How have commentators historically viewed the death of the fetus in Exodus 21? The proper translation of Exodus 21:22 and the proper interpretation of Exodus have been battlegrounds in the contemporary abortion debate:

  When men strive together and hit a pregnant woman, so that her children come out [other translations say "she gives birth prematurely" or "she has a miscarriage"], but there is no harm, the one who hit her shall surely be fined, as the woman’s husband shall impose on him, and he shall pay as the judges determine. But if there is harm [KJV: "mischief"], then you shall pay life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe. (Exodus 21:22-25 ESV)

From the birth of the church (circa 33 AD) through the 18th century (a rather arbitrary cutoff point, but one I'd like to keep), what is an overview of how Nicene Christians have understood these verses? I want to know which prominent theologians understood these verses to imply that ending the life of the fetus was a capital offense, and which ones understood them to mean it was a finable offense.

Related Mi Yodeya question: The application of “harm” in Shemot (Exodus) 21:22
Related Biblical Hermeneutics question: Exodus 21:22: is “mischief” related only to the mother or to the baby, too?

Many commentators throughout church history have addressed this issue, though not all of them have done so while specifically citing or quoting the passage in question.  Thus, for example, we can't necessarily agree with modern editors when they tell us that the Didache (1st/2nd century) and the Apostolic Constitutions (4th century) were referring to Exodus 21:23:

thou shalt not murder a child by abortion nor kill that which is begotten (Didache)
Thou shall not slay thy child by causing abortion, nor kill that which is begotten (Apostolic Constitutions, 7-1)

The same thing is true of Tertullian's famous opposition to abortion.1 That being said, we do have several examples of both church fathers and later commentators dealing with the passage directly.
Augustine, Theodoret, and Aquinas
Augustine (d. 430) and Theodoret (d. ~460) both directly address this passage in series of answers to questions about Exodus.  Augustine's full answer is not available online in English,2 but his position has been summarized as follows:

Based on the Septuagint text, Augustine feels constrained to accept the view that abortion before formation is not homicide. [...] Early abortion is not counted as homicide because, while the soul may be present, it is in an insensible state.3

The reference to the Septuagint here is necessary because Augustine was using a version of the Bible that did not accurately reflect the meaning of the original Hebrew text.  The Septuagint, translated into English, reads:

And if two men strive and smite a woman with child, and her child be born imperfectly formed, he shall be forced to pay a penalty: as the woman's husband may lay upon him, he shall pay with a valuation. But if it be perfectly formed, he shall give life for life4 [emphasis added]

Given this translation, it's not surprising that Augustine and Theodoret interpreted the passage the way they did.  Theodoret provides more insight, particularly with respect to the case of the "unformed" fetus:

It is the general opinion that life is communicated to the fetus when its body is fully formed in the womb. [...] If the infant comes out with human features—that is, fully formed—the case is to be considered murder, and the guilty party must pay with his own life.  But if it comes out before it is fully formed, the case is not to be considered murder, since the miscarriage occurred before the animation of the child.  Nonetheless, the party responsible is to make recompense.5

From this understanding, perhaps aided by Aristotelian philosophy, developed the doctrine of ensoulment, that is, that fetuses do not gain souls upon conception.  For example, though Thomas Aquinas (d. 1274) condemned abortion, he does not interpret this passage to mean that early ("pre-formation" and therefore "pre-soul") abortion is murder:

He that strikes a woman with child does something unlawful: wherefore if there results the death either of the woman or of the animated fetus, he will not be excused from homicide, especially seeing that death is the natural result of such a blow.6 [emphasis added]

Nonetheless, these authors agreed that at least for some fetuses, this passage teaches that abortion is murder.  At least partially due to a faulty translation, these authors held that early abortions were not murder, and some made it explicit that they were instead finable offenses.
Reformation era
In the Reformation era and subsequent centuries, a similar understanding continued, but some Christians began treating this passage as referring to fetuses without qualifying their age.  John Calvin (d. 1564) calls it a "great absurdity" to consider only the death of the mother a capital crime:

It ought surely to be deemed more atrocious to destroy a foetus in the womb before it has come to light. On these grounds I am led to conclude, without hesitation, that the words, “if death should follow,” must be applied to the foetus as well as to the mother.7

The Geneva Study Bible (1599) adopts a similar understanding.8 John Trapp (d. 1669) understands "no mischief" to mean that "no life be lost" but says:

There is a time, then, when the embryo is not alive; therefore the soul is not begotten, but infused after a time by God.9

Matthew Poole (d. 1679) applies the passage to both mother and child, but leaves the status of early fetuses as ambiguous:

"No mischief follow," neither to the woman nor child; for it is generally so as to reach both, in case the abortive had life in it.10

Summary
Unfortunately, not many pre-1800 commentators deal with this text explicitly and take a position, and even fewer do so in works that we have in English.11  However, those that do agree that this Exodus 21 teaches, at least for "formed" fetuses, that causing the death of an unborn child is a capital offense.

References:

Apology, Chapter IX.
St. Augustine Questions on Exodus (French).  See question 80 in particular, a portion of which is available in the work cited immediately below.
Soul of the Embryo, p119
Brenton's Septuagint
The Questions on the Octateuch, 48
Summa Theologica, Second Part of Second Part, Question 64, Article 8, Reply to Objection 2
Harmony of the Law, v3, Sixth Commandment
Geneva Study Bible, Ex. 21:22
Complete Commentary
English Annotations on the Holy Bible
For example, Adam Clarke, though born around 1760, published his work in 1832, so he is too late.  John Gill is pre-1800, but merely marks the debate and does not take a position.  Calmet's works are only available in French and Latin.


Do Rob Bell and Tullian Tchividjian represent sides of any prior Christian controversy? Both Rob Bell and Tullian Tchividjian  have each taken heat for talking too much about grace.[*]  Here is, for example, an interview on John Piper's objections to Rob Bell, and here is David Murray's objection to Tullian's talk on works.

My premise is that they are fundamentally different. While both extend grace to an uncomfortable degree, Tullian also extends the literal demands of the law to an uncomfortable degree. In Tullian's view, you are in fact expected to "Be perfect", and when you realize you're not you seek out Jesus' righteousness.  Bell on the other hand seems to say that grace is so great it erases hell for everyone.

Questions:

Are Bell and Tullian fundamentallly different, or fundamentally the
same?
Based on the conviction that all arguments have already been had before, do they essentially represent different sides of some famous split in church
history-- say during the Nicene or Reformation periods?

Answers from those with different perspectives (agreeing with one or neither) are especially appreciated.

[*] If you are able articulate a better description of their common feature or problem than "talk too much about grace", that is part of my question.

Having read both of these authors, I can confidently say that Bell and Tullian are significantly different in their approaches to scripture, and in their interpretations thereof.  I align myself strongly with Tullian's approach, but disagree strongly with Bell's belief.

Historically speaking, Bell's theology aligns well with historical Universalism, or Universal Reconciliation.  He would state that all people, regardless of belief, will ultimately be going to heaven.  To accomplish this, he redefines sin's effects as being bad not because it is an offense against an infinitely good God, but because of what it does to us.  Sin damages us, but does not condemn us.  And since it does not condemn us, the cross of Christ cannot solve a condemnation problem, but instead becomes a good example by which we live our lives.

Tullian's position falls pretty clearly along the lines of Calvinist Protestant Theology.  He believes that the law of God is clear and extensive, and that the consequence of disobeying the law of God is eternal condemnation.  Likewise, he believes that Christ's death on the cross fully paid the penalty that we owed for our sin, so that, through Christ, we might be able to experience fellowship with God.  He believes that Jesus death on the cross grants positional righteousness to all who believe, thus justifying them in the eyes of God, and removing from them all condemnation.

Bell focuses on grace in the absence of the law, and in the absence of prior condemnation, but Tullian focuses on grace in the presence of the law, and in the presence of prior condemnation.  The problem with Bell's theology is that grace cannot truly be real if the problem of condemnation doesn't exist.  It would be as though you threw a life preserver to someone walking down the street in order to save them from drowning.  Being on the street, they were never in any real danger of drowning, so they have no need for a life preserver.  Tullian's theology, in contrast, offers a real problem, and then offers a real solution to the problem.  We are condemned to hell, but Christ came and paid the penalty of condemnation, so that we might be free from that penalty.  It's like throwing a life preserver to someone who is drowning.  It makes Christianity needed and useful.

In short, Bell takes a real, deadly problem, denies it exists, and thus makes Christ nothing more than a symbolic, but unnecessary, solution.  Tullian does not.

As a side note, it's important to that Tullian is mainly concerned with justification's effect on sanctification, while Bell is mainly concerned with defining justification, so objections to each of them are pointed at these two approaches.  Piper's objection to Bell is objecting to Bell's view of justification, while Murray's objection to Tullian is objecting to his view of sanctification in light of justification.  So in this sense, Piper objects to Bell saying that Bell is not defining Christianity right, while Murray objects to Tullian saying that Tullian doesn't define how we are to live out the Christian life right, yet he would agree with Tullian on his view of justification, and even says so in his objection.


Where did the custom of dancing with flags during worship originate? I'm trying to get some background about the custom of dancing with flags during worship. I come from eastern Europe and I have seen many "trends" that came from the west (especially from charismatics). When did the churches start to dance with flags, and why?

Here is a concrete example.

In American Christianity, specifically black or African American churches, "praise dancing" is a cultural norm practiced all over the United States, generally in more progressive churches.  It is also referred to as Liturgical Dance(a).

Generally, the practice involved playing gospel ballads or other popular black gospel music from contemporary black gospel artist.  Brightly colored flags, scarves, and shawls are used and artist, usually young women, dance using ballet-like movements, in unison with the music being played as a form of worship and praise toward God.

Historically, Liturgical Dance is ancient, tracing back to even ancient Israel as noted in passages like 2 Samuel 6, albeit, this is David and many did condemn him for his expressive worship.  However, in the middle ages, according to professor Paul Dilley at the University of Iowa, the Dance of the Savior, a liturgical dance, was probably used in some "churches and martyr shrines".  In addtion, Dilley states that a "dance scene in a Coptic text from the Qasr el-Wizz monastery suggests that ritual dance enjoyed a place in established, orthodox Christianity..."

Regardless, it is probably not possible to establish an exact reference to the beginnings of such practices in the American church.  Theologically, it is forbidden by some denominations, including some that are primarily African American, because it is consider too liberal or sensual(b).

(a) Based on my personal experience growing up and being involved in the Progressive Baptist Convention and other independent and other affiliated black churches primarily in and around the Washington DC Metropolitan Area.

