What does St. Augustine mean by predestination? St. Augustine says somewhere (quoted in the old Catholic Encyclopedia):

Predestination is nothing else than the foreknowledge and foreordaining of those gracious gifts which make certain the salvation of all who are saved
Predestination - Catholic Encyclopedia

So... is this just a tautology?  The fact that those who are saved will have salvation doesn't seem terribly deep, is this all the farther a Catholic can go with the concept of predestination?

As the quotation in the body of your question points out, St. Augustine deduced from the New Testament texts the following definition: "Predestination is the foreknowledge and the preparation of those gifts of God whereby they who are delivered are most certainly delivered."(1) In this definition the word "foreknowledge" is not taken as meaning that God foresees the merits of the elect, but that He foreknows and prepares the gifts by which the elect will actually be saved in the order of execution. "By His predestination, God foreknew what He had to do,"(2) so as to direct His elect infallibly to eternal life.  Here Augustine is echoing our Lord's words: "My sheep . . . shall not perish for ever. And no man shall pluck them out of My hand." (3)

According to St. Augustine, predestination presupposes a decisive and definite will on God's part to sanctify and freely save all the elect. (4) God knows them individually and He wills to have them perform meritoriously acts that are required for entering heaven. He wills to give them the grace to persevere until the end.  “..It is God who worketh in you, both to will and to accomplish according to His good will."(5) The fact that God foresees our salutary and meritorious acts presupposes, according to the teaching of St. Augustine, the decree of the divine will as regards these acts. (6)

  Far be it that man should have the power to frustrate the intention
  of the omnipotent Being who has foreknowledge of all things.  These
  have but a faint conception of so great a question or what they have
  does not suffice, who think that the omnipotent God wills something
  and is powerless to effect it because of weak man preventing Him.

Augustine says that God’s will is omnipotent and efficacious (most efficacious).(7) We read in one of his treatises as follows: "There is no doubt that human wills cannot resist (in sensu composito) the will of God, who hath done whatsoever He willed in heaven and on earth, in that He does what He wills and when He wills. Undoubtedly He has the power to move the human heart to submit, as it pleases Him, to His omnipotent will."(8) From this we see that, in St. Augustine's view, the decrees of the divine will are infallible not because God foreknows that we will give our consent, but because He is omnipotent. He also says: "The wills of men are more in God's power than in their own."(9) In another of his works he says: "There is no doubt that we will whenever we will, but He is the cause of our willing what is good; . . . there is no doubt that we act whenever we act, but He is the cause of our acting, by most efficaciously strengthening our will."(10) Still more clearly when speaking professedly on this subject of predestination, he says that "no one who is hardened in heart rejects grace, because it is primarily given to remove this hardness of heart.''(11)

St. Augustine repeatedly teaches and stresses that predestination is gratuitous. In discussing the gift of perseverance, he says: "Of two children equally held captive by original sin, why is one taken and the other left? And of two wicked persons already advanced in years, why is one called and the other not? All this pertains to the inscrutable judgments of God."(12) He also says: "Why God draws this one and not that other, seek not to judge, if thou wilt not err."(13) What precisely constitutes the crux of the mystery, according to St. Augustine's opinion, is man's inability to find out the reasons for the divine choice. He is continually harking back to this impossibility, and his opponents find no avenue of escape from it. This impossibility is a pledge of his fidelity to the teaching of St. Paul. It is, so to speak, the theme of his teaching. (14)

As a Doctor of the Church, Augustine greatly developed the Catholic doctrine of predestination.  The fathers previous to the time of St. Augustine, especially the Greek fathers, often interpreted predestination as meaning the will to give glory after this life. They scarcely spoke of it except by way of exhortation, and then they had in mind the preconceived order of execution in which merits precede glory, whereas as intended by God it happens in the inverse order. (15) In the order of intention God wills the end before the means; that is why He wills to save the good thief to whom He grants the grace of final perseverance. But in the order of execution He gives eternal life as the reward of meritorious acts.  This distinction between intention and execution was only gradually applied to the problem of predestination. At first it was applied obscurely by St. Augustine, and then more and more explicitly by the Scholastic theologians.

Predestination, (16) as is defined by the Church, has not been infrequently met with the heresy of predestinarianism:

The essence of this heretical Predestinarianism (17) may be expressed in these two fundamental propositions which bear to each other the relation of cause and effect:

•   the absolute will of God as the sole cause of the salvation or damnation of the individual, without regard to his merits or demerits;

•   as to the elect, it denies the freedom of the will under the influence of efficacious grace while it puts the reprobate under the necessity of committing sin in consequence of the absence of grace.

The Church’s defense of St. Augustine’s doctrine of gratuitous free will clarifies to us what the Church has persistently taught, first of all against predestinarianism, and then against Calvinism, Bajanism, and Jansenism.

In the fifth century, Lucidus, a priest of the Catholic Church who was accused of having taught predestinarianism or predestination to evil, made a retractation of his teaching in the Council of Arles, which was held in the year 473. His opinion, as formulated by the council, reads as follows: "That Christ the Lord, our Savior, did not die for the salvation of all mankind; . . . that God's foreknowledge forcibly impels man to everlasting death, or that those who are lost, are lost by God's will. . . . Likewise I reject the opinion of one who says that some are destined to everlasting death and others are predestined to everlasting life."(18) In his retraction, Lucidus affirmed that he who is lost could have been saved. (19)

Council of Quierzy (853)

Canon 1 - That God wills in a certain way to save all men

Canon 2 - That there is no such thing as predestination to evil, but that God decreed from all eternity to inflict the penalty of damnation for the sin of final impenitence, a sin which He foresaw and in no way caused but merely permitted.

Canon 3 - Almighty God wills without exception, all men to be saved, though not all are saved. That some are saved, however, is the gift of Him who saves; if some perish, it is the fault of them that perish.

The 3rd Council of Valence (855) insisted more strongly on the gratuity of predestination to eternal life in so far as it is distinct from simple foreknowledge, for this latter also extends to evil. According to the declarations of this council, the least good and the least punishment that is justly inflicted, never occur without a positive and infallible decree from God, and no sin is committed, and nowhere by preference, without His foreknowledge and permission.(20)

Council of Langres (859)

Canon 1 - Whatsoever the Lord pleased He hath done in heaven and on earth. For nothing is done in heaven or on earth, except what He Himself is pleased to do, or justly permits to be done. This means that all good things, whether easy or difficult to accomplish, whether natural or supernatural, come from God, and that sin does not occur, nor in this one rather than in the other, without His divine permission.

Canon 2 - God wills all men to be saved and no one to perish. . . nor after the fall of the first man is it His will forcibly to deprive man of free will.

Canon 3 - That those, however, who are walking in the path of righteousness, may continue to do so and persevere in their innocence, He heals and aids their free will by grace.

Canon 4 - They who go far from God, who is desirous of gathering the children of Jerusalem that wills it not, will perish.

Canon 5 - Hence it is because of God's grace that the world is saved; and it is because man has free will that the world be judged.

Canon 6 - Adam, through willing what is evil, lost the power to do what is good. . . . Wherefore the whole human race became a mass of perdition. If no one had been rescued from it, God's justice would not have been to blame. That many are saved, however, is due to God's ineffable grace.

This last statement echoes what St. Augustine said. Thus at the end of these conferences of the ninth century, the bishops, assembled in council at Thuzey, rejected absolutely the theory of predestination to evil and affirmed God's universal will to save, as Prosper had done. God never commands the impossible, but He wills to make it possible for all to fulfil His precepts and obtain salvation. That is what all the bishops assembled in this last mentioned council affirmed with SS. Augustine and Prosper. But they do not deny the other aspect of the mystery, which is: the absolute gratuity of predestination, of true predestination as opposed to reprobation.

In the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, this teaching of the Church was confirmed both by the decisions of the Council of Trent against the errors of Protestantism and by the condemnation of Jansenism. The Church again declares that man, though having contracted the stain of original sin, is free to do good by the aid of grace, consenting to co-operate with it, though at the same time he can resist it.(21) From this it follows that God predestines no one to evil;(22) but He wills, on the contrary, the salvation of all men; and Christ dies for all, although all do not receive the benefit that is the fruit of His death, "but only those to whom the merit of His passion is communicated."(23) In the case of adults good works are necessary for salvation, and, in the order of execution, heavenly glory is the reward granted at the end of their probation for meritorious acts.

It is likewise declared against Jansenism that Christ did not die only for the predestined, or only for the faithful; (24) that there is a grace which is truly sufficient, and which makes the fulfilment of God's precepts possible for all those on whom these precepts are imposed. The Church, quoting the words of St. Augustine, says again in refuting the Protestants and Jansenists: "God commands not impossibilities, but, by commanding, both admonishes thee to do what thou art able, and to pray for what thou art not able to do."(25) She also says that "God does not abandon the just without previously having been abandoned by them. That some perish, is the fault of those who perish." (26)

Holy Scripture expressed the same thought in these words: "Destruction is thy own, O Israel; thy help is only in Me."(27)

De dono persever., chap. 14.
De praed. sanct., chap. 10.
John 10: 27-28.
Cf. Enchiridion, chap. 100, no. 26
Phil. 2: 13; cf. De praed. sanct., XVIII, 41; De dono persever., XXIII, 63.
De dono persever., XVII, 41, 47; XIX, 48; XX, 50; De praed. sanct., XVII, 34; XVIII, 37.
Cf. Enchiridion, chaps. 95 ff
De correptione et gratia, chap. 14.
Ibid., cf. De civitate Dei, V, 9.
De gratia et libero arbitrio, chap. 16.
De praed. Sanct., chap. 8. In his tractae ad Simplicandum, Bk. I, q.2, no. 13, St. Augustine speaks of a congruent grace that is adapted to the dispositions of the individual, these being known by God
De dono persever., chap.9
In Joan., tr. 26
De dono persever., VIII, 17; IX, 12, 21; XI, 25; XII, 30. De praed. sanct., VIII, 16; XIV, 26. De correptione et gratia, VIII, 17, 19(in the order of execution).
Cf. Dict. de Théol. Cath., art. "Prédestination," by Father Simonin, O.P.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12378a.htm
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12376b.htm
http://www.catecheticsonline.com/SourcesofDogma.php,  no. 316
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13703a.htm
http://www.catecheticsonline.com/SourcesofDogma.php,  nos. 321-22.
Ibid., no. 797; d. no. 816
Ibid., no. 827.
Ibid., no. 795.
Ibid., nos. 1096, 1294, 1380 ff.
Ibid., no. 804.
Ibid., nos. 804. 806, 1794.
Hosea 13:9


What are the general positions of different traditions on the question "did Jesus have to die?" I wish to take a much closer look at the theology of the death of Jesus. I understand that the evangelical position is largely that he had to die to pay for our sins but I fully expect that there are other views within traditions I am much less familiar with but also what objections might be raised to these views.
What is an overview of how the different traditions answer "did Jesus have to die?"

