Why do OEC discount the literal interpretation of the book of Genesis? This is to rephrase the question Are scientific findings a test to Christians' Faith?

It seems to me that, without any outside interference, the Bible itself gives no suggestion that the Book of Genesis should be taken any other way than how it's written. There are many places in the Bible that quote the book of Genesis literally (Exodus 16:16, Exodus 20:11, Exodus 31:17, Leviticus 23:3, Deuteronomy 5:13, Luke 13:14, etc). Conversely, there is no Scripture that "gives us the meaning", or interprets the book of Genesis in any other way, except literally.

So why is it that Old Earth Creationists (OEC) do not believe in the literal interpretation of Genesis?

Answers regarding scientific "evidence" are not the kind of answers that I'm looking for. I'm looking for the approach to the Bible that yields an Old Earth interpretation...

The issue is not that OECs have a "weak faith," but we believe we are taking a more appropriate view of the scripture. Indeed, if the text is written metaphorically (as we believe), then reading it literally is the weaker position.

If you don't want to read my rather long (yet still way too short to pay true justice to this topic) answer, I suggest jumping down to my Conclusion section, for a summary of why I believe the OEC view pays proper respect to scripture, and is the logical view.

The basic arguments (that I'm aware of) to support the OEC interpretation of Genesis, are:

1. Character of God

As I touched on in this answer:

First, an important Biblical principle is found in Psalm 19:1:

  The heavens declare the glory of God;
     the skies proclaim the work of his hands.

God is revealed through His creation.

Second, from Hebrews 6:18:

  ...it is impossible for God to lie...

Together, I take this to mean that God's creation, and his scripture must be reconcilable.  Any (good) science will not contradict any (good) interpretation of scripture.

This is an important backdrop when reading the rest of this answer.

2. Contextual

There are several clues directly in Genesis that the creation account is not meant to be taken literally.  Some good examples:

"Morning" and "evening" pass before the sun is created.  Either the sun literally existed before it was described in Genesis, or there were no literal days until the sun was created. See this question. A third hypothesis is that the early days of creation meant "24 hour periods," and not specifically "days" as we know them now.  But then why refer to "evening" and "morning"?  Either the word "day" is metaphor, or "evening" and "morning" are metaphor. In any case, this aspect of the creation account cannot be taken completely literally.

At minimum one of the key words ("sun", "day", and/or "morning/evening") cannot have the same literal meaning it has today.
The seventh day never ended. This seems to be an indication that the days are metaphorical, and that we are presently living in the seventh "day." At the very least, it indicates that the 7th day was somehow distinct and special from the 6 others.
The Genesis 2 account of creation doesn't precisely agree with the Genesis 1 account of creation, in terms of order of creation. Man appears to be created before plants, then later placed in "the garden."
Genesis 2 describes a number of events that happened between the creation of Adam and the creation of Eve:

God planted a garden in Eden
Adam worked in and cared for the garden
Adam named all of the animals

Working and caring for a garden is clearly not a one-day task.  Nor is naming all of the animals, nor discovering, in this process, that none of the animals are suitable helpers for Adam.

3. Textual

I discussed some of this in this answer, but will elaborate further here.

The Hebrew word for day (Yom) used in Genesis 1 has many meanings: (a) Some portion of the daylight (hours), (b) Sunrise to sunset, (c) Sunset to sunset, (d) A segment of time without any reference to solar days (from weeks to a year to several years to an age or epoch) [i.e. "In my grandfather's day" or "in the day of the dinosaurs]

YECs have several arguments for why Yom in this context means 24-hour day, but they all fall short.  I'll discuss two here:

Claim: The phrase "evening and morning" "is used 38 times in the Old testament, not counting Genesis 1. Each time, without exception, the phrase refers to a normal 24-hour-type day."3

Response:

  Interestingly, the word "day" (or yom) appears in none of these examples. The word's plural form occurs only in 1 Samuel 7:16. In only a few of the 38 examples do the words "evening" and "morning" appear in the same sentence or verse. The phrase "evening and morning" appears only one time, in Psalm 55:17. David said, "Evening, and morning, and at noon, will I pray" (KJV). However, even this occurrence is of little relevance. The expression being considered--"and there was evening, and there was morning"--appears only in Genesis 1.2

Claim: 358 out of 359 times Yom is used in the Bible, outside of Genesis 1 and with an ordinal modifier, it represents a 24-hour day.1

Response:

Only 249 of these uses use the singular form of 'Yom', and all 249 are in the context of human activity.2 Genesis 1 is clearly referring to divine activity.

"Morning to morning" or "evening to evening" are common ways of denoting days in Hebrew, however the phrasing "and was evening, and was morning" is unique to Genesis 1, which seems to indicate that these days were unique in some special way.3

4. History

Historically, the church has had a very non-dogmatic view on this issue.  Most recorded commentary on this issue has approached the matter mostly as a matter of idle musings, and of little or no real spiritual significance.

  The portion of Genesis 1 that describes the six creation days receives more commentary from early church scholars than does any other text in the Bible. However, of the approximately 2,000 pages they wrote (a commentary called the Hexameron), only about two pages address the duration of the creation days. Clearly, the early church fathers did not consider the length of these days a major doctrinal point.5

Historically, Jewish and Christian scholars have not considered the creation account to mean a 6 literal day creation. The earliest scholars to even address the issue (around 13 B.C) believed that God instantaneously created everything, and that the 6 days were purely figurative of order and completeness.5

St. Augustine spoke the most strongly on the matter, saying: "As for these 'days,' it is difficult, perhaps impossible to think--let alone explain in words--what they mean."6 and "But at least we know that it [the Genesis creation day] is different from the ordinary day with which we are familiar."7

5. Science

There is a plethora of scientific evidence that suggests the world appears to be much older than YECs claim. Although YECs naturally dispute much of this evidence as weak science, but many of these claims require distorting science.  I openly admit that science does not have all the answers about the creation of the world yet, and never will.  However, that does not change that many of the scientific principles used to date the earth and/or the universe are very hard to dispute.

You specifically asked not for scientific evidence in support of the OEC view, so I won't go into any detail here.  That would be well beyond the scope of this site anyway.  I'll only mention one example briefly, and further reiterate my point made above about the Character of God--that God does not lie, and that creation reveals Him.  Therefore, whatever good science says about the Universe must, IMO, be true, as a true reflection of God through his creation.

The one example I want to mention, is the simple deductive reasoning that gives astronomers an approximate age for the universe of somewhere around 14 billion years. Read the full details here, but the nutshell version is that by using red/blue-shifting, we are able to observe how quickly the universe is expanding. By doing some backwards math, we can calculate that the universe was all at a single point ~14 billion years ago.

I've heard some YECs argue against this by suggesting that light must have traveled faster in the past, giving the universe the appearance of greater age (due to greater distance between galaxies). However, if the speed of light was not constant, the formation of our life-sustaining sun would not be possible.  As the 'c' in E=mc2 stands for the speed of light, if that changes, then either the E (energy) or m (mass), or both, must also change accordingly. If this theory was right then "either Adam and Eve would have been incinerated by the Sun's trillionfold increase in heat or the elements essential for building their human bodies would not exist."8

Another theory is that light travels faster (or takes a short cut) over vast distances in space.  This theory came out before much work on Einstein's theory of general relativity, which has since proven this theory implausible.9

Conclusion

Believing in an old earth does not at all detract from the authority one believes the Bible holds.  It's not a matter of believing that the bible is "wrong"--it's a matter of believing that that prose ought to be interpreted as prose, and that scientific literature ought to be interpreted as scientific literature--and swapping those in either direction detracts from a proper understanding of the thoughts the author intended to communicate.

Interpreting anything too literally is NOT doing it a service, no matter how pure the intentions of the interpretor.

Now, from a scientific perspective, I think it's easy to forgive the early church scholars for interpreting the Genesis creation account without any (meaningful--from a modern perspective) scientific perspective.  However, if the YEC position held any weight in terms of literature or hermeneutics, surely these scholars would have picked up on that.

To believe either of the overarching views, a few "concessions" must be made:

To believe in an Old-Earth:

The Genesis creation account is metaphorical, and not written as a scientific text.
The flood account is told from the perspective of those writing it, for whom the entire known earth did flood, but not necessarily the entire literal earth.

To believe in a Young-Earth:

God arbitrarily chooses use words that have practically no meaning ("day," "morning," and "evening" prior to the sun existing)
God gave Adam super-human powers, or made the 6th day extremely long, or performed some other miracle to allow Adam to name all of the animals in a single day.
God created the earth with the appearance of age
God teleported animals to and from the Ark from/to multiple continents
Well established scientific principles are flatly wrong, despite independent verification by many people (both religions and non-religious) over many years, in some cases over centuries.
Reconcile personally that these apparent contradictions don't make God a liar

To me, the first set of "concessions" is much easier to make.  It only asks me to read literature in the context it was written.  It doesn't ask me to believe what would appear, to an external observer, to be a bunch of fairy tales.

Postscript

As a final note, an observation that doesn't necessarily add any weight to the OEC position--so I mention it here, and not in my main arguments:

OEC is much less of a stumbling block for most non-Christians, because it doesn't require them to make what can easily be considered an "absurd" leap of faith, to believe that science is flatly wrong, etc.  In the words of Dr. Joshua Zorn:

  The worst aspect of YECS teaching is that it creates a nearly insurmountable barrier between the educated world and the church.4

1Mark Van Bebber and Paul S. Taylor, Creation and Time: A Report on the Progressive Creationist Book by Hugh Ross p. 73
2Hugh Ross, A Matter of Days, p. 74
3Ross, p. 76
4Dr. Joshua Zorn, The Testimony of a Formerly Young Earth Missionary
5Ross, p. 42
6Aurelius Augustinus, The City of God, Book XI, Chapter 6, 14:196
7Aurelius Augustinus, The Literal Meaning of Genesis, Book Five, Chapter 2, as translated and anotated by John Hammond Taylor, vol. 1, books 1-6 p. 148
8Ross, p. 165
9Ross, p. 166


What is the significance of the angelic visitation of the shepherds after the birth of Jesus Christ? In his gospel, Luke records the visitation of the angels to shepherds immediately after the birth of Jesus Christ.

