from the right hand of him who sat on the throne.

Apostle John saw God in Heaven. God was sitting on a throne, had a glorious appearance and His right hand was holding a scroll. The Lamb, who was Jesus Christ, came and took the scroll from the right hand of God.

From this vision, can we conclude that God has a form like us?

Does God have a head, body, hands and legs so that God could sit down on a throne like us?

John 1:18

  "No man has seen God at any time; the only-begotten god who is at the Father’s side is the one who has explained Him."

It may be possible, however that the prophets may have seen aspects of him such as found in Ezekiel 1:26-28

  "Above the expanse that was over their heads was what looked like a sapphire stone, and it resembled a throne. Sitting on the throne up above was someone whose appearance resembled that of a human. I saw something glowing like electrum that was like a fire radiating from what appeared to be his waist and upward; and from his waist down, I saw something that resembled fire. There was a brilliance all around him like that of a rainbow in a cloud on a rainy day. That was how the surrounding brilliant light appeared. It was like the appearance of the glory of Jehovah. When I saw it, I fell facedown and began to hear the voice of someone speaking."

Daniel 7:9

  “I kept watching until thrones were set in place and the Ancient of Days sat down  His clothing was white like snow, and the hair of his head was like clean wool. His throne was flames of fire; its wheels were a burning fire."

An explanation of those visions can be found in Insight from the Scriptures VII

  "these descriptions employ metaphors and similes, likening Jehovah’s appearance to things known to humans—jewels, fire, rainbow. He is even described as though he had certain human features. While some scholars make a considerable issue out of what they call the anthropomorphological expressions found in the Bible—as references to God’s “eyes,” “ears,” “face” (1Pe 3:12), “arm” (Eze 20:33), “right hand” (Ex 15:6), and so forth—it is obvious that such expressions are necessary for the description to be humanly comprehensible. For Jehovah God to set down for us a description of himself in spirit terms would be like supplying advanced algebraic equations to persons having only the most elementary knowledge of mathematics, or trying to explain colors to a person born blind.—Job 37:23, 24. The so-called anthropomorphism's, therefore, are never to be taken literally, any more than other metaphoric references to God as a “sun,” “shield,” or “Rock.”

So drawing from that I am unsure whether John saw a physical form or was trying to relate in human terms what he saw. It is pretty hard to describe something to others when they have absolutely no knowledge of what it looks like or in this case relating a vision when there are no words to properly explain what you saw. Instead you try to use describing words to relate it to others. It's sort of like describing the wind. You can't see it, but you can describe things about it to make it understandable.

Moses "saw" God too. but then he left this warning to the people of Israel at Deuteronomy 4:15-18

  “Therefore, watch yourselves closely—since you did not see any form on the day Jehovah spoke to you in Ho′reb out of the middle of the fire— that you may not act corruptly by making for yourselves any carved image having the form of any symbol, the representation of male or female, the representation of any animal on the earth or the representation of any bird that flies in the sky, the representation of anything creeping on the ground or the representation of any fish in the waters under the earth.

Moses said that after he had seen God in Exodus 24:9-11

  Moses and Aaron, Na′dab and A·bi′hu, and 70 of the elders of Israel went up, and they saw the God of Israel. Under his feet was what seemed like a sapphire pavement, and it was as pure as the heavens themselves He did not harm the distinguished men of Israel, and they saw a vision of the true God and ate and drank.

As we do not have the proper information we then cannot make a conclusion. That is something we will have to ask God later I guess.


What is the role of human judgement given God's omnipotence and his plans For example, some people view evangelism to be "most effective" using one method, whislt another person might view it as "most effective" to use another method. Ie, our opinions (and hence actions) can bring us closer/further away from God.

Another example would be differing views of the interpretation of the bible. Our opinions can be correct and hence bring us closer to God, or they can be incorrect and take us away from him.

To what extent can we rely on our own human judgement to help build a better relationship with God?

Actually this is a very good question.
The first thing to realize is that relationship is a two-way street.

When someone became a Christian, he or she began with accepting Christ. That's no work on our part, we just receive the Gift of Salvation.

Afterwards, the Holy Spirit is now living inside of this believer, preparing him or her to become God's temple. This is the critical point when the relationship between this believer and God began.  Two outcomes can result:

If the believer undergoes discipleship (as the Lord commanded in Matthew 28:19) that points him in the direction of submission to the authority of the Scripture and the Holy Spirit and he took the time to consume the Bible regularly without being critical, he will grow closer to God as the result. Which makes his judgement no longer relies on his own wisdom or intellects, but rather it will be more and more influenced by God's will in this person's life.
If the believer got stuck or distracted in the various ways (lack of discipleship, "instant-sunday-school"-recruitment, extreme dependence on liturgies, doctrinal debates, guilt-driven social works, became a celebrity, you name it). He remains distant from God and never acquire that growing relationship, because he is too busy doing his Christian actions rather than immerse himself in the Scriptures. Or he is so critical in his Bible reading.  In this case, his judgement is not Godly, is still of himself, and not only being useless for himself, but can also mislead others.

Therefore you see, our (human or self) judgement does not propel us closer to God by itself, only the Holy Spirit can do that.
Only when we submit to His authority, we can start reading the Bible with the right attitude, which will cause our judgement to be more God-powered, and less self-powered.

Last thought: God's plan is designed to be executed by God-powered Christians. It was not meant to be shouldered by self-powered individuals.

Hope this helps. And thank you for the excellent question.