Do Cessationists believe that there are no modern miracles? The general concept of Cessationism that I have is that the gifts of the Holy Spirit are not given these days, having fulfilled their purpose nearly 2000 years ago. What I'm not sure about is whether or not Cessationists believe that miracles don't happen anymore. That is, no healings, no resurrections, nothing of that sort.

Is it accurate to say that Cessationists believe in the complete cessation of all miracles?

I suspect the nit-picky answer would be "Some do, some don't", but in general, cessationists believe miracles still happen.

I doubt there is a common universally accepted answer to "why" cessationists don't believe in certain miracles.  I'd stay away from "why" because it's not part of the question, but the answer feels too short and incomplete without it.

The best I can offer is the reason why some cessationists believe certain miracles were for the early Church only, and as a result, which miracles we believe have ceased, and a few examples of those we believe in.  And because it's easy, and our Church (Fundamentalist independent Baptist) is cessationist, I'll use teachings from our own pulpit.

The strongest Scriptural evidence for Cessationism, in our understanding, comes from 1 Corinthians 13  (NIV) (

  1 If I speak in the tonguesa of men and of angels, but have not love,
  I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal. 2 If I have the gift
  of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I
  have a faith that can move mountains, but have not love, I am nothing.
  3 If I give all I possess to the poor and surrender my body to the
  flames,b but have not love, I gain nothing.

  4 Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast,
  it is not proud. 5 It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not
  easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. 6 Love does not delight
  in evil but rejoices with the truth. 7 It always protects, always
  trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.

  8 Love never fails. But where there are prophecies, they will cease;
  where there are tongues, they will be stilled; where there is
  knowledge, it will pass away. 9 For we know in part and we prophesy in
  part, 10 but when perfection comes, the imperfect disappears. 11 When
  I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I
  reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put childish ways behind
  me. 12 Now we see but a poor reflection as in a mirror; then we shall
  see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as
  I am fully known.

  13 And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest
  of these is love.

In short, the teaching goes like this (and I'm probably butchering it by keeping it short.)

Verses 1-7 are not speaking specifically of the cessation of gifts, but instead show that the gifts are imperfect.  The idea that they are not perfect gifts comes into play later in the teaching...

Verses 8 and 9 tell us that certain gifts will pass away.

Verse 10 tells us that when they will pass away - when perfection comes.

Verses 11-12 expound on the why they will pass away, and add meaning to the when - they will pass away because at some point they will be no longer needed.  For this next point, it's important to note that the word used for "perfection" and "perfect" can also be translated as "mature".

While I realize this can be taken any number of ways, the general understanding in our Church is that this is speaking of the canonization of Scripture and the full understanding of God's revealed Word.  In the New Testament Church, they didn't have the full Word of God.  it was still being written.

Also, the signs and miracles described were always demonstrations of authority.  They accompanied the Apostles as signs to show that they had the power of God, and therefore authority to instruct in His name.  This is consistent with Christ's ministry, as His miracles weren't just for show - they were to establish His power and Authority.  Once the Church was established, there would be no more need for these showy miracles.

As to which miracles would cease, we include the ones listed, but also, in general, tend to view Faith Healers as frauds, and reject "showy" miracles  due to the implications of verse 1.  The way most people present these miracles today tends to bring glory and honor to themselves, not to God.

However...

We do believe in God's healing power.  We believe He can miraculously heal the sick.  We have a little girl in our Church, born with half a heart, and given a 10% chance to live that is alive and well in spite of incredible odds, and we attribute this to the power of God, responding to the fervent prayers of His people.

We believe in His ability to guide us through the Holy Spirit.  We actually believe He can perform any miracle.  In fact, we do believe He could and will again use prophecy and tongues.  The two witnesses in Revelation - when they speak and everyone hears them in their own language, and prophesy, that will occur, and will be of God.

On that note, I'll throw in one other reason that we don't believe in speaking in tongues in particular.  In the New Testament, the example is given in Acts 2:6

  When they heard this sound, a crowd came together in bewilderment,
  because each one heard them speaking in his own language.

This has nothing to do with the unintelligible babbling that many call "speaking in tongues" today.

Again, this is the teaching of a particular set of believers.  It's not universal.  Views vary.


What happened to Nebuchadnezzar's kingdom during his punishment Reading Daniel 4:29–33, I understand that Nebuchadnezzar was punished by God due to his pride.

During his punishment, did his kingdom cease to exist or was there a new king?  Who was in charge of his position during his madness?

Daniel 4:29-33 is the culmination of writings, beginning with a Babylonian history, a series of Dead Sea Scroll fragments known as pseudo-Daniel and then the biblical book of Daniel.

M. H. Henze (The Madness of King Nebuchadnezzar, pages 57ff) identifies King Nabodinus (556-539) as the last king of Babylon, although his name never appears in the Hebrew Bible. His history was put together from a number of Babylonian cylinders discovered in 1854 at Tell al-Muqayyar (Ur). One of the cylinders names the king's son as Bel-sarra-usur, who was quickly identified as Belshazzar, given in Daniel as the son of Nebuchadnezzar. Thus it was possible to identify Nabodinus of the Babylonian texts with Nebuchadnezzar of the Book of Daniel.

The Babylonian texts tell us that Nabodinus left Babylon for ten years, to sojourn in Teima in the Arabian Peninsula, where he spent his time in devotion to the moon god, Sin, while his son Belshazzar ruled as regent in Babylon. On page 63, Henze says that according to a wide consensus, the story of Nebuchadnezzar's madness contains a recollection, however distorted, of Nabodinus' self-imposed exile at Teima.

The discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls between 1946 and 1956 confirmed a link between the Babylonian writings and Daniel chapter 4. One Scroll fragment, known as 4Q The Prayer of Nabonidus closely resembles the account we see in Daniel 4:29-33.

Craig A. Evans, Peter W. Flint (Eschatology, Messianism, and the Dead Sea Scrolls, page 58) say the Aramaic Prayer of Nabonidus mentions Nabonidus and Teima, while agreeing with Daniel in giving the length of the sojourn as seven years. It describes the king as having a bad disease and attributes his recovery to a Jewish exile, without mentioning anyone called Daniel. Evans and Flint say we may conclude that 4QPrNab occupies an intermediate place between the Babylonian accounts of a historical incident and the formation of the Book of Daniel.

We know from the Babylonian histories that the kingdom continued during the absence of Nabonidus (Nebuchadnezzar), with his son, Belshazzar, acting as regent.


How do seraphim in Isaiah 6 relate to the cherubim? After reading Isaiah chapter 6 I came across the spiritual beings named seraphim.

I have been introduced to other spiritual beings before, such as cherubim, a being that we have a variety of references.

However, the only reference that I saw of seraphim was in Isaiah chapter 6 and they are described to perform a role similar to the cherubim, with some variations, as they have 6 wings (instead of 2 or 4).

But I am struggling to understand what are the seraphims and if they relate to cherubim?

Cherubim

From Genesis 3:24 we can see that cherubim are the guardians between heaven and earth.

  After sending them out, the Lord God stationed mighty cherubim to the east of the Garden of Eden. And he placed a flaming sword that flashed back and forth to guard the way to the tree of life.

From Psalms 99:1 we read that they support Yahweh's throne:

  The Lord is king!
      Let the nations tremble! He sits on his throne between the cherubim.
      Let the whole earth quake!

From Ezekiel 9:3:

  Then the glory of the God of Israel rose up from between the cherubim,
  where it had rested, and moved to the entrance of the Temple. And the
  Lord called to the man dressed in linen who was carrying the writer’s
  case.

And Ezekiel 10:1, that they carry his throne-chariot that appears to prophets on earth.

  In my vision I saw what appeared to be a throne of blue lapis lazuli
  above the crystal surface over the heads of the cherubim.

I came across this thread, however it doesn't answer my question.

According to The New Unger's Bible Dictionary, definition of Cherub

  They do not seem to be identical with the seraphim (Isa. 6:2). The cherubim apparently have to do with the holiness of God as
  violated by sin; the seraphim with uncleanness in the people of God.


Help interpreting a Christian allusion in Willa Cather's 'One of Ours' In Willa Cather's 'One of Ours', there is a passage about a preacher at a country wedding. Here is his thought that I have trouble interpreting:

He looked disconsolately into his ruddy goblet and thought about the marriage at Cana. He tried to apply his Bible literally to life and, though he didn’t dare breathe it aloud in these days, he could never see why he was better than his Lord.

I first though his meaning was that like good wine was served last in the Marriage at Cana, so he coming after Christ was supposed to be the better one, but that seems rather far-fetched.

Here is a little larger excerpt:

The company rose and drank the bride’s health in grape-juice punch. Mr. Royce, however, while the guests were being seated, had taken Mr. Wheeler down to the fruit cellar, where the two old friends drank off a glass of well-seasoned Kentucky whiskey, and shook hands. When they came back to the table, looking younger than when they withdrew, the preacher smelled the tang of spirits and felt slighted. He looked disconsolately into his ruddy goblet and thought about the marriage at Cana. He tried to apply his Bible literally to life and, though he didn’t dare breathe it aloud in these days, he could never see why he was better than his Lord.

source: https://www.bartleby.com/1006/31.html

My non-authoritative interpretation is that this is a preacher that takes pride in his righteousness, including forbidding alcohol at weddings.  Then, when he thought about the similar situation in Cana, he remembered that Jesus had produced alcoholic drink for the wedding guests.

The preacher knew his actions proved himself to be more righteous than Jesus, but, despite realizing that something must be wrong with that observation, he couldn't bring himself to admit what it was that was actually wrong.

There's also the exacerbating situation that some of his guests sneaked away to get something better to drink, while Jesus's guests complimented the quality of the wine.