  And in the same region there were shepherds out in the field, keeping
  watch over their flock by night. 9 And an angel of the Lord appeared
  to them, and the glory of the Lord shone around them, and they were
  filled with great fear. 10 And the angel said to them, “Fear not, for
  behold, I bring you good news of great joy that will be for all the
  people. 11 For unto you is born this day in the city of David a
  Savior, who is Christ the Lord.

  12 And this will be a sign for you:
  you will find a baby wrapped in swaddling cloths and lying in a
  manger.” 13 And suddenly there was with the angel a multitude of the
  heavenly host praising God and saying, 14 “Glory to God in the highest,
      and on earth peace among those with whom he is pleased!  Luke 2:8-14 ESV

This event is very well popular, indeed.  Yet, why was it so significant that angels appeared to shepherds?  Why were they the only ones to receive such a profound message?  Why not farmers or carpenters or tax collectors or... fishermen (like Zebedee)?

God made a specific choice to proclaim this message to shepherds.  So, why is that?

The following is highly speculative but (I think) not entirely unreasonable.

Shepherds might be considered lower class and were likely grubbier than those in other occupations, especially given that these were night-shepherds in the fields (when all the "decent" folk would be sleeping at home).
By announcing the message to isolated shepherds, the privilege of evangelizing was bestowed on the hearers.  If the announcement had been made in a town, lots of people would have noticed.  Alternatively, there might be an aspect of messianic secret (cf. Jesus's telling people not to talk about him healing them), perhaps to reduce the number of people interested because of miracles rather than the message the miracles are meant to provide a sign for.  In addition, a degree of secrecy might have delayed Herod's infanticidal actions (people in authority would be unlikely to pay attention to the ravings of shepherds but if a whole town--including its respected elders--was talking about an angelic appearance, then even priests in Jerusalem might give the account some credibility).
Such might be an homage to David and a foreshadowing of Jesus' own identification as the good shepherd.


Where is the Third Temple to be built? It seems to me that the only acceptable place to build the Third Temple according to modern Jews is the Temple Mount, where the first two temples stood, and where now is Al-Aqsa and the Dome of the Rock.

However, I read Ezekiel 45 today and was totally surprised to find:

  1 Moreover, when ye shall divide by lot the land for inheritance, ye shall offer an oblation unto the LORD, an holy portion of the land: the length shall be the length of five and twenty thousand reeds , and the breadth shall be ten thousand. This shall be holy in all the borders thereof round about.
  2 Of this there shall be for the sanctuary five hundred in length , with five hundred in breadth , square round about; and fifty cubits round about for the suburbs thereof.
  3 And of this measure shalt thou measure the length of five and twenty thousand, and the breadth of ten thousand: and in it shall be the sanctuary and the most holy place.

Does this not clearly state that the Temple shall be built in a newly allocated area instead? Note that the designated size (25000 reeds * 10000 reeeds, that several kilometres in each direction) far exceeds the area of the current Temple Mount, so to have it there would mean to destruct half of jerusalem.

So is everyone wrong about building the Temple on the Mount or how shall we understand this passage?

Not everyone in Christianity believes that the third temple will be built as a physical temple. Many believe the ginormous dimensions given for the temple in Ezekiel indicate that it is actually just a spiritual temple being referred to.

Some passages indicting that the view of the NT writers was that the third temple was spiritual are Acts 7:48 and surrounding, 1 Cor 3:16 and surrounding, and 1 Peter 2:5 and context. Mark 14:58 and similar passages that can be interpreted as being about the resurrection of Jesus' body can also be interpreted as being about the church as Christ's body, a "temple made without hands." See also Revelation 21:22.


Was the Gathering Relics of Holy Men in 1st Century common in the Early Church? I am hoping to understand or know if Jesus' apostles would have had gathering relics of something like the crucifixion in mind at some point when it as still possible to locate them (ex: the true cross, crown of thorns, nails), such as a few days following the crucifixion?

Was this something Jews had a habit of doing for Holy men during Christ's time on earth? Unless this was a cultural/religious practice, I have some skepticism on the likelihood that this would have been a priority.

Neither Britannica nor Wikipedia list any form of relics within Judaism.

Collecting relics was effectively never done by the Israelites or Jews.  To them, only God (and God through his agents) has supernatural power.  Believing that relics or other objects have supernatural power, in principle, violates the first and second commandments, "Thou shalt have no other gods before me" and "Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image".  It in effect turns the object into a form of god.

Ancient Greeks though, did believe in the power of relics, and this belief passed on to the Roman Empire and the Holy Roman Empire.

It wasn't until the Roman Church became the official Christian form of Christianity that anyone thought to collect Christian relics.

Constantine's mother, Empress Helena, was particularly interested in relics, artefacts, and locations.  She herself made a pilgrimage to Palestine and other provinces where she built churches on holy sites, including the location of Moses's burning bush.  At the site of Jesus's tomb, she had three crosses excavated and used a miracle to determine which one was the True Cross.  She also discovered the crucifixion nails and placed one in Constantine's helmet and one in his horse's bridle.  She is also thought to have found Jesus's Holy Tunic.

Helena explicitly sent her men to locate holy relics. Given what failure would have meant, all these missions were of course successful.  Other finds included the rope used to tie Jesus to the cross, more pieces of the cross, and more of the Holy Tunic.

Centuries later, many Crusaders returned with "genuine" relics they had liberated from the holy land.  Some were naïve dupes, while others were scoundrels in their own right.  The number of nails and pieces of the true cross that were brought back would have been sufficient to build a church or two.

In reality, the chance that anyone would have preserved Jesus's cross or its nails, his crown of thorns, his blood, etc. are extremely close to zero.


Is it Christian Doctrine to say that macroevolution is not the same as microevolution? We read in Genesis that the world was created in seven days.

This article states:

  Contrary to claims by creationists, macro and microevolution describe fundamentally identical processes on different time scales.

[The assumption being that more than seven days are required for the changes to bring about all the living beings we see today.]

My question is is it Christian Doctrine to say that macroevolution is not the same as microevolution?

Doctrine does not make claims about the definitions that biologists (or others) use.

If someone wanted to assert that the earth is billions of years old, then someone's doctrine may contradict that assertion, but it is not a doctrinal assertion to argue about what is meant by macro- or microevolution.

If someone has an issue with macroevolution (e.g. because its logical implications contradict their doctrine), it is more likely that they claim that there isn't much in the way of proof that macroevolution has actually happened and that it is very, very improbable. Microevolution has been observed, whereas macroevolution is a theory imposed upon historical science.


What is the right word, Jesus assumed a human soul or have a created rational soul? Jesus has two nature fully God and fully man. We know  that man is compose of body & soul. Its very hard to grasp the nature of Jesus human soul.

Is Jesus human soul created or assumed?

Is Jesus human soul created or assumed?

Jesus, at the Incarnation, assumed a human soul:[1]

  Because "human nature was assumed, not absorbed",97 in the mysterious union of the Incarnation, the Church was led over the course of centuries to confess the full reality of Christ's human soul, with its operations of intellect and will, and of his human body. In parallel fashion, she had to recall on each occasion that Christ's human nature belongs, as his own, to the divine person of the Son of God, who assumed it. Everything that Christ is and does in this nature derives from "one of the Trinity". The Son of God therefore communicates to his humanity his own personal mode of existence in the Trinity. In his soul as in his body, Christ thus expresses humanly the divine ways of the Trinity.

[1]: The Catechism of the Catholic Church:


Is the Mass seen as a sacrifice in the Lutheran Church? Acording to Wikipedia the Mass is seen as a sacrifice in the Lutheran Chruch, just like it is in the Eastern Orthodox and Catholic Churches.

However, I think this is wrong, I'm pretty sure from Luther's "On The Babylonian captivity of the Church", that Luther did not view the mass as a sacrifice.

In the Apology of the Augsburg Confession, Philipp Melanchthon identifies two distinct meanings of the word "sacrifice," rejecting one (the Roman Catholic view) and accepting the other:

  The proximate species of sacrifice are two, and there are no more. One is the propitiatory sacrifice, i.e., a work which makes satisfaction for guilt and punishment, i.e., one that reconciles God, or appeases God's wrath, or which merits the remission of sins for others. The other species is the eucharistic sacrifice, which does not merit the remission of sins or reconciliation, but is rendered by those who have been reconciled, in order that we may give thanks or return gratitude for the remission of sins that has been received, or for other benefits received. (XXIV §19)

Put another way – a "sacrifice" can be understood as a substitutionary sacrifice that reconciles people to God, or it can be a giving of thanks by those already reconciled to God.  Lutherans reject the idea that the former idea is present in the Eucharist/Mass, but believe that the latter is an aspect of it.  Of the first type, there has been only one:

  There has been only one propitiatory sacrifice in the world, namely, the death of Christ (§22)

But the second type continues to be properly part of the Christian's life:

  Now the rest are eucharistic sacrifices, which are called sacrifices of praise, Lev. 3:1f.; 7:11f.; Ps. 56:12f., namely, the preaching of the Gospel, faith, prayer, thanksgiving, confession, the afflictions of saints, yea, all good works of saints. These sacrifices are not satisfactions for those making them, or applicable on behalf of others, so as to merit for these, ex opere operato, the remission of sins or reconciliation. (§25)

This understanding of "sacrifice" continues in Lutheranism today.  John Mueller, summarizing the work of Francis Pieper, has little regard for the Catholic view of the sacrifice of the Mass:

  Closely connected with the pernicious doctrine of transubstantiation are the papistic errors of the "sacrifice of the Mass," by which "Christ's body "is continually offered up in an unbloody manner for the sins of the living and the dead." (Christian Dogmatics, 511)

So we see that the word "sacrifice" may be used in the context of Lutheran Mass, but not in the same sense as Catholics and Eastern Orthodox would use it.