(b) As an example of why this practice is not accepted, see There is Never a Good Reason For Liturgical Dance


Did Jesus defend himself at his trial? Jesus's prayer in the garden, where he asks God for this cup to pass from him, seems to imply that Jesus did not want to die. In the gospel of John, Jesus gives a defence to Pilate, "My kingdom is not of this world". That seems like an effective defence, because it convinced Pilate that Jesus was innocent.

Despite this, a popular belief in Christianity is that Jesus did not defend himself and was in fact deliberately trying to get himself killed. This raises some questions for me:

How is this belief reconciled with the aforementioned scene in John?
If Jesus was trying to get himself killed, what would his motivation be? One suggestion I've heard it's that he was trying to fulfill OT prophecy about the Messiah humbling himself and remaining silent when accused. Another proposed motivation is that Jesus was trying to be wrongfully punished to allow God to forgive sin. What is the evidence that Jesus was psychologically motivated this way? Are there any other more plausible motivations?
Wouldn't Jesus trying to get himself killed conflict with the claim that he was obedient unto death? I.e it would seem to eliminate death as a cost of his obedience because the cost is self inflicted.

An alternative theory I am exploring is that Jesus did not want to die, and did attempt to defend himself to a morally permissable degree which would render him not responsible for his death, i.e he was killed by circumstances beyond his control. Are there any defences of this theory, either in church history of by contemporary scholars?

Did Jesus defend himself at his trial?
The biblical answer is No. Jesus was silent during the hour of trial and not uttered a word that would appear trying to defend himself. Remember Jesus came into this world exactly to offer His life as a victim to atone for the sins of all mankind.
The phrase you cited as "My kingdom is not of this world", is not an effective defense but Jesus was clearing to Pontius Pilate his wrong understanding about His Kingship but in no way defending Himself. Jesus just made it clear to Pontius Pilate the His Kingdom is not the earthly kingdom that he knew and is serving. Jesus is not like Caezar, so there's no threat that he is planning to overthrow Caezar, and so Pilate had seen no threat and find him innocent of the charges of rebellion.
OTHER QUESTION:
Despite this, a popular belief in Christianity is that Jesus did not defend himself and was in fact deliberately trying to get himself killed. This raises some questions for me:
1.How is this belief reconciled with the aforementioned scene in John?
Jesus did not deliberately trying to get killed himself, Jesus is following the Will of God written in Genesis1:1. The mystery Hebrew word is "Bereshit".
"The Son of the Almighty God willingly offered His life to die on the Cross to poured out the merciful graces of God to atone for the sins of mankind." Mercy and Graces is the meaning of the "Way of the Cross" as shown in the image below. And Mercy & Graces is the means God had given us to restore back Divine Life in us that will lead us to follow the path towards salvation to enter God's Kingdom..

Gratia et Misirecordia or Graces and Mercies. This last vision of Sis, Lucia depicted the visual image of the Hebrew word "Bereshit" written in Genesis1:1.
Jesus offering Himself as the "victim" must die "At the Foot of the Cross", if he is deiberately trying to get killed He will not reach Calvalry. And if Jesus died before reaching the Foot of the Cross, then how can He pour out "the blood & water which gushed forth from His side as a fountain of mercy for us". (Sr.Faustina diary").

If Jesus was trying to get himself killed, what would his motivation be? One suggestion I've heard it's that he was trying to fulfill OT prophecy about the Messiah humbling himself and remaining silent when accused. Another proposed motivation is that Jesus was trying to be wrongfully punished to allow God to forgive sin. What is the evidence that Jesus was psychologically motivated this way? Are there any other more plausible motivations?

The answer can be found in Jesus own words; Jesus knew His mission and He knew that He must follow the Will of God in the salvation of man written in Genesis1:1, it's called the "Way of the Cross".

"For I have come down from heaven not to do my will but to do the will of him who sent me."(John6:38)

3.Wouldn't Jesus trying to get himself killed conflict with the claim that he was obedient unto death? I.e it would seem to eliminate death as a cost of his obedience because the cost is self inflicted.
Jesus were not trying to get himself killed, but putting His complete trust in His Father's Will by being obedient even unto death, even death on the Cross.
Lastly, to answer your final question;
An alternative theory I am exploring is that Jesus did not want to die, and did attempt to defend himself to a morally permissable degree which would render him not responsible for his death, i.e he was killed by circumstances beyond his control. Are there any defences of this theory, either in church history of by contemporary scholars?
The alternative theory was not found in the gospel of Christ as Jesus words is very clear saying that He is the Good Shepherd in John10:11-18

11 “I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep. 12 The hired hand is not the shepherd and does not own the sheep. So when he sees the wolf coming, he abandons the sheep and runs away. Then the wolf attacks the flock and scatters it. 13 The man runs away because he is a hired hand and cares nothing for the sheep.
14 “I am the good shepherd; I know my sheep and my sheep know me— 15 just as the Father knows me and I know the Father—and I lay down my life for the sheep. 16 I have other sheep that are not of this sheep pen. I must bring them also. They too will listen to my voice, and there shall be one flock and one shepherd. 17 The reason my Father loves me is that I lay down my life—only to take it up again. 18 No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down and authority to take it up again. This command I received from my Father.”

In closing, Jesus did not tried to deliberately allowed his executioners to killed Him, because as He said it clearly;

"No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down and authority to take it up again."

The executioners no matter how cruel they are they cannot take away the life of Jesus the "Author of Life", but Jesus words highlighted His Redemptive MIssion by saying "This command I received from my Father". Jesus is following the Commandment or the Will of God up to His last breathe.

"...Then Jesus called out in a loud voice, “Father, into Your hands I commit My Spirit.” And when He had said this, He breathed His last." (Luke23:46)

Jesus had shown "At the Foot of the Cross" that although He had suffered ignominiously from the hands of his executioners, Jesus is very much in control when He is going to breathe His last. Jesus is in control of His death, and no one take away His life but He freely lay it down to all of us to Redeem all mankind.


Who instituted the practice of sacrifice? Sacrifice plays a very important role in the Bible.  One of the earliest stories, that of Cain and Abel, begins with two sacrifices.  The death of Jesus on the Cross was a sacrifice.

Here is how the first sacrifice is described, in Genesis 4:3-6:

  In the course of time Cain brought an offering to the LORD from the fruit of the ground, while Abel, for his part, brought the fatty portion* of the firstlings of his flock. The LORD looked with favor on Abel and his offering, but on Cain and his offering he did not look with favor. So Cain was very angry and dejected. Then the LORD said to Cain: Why are you angry? Why are you dejected?

Does the Bible ever say who first instituted this practice, and when? The purpose animal sacrifice is discussed [here]
 (What was the purpose to animal sacrifices?).
Did it develop naturally?
Was it instituted directly by God, through a command?
Do we know?

According to several sermons I've heard, the first animal sacrifice was recorded in Genesis 3:21 (KJV).

  Unto Adam also and to his wife did the Lord God make coats of skins,
  and clothed them.

He used the skin of some animal to cover their nakedness.

One source for such a teaching is at Sermoncentral.com.

  The First Sacrifice is recorded in Genesis 3:21.

  Remember the setting? Adam and Eve sinned against God, their eyes were
  opened, they realized they were naked, and they were ashamed. So they
  tried to cover their nakedness with fig leaves. But fig leaves make
  lousy clothes. So God intervened, sacrificed an animal, and make
  garments of skin for them.

  This is the first sacrifice mentioned in the Bible. An innocent
  animal, most likely lamb, lost it’s life so that Adam and Eve could be
  covered.

Thus, as with all of God's institutions, it was established by God Himself.


What is Jehovah's Witnesses view on a baptized member owning machine guns? Question on Jehovah's Witnesses view about owning guns that are not used for hunting or for protecting against wild animals.

Let's say for example someone in USA who likes to collect automatic weapons and machine guns (which can apparently be purchased in Nevada according to this article).

What is Jehovah's Witnesses viewpoint about a baptized member owning guns such as machine guns? Does that affect the members standing in the congregation?

Owning a fully automatic weapon (machine gun) would not fit with Jehovah’s Witnesses viewpoint on keeping a firearm for personal protection. If a Witness keeps firearms for hunting to supplement his diet with wild game that is acceptable even for elders. Keeping weapons for self defense opens one up to becoming bloodguilty through accidental or unnecessary discharge of that weapon. Of course accidents can happen when a weapon is owned for hunting, but when the gun is kept for use against humans the congregation takes a dim view of it.

Fully automatic weapons dispense ammunition at a rapid rate when the trigger is held in firing position. The energy from the exploding charge of one round is used to chamber and fire the next round. Legal ownership of such a weapon is very expensive and requires an intensive background check and other screenings by government.

It is highly unlikely that a Jehovah’s Witness would ever jump through the hoops to acquire a machine gun legally. And if he should possess one illegally that would be a big issue since obeying the laws of the land is very important part of being a member in good standing.

Since it is absurd to think one would use a machine gun for killing game,most likely the ownership of such a weapon would fall under the category for protection and use against other humans.
Such ownership is a personal decision.
However a JW who chooses to arm himself in such a manner would be restricted from many privileges in  the congregation as can be seen here

  Christians respect others’ consciences. (Rom. 14:21) If it became known that a member of the congregation kept a gun for protection against humans, some fellow believers might be shocked, even stumbled. Love moves us to put others’ interests ahead of our own, even when that means putting aside what we may feel is a legal right. —1 Cor. 10:32, 33; 13:4, 5.
  Christians strive to be exemplary. (2 Cor. 4:2; 1 Pet. 5:2, 3) After receiving Scriptural counsel, a Christian who continues to keep a gun for protection against other humans could not be considered exemplary. He would therefore not qualify for responsibilities or special privileges in the congregation. The same applies to a Christian who continues to carry a firearm as part of his secular work. How much better to seek other employment!

  *


Does "faith" enable "love"? Romans 4:16 says:  Therefore [it is] of faith, that [it might be] by grace…

In this verse it appears that “faith” enables “grace”.  The case could be made that the initial breach with God was one of  ”faith”, mankind placed their faith in the "word" of the serpent rather than in the Word of God.
Also Acts 14:27 speaks of “the door of faith”.

My question: Is there any early church teachings which link “the door of faith”, in which mankind exited a relationship with God to the “door of faith” wherein mankind enters into a relationship with God?  And does "faith" enable a loving relationship?

From what I know of Augustine, he would say that, rather, God's love is the enabler of our faith. That is, God's love for the sinner is the ultimate cause of creating new life in the believer, which enables that believer to have faith.

See Augustine's On Grace and Free Will, Chapter 17. And if you look at Chapter 12 and 13 of the same work, you will see that he says that out of love God shows mercy and grace, which links God's love for us to faith.