What you are basically asking is for different models of soteriology, which is a fancy way of asking: "What must I do to be saved?"
Typically there are three general schools of thought, grouped into:

Satisfaction Theories (God's wrath needs to be 'satisfied' in some fashion)
Ransom Theoriess (Satan needs to be defeated in some fashion)
Moral Influence theories (We need to learn something from Jesus' example in some fashion)

Only Satisfaction Theory requires Jesus to die. Ransom theories see it as part of the plan and may or may not require it. Moral Influence theories see the fact that Jesus was killed as a scandal that ought not have occurred.

The simplest theories to understand are the Moral Influence theories.  Typically associated with the Eastern Orthodox and yet often ascribed to Augustine and Peter Abelard, these theories focus on Jesus' teachings as the primary mode of salvation. It essentially says if you can learn from Jesus' example, you can be a good person. (Yes, the evangelical in me is saying: "But what about total depravity? - we'll get there.) In a form, this is also the position of many liberal Protestants today in practice - from the emergent church to Deists of all stripes.
Ransom theories & the Christus Victor model focus on the fact that Jesus, in dying, somehow conquered Satan. The powers of evil, having had taken possession of the Earth in the Fall, held sway until Jesus defeated Satan in Hell. As Gutav Aulen writes of this:  "the work of Christ is first and foremost a victory over the powers which hold mankind in bondage: sin, death, and the devil." It too is ascribed to the earliest Church Fathers, and held sway until Anselm, Archbishop of Canterbury, introduced substitutionary atonement in the 11th Century. Anabaptists, Peace Churches, and people like Marcus Borg tend to focus on this view. Rob Bell also espouses this view in "Love Wins," but Christianity Today explains its perceived shortcomings as essentially ignoring the fact that Scripture rarely tends to separate the satisfaction piece from the victory piece.
Finally, you have correctly identified the substitutionary atonement models as the primary models used by Evangelicals.  Substitutionary Atonement models of salvation essentially view Christ's sacrifice as in terms of either satisfying God's wrath (aka Satisfaction theory) or paying some legal penalty (aka Penal theory of atonement).  Adherents tend to be older Protestants and was definitely the mindset of Lutherans, Calvinists, and the other reformers.  Indeed Penal theory is essentially a sine quo non of Reformed theology.


Does the church have any teachings on whether the Assumption of Mary occurred indoors? This question is addressed to East Orthodox or Catholics that hold to the teaching of Mary's assumption.

Is there any dogma or tradition concerning whether she was assumed while indoors? And if she was, how could this be achieved if her physical body rose? Surely she could not have just passed through the ceiling with ease.

Both the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church have their own particular aspects or traditions on the Assumption of Mary.

They both, more or less, share the tradition that at the time the Virgin Mary died (or fell asleep), she was placed in a tomb. However, St Thomas was not present when the time came for Mary to pass on from this life to the next. So he asked the other Apostles to see the body of the Mother of Jesus who had been laid to rest in the tomb for a number of days. When the tomb was opened the body was no longer there.

This tradition is quite common in both Churches. They differ primarily as to where these events took place. The Orthodox Church believes The Assumption of Mary occurred at Jerusalem, while the Catholic Church favors the option that it occurred at Ephesus.

  St. John Damascene (d. 749) also recorded an interesting story concerning the Assumption: "St. Juvenal, Bishop of Jerusalem, at the Council of Chalcedon (451), made known to the Emperor Marcian and Pulcheria, who wished to possess the body of the Mother of God, that Mary died in the presence of all the Apostles, but that her tomb, when opened upon the request of St. Thomas, was found empty; wherefrom the Apostles concluded that the body was taken up to heaven." In all, the Patristic Fathers defended the Assumption on two counts: Since Mary was sinless and a perpetual virgin, she could not suffer bodily deterioration, the result of Original Sin, after her death. Also, if Mary bore Christ and played an intimate role as His mother in the redemption of man, then she must likewise share body and soul in His resurrection and glorification. - The Assumption of Mary

The Assumption of Mary into heaven is not a resurrection. In fact we do not even know if the Virgin Mary truly died. Both Churches have traditions on this issue also, but nothing has been defined.

Being assumed indoors should not pose a problem here. St Thomas Aquinas on his  Seven Properties of the Glorified Body tells us that a glorified body would possess the characteristic of subtlety and thus be able to pass through material objects like doors:

  5.Subtlety: On Easter Sunday night, Jesus appeared to His Apostles, who were hiding out in the upper room in Jerusalem. In Chapter 20 of his Gospel, St. John notes that the door behind which the Apostles were hiding was locked. Then Jesus appears before them in His glorified body. He is not a ghost! Because of the property known as subtlety, Jesus was able to pass through the door of the upper room. Earlier that same day, He had passed through the sealed tomb in His risen, glorified body. Our glorified bodies, while physical and tangible, will be completely under the direction of our souls, free from restraint or impediment. This is Subtlety indeed!


What is the origin of the tradition that priests had a rope tired around them when they went into the Holy of Holies? We have been told that it was custom for priests to have a rope tied on to them before they entered the tent where the Ark of the Covenant was kept, just in case something happened to them while they were in there so they could be pulled out. Is this true? What is the origin of this tradition?

Constable quotes Youngblood in this regard, here [Youngblood, Ronald F. Exodus. Everyman’s Bible Commentary series. Chicago: Moody Press, 1983, p.128]The "popular Jewish interpretation" regarding the rope may or may not have any validity--the thought being that if the priest were to stop moving about for a long time, the bells would be silent and the silence would indicate the priest fainted or even died as a punishment by the LORD for having done something impious. The Levites could then drag the priest out of the holy place.

Even the purpose of the bells which were attached to the priestly robes may not have been to signal the Levites that all was well with the priest who was in the holy place to minister before the LORD. As Youngblood suggests, however, the purpose of the bells could just as easily have been an aural reminder to the priest and his attendants that something sacred was being enacted in the holy place, and they should not minister carelessly or impiously. From Exodus 28:

  [The bells] shall be on Aaron when he ministers; and his tinkling [sound] shall be heard when he enters and leaves the holy place before the LORD, so that he will not die (v.35).

One thing is certain: The protocols attached to the worship of the LORD came directly from God to Moses. The protocols were therefore God's, not man's. To take them lightly or to enact them carelessly was tantamount to holding God in contempt by impugning his character and his commands.

The LORD wanted and rightly expected his servants to hold him in the highest esteem. Anything less than that would be an insult to his matchlessly holy character. Frequent reminders of these concepts, such as the tinkling of bells attached to priestly vestments, served to keep the Levites and priests on their toes and in the right frame of mind as they ministered before the LORD God on behalf of Israel.


Why many Catholics believe that Mary is co-redemptrix? Where does the belief come from? Why is her intercession believed to be necessary? Please provide Biblical evidence for the belief as well as Traditional sources.

Mary is co-redemptrix just means she has cooperated with Jesus Christ for our salvation. Explanations can be found in Lumen gentium quoted below :

  There is but one Mediator as we know from the words of the apostle, "for there is one God and one mediator of God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself a redemption for all" (1Tm 2,5-6). The maternal duty of Mary toward men in no wise obscures or diminishes this unique mediation of Christ, but rather shows His power.
  Thus Mary, a daughter of Adam, consenting to the divine Word, became the mother of Jesus, the one and only Mediator. Embracing God's salvific will with a full heart and impeded by no sin, she devoted herself totally as a handmaid of the Lord to the person and work of her Son, under Him and with Him, by the grace of almighty God, serving the mystery of redemption. Rightly therefore the holy Fathers see her as used by God not merely in a passive way, but as freely cooperating in the work of human salvation through faith and obedience.
  This union of the Mother with the Son in the work of salvation is made manifest from the time of Christ's virginal conception up to His death it is shown first of all when Mary, arising in haste to go to visit Elizabeth, is greeted by her as blessed because of her belief in the promise of salvation and the precursor leaped with joy in the womb of his mother (cf. Lc 1,41-45). This union is manifest also at the birth of Our Lord, who did not diminish His mother's virginal integrity but sanctified it, (Cf Eph. 1:18) when the Mother of God joyfully showed her firstborn Son to the shepherds and Magi. When she presented Him to the Lord in the temple, making the offering of the poor, she heard Simeon foretelling at the same time that her Son would be a sign of contradiction and that a sword would pierce the mother's soul, that out of many hearts thoughts might be revealed (cf. Lc 2,34-35). When the Child Jesus was lost and they had sought Him sorrowing, His parents found Him in the temple, taken up with the things that were His Father's business; and they did not understand the word of their Son. His Mother indeed kept these things to be pondered over in her heart (cf. Lc 2,41-51).
  In the public life of Jesus, Mary makes significant appearances. This is so even at the very beginning, when at the marriage feast of Cana, moved with pity, she brought about by her intercession the beginning of miracles of Jesus the Messiah (cf. Jn 2,1-11). In the course of her Son's preaching she received the words whereby in extolling a kingdom beyond the calculations and bonds of flesh and blood, He declared blessed (cf. Mc 3,35 par. and Lc 11,27-28) those who heard and kept the word of God, as she was faithfully doing (cf. Lc 2,19 2,51). After this manner the Blessed Virgin advanced in her pilgrimage of faith, and faithfully persevered in her union with her Son unto the cross, where she stood, in keeping with the divine plan, (Cf. Jn. 19:25) grieving exceedingly with her only begotten Son, uniting herself with a maternal heart with His sacrifice, and lovingly consenting to the immolation of this Victim which she herself had brought forth. Finally, she was given by the same Christ Jesus dying on the cross as a mother to His disciple with these words: "Woman, behold thy son" (cf. Jn 19,26-27).