Scriptural Basis for different kinds of marriage Consider two types of marriages: a marriage ceremony in a church with a certified priest/pastor (but without any government recognition) and a courthouse marriage.

What scriptures would imply that one or the other is preferable, assuming for some reason you couldn't do both?

(The other question only asks about a religious ceremony, not a courthouse marriage)

There is no mention in the Bible either of clergy-officiated marriage ceremonies or of state-officiated marriage ceremonies. That's because neither of them existed in Judaeo-Christian society until relatively recently.

Marriage ceremonies officiated by a priest or minister emerged only in the 1500s, and took another two or three centuries after that to become accepted as the norm in all Western Christian countries. State involvement in marriage developed during the same time period in Europe. (Quick reference: Marriage -> History of Marriage, from Wikipedia. For an extensive history of marriage, see: Marriage, a History: How Love Conquered Marriage, by Stephanie Coontz.)

Since the Bible itself is silent on both clergy-officiated marriages and state-officiated marriages, which one is preferable or proper is a matter of church doctrine and interpretation, and of social and legal custom, rather than of specific Biblical teaching or narrative. So aside from opinion-based answers, which are not supported on Christianity.SE, the only way the question could be answered would be to refer to the teachings of particular branches or denominations of Christianity.

However, to provide a some biblical background, in Bible times marriage took place primarily in the context of family, social, and inter-tribal or international relationships. Most commonly marriages were arranged by the families of the bride and groom in order to form alliances, solidify inter-family ties, and benefit both parties (families, tribes, or nations) economically. Money or valuables commonly changed hands at the time a marriage was contracted, usually in the form of a bride price. The marriage became legally binding at the time it was arranged, and came fully into effect at the time it was consummated—at which time there was often a feast in celebration of the union.

The most detailed account of marriage practices in the Bible occurs in the story of the marriage of Isaac and Rebekah in Genesis 24. In line with the customs of the time, the marriage was arranged between the two families before the bride and groom even saw one another. The family of the groom gave expensive presents both to the bride herself and to the bride's family. The union was completed when Rebekah was brought back to Isaac and the marriage was consummated in the tent of Sarah, the deceased mother of the groom. (The consummation is implied rather than explicitly stated.)

Another account providing insight into ancient Hebrew marriage customs occurs in the marriage of Jacob to Leah and Rachel in Genesis 29:14–30. Since Jacob had brought no wealth with him, and was at that time cut off from his family, the arranged bride price was seven years of labor. However, there was a bit of trickery involved. Jacob had contracted to marry Rachel in return for seven years of labor. But her father Laban substituted Leah, Rachel's older sister, at the time the marriage was to be consummated. (Apparently there was plenty of good wine at the wedding feast!) Since his marriage with Leah was now consummated and could therefore not be undone according to the marriage customs of the time, Jacob was obliged to perform another seven years of labor for Laban as a bride price for Rachel.

The role of marriage in international relations can be seen in the later story of Solomon taking "700 wives, who were princesses [from the surrounding nations], and 300 concubines" (1 Kings 11:3). This built up Solomon's wealth by establishing treaty and trade relationships with the surrounding nations. But it ultimately led to the downfall of the unified kingdom of Israel under his son Rehoboam because Solomon began building shrines to the gods and goddesses of his foreign wives, contrary to the commandments of the God of Israel. For the story in its context, see 1 Kings 10–11.

The story of the wedding at Cana in John 2:1–12 offers a peek into wedding practices in New Testament times. Here there is mention of the wedding feast, which was a common practice in the ancient world. But as we would expect, there is no mention of any officiating priest, nor of any involvement of the state, since as mentioned earlier, these involvements did not develop until 1,500 years later. The Parable of the Wedding Feast in Matthew 22:1–14 and The Parable of the Ten Virgins in Matthew 25:1–12 provide additional insight into wedding practices in New Testament times and culture.

Yes, there are laws in the Bible about marriage and adultery, both in the Old Testament and in the New Testament. But none of these laws require or assume any clergy or state involvement in the wedding. Marriages were simply accepted as valid when they were formed according to the social customs of the day, as described briefly above.

About the most we can conclude from the Bible's descriptions of and laws concerning marriage, then, is that marriage is generally to be done according to the social, legal, and religious customs of the time, and that once the marriage is so formed, recognized, and accepted, the laws relating to it become binding upon the couple, and upon society in relation to them as a married couple.


Hebrew OT translation to Greek NT Hebrews 10:5 (ESV) states

  Consequently, when Christ came into the world, he said,
      “Sacrifices and offerings you have not desired,
      but a body have you prepared for me;

This is an apparent reference to Psalm 40:6:

  In sacrifice and offering you have not delighted,
  but you have given me an open ear.

The footnote in my Bible on the Psalm mentions that literally this verse would be "ears you have dug for me".

I can understand an idiomatic translation; digging out ones ears is a Hebrew idiom roughly equivalent to having an "open ear" in English. But moving to "a body have you prepared for me" seems to be far beyond translating an idiom.

I looked at one of these sites that has a whole bunch (17) of translations; all translate that phrase in Hebrews fairly similar (mentioning preparation of a body). In the case of the Psalm, likewise, they all seem to mention something about ears. Whether "you have made me listen" or "you have pierced my ears" or one of the ESV translations I mentioned above.

So most translations seem to point to the translation from Hebrew to Greek is a rather liberal one. Am I understanding this correctly? And if so, how does digging out an ear relate to preparing a body?

The footnote for Hebrews 10:5-7 in the New American Bible mentions the following:

  A passage from Ps 40:7–9 is placed in the mouth of the Son at his incarnation. As usual, the author follows the Septuagint text. There is a notable difference in Heb 10:5 (Ps 40:6), where the Masoretic text reads “ears you have dug for me” (“ears open to obedience you gave me,” NAB), but most Septuagint manuscripts have “a body you prepared for me,” a reading obviously more suited to the interpretation of Hebrews.

The original and ostensibly mistranslated passage appears in the Septuagint. Why this translation appears in the Septuagint and not the Masorectic text is something of a mystery, but there are a few different conjectures that discount the Masorectic text's translation. Notably by Benjamin Kennicott as descibed by Adam Clarke:

  Dr. Kennicott has a very ingenious conjecture here: he supposes that the Septuagint and apostle express the meaning of the words as they stood in the copy from which the Greek translation was made; and that the present Hebrew text is corrupted in the word oznayim, ears, which has been written through carelessness for az gevah, THEN A BODY. The first syllable THEN, is the same in both; and the latter which joined to makes oznayim, might have been easily mistaken for gevah, BODY; nun, being very like gimel; yod, like vau; and he, like final mem; especially if the line on which the letters were written in the MS. happened to be blacker than ordinary, which has often been a cause of mistake, it might have been easily taken for the under stroke of the mem, and thus give rise to a corrupt reading: add to this the root carah, signifies as well to prepare as to open, bore, Septuagint, and followed by the apostle, must have read the text thus: az gevah caritha li, σωμαδεκατηρτισωμοι, then a body thou hast prepared me: thus the Hebrew text, the version of the Septuagint, and the apostle, will agree in what is known to be an indisputable fact in Christianity, namely, that Christ was incarnated for the sin of the world.

That is, Psalms 40 in the Masorectic text has a transcription error that was not present in the translations upon which the Septaguint manuscripts were based.


What part did the Psalms play in Jewish worship? What part did the Psalms play in Jewish worship, especially at about the time of John the Baptist and Jesus as in Luke 11:1?

Josephus mentions the Temple singers of his day:

  Those of the Levites...who were singers of hymns urged the king to convene the Sanhedrin and get them permission to wear linen robes on equal terms with the priests....Nor did they fail to obtain their request; for the king, with the consent of those who attended the Sanhedrin, allowed the singers of hymns to discard their former robes and to wear linen ones such as they wished.  A part of the tribe that served in the temple were also permitted to learn the hymns by heart, as they had requested.  Antiquities 20.216-218.

Those "hymns" were probably psalms.

We are less well informed about the use of psalms in Jewish domestic or synagogue worship.  But Saint Paul gives us a clue (1 Corinthians 14.26)

  What then, brethren?  When you come together, each one has a psalm, a lesson, a revelation, a tongue or an interpretation.  Let all things be done for edification.

This use of psalms in Christian domestic worship may have been modeled on the similar use of psalms in Jewish domestic worship.

The modern-day synagogue liturgy makes extensive use of psalms.  We don't know how far back this practice goes.


Why is it not that a state divorce is actually an argument AGAINST a church annulment petition rather than a necessary condition for such petition? Note: This question may be wrong. I think the right question is in the following link: How do Filipino Catholics get a church annulment when their state marriage is valid, considering the Philippines doesn't have divorce?