Covenants and reformed theology As part of a theology course I've been asked to look at covenants, so I looked on Amazon for a book or two and was surprised to see many book titles including "reformed" or books written by reformed theologians, like for example, J I Packer.

I have more of an Arminian outlook as does the church I attend and have never heard teaching there related to the covenants.

The covenants are part of the history of God and His people – aren't they, therefore, important to all Christian outlooks?

What is it about the covenants that are appealing to Calvinists and maybe less appealing to Arminians?

There are several views of the covenants within the Reformed/Calvinist camp, broadly defined.

The traditional view is that the covenants are unified and that the New Covenant is new in the sense of "new and improved" rather than radically new (cf. Rom. 11 for how Gentiles are grafted into the continuing tree started with Abraham and in Gal. 3 how the law was added to the Abrahamic covenant). This view is held by conservatives in paedo-baptist circles such as Presbyterian, Dutch Reformed, Anglican, and non-denominational / Congregationalist churches (note: form of church government is not really an overlapping issue here but is a convenient way of identifying folks since they generally correlate). Examples: R.C. Sproul, J.I. Packer, Meredith Kline, most of the Puritans (e.g., those who wrote the Westminster Standards), etc. See An Old Testament Theology by Bruce Waltke and Christ of the Covenants by O. Palmer Robertson for recent examples of this view.

There are also many "young, restless and Reformed" types who are in credo-baptist circles, typically Baptist, Charismatic, and non-denominational (all of which are usually Congregationalist in their form of government, but like I said, that's a different matter). They typically see the New Covenant as replacing rather than being continuous with the Old Testament covenants. Sometimes they call their view "New Covenant Theology". Examples include John Piper, D.A. Carson, Albert Mohler, old-timer John Gill, etc. See Kingdom through Covenant: A Biblical-Theological Understanding of the Covenants by Gentry and Wellum for a recent example of this view.

As far as Arminians go, views also vary. Those who self-identify as classical Arminians can be pretty close to the traditional Reformed views on the Covenants, though not always. Some distinctions they draw between themselves and traditional Calvinists are that covenants are always conditional (see e.g., "An Arminian Covenant Theology").

Other Arminians are more distant from the traditional Calvinist view. They can be similar to the Reformed Baptist "New Covenant" view or be better categorized as Dispensational. (John MacArthur is an example of someone who is Calvinistic in his soteriology but a "leaky Dispensational" in his understanding of biblical history and the nature of the covenants.)

In short, I don't think there's a tidy division of people who advocate Calvinist vs. Arminian soteriology with those who advocate "traditional Covenant Theology" vs. "New Covenant Theology" vs. Dispensationalism (in any of its forms). There are some correlations, but they are not strong and there are a goodly number of outliers.


Why do people say that God denounces the handicapped in the Bible? I often hear people saying that God doesn't like the handicapped etc.

What evidence is there in the Bible that suggests this? Of course there must be somewhere in the Bible that either directly suggests this or insinuates it enough for people to come to this conclusion.

So what mentions are there in the Bible that are related to the handicapped - I'm mainly looking for negative quotes but the good won't go amiss.

That will depend on who you ask. Probably the most commonly cited passage in scripture is in Leviticus 21:

  16
  The LORD said to Moses:
  17
  Say to Aaron: None of your descendants, throughout their generations, who has any blemish shall come forward to offer the food of his God.
  18
  Anyone who has any of the following blemishes may not come forward: he who is blind, or lame, or who has a split lip, or a limb too long,
  19
  or a broken leg or arm,
  20
  or who is a hunchback or dwarf or has a growth in the eye, or who is afflicted with sores, scabs, or crushed testicles.
  21
  No descendant of Aaron the priest who has any such blemish may draw near to offer the oblations of the LORD; on account of his blemish he may not draw near to offer the food of his God.
  22
  He may, however, eat the food of his God: of the most sacred as well as sacred offerings.
  23
  Only, he may not enter through the veil nor draw near to the altar on account of his blemish; he shall not profane my sacred precincts, for it is I, the LORD, who make them holy.
  24
  Moses, therefore, told this to Aaron and his sons and to all the Israelites.
  (Leviticus 21, NAB)

This passage forbids Aaron and his descendants (who were given priestly responsibilities) from approaching God if their bodies were blemished in certain ways. Some of these blemishes would permanently deny this aspect of the priesthood to those people who had them:

permanent blindness
permanent lameness
dwarfism
uneven limbs
crushed testicles

The passage does not specifically identify the reason that God considers these blemishes to profane the altar of the temple. As far as this passage goes, “God doesn’t like the handicapped” is only an interpretation.


Was Martin Luther's marriage to Katharina von Bora due to their love for each other? The documentary series This Changed Everything: 500 Years of the Reformation includes a section in episode 1 about Martin Luther's marriage to Katharina von Bora. Dr. Frank James (President and Professor of Historical Theology at the Biblical Theological Seminary) includes his input as well, and says that it was due to their love for each other.

Narrator: Martin Luther turned the idea of marriage on its head when he married a runaway nun, Katharina von Bora. In a society that views marriage as a financial and social contract, Luther's marriage is revolutionary.
Dr. James: Well, there was no social status to be gained for the two of them getting married, and there was no money. I mean, he didn't have any money, and she didn't have any money. So what did they have? They had love. […] Before it was based on social status and a dowry. Suddenly, this whole notion of marrying someone because you love them becomes a significant paradigm shift in the concept of marriage.

This is in contrast to the Wikipedia page of Katharina von Bora, which states that Luther arranged marriages for runaway nuns like her so that they could be provided for

Luther at first asked the parents and relations of the refugee nuns to admit them again into their houses, but they declined to receive them, possibly as this was participating in a crime under canon law. Within two years, Luther was able to arrange homes, marriages, or employment for all of the escaped nuns—except for Katharina. […]
Katharina had a number of suitors, including Wittenberg University alumnus Jerome (Hieronymus) Baumgärtner (1498–1565) of Nuremberg and a pastor, Kaspar Glatz of Orlamünde. None of the proposed matches resulted in marriage. She told Luther’s friend and fellow reformer, Nikolaus von Amsdorf, that she would be willing to marry only Luther or von Amsdorf himself.

While it's clear that Katharina stated her desire to marry Luther, it's not clear to me that the two chose to marry out of mutual love for each other (in other words, it wasn't a love marriage).
Which account is correct? Was Martin Luther's marriage to Katharina von Bora due to their love for each other?

Martin Luther married Katharina von Bora (1499-1552) on June 13, 1525. Katharina came from a family of higher social rank than Luther’s family. The Von Boras were members of the knightly class, a proud but declining segment of German society. Luther came from peasant stock. His father Hans was a miner who got involved in the business side of the mining and became well-to-do.  Katharina was only three when she was sent away to school and eventually took vows to become a nun.

Was their marriage based on love for each other? you ask. We can only speculate due to various comments Luther is known to have written, as hardly anything can be found on Katharina from herself. I have not seen the documentary you mention. The following I have extracted from chapter 17 (The School For Character) in the book Here I Stand by Roland Bainton (Lion, 1978) and the historical novel by Margaret Skea, Katharina: Deliverance - A novel of the wife of Martin Luther (Sanderling Books, 2017).

Luther had no thought of marrying but when monks began to marry during his stay at the Wartburg [from 4 May 1521] he had exclaimed,

  "Good heavens! They won't give me a wife." After the event he said
  that if anyone had told him at Worms that in six years he would have a
  wife, he would not have believed him.

The problem with monks and nuns was so bad, Luther helped many nuns escape. One event had been prompted by some Cistercian sisters in a nearby village seeking Luther’s counsel as to what they should do in view of their evangelical persuasion. He took it upon himself to arrange their escape. This plot was carried out on the Eve of the Resurrection in April 1523 when 60-year-old Burgher of Torgau, Leonard Kopp, put 12 nuns into his covered wagon full of empty barrels of herring from a convent.

  Luther felt responsible to find them homes, husbands, or positions.
  When someone suggested he marry one of them, he wrote on November 30,
  1524 that he had no such intention, not because he was a sexless
  stone, nor because he was hostile to marriage, but because he expected
  daily the death of a heretic.

Well, two years after Katherina's escape she was still in domestic service. She was intended for a young patrician of Nurnberg but his family objected and he married someone else. So, Luther selected a Dr. Glatz but she would not accept him.  In those days, a woman of 26 was viewed as at the upper limits of eligibility for marriage. She asked a Dr Amsdorf of Magdeburg to tell Luther that she could not abide Glatz but she would take Amsdorf himself, or Luther.

  He did not respond seriously to the suggestion until he went home to
  visit his parents. His father said it was a realistic proposal. In May
  1525 he decided to marry Katie. It was no love match, though. He gave
  three reasons for his marriage - to please his father; to spite the
  pope and the Devil; and to seal his witness before martyrdom.  On 27
  June 1525 they were married. His invitation to Spalatin read, "You
  must come to my wedding. I have made the angels laugh and the devils
  weep."

Thus a 42-year-old former monk and a 26-year-old former nun voluntarily entered into holy matrimony on June 13, 1525.

On home and his wife, Luther is reputed to have said in 1534:

  “At home I have good wine and beer and a beautiful wife, or (shall I
  say) lord.”

Luther liked to tease Katherine and she gave him back as good as she got.  During one dinner table conversation, Luther remarked,

  “The time will come when a man will take more than one wife.”
  Katherine responded, “Let the devil believe that!” to which Luther
  answered, “The reason, Katy, is that a woman can bear a child only
  once a year while her husband can beget many.”  Undismayed, Katherine
  cited from First Corinthians 7:2. “Paul said that each man should have
  his own wife.” Luther quipped back, “Yes, ‘his own wife’ and not ‘only
  one wife,’ for the latter isn’t what Paul wrote.” The jesting
  continued for a while longer until Katherine ended the discussion when
  she said, “Before I put up with this [polygamy], I’d rather go back to
  the convent and leave you and all our children.”