In Augustine's Enchiridion, Chapter 8, he says

  Now what shall I say of love? Without it, faith profits nothing; and
  in its absence, hope cannot exist. The Apostle James says: "The devils
  also believe, and tremble." — that is, they, having neither hope nor
  love, but believing that what we love and hope for is about to come,
  are in terror. And so the Apostle Paul approves and commends the
  "faith that works by love;" and this certainly cannot exist without
  hope. Wherefore there is no love without hope, no hope without love,
  and neither love nor hope without faith.

For Augustine, then, faith, hope, and love are a package deal. The general pattern here, overall, is that God shows us love, which gives us faith, hope, and love towards others, including God.

As to the relationship between the "two doors", as you've called them, again, I think Augustine would say that the exit door is a trap-door - a one-way door. Closing that door means you do not have the ability to open it again. Instead, God must open it for you. See On Grace and Free Will, in Chapter 7, where he says

  ...so now let us see what are the divine testimonies concerning the
  grace of God, without which we are not able to do any good thing.


Was the apostle Peter martyred in Rome? There are some legends that say that Peter traveled to Rome where he was martyred.

Is this legend true? Are there any historical accounts that support the legend? Are there any other theories about the later life of apostle Peter? Is there any historical evidence that he was bishop of Rome?

It is generally accepted that Peter was crucified upside down in Rome.  Tertullian and Origen attest to this.

From WikiPedia:

  According to the 1911 Catholic Encyclopedia, St. Peter labored in Rome
  during the last portion of his life, and there ended his life by
  martyrdom.[17] The death of St. Peter is attested to by Tertullian at
  the end of the 2nd century, and by Origen in Eusebius, Church History
  III.1. Origen says: "Peter was crucified at Rome with his head
  downwards, as he himself had desired to suffer."[17] This is why an
  upside down cross is generally accepted as a symbol of Peter, who
  would not have considered himself worthy enough to die the same way as
  his Savior.[35]

Whether or not Peter was bishop of Rome is still debated, although it is a belief held by the Catholic church.


How should a Christian deal with destructive higher criticism of the Bible? In recent times authorship of Biblical books has been called into question by modern scholars.

It is believed that Isaiah didn't write Isaiah, John didn't write John, Matthew didn't write Matthew, and so on. A little concession is given to us by conceding that Mark did write Mark, but he wasn't an eyewitness so his testimony doesn't matter anyway.

My question is -

How much weight does this kind of textual criticism have? What logic/principles are used to arrive at such kind of results? (Can you give an example?)
What should be the Christian response to such claims? What can a Christian do to educate herself on these matters?

You need to deal with them on a case by case basis. For one, it is helpful to understand that all claims of authorship are always uncertain, even and especially those made by textual critics. As Christians we accept a tradition about who wrote the books along with whatever authorship may be claimed therein.

In the case of the Gospel writers, we can take note of two problems in 'identifying' the author using textual criticism:

The authors shared material and did not have a notion of 'plagiarism' - so some stuff may have been shared directly. Additionally there is believed to have been a 'Document Q' which was an early record of many of Jesus' sayings written down by his disciples. It did not survive though most or all of it may actually just be in Matthew, Mark and Luke. This could make analyzing the text for style and origin difficult and subject to a lot noise that would make precise identification impossible.
In the case of John, it is traditional that he did not write his Gospel (or Revelation) by hand but in the prior case, the witness - the Gospel - is John's account. The end of the Gospel communicates this, not necessarily that John is sitting there writing (he was old at the time, it is believed that Prochoros was the actual writer) but that he is the witness of these things. With Revelation we know for sure he was having the vision and telling Prochoros about it, who was writing it down. So the result would be a mixture of John and Prochoros, not John alone.

With Hebrews, Paul is traditionally accepted as the writer. Textual critics, in their attempt to identify authorship, may forget that an extremely learned man such as Paul was fully capable of concealing his identity in his writing, as well as utilizing different styles for various purposes. Perhaps they assume that ancient people were all non-self conscious and didn't have the ability to choose words and phrases that were different than their normal style or pattern for some purpose of their own.

For Isaiah, we must remember again the problem of scribes - so to say Isaiah didn't 'write' Isaiah doesn't say much! How could a prophet write his vision while having it? So with Isaiah we may easily have a collection of works from different eras in Isaiah's life written down by different scribes. Trying to be exact about it simply makes it less clear.

In general, Christians must remember that 'Sola Scriptura' is a recent invention and is not the basis for traditional faith. Even the original holders of Sola Scriptura held to various oral and written traditions about the scriptures - such as the ever-virginity of Mary - that are not directly witnessed by the scriptures themselves.

Consider the case of the books of Moses - given the potential age of Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy - plus the history itself witnessed by the scripture - we cannot be fully certain (ever) that what we have is word-for-word of what Moses either dictated or wrote. Our trust is in the witness of the Spirit, not in the inerrant words of this or that human (guess what, no humans are inerrant.) If you learn a bit about how human beings interpret visionary works (such as prophecy) it becomes clear that perfect word-for-word accuracy does not necessarily mean accuracy on many points.

Thus it becomes nearly impossible to debunk the scripture - all attempts have failed really - because on the points on which our faith hangs, such as the divinity of the Son of God, the incarnation of Him, his death, resurrection, ascension and sending of the Holy Spirit, the witness doesn't vary. It is possible that Genesis 3 was added later during the Babylonian captivity (Genesis certainly reflects two different writings, but whether they come from the same person or not cannot be established) but whether it did or not doesn't matter. One reason for this idea is that it attempts to undermine the Christian belief in the fall. But consider how it fails to do so: If it was added in the Babylonian times, that indicates that the teaching of the Fall of Man has been in the people of God since before then, and it is also consistent with other teachings in the scripture.

Textual Criticism - inasmuch as it is a tool to undermine Christian faith - can really only undermine faith based on literal scriptural inerrancy. Those who hold to a tradition (kergyma) about scripture may or may not find such things interesting, depending on their background and talents, but they do not pose a challenge to the faith, since the faith is not just the Bible, but the people (the Church) who have been witnesses of God since the beginning of time. Even if the fall part of Genesis is a later addition, it is consistent with the teaching of the Church and is thus part of the faith anyway. Those 'additions' if they were, were just as inspired as the text they added to.

It also helps to remember that nobody is going to rediscover the 'real faith' of the Bible at any time. It still exists and continues and most attempts to radically reinterpret the scripture are, as they have been since the time of Christ, the work of Gnostics.


Do Protestants understand Jesus to be both "the son of Adam" and "the son of God"? Do Protestants understand Jesus to be both "the son of Adam" and "the son of God"?

Protestants believe that Mary was a virgin when she conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit, but they do not go along with the Catholic view that Mary herself was without sin.  The Bible says nothing about Mary being sinless.

The Protestant view is that Jesus was fully human and this came from Mary being his biological mother. Jesus alone was born of a virgin, conceived by the Holy Spirit. Jesus had no human father. The fact that Jesus was without sin is clearly stated in the Bible:

  For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God (2 Corinthians 5:21).

  You know that he appeared in order to take away sins, and in him there is no sin (1 John 3:5).

I am unfamiliar with the expression that Jesus was “in Adam” but the Bible likens Jesus to the first man Adam:

  The first man Adam became a living being; the last Adam, a life-giving spirit. The spiritual did not come first, but the natural, and after that the spiritual. The first man was of the dust of the earth, the second man from heaven. As was the earthly man, so are those who are of the earth; and as is the man from heaven, so also are those who are of heaven. And just as we have borne the likeness of the earthly man, so shall we bear the likeness of the man from heaven (1 Corinthians 15:45-49).

  Just as Adam was the first of the human race, so Christ is the first of those who will be raised from the dead to eternal life.  Adam came first on this earth and was made from the dust of the earth. While it is true that Christ has existed from eternity past, He is here called the second man or second Adam because He came from heaven to earth many years after Adam. Christ came as a human baby with a body like all other humans, but He did not originate from the dust of the earth as had Adam. He “came from heaven.”  Source: https://www.gotquestions.org/Jesus-second-Adam.html

That, as far as I am aware, is the Protestant view of Jesus being both fully human and fully God.  Mary was a descendant of Adam and, like all humans, was herself subjected to inherited sin.  Jesus was without sin because he came from heaven, from above, and no human father was involved.

Additional information regarding the Baptist view of Jesus being without sin:

  The Baptist Confession of Faith (1689)  Section 8: Christ the Mediator
  The Son of God, the second person in the Holy Trinity, being true and eternal God, the brightness of the Father's glory, of the same substance and equal with Him;

  Who made the world, and who upholds and governs all things which He has made,
  did, when the fullness of time had come, take upon Himself man's nature, with all its essential properties and common infirmities, with the exception of sin.
  He was conceived by the Holy Spirit in the womb of the Virgin Mary, the Holy Spirit coming down upon her and the power of the Most High overshadowing her, so that He was born to a woman from the tribe of Judah, a descendant of Abraham and David, in accordance with the Scriptures.
  Thus two whole, perfect and distinct natures were inseparably joined together in one person, without conversion, composition, or confusion;
  So that the Lord Jesus Christ is truly God and truly man, yet He is one Christ, the only Mediator between God and man.
  http://www.romans45.org/creeds/bcof.htm#part8

The New Testament writers had to combat a form of Gnostic teaching that denied the full humanity of Christ.  They believed flesh was evil but spirit was pure, therefore God would never have incarnated as a fleshly human.  They said Christ only appeared to be human, but it was an illusion – he was actually spirit.  The New Testament declares Jesus was human and also God incarnate.


What is the basis for the Catholic teaching that abortion is immoral/sinful? What is the doctrinal basis for the Catholic teaching that abortion is immoral?  I understand that these will be based on Scripture, but will likely come from official Catholic documents.

So, I'm specifically looking for an answer from a Catholic doctrinal position rather than a purely exegetical answer (as provided to my previous question).

The Catholic catechism has a section on abortion (2270-2275).  It starts with this:

Human life must be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of conception. From the first moment of his existence, a human being must be recognized as having the rights of a person - among which is the inviolable right of every innocent being to life.
Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before
you were born I consecrated you.

 My frame was not hidden from you, when I was being made in secret,
 intricately wrought in the depths of the earth.7

ccc 2270

Essentially, the position is that at the moment of conception, the embryo is fully human, that it should be "treated from conception as a person" (CCC 2274).  Because of that, destroying the embryo (or worse, the fetus) is murder.  Therefore, the ban against abortion is based on the fifth commandment (do not murder).