How does sola fide doctrine reconcile with how much David talks about his own righteousness? What is an overview of the statements made by prominent sola fide (faith alone) proponents in regards to David's proclamations of his own righteousness?
I presume that sola fide proponents believe that it is faith alone, not works of "righteousness", that makes us righteous before God. David appears to be touting his own goodness in these Psalms and others.

Psalm 7:8 ESV The Lord judges the peoples; judge me, O Lord, according to my righteousness and according to the integrity that is in me.
Psalm 18:20 ESV The Lord dealt with me according to my righteousness; according to the cleanness of my hands he rewarded me.
Psalm 119:7 ESV I will praise you with an upright heart, when I learn your righteous rules.

The extra brain buster is how much more David seems to talk about his own sin.

Psalm 20:9 ESV Who can say, “I have made my heart pure; I am clean from my sin”?

Protestant leaders like Martin Luther, John Calvin, and Charles Spurgeon address these particular verses in their respective commentaries on the Psalms.  All three emphasize a difference between David's righteousness before men and his righteousness before God, and that the source of the latter is God's grace alone.

Regarding Psalm 7:8, Calvin answers that David is speaking of a comparison between himself and his enemies, not a comparison between himself and God's standard:

  The subject here treated of is not how he could answer if God should demand from him an account of his whole life; but, comparing himself with his enemies, he maintains and not without cause, that, in respect of them, he was righteous. (Commentary on Psalms, v1)

In this he follows Luther, who writes regarding the same verse:

  We have before shown [...] that a man's righteousness is that whereby he is unblamable before men and in his own conscience, though that righteousness sufficeth not before God.  But the righteousness of God is the grace and mercy of God which justify us even before God.  Hence David most carefully adds "my righteousness", that he might distinguish it. (Luther on the Psalms, p 393)

Spurgeon sees David's language in Psalm 18:20 similarly, writing:

  Before God the man after God's own heart was a humble sinner, but before his slanderers he could with unblushing face speak of the "cleanness of his hands" and the righteousness of his life. (Treasury of David)

Regarding Psalm 18:20, Calvin notes that it seems that David contradicts himself, as he previously "declared that all the blessings which he possessed were to be traced to the good pleasure of God." Calvin reconciles these statements by saying that God freely showed favor to David, and that subsequently David is blessed by obeying and fulfilling his calling:

  Both these things were necessary; first, that God should previously show his favor freely towards David, in choosing him to be king; and next, that David, on the other hand, should, with an obedient spirit, and a pure conscience, receive the kingdom which God thus freely gave him; and farther, that whatever the wicked might attempt, with the view of overthrowing or shaking his faith, he should nevertheless continue to adhere to the direct course of his calling. (Commentary on Psalms, v1)

To those who think that David sounds boastful here, Calvin writes that this is intended for our instruction:

  We ought not, however, to think that David, for the sake of obtaining praise among men, has here purposely indulged in the language of vain boasting; we ought rather to view the Holy Spirit as intending by the mouth of David to teach us the profitable doctrine, that the aid of God will never fail us, provided we follow our calling, keep ourselves within the limits which it prescribes, and undertake nothing without the command or warrant of God. (Commentary on Psalms, v1)

Spurgeon similarly remarks that David is right to praise God for rewarding him:

  A godly man can see that in divine providence uprightness and truth are in the long run sure to bring their own reward; may he not, when he sees that reward bestowed in his own case, praise the Lord for it? (Treasury of David)

Finally, Calvin makes his belief clear that only God's grace enables us to live rightly, and thus any blessing he gives us as a result of our righteousness finds its ultimate source in his grace:

  At the same time, let this truth be deeply fixed in our minds, that we can only begin an upright course of life when God of his good pleasure adopts us into his family, and in effectually calling, anticipates us by his grace, without which neither we nor any creature would give him an opportunity of bestowing this blessing upon us. (Commentary on Psalms, v1)


Are there cases of popular atheists who used to publicly defend atheism (via debates, books, etc.) but eventually ended up converting to Christianity? Examples of popular atheists known for participating in debates with believers and publicly defending atheistic positions are Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Matt Dillahunty, Aron Ra and pretty much the whole staff and many popular guests of The Atheist Experience show.
Are there recorded cases of atheists in this category who eventually ended up converting to Christianity? What led to their conversion?

There is Francis S. Collins, M.D., PhD., who was the head of the Human Genome Project and who has described himself as an 'obnoxious atheist' in his academic years. He believed that all questions of life could be ultimately reduced to 'physics and chemistry'. It was only in later life, in his work as a doctor when he was faced with a broad spectrum of suffering, and in particular, one woman who told him it was her faith that supported her, that he turned to reading C.S. Lewis's Mere Christianity. It was this that convinced him that all his arguments against religion was that of 'a schoolboy.'
He says it was only when "he was hiking in the Cascade Mountains on a beautiful fall afternoon, I turned a corner and saw in front of me this frozen waterfall, a couple of hundred feet high. Actually, a waterfall that had three parts to it - also the symbolic three in one. At that moment, I felt my resistance leave me, and it was a great sense of relief. The next morning, in the dewy grass, in front of the cascades, I fell to my knees and accepted this truth - that God is God and that Christ is his son and that I am giving my life to this belief.'
Personally, although you have described a 'strong' atheist as someone as very smart. I don't think this matters much in either atheism or theism - there are other faculties of the mind. And in this, especially, they matter more.
In fact, in a book that I'm reading at the moment, Islam and the Destiny of Man by Gai Eaton, a French-Swiss who converted to Islam and who his school-teacher in sixth-form described 'you are the only truly universal sceptic I have ever known' relates an anecdote of his time at Charterhouse, Cambridge:

A few of us had lingered on, drinking coffee, after the evening meal in the Hall at King's College. The conversation had turned to religion. At the head of the table say an undergraduate who was universally admired for his brilliance, his wit and sophistication. Hoping to impress him and taking advantage of a brief silence, I said: 'No intelligent person believes in the God of religion!' He looked at me rather sadly, before answering, 'on the contrary, nowadays intelligent people are the only ones who do believe in God.'

He saw right through him, and Eaton says:

I would willingly have sunk out of sight under the table.

What turned Eaton towards religion was a book called The Root and the Flower by the writer L. H. Myers, described at the time as the only 'philosophical novelist England has produced'. He also befriended him. Myers had given his entire life to the pursuit of pleasure. Few women had been able to resist his combination of wealth, charm and good looks. Although fascinated by spirituality and mysticism, he adhered to no religion and obeyed no conventional moral law. Later in life, he tried to change himself and 'even to repent his past', but it was too late. Three years after Eaton had first corresponded with him, he committed suicide.
Although Eaton named his son after him, he realised that his 'wisdom' had only been in his head and that it had never penetrated his human substance.
Although, it's again about an atheist turning towards Islam - Islam after all, is not far from Christianity - especially when measured in the atheism-theism axis, you might find the book The Road to Mecca useful. It's the spiritual biography Mohammed Asad, originally Leopold Weiss and whose father had been Jewish). He lists his reason as the spiritual  emptiness of Western Civilisation and its idolatry of the Market and the misery that it has brought to everyone he knew. In Christianity,  it's known as worshipping Mammon.
edit
@Mike Borden: According to Gil Eaton, on the axis of atheism-theism, Islam and Christianity are closer to each other than either are to atheism. Moreover, he says that Islam is closer to Christisnity than the other way around as Islam accepts Christ as a Prophet whilst Christianity does not accept Muhammed as a Prophet. Hence the direction of my answer which explored a number of spiritual conversions from atheism to theism - and in particular, Christianity.
I don't, for example, discuss conversions to Hinduism or Buddhism.


Is it orthodox to abandon the concept that God of the Bible is person, but say that He is spirit? Should I abandon the concept that God of the Bible is person, but say that He is spirit?

I would mean that God the Father, God the son and God the spirit are persons, but God means different qualities in the Bible that make it one essence. So God would not be person like eg. Son of God is, but rather a spirit being. God is of one essence, but exists in three "persons". That is what I meant when I asked that whether to interpret God as person or as a spirit. I meant that God the Father, Son of God, God the spirit are defined as persons, but God defined as spirit being rather than person. I mean by spirit that he is not literally made of matter, but is a spirit being like Holy Spirit is. So in this matter it seems that God of the Bible is of one essence of divinity; spirit being, and manifests in three persons, who yet are each God. So our God is of one essence, but of three persons.
I ask to answer my first question and maybe comment on the last phrase.

If I do, is this in keeping with the historical expressions of the faith?

My motive for this is to discern how the concept of God in Islam is different from the concept of God in the Bible. In other words I try to help myself to discern how the concept of God in the Bible is different from the God of Islam.

In a mainstream evangelical understanding, God's essence does not consist of anything created.  Matter is created.  God is spirit and existed as such before the creation of matter or time or space.  A "body" is something physical, and only the Second Person of the Trinity has a body, which He received at the Incarnation.

Personhood does not mandate a physical body.  Every creation is lesser than its creator.  Thus, we could not have personhood unless God first possessed Personhood.