I suggest that when all the available accounts are put together, we get a balanced picture which does not require an "either, or" conclusion. It seems to me that they grew in mutual love and respect, without losing any of their individuality and characters. But I doubt very much if they were “in love” with each other prior to their wedding. It might be worth mentioning that the Bible commands Christian husbands to so love their wives as Christ loved the church he died for (before the still-future marriage of Christ to his bride), and wives are to respect their husbands. The key point seems to me to be that husbands must do what they find most difficult to do - show considerate love - while wives must do what they find most difficult to do - give respect. Nowhere in scripture are married couples exhorted to "be in love" with each other prior to marrying. Yet love is a key requirement in matrimony, not least because it engenders respect.


How does reformed theology view hypnosis? In particular, how do reformed theologians address these questions:

Is hypnosis Biblically warranted?
Is hypnosis a form of demon possession?
Is hypnosis basically a bad idea?
Is the question of hypnosis orthogonal to Christianity? (i.e. is the question equivalent to "How do Reformed theologians think about Scala vs Clojure?")

The answer ranges from a bad idea to truly demonic, depending on what form of altered state of consciousness is implied. This question is interesting and one might not make the connection between hypnosis and faith healing movements but it does have some overlap into certain fringe movements within Christianity, such as the faith healers like Oral Roberts, T.L. Osborn and William Branham. My Uncle actually leads the Branham-ites and the research (even though secular) that I dug up, actually helped me to understand better the occult and quackery side of it.
Dr. James Braid, the Scottish surgeon coined the word "hypnotism," after witnessed demonstrations by a French mesmerist in 1841. Therefore, the modern term is too recent to gather good references from reformed heavy hitters.  Yet this need not discourage us, the reformed position can easily be extracted by simply breaking up hypnotism into its historical components and comparing its methods to reformed doctrines.
The history of hypnosis finds its roots in earlier theories developed by Mesmer.  He in turn finds his roots in ancient medical philosophy like traditional Chinese medicine and even shamanism. The idea had to do with a belief in animal magnetism and ways of manipulating it to heal people. One had to be brought into a 'state' to experience the 'strange' effects of the magnetism of the planets linked to our bodies, like the ying and yang.
The subject approaches the circumference of reformed theology in terms of Christian 'religious experience'. For example being slain in the Spirit could be basically considered the same state. ( I say may, because I do not discount the possibility of feinting when overcome by a conviction of sin, r wonderful view of God's grace, if a person is feeling a little weak or in a room without a lot of oxygen. )
In some sectors of Christianity there is an overlap between states of consciousness and religious experience, especially among the cults and extreme faith healers that used similar techniques of mesmerists and hypnotizers to bring about a 'frenzied experience' in the hopes of curing psychosomatic illnesses. Worse, when brining in a layer of anti Christian doctrine, in addition to the sleep induced manipulations, or spiritsm, it veers into the occult which aggressively crosses the boundary line of Christian ethics.
To work from a reformed position of the 'ecstatic' or the state of being in a prophetic 'trance' which historical mesmerists would have discounted but explained as religious phenomena that verified their theories, reformed views establish a position that is 'directly opposed' the techniques used in mesmerism that eventually led to hypnosis. We can see this in how John Owen explains the experience of the Holy spirit to be an 'orderly, voluntary creative work' that does not play 'tricks with our minds', or otherwise 'manipulate us' towards a uncontrolled 'ecstasies' or state of consciousness:

“The work of the Holy Spirit in regeneration does not consist in enthusiastical raptures, ecstasies, voices, or any thing of the like kind.  Such things may have been pretended to by some weak and deluded persons: but the countenancing of such imaginations, or teaching men to expect them, or esteeming them as conversion to God, while holiness was neglected, is a calumny and false accusation, as our writings and preachings fully testify.”
“Therefore as to this negative principle we observe that the Holy Spirit usually exerts his power in the use of means, and that he works on men agreeably to their natures.  He does not come upon them with involuntary raptures, using their mental powers as the evil spirit wrests the bodies of possessed persons.  His whole work is rationally to be accounted for, by those who believe the Scriptures and have received the Spirit of truth whom the world cannot receive.”
“Indeed, the efficiency of the Spirit in quickening our souls (which the ancients always termed his ‘inspiration of grace’) is no otherwise to be comprehended than any other act of creating power, for as we hear the wind, but know not from where it came or where it goes, so is everyone that is born of the Spirit (John 3:8).  But this is certain, that he works nothing but what is determined and declared in the written word, and that he puts no force on the faculties of our souls, but works in them and by them suitably to their nature.”   (A Discourse Concerning the Holy Spirit, By John Owen)

This opposes most of the history of hypnotism including mesmerism and most of the popular forms of hypnotism used in entertainment.  To elaborate a little, interesting and concise details of the history of Mesmerism and early science of hypnosis can be found here at this thesis paper on Mesmerism. (Secular source: B. Brilliant)
For example regarding rituals common to Mesmerism and early hypnosis:

Hypnotism and mesmerism share a certain dependence on ritual as a means of concentrating the attention of the subject and impressing upon him that something important and effective is taking place. Hypnotic induction procedures may make use of candles, pendulums, crystal balls, and other objects of focus; hand passes in front of the subject's eyes are often employed; and the verbal portion of the method usually involves leading the subject on a series of steps into deeper relaxation and concentration through directed imagination. For example, the subject may be asked to picture a carpeted stairway that he will descend into a warm, comfortable room, or to imagine himself/herself walking off into a flowery meadow. The subject is led to believe that she/he is, in effect, going somewhere else, into a special state where the rules of everyday life may not apply, so that extraordinary things may happen--even something as extraordinary as giving up smoking. (Secular source: B. Brilliant)

First hand subjects of Mesmer indicate how powerful unstable people are when getting together with high expectation and who open themselves to an ‘experience’:

Some patients remain calm and experience nothing; others cough, spit, feel slight pain, a local or general heat, and fall into sweats; others are agitated and tormented by convulsions. These convulsions are remarkable for their number, duration, and force, and have been known to persist for more than three hours. They are characterized by involuntary jerking movements in all the limbs, and the whole body, by contraction of the throat, by twitchings of the hypochondriac and epigastria regions, by dimness of vision and rolling of the eyes, by piercing cries, tears, hiccough, and immoderate laughter. They are preceded or followed by a state of languor or dreaminess, by a species of depression, and even by stupor. (Secular source: B. Brilliant)

This covers the subject from a charlatan and quackery standpoint, and in deed this is the origin of the science, however their also is the demonic element. Extreme religious groups do more or less the same thing as a ‘road show’ entertainment kind of false healing program and when this is accompanied by teachings that run in direct opposition to the gospel, reformed theology can’t be view this as a demonically enhanced version of simple quackery, although both may be primary interested in making money under the abuse of their clients.  For example Mesmersim has lead to Swedenborgianism which is a Christian sect that denies almost every traditional Christian belief as well as supports abelief of out of body experiences with spirits, etc.  Also in the article I have linked to we see the background of ‘Christian Science’:

Mary Baker Eddy, the founder of Christian Science, vehemently denounced mesmerism and hypnotism, in the apparent belief that they are totally grounded in the physical realm and unrelated to Spirit or God. But since she studied under the mesmerist Quimby, she must have been aware that her doctrine of the mind's influence on health could almost have come directly from Mesmer's writings. It seems that she was, then, simply maligning a rival in the field of healing. (Secular source: B. Brilliant)

The occultist history of the science is also conveniently found in the article:

The roots of hypnosis are lost in the abyss of the ages. But the human race has always known and explored altered states of consciousness. The peoples of the ancient world knew many of the keys that open the gates to a different reality, such as fasting, meditation, sleep deprivation--and even dance, as we see in the ecstatic states achieved by the whirling dervishes of Turkey; Haitian and African voodoo dancers; and American Indians in their dance ceremonies. Yogis, fakirs, Persian magi, and Christian mystics such as St. Anthony of Padua and St. Theresa of Avila have all made use of trance states.
These mental transformations could also be chemically induced. The legendary Pythia, priestess of the Delphic Oracle in Greece, inhaled sulfurous fumes from a cleft in the rock within the temple, then spoke her strange prophecies. African witch doctors and other sbamen also prepare themselves by taking a substance appropriate for the ceremony they are to perform. (Secular source: B. Brilliant)

However, there is an element of hypnotism that would be more medical and a kind of simple self-induced sleep with simple attempts at the ‘power of suggestion’.  This does not have the same abusive, or occultist implications.  In this sense a man could even whisper to his wife in her sleep, ‘You do not want to buy purses and shoes’ and see if it has any effect without necessarily sinning. The only thing I would say is that considering the dark history of the subject, often overlapping with occult practices and being pioneered by people strongly opposed to reformed views, a reformed position would remain suspicious to say the least. More than that since, the heart of man is perceived as being 'desperately wicked' and 'deceitful above all things' the idea of subjecting your own thoughts, conscious or sleep induced, to another sinner, where principles and guard of aware discipline against all temptation is willingly surrendered, seems to oppose the concepts of sanctification through the study of God's word.  In other words, prayer and discipline are reformed methods for quitting smoking and hypnosis is just various shades of gray, or even black, which can't be as effective or as reasonably reliable. However, as Medical hypnosis does not have these darker undertones, so it would be slotted more along the lines of a bad idea, rather than the demonic.


What is the Catholic understanding of Antichrist? Is there a good explanation describing how to identify the anti-Christ?
They say a lot of false prophets will rise up in the end times to preach the anti-Christ.