What does the LDS Church teach about Jesus being married, having children, and His position on polygamy? In the Journal of Discourses, LDS apostles suggest that Jesus Himself was married, that He had children, and that He and His disciples endorsed polygamy.

It will be borne in mind that once on a time, there was a marriage in Cana of Galilee; and on a careful reading of that transaction, it will be discovered that no less a person than Jesus Christ was married on that occasion.  Journal of Discourses, Volume 4, Page 259
What did the old Prophet mean when he said (speaking of Christ), “He shall see his seed, prolong his days, &c.” Did Jesus consider it necessary to fulfil every righteous command or requirement of his Father? He most certainly did. This be witnessed by submitting to baptism under the hands of John. “Thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness,” said he. Was it God's commandment to man, in the beginning, to multiply and replenish the earth? None can deny this, neither that it was a righteous command; for upon an obedience to this, depended the perpetuity of our race. Did Christ come to destroy the law or the Prophets, or to fulfil them? He came to fulfil. Did he multiply, and did he see his seed? Did he honor his Father's law by complying with it, or did he not? Others may do as they like, but I will not charge our Savior with neglect or transgression in this or any other duty.  Journal of Discourses, Volume 4, Page 260
The grand reason of the burst of public sentiment in anathemas upon Christ and his disciples, causing his crucifixion was evidently based upon polygamy, according to the testimony of the philosophers who rose in that age. A belief in the doctrine of a
plurality of wives caused the persecution of Jesus and his followers.   We might almost think they were "Mormons".  Journal of Discourses, Volume 1, Page 346.

Was this ever the official teaching of the LDS Church?  If so, what biblical support for these doctrines is there?

Both @MaskedPlant and @Matt spelled out how the Journal of Discourses is viewed.

I will add this; the only thing I have ever heard was during the whole "The Da Vinci Code" hoopla. And that was that the LDS church had no official opinion and that it neither endorsed or found fault with the ideas presented in that book. (Namely of course that Christ was married and had children).

So the LDS church has no official teachings on the topic, but if it were to come to light that Christ was in fact married (or even had kids!), the LDS church would have no issue with that information.

Edit:
I found the official statement made by the church on this subject from 2006:

  "The belief that Christ was married has never been official Church doctrine. It is neither sanctioned nor taught by the Church. While it is true that a few Church leaders in the mid-1800s expressed their opinions on the matter, it was not then, and is not now, Church doctrine."

Link to the news article right here.

I believe that definitively answers your question and the issue of the Journal of Discourses.


Reason for drawing water at unusual time John 4:5-8
New Living Translation (NLT)
5: Eventually he came to the Samaritan village of Sychar, near the field that Jacob gave to his son Joseph.
6: Jacob’s well was there; and Jesus, tired from the long walk, sat wearily beside the well about noontime.
7: Soon a Samaritan woman came to draw water, and Jesus said to her, “Please give me a drink.”
8: He was alone at the time because his disciples had gone into the village to buy some food.

So according to my water drawing knowledge, people used to draw water once in the day and once in the night.

Genesis 24:11
New Living Translation (NLT)
11: He made the camels kneel beside a well just outside the town. It was evening, and the women were coming out to draw water.

My knowledge is further reinforced by that fact that no one else in the village was with the Samaritan woman to draw water. It seems a bit too convenient for Jesus. Why was the woman drawing water at the middle of the day?

It wasn't just convenient: according to John (verse 4) Jesus "had to" (dei') pass through Samaria. It was not geographically necessary, as He could have (like most Jews did unless they were in a hurry) gone around Samaria. When John uses dei' he is referring to God's will. Jesus passed through Samaria with the intention of speaking with this woman.

  Jesus said to her, "Go, call your husband, and come here." The woman answered him, "I have no husband." Jesus said to her, "You are right in saying, 'I have no husband'; for you have had five husbands, and the one you now have is not your husband. What you have said is true."
  (John 4:16-18)

She lived in a culture that followed strict laws concerning sexual purity, so it seems she would have been an outcast. Considering the Samaritans were rejected by Jews (John 4:9), she is an outcast among outcasts.


Age of accountability? I have been raised in Prodestant church all of my life and I have heard several times from members of various churches about an age of accountability—which is an age once a person reaches it they are solely acountable for their own sins. For example, if they died before reaching this age they wouldn't go to hell for any sins they have commited. I have heard various ages for this such as 10 and 13. Considering this my question is:

Is there scriptural evidence that states the age of acountablality? Does it even exist?

We are accountable for our actions, words, teachings and judging.
No such thing for age accountability.

it is just another man made doctrine to bound people by their laws, doctrine and beliefs.

  Matthew 12:35-37 ESV
  The good person out of his good treasure brings forth good, and the evil person out of his evil treasure brings forth evil. I tell you, on the day of judgment people will give account for every careless word they speak, for by your words you will be justified, and by your words you will be condemned.”

Unbelievers will give an account

  Romans 14:10-12 ESV
  Why do you pass judgment on your brother? Or you, why do you despise your brother? For we will all stand before the judgment seat of God; for it is written, “As I live, says the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God.” So then each of us will give an account of himself to God.

Let the people who judge give an account for their judging

God Bless


Does Christianity allow allegorical readings of creation and the deluge? Please forgive me, I'm not Christian but I have wondered: Why do Christians seem to try to prove Noah's flood or a young earth? Considering the overwhelming evidence for human and geologic history that there was no global flood that wiped out life on earth or civilizations and that modern humans have been around for hundreds of thousands of years, can an allegorical reading of the beginning of Genesis be allowed?

Seeing as it is almost impossible for bias to not slip into our research, we will always see what we want to see or at least try to. Scientists will find reasons that such things aren't true while we believers will believe because we want to. Until 100% undeniable proof is found we will always debate this question.

As for my opinion on the matter, no we should not try to find a deeper meaning of the scriptures. We should read in the lines of the scriptures and not necessarily between them. There are a few exceptions to this such as the book of Revelation which uses heavy symbolism, but most of it is explained so again I think we should let the bible translate itself. Here is some research into the wording of the days and so on.

In Genesis the day's may or may not have been 24 hours. That doesn't matter because there could have been any length of time after the earth was finished that god made man. If you look at Genesis 2:4-7 we see that there was no time span given between the finishing of earth and the creation of man. Man may have lived for only the past 6000 years, but because of the lack of details the earth may be much older.

My answer then is no, the bible should be read as it was intended and thus as it is written.


In the Catholic Church, is there specific canon law on voluntary excommunication? Is there such a thing as voluntary excommunication from the Catholic Church? Maybe a latae sententiae or ferendae sententiae? If there is, how could it be done? Is there some kind of formal process?

There is no such thing as voluntary excommunication, in the strict sense of excommunication. There's a good answer by AthanasiusOfAlex which explains the purpose of excommunication; I'll restrict this answer to method, as asked by the question. However, the other answer is valuable in demonstrating that "voluntary excommunication" is absurd.

Excommunication is either latae sententiae (imposed by the unlawful act itself) or ferendae sententiae (imposed by authority).

Neither of those methods of excommunication is voluntary. An act which incurs a latae sententiae excommunication may be voluntary, but the excommunication is not.

If what you are actually asking is about a formal secession from the Church, then yes, any act of formal secession will result in a latae sententiae excommunication: canon 1364 specifically mentions apostasy, heresy and schism.

Canon 1365 prescribes a "just penalty" for prohibited participation in religious rites. Canon 1369 prescribes a "just penalty" for public blasphemy, harming public morals or exciting hatred of, or contempt for, religion or the Church. A "just penalty" could include excommunication, but it will be ferendae sententiae.

All of these acts will be voluntary, but the resulting excommunication is not.


How did Luther have access to the Masoretic Text? I understand that Luther and others translated the Old Testament into German from the Hebrew Text. How was the Hebrew text accessible/available to them in the 16th century?

Wikipedia quote:

Daniel Bomberg (c. 1483 – c. 1549) was one of the most important printers of Hebrew books. A Christian who employed rabbis, scholars and apostates in his Venice publishing house, Bomberg printed the first Mikraot Gdolot (Rabbinic Bible) and the first complete Babylonian and Jerusalem Talmuds.

This timeline shows that Daniel Bomberg's Rabbinic Bible containing the first printed Hebrew version (Masoretic text) was published in 1517.  Martin Luther translated the New Testament in 1522. Bomberg printed a second edition Masoretic text prepared by Jacob ben Chayim in 1526.
So, printed copies of the MT were available before Luther's translation of the Old Testament in 1536.
This article from the University of Nebraska affirms that Reformers had in their personal possession copies of Blomberg's printed edition of the Biblia Rabbinica, which contained the Masoretic Text, Masoretic notes, Aramaic Targum and Jewish Biblical commentaries.

Bomberg also reprinted the Hebrew text of the 1517 Rabbinic Bible in quarto versions during 1517, in 1521, and in a revised form, reflecting to some extent changes made in the 1525 Rabbinic Bible, in 1525–1528. These smaller Hebrew Bibles were a popular, less expensive alternative to Rabbinic Bibles among Christian customers. Ulrich Zwingli owned a Bomberg quarto Hebrew Bible, as did Wittenbergers Johann Agricola and perhaps Martin Luther.

The above quotation is supported by the footnote

Herbert Migsch, “Noch einmal: Huldreich Zwinglis hebräische Bibel,” Zwingliana, vol. 36, 2009, pp. 41-48. Agricola’s copy is on display in the Luther Halle in Wittenberg. On Luther’s purported copy, see T. H. Darlow and H. F. Moule, Historical Catalogue of the Printed Editions of Holy Scripture in the British and Foreign Bible Society, vol. 2, part 1: Polyglots and languages other than English, Martino, Mansfield Center, CT, 2005, pp. 705, no. 5086.

The article also makes the point that further evidence suggesting that Luther had access to this work is Luther's clear and critical knowledge of Jewish commentaries on the Targum, which was included in Bloomberg's printed Rabbinic Bible.


Does a list exist showing Papal succession from Peter through our current Pope? If I'm not mistaken, the claim of the Catholic Church is that Papal Succession is unbroken all the way back to Peter.

Is there a list of popes and the history from Peter to the present day?  If so, where can I find it?