So, in summary, God is spirit, which is not matter, and He does exist in Three Persons, only One of which has a body, but He did not always have one, receiving His body at the Incarnation, which was later glorified at His resurrection.


Do Evangelical leaders (televangelists, megachurch pastors, etc...) not consider themselves Protestants? Kind of based off this question contrasting Evangelicalism and Protestantism.  My assumption as a Catholic (which you are certainly more than free to trounce upon) is that since modern day televangelists are more than 6 degrees separated from Calvin, Wesley and Luther, that they couldn't in good faith call themselves Protestants since the Catholic Church is not weighing heavily on their consciences.

So is this yet another false assumption?

It seems in your question your assumption is that Protestantism is something akin to Contra-Catholicism. This is not the case. What distinguishes protestants from Catholics and what identifies different denominations both as protestant is the doctrine of Justification by Faith.

If you take that as the working definition of what is to be protestant then it is no stretch of the imagination to think that all of the major evangelical leaders would classify themselves as protestants.

As a member of an extremely large non denominational evangelical church I can say with some authority that we believe and promote the doctrines 'priesthood of all believers' and 'Sola Scriptura' both of which are distinguishing beliefs of Protestantism. I would be shocked if I learned other similar churches did not believe the same.

Have evangelicals (and thereby many protestants) and Catholics moved closer theologically since the reformation? Perhaps; although here is a recent article that discusses remaining tensions between the two (specifically reformed theology).


Paul's suggestion to not marry vs Great Protestant Theologians Paul states:

  1 Cor: 27 Are you pledged to a woman? Do not seek to be released. Are you free from such a commitment? Do not look for a wife.

Yet, if we look at the great Protestant theologians: Charles Spurgeon, John Owens, John Calvin, Martin Luther; as well as modern days: John Piper, John MacArthur, Timothy Keller, Paul Washer -- they're all married.

Why is there this disparity between Paul's advice and the great thinkers in reformed theology?

The answer is in the verse just prior:

  Because of the present crisis, I think that it is good for a man to remain as he is. (NIV 1 Corinthians 7:26)

In other words, given the 'present crisis' marriage posed various difficulties.  The present crisis was the crisis of religious upheaval that would lead to great persecutions. In situations that call for potential martyrdom, a single life would release a person from the addition worries and fears about their close loved ones. Can you imagine a father's worry over wife and child, or a child's horror at seeing their mother killed? It would simply be better, in many ways, to be without family during those days.

On the other hand - and in support of Paul's application the the current crisis - if a person did not have a strong urge to be married (which is a special gift) even in days without 'crisis', there are benefits to a single life (verses 32-36).

It's just not considered as 'necessary' to be a great leader. Moses and Peter and the majority of leaders in the Bible had wives - only few went without, just like today.


How much are we personally responsible for the salvation of someone else? The quickest and easiest answer might be "not at all, as it's only between God and that person", but this question can lead to other question. For example, to the responsibility of a priest. Even as not a priest, for example, I can get a feeling that maybe if I tried better, I could have helped turn someone from the evil road. The accent is on "helped", as in the end it is not me who does the turning.

I don't remember seeing or hearing any significant discussion about this topic. Are there established viewpoints or dogmas about this? Notable theologians or at least an explanation about the official views of notable denominations is what I'm looking for.

How much ? We can't know. Only God knows. We don't necessarily have to know.

Our christian faith teaches us that :

there IS free will and personal responsibility (or else we are not free creatures but mere puppets)
none of us is fully "free" since our decisions are affected by many factors : health, education, culture, past experiences, other creatures etc.
we are responsible for ourself and each other as far as we can. God respects our dignity and doesn't "assist" us like babies. It does however take care of all of us to ensure our personal growth through what we call "Providence". But we have to freely respond.

Recent social studies show that we are all influencing each other more than we may have previously thought. For example, divorce and suicide have been shown to be "contagious", i.e. a person doing it greatly increases his relatives chance to do the same.

It seems also that God leaves to us the task of propagating knowledge of Him (at last up to a certain mesure) though He could reveal himself to all people if He wanted to.

So we are definitely at last partially responsible for each other salvation, at last the part that doesn't depend on their own free will.

But evaluating "how much" we affect each other would require a full understanding of human mind and social interactions. We are VERY far from such knowledge.

Saints testimones (ex. st Joan of Arc) show that they honestly and genuinely didn't dare to presume that they were "in God's grace" which can be understood as "contributing to their own salvation and other's salvation". So saints didn't know either.

On the other hand, since Christian faith is about our personal, loving relation to God, such "how much" questions can be seen as irrelevant. Evaluating "how much" may imply the desire to "do only one's share" or "evaluating one's contribution", so introducing some kind of "due" or "contract". This is not how a love relation is supposed to work.

So a way of answering for a christian may be "I don't now, I can't know, I don't need to know. I just want to do the best for my brother humans out of love for God and them, without counting. I'm definitely not doing all I could but I'll do my best to sincerely and creatively help everyone's growth and have confidence in God's help and forgiveness on that matter." This is how saints like St Theresa or St Vincent of Paul expressed it.


Any instructions given by contemporary prominent preachers on how to receive the gift of tongues? Is there any method/instruction given by prominent preachers recently on how to receive the gift of tongues? Some specific way of prayer, some specific steps to follow, what kind of attitude is required and so forth?

You are overlooking the most important word in your question, and that is 'gift'. A gift is something that is freely given - the giver chooses whether or not to give, and the receiver can only choose whether or not to accept it - if it is given. If the receiver can compel the giver in any way, or tries to earn it, then it isn't a gift. It's long been part of Christian theology that Tongues and rather supernatural abilities are 'gifts' in that sense. Check out 1 Corinthians 12, where this is made explicit. Also check out 1 Corinthians 13, which is an explanation of something better and more important than spiritual gifts - Love. It's not accidental that those chapters are next to each other.

General advice as far as I know is that if you earnestly desire a specific gift, keep praying for it. But be aware, as with all other prayers, God may not grant you what you are asking. He may have a better, alternative plan for you.

The exceptions to this are the Pentecostal traditions where speaking in tongues is a sure and necessary sign of being a true believer. In that case if you don't have that gift, consult with a Pastor.


Was Satan/Lucifer the angel of music before his fall? While I was searching in Youtube about music backmasking I found this video and there (a few minutes starting the video), the narrator says:

  [...] The angel [Lucifer] was head over the music in the Heaven.

After that, I made a quick Google search about [Satan was a singer] and I found a here that this cannot be answered.

I ask this because when I read the Bible - "DHH or "Dios Habla Hoy" Spanish version"- and checking the verses I cannot neither understand or think in a relation between Satan/Lucifer and music.

My question is: was Satan/Lucifer the angel of music before his fall?

I'm interested in a Roman Catholic response (or Vatican statement about this) but I want check other perspectives about this topic.

This is not necessarily a Catholic answer, but it's the only answer I can provide. The answer, then, is that it is not clearly demonstrable from Scripture (or any popular tradition) that Satan / Lucifer was the angel of music before his fall. Nonetheless, the reason that some people come to this conclusion is likely based upon taking the following passage and applying it to Satan.

Ezekiel 28:13 KJV

  Thou hast been in Eden the garden of God; every precious stone was thy
  covering, the sardius, topaz, and the diamond, the beryl, the onyx,
  and the jasper, the sapphire, the emerald, and the carbuncle, and
  gold: the workmanship of thy tabrets and of thy pipes was prepared in
  thee in the day that thou wast created.

*Emphasis mine.

There we can see that if this passage, which is typically titled "A Lament over the King of Tyre," if taken as referring Satan metaphorically, can give one reason to think that Satan was the leader of music in heaven. There are more than a few liberal interpretive leaps needed to arrive at such a conclusion; nonetheless, this would be the only passage I can find that would fit such a theory.

Pulpit commentary offers this:

  The workmanship of thy tabret and pipes; better, the service. The Authorized Version and Revised Version follow Luther. Keil agrees as to "tabret" (so Genesis 31:27; Isaiah 5:12; elsewhere, as in Exodus 15:20 and Job 21:12, the Authorized Version gives "timbrels"), but takes the latter word (not found elsewhere) as identical with its feminine form, and meaning "female." He sees in the clause, accordingly, a picture of the pomp of the Tyrian king, surrounded by the odalisques of the harem, who, with their timbrels, danced to his honor as their lord and king (camp. Isaiah 23:16; Exodus 15:20; 1 Samuel 18:6).


Where can I learn about Catholic terms and phrases? A number of very good questions and answers on this site refer to specifically Catholic doctrine or terminology.  I've been one to ask for clarification on these terms at times, however I think it's clear that asking for clarification every time I see a Catholic term I'm not familiar with will drag this site down rather quickly (as well as make me look like I have nothing better to do than ask the same type of question repeatedly).

Can someone (hopefully a Catholic!) recommend a good resource (preferably online) that explains common Catholic terminology in an accurate and respectful manner, to someone from a non-Catholic background?

If we get some good answers, I'll probably suggest this question for site FAQ inclusion.

The Catholic Encyclopedia is a public domain Encyclopedia compiled in the early 20th century.  Since not a lot has changed in the last hundred years, it's a pretty excellent resource.

Beyond that, if you want something that'll overload your senses, you can check out the intratext search of the Catechism of the Catholic Church

The other thing that might come up (and hopefully not here) is that we'll use awful acronyms like LG (Lumen Gentium), DV (Dei Verbum) and CCC (Catechism of the Catholic Church) or CCCC (Compendium of the Catechism of the Catholic Church) to reference some important texts or encyclicals.   For these I've only seen good glossaries for these in the backs of print books, like the Catechism, and not a complete list, just the ones referenced within, but in the Catechism that's like everything from the Apostolic Father's on.

Finally, I just found this site http://www.catholicreference.net/ so I'm super glad you asked because I'm going to link to it all the time from now on!