Is there a biblical explanation or does the Catholic Church had an official teaching about the anti-Christ?

The Antichrist is a single person, but anyone opposed to Christ can also be called an antichrist:
Sacræ Theologiæ Summa IVB on the Last Things, §264 "The coming of the Antichrist", PDF pp. 462-463, says "Antichrist"

designates: a) broadly, the one who is Christ’s adversary, so that therefore there are many antichrists; b) but by antonomasia, someone coming at the end of the world as a bitter enemy of Christ.

Fr. Hardon, S.J.'s Catholic Dictionary defines "Antichrist" as:

The chief of Christ's enemies. The New Testament specifically names him only in I John 2:18,

Little children, it is the last hour; and as you have heard that Antichrist cometh, even now there are become many Antichrists: whereby we know that it is the last hour.

2:22;

Who is a liar, but he who denieth that Jesus is the Christ? This is Antichrist, who denieth the Father, and the Son.

4:3,

And every spirit that dissolveth Jesus, is not of God: and this is Antichrist, of whom you have heard that he cometh, and he is now already in the world.

and II John [1:]7,

For many seducers are gone out into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh: this is a seducer and an antichrist.

where he is identified with unbelievers who deny the Incarnation. Over the centuries the Antichrist has been variously associated with historical persons, e.g., Caligula, Simon Magus, and Nero, or again with organized movements such as Arianism. The more common Catholic interpretation says that he is not merely symbolic or an embodiment of the anti-Christian. The Antichrist is a real person. (Etym. Greek antichristos, against Christ.)

The coming of Antichrist is one of the signs of Christ's second coming.
See also:

"What is the Catholic interpretation of 2 Thessalonians 2:3" (that Antichrist "sitteth in the temple of God")?


What is "intercession" and what kinds of "intercessory prayer" are there? Different traditions seem to have different ideas about intercession.

What are the major different types of "intercessory prayer" and which traditions employ them?

If applicable to the definition, how is human intercessory prayer different different from the intercession that Christ makes on behalf of believers?

Excellent question:
From good ol' dictionary.com, intercede means:

to act or interpose in behalf of someone in difficulty or trouble, as by pleading or petition: to intercede with the governor for a condemned man.

Using this general definition, we can come up with one that applies intercessory prayer.  Simply put, it's "someone praying on our behalf when we're in time of need".
Humans as our intercessor
Jesus is said not only to be our intercessor, but also our mediator
1 Tim 2:5 (NIV)

For there is one God and one mediator between God and mankind, the man Christ Jesus

Is this to say that others cannot intercede for us?  Certainly not!  However, if they pray to God on our behalf, they're actually using Jesus, our mediator to get to God.
Jesus, per this passage, is the one who talks to God on our behalf.  Because of that, any human prayer will go through Jesus to get to God.
Jesus as our intercessor
Because of this, when Jesus prays on our behalf, it is going directly to God.  When we humans intercede, it goes directly to Jesus and then to God.  Clearly, this is one-step of removal.
But can we say, then, that our prayers sometimes do not reach God, when Jesus prayers do?  I don't think we can go that far.  However, I do believe that Jesus, being the direct contact with God, knows how to intercede far better than we do.  (Granted, that's part of why we've been given the Holy Spirit.)
Holy Spirit as our intercessor
Romans 8:26 (NIV)
states

In the same way, the Spirit helps us in our weakness. We do not know what we ought to pray for, but the Spirit himself intercedes for us through wordless groans.

This shows that the Holy Spirit is also interceding on our behalf, giving us the words to speak and praying for us when we don't know what to say.
Catholicism
Up until now, that covers all Christianity.  All Christians believe (or should believe) in the above.  Humans, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit intercede for us--pray on our behalf--to God.
Catholicism has taken this one step further, claiming not only that living humans can pray for us, but also that saints can pray for us.
The idea is exactly like asking for prayers from family members.  You go to your family and say "Please pray for me in this issue" and they will intercede on your behalf, praying to God through Jesus.
Catholics believe (along with many other groups/denominations/sects) that saints in heaven can hear our prayers here on earth.  Therefore, since they can hear our prayers, they can intercede for us in our need.
The argument behind that is an entirely different question.
End Notes
Is there any one type of interceding that is better than another?  Personally, I can't find any source saying anything like this.  I believe that the more people you have interceding for a particular issue, the better.
However, it must be noted that all prayers from humans must go through Jesus, our one and only mediator.  Whether those prayers are from Aunt Claud or Mary, mother of Jesus.  All these prayers from humans go through Jesus or (in our own grumblings when we don't know what to say) through the Holy Spirit.
So, I couldn't make any solid, realistic arguments that one type of intercession is better than another.
Also, those listed above are the only "types" of intercession that I've been able to find.  There might be other "types", but this is all I could find (or all that I know about).


Are there any denominations that give official advice on how to handle the uncertainty in their doctrines? It shouldn't be a surprise to anyone the existence of doctrinal discrepancies among different branches of Christianity. Most of the time, these doctrinal differences arise from the differing ways in which theologians and Christians in general interpret the Scriptures. You don't see these sorts of discrepancies in mathematics, where theorems can be readily verified by anyone: it's just a matter of following the logical steps of the theorem's proof. Given the initial set of axioms, and provided that the proof is logically valid, there is no question about the final conclusion, and anyone can agree and verify by themselves the truth of the theorem.
Unfortunately, this is far from being the case in Christianity with regards to many doctrines (e.g. the Nature of God, the Trinity, the Sabbath, the Feast Days, the Law, Tithing, the Gifts of the Spirit, Tongues, Miracles, Christology, Pneumatology, Intercession of the Saints, etc.). In contrast to formal mathematical proofs, doctrines instead are typically defended via abductive arguments, where a certain doctrine is held as the "most plausible" explanation for the Scriptural evidence (a set of passages interpreted in a certain way), and possibly historical and testimonial evidence. Relying on abductive arguments to defend a position in a doctrinal dilemma sounds a reasonable approach, but we need to be aware of the fact that abductive arguments are not formal logical proofs -- they are not bullet proof. Thus, there will always be some room for uncertainty ("what if my interpretation is wrong?"), especially in the case of very controversial doctrines.
Question: Are there any denominations that openly acknowledge the existence of (some) uncertainty in (some of) their doctrines, and provide official advice to their members on how to handle that uncertainty?

Related: Are there theological explanations for why God allowed ambiguity to exist in Scripture?

There are uncertainties within denominations and between denominations.  There are also things denominations differ on and yet are each "sure" of.
An Independent Conservative Baptist Church I know of propounds a concept called "truths in tension" regarding uncertainty within the theology of the denomination.  For example, the absolute, universal sovereignty of God is held in one hand and individual human choice is held in the other hand.  These two can not be fully reconciled but neither can either one be released or denigrated since they are clearly revealed in Scripture.
Many eschatological theorems fall into this category.  The pre-millenial, pre-tribulational rapture of the church, for example, might be taught as true within a denomination while at the same time not as necessary to believe for salvation.
Regarding uncertainty within and between denominations another concept is coined "in essentials, unity; in non-essentials, liberty; in all things, charity".  Under this concept a Baptist could, for instance, have Christian fellowship with an Adventist since those things which are considered essentials to the Baptist are held by the Adventist and the differences reside in the non-essential category.  The Adventist might not be able to reciprocate if some of the differences in the Baptist non-essential category are in the Adventist essential category.
Christian fellowship between a Baptist and a Jehovah's Witness (for example) would be impossible due to sharp divergence on essential doctrine.  These two might enjoy personal or professional friendship as falling into the "in all things charity" slot.
Obviously essentials, non-essentials, Christian fellowship, and a whole host of terms then need definition...resulting in continued uncertainty and disagreement.


What is the biblical support for the moral-civil-ceremonial distinction of Old Testament laws? I just asked this question looking for where this view point came from and when it was made popular.

  Ceremonial Law: This type of law relates to Israel's worship. (Lev 1:1-13) The laws pointed forward to Jesus Christ and were no longer necessary after Jesus' death and resurrection. Though we are no longer bound to them, the principles behind the ceremonial laws, that is to worship and love God, still apply.
  Civil Law: This law dictated Israel's daily living (Deut 24:10-11); but modern society and culture are so radically different that some of these guidelines cannot be followed specifically. The principles behind the commands are used to guide our conduct.
  Moral Law: The moral laws are direct commands of God. A good example are the Ten Commandments (Ex 20:1-17). The moral laws reveal the nature and will of God, and still apply to us today. We do not obey this moral law as a way to obtain salvation, but to live in ways pleasing to God.

Here I would like to get answers on the Biblical support for this viewpoint.

Because this idea is a "Christian-ese" concept that has traditionally been used to explain the heart of the Gospel with respect to the law, any answer here that Biblically explain this view will not necessarily "support this viewpoint." Much like T.U.L.I.P and the seven dispensational epochs, concepts like this tend to oversimplify Biblical truths. This doesn't mean it is unbiblical, but that it should never replace the Biblical foundation it stands on.

Moral Law:
Jesus gave his own interpretation of the law in His Sermon on the Mount, but without the epistles, early Christians only had the Old Testament to deduce what part of God's commands were part of our training toward maturity (our tutor in Gal. 3:24), and what parts reflect the Law of Liberty in Christ (Rom 8:2). Jesus' revelationary [sic] contribution to our understanding of Moses' law tells us that we are not to disregard it completely, but we need to discern which parts of the law were established for our "upbringing," and which they would have to preserve in their new life with Christ. When Jesus said "You know the commandments" to the rich young ruler in Mar 10:19, he was likely talking about the Ten commandments, or more broadly, the "Moral Law" of Moses. Even with our death to the law (see Rom. 7:4), our obligation to be like Christ does not change.
The Prophet David says in Psa 40:6 "Burnt offering and sin offering You did not require," but this sounds contradictory since God literally did require it in Moses' law. But not forever. This example is a good distinction between where Moses' law and the Law of Liberty separate. God calls David a man after His own heart probably in part because he saw the difference. Other verses like this exist. See Micah 6:8:

  He has shown you, O man, what is good; And what does the LORD require
  of you But to do justly, To love mercy, And to walk humbly with your
  God?