And just so that your answer isn't a link-only answer, frowned upon on SE sites, maybe include the list if you can copy/paste it as well as citing the source

Here's the List of Popes from newadvent.org, which I assume is the same list found in many US Catholic-approved Bibles, with the exception of the Papal "oppositions" listed here:

1.  St. Peter (32-67)
2.  St. Linus (67-76)
3.  St. Anacletus (Cletus) (76-88)
4.  St. Clement I (88-97)
5.  St. Evaristus (97-105)
6.  St. Alexander I (105-115)
7.  St. Sixtus I (115-125) Also called Xystus I
8.  St. Telesphorus (125-136)
9.  St. Hyginus (136-140)
10. St. Pius I (140-155)
11. St. Anicetus (155-166)
12. St. Soter (166-175)
13. St. Eleutherius (175-189)
14. St. Victor I (189-199)
15. St. Zephyrinus (199-217)
16. St. Callistus I (217-22) Callistus and the following three popes were opposed by St. Hippolytus, antipope (217-236)
17. St. Urban I (222-30)
18. St. Pontain (230-35)
19. St. Anterus (235-36)
20. St. Fabian (236-50)
21. St. Cornelius (251-53) Opposed by Novatian, antipope (251)
22. St. Lucius I (253-54)
23. St. Stephen I (254-257)
24. St. Sixtus II (257-258)
25. St. Dionysius (260-268)
26. St. Felix I (269-274)
27. St. Eutychian (275-283)
28. St. Caius (283-296) Also called Gaius
29. St. Marcellinus (296-304)
30. St. Marcellus I (308-309)
31. St. Eusebius (309 or 310)
32. St. Miltiades (311-14)
33. St. Sylvester I (314-35)
34. St. Marcus (336)
35. St. Julius I (337-52)
36. Liberius (352-66) Opposed by Felix II, antipope (355-365)
37. St. Damasus I (366-83) Opposed by Ursicinus, antipope (366-367)
38. St. Siricius (384-99)
39. St. Anastasius I (399-401)
40. St. Innocent I (401-17)
41. St. Zosimus (417-18)
42. St. Boniface I (418-22) Opposed by Eulalius, antipope (418-419)
43. St. Celestine I (422-32)
44. St. Sixtus III (432-40)
45. St. Leo I (the Great) (440-61)
46. St. Hilarius (461-68)
47. St. Simplicius (468-83)
48. St. Felix III (II) (483-92)
49. St. Gelasius I (492-96)
50. Anastasius II (496-98)
51. St. Symmachus (498-514) Opposed by Laurentius, antipope (498-501)
52. St. Hormisdas (514-23)
53. St. John I (523-26)
54. St. Felix IV (III) (526-30)
55. Boniface II (530-32) Opposed by Dioscorus, antipope (530)
56. John II (533-35)
57. St. Agapetus I (535-36) Also called Agapitus I
58. St. Silverius (536-37)
59. Vigilius (537-55)
60. Pelagius I (556-61)
61. John III (561-74)
62. Benedict I (575-79)
63. Pelagius II (579-90)
64. St. Gregory I (the Great) (590-604)
65. Sabinian (604-606)
66. Boniface III (607)
67. St. Boniface IV (608-15)
68. St. Deusdedit (Adeodatus I) (615-18)
69. Boniface V (619-25)
70. Honorius I (625-38)
71. Severinus (640)
72. John IV (640-42)
73. Theodore I (642-49)
74. St. Martin I (649-55)
75. St. Eugene I (655-57)
76. St. Vitalian (657-72)
77. Adeodatus (II) (672-76)
78. Donus (676-78)
79. St. Agatho (678-81)
80. St. Leo II (682-83)
81. St. Benedict II (684-85)
82. John V (685-86)
83. Conon (686-87)
84. St. Sergius I (687-701) Opposed by Theodore and Paschal, antipopes (687)
85. John VI (701-05)
86. John VII (705-07)
87. Sisinnius (708)
88. Constantine (708-15)
89. St. Gregory II (715-31)
90. St. Gregory III (731-41)
91. St. Zachary (741-52)
92. Stephen II (752) Because he died before being consecrated, many authoritative lists omit him
93. Stephen III (752-57)
94. St. Paul I (757-67)
95. Stephen IV (767-72) Opposed by Constantine II (767) and Philip (768), antipopes (767)
96. Adrian I (772-95)
97. St. Leo III (795-816)
98. Stephen V (816-17)
99. St. Paschal I (817-24)
100.    Eugene II (824-27)
101.    Valentine (827)
102.    Gregory IV (827-44)
103.    Sergius II (844-47) Opposed by John, antipope (855)
104.    St. Leo IV (847-55)
105.    Benedict III (855-58) Opposed by Anastasius, antipope (855)
106.    St. Nicholas I (the Great) (858-67)
107.    Adrian II (867-72)
108.    John VIII (872-82)
109.    Marinus I (882-84)
110.    St. Adrian III (884-85)
111.    Stephen VI (885-91)
112.    Formosus (891-96)
113.    Boniface VI (896)
114.    Stephen VII (896-97)
115.    Romanus (897)
116.    Theodore II (897)
117.    John IX (898-900)
118.    Benedict IV (900-03)
119.    Leo V (903) Opposed by Christopher, antipope (903-904)
120.    Sergius III (904-11)
121.    Anastasius III (911-13)
122.    Lando (913-14)
123.    John X (914-28)
124.    Leo VI (928)
125.    Stephen VIII (929-31)
126.    John XI (931-35)
127.    Leo VII (936-39)
128.    Stephen IX (939-42)
129.    Marinus II (942-46)
130.    Agapetus II (946-55)
131.    John XII (955-63)
132.    Leo VIII (963-64)
133.    Benedict V (964)
134.    John XIII (965-72)
135.    Benedict VI (973-74)
136.    Benedict VII (974-83) Benedict and John XIV were opposed by Boniface VII, antipope (974; 984-985)
137.    John XIV (983-84)
138.    John XV (985-96)
139.    Gregory V (996-99) Opposed by John XVI, antipope (997-998)
140.    Sylvester II (999-1003)
141.    John XVII (1003)
142.    John XVIII (1003-09)
143.    Sergius IV (1009-12)
144.    Benedict VIII (1012-24) Opposed by Gregory, antipope (1012)
145.    John XIX (1024-32)
146.    Benedict IX (1032-45) He appears on this list three separate times, because he was twice deposed and restored
147.    Sylvester III (1045) Considered by some to be an antipope
148.    Benedict IX (1045)
149.    Gregory VI (1045-46)
150.    Clement II (1046-47)
151.    Benedict IX (1047-48)
152.    Damasus II (1048)
153.    St. Leo IX (1049-54)
154.    Victor II (1055-57)
155.    Stephen X (1057-58)
156.    Nicholas II (1058-61) Opposed by Benedict X, antipope (1058)
157.    Alexander II (1061-73) Opposed by Honorius II, antipope (1061-1072)
158.    St. Gregory VII (1073-85) Gregory and the following three popes were opposed by Guibert ("Clement III"), antipope (1080-1100)
159.    Blessed Victor III (1086-87)
160.    Blessed Urban II (1088-99)
161.    Paschal II (1099-1118) Opposed by Theodoric (1100), Aleric (1102) and Maginulf ("Sylvester IV", 1105-1111), antipopes (1100)
162.    Gelasius II (1118-19) Opposed by Burdin ("Gregory VIII"), antipope (1118)
163.    Callistus II (1119-24)
164.    Honorius II (1124-30) Opposed by Celestine II, antipope (1124)
165.    Innocent II (1130-43) Opposed by Anacletus II (1130-1138) and Gregory Conti ("Victor IV") (1138), antipopes (1138)
166.    Celestine II (1143-44)
167.    Lucius II (1144-45)
168.    Blessed Eugene III (1145-53)
169.    Anastasius IV (1153-54)
170.    Adrian IV (1154-59)
171.    Alexander III (1159-81) Opposed by Octavius ("Victor IV") (1159-1164), Pascal III (1165-1168), Callistus III (1168-1177) and Innocent III (1178-1180), antipopes
172.    Lucius III (1181-85)
173.    Urban III (1185-87)
174.    Gregory VIII (1187)
175.    Clement III (1187-91)
176.    Celestine III (1191-98)
177.    Innocent III (1198-1216)
178.    Honorius III (1216-27)
179.    Gregory IX (1227-41)
180.    Celestine IV (1241)
181.    Innocent IV (1243-54)
182.    Alexander IV (1254-61)
183.    Urban IV (1261-64)
184.    Clement IV (1265-68)
185.    Blessed Gregory X (1271-76)
186.    Blessed Innocent V (1276)
187.    Adrian V (1276)
188.    John XXI (1276-77)
189.    Nicholas III (1277-80)
190.    Martin IV (1281-85)
191.    Honorius IV (1285-87)
192.    Nicholas IV (1288-92)
193.    St. Celestine V (1294)
194.    Boniface VIII (1294-1303)
195.    Blessed Benedict XI (1303-04)
196.    Clement V (1305-14)
197.    John XXII (1316-34) Opposed by Nicholas V, antipope (1328-1330)
198.    Benedict XII (1334-42)
199.    Clement VI (1342-52)
200.    Innocent VI (1352-62)
201.    Blessed Urban V (1362-70)
202.    Gregory XI (1370-78)
203.    Urban VI (1378-89) Opposed by Robert of Geneva ("Clement VII"), antipope (1378-1394)
204.    Boniface IX (1389-1404) Opposed by Robert of Geneva ("Clement VII") (1378-1394), Pedro de Luna ("Benedict XIII") (1394-1417) and Baldassare Cossa ("John XXIII") (1400-1415), antipopes
205.    Innocent VII (1404-06) Opposed by Pedro de Luna ("Benedict XIII") (1394-1417) and Baldassare Cossa ("John XXIII") (1400-1415), antipopes
206.    Gregory XII (1406-15) Opposed by Pedro de Luna ("Benedict XIII") (1394-1417), Baldassare Cossa ("John XXIII") (1400-1415), and Pietro Philarghi ("Alexander V") (1409-1410), antipopes
207.    Martin V (1417-31)
208.    Eugene IV (1431-47) Opposed by Amadeus of Savoy ("Felix V"), antipope (1439-1449)
209.    Nicholas V (1447-55)
210.    Callistus III (1455-58)
211.    Pius II (1458-64)
212.    Paul II (1464-71)
213.    Sixtus IV (1471-84)
214.    Innocent VIII (1484-92)
215.    Alexander VI (1492-1503)
216.    Pius III (1503)
217.    Julius II (1503-13)
218.    Leo X (1513-21)
219.    Adrian VI (1522-23)
220.    Clement VII (1523-34)
221.    Paul III (1534-49)
222.    Julius III (1550-55)
223.    Marcellus II (1555)
224.    Paul IV (1555-59)
225.    Pius IV (1559-65)
226.    St. Pius V (1566-72)
227.    Gregory XIII (1572-85)
228.    Sixtus V (1585-90)
229.    Urban VII (1590)
230.    Gregory XIV (1590-91)
231.    Innocent IX (1591)
232.    Clement VIII (1592-1605)
233.    Leo XI (1605)
234.    Paul V (1605-21)
235.    Gregory XV (1621-23)
236.    Urban VIII (1623-44)
237.    Innocent X (1644-55)
238.    Alexander VII (1655-67)
239.    Clement IX (1667-69)
240.    Clement X (1670-76)
241.    Blessed Innocent XI (1676-89)
242.    Alexander VIII (1689-91)
243.    Innocent XII (1691-1700)
244.    Clement XI (1700-21)
245.    Innocent XIII (1721-24)
246.    Benedict XIII (1724-30)
247.    Clement XII (1730-40)
248.    Benedict XIV (1740-58)
249.    Clement XIII (1758-69)
250.    Clement XIV (1769-74)
251.    Pius VI (1775-99)
252.    Pius VII (1800-23)
253.    Leo XII (1823-29)
254.    Pius VIII (1829-30)
255.    Gregory XVI (1831-46)
256.    Blessed Pius IX (1846-78)
257.    Leo XIII (1878-1903)
258.    St. Pius X (1903-14)
259.    Benedict XV (1914-22) Biographies of Benedict XV and his successors will be added at a later date
260.    Pius XI (1922-39)
261.    Pius XII (1939-58)
262.    Blessed John XXIII (1958-63)
263.    Paul VI (1963-78)
264.    John Paul I (1978)
265.    John Paul II (1978-2005)
266.    Benedict XVI (2005—)