From where did Cain get his wife? I want to know that where did Cain Son of Adam and Eve get his wife? As there was nobody except Adam and Eve after he killed Abel.

As there was nobody except Adam and Eve after he killed Abel.

Some source of this claim? Because Genesis says:

  And the days of Adam after he had begotten Seth were eight hundred years: and he begat sons and daughters (Gen 5, 4).

According to apocryphal Book of Jubilees, Cain's wife's name was Awan.


Noun for a person who believes in ordinances? A person who believes in sacraments is a "sacramentalist".  Is there a noun for a person who believes in church ordinances instead of sacraments?  "Non-sacramentalist" seems odd, as well as too broad in scope.  Thanks!

There doesn't appear to be such a word. If an ordinant is someone who performs ordinances, i.e., one who ordains, then ordinantalist would be likely the word for one who believes in ordinances.


Why didn’t the blind man at Bethsaida get healed the first time? According to Mark 8:22

  22 Then He came to Bethsaida; and they brought a blind man to Him, and begged Him to touch him.
  23 So He took the blind man by the hand
      and led him out of the town. And when He had spit on his eyes and put
     His hands on him, He asked him if he saw anything.

  24 And he looked up and said, “I see men like trees, walking.”

  25 Then He put His hands on his eyes again and made him look up. And he was restored and saw everyone clearly. 26 Then He sent him away
  to his house, saying, “Neither go into the town, nor tell anyone in
  the town.”

Here we see Jesus asking the blind man if he had been healed. Jesus again lays His hands on the blind man and he gets healed. Why did Jesus have to ask the blind man if he had been healed? Why wasn't the blind man restored completely the first time?

This was apparently Jesus way of teaching us that our rewards are commensurate with our faith:
All Scriptures are from the King James translation.
In verse 24 the man could see but only partially, that was probably because he had heard of Jesus healing power, but was still skeptical.
In verse 25 he had experienced Jesus healing power, and then expected that Jesus did have the power to completely heal his blindness, and the second time he had full faith, and was completely healed.
We have more information about the rewards being equal to our belief in:
Matthew 9:28 through 30
28  And when he was come into the house, the blind men came to him: and Jesus saith unto them, Believe ye that I am able to do this? They said unto him, Yea, Lord.

29  Then touched he their eyes, saying, According to your faith be it unto you.
30  And their eyes were opened; and Jesus straitly charged them, saying, See that no man know it.

We today are privileged to  see that truth demonstrated in the lives of the faithful, Have you noticed that those who are the most dedicated to the Lord have the happiest marriages and are the richest in his blessings?
Even though the most of them are not well off in worldly goods they do have all of their needs met, and they seem to have an extra measure of peace and happiness.
Those people also seem to be content with what the Lord gives them and are never envious of others worldly possessions, but are genuinely happy for the others gains, just as Jesus decreed in:

Matthew 6:8  Be not ye therefore like unto them: for your Father knoweth what things ye have need of, before ye ask him.

So taken together we learn that:

God already knows what we need, and he will give us our needs, but there is actually more to it than that.

Jesus also told us that we should ask the father 'daily':

Matthew 6:11  Give us this day our daily bread.

Jesus said in Matthew 9:29 (above)"according to your faith".
Several years ago four friends and I decided to put those scriptures to the test, and began by agreeing that to start with 10% of everything was God's portion, and that if we were to make an offering it had to be more than that 10%. None of us was well off by earthly standards, and as a matter of fact we were actually only living from paycheck to paycheck. None of us thought we could get by even giving the 10% let alone anything over that. We did agree though that we would start by giving that 10% right off the top.
I am sad to say that I was the only one who began by keeping that promise at first. At the end of the first month we got together again as we had promised to do, and compared how we were doing. After the first month I was the only one who had met all of my bills and still had money left over. As a thank you to the lord I took that overage and had the pastor give it to someone needy.
The next month all four of the others followed our agreement and each found that they finished the month with a few dollars left over.
Since that day we have all continued in our agreement of giving our tithe first and when we have extra give some to the needy, either through the Church or some charity, and the five of us have not had financial worries since, we are far from being wealthy, but we are happy and content and peaceful.
My reason for telling you this is not to start a stampede to give, but to let you know that Jesus meant exactly what he said, and if you take him at his word and trust him he will show you blessings commensurate with your faith.
I do feel it is necessary to tell you that we did not do this just to test whether or not the Lord would give us the desires of our hearts, but to see if our condition would improve despite no other things changing, such as some unexpected income, or bills being mysteriously lowered. I cannot vouch for the others but in my case it was to demonstrate that I had enough faith to trust that God would meet my needs, which he did. I hope that the others faith was strengthened enough by my circumstance that they also expected that God would meet their needs.
Not only that but just as with the blind man in verse 24 he will strengthen your faith as you see him give blessings in accordance with the trust you place in him.


Holy Spirit Presence, Metaphor, Gender; how does gender apply to the Holy Spirit? I was reading through this page about the "Gender of the Holy spirit" in Wikipedia.

  "The Holy Spirit was furthermore equated with the (grammatically feminine) Wisdom of God by two early Church fathers, Theophilus of Antioch (d. 180) and by Irenaeus (d. 202/3). However, the majority of theologians have, historically, identified Wisdom with Christ the Logos.

  Gregory of Nazianzus in the fourth century wrote that terms like "Father" and "Son" in reference to the persons of the Trinity are not to be understood as expressing essences or energies of God but are to be understood as metaphors. The same position is still held in the 1992 Catechism of the Catholic Church..

Very interestingly, I was reading Edward Byles Cowell's translation of the Maitri Upanishad published first in 1870 (pg. 259) as to what Oriental religions consider as Holy Spirit.  The sacred sound OM, is also masculine, feminine and of Gender neuter form.

To reduce clarity even more, when I was watching "Who is the Holy Spirit?" by Sinclair Ferguson episodes in Prime Video, "The Holy Spirit" was referred to as a man! He was referring to the following
Psalm 139:7,9 -10, and Psalm 104:29-30...unveiling the face of God, and also Ezekiel 39:329 where the pouring out of Holy spirit and Psalm 51. I think they are from Old testament

Be that as it may, I would like to find out what main stream Christians "believe" today?  Is the Holy Spirit Presence real, a Person, Ghost/Spirit or is the Spirit poured out like Wine?

So there are some complicated questions there. Let me try to answer them one at a time according what most Christians believe.

Is the Holy Spirit real?

Yes. The Holy Spirit is one of the three "persons" of God the Trinity - loosely speaking one part of God ( the others are God the Father and God the Son, who is Jesus). He is as real as God.

Is the Holy Spirit a Man?

No. Being 'part' of God, the Holy Spirit is not human.

Is the Holy Spirit a person?

As we said above, the Holy Spirit is not a human. However Christians call the three "parts" of God "persons", at least in part because they are living and intelligent. You might think of him as "more than a person". (They are also not strictly "parts" - it's complicated).

Is the Holy Spirit male?

In general Christians believe God has no gender. However the Holy Spirit is often referred to as "he", because in English the only neutral gender pronoun "it" is considered insulting. A few Christians believe that God and/or the Holy Spirit have male or female genders.

Is the Holy Spirit a spirit?

Absolutely yes. That's why he is called that. He has no body, he is entirely spirit. He is also called the "Holy Ghost", where "ghost" is just an old word meaning "spirit ". The word didn't originally carry the the associations we have today of hauntings,  torment, etc.

The Holy Spirit is also likened to many things - wind, fire, water, a dove. These are usually taken as forms the spirit takes, or as metaphors. "Poured out like wine" probably falls into that category.

It should be said that a small number of Christians believe the Holy Spirit to be a name for the "force" or "presence" of God and not an entity in his own right.


Verse about two sons There is a verse that i remember that talks about a father with two sons.  The father gives money to both of his sons.  One son invests his money and returns it to his father after becoming wealthy, or something like that, and the other son squanders it.  If i remember correctly, even though the second son squandered his money the father still showed him compassion.  Does this sound familiar to anyone?

It sounds like you are scrambling two different parables.

The one with two sons, one of which squanders his inheratence but is welcomed back is found in Luke 15:11-32

The one about a master who lends money to his servants, and some of them give him a return on his investment but one does not is found in Luke 19:11-27.


Does R.C. Sproul elaborate on his position regarding images of Christ? In discussions of theologians who take the continental Reformed view of the 2nd commandment (as opposed to the Westminster / Puritan view), people often point out this brief quote by R.C. Sproul:

  Yet Scripture allows for images that depict the humanity of Jesus as well as pictures of redemptive events and themes in our churches.

I have not found where he elaborates on this view. Does anybody know in what work he goes into detail on what depictions of Christ in art he would or would not allow and specifically what Scripture he would cite as allowing it?

Secondarily, citations of other Reformed theologians1 taking this position and defending it would be of interest as well.

1 Note I'm specifically looking for arguments and Scriptural defense by notable and generally respected Reformed theologians, not just any logical arguments. I can come up with plenty of reasoning myself.

I have found two places where Sproul deals with this subject.  The first is in Essential Truths of the Christian Faith, v2, where he expresses concern about the risks of "wrong images":

I can't say for sure that to depict the human nature of Jesus is a violation of the second commandment.  But I'm not sure this is wise because it could communicate an image to people that is inaccurate.  The Solomon's head of Christ, as beautiful as it is, has communicated to generations of people an effeminate Jesus who is somehow less than strong.  I would rather communicate nothing artistically about how Jesus looked than put wrong images in people's minds.