So, the "Moral Law" in our simplified tri-part system we're examining here are any of those commands about which David could not have said "you did not require." Most of these "required" laws, based on our David definition have a broader "Law-of-Liberty" version: Hate is murder (Matt. 5:22), idolatry is covetousness (Col. 3:5), but, as always, God's heart doesn't change.

Ceremonial Law
The letter to the Hebrews (especially chapter nine) reveals that much of Moses' law contained copies or patterns of heavenly truths. Just as there is an altar in Moses' law, there is a version of that in heaven, from the Priesthood, down to the altar and candles. These patterns given to us in Moses are "Shadows of the good things to come" (Heb 10:1), so they are similar to the Moral Laws in that they reveal a bigger truth. In this case however, the truths they reveal are not mandates of holiness. They are symbols of heavenly places.
So the "Ceremonial Law" in our simplified tri-part system, are any commands about which David could have said "you did not require," and were shadows of things to come, and were not primarily commands for civic functions. Not all these are in Hebrews, but it gives us a good starting point.

Civil Law
By process of elimination, I would say that these commands are those which do not adequately fit in the categories above, but, like your question states, called the Hebrew people to form a working society. In my opinion, it's really hard to separate this category from the Ceremonial Law without adequately defining "Civil" and "Ceremonial." Especially in a society where law and faith are never separated. Laws that talk about inheritance, land boundaries, and punishment for crime, might nicely fit here, but couldn't someone also say they point to shadows of things to come, i.e., the judgement and reward of God's people and enemies? Maybe, but again, this three-fold division is never explicitly made in the scriptures.


What does Jesus mean that those that can be trusted on small matters can be trusted in large matter? Imagine Madoff coming to your living room and saying, "I got an investment that I want you to invest all your money in."

You test him. You left some changes on the table and pretend to do something else. You return and see the changes are still there.  Ah I can trust Madoff in small things. He must be trustworthy on big things. That would be stupid, right?

Many people don't steal small things not because they're infinitely trustworthy. People don't steal small things, so that they have their reputation intact and can steal big things.

Madoff didn't take the change not because he is trustworthy. Madoff didn't take the change because the change is small. He aims to steal big. So those who are trustworthy on small things are not necessarily trustworthy on big things.

I once lost $30k due to a fraudster that built trust by being honest on small deals. When the deals got big they ran away.  Likewise, most corrupt officials that steal billions won't steal chickens or bread.

On then face of it, this appears to contradict some of Jesus teaching on trust:

  Luke 16:10
  "Whoever can be trusted with very little can also be trusted with
  much, and whoever is dishonest with very little will also be dishonest
  with much.

How is this apparent contradiction resolved?

Note: I honestly trusted this interpretation on Jesus words and lost almost $1 million of profit because my ex-employee become my competitor. Consider this a form of "customer complaint" on Christianity.

With parables you have to remember that they are directed at a specific audience, and make a specific point. Trying to extrapolate to draw conclusions outside the purpose of the parable would lead to a wrong conclusion. Parables are also used to illustrate general principles, not to lay down hard and fast rules.

In the Parable of the Talents, the point is about the behaviour of the servants. Jesus makes that pretty clear from context. The conclusions the hearer should draw are about parallels to the servants, not to the master. So (to simplify a little) the lesson from this parable is "work hard with what you are given to generate 'profit' for your master". You could also reasonably infer the lesson: "show yourself trustworthy in small things so that you will be trusted with larger things". (That's different from the lesson you are talking about.)

To derive a lesson that "anyone who is trustworthy with small things is also always trustworthy with large ones" would be outside the scope of the parable. It's focussing on the wrong part of the parable. The character in the story doesn't say it is a general rule, but only as something specific to another character: "Because you have shown yourself trustworthy in small things..." We shouldn't infer that it is applicable in all cases.


What's the scriptural basis for Protestants to believe that their future sins have been forgiven? Majority of Protestants believe that their sins are fully forgiven - not only the ones they had committed before believing in Christ but even all the sins that they have not yet committed during their lifetime since believing in Jesus. As far as I know, the Orthodox believers strongly oppose to that idea.

What do those of Protestants who believe that all their future since have already been forgiven take as their basis for such a belief in the Scripture?

I cannot speak for all Protestants, but I did find this quote from John Stott, which explains the past, present and future aspects of the forgiveness of sins for those who have come to saving faith in Christ Jesus:

I have been saved – in the past – from the penalty of sin – by a crucified Saviour: “For in this hope we were saved" (Romans 8:24). "For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures" (1 Corinthians 15:3).
I am being saved – in the present – from the power of sin – by a living Saviour: "For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God" (1 Corinthians 1:18).
I shall be saved – in the future – from the presence of sin – by a coming Saviour: "God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us. Since we have now been justified by his blood, how much more shall we be saved from God's wrath through him!" (Romans 5:8-9) "For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God" (2 Corinthians 5:21).

That is not to suggest that a Christian can continue to sin with impunity.  First John 3:6-9 clearly states that a true Christian will not live in continual sin. In response to the accusation that grace promotes sin, the apostle Paul declared:

"What shall we say, then? Shall we go on sinning so that grace may increase? By no means! We died to sin; how can we live in it any longer?" (Romans 6:1-2).
"In the same way, count yourselves dead to sin but alive to God in Christ Jesus. Therefore do not let sin reign in your mortal body so that you obey its evil desires. Do not offer the parts of your body to sin, as instruments of wickedness, but rather offer yourselves to God, as those who have been brought from death to life; and offer the parts of your body to him as instruments of righteousness. For sin shall not be your master, because you are not under law, but under grace. What then? Are we to sin because we are not under law but under grace? By no means!" (Romans 6:11-15)
"No one who lives in him keeps on sinning. No one who continues to sin has either seen him or known him" (1 John 3:6).

When Christians sin (as we all do), we are to confess our sins before God:

"If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness” (1 John 1:9).

The concept of relational forgiveness is based on the fact that when we sin, we offend God and grieve the Holy Spirit:

"And do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, by whom you were sealed for the day of redemption" (Ephesians 4:30).

That is why we confess our sins to God, not to maintain our salvation, but to bring ourselves back into close fellowship with the God who loves us and has already forgiven us. I hope this goes some way to explaining the Protestant view of sins past, present, and future, being forgiven on the basis of the shed blood of Christ Jesus and His righteousness being imputed to us.


Comparative religion textbooks from a Catholic viewpoint Most Catholic text books about religion are about Catholicism, I asked my high-school aged daughter what she wants to study next year for religion class and she said she's like to know about other religions.  I'm having a hard time finding these kinds of books.
Most popular authors will write a book condemning this or that other religion, but I just want one that honestly compares them all without being wishywashy about which is better.  Otherwise, I think I'd have to piece together about a hundred books.

I would suggest a good apologetics book, because these are designed to refute the errors of false religions / belief systems and show how the Catholic religion is the only true one, e.g.:

Catholic Apologetics: God, Christianity, and the Church by Fr. John Laux
The Principles of Catholic Apologetics by Fr. T. J. Walshe

This more recent one compares Catholic theology and philosophy to that of other, non-Catholic belief systems (including even Eastern, Indian thought):

The Way toward Wisdom: An Interdisciplinary and Intercultural Introduction to Metaphysics by Benedict Ashley, O.P.Fr. Benny had a very interesting life, being an ex-Marxist before his conversion.

A classic comparing Catholic doctrine to Protestant/Lutheran doctrine is:

Symbolism, or, Exposition of the doctrinal differences between Catholics and Protestants as evidenced by their symbolical writings by Möhler, Johann Adam, 1796-1838"Symbol" in the sense of "creed" (σύμβολον, symballein, means a collection: "It is from its being a collection of maxims of faith that the symbol [*The Greek {symballein}] takes its name."


Is the OT translation in "The Apostolic Bible - Polyglot" based strictly on the LXX or MT text? In reference to the answer given to Are there any English Bible translations whose primary text for the OT is the Septuagint? some further issues arise:

There's a rather interesting translation called, "The Apostolic Bible - Polyglot" by Charles Van der Pool, published in 2006 by The Apostolic Press. Does anyone know if it's based strictly on the Greek Old Testament (Septuagint)?

Concerning the other possible sources, mentioned elsewhere on this site, "The Holy Bible containing the Old and New Covenant, by Charles Thomson in 1808" is not currently available for purchase ...

And, the revised translation of it, "The Septuagint Bible," by C.A. Muses is not what it claims to be; that is, its a heavily edited version that bears more resemblance to the KJV than the LXX! Changing the accurate rendering of the Greek scriptures to agree with the Hebrew has corrupted the validity of the translation, and made it useless for the purpose of studying the Septuagint.

As for "The Orthodox Study Bible," it uses the New King James Version text in the places where the translation of the LXX would match that of the Hebrew Masoretic text, so, it's questionable if this is really a strict translation of the LXX?

That's more than one question, sorry, but they are directly related.

Charles Van der Pool does not specify in the introduction whether his translation included Masoretic influences, but from what he does say, it is doubtful. He makes a concerted effort throughout the introduction to express that there is value in the Greek Old Testament that cannot be had with any other translation. I've included his words below from page v of the second edition. Emphasis is the author's, strong text is mine.