What is the biblical basis for the Covenant of Redemption? In Covenant Theology the Covenant of Redemption is an eternal agreement made between the members of the Trinity in which the Son of God agrees to become incarnate and die for the the sins of God's people. In return the Father promises to raise the Son back to life and glorify him.

What is the biblical basis for this idea? Answers do not have to show that the Bible uses the term 'covenant' to talk about this, but should show that this agreement was made before time began.

The Covenant of Redemption in the Bible

  Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus: Who, being
  in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be
  grasped, but made himself nothing, taking the very nature of a
  servant, being made in human likeness. And being found in appearance
  as a man, he humbled himself and became obedient to death-- even death
  on a cross! Therefore God exalted him to the highest place and gave
  him the name that is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every
  knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth,  and
  every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God
  the Father.

  Philippians 2:5-11 (NIV)

Here we see the outworking of the Covenant of Redemption. Jesus humbled himself to "death on a cross" and "therefore God exalted him." We see the same sort of thing in John 17. Jesus brings the Father glory, therefore the Father will bring him glory:

  I have brought you glory on earth by finishing the work you gave me to
  do. And now, Father, glorify me in your presence with the glory I had
  with you before the world began.

  John 17:4-5 (NIV)

Jesus says these sorts of things all throughout John. It's also in Isaiah 53:

  Yet it was the LORD's will to crush him and cause him to suffer, and
  though the LORD makes his life a guilt offering, he will see his
  offspring and prolong his days, and the will of the LORD will prosper
  in his hand. After the suffering of his soul, he will see the light
  [of life] and be satisfied; by his knowledge my righteous servant will
  justify many, and he will bear their iniquities. Therefore I will give
  him a portion among the great, and he will divide the spoils with the
  strong, because he poured out his life unto death, and was numbered
  with the transgressors. For he bore the sin of many, and made
  intercession for the transgressors.

  Isaiah 53:10-12 (NIV)

Psalm 2* speaks of the glory given to Christ as decreed by the Father:

  I will proclaim the decree of the LORD: He said to me, "You are my
  Son; today I have become your Father. Ask of me, and I will make the
  nations your inheritance, the ends of the earth your possession. You
  will rule them with an iron scepter; you will dash them to pieces like
  pottery." Therefore, you kings, be wise; be warned, you rulers of the
  earth. Serve the LORD with fear and rejoice with trembling. Kiss the
  Son, lest he be angry and you be destroyed in your way, for his wrath
  can flare up in a moment. Blessed are all who take refuge in him.

  Psalm 2:7-12 (NIV)

Before time began

But when was this agreement made? If it's spoken of by David and Isaiah, it's at least as old as the time of David. But was it made before time began? The reformed say yes. R.C. Sproul articulates the reformed position this way:

  The Bible speaks often of God’s eternal counsel, of His plan of
  salvation and the like. It is a matter of theological urgency that
  Christians not think of God as a ruler who ad libs His dominion of the
  universe. God does not “make it up as He goes along.” Nor must He be
  viewed as a bumbling administrator who is so inept in His planning
  that His blueprint for redemption must be endlessly subject to
  revision according to the actions of men. The God of Scripture has no
  “plan b” or “plan c.” His “plan a” is from everlasting to everlasting.
  It is both perfect and unchangeable as it rests on God’s eternal
  character, which is among other things, holy, omniscient, and
  immutable. God’s eternal plan is not revised because of moral
  imperfections within it that must be purified. His plan was not
  corrected or amended because He gained new knowledge that He lacked at
  the beginning. God’s plan never changes because He never changes and
  because perfection admits to no degrees and cannot be improved upon.

Are there verses to support this idea? Yes. In 2 Timothy, Paul says that God saved us by giving us grace in Christ Jesus "before the beginning of time"**:

  So do not be ashamed of the testimony about our Lord or of me his
  prisoner. Rather, join with me in suffering for the gospel, by the
  power of God. He has saved us and called us to a holy life—not because
  of anything we have done but because of his own purpose and grace.
  This grace was given us in Christ Jesus before the beginning of time,
  but it has now been revealed through the appearing of our Savior,
  Christ Jesus, who has destroyed death and has brought life and
  immortality to light through the gospel.

  2 Timothy 1:8-10 (NIV)

Lastly, Ephesians 1 brings together all the themes previously discussed. We see God purposing to reveal the mystery of his will to us "before the creation of the world" by bringing all things together "under Christ."

  Praise be to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has
  blessed us in the heavenly realms with every spiritual blessing in
  Christ. For he chose us in him before the creation of the world to be
  holy and blameless in his sight. In love he predestined us for
  adoption to sonship through Jesus Christ, in accordance with his
  pleasure and will— to the praise of his glorious grace, which he has
  freely given us in the One he loves. In him we have redemption through
  his blood, the forgiveness of sins, in accordance with the riches of
  God’s grace that he lavished on us. With all wisdom and understanding,
  he made known to us the mystery of his will according to his good
  pleasure, which he purposed in Christ, to be put into effect when the
  times reach their fulfillment—to bring unity to all things in heaven
  and on earth under Christ.

  Ephesians 1:3-10 (NIV)

Additional Resources

Of Christ the Mediator | Westminster Confession***
The Covenant of Redemption between the Father and the Redeemer | John Flavel (1627-1691)
What Is the Covenant of Redemption? | Ligonier Ministries
Is there a biblical basis for the Covenant of Redemption? | Monergism.com

* Psalm 2 is considered a messianic psalm in the Christian tradition, especially by the reformed, and it seems hard to argue against that given the way it's used in Hebrews 1.

** I almost included Revelation 13:8 at this point. The verse was discussed on BH.SE and this translation was suggested: "All those who live on the earth worshiped it, anyone whose name has not been written in the scroll of life (which belongs to the slain Lamb) since the world's founding." The more traditional "lamb who was slain from the foundation of the world" would be a more convincing addition to this post, but I think even the translation given by Mark Edward works to support the point. After all, names were written in the scroll of life since the world's founding, and their being there depends on the lamb being slain. Hence the names must have been written before the foundation of the world with the knowledge of Christ's future sacrifice.

*** B. B. Warfield called covenant theology the "architectronic principle" of the Westminster Confession, but it's not universally agreed that it teaches the Covenant of Redemption. Chapter 8: Of Christ the Mediator is cited by those who believe it supports the concept. Very few would dispute that it supports the Covenant of Grace or Covenant of Works, however.

Addendum: The Covenant of Redemption is really threefold. The question captured two of its aspects, that of the Son dying and Father glorifying him, but equally important is the Father's promise to send the Spirit. This answer focused on the aspects that the question did, but if you want to understand the Covenant of Redemption, it's important to note the sending of the Spirit.


Are there or have there been Christian healing ministries that have documented healing cases with supporting medical records? Christian healing ministries abound. A quick search on any search engine can lead to lots of ministries that claim to be able to heal the sick, as well as testimonials of people who claim to have received healing of some ailment during a healing crusade, or because someone prayed for them, etc. I'm not questioning the sincerity of all people nor claiming that everyone is lying, on the contrary, I truly believe that a significant percentage of the testimonies out there must be genuine, in the sense that people are telling the truth when they share their personal experiences of healing.
That said, I'm still curious to know if any Christian healing ministry out there has undertaken the effort of documenting at least some of their healings, by keeping copies of the medical records of the healed person and the results of a subsequent medical examination confirming that the person is completely healed. Has a Christian healing ministry ever done that?

Responding to concerns raised in the comments:
By healing ministry I mean either an individual or a group of people who claim to have the gift of healing or to have been called by God to heal the sick as an active occupation. However, for the sake of getting answers, other medically documented cases of healing occurred in similar circumstances are acceptable too, such as:

A holy place where people are commonly reported to get miraculously healed.
Someone who gets prayed for (and healed) by someone else and has the medical records to prove it (in this case the healed person is the one with the evidence, not the healing ministry, but that's fine).
And any other situation that is close to what I'm looking for that I may be overlooking.

Are there or have there been Christian healing ministries that have documented healing cases with supporting medical records?
The Catholic Church has a long tradition of accepting medical miracles as miraculous only after a lengthy investigation into the matter. Although the miraculous are now well documented, the files are generally not published for public viewing. There is a distinction to be made between documented and then publishing that information.
The miraculous healing in the Catholic Church need to be spontaneous, instantaneous and complete healing. Medical doctors have to be able say “We don't have any natural explanation of what happened."
I would like to point out that those doing the scientific and/or medical investigations do not necessarily have to be Catholic.
I am going to answer this in a rather unique manner and probably one not intended, yet would qualify as an example, while not being interpreted in the normal thought of what a modern healing ministry seems to mean.
I am talking about The Healing Ministry of Mary.
The healing ability of Mary goes down several centuries and is continuing in our own times.
I am going to make a double biblical metaphor here, if you will allow me to do so.
I am going to use the metaphor of Mary, the Mother of Jesus as the Pool of Bethsaida which goes well with the imagery of the healing apparitions of Mary at Lourdes as a place of healing.