Apparently, state divorce is a necessary condition to begin a church annulment process. Why isn't a state divorce actually an argument against rather than a necessary condition for a church annulment petition?
I mean, there are reasons to get an annulment instead of divorce despite divorce being cheaper. So, if your church marriage is invalid, as you want to petition, then why did you get a state divorce instead of a state annulment for your state marriage, which I guess was also invalid?
Of course, answers may include:

Your state marriage is invalid, but the financial reasons for getting a state annulment instead of a state divorce weren't applicable to you. Hence, even though your state marriage is invalid, you chose the cheaper route of getting a state divorce instead of a state annulment.

Your state marriage is valid though your church marriage is still invalid.

Related: Marriage invalid. Would a church annulment require a state annulment or state divorce?
Update:
Would a state separation suffice in the place of a state annulment or state divorce? Case 1: The country has divorce. Case 2: The country is the Philippines.

Your state marriage is valid though your church marriage is still invalid.

I think that this is the answer in most cases:

In nearly all cases I have heard about a state marriage would be perfectly valid but a church marriage is not.

Edit

I have heard about the following cases:

The husband had a child with another woman and he didn't tell his wife
The husband was homosexual and the wife did not know about this

In both cases a civil marriage is valid and a church marriage can be annulled.


According to Trinitarians, did the human Jesus worship the divine Jesus? According to Trinitarians, did the human Jesus worship the divine Jesus?

Trinitarians believe in the "unipersonality" of Jesus – that is, that he is one person and does not have multiple "personalities" that could interact with each other.  The most important trinitarian creedal statement on the incarnation of Jesus is the Chalcedonian Definition, which reads in part:

  [Christ is] acknowledged in Two Natures unconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, inseparably; the difference of the Natures being in no way removed because of the Union, but rather the properties of each Nature being preserved, and (both) concurring into One Person and One Hypostasis; not as though He were parted or divided into Two Persons, but One and the Self-same Son and Only-begotten God, Word, Lord, Jesus Christ.

Thus Jesus has two natures that were united in one person.  And as a single person, Jesus has one personality, as Louis Berkhof writes:

  The term "person" denotes a complete substance endowed with reason, and, consequently, a responsible subject of its own actions. (ST, 3.1.3.A)

Aquinas gives the definition (following Boethius) as "an individual substance of rational nature" in his discussion of the difference between "union in nature" and "union in person" in Summa, Third Part, Question 2.  As part of his defense of the idea of the unipersonality of Christ, he also states:

  [The human nature of Christ] has not its own personality, because it does not exist separately, but in something more perfect, viz. in the Person of the Word. (Article 2, reply 3)

Thus, to directly answer your question: No, the "human nature" of Jesus did not worship the "divine nature" of Jesus – he is a single person.


Are Catholics allowed to celebrate the Reformation? This is going to be published in my local Catholic parish's bulletin this week.

A SPECIAL EVENT: REFORMATION 500 COMMEMORATION
Wednesday, April 26 @ 7:00pm
In honor of the 500th Anniversary of the Reformation,
St. John’s Lutheran Church will host an ecumenical vesper service. Congregations in Evansville will gather to embrace our commonalities. Ministers from the various congregations will be discussing our similarities and differences regarding Holy Baptism and Holy Communion in a relaxed atmosphere, followed by refreshments. This event is in collaboration with our partner congregations in Evansville. The whole community is invited; invite your friends and neighbors of all faith traditions!

Has anything changed in the last 500 years that Catholics should be commemorating the Reformation?
For some odd reason I thought we were against that...

Merriam-Webster define commemorate as:

to call to remembrance: St. Andrew is commemorated on November 30.

to mark by some ceremony or observation; observe:  commemorate an anniversary

to serve as a memorial of: a plaque that commemorates the battle

In this sense, we  cannot be opposed to commemorating (particularly in sense 1) the Reformation, lest we forget its causes and allow it to happen again.
As a Catholic, though, I would be opposed to leaving "in honor of the 500th Anniversary"; I might replace it with "in memory of the 500th Anniversary," since, as others have pointed out, we cannot honor a wound to the unity of the Church, however much Luther and Calvin might have thought it necessary.
That being said, ecumenical dialogue is something required of the Church by virtue of it being Church:

The restoration of unity among all Christians is one of the principal concerns of the Second Vatican Council. Christ the Lord founded one Church and one Church only. However, many Christian communions present themselves to men as the true inheritors of Jesus Christ; all indeed profess to be followers of the Lord but differ in mind and go their different ways, as if Christ Himself were divided.Cf. I Cor 1:13 Such division openly contradicts the will of Christ, scandalizes the world, and damages the holy cause of preaching the Gospel to every creature. — Unitatis Redintegratio

So, in a sense, we as Church are required to attend such events and go seek restoration of the unity that Christ preached, because without our cooperation, it will not fall down on our laps.


Was the serpent's temptation necessary for Eve to sin? It was once said that Satan is God's Satan.  I understand Eve's act of sin plays into God's hands and His glorification, but are there not other ways this can be done without Satan's interference?  While Eve acted on free will, the serpent's temptation was catalytic, and the fact that God allowed the serpent to be there, it seems to me that God was passively hoping Eve would sin.

This question is not about free-will or the forbidden fruit, for it obvious that for free will to exist there must be choices (i.e. between obeying and disobeying God's command to not consume fruit from the forbidden tree).  However, by introducing the serpent into the picture, God seems to be caring more about his glorification than Adam and Eve's best interests (a perfect environment i.e. Garden of Eden).  If He truly wants to show that mankind would eventually sin, shouldn't He let Adam and Eve sin without foreign interference (say one day Eve decides to eat the forbidden fruit out of curiosity)?   That way, God can claim that no matter how perfect and controlled the environment is for free-will, mankind will sin.

There are some basics which you need to consider here; that change the whole precept of the question.

All Scripture is quoted from the King James translation.

  God is omniscient!

God knew from before he created the Angels; exactly how all things would unfold for Eternity.

  God is Omnipotent!

God is all powerful, he has the power to alter any particular action at any particular time.

  God is omnipresent!

God is not subject to time and space, God is of the Spiritual realm and as such is everywhere at once.

So if we consider the three things above, our questions should be changed from "why does God allow " to "how does this particular incident fit into God's overall plan". The truth is we mere mortals will never be able to understand God or his ways or his thoughts.

  Isaiah 55:8 and 9 For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the LORD. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.

We then, as mere mortals, must accept the fact that God is so far above us that whatever his plan to is to achieve when it reaches its final conclusion we will never know this side of heaven and possibly not even then. We can however find some clues in what has transpired since God initiated his plan. We can also possibly obtain a few clues from God's word concerning the future.

So let's go back to your original question concerning the serpent in the garden; of the fall and Eve; and all of that. In as much as I can understand: the creation came on the heels of the war in heaven.

  Revelation 12:7 through 9  And there was war in heaven: Michael and his angels fought the dragon; and the dragon fought and his angels, And prevailed not; neither was their place found any more in heaven. And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.

And in order for Satan and the rebellious angels to be exiled to earth it would have to have come after Genesis chapter 1 verse 1.

  Genesis 1:1  In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

As to whether the serpent who deceived Eve was only a serpent, or Satan masquerading as a serpent. We are not told, however. According to the apostle Paul in his second letter to the Corinthians, it could have been either.

  2nd Corinthians 11:13 and 14 For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ. And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light.

It appears to me, that the real lesson we should learn from this is; that in the beginning God created both the Angels and a man with free will. And that when given the opportunity they both rebelled against God's authority. When Adam and Eve disobeyed God in the Garden they introduced into mankind what I consider to the "me" concept. What I mean by that is that up until that time. Man was sublimely happy, secure, and at ease in the presence of God. Following man's initial disobedience, we find that man is no longer comfortable in the presence of God as God created him.

  Genesis 3:7 and 8 And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons. And they heard the voice of the LORD God walking in the garden in the cool of the day: and Adam and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the LORD God amongst the trees of the garden.

Some of my fondest memories, are from when my children and grandchildren crawled up into my lap and felt so secure and well cared for that they just went to sleep. while at the same time some of my most hurtful memories are when those same children and grandchildren rebelled. The reasons for these reactions is because of my love for them. I cannot believe that it would be any different with God. I am sure of this; that when both the Angels and man rebelled against God it hurt him deeply because God is love. I am likewise of the opinion that God had the same feelings that I felt; before that rebellion by either the Angels or man.

However be that as it may, those are my thoughts, and you must come to your own conclusions.

We can use the same analytical logic on any passage in the Old Testament's and try and find out, the role these incidents play in the overall plan of God. For instance we can analyze the story of David and Goliath as depicted in 1st Samuel chapter 17. I will not quote it here for the sake of brevity.

Two questions arise using this type of analytical logic.

  Did God said through his omnipotence direct the stone and from David's slingshot to its final destination in Goliath's forehead?
  Or did God through his omniscience align circumstances so that David could through his own learning be able to so accurately throw the stone that it would hit the exact Mark aimed at.

Whichever of these two God chose, makes very little difference, the point here being that God fore ordained how this particular situation would play out. And the lesson for us would seem to be that man can overcome evil but not without the help of God.

Another example of using this logic in analyzing a passage is in the Story of Abraham and the sacrifice of Isaac.

Genesis 22:1  through 22:13. Again I will not quote them for the sake of brevity, but if you are unfamiliar with it I heartily suggest you read it.

Genesis 22:1  And it came to pass after these things, that God did tempt Abraham, and said unto him, Abraham:

Right off the bat and our first question comes up Why does God who is omniscience decide to tempt Abraham, knowing already what Abraham's reaction would be?

There are some questions to which we simply have to answer: because God is sovereign, and this may be one of them. We could on the other hand wonder if God in his great love is verifying Abraham's faith  or not. In view of the following two Scriptures this may seem more feasible.