With the incorporation of the Greek Old Testament Scriptures into the Greek New Testament via quotes, surely this puts the Greek New Testament in a unique position, as these Greek Old Testament words have become engrafted into the Divine Word of the New Testament. For hundreds of years after the Christ, during the formation of the apostolic age, the Greek Scriptures were consistently read and quoted by the Church Fathers. These all-Greek Scriptures are still in use in Eastern Christendom today, although the Canon is different. The Apostolic Bible continues this tradition of The Apostolic Age Greek Scriptures, and is this named the Apostolic Bible.
With the fact of the Greek Old Testament partly being grafted into the  "inspired" Greek New Testament, it is inconceivable to think one can truly understand the deep meanings of the Greek New Testament without first having knowledge of the Greek Old Testament. For example, consider the following passage in the King James Bible, "he hath made him to be sin for us..." 2 Corinthians 5:31. The word for "sin" is #266 "ἁμαρτία," where in Numbers 6:14, and many other places in the Greek Old Testament, is translated "sin offering." "Offering" denoted by the Italics, is implied by the context, as it was talking of animals as a sacrifice for sin. Jesus becoming the "sin offering" opens a whole new aspect of understanding for this verse. That the Greek Scriptures were designed for the Church is a strong argument, but this is not to demean the Hebrew Scriptures of the autographs. Seeing that God saw fit to communicate mainly through the written Word, it ts to one's advantage to diligently search both the Hebrew and Greek Scriptures.

He also states on page xiii that "The translation was done by one person, rather than a group of individuals." This clarifies that this work is his own translation, not another translation printed alongside the Greek OT. He goes on to say that "...a continuity of the English words is attained when one individual is doing the translating of the whole, as compared to a group of individuals in which each may be translating only one book of the Bible."


How does Oneness Pentecostalism interpret Matthew 3:17? Matthew 3:16-17 NIV

16 As soon as Jesus was baptized, he went up out of the water. At that moment heaven was opened, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and alighting on him.
17 And a voice from heaven said, “This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased.”

If there is no distinction between the Father and the Son, as Oneness adherents believe, how do they explain the voice from heaven?

Interestingly, Oneness Pentecostals do not fail to see a distinction between Father and Son as many suppose.  The United Pentecostals explain the distinction of Father, Son and Holy Spirit as follows: "God is Father in creation, Son in redemption, and Holy Spirit in sanctification."  Note however, that the distinction is in what God is doing and how he is doing it, not in person-hood.

The doctrine of Oneness denotes that there is only one God who manifests/reveals/expresses Himself at various times in various ways. This is in contrast to Trinitarian doctrine which sees God as always having existed as three separate and distinct persons, though one God.

One United Pentecostal theologian, David Bernard, in his book, the Oneness of God, points out that Scripture uses the term Son when referring to Jesus' humanity, never His divinity.  Thus, they see a distinction between Father and Son in terms of humanity.  Jesus the Son says He is one with the Father, in the Father and the Father is in Him.  They therefore see one God existing simultaneously on Earth in the Son and in heaven as the Father.

Having established that background, in Matthew 3:16-17, God is in the Son, who is getting baptized.  God speaks from heaven as Father, addressing His Son.  God also alights upon  the Son, in the likeness of a dove.  But He is only one God simultaneously in three places, doing three things, in three different ways.

Bernard writes:

  With the
  omnipresence of God in mind we can understand the baptism of Christ
  very easily. It was not at all difficult for the Spirit of Jesus to
  speak from heaven and to send a manifestation of His Spirit in the
  form of a dove even while His human body was in the Jordan River.  The
  voice and the dove do not represent separate persons any  more than the
  voice of God from Sinai indicates that the  mountain was a separate
  intelligent person in the Godhead.

The rest of what he writes in regard to Jesus baptism is found on page 172-175 of his book, The Oneness of God.

There are various Oneness adherents, and even various Pentecostal Oneness groups.  I have answered based on the doctrines of the United Pentecostal Church.

See also my answer to a related question:
How do United Pentecostals and other Oneness groups interpret Hebrews 2:9?


Do any Theistic Evolutionists deny the possibility of (intelligent) life on other planets for Biblical reasons? I recall reading a book by Hugh Ross many years ago, in which he claimed that life, or at least intelligent life, on other planets was a Biblical impossibility. I believe the argument hinged on the Biblical claim that Humanity is the "crown of God's creation."

Ross is an Old Earth Creationist; that is, he believes in an old earth (billions of years), but that humanity was a "special creation", not evolved from lower life forms.

Theistic Evolutionists tend not to depend on a "special" intervention, which, at least on the surface, seems that it would lend itself to the possibility of life, possibly including intelligent life, having evolved in various places throughout the Universe.

My question is:

Do any Theistic Evolutionists hold the view that life on Earth (or at least intelligent life on Earth) is unique in the universe, for Biblical reasons? And if so, what is their Biblical basis?

I stress for Biblical reasons, because I'm not interested in the types of arguments that might be made based on the Fermi paradox, or other views that are equally valid among non-theists. Naturally, Biblical reasons are bound to coincide with naturalistic and/or philosophical reasons, and that's fine. I'm not looking for the absence of naturalistic/philosophical reasons; I'm looking for the existence of a Biblical basis.

And to scope the question away from "My uncle is a TE, and believes this", please focus on Theistic Evolutionists which have published their views in a book, magazine, or journal (peer review not required; self-published blogs and the like discouraged).

Intriguing question, although I do not subscribe to theistic evolution, nor have I ever given a second thought to the possibility of intelligent life elsewhere in the universe.  Curious, I went searching for information.  I found one published paper about the implications of the discovery of extra-terrestrial life for religion, which I partially quote below.  However, it said nothing about theistic evolutionists.

The implications of the discovery of extra-terrestrial life for religion

Abstract: This paper asks about the future of religion: (i) Will confirmation of extra-terrestrial intelligence (ETI) cause terrestrial religion to collapse? ‘No’ is the answer based upon a summary of the ‘Peters ETI Religious Crisis Survey’. Then the paper examines four specific challenges to traditional doctrinal belief likely to be raised at the detection of ETI: (ii) What is the scope of God’s creation? (iii) What can we expect regarding the moral character of ETI? (iv) Is one earthly incarnation in Jesus Christ enough for the entire cosmos, or should we expect multiple incarnations on multiple planets? (v) Will contact with more advanced ETI diminish human dignity? More than probable contact with extra-terrestrial intelligence will expand the Bible’s vision so that all of creation—including the 13.7 billion year history of the universe replete with all of God’s creatures—will be seen as the gift of a loving and gracious God.

Conclusion: Despite the conventional wisdom, it is not reasonable to forecast that any of Earth’s major religious traditions will confront a crisis let alone a collapse should we confirm an encounter with extra-terrestrial intelligence. Theologians will not find themselves out of a job. In fact, theologians might relish the new challenges to reformulate classical religious commitments in light of the new and wider vision of God’s creation. Traditional theologians must then become astro-theologians. Perhaps in preparation of this eventuality, the time now is ripe for some speculation. What I forecast is this: contact with extra-terrestrial intelligence will expand the existing religious vision that all of creation—including the 13.7 billion year history of the universe replete with all of God’s creatures—is the gift of a loving and gracious God.

(Ted Peters Published: 13 February 2011)  https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsta.2010.0234
My search unearthed a Wikipedia article on “Cosmic Pluralism” which has to do with speculation on extra-terrestrial life.  Here is a brief extract:

In the late nineteenth and twentieth centuries the term "cosmic pluralism" became largely archaic as knowledge diversified and the speculation on extra-terrestrial life focused on particular bodies and observations. The historic debate continues to have modern parallels, however. Carl Sagan and Frank Drake, for instance, could well be considered "pluralists" while proponents of the Rare Earth hypothesis are modern skeptics.

What I found fascinating was a reference to the Qur’an and a suggestion that Allah may have created life forms on other planets:

Modern Islamic scholars like Abdullah Yusuf Ali point to the Qur'an (42:29) to argue for life on other planets: "And among His Signs is the creation of the heavens and the earth, and the living creatures that He has scattered through them". The verses uses the word da’bbah, which denotes living creatures on the surface of a planet.  Two Qur'anic verses support the idea of God being Lord of multiple worlds: 1:2 and 41:09. Qur'an 16:8 says "He has created other things of which ye have no knowledge."  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_pluralism

I have no reason to think that Muslims agree with theistic evolution, but it is interesting to note that the Qur’an could be used in support of extra-terrestrial life on other planets.
Whilst I have been unable to find any published paper that suggests theistic evolutionist deny the possibility of intelligent life on other plants for biblical reasons, that does not mean to say that no such paper has ever been published.   Personally, my view is that since the Bible has nothing to say about life-forms on other planets, then I conclude it is not necessary for me to know.  If God thought we needed to know, He would have mentioned it.  Indeed, we have more than enough problems of our own making here on Earth right now to spend time speculating on “what if’s”.
As you said in answer to a question asked in September 2011:

“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.”

As the Psalmist said:
<The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the works of his hands (Psalm 19:1)


Was Constantine The Great a Nicene Christian? Lately I've been trying to figure out whether or not Constantine is a Nicene Christian. He was baptised by Eusebius who was of course an Arian. And since he was very close to Eusebius, he was influenced by Arian views (exiling Saint Athanasius). Some sources I have looked at say that he favored Arianism instead of the Orthodox christian view. Others say that he also exiled Eusebius because he continued to teach Arianism. Was Constantine an Orthodox/Nicene Christian believing Christ was in fact God?