1 After this came a Jewish feast, for which Jesus went up to Jerusalem. 2 There is a pool in Jerusalem at the Sheep Gate, called in Hebrew Bethsaida, with five porches, 3 under which a multitude of diseased folk used to lie, the blind, the lame, the disabled, waiting for a disturbance of the water. 4 From time to time, an angel of the Lord came down upon the pool, and the water was stirred up; and the first man who stepped into the pool after the stirring of the water, recovered from whatever infirmity it was that oppressed him. 5 There was one man there who had been disabled for thirty-eight years. 6 Jesus saw him lying there, and knew that he had waited a long time; Hast thou a mind, he asked, to recover thy strength? 7 Sir, said the cripple, I have no one to let me down into the pool when the water is stirred; and while I am on my way, somebody else steps down before me. 8 Jesus said to him, Rise up, take up thy bed, and walk. 9 And all at once the man recovered his strength, and took up his bed, and walked. That day it was the sabbath: 10 and the Jews said to the man who had been cured, It is the sabbath; it is not lawful for thee to carry thy bed. 11 He answered them, The man who gave me back my strength told me himself, Take up thy bed, and walk. 12 So they asked him, Who is this man who told thee, Take up thy bed, and walk? 13 The cripple who had been healed did not know who it was; Jesus had drawn aside from so crowded a place. 14 But afterwards when Jesus found him in the temple, and said to him, Behold, thou hast recovered thy strength; do not sin any more, for fear that worse should befall thee, 15 the man went back and told the Jews that it was Jesus who had restored his strength. - John 5:1-14

Lourdes resembles the Pool of Bethsaida in the sense that those seeking physical healing bath in the waters.
Lourdes water is water which flows from a spring in the Grotto of Massabielle in the Sanctuary of Our Lady of Lourdes, France. The location of the spring was described to Bernadette Soubirous by an apparition of Our Lady of Lourdes on 25 February 1858. Since that time, many thousands of pilgrims to Lourdes have followed the instruction of Our Lady of Lourdes to "drink at the spring and bathe in it". Lourdes water is considered non-liturgical holy water.

The Sanctuary of Our Lady of Lourdes or the Domain (as it is most commonly known) is an area of ground surrounding the Catholic shrine (Grotto) to Our Lady of Lourdes in the town of Lourdes, France. The Sanctuary is a destination for pilgrimage; sick pilgrims are reputed to be miraculously healed by Lourdes water. This ground is owned and administered by the Roman Catholic Church, and has several functions, including devotional activities, offices, and accommodation for sick pilgrims and their helpers. The Domain includes the Grotto itself, the nearby taps which dispense the Lourdes water, and the offices of the Lourdes Medical Bureau, as well as several churches and basilicas. It comprises an area of 51 hectares, and includes 22 separate places of worship. There are six official languages of the Sanctuary: French, English, Italian, Spanish, Dutch and German.
Lourdes water flows from a spring at the same spot where it was discovered by Bernadette. The original spring can be seen within the Grotto, lit from below and protected by a glass screen. Pilgrims drink Lourdes water due to its reputed healing power. The water is accessed from individual taps located between the grotto and the baths, The water from Lourdes was thoroughly analysed by independent chemists in 1858 and 1859, and does not appear to have a latent power to cure and has no special scientific or medicinal properties. Despite this, the water is itself a strong symbol of devotion for Lourdes pilgrims, and many buy statues and rosary beads containing small vials of it, and take home large plastic containers of it.
Baths
Each year about 350,000 pilgrims bathe in the water at the baths (Piscines).5 During the pilgrimage season, the baths are open 8:30 am –12:30 pm / 1:30 – 6:00 pm on weekdays and 10.00 am-12.00 noon / 2.00 pm-4.00 pm Sundays and Holidays. - Sanctuary of Our Lady of Lourdes

Mary is still healing people at Lourdes and the latest confirmed miracle on February 12, 2018.

Lourdes, France, Feb 12, 2018 / 02:00 pm MT ().- A miracle was officially recognized at the Marian shrine of Our Lady of Lourdes in France, the 70th Lourdes miracle recognized by the Catholic Church.
The miraculous event involved a French nun, Sister Bernadette Moriau, who went on a pilgrimage to the shrine of Our Lady of Lourdes in 2008. She had been suffering from spinal complications which had rendered her wheelchair-bound and fully disabled since 1980. She also said she had been taking morphine to control the pain.
Moriau’s case was brought to the attention of the International Medical Committee of Lourdes, who extensively researched the nun’s recovery. They eventually found that Moriau’s healing could not be scientifically explained.
After a healing is recognized by the Lourdes committee, the paperwork is then sent to the diocese of origin, where the local bishop has the final say. After the bishop’s blessing, a healing can then be officially recognized by the Church as a miracle. - The 70th miracle: Lourdes healing officially declared supernatural

Of the 70,000 alleged miracles at Lourdes only 70 miracles (as of 2018) have been approved as worthy of belief. The Cures at Lourdes which have been recognised as miraculous by the Church.
The second metaphor I will be using is taking the Woman of the Apocalypse and the apparitions at Fátima and the Miracle of the Sun.

12 And a great sign appeared in heaven: A woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars:
2 And being with child, she cried travailing in birth, and was in pain to be delivered.
3 And there was seen another sign in heaven: and behold a great red dragon, having seven heads, and ten horns: and on his head seven diadems:
4 And his tail drew the third part of the stars of heaven, and cast them to the earth: and the dragon stood before the woman who was ready to be delivered; that, when she should be delivered, he might devour her son.
5 And she brought forth a man child, who was to rule all nations with an iron rod: and her son was taken up to God, and to his throne.
6 And the woman fled into the wilderness, where she had a place prepared by God, that there they should feed her a thousand two hundred sixty days.
7 And there was a great battle in heaven, Michael and his angels fought with the dragon, and the dragon fought and his angels:
8 And they prevailed not, neither was their place found any more in heaven.
9 And that great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, who is called the devil and Satan, who seduceth the whole world; and he was cast unto the earth, and his angels were thrown down with him.
10 And I heard a loud voice in heaven, saying: Now is come salvation, and strength, and the kingdom of our God, and the power of his Christ: because the accuser of our brethren is cast forth, who accused them before our God day and night.
11 And they overcame him by the blood of the Lamb, and by the word of the testimony, and they loved not their lives unto death.
12 Therefore rejoice, O heavens, and you that dwell therein. Woe to the earth, and to the sea, because the devil is come down unto you, having great wrath, knowing that he hath but a short time.
13 And when the dragon saw that he was cast unto the earth, he persecuted the woman, who brought forth the man child:
14 And there were given to the woman two wings of a great eagle, that she might fly into the desert unto her place, where she is nourished for a time and times, and half a time, from the face of the serpent.
15 And the serpent cast out of his mouth after the woman, water as it were a river; that he might cause her to be carried away by the river.
16 And the earth helped the woman, and the earth opened her mouth, and swallowed up the river, which the dragon cast out of his mouth.
17 And the dragon was angry against the woman: and went to make war with the rest of her seed, who keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ.
18 And he stood upon the sand of the sea. - Revelation 12

It is easily seen as to how the Mary can be compared to the Woman of the Apocalypse with the Marian apparitions at Fátima and the Miracle of the Sun.

On the 13th day of the month, from May to October 1917, the Blessed Virgin Mary appeared to Lucia, Francisco, and Jacinta, who were ten, nine, and seven years old. Through these humble and simple children, Heaven provided Earth a warning of dangers to come that could lead to the destruction of the world and the ruin of countless souls. In a prophetic secret, Our Lady gave the children a frightening vision of Hell, and foretold the coming of the Second World War, the rise of Communist Russia, and the persecution of the Church. To draw the world from this ruinous course and to bring about a lasting peace, she called for the Rosary to be prayed daily, for acts of penance, and for the consecration of Russia to her Immaculate Heart. With these dire warnings and urgent requests, the Mother of God also gave a promise of hope: “In the end, my Immaculate Heart will triumph.”

All of this was reported by the shepherd children. The message of Fatima—without any propaganda or publicity—spread by word of mouth and crossed the frontiers of Portugal. The irresistible flow of pilgrims increased more and more in response to this message of hope. During the last apparition, on October 13, 1917, a crowd of 70,000 gathered at the Cova da Iria, where Our Lady had appeared to the children. She promised a great miracle that day so all would believe. As the crowds raised their eyes to Heaven in prayer, they would witness the promised miracle, confirming everything the children had said. They saw the sun dance.

Then the sun began to dance, whirling violently through the sky, shooting forth streams of light which colored objects on the ground. The sun then seemed to detach itself from the sky and plummet to the Earth. Another witness, Maria Carreira, recalled: “It looked like a wheel of fire that was going to fall on the people. They began to cry out, ‘We shall all be killed!’ Others called to Our Lady to save them. They recited acts of contrition. One woman began to confess her sins aloud, advertising that she had done this and that…” (quoted in Fatima for Today). The sun then climbed back to its normal place in the sky, leaving everything instantaneously dry, from the dirt on the ground to the clothes on the people’s backs. The whole spectacle lasted about 10 minutes.
Not every witness was a willing believer. Many were skeptics, and some were even declared enemies of the Church.
Not every witness was in Fatima either. The great miracle was seen by many people from neighboring towns and villages up to 25 miles away. These distant witnesses dispel theories of mass hallucination or suggestion resulting from the heightened emotion of expectation. - Hope and mercy and the “Miracle of the Sun”

When Lúcia (one of the seers) was asked why God healed so few people, she simply replied: “God knows the hearts of men. He is leery of man!”
Nevertheless, some medical miracles at Fátima have been approved by the Church.
Here are a couple of examples of Mary working miracles at Fátima, Portugal.