Genesis 22:7  and 22:8 And Isaac spake unto Abraham his father, and said, My father: and he said, Here am I, my son. And he said, Behold the fire and the wood: but where is the lamb for a burnt offering? And Abraham said, My son, God will provide himself a lamb for a burnt offering: so they went both of them together.

The significance of this passage lies in that Abraham so depended upon God that he believed that even if he were to take the life of Isaac God would replace that life somehow and Isaac would not be lost to him. This compares to the basic hope of Christianity, that being that that even though we have all sinned and come short of the Glory of God, Jesus death on the Cross will bring our Souls back into Eternal life.

So to answer your question:

Was the serpent's temptation necessary for Eve to sin?

The answer to that, in my humble opinion, whether or not the It was necessary for Eve to sin, it was necessary in order for God's plan to unfold as he intended it to.

Although this has nothing to do with the answer to your question I am adding a to help you understand my answer.

Having used this particular analogy trying to understand how God wanted his Scriptures to be understood; for nearly a decade, I have come to my own conclusion that God's overall plan is to restore heaven to it pre-rebellion state. And that Heaven which I feel is described in Revelation chapters 21 and 22 is so desirable to me that it is worth throwing away all other things, all other glories, all of the riches, and any other thing; which would prevent me from being there.

I am so enthralled with this that I'm trying with all my might, to be that little child who crawls up in God's lap and forgets about all other things;

Again those are my conclusions and you must come to your own.


What proportion of global Christians belong to denominations that accept evolution? I would like to know what percentage of Christians globally belong to denominations which accept evolution of humanity by natural selection (including "theistic evolution"). I can try to calculate these numbers by crossreferencing numbers at Wikipedia "List of Christian denominations by number of members" and "Acceptance of evolution by religious groups", but I'd rather see a published figure somewhere.

I can see a lot published about the percentage among American Christians, but I think this is skewed by fundamentalists in America who are out of step with the global church on this issue. I want to say: X% of global Christians belong to a church which accepts evolution. This would include all Catholics and Orthodox, all Methodists, no Southern Baptists, etc. Just how many is that?

Answering my own question just in case anybody cares about this topic. This is totally unscientific, just cobbled together from wikipedia and googling. I am still interested in hearing an actual figure from experts. I spent about 20 minutes going through wikipedia articles "Acceptance of evolution by religious groups" and "List of Christian denominations by number of members", plus googling for position statements for the major denominational groups.

Results: out of 2.42 billion Christians globally (I excluded LDS), at least 1.7 billion belong to denominations with official statements that allow for some kinds of "theistic" evolution as the mechanism for God's creation of humanity. The true figure is probably higher, almost certainly not lower (I only checked the groups with big membership- anyone I didn't check is by default being left out of the 1.7 billion figure.) As a percentage, at least 73% of global Christians belong to denominations which allow for some kind of evolution as the mechanism for the creation of humanity.


Absent apostolic succession, what is the argument for the authority of the church? I realize that Catholics believe in apostolic succession, and that they were explicitly given authority by Jesus himself.  In other denominations, what, if anything, other than the choice made by its members gives the church authority over them?

I am speaking here not of "church" meaning a community of Christians, but "church" meaning a specific entity that owns property and instructs its members on what they may or may not do (such as tithing, indulgences, sexual practices, marriage, musical choices, etc.), led by a specific human individual or group.

I used to think that non-Catholics dedicated themselves to a church conditionally -- that is, they stay as long as the church seems to be serving God's will, and leave or seek to change the church if it doesn't.  However, in practice that doesn't seem to happen much.  I know many Christians who have never even read the Bible directly -- they pray and live solely according to the directions of their pastor and his/her interpretation of God's will, their only direct contact with the Bible is in small quotations strewn about a sermon completely out of context.  These particular individuals feel that only a pastor can know what is true, and that as laypeople they are required to follow without question.  Is this a mainstream belief, and if so, from what does it stem?

This is a great question.

In the Presbyterian churches I have participated in they have had the following structure:

Denomination - An organization (often national) that oversees many different regional bodies (in my denomination called Presbyteries). It is a representative democracy, where each Presbytery has a representative and they vote to determine policy.
Presbytery - A regional group of churches. This is also a democracy, each church has representatives (typically elders) who are elected or hired by the members of the church.
Church - A church is a local congregation of consisting of voting members and non-voting attendees (there are vows etc for members). The Members vote for people to become elders and deacons, and pastors.

Thus in the Presbyterian system, much like the government of the United States the power of the church and its officials is derived directly from the members of the congregation. If the members are unhappy with their pastor or elders there are procedures in place to remove them from their positions. The congregation is considered to be the "Body of Christ" and thus the source of the Church's operational authority.

The Presbyterian church accepts only the Bible as an infallible doctrinal standard, but also points to the Westminster Confession of faith as a concise statement of their beliefs. The Bible is not amendable, however there are circumstances under which the confession can be amended.


How valid is the JEDP theory? The JEDP theory basically states that the first five books of the bible (the Pentatauch) were not written by a single person, but rather by four different people.

I'm trying to understand if this theory is even remotely valid or if it is complete nonsense.

Specifically (to avoid this being closed as argumentative), what are the most reasonable supporting arguments for this theory?  Also, what are the major criticisms against this theory?

The JEPD theory was developed in three stages, which I summarized in my answer to
What was the reasons for documentary hypothesis?. It isn't complete nonsense; it's the culmination of several centuries of Bible scholarship. Whether it is a giant leap forward or a brilliant mistake, I'm not certain.

On the one hand, it's rational, and it fits different types of writing into neat categories. It has a ready answer for things that might be hard to explain otherwise.

On the other hand, it's highly speculative. I've found that it is trivially easy to look at any source text and find inconsistency. I myself have tried this method and "discovered" evidence of multiple sources in Richard Dawkins' The God Delusion.

Perhaps the most serious scholarly argument against the JEPD hypothesis is that it doesn't explain why a later editor would bring all these sources together, if the traditions had kept them separate. The more likely scenario, according to this argument, is that the doublets and stylistic differences were part of a tradition that began with Moses and accumulated over the years.


How have mainstream Christian denominations interpreted the Acts command to abstain from blood? Acts 15:28  and  29 tells us that basically all of the old law covenant is no longer to be observed except:

Acts 15:28 KJV  For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things;

Are we under obligation to avoid any or all of those 4 things today?

Acts 15:29 KJV  That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well.

Most religions are in agreement that sexual immorality (fornication)should be avoided.
Of particular interest is what it meant in ancient times to abstain from blood and what it means now in modern times to abstain from blood.
As far as I know only the Jehovahs Witnesses refuse blood transfusing for religious reasons.
I would like an overview of mainstream Christian groups' interpretation of this scripture, in light of the vastly different conditions we have now with most of us never being involved in the slaughter of the animals we consume, in addition to the many medical therapies that involve blood and fractions thereoff.

TL;DR: Appearance of evil: Drinking blood was an element of Pagan sacrifice

  Are we under obligation to avoid any or all of those 4 things [meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication] today?

Original context: Pagan sacrifices

These four items appear to be linked together because all of them were elements of pagan sacrifices. According to this essay,

  Often, pagan worship included the sacrificing and eating of animals, sometimes with the drained blood being offered as a “course” in the meal. These festivities also generally included sexual participation by the guest in any number of immoral ways. Coffman* noted: “Idol feasts were shameful debaucheries, marked by the most vulgar and immoral behavior.... In fact, it is possible that all four of these restrictions relate to idol worship” (1977, p. 299)

*Coffman, James Burton (1977), Commentary on Acts (Abilene, TX: ACU Press)

Other discussions in the epistles of Paul

The apostle Paul made it abundantly clear that sexual immorality was unacceptable in the church.

1Cor 6:18 Flee sexual immorality! “Every sin that a man does is outside the body,” but he who commits sexual immorality sins against his own body. WEB
Gal 5:19 Now the works of the flesh are obvious, which are: adultery, sexual immorality, uncleanness, lustfulness, WEB
Eph 5:3 But sexual immorality, and all uncleanness, or covetousness, let it not even be mentioned among you, as becomes saints; WEB

Paul also specifically allows eating of meat which has been sacrificed, as long as it did not produce a bad witness. If a brother or sister in the Lord would be offended, or if someone specifically pointed out that "this meat was sacrificed" -- presumably to test what the believer would do -- then the meat offered should be avoided. It appears that eating the meat was not in conflict with the requirements of the Jerusalem conference if there was no offense. It is not clearly stated in scripture whether eating strangled animals or drinking blood was also ok if it gave no offense, but these seem to be closely related and are not otherwise forbidden to Christians.

Later church practice

Almost all Christian groups today reject sexual immorality as sinful, though there is some variation in what constitutes immorality (some groups even finding premarital relations to be acceptable). Pagan sacrifices seem to be rare enough in Europe and the Americas that little is written about it in most denominations. In practice, most Christians would avoid being seen as an active participant in any sacrifice they consider inappropriate. While most groups say nothing about blood or strangled animals, the Witnesses of Jehovah and the Eastern Orthodox churches do forbid them. Some Pentacostal groups interpret the conference requirements as commands still in effect, but spiritualize them, for example "strangled meat" is careless doctrinal statements.

A Catholic viewpoint:

  Notice, neither the letter nor the restrictions were meant for the Church as a whole, but only to the Gentile converts in a certain section of the world. Nor was it making any "dogmatic" statement, but only a practical one. Thus most do not interpret this passage as being meant for all generations of Christians. It was meant to keep peace between the Jewish and Gentile converts in a specific community at a specific time. In addition, it, like the rest of scripture, was prohibiting the consumption of blood 1, not its use in medical operations 3

The Orthodox churches apparently consider all four prohibitions to still be in effect today. Here is a statement from an Orthodox apologetics site:

  Actually – and this is not well-known – the Orthodox position is that the Apostolic Council is still binding, and this includes the prohibition on eating blood (including blood sausage, etc and strangled meats.
  This prohibition on eating blood has however never been understood as a strict prohibition on the use of blood transfusions in case of medical emergency.