The second is in his teaching series, "Recovering the Beauty of the Arts," particularly lecture 7, on images.  Here he focuses on why he is not categorically opposed to these images:

I say to my friends who prohibit it, let's get over our gnosticism.  When we're painting images of Jesus, we're recalling the human Jesus just as we do the apostles.  That's part of nature, and we're not trying to capture the divine nature in those representations.
Jesus didn't say before he left to his disciples now I want you to blot out of your memory any recollection of what I look like. Because obviously they couldn't block that out of their recollection, and there was nothing wrong with Jesus manifesting himself with the likeness of human flesh.
I don't see anything that would prohibit that from being reproduced, artistic creativity, in the life of the church. But obviously any use of art in church runs the risk of degenerating into idolatry.  But I also think that the cure for abuse is not disuse.  Historically we have God adorning his presence with the beautiful, and I think that he has placed a pattern there, a principle there, that remains forever. [starting around 22:30]

The context for the last statement comes from elsewhere in the lecture, where Sproul defends the use of art more generally on the basis of God's direct command to artisans to fashion the ark of the covenant with cherubim, as well as other artistic elements for use in the tabernacle and the temple.
Within the Reformed tradition more broadly, many have written defenses of the didactic use of images of Jesus.  But perhaps the defense most relevant to the question is found in the 1981 RPCES Synod report, pages 89–107.  It deals with both the historical context and exegesis of Exodus 20, and concludes:

(1) Contrary to L.C. 109, we do not find pictures of Christ prohibited by the Second Commandment.
(2) In regard to the Second Commandment, we do find Scripture urging caution in making portraits of Christ, that their purpose not be primarily to render a "likeness," to show what Christ looked like.
(3) That other pictures of Christ, depicting events from His earthly ministry, are permissible. (103)

The relevance of the RPCES report is particularly heightened because it was written just a year before the RPCES joined the PCA, the denomination in which R. C. Sproul ministered.  Of course, that's not to say that he had identical views as those who wrote the report, but it at least provides additional theological discussion from Sproul's peers on this subject.


What caused people in Jerusalem to change so much from "Palm entrance" to crucifixion day? Are the same people that received Jesus with flowers when he entered the city the ones that also condemned him for crucifixion a couple of days later?

Every single preacher I've heard suggested they were the same, but other sources depict the judgement given in Pilate's courtyard as done in a rush with many men "planted" by the priests. After the judgement was given, none of Jesus' followers, no matter how many, could stand the Romans fulfilling their order.

Are there any references that encourage any of these views or maybe some other perspective?

God is amazing in that He can have real people make real choices that have are rooted in metaphoric and spiritual meaning.

1.) It was the same people in that it was the nation of Israel who welcomed Him with much praise, and it was the same nation of Israel that demanded He be crucified. The thing to understand is that throughout all of their history Israel has been on a roller-coaster relationship with God. We see that in Exodus, Judges, Kings, all the prophets, and practically everywhere else in the Old testament. One generation praises God and is rewarded, the next generation loses it, gives in to idolatry and is punished. The amazing thing is that they do it over and over, the same mistakes time and time again. I would list references to exact passages but I'd take up the entire page with them. Here they simply were excited for God in that they thought this might be their "warrior king messiah" and when God's plan took a different direction they did what they do best. Turn away from God. Just like the Golden Calf in Exodus 32 and The idol worship detailed in Kings concerning the Prophet Elijah's constant battle with the false prophets of Baal.

2.) Understanding the biblical definition of "blindness" is key here as well. In John's Gospel chapter 12 it says,

  37 But although He had done so many signs before them, they did not
  believe in Him, 38 that the word of Isaiah the prophet might be
  fulfilled, which he spoke: “Lord, who has believed our report? And to
  whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed?” 39 Therefore they could
  not believe, because Isaiah said again: 40 “He has blinded their eyes
  and hardened their hearts, Lest they should see with their eyes,Lest
  they should understand with their hearts and turn, So that I should
  heal them.” 41 These things Isaiah said when he saw His glory and
  spoke of Him.

Blindness was tool that God used over and over again to symbolize man's fallen nature. There was the messiah, God in the flesh right before them and they -could- -not- -see- -it! That was precisely the point though you see God's Will must and will always come to pass regardless of what scenario surrounds it. Just as the law required that the people of Israel sacrifice a lamb to God for the passover and for atonement for their sins. So to was the Messiah to be sacrificed. It had to be Israel who chose the death sentence despite Pilate's willingness to be merciful. If Jesus was never executed we the Gentiles would have no part in God's kingdom. We would not have Christ's remdemptive work to be our mediator to God.

3.) Israel was looking for a warrior king. Another David or something to that nature that would come and restore God's people to the position of power in the world. Their interpretation of scriptures called for that and they're still awaiting that today, which is why they, for the most part, will never accept Christ as the messiah until He returns. Fulfilling that prophecy just as the scriptures said he would. They were ignorant however that "The age of Grace" would come beforehand. How they missed Isaiah 53 & 54 I do not know but it's all pretty much detailed there if you need to reference. Chapter 53 detailing the messiah's life, death, and how they would not know who he was. Then immediately after that in Chapter 54 it details how the "barren woman" which is a depiction of the Gentile nations will now have part in the covenant. You see the flow there The messiah will come, then comes the age of the Gentiles, and God does this to create jealousy in people of Israel. All things work to bring people back to their creator.

Lastly, the reason I believe it was indeed the same people. Is because he was "sent to his own, and his own recieved him not." The people seen the miracles. Heard him speak. Were first hand eye witnesses, but still they turned away. Whether it was fear, or anger, or confusion doesn't matter. What matters is without them condemning him, without the blood, and cross. There would be no salvation.

I really hoped this helps you and If I'm in error I welcome any correction.
God bless.


Are there eyewitness accounts of Jesus Christ written during (or closely after) his lifetime? In recent times, it has come to my understanding, that the New Testament was written in its entirety only after Jesus Christ has died.

I ask for in the search of documents which date to Jesus' lifetime(or closely after) and which give us account from people who have seen the Lord with their own eyes.

Are there eyewitness accounts of Jesus Christ written during his lifetime?

The short answer is no.

The entire New Testament was written well after the crucifixion of Our Lord Jesus Christ.

Even the first-century Romano-Jewish scholar, historian and hagiographer Titus Flavius Josephus, commonly known as Josephus references Jesus in the year 93 A.D. Again, this is well after Jesus died.

  About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one ought to call him a man.  For he was one who performed surprising deeds and was a teacher of such people as accept the truth gladly. He won over many Jews and many of the Greeks. He was the Messiah. And when, upon the accusation of the principal men among us, Pilate had condemned him to a cross, those who had  first come to love him did not cease.  He appeared to them spending a third day restored to life, for the prophets of God had foretold these things and a thousand other marvels about him.  And the tribe of the Christians, so called after him, has still to this day not disappeared. -  Jewish Antiquities, 18.3.3 §63


What does the bible say about interracial marriages? This has been a popular topic of debate, at least where I live. As Armenians, we like to...discourage marriages with spouses of a different ethnicity or nationality, simply in order to carry the culture and Armenian name for as many generations as possible.

Were there any mentions of interracial marriages or relationships in the bible, like whether it is condoned or not?

In the Old Testament the Jews are forbidden from marriage with non-Jews. See, for example, Deuteronomy 7:3-4. However that was on the basis of religious rather than racial purity, as it was clearly stated that the reason was to prevent the Jews from "following other Gods". It is also notable that in the Book of Ruth, Ruth is a non-Jew married to a Jew, and the Bible contains no commentary saying that this was a bad thing, although she clearly also becomes a follower of God. She is the ancestor of King David.

In the New Testament there is no equivalent restriction, since Christians are intended to be of every race: "In Christ there is neither Jew nor Gentile" and "make disciples of all nations".

In the past some Christians have claimed a prohibition on interracial marriage, based on either the Old Testament prohibition or a false understanding of Acts 17:24-26: ( "God ... hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation ...").

Recently there has been a strong movement away from such a prohibition. Even ultra-conservative Bob Jones university removed its prohibition on inter-racial dating in 2000.

This article gives more information on the history.

EDIT:I originally said that Bob Jones University continued its ban on inter-racial dating until 2005. In fact it stopped in 2000, and apologized for it in 2005.


Why didn't God the Father answer Joseph Smith's questions directly? In Joseph's version of the first vision given in the Pearl of Great Price, God the Father directs Joseph Smith to listen to his Son Jesus Christ:

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

Why did the Father defer to Christ instead of answering Joseph's questions directly?

Because the the Father gave the world His Son (Isa. 9:6, John 3:16).

It is the doctrine of Christ (3 Nephi 11):

  35 Verily, verily, I say unto you, that this is my doctrine, and I
  bear record of it from the Father; and whoso believeth in me believeth
  in the Father also; and unto him will the Father bear record of me,
  for he will visit him with fire and with the Holy Ghost.

  36 And thus will the Father bear record of me, and the Holy Ghost will
  bear record unto him of the Father and me; for the Father, and I, and
  the Holy Ghost are one.

The Father is glorified in the Son (John 14:13, 3 Nephi 9:15, D&C 76:43). Selecting 3 Nephi 9:15 here:

  15 Behold, I am Jesus Christ the Son of God. I created the heavens and the earth, and all things that in them are. I was with the Father from the beginning. I am in the Father, and the Father in me; and in me hath the Father glorified his name.

The Father is the second witness to that of the Holy Ghost of the divine sonship of Christ, and by two or three witnesses shall every word be established (Matthew 18:16).
The principle in the Priesthood of delegating responsibility may be part of the reason as well. The Father does this several times, including committing judgment to His Son (John 5:22):

  22 For the Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment unto the Son

In almost every case in LDS theology, God the Father introduces His Son, who is our Mediator and Advocate to the Father.