Our Lady's apparitions at Fatima ended October 13th 1917 with the spin of the solar disk for ten minutes in front of over fifty thousand people. Then the great sanctuary was built; celebrations started, and the hand of God revealed itself, especially through the miraculous events. We name a few, among the most significant.
Healing from cancer
Joaquim Duarte Oliveira, residing in Lisbon, got cancer,he had been lying in bed for eight years. He had received all possible care from the best specialists in Portugal, but but with no results. His wife, as a last resort, in October 1927, entrusted herself to Our Lady of Fatima to whom she made a promise; she administered to her husband, without his knowledge, a few drops of the prodigious water. On his pillow she would leave the edition "Voice of Fatima" where stories were told about the miraculous cure of Dr. Agacio Ribeiro. Joaquim, driven by curiosity began to read. By reading he felt the faith and hope in the Virgin. Unexpectedly, he began to pray to Our Lady of Fatima to heal him, as she had cured the doctor. Just at that moment he felt entirely transformed, totally healed, and the next day Joaquim resumed his normal life. A month later he went with his family to Fatima to thank the Virgin Mary.
Extraordinary healing
Emilia Martins 42 years, a native of Santiago,had beeb lying in bed for six years, she could hardly move around and her stomach did not tolerate any food. Woman of great faith she wanted to go to Fatima, but could not because she was too poor. Some devout people gathered the amount necessary to rent a car and so Emilia went with a nurse and two sisters. During the journey, her condition worsened and in Oporto Emilia was administered the last rites, but was able to resume her journey. When she arrived to the Sanctuary, she was brought on a stretcher to the hospital, while in the hospital underwent several syncopes, in one of which a doctor said, "She is dead." The insistence of one of the assistants, revealed a few heartbeats, it was decided to bring her to the Blessing of the sick. The sick woman, upon receiving the blessing, awoke as from sleep, opened her eyes and perked up little by little, finally she regained consciousness. She felt a general well-being and exclaimed: "I am healed" ... "May Our Lady of Fatima be praised and thanked". The doctor gave a certificate of full recovery, in which he declared that the fact had occurred so suddenly that the case was not medically explainable. - Fatima

Many are the miracles of the Healing Ministry of Mary.
In a Ripley's Believe It or Not moment, some would call restoring someone’s tongue, while others would like to denied it as fact.

On the left side of the Shrine of Our Lady of Oropa, there are three marble gravestones with inscriptions in Latin which refer to the three miracles legally recognized by the Ecclesiastical Authority and authenticated by regular canonical process. They are:
John the Baptist Perrone
John the Baptist Perrone in 1718 was taken prisoner by the Turks, who urged him to renounce the Catholic faith, he refused and his tongue was cut off. The Franciscans and rescued him so he could return to Piedmont. He came to Oropa for the coronation of Mary Healer of Oropa and obtained the grace: the instant the bishop Gattinara, Bishop of Alexandria, set down on the head of the Virgin the new tiara, he felt his tongue growing and recovered the ability to speak. As in the previous case, a canonical trial was started and ended in the year 1724 by approving as miracle "the recovery of tongue and speech by John Perrone.". - Miracles at Oropa

And then there was Padre Pio!

The Most Amazing Case of Padre Pio’s Intercession?
The case of Gemma di Giorgi baffles doctors. Born in the Sicilian town of Ribera on Christmas day, 1939, her mother noted that Gemma seemed different to other children.
Looking into the eyes of her little girl, Gemma’s mother noticed that her eyes seemed abnormal and malformed. Gemma’s mother took her to doctor after doctor, and they diagnosed that she had no pupils, and that there was no medicines or surgery that would cure her.  Her parents concluded that they would have to pray for a miracle, they had a relation who was a nun and she recommended that they get in touch with Padre Pio. Gemma’s grandmother entreated the nun to send a letter to Padre Pio on behalf of her blind granddaughter.
After sending the letter, the nun had a dream where Padre Pio appeared to her and asked her, "where is Gemma for whom so many prayers are being offered that they are almost deafening?"
In the dream, the nun presented Gemma to Padre Pio and he made the sign of the cross over her eyes. The very next day, a letter arrived from Padre Pio. He wrote, "Dear daughter, rest assured that I will pray for Gemma. I send you my best wishes."
The ‘coincidence’ of the dream and the letter coming one after the other – stunned the nun who contacted Gemma’s family and persuaded them to take Gemma to see Padre Pio.
In 1947, Gemma and her grandmother set off for San Giovanni Rotondo. Gemma was 7 at the time.  While they were on the way, mysteriously, inexplicably and unexpectedly, Gemma began to see…she could see the sea and a ship. When she told her grandmother, she took this as a sign and began to pray.
A miracle had clearly taken place, but Gemma’s grandmother was still under the impression that they needed to ask Padre Pio’s intercession, and to do so in person. When their journey ended and they reached San Giovanni Rotondo, Padre Pio saw Gemma approach, and said hello to her.  He had never been introduced in ‘real life’ to Gemma, but knew who she was, the minute he clapped eyes on her.
The little seven-year-old Gemma entered the dark confines of Padre Pio’s confessional. Contrary to her grandmother’s wishes, Gemma never said anything of her eyes to Padre Pio, but he touched her eyes with the bloody part of his hand, and drew the sign of the cross on her.
Gemma’s grandmother was disappointed and emotional that Gemma had neglected to ask of Padre Pio a grace for healing her eyes.  Tears streamed down her face, and so she went to confession to Padre Pio, and asked him to intercede on Gemma's behalf and said, "I asked the grace for Gemma and I told Padre Pio that Gemma was weeping because, in her confession with him she had forgotten to ask this grace. I will never forget his soft and tender voice as he answered me with these words, "Do you have faith, my daughter? The child must not weep and neither must you for the child sees, and you know she sees." I understood then that Padre Pio was alluding to the sea and the ship Gemma had seen during the trip and that God had used Padre Pio to break through the darkness that covered Gemma's eyes."


Where did Jesus' belief in the devil come from? In Jn 8:44, Jesus tells some people that their father is the devil. I have read that in Judaism there is no devil, so I was wondering where did Jesus' belief in the devil come from.

In Judaism, there most certainly is a devil, first alluded to in Genesis 3. The serpent mentioned that deceived Eve is known to be the devil, and we can specifically see a more direct reference to the devil itself, named a garden cherub, being cast from "the holy mountain of God" starting in Ezekiel 28:15.

Further, the story in the book of Job has its premise in a direct conversation of God with Satan. We know Jesus had read Job, because he was wise in the Scriptures, and the Hebrew writer (someone contemporary with the birth of New Testament Christianity) referenced Job in Hebrews 11:4.

Most definitively, we have the encounter of Jesus with the devil directly as he was tempted in the desert for 40 days. Jesus knows he is the Son of God, and the devil knows it, too, and tries to get him to bow before him, but of course he fails, and leaves upon hearing "Begone, Satan!" in Matt. 4:10.

The Jews of Jesus' time also spoke of demons frequently, even going as far as to question if Jesus' miraculous casting out of demons was by the power of 'the prince of demons', Beelzebub/Beelzebul (Matt. 12:27) (which of course, it was not, because it was done by the authority of God.).

Those are just some of the tangible ways we can see that Jesus could have known about the devil, not the least of which was in Scriptural records and oral tradition. However, do not forget that as Christians, we believe that Jesus is holy and descended from heaven itself, and had all spiritual knowledge needed to teach the world what it needed to know. The demons (sometimes called 'unclean spirits') I mentioned previously also were familiar with Jesus, just as Jesus is familiar with them and the devil they serve, demonstrated in Acts 19:15 when the sons of Sceva unsuccessfully tried to exorcise a demon. The demon, upon hearing the command to come out of a man in the name of 'the Jesus that Paul proclaims', replied "Jesus I know, and Paul I recognize, but who are you?".

In short, the Bible is filled with references to Satan, both in the Old and New testaments. The Old testament, which Jesus evident ally studied much of, references the devil plenty. I am not familiar with the modern practice of Judaism, but in ancient times they still had more than just the Torah, they had the books of the prophets (especially Isaiah). The new testament, that was written concerning Jesus, references interactions with the devil and demons frequently, as proof that Jesus was familiar with, interacted with, and had power over them.

I hope my answer was clear enough.


What in New Testament invalidates God’s commandments from the Old Testament? Where in the New Testament  (if at all) does it say that Christians do not have to abide God’s commandments from the Old Testament?

The Old Testament contains many commandments.
Some of them the New Testament explicitly says are still in force. In Jesus' Sermon on the Mount he addresses some of these, including murder, adultery, and covetousness.
Some of them the New Testament explicitly says are obsolete. That includes all regulations surrounding temple worship. As Jesus told the woman at the well in John 4:

21 “Woman,” Jesus replied, “believe me, a time is coming when you will
worship the Father neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem. 22 You
Samaritans worship what you do not know; we worship what we do know,
for salvation is from the Jews. 23 Yet a time is coming and has now
come when the true worshipers will worship the Father in the Spirit
and in truth, for they are the kind of worshipers the Father seeks. 24
God is spirit, and his worshipers must worship in the Spirit and in
truth.”

The entire Book of Hebrews speaks of the old sacrificial system and how it really pointed to Jesus and his death on the cross. Since Jesus has paid the price once and for all time, no more blood sacrifices are necessary.
Another regulation concerns circumcision. The early church argued fiercely about this, but the Apostle Paul confronted the church leadership over the issue and they agreed that Gentile believers did not need to be circumcised. You can read about this in Acts 15:

6 The apostles and elders met to consider this question. 7 After much
discussion, Peter got up and addressed them: “Brothers, you know that
some time ago God made a choice among you that the Gentiles might hear
from my lips the message of the gospel and believe. 8 God, who knows
the heart, showed that he accepted them by giving the Holy Spirit to
them, just as he did to us. 9 He did not discriminate between us and
them, for he purified their hearts by faith. 10 Now then, why do you
try to test God by putting on the necks of Gentiles a yoke that
neither we nor our ancestors have been able to bear? 11 No! We believe
it is through the grace of our Lord Jesus that we are saved, just as
they are.”
...
19 “It is my judgment, therefore, that we should not make it difficult
for the Gentiles who are turning to God. 20 Instead we should write to
them, telling them to abstain from food polluted by idols, from sexual
immorality, from the meat of strangled animals and from blood. 21 For
the law of Moses has been preached in every city from the earliest
times and is read in the synagogues on every Sabbath.”

The latter part of the quote gives the highlights of what parts of the Law were to remain in force: no idol worship or participation in pagan rituals, humane slaughter of animals, and no sexual immorality.
The Apostle Paul also spoke to the issue of celebrating the Jewish holidays, saying that they were not obligatory. In Galatians 4 he says:

8 Formerly, when you did not know God, you were slaves to those who by
nature are not gods. 9 But now that you know God—or rather are known
by God—how is it that you are turning back to those weak and miserable
forces[d]? Do you wish to be enslaved by them all over again? 10 You
are observing special days and months and seasons and years! 11 I fear
for you, that somehow I have wasted my efforts on you.

And in Romans 14, Paul says:

5 One person considers one day more sacred than another; another
considers every day alike. Each of them should be fully convinced in
their own mind. 6 Whoever regards one day as special does so to the
Lord.

This still leaves many parts of the Old Testament Law that were never rescinded nor commanded. Christians have been debating those rules ever since. However, if you read the New Testament carefully, you will at least find that the Ten Commandments are all still in force, since at one point or another all of them are covered.
However, even those commandments that are still in force are to be looked at in a new light. You are not justified by following them. Instead, having trusted in Christ by faith, as a saved person under the instruction of the Holy Spirit, you will desire to follow them out of love.