What is the meaning of the bronze serpent used to save the Israelites? In Numbers 21: 8,9, Why is a bronze serpent used to save the Israelites, and what does this mean for Christians today?

  8Then the LORD said to Moses, "Make a fiery serpent, and set it on a standard; and it shall come about, that everyone who is bitten, when he looks at it, he will live." 9And Moses made a bronze serpent and set it on the standard; and it came about, that if a serpent bit any man, when he looked to the bronze serpent, he lived. NKJV

Jesus refered to what He was going to do, as a fulfillment of the true meaning of the bronze serpent being lifted by Moses in the wilderness (John 3:14-15).

  14And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up:
  15 That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life. (John 3:14-15)

Similarities:

The Israelites were bitten by venomous snakes and were going to die // all people are 'bitten' by the Serpent and due to sin are going to die (the wages of sin is death)
God provided a way that people could not die due to the snake bites // God provided a way that people can be saved and not die due to their sin
The snakes were the cause of the problem (sin) and the bronze snake was the solution // Jesus was sinless, yet on the cross He was made sin for those that would believe on Him (see 2 Cor. 5:21), baring in Himself their sins
The lifted bronze snake was foolishness for some of the Isrealites, because they couldn't see what good is a statue of a snake when they had actual snake bites (and those died) but those that looked up to it with faith, lived // The cross of Christ is foolishness to those that perish, but to those who look up to it with faith, it is the power of God unto salvation! (see 1 Cor. 1:18)

Due to all those and other similarities, Jesus used the event with the serpent as an illustration, so that Nicodemus (a teacher of Israel, well aware of this event) could understand who Jesus truly was.

In brief the bronze serpent is an Old Testament image of the cross of Christ, and what He bore on it!

However we must be careful to worship Christ and not the cross, because many years after the event in the wilderness, some Isrealites started worshipping the bronze serpent (as an idol), as if it had saved them, when in fact it was God who saved them, using that means. (see 2 Kings 18:4)


Can humans aquire 'infinite' joy when they are finite beings? I read CS Lewis say that the Beatification is an "infinite good" and, hence, "infinitely outweighs the negations" (the stuff we shall leave behind here). He also argued, in Letters to Malcolm, that we shall not experience time as an infinite present because we are finite creatures and, therefore, can only experience what suits our humanity. Being that we are finite, does that mean when he (or other writers) talk of 'infinite joy' they mean it metaphorically rather than literally? In Weight of Glory, Lewis also refers to it as 'transfinite'.

Before I get to the point, I'm going to start with how we understand Scripture, even though your question is not about an exact phrase found in Scripture, because it sets a principle for understanding literature that is common not just to Biblical studies, but to other texts as well.

Next, I'm going to preface this with an honest "We really don't know, we can just give our best guess".  We would have to ask the original author to know for sure, so I'm torn about whether to answer the question, or VTC as opinion-based.  I'm answering because I think the question has merit, and I think that most would agree with the assessment I'm about to give.

Typically, "infinite joy" isn't taken as literal, it's taken as a figure of speech.

As explained in my answer on  From a Fundamentalist standpoint, what does the phrase “Inspired, infallible, inerrant Word of God” mean?

  The doctrine of inerrancy does not imply hyper-literalism. As noted
  above, in the second possible mechanism for Biblical Inspiration, we
  believe that God allowed the writer's literary style to be used in the
  writing of Scripture. Hyperbole (the use of exaggeration as a figure
  of speech. Example, "I'm so hungry, I could eat a horse.") is allowed.

This is a principle applied to any form of textual criticism.  Determining the line between literal and allegorical can be summed up in a simple principle:

Dr. David L. Cooper, the founder of The Biblical Research Society out it much more simply.  Dr. Cooper is known for his “Golden Rule of Interpretation” which is as follows:

  When the plain sense of Scripture makes common sense,seek no other
  sense;

  Therefore, take every word at its primary, ordinary, usual, literal
  meaning unless the facts of the immediate context, studied in the
  light of related passages and axiomatic and fundamental truths
  indicate clearly otherwise.

In this case, the question is, does it make sense that a finite being could experience infinite joy?  I don't think so, becuase infinite implies that there wouldbe no joy in existence that a person doesn't have.  I would have to have your joy, you'd have to have mine, and there would be in "individuals"  We'd all be One.  There's no corresponding Scripture to support the idea that we lose our individuality after death, so it just doesn't make sense.

It seems apparent that CS Lewis and the others who write of "infinite joy" are using hyperbole to express "a joy so great that we cannot imagine it" or perhaps "the most joy it is possible for a finite being to experience".


Are Dinosaurs mentioned in the Bible? In response to this question How does the Bible explain the existence of fossils that are millions of years old?

I'm curious to know if Dinosaurs are mentioned in the Bible.

I understand that the word dinosaurs wasn't invented until 1841. So obviously we won't find them by that name. Are there references to animals with the same characteristics as dinosaurs and just known by a different name?

The term Dinosaur was first used in 1842 by Richard Owen and means "terrible, powerful, wondrous, potent" + "lizard". As we all know the Bible has been written before the 1800's.

The Bible mentioned creatures like a behemoth (Job 40:15-24), sea monsters (Psalm 74:13), and other beasts (Isaiah 43:20) that don't necessarily fit our description of a dinosaur.

Although the first bones might have been found in China almost 2000 years ago, the first recognized thigh bone was found in 1676 and described as a species just in 1824. (Source.)

The interpretation of those facts is up to one self, it doesn't prove or disprove the Bible itself.


Per Ecclesiastes 7:16, Does the Bible want me to sin? From Ecclesiastes 7:16,

  Do not be overrighteous,
     neither be overwise—
     why destroy yourself?

So, why does the Bible say, "don't be too righteous"?  Encouraging one to be moderate in their righteousness... Doesn't that seem a bit out of place?

One possible interpretation is that it is warning against legalism - the type of "over righteousness" that the Pharisees were known for.  Not exactly a true righteousness, as seen from God's perspective, but a self perceived righteousness derived from a "holier-than-thou" attitude.

The Werner Bible Commentary puts it like:

  One who is overly righteous or righteous to an excess insists on the letter of the law, failing to take into consideration human limitations and the need for compassion and understanding. Such a person is quick to make a major issue about minor matters, insisting on strict adherence to certain procedures, rules, or practices even when doing so would prevent one from being helpful and kind to those in genuine need.

A bit farther down, in verse 20, it goes on to say:

  Indeed, there is no one on earth who is righteous, no one who does what is right and never sins. Ecclesiastes 7:20 (NIV)

This is something that the Pharisees did not seem grasp, and righteousness through their own "over righteousness" was something that the Pharisees saw as attainable, or already attained.


Why is rejection of the Trinity heresy, and not just wrong? (Protestant perspective) There are plenty of instances where Christians systematically believe something false and directly contradicting biblical teachings, yet they are not deemed to be so errant as to disqualify them from salvation and from fellowship with the universal Church.

By way of example, predestination unto salvation is a mutually exclusive belief about the nature of God such that some Christians directly deny it and others directly confirm it, yet neither believes the other to be heretical.

Yet it is almost universally held in Trinitarian Christianity, that denial of the Trinity is a renunciation of Christianity and salvation.

Why? Why isn't it simply, wrong? Is it mainly due to the early historical discernment of the early councils, or is there a better, biblical argument for this case?

I'm coming from a Protestant perspective. Certainly, a Catholic perspective could get away with saying, "The Church has denounced it." For a Protestant, what does it take before something is properly known as a heresy?

relevant: What is "heresy"?

A famous quote from Christian history is:

  In Essentials Unity, In Non-Essentials Liberty, In All Things Charity

In Essentials Unity

The Apostle Paul talks about "another gospel" that was being preached to the Galatians, and he uses very strong words regarding those who bring such a gospel:

  6 I am amazed that you are so quickly deserting Him who called you
  by the grace of Christ, for a different gospel; 7 which is really
  not another; only there are some who are disturbing you and want to
  distort the gospel of Christ. 8 But even if we, or an angel from
  heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to what we have
  preached to you, he is to be accursed! 9 As we have said before, so
  I say again now, if any man is preaching to you a gospel contrary
  to what you received, he is to be accursed!  Galatians 1:6-9 NAS

The concept is that there is one true gospel that leads to eternal life.  As Jesus said in Matthew 7, there is one narrow road that leads to life and one wide road that leads to destruction.

So, we only have unity with those who hold to the essentials of true gospel of Jesus Christ.  To put it another way, we only have unity among those with whom we will spend eternity.  We do not have unity with those who preach another gospel that does not lead to life.  We have charity, but not unity.

So, the question becomes centered on what are the essentials.  From an evangelical perspective, the essentials typically include the nature of God (including the Trinity) and salvation by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone.  Thus, whatever departs from that is considered heretical.

John's first epistle speaks about the necessity of correct Christology and Theology:

  I have not written to you because you do not know the truth, but
  because you do know it, and because no lie is of the truth. 22 Who
  is the liar but the one who denies that Jesus is the Christ? This
  is the antichrist, the one who denies the Father and the Son. 23
  Whoever denies the Son does not have the Father; the one who confesses
  the Son has the Father also.  1 John 2:21-23

Specifically, the "liar" is the one who denies that Jesus is the Christ.  The antichrist is the one who denies the Father and the Son.  This is understood by many to deny the nature of Jesus as the eternal Second Person of the Trinity.