This answer is based on the following 3 resources I found:

A 2015 article Was Constantine the Great Baptized An Arian?
A 2012 paper The Spread Out of Arianism.  A Critical Analysis of the Arian Heresy published in the International Journal of Orthodox Theology
A 2005 article How Arianism Almost Won by Christopher A. Hall published in Christian History Issue #85

There was quite an upheaval between the Council of Nicaea (AD 325) and Constantine's baptism shortly before his death (AD 337) by an Arian sympathizer bishop Eusebius of Nicomedia. But although Eusebius tried to bring back Arianism, he DID sign the creed, making him an Orthodox bishop.  Initially after Nicaea Constantine was strongly opposed to Arianism, ordering Arius's works to be burned.  But,

  [w]ithin ten years of the Council of Nicaea, though, Constantine became convinced that Arius’s ideas fell within the pale of orthodoxy, though the exact details of Arius’s position — at least as represented to the emperor in the years following Nicaea — remain somewhat murky.   What is clear, though, is that neither Constantine nor later sons such as Constans and Constantius were skilled biblical interpreters or theologians. These Roman emperors were more concemed to preserve the unity of the church than to engage in prolonged debates over what to them often seemed theological nitpicking. [...skipped...] Both Arius and Athanasius experienced Constantine’s displeasure. It was Constantine who in A.D. 335 ordered the first of Athanasius’s five exiles—the same year Arius regained the favor of the Roman emperor.  [from "How Arianism Almost Won"]

The resurgence of Arianism was fought in earnest only after Constantine's death, but then suffered a definitive defeat at the Council of Constantinople 56 years after Nicaea.

Therefore, it appears that since Constantine was not a theologian, he was under the impression that he believed the orthodox faith.

  ... as far as Constantine knew, Eusebius repented of his error in his letter and he was restored to his See and gained the favor of Constantine precisely because he was Orthodox. And it was from this canonical bishop of the Orthodox Church, Eusebius of Nicomedia, that Constantine received Holy Baptism, fully in canonical communion with the Church. Consequently, there is no hesitation on the part of the Orthodox Church, which takes the entire historical data into account, that Constantine the Great was baptized as an Orthodox Christian by an Orthodox bishop.  [from "Was Constantine the Great Baptized an Arian"]


Which Bible verses support adult-only baptism? I am a Reformed Presbyterian and it seems that for most people I run into, baptism for 'adults' after confession of faith only is the default position.  I always find myself fighting an uphill battle against this view.  However, I have yet to see one verse that prescribes that only adult believers be baptized.  I would ask that answers show where the Bible says that only believers are to be baptized or if not then what series of texts of scripture and lines of reasoning are used to support this view.

Since the sign of inclusion into the covenant under the Old Covenant (circumcision) is so closely tied to the sign under the New Covenant (baptism) Col 2:11-12 and since the Old Covenant sign was offered to children and since the New Covenant is more inclusive in every way than the Old Covenant and since telling a Jewish Christian that they can not baptize their children would have been a big deal to them (and the scriptures show no discussion on this point at all), it has always seemed to me that the burden of proof showing the change in practice lies at the Baptist doorstep.

There is no precedent for infant baptism in Scripture

Infant baptism simply is not found in the Bible.  That isn't an argument that it can't be done, but it should be seen as an extrabiblical tradition.

Baptism is commanded with salvation

Jesus commanded the apostles as follows:

  Matthew 28:19 (NIV)
  19  Therefore go and make disciples of all nations,  baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,

The thrust here (and everywhere baptism is commanded) is that the people that the apostles are making the disciples of, and the people they are baptizing, are the same people.  I believe that people must choose to be disciples for themselves, which is a choice babies are unable to make.

Baptism is an outward expression of an inward change

Paul describes the inward change that baptism symbolizes:

  Romans 6:2-4 (NIV)
  2  By no means! We are those who have died to sin;  how can we live in it any longer? 3  Or don’t you know that all of us who were baptized  into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? 4  We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death  in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead  through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life.

It is a symbol of our spiritually putting ourselves to death, so that we may live with Christ.  This is not a decision that babies can make, so why perform an act that reflects an inward change that has not yet occurred?

The water is just water

In Acts, we have an example of people who had been baptized with water, and needed to be rebaptized.

  Acts 19:2-5 (NIV)
  2  and asked them, “Did you receive the Holy Spirit  when you believed?”
  They answered, “No, we have not even heard that there is a Holy Spirit.”
  3  So Paul asked, “Then what baptism did you receive?”
  “John’s baptism,” they replied.
  4  Paul said, “John’s baptism  was a baptism of repentance. He told the people to believe in the one coming after him, that is, in Jesus.”  5  On hearing this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.

Clearly not all baptisms are equal.  Yet, what changes between right and wrong cases?  The water is constant, so I argue that it is the heart of the baptizee.  Certainly, whatever knowledge the people were lacking that made their baptism null, babies lack even more.  Peter tells us explicitly that the water is not what's important:

  1 Peter 3:21 (NIV)
  21  and this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you  also—not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a clear conscience  toward God. It saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ,

Babies are easily able to undergo the removal of dirt from flesh - that can be accomplished by the simple act of pouring water on them.  What they aren't able to do is the very thing that Peter says is important: "the pledge of a clear conscience toward God".

In regard to your arguments...

I think you bring up some interesting points, but I don't think that they make a compelling case for infant baptism.

  Since the sign of inclusion into the covenant under the Old Covenant (circumcision) is so closely tied to the sign under the New Covenant (baptism) Col 2:11-12 and since the Old Covenant sign was offered to children and since the New Covenant is more inclusive in every way than the Old Covenant and since telling a Jewish Christian that they can not baptize their children would have been a big deal to them (and the scriptures show no discussion on this point at all), it has always seemed to me that the burden of proof showing the change in practice lies at the Baptist doorstep.

Is baptism circumcision 2.0?

It sounds like this is considering baptism to have been seen as a replacement for circumcision.  I don't know of any Scriptural basis for this, and Colossians 2:11-12 doesn't seem to make the case.  The absence of an argument in Galatians to this effect is also very conspicuous.  Since in Galatians, Paul is arguing that in Christ, physical circumcision is not important, it seems that the silver bullet argument for his case would have been that baptism is the new circumcision.

Does baptism place us in the new covenant?

I don't know of any indication in Scripture that water baptism includes us in the new covenant.  Rather, the indication seems to be that we are included by spiritual baptism, which occurs by faith in Christ, and water baptism is a subsequent act symbolizing that (1 Peter 3:21, Acts 10:44-48, Matthew 3:11).

John Piper makes an excellent point on this topic here.  He points out that in the New Covenant, we are not included by physical descent, but spiritual:

  Galatians 3:6-7 (NIV)
  6  So also Abraham “believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness.”
  7  Understand, then, that those who have faith  are children of Abraham.

As an aside

I'm not completely familiar with the doctrine surrounding infant baptism, so I may be off on this point.  But one thing I don't understand about infant baptism placing someone in the New Covenant, is this: isn't its efficacy disproven once someone who is baptized as an infant grows up to be a non-Christian?  Surely there must be some examples of this...  Or is the belief that infant baptism places babies in the New Covenant until they reach an age of accountability, and then they must decide to enter it themselves?  In that case, shouldn't they be rebaptized anyway once they re-enter? Neither option seems to have Scriptural support.


Do Seventh Day Adventists believe people who attend church on Sunday will go to hell? My children attend a Seventh Day Adventist school. One teacher often mentions that 'people who go to church on Sunday will go to hell'. Is this consistent with Seventh Day Adventist belief?

Do Seventh Day adventists believe that people who go to church on Sunday will go to hell?

No we do not, we believe only those who are unfaithful to God will be not be in heaven.

The Bible is clear that God has His people in many denominations. In Revelation 18:4, a voice is heard in heaven saying:

  "Come out of her, my people, lest you share in her sins, and lest you receive of her plagues." (Revelation 18:4)

There is also a common misconception that we believe Sunday keeping is the mark of the beast. But it is not. Only when Sunday keeping is a forced day of worship, restricting freedom of conscience, do we consider it the mark of the beast. The writings of Ellen White in SDA Bible commentary explains:

  "Sundaykeeping is not yet the mark of the beast, and will not be until the decree goes forth causing men to worship this idol sabbath. The time will come when this day will be the test, but that time has not come yet." The S.D.A. Bible Commentary 7:977 (1899).

However, this is not to say that the Sabbath is not a test today, because it is. True observance of the fourth commandment is an outward sign of loyalty to God, just like the rest of the ten. Only that we are not able to say who has received this light and who has not.

  "We shall not be held accountable for the light that has not reached our perception, but for that which we have resisted and refused. A man could not apprehend the truth which had never been presented to him, and therefore could not be condemned for light he had never had."—The S.D.A. Bible Commentary 5:1145 (1893).

The truth is Adventists within the same denomination will differ in their conviction of how much/ to how many God has revealed this light to today. Many have grandparents or relatives in Sunday churches, so it is a sensitive issue. More liberal Adventists believe that unless you are 100% convinced, you are perfectly fine to attend Sunday keeping churches. However, more conservative Adventists believe that many Sunday goers have heard of the Sabbath, but have neglected to study further and have quietened their conscience to a degree in breaking this commandment in favour of tradition, and thus will be held accountable.

Either way, what we do agree on is that no one is really saved by keeping Sunday or Sabbath, but by our faithfulness to Jesus and willingness to follow the lamb wherever He goes (Revelation 14:4). We will see many Sunday goers in heaven, especially those who lived in the middle ages when the Sabbath truth was lost to many.


Who were the Sons of God who seem to have begat the Nephilim? Genesis 6:1--4 tells about the "sons of God" marrying whomsoever they pleased, and the Nephilim---"the heroes of old, men of renown"---were begotten then. How is this to be interpreted?