What is the LDS position on changing doctrine One of the charges often levied against the LDS Church is that the doctrines change over time.  For example, from http://20truths.info/mormon/doctrine.html and http://wakeupmormons.blogspot.com/p/latest-changes-to-lds-doctrine.html:

  Changing Doctrine Over Time

  In one of his more regrettable statements, Hugh Nibley said that one
  of the hallmarks of Mormon truth is that it has never changed over
  time:

  "The gospel as the Mormons know it sprang full grown from the words of
  Joseph Smith. It has never been worked over or touched up in any way,
  and is free of revisions and alterations. Joseph Smith took the same
  elements that have proven so recalcitrant and so hopelessly
  conflicting in the hands of the churchmen and threw them together,
  with an awful lot of other stuff, to follow Brodie, into a single
  wildly chaotic mess. And lo and behold, everything fell into line of
  its own accord; all the haphazard elements in the bewildering heap
  fitted together perfectly to form a doctrine so commanding that not
  even a hint of rhetorical paradox is needed to support it, and no
  'Gregorian compromise' with a pleasure-loving world has been necessary
  to assure its vigorous growth." (Hugh Nibley, No Ma'am, That's Not
  History)

  The facts, however, show otherwise.

The site then goes on to list several doctrines that have, clearly, changed over time.

Other arguments levied by more "mainstream" Christians against the LDS Church include references to Malachi 3:6, which starts out "For I am the LORD, I change not;"  The claim is that the LDS teachings are in contradiction with this.

They say, "If God never changes, then Truth never changes."  They cite changing doctrine as evidence that the Truth taught in the LDS Church changes, and therefore, can't really be from God.

So, from an LDS perspective, what is the defense to this charge and these changes?

According to the Neal A Maxwell Institute, a dedicated LDS apologetic organization within BYU, this is not a problem.

  Some may see change in teachings and practices as an inconsistency or
  weakness, but to Latter-day Saints change is a sign of the very
  foundation of strength upon which the Church of Jesus Christ of
  Latter-day Saints is built—that God is always (yesterday, today, and
  forever) willing to reveal his will to his people if they are willing
  to listen and obey. Although the eternal saving principles of God's
  plan of salvation for his children do not change, the revelation of
  those principles and their application—to whom, when, where, how
  much—varies to meet a myriad of mortal circumstances and God's
  purposes and timetable.

  Members of the restored Church of Jesus Christ believe that there are
  many great and important things yet to be revealed (see Articles of
  Faith 1:9); this indicates that our past and current understanding of
  things is incomplete and may need adjustment.

In other words, changing doctrine is not evidence that their "Truth" is wrong, just that it's incomplete:  God hasn't yet revealed everything to us.

The official position held by the author at the Maxwell Institute is, in effect "We don't argue that our teachings have changed.  We simply accept that our knowledge is limited, and we're doing the best we can with what's been revealed to us.  As God reveals more, we may have to adjust our understanding.  God doesn't change.  Our understanding of God does."

This is in perfect harmony with the idea of continuing revelation that is accepted within the LDS Church.  It's not a problem at all.


Will the faithful eat and drink after resurrection? At Luke 22:17–18 (RSVCE) we read:

  And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he said, “Take this, and divide it among yourselves;  for I tell you that from now on I shall not drink of the fruit of the vine until the kingdom of God comes.

We also read at Luke 24:42–43:

  And while they still disbelieved for joy, and wondered, he said to them, “Have you anything here to eat?”  They gave him a piece of broiled fish,  and he took it and ate before them.

Do the above verses give any indication that we will, like the resurrected Christ did, have meals of communion after our own resurrection? What do the Catholic teachings say about carrying forward of mundane  functions by the resurrected faithful in heaven?

There are two different things going in those passages in Luke

Those two narratives aren't necessarily pointing toward what happens in Heaven, as there are varying interpretations to what is meant by the arrival of the Kingdom of God.  Since you asked for a Catholic viewpoint, and this topic comes up a lot during the RCIA ministry, here's an explanation that tries to put those two different chapters in Luke into context.

TL;DR: per St Thomas Aquinas, those who reach Heaven won't need to eat

The Fourth Cup

The best answer I've heard on why Jesus didn't drink the fourth cup at the Last Supper was presented by Scott Hahn in The Fourth Cup.  (The link is to a transcript of his 40 minute long talk on the Eucharist; I'd recommend the audio disc/tape if you can get your hands on it).
In summary:  Jesus established the New Covenant and important signs thereof and linked it directly to the Old Covenant celebration (Passover).  Part of the significance of Him not drinking the 4th cup is that we (the faithful) now drink the 4th cup each time we receive communion and drink the precious blood.  That is a departure from the Jewish tradition that led up to that final supper.  Before the faithful receive the precious blood, who drinks from the cup?  The celebrant of the Mass.  The celebrant, be he priest or bishop acts "in persona Christi1" according to the Catholic teaching.  This gets into the Catholic doctrine and practice of the Mass re-presenting (making it present again) key  events in the Gospel, but one of the points that Hahn makes is that in this Sacrament the church also honors and fulfills the old covenant during the Mass.

  Now what's the problem? The problem is that gospel account says
  something like this: after the third cup is drunk Jesus says, "I shall
  not drink again of the fruit of the vine until I am entering into the
  kingdom of God." And it says, "Then they sang the psalms."
  Every Jew who knows the liturgy would expect: and then they went ahead and said the grace and the blessing and had the fourth cup which climaxed and consummated the Passover.
  But no, the gospel accounts say they sang the psalms and went out into
  the night. {snip}  Why did he skip the fourth cup? After all, he was raised a Jew, he'd been celebrating the Passover every year of his life since he was a little boy according to the strictest laws of Moses.

Rather than seeing this as Jesus prefiguring a meal in Heaven, he is prefiguring how the Body of Christ (The Church) will complete the Passover meal.  The extended explanation, by Hahn, ties together a lot of scripture in the Old and New Testaments.

Raised from the dead in His glorified body, not a spirit walking around

In Luke 24, you have two different experiences of the disciples after the Crucifixion.  The first is the two walking to Emmaus who spoke with him and didn't realize it was Him until he broke the bread, and then vanished.

The second was a larger group of the disciples who saw Him in his glorified body.  As you noted in that passage, He ate food.  He was raised from the dead, and was not simply a spirit people were seeing.  (Recall also "doubting Thomas" sticking his finger into Jesus wounded side and seeing the holes in his hands).

The importance of what he was doing has been covered by St Thomas Aquinas in the Summa Theologica (Part III, Q 54) regarding Jesus in his Glorified Body.

Of the seven properties of the glorified body identified by St. Thomas Aquinas, the first three are relevant for the purposes of this answer:
(Summarized for brevity from here)

Identity: The glorified body will possess its original identity in
that it will be united to your soul. Your body will really be your
body, but that does not mean it will look the same as it did during
your life on this earth. When Jesus appeared to His disciples after
His Resurrection, He often had to make Himself known in some way,
even to those who were His closest disciples.
Integrity: The glorified body will be integral (complete), regardless
of how it was during its earthly life, or at the moment of its death,
or after it has decomposed in the grave. ...All glorified bodies will
be entirely integral.
Quality: This is the property of the glorified body by which everyone
in his glorified body will be as if in the prime of life.

Whether or not those in Heaven who leave their bodies behind eat and drink seems to be a different matter than what happens in our glorified bodies.  If we are in our glorified bodies, then we can eat and drink.  If we are purely in spirit in Heaven, before "the last day," we don't need to.

Saint Thomas Aquinas concludes that we will not eat in Heaven.

(Summa Theologica, Question 81)

  Consequently those natural operations which are directed to cause or
  preserve the primary perfection of human nature will not be in the
  resurrection: such are the actions of the animal life in man, the
  action of the elements on one another, and the movement of the
  heavens; wherefore all these will cease at the resurrection. And since
  to eat, drink, sleep, beget, pertain to the animal life, being
  directed to the primary perfection of nature, it follows that they
  will not be in the resurrection.

1 In the person of Christ the Head

  . . . CCC 1548 In the ecclesial service of the ordained minister, it is Christ himself who is present
  to his Church as Head of his Body, Shepherd of his flock, high priest
  of the redemptive sacrifice, Teacher of Truth. This is what the Church
  means by saying that the priest, by virtue of the sacrament of Holy
  Orders, acts in persona Christi Capitis:23


Is Genesis 18 regarded as a Theophany of the Trinity by any denomination? Abraham addresses the three visitors as LORD. Is there any group of Christians that understands this as a theophany of the Trinity?

  Genesis 18:1-2 NASB 1 Now the LORD appeared to him by the oaks of Mamre, while he was sitting at the tent door in the heat of the day. 2 When he lifted up his eyes and looked, behold, three men were standing opposite him; and when he saw them, he ran from the tent door to meet them and bowed himself to the earth,

According to Augustine, it seems, he interpreted the three men in Genesis 18 as The Trinity God appearing in human form, hence the three men.

On the Trinity (Book II) - Chapter 10

  But under the oak at Mamre he saw three men, whom he invited, and
  hospitably received, and ministered to them as they feasted. Yet
  Scripture at the beginning of that narrative does not say, three men appeared to him, but, "The Lord appeared to him." And then, setting
  forth in due order after what manner the Lord appeared to him, it has
  added the account of the three men, whom Abraham invites to his
  hospitality in the plural number, and afterwards speaks to them in the
  singular number as one; and as one He promises him a son by Sara, viz.
  the one whom the Scripture calls Lord, as in the beginning of the same
  narrative, "The Lord," it says, "appeared to Abraham." He invites them
  then, and washes their feet, and leads them forth at their departure,
  as though they were men; but he speaks as with the Lord God, whether
  when a son is promised to him, or when the destruction is shown to him
  that was impending over Sodom.

Genesis 18 is taken seriously by many Trinitarians to prove that Trinity is mentioned in the Old Testament. The language used in Genesis 18 is vague and subjected to many interpretations. This has to be one of the most debated passages of all time. Non-Trinitarians and even some Trinitarians understand this as "God and two angels". However, as a Trinitarian, I prefer to believe that it was The Trinity who visited Abraham.

Explanation why the two men were not merely angels

Genesis 19 called the two men as angels. However, as the language here is vague, it seems the two angels were also the Lord(or Lords). For they said "we are going to destroy this place" and then later the Bible says "God destroyed the cities".