Additionally, John also writes that anyone who denies Jesus as having come in the flesh is antichrist:

  For many deceivers have gone out into the world, those who do not
  acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh. This is the deceiver
  and the antichrist.  2 John 1:7 NAS

In Non-Essentials Liberty, All Things Charity

We may disagree with others about election or the end times, and there is freedom in that.  I personally disagree with my pastor about a few things, primarily, but not limited to eschatology.  Yet we still have unity.

I am exhorted to oppose those who hold beliefs I consider heretical, but I do so with charity.


In Catholicism since when did willfully violating Sunday Mass obligation become mortal sin? In the history of the Catholic Church, what led to the classification of willfully violating Sunday Mass obligation to be mortal sin?  I'm looking for the origin of canon law, council document, encyclical, etc.  Approximate date and the "who" is important for the answer.  Better yet, the historical circumstances and the reasoning leading to that classification.

Sunday Mass obligation is obviously derived from one of the Ten Commandments: keep the Sabbath day holy.  My question is instead about the Catholic Church formalization / institutionalization of the obligation with the attendant penalty of mortal sin.

Scriptural basis
Exodus 20:8:

Remember that thou keep holy the sabbath day.

cf. Kellner's Heortology § 2. Sunday and its Observance as a Day of Rest (pp. 6-13)
Holy Office's March 4, 1679, condemned proposition 52
DZ 1202:

The precept of keeping feast days is not obligatory under pain of mortal sin, aside from scandal, if contempt be absent.

Hearing Mass on Sundays is a precept of the Church.
One of the precepts of the Church is "To hear Mass on Sundays and holydays of obligation." This was codified in the the 1917 Code of Canon Law can. 1247:

§1. Feast days of obligation for the universal Church are: All Sundays […]

and can. 1248:

Mass must be heard on feastdays of obligation […]Festis de præcepto diebus Missa audienda est […]

Canonist Dom Augustine writes (commentating on 1917 can. 1248):

This obligation obliges all the faithful of the Latin Church and the inhabitants of China and other missionary countries under the S. C. P. F. [Sacred Congregation de Propaganda Fide]5

[…] S. C. P. F. Sept. 12, 1645 (Coll., nn. 126, 189, 114).

The obligation is grievous, binding under mortal sin. One does not comply with this precept by hearing two or even four parts of Masses said simultaneously by different priests.6

S. O., propp. 52, 53 damn., March 4, 1679 […]

Pope Pius VI condemned the errors of the 1786 Synod of Pistoia in his August 28, 1794, constitution Auctorem fidei #74 (DZ 1574). The false council did not even dare abrogating the precept to hear Mass on Sundays.

The deliberation of the synod about transferring to Sunday feasts distributed through the year […] abrogating the precept of hearing Mass on those days, on which according to the early law of the Church, even then that precept flourished; […] a false proposition, harmful to the law of the general Council and of the Supreme Pontiffs, scandalous, favorable to schism.


Are there "rational" criteria for which books appear in the Bible? When I looked into "canon criticism" or "canonology" a while back, I came across numerous (alleged) criteria for whether a book is/was included in canon, such as "Old Testament books had to be written in Hebrew."  However, for each criteria, it seemed like there was an exception.  (In this case, the book of Daniel, for instance.)

So, I concluded that the Holy Spirit must have just guided the process, and that perhaps this is an instance where we cannot attribute natural reasoning, and just have to have faith.

My question is - did I miss something?  Is there actual rational criteria for whether a book is considered part of canon?

Clarifications

I am referring to the most widely accepted 66 books of the Christian Bible
By "rational", I just mean criteria which could be understood through human reasoning without supernatural assistance
I am not limiting answers to the historical criteria that the church fathers originally used
It is OK to answer with "no there are not", but please elaborate / prove your case with references

This is a difficult question, given that human reasoning is itself flawed. But if we were to look at the canonization process, the most we could say is that it must be not be absurd; Consider how Matthias was chosen to succeed Judas; even though the process of 'drawing lots' seems irrational, the lots were being drawn against a few possible candidates and not merely randomly at large. So the lots were used to make the decision against equally qualified candidates final in a way that no-one could claim favoritism. A very rational choice if there is one.

From my own study (and it has not been perhaps as extensive as many) these seem to be the criteria that explain the process in the most rational fashion:

Traditional usage. Writings being added to the rule required that they were traditionally accepted for the use in teaching, admonishing, public exhortation, quotation and so forth. The reasoning here is obvious; this is the primary reason or use for the canon itself: So that a given locality does not have to ask the Bishop who has to ask this other Bishop who has to look at what they're about to read to determine whether its okay to be quoted, to be taught from, to be interpreted as prophecy, or to be announced publicly in liturgies and other prayers. What I mean by this is simply that one may consider this or that book quite true, but if it had no traditional usage, its position would be tenuous. This explains why some other epistles did not get added to the rule; there's only so much time for public exhortation in prayers and liturgies of the scriptures themselves.
Not redundant. Some amount of redundancy is allowed, but later letters (if you look at the Apostolic Fathers) contained a fair amount of redundant material, simply re-iterating what was in the Gospels and Epistles of Paul, Jude, John, James and Peter.
Has a special position. The writings of St. John had, as far as I can tell, a special position in the minds of the early Church. He was a great hero of the faith, and as we may recall, was the one surviving Apostle. His works - especially Revelation - are given special consideration because of the magnitude of his reputation as a true Theologian.
Not praxis. This means, documents which were pure praxis (rules for practices) were excluded such as the Didache. You will notice that there are often problems with Paul's letters where he is 'speaking as a man' - giving practical advice for a given community's situation. Looking back now, we don't know the situation he was speaking to, and thus it is easy to misunderstand his advice. So pastoral letters were mainly excluded, though Paul's seem to have an elevated status (even Peter recognizes this in one of his own letters.) Paul's letters may be pastoral, but they are also theological and prophetic.
Part of the Septuagint. Everything in the Septuagint was accepted without question as far as I can tell, since it was the prior canon (what the 'scriptures' meant if a New Testament document refers to them.) The Septuagint - the Greek Old Testament - was the Early Church's canon of scripture.
Not pseudopigraphia. This is to say, the author/authorship was known and accurate as far as they knew. So Hebrews was believed to be the work of Paul (which it probably was.) The works attributed to John were either his own words or authorized by him (as with the Gospel of John.) The gnostic gospels were pure pseudopigraphia; faked names against unknown sources.
Not written by a heretic. Simply put, some men who entered the faith later recanted; their works would be considered suspect and not included.

So take these criteria and look at The Shepherd of Hermas. Very popular, but never met criteria 1: being read or declared in church. It was a symbolic, poetic work and is difficult to understand. It would fall in the category of something like The Great Divorce, being that it is probably true and perhaps prophetic even, but is the wrong genre to be in the canon entirely.


Why is Lust a sin in Matthew, but praised in Proverbs? Jesus says in the gospel of Matthew [paraphrasing] "if you look at a woman and lust for her, you have already sinned in your heart."

In proverbs, they say, [again, paraphrasing] "let her [the companion of your youth] breasts satisfy you."

Is that not lust?  Aren't these two messages contradicting each other?

The context of Matthew is adultery--relations with a woman who is not your wife.  The context of Proverbs is marriage--relations with the woman who is your wife.  The difference is quite substantial.

“You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ 28 But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lustful intent has already committed adultery with her in his heart.  Matthew 5:27-28 ESV
Let your fountain be blessed,
And rejoice in the wife of your youth.
19 As a loving hind and a graceful doe,
Let her breasts satisfy you at all times;
Be exhilarated always with her love.  Proverbs 5:18-19 NAS

God actually created sexual intimacy to be fully enjoyed within the marriage relationship.  Adultery, however, is a corruption of that holiest of relationships which destroys intimacy.  Thus, it is strictly forbidden in both thought and deed, for our own good.
So, there is no contradiction at all.


Why is the Crucifixion said to have been between 30-33 AD, if Jesus was born between 4-6 B.C. and lived to be 33 years old? Here are the facts as far I know:

Jesus must have been born between 4 and 6 B.C. to precede Herod.
Jesus's ministry begins when He was about 30 years of age
He engages in a 3-3.5 year ministry
He is crucified under Pontius Pilate
He therefore lives to be around 33 and a half years old

Therefore, shouldn't the year of His death be around 28-29 A.D.?

Why does Wikipedia state:

  The crucifixion of Jesus occurred in 1st century Judea, most probably between the years 30 and 33 AD.

Is there that much ambiguity as to the "about"?

I realize there is further complication because Luke states that the "15th year of Tiberius's reign" is when John the Baptist begins to preach. Moreover, there is no scholarly consensus as to whether Luke marks the beginning of Tiberius's reign to when Tiberius was co-regent with Augustus (11 A.D.) or when he takes full possession of power (August of 14 A.D.)

What is the scholarly consensus as to how to how these dates are synthesized?

Reading the  Wikipedia article cited in the question a little further we come to the Chronology section. In this we read that  most scholars consider the most likely date for the Crucifixion  to be April in the year 30 AD.

If Jesus was born in the Autumn of 5 BC, for example, He would have turned 4 in the year 1 BC, and turned 5 in the year 1 AD. (There was no Year Zero.) Having turned 5 in the year 1 AD He would turn 25 in the year 21 AD and would have celebrated His thirtieth birthday (if indeed He celebrated birthdays) in Autumn of the year 26.

If He began His ministry in Autumn 26, very close to His 30th birthday, then three years later He would have turned 33 in Autumn 29, and still been 33 at the time of the Crucifixion, and Resurrection, in the Year 30 AD.

On this basis His ministry would have begun in the 15th year since Tiberius became co-emperor.

We do not know for sure any of the dates, but there is no inconsistency in the assumptions made.


In the belief of the Pentecostals, is God moral, immoral or amoral? I've been studying on the nature of God and His character. While reading the New Testament I noticed that God operated in a different way in terms of His behavior. In the Old Testament, God had commanded that people be killed; men woman, children and even animals. I want to believe that in definition of terms, God would definitely seem immoral.

But Jesus who is God showed us a different character and nature of God. Jesus confirmed His unity and oneness with God in John 10:30. This on the other hand shows a "moral" God.

We are to believe that God remained the same in both Testament, unchanging; "He's the same yesterday, today and forever" and if this is so it would seem that both nature expressed in both Testament draws a huge parallel line.

If God is moral, in the light of the OT, what is the basis of his morality?
If God is immoral, is He then worth serving?
If God is neither moral or immoral, does that make Him amoral?

Leading Pentecostal theologian J. Rodman Williams deals with the character of God in his systematic theology, Renewal Theology, volume 1, chapter 3.  Here are a few quotes that teach God's holiness and righteousness, which Wiliams considers to be aspects of God's "moral nature":

Holiness is the foundation of God’s nature; it is the background for everything else we may say about God. (59)
It is sometimes assumed that the Old Testament depicts a God of holiness, whereas the New Testament depicts a God of love. This is an unfortunate misapprehension, for the God of the New Testament is the same holy God. (60)
There is in God utterly no taint of anything unclean or impure. (61)
God is a God of total integrity and uprightness. [...] The divine nature is that of absolute rectitude. Wrongdoing is foreign to His life and action. (62)

Out of this holiness and righteousness, says Williams, flow God's justice and punishment:

God expects His people to demonstrate uprightness [...]. When they depart from His way, punishment must follow, for God’s righteousness cannot tolerate any unrighteousness in man. (61–62)
God in His justice renders to each person according to his works. God is “the Judge of all the earth” (Gen. 18:25), and accordingly metes out both penalties and rewards. (62)

This is a huge topic, but these quotes should make the point – God's punishes people (in both the Old Testament and New Testament – read Acts 5 sometime) because they fall short of his standard of righteousness.  That said, he offers grace as well, as Williams writes:

The word grace speaks of the way in which God in Christ has condescended to us. It highlights that aspect of God’s love that refers to His self-giving regardless of merit. (66)
In the Old Testament God is frequently spoken of as one who “abounds in lovingkindness.” The words of God to Moses that begin, “The LORD, the LORD, a God merciful and gracious” continue with “slow to anger, and abounding in lovingkindness and faithfulness, keeping lovingkindness for thousands, forgivinginiquity and transgression and sin.” (66–67)


What does Paul grieving over the Corinthians imply? impurity, sexual sin and debauchery in which they have indulged.
  ourselves to you? We have been speaking in the sight of God as those in Christ; and everything we do, dear friends, is for your strengthening. 20 For I am afraid that when I come I may not find you as I want you to be, and you may not find me as you want me to be. I fear that there may be discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, slander, gossip, arrogance and disorder. 21 I am afraid that when I come again my God will humble me before you, and I will be grieved over many who have sinned earlier and have not repented of the impurity, sexual sin and debauchery in which they have indulged. - 2 Corinthians 12:19-21

In this passage Paul mentions that when he comes to the Corinthians again he fears that he would "be grieved" also those who have not repented of their sins.

Does this imply Christians falling away from faith, sin resulting in death or is it a contextual issue?

In a sense, the issue is contextual.

Repentance is not just for non-Christ followers; it is for everyone, Christians included. To repent is to do an about-face. You're going in one direction--the wrong direction, the carnal direction, as were some of the Corinthian believers--and you repent, make a 180-degree turn, and then go in the right direction.

Let's say you're on a hike in some remote wilderness in the middle of nowhere. You ask a fellow hiker, "Where are the historic ruins of Kookamonga?" He tells you to go straight north about six miles, so you take off in the direction in which he pointed.

A couple miles later you are not so sure you're going in the right direction. There were so many barriers preventing you from going straight north that you're actually now going south! Suddenly you remember there's a compass at the very bottom of your backpack, which you haven't used for years, so you take out your compass, get your bearings, and then go due north. You just repented.

Some (most?) of the Corinthian believers were in need of repenting. God was grieved; so was Paul. He had labored hard among the Corinthian believers for many months, yet despite his labors and faithful teaching of the word of God, the believers were guilty of not just "impurity, sexual sin and debauchery" but also other sins:

disunity and divisiveness caused by a party spirit, such that splinter groups had formed around each group's favorite spiritual leader (1 Corinthians 1:12; cf. 3?4). Paul said in this regard,

  What I mean is that each one of you says, “I belong to Paul,” or “I belong to Apollos,” or “I belong to Cephas,” or “I belong to Christ.” Is Christ divided? Paul wasn’t crucified for you, was he? Or were you in fact baptized in the name of Paul? (1 Corinthians 1:12-13; cf. 3:4).

taking fellow believers to court (1 Corinthians 6:1-7)
incest (1 Corinthians 5:1)
getting drunk at the celebration of the Lord's supper (1 Corinthians 11:20-21)

All this to say: Some of the Corinthians may have been living carnal, fleshly lives, but in Paul's letter to them he still addressed the believers as follows:

  From Paul, called to be an apostle of Christ Jesus by the will of God, and Sosthenes, our brother, to the church of God that is in Corinth, to those who are sanctified in Christ Jesus, and called to be saints, with all those in every place who call on the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, their Lord and ours. Grace and peace to you from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ! I always thank my God for you because of the grace of God that was given to you in Christ Jesus (I Corinthians 1:1-4 NASB, my emphasis).

Far from being Christians falling away from the faith, some of the Corinthians were not living up to the high moral and ethical standards to which they had been called in Christ. They were not part of the solution in immoral Corinth but were part of the problem. Instead of being salt and light, they were acting like pagans and participating in the works of darkness.

No wonder Paul feared that God would humble him in their midst. Talk about "cognitive dissonance"! Paul knew that he had not only given the Corinthians sound, Spirit-filled teaching, but he also been provided them with a godly example as to how Christians should live (see 1 Corinthians 4:16; 11:1; cf. Philippians 4:9; 3:17; 2 Thessalonians 3:7-9).

Now he's hearing about all the carnality in evidence within the Corinthian church; he begins to wonder if he is somehow to blame; and he fears the Lord will humble him for perhaps thinking too highly of his teaching and his example. Perhaps he's even contemplating "leaving the ministry," as we might phrase it today.

Paul's grief, then, is very real. At the same time, however, he realizes that the solution to the spiritual problems plaguing the church at Corinth requires thorough repentance, even if that means kicking some believers out of the fellowship of the saints until they come to their senses (see 1 Corinthians 5:9-13; cf. 1 Timothy 1:20). Yes, excommunication is a valid form of church discipline, but the goal must always be the restoration of the sinner to the Lord and then to the local body of believers. Here is what Gil Rugh has to say in this regard:

  . . . often . . . when a person is cut off from all association with believers . . .  the seriousness of the sin is recognized. The person may have nowhere to turn except back to God. If the person repents, the Church is to welcome the believer back immediately. Second Corinthians 2 says that the correct response is to immediately welcome the return of the believer. Thoughts of punishment and suffering are not appropriate. Remember, the goal is to restore, not to punish. As soon as the sin is acknowledged and left behind, the person is to be restored. That was the case in 2 Corinthians 2. "Sufficient for such a one is this punishment which was inflicted by the majority" (2 Cor. 2:6). Second Corinthians 2:7 continues the instruction, "So that on the contrary you should rather forgive and comfort him, lest somehow such a one be overwhelmed by excessive sorrow." There is no probation. After repenting from the sin, the believer is to be welcomed back. This is a manifestation of Christian love. "Wherefore I urge you to reaffirm your love for him. For to this end also I wrote that I might put you to the test, whether you are obedient in all things" (2 Cor. 2:8, 9). Paul continued, "But whom you forgive anything, I forgive also; for indeed what I have forgiven, if I have forgiven anything, I did it for your sakes in the presence of Christ, in order that no advantage be taken of us by Satan; for we are not ignorant of his schemes" (2 Cor. 2:10, 11). [my emphasis]

In conclusion, Christian discipline within any local body of believers is not optional but necessary. Without it, the testimony and reputation of the church are in danger of being compromised and besmirched. In Revelation, the apostle John was instructed by Jesus to write to the angel of the church in Ephesus the following warning:

  Therefore remember from where you have fallen, and repent and do the deeds you did at first; or else I am coming to you and will remove your lampstand out of its place—unless you repent (2:5 NASB).

Tragically a church can go down the tubes if loving discipline and genuine repentance are not in evidence.


In what manner did Peter, James and John appear to Joseph Smith? According to LDS teaching on this page, a few weeks after John the Baptist conferred on Joseph Smith the Aaronic Priesthood, Peter, James, and John appeared to Joseph Smith to confer on him the Melchizedek Priesthood.

According to other LDS teaching, cited in this question, the Apostle John is still alive today, but Peter and James were both martyred.

So, my question is regarding how Peter, James and John appeared to Joseph Smith.  Since John was still living, did he physically appear to Joseph Smith?  I presume that Peter and James appeared to him spiritually, but not physically.

Does the LDS church clarify the manner in which John, in particular, and by contrast James and Peter appeared to Joseph Smith?

Peter and James, we infer, have been resurrected already and have physical bodies. The laying on of hands was performed by physical beings to physical beings.

A few references:

Peter, James, and Moroni have been resurrected (see Supporting Statement B)
John the Baptist is also apparently resurrected