  (Genesis 19, NIV)

  (1) The two angels arrived at Sodom in the evening, and Lot was sitting in
  the gateway of the city. When he saw them, he got up to meet them and
  bowed down with his face to the ground.

  (12) The two men said to Lot, “Do you have anyone else here—sons-in-law,
  sons or daughters, or anyone else in the city who belongs to you? Get
  them out of here, (13) because we are going to destroy this place.
  The outcry to the Lord against its people is so great that he has sent
  us to destroy it.”

  (24) Then the Lord rained down burning sulfur on Sodom and
  Gomorrah—from the Lord out of the heavens.

  (29) So when God destroyed the cities of the plain, he remembered
  Abraham, and he brought Lot out of the catastrophe that overthrew the
  cities where Lot had lived.


Conscience: Christ's sacrifice vs the blood of bulls and goats? While reading through Hebrews I came upon the following Scripture:

  For it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins. (Heb 10:4 ESV)

However, in my recent studies, I came across the following,

  Thus shall he do with the bull. As he did with the bull of the sin offering, so shall he do with this. And the priest shall make atonement for them, and they shall be forgiven . (Lev 4:20 ESV)

Taken out of context or being unaware of the existence Lev 4:20, it would seem that we as Christians have a better forgiveness than the Jewish OT believer.

“Well, their sins were just covered over but ours are completely removed” I have heard it said more times than I can remember.

But this is quite simply not true as it is abundantly clear that the Jew under the old system of Law and animal sacrifice WAS FORGIVEN according to Lev 4:20.
As a matter of fact there are quite a number of Scriptures in Leviticus that use the words “and they shall be forgiven” in relation to sin and animal or other sacrifice and offering.

I am well aware of the difference between atonement and propitiation so that is not the issue here.
Taken in context I’m sure that this must refer to conscience, so my question is this, in which way does the blood of bulls and goats NOT take away sin from the conscience ?

The answer to your question is further on in the chapter.

Hebrews 10:11-14 ESV And every priest stands daily at his service, offering repeatedly the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. But when Christ had offered for all time a single sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God, waiting from that time until his enemies should be made a footstool for his feet. For by a single offering he has perfected for all time those who are being sanctified.

Christ's sacrifice was fundamentally different than those of the animals. A person's sins were forgiven by the animal's sacrifice, but they would become immediately guilty again because of their sinful nature. This is why the animals had to be sacrificed over and over again.
Christ's single sacrifice not only forgives us of all of our sins but it also gives us his righteousness so that we are fully justified before God. The forgiveness gained from the sacrifice of animal is temporary--but Christ's sacrifice is permanent and all-encompassing.

1 Peter 3:18 ESV For Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit,
Romans 6:10-11 ESV For the death he died he died to sin, once for all, but the life he lives he lives to God. So you also must consider yourselves dead to sin and alive to God in Christ Jesus.
Romans 3:20-22 ESV For by works of the law no human being will be justified in his sight, since through the law comes knowledge of sin. But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law, although the Law and the Prophets bear witness to it— the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe.
2 Corinthians 5:21 ESV For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.


Does the cosmological argument ignore the Spirituality of God? In studying Christianity it is inevitable that one comes to the point where the existence of God is compared to the existence of the Universe. This is loosely embraced in the Cosmological argument.

  The cosmological argument is the argument that the existence of the world or universe is strong evidence for the existence of a God who created it. The existence of the universe, the argument claims, stands in need of explanation, and the only adequate explanation of its existence is that it was created by God.
  Like most arguments for the existence of God, the cosmological argument exists in several forms; two of those are: the temporal, kalam cosmological argument (i.e. the first cause argument), and the modal argument from contingency. The main distinguishing feature between these two arguments is the way in which they evade an initial objection to the argument, introduced with a question: “Does God have a cause of his existence?” [Robin Le Poidevin, Arguing for Atheism, Routledge 1996, Chapter 1]

Basically the reasoning that all things have a causative factor is the basis for proclaiming that God exists. However, the argument is made that if all things must have a causative factor then God also must have a causative factor.
In attempting to verify the existence of God the logic of the existence of the Cosmos is an attempt to prove that God exists. The fallacy of this argument lies in the fact that God and creation are existent in two very differing realms. While the Cosmos is in the material realm (where objects have matter and occupy space) God resides in the Spiritual realm (which has no matter and occupies no Space).

Spirituality has no need of a beginning or an end since there is no form of matter to decay.

The concept of the Spiritual Realm is hard to grasp in that it has no substance. My question is does any Denomination separate its belief in Heaven from the prevalent Cosmological arguments and portend that Spirituality having no substance and occupying no space has no need for a causative factor.

I think you're misunderstanding the cosmological argument. The argument states that everything that we see is contingent on the existence of something else - for anything we see, it wouldn't have come into being if not for the existence of something else. The existence of those things in turn is contingent on other things, and so on. As a consequence, a complete explanation of the existence of anything (including its causes, the causes of its causes,...) must either go on infinitely, or terminate in an entity which could exist without being created. The argument states that there is no actually infinite series in the physical universe, thus that the first of these possibilities cannot occur. Therefore, it concludes, an uncreated being must exist, who is ultimately responsible for the existence of all things in the universe.

The argument is not seen to need to refer to a distinction between spiritual and physical worlds. Thomas Aquinas, for example, listed this as one of his arguments for the existence of God, as well as insisting separately that God, a spiritual being, had no location and took up no space.

Not all people, even within a given denomination, will necessarily give credence to the cosmological argument. I'm not aware of any denomination that specifically states that the reason God is uncreated is that he is a spiritual being.


Why does church tradition teach that one third of the angels fell with Lucifer when no verse supports that The verse used is Rev. 12:4, but the context takes place in the midst of the great tribulation and not before Adam sinned.  Daniel 8:10 seems to confirm that the  stars that the dragon flung down were good angels, as he trampled them.  Those are the only 2 verses in the Bible dealing with this question that I can find and both infer that the 'stars' were enemies of the dragon not his fellow angels.
Is there something that I am missing here?

@BYE points in the right direction. Some of the prophecies in Revelation look backwards to events that occurred before John lived, because the contest between Satan and God goes back to the beginning of the world.

  12 A great sign appeared in heaven: a woman clothed with the sun, with
  the moon under her feet and a crown of twelve stars on her head. 2 She
  was pregnant and cried out in pain as she was about to give birth. 3
  Then another sign appeared in heaven: an enormous red dragon with
  seven heads and ten horns and seven crowns on its heads. 4 Its tail
  swept a third of the stars out of the sky and flung them to the earth. (Revelation 12:1-4)

Verse four is interpreted by some to represent angels as stars. Thus the stars that fall to the earth are fallen angels, and they number one third of all stars, hence one third of all angels.

  Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary

  drew—Greek, present tense, "draweth," "drags down." His dragging down the stars with his tail (lashed back and forward in his fury)
  implies his persuading to apostatize, like himself, and to become
  earthy, those angels and also once eminent human teachers who had
  formerly been heavenly (compare Re 12:1; 1:20; Isa 14:12).

This commentary considers several possible meanings, including the stars being angels or martyred Christians.

  Expositor's Greek Testament

  Revelation 12:4. The symbolism is a
  reminiscence of an ætiological myth in astrology (cf. the cauda of the
  constellation Scorpio) and of the primitive view which regarded the
  dark cloud as a snake enfolding the luminaries of heaven in its
  hostile coils (Job 3:8; Job 26:13, with A. B. Davidson’s notes). Thus
  the Iranians (S. B. E. iv. p. lxxiii., Darmesteter) described the
  fiend as a serpent or dragon not on the score of craftiness but
  “because the storm fiend envelops the goddess of light with the coils
  of the cloud as with a snake’s fold”. The same play of imagination
  would interpret eclipses and falling stars, and, when the pious were
  compared to stars (as in Egyptian theology, Plut. de Iside, 21), it
  was but a step to the idea of Daniel 8. (cf. Sib. Or. ver. 512 f., the
  battle of the stars), where Antiochus Epiphanes does violence to some
  devout Israelites who are characterised as stars flung rudely down to
  earth (i.e., martyred, 1 Maccabees 1.) Originally, this description of
  the dragon lashing his tail angrily and sweeping down a third of the
  stars probably referred to the seduction of angels from their heavenly
  rank (so 8–9) to serve his will (Weiss). But John, in recasting the
  tradition, may have thought of the Danielic application, i.e., of the
  devil succeeding in crushing by martyrdom a certain number of God’s
  people. In this event, they would include at least, if they are not to
  be identified with, the pre-Christian martyrs of Judaism (cf. Hebrews
  11:32 f. Matthew 23:35).—ἕστηκεν, a conventional posture of the
  ancient dragon cf. e.g., Pliny, H. N. viii. 3, “nec flexu multiplici
  ut reliquae serpentes corpus impellit, sed celsus et erectus in medio
  incedens”; ibid. viii. 14, for serpents devouring children. The mother
  of Zoroaster had also a vision of wild beasts waiting to devour her
  child at its birth. This international myth of the divine child
  menaced at birth readily lent itself to moralisation, or afforded
  terms for historical applications, e.g., the abortive attack on Moses,
  the prototype of messiah (Baldensperger, 141, 142) at his birth (Acts
  7:20 f.) and the vain efforts of Herod against the messiah. The
  animosity of Pytho for Leto was due to a prophecy that the latter’s
  son would vanquish him.

This commentary also agrees that the stars are angels:

  Pulpit Commentary

  Verse 4. - And his tail drew the third part of the stars of heaven, and did cast them to the earth; draweth (Revised
  Version). Not the stars with which the woman is crowned (see ver. 1),
  but other stars. In describing the vast power of the devil, St. John
  seems to allude to the tremendous result of his rebellious conduct in
  heaven, in effecting the fall of other angels with himself (Jude 1:6).