Dr John Millam, on the Reasons to Believe website, has this to say on the Nephilim (about 1/2 way through, the section entitled The Sons of God/Giants):

  Historically, the most popular way of understanding this passage was
  that the "sons of God" refer to angels or to the descendents of the
  godly line of Seth, Adam's son. The translators of the Septuagint,
  however, biased interpretations toward one standpoint by substituting
  "angels" for "sons of God". (The sons-of-God-as-angels view was
  fashionable in Jewish circles at that time. It appears in the
  apocryphal Book of Enoch, so the translators of the Septuagint were
  simply reflecting popular thinking.) This helps explain why the angel
  interpretation held exclusive dominance in the church for the first
  two centuries. A second example can be found in this same passage
  where the Septuagint translated Nephilim (literally "fallen ones") as
  "giants" (Greek gigos). As a result, the view that the Nephilim were
  "giants" was rampant in the early church.

Most people I have read on the matter agree that it is highly uncertain who these "Nephilim" actually were, and as a result, speculation abounds.  In my thinking it seems problematic to consider that angels, who are purely spirit beings could mate and produce offspring with humans who are a distinct creation of body into which God breathed spirit.

From the wikipedia article:

  Some individuals and groups, including St. Augustine, John Chrysostom,
  and John Calvin, take the view of Genesis 6:2 that the "Angels" who
  fathered the Nephilim referred to certain human males from the lineage
  of Seth, who were called sons of God probably in reference to their
  being formerly in a covenantal relationship with Yahweh (cf.
  Deuteronomy 14:1; 32:5); according to these sources, these men had
  begun to pursue bodily interests, and so took wives of the daughters
  of men, e.g., those who were descended from Cain or from any people
  who did not worship God.

While the ca. 6th century The Conflict of Adam and Eve with Satan (a Christian pseudepigraphical work found in Ge'ez) says:

  Certain wise men of old wrote concerning them, and say in their
  [sacred] books, that angels came down from heaven, and mingled with
  the daughters of Cain, who bare unto them these giants. But these
  [wise men] err in what they say. God forbid such a thing, that angels
  who are spirits, should be found committing sin with human beings.
  Never, that cannot be. And if such a thing were of the nature of
  angels, or Satans, that fell, they would not leave one woman on earth,
  undefiled... But many men say, that angels came down from heaven, and
  joined themselves to women, and had children by them. This cannot be
  true. But they were children of Seth, who were of the children of
  Adam, that dwelt on the mountain, high up, while they preserved their
  virginity, their innocence and their glory like angels; and were then
  called 'angels of God.' But when they transgressed and mingled with
  the children of Cain, and begat children, ill-informed men said, that
  angels had come down from heaven, and mingled with the daughters of
  men, who bare them giants.

Which seems to make sense to me.  Both wikipedia articles contain numerous references which may be of interest for further research and reading.

A second reference to Nephilim occurs in Numbers 13:32-33, but since all of mankind was destroyed in the flood of Gen 9 ff, I don't see how they could be of the same bloodline.  So that suggests that Nephilim might be more of a general than specific descriptive term.  It may be significant that both groups of men are described as "giants" (note also that Goliath and his kin, "descendants of Rapha in Gath" were described as having six fingers and six toes, which indicates some sort of genetic deformity).


Does Jesus ever claim to be God, or the son of God? While I understand there are many potential passages in the Bible of Jesus claiming to be a messiah (which I understand to mean "anointed"), a king, or one through whom it is necessary to know God, I'm interested to know if there are any places where He literally claims to be God, God-like, or related to God (i.e. the son of God).

Taking the Bible to be a reliable record of what He said (for the sake of this question), what Biblical passages illustrate Jesus literally saying He was God?

OP Edit: I see that my question has been edited to say "literally" which has caused a bit of turmoil, so I'll just say that for me "literally" is read to mean "literally stated, or inferred without interpretation". So "I intend to put on foot coverings" does not literally mean shoes, as it could mean socks, but "I intend to drive to the capital city of the country England" means you'll end up in London no matter which way you swing it. Interestingly I did try to ask the Biblical Hermenutics group this question and it was suggested I ask here.

There are many occasions on which Jesus states his identity with God.

John 8:51-59 Jesus says

  John 8:58 (NIV)
  "Before Abraham was, I am"

This is a clear
reference to the name of God. Even if there were any doubt that this
is the reference the reaction of the Pharisees clearly indicates
that (in their eyes) this is a blasphemous claim.
Matthew 9:1-7 Jesus claims to forgive sins, which the local officials (correctly) believed to be the perogative of God only.
Thomas the apostle calls Jesus "My Lord and My God", which Jesus does not correct or deny.
Also, we see this in John

  John 14:9b, 10a (NIV)
  ... Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father... Don’t you believe that I am in the Father, and that the Father is in me?

Matthew 26:63-64

  The high priest said to him, “I charge you under oath by the living God: Tell us if you are the Messiah, the Son of God.” “You have said so,” Jesus replied.

(There is a certain amount of dispute over the last item.  Many interpreters take Jesus statement as a colloquial affirmative, though some take it as meaning "so you say").

Insisting that statements by Jesus be 'literal' is missing the point. If Jesus made a statement that equated himself with God in a way that was clearly understood as such by his hearers, then that is what he did. The fact that it requires a little interpretation to our twenty-first century minds doesn't make it any less a claim.


What is the meaning of the three letters in the halo of the Acheiropoieta? In many renditions of the Acheiropoieta, three letters are present in the halo around Christ's face: omega, omicron, eta. (This is the usual clockwise, left-to-right order; but in other versions the same letters are present in the order omicron, omega, eta.) What is the meaning of these letters?
I heard in a tour of a Greek Orthodox church that the letters refer to God's revelation of his name in Exodus 3. However, the crucial words in the Septuagint - the historic Greek-language version of the Old Testament - are ἐγώ εἰμι ὁ ὤν ("I am who I am"). None of these words includes the letter eta.
Is it that case that the three letters are actually omicron, omega, nu - which is to say that they spell out ὁ ὤν ("the one who is")?

What is the meaning of the three letters in the halo of the Acheiropoieta?

Image of the Savior Nerukotvorniy (Made Without Hands): a traditional Orthodox iconography in the interpretation of Simon Ushakov (1658).
So what are the origins of Ὁ ὬΝ in the halo of Christ?
Your hunch is quite correct. These letters form the present participle, ὤν, of the Greek verb to be, with a masculine singular definite article, ὁ. A literal translation of Ὁ ὬΝ would be “the being one,” which does not mean much. “He who is” is a better translation. These words are the answer Moses received on Mount Sinai when he asked for the name of him to whom he was speaking. In Hebrew, he who was speaking said Yahweh, which is also a present participle. Greek translators of the Hebrew Bible put Yahweh as Ὁ ὬΝ.

We are so used to seeing the features of Christ in icons that we no longer pay attention to them, thinking they have always been there, as we see them, taking them for granted. We have perhaps forgotten that behind each feature there is a history and a theological meaning to discover and rediscover. So it is for the three Greek letters found in Christ’s cruciform halo.
These letters form the present participle, ὤν, of the Greek verb to be, with a masculine singular definite article, ὁ. A literal translation of Ὁ ὬΝ would be “the being one,” which does not mean much. “He who is” is a better translation. These words are the answer Moses received on Mount Sinai when he asked for the name of him to whom he was speaking. In Hebrew, he who was speaking said Yahweh, which is also a present participle. Greek translators of the Hebrew Bible put Yahweh as Ὁ ὬΝ.
Before I began to study this subject, I also thought that these letters had always been part of the image of Christ, but in examining the images that have come down to us from the first millennium, and even after, I noticed that the Ὁ ὬΝ is universally absent, as much in the West as in the East. I therefore started searching for the answer to the following questions: when, where and why did Christians add these letters to Christ’s halo?
I began by noticing that during the first millennium, Christ’s halo was sometimes empty and that, more rarely, it was absent.

The Icon of Christ Entering Jerusalem, Palm Sunday
On The Origin of Ὁ ὬΝ in The Halo of Christ

This particular icon was written by the Russian icon painter Simon Ushakov.
The entire history of such icons is quite fascinating.

Aside from the legend that Pilate had made an image of Christ, the fourth-century Eusebius of Caesarea, in his Church History, provides a more substantial reference to a "first" icon of Jesus. He relates that King Abgar of Edessa sent a letter to Jesus at Jerusalem, asking Jesus to come and heal him of an illness. In this version there is no image. Then, in the later account found in the Syriac Doctrine of Addai, a painted image of Jesus is mentioned in the story; and even later, in the account given by Evagrius, the painted image is transformed into an image that miraculously appeared on a towel when Christ pressed the cloth to his wet face.3 Further legends relate that the cloth remained in Edessa until the tenth century, when it was taken to Constantinople. In 1204 it was lost when Constantinople was sacked by Crusaders, but its iconic type had been well fixed in numerous copies.
Elsewhere in his Church History, Eusebius reports seeing what he took to be portraits of Jesus, Peter and Paul, and also mentions a bronze statue at Banias / Paneas, of which he wrote, "They say that this statue is an image of Jesus" (H.E. 7:18); further, he relates that locals thought the image to be a memorial of the healing of the woman with an issue of blood by Jesus (Luke 8:43-48), because it depicted a standing man wearing a double cloak and with arm outstretched, and a woman kneeling before him with arms reaching out as if in supplication. John Francis Wilson4 thinks it possible to have been a pagan bronze statue whose true identity had been forgotten; some have thought it to be Aesculapius, the God of healing, but the description of the standing figure and the woman kneeling in supplication is precisely that found on coins depicting the bearded emperor Hadrian reaching out to a female figure symbolizing a province kneeling before him.
After Christianity was legalized by the emperor Constantine within the Roman Empire in 313, huge numbers of pagans became converts. This created the necessity for the transfer of allegiance and practice from the old gods and heroes to the new religion, and for the gradual adaptation of the old system of image making and veneration to a Christian context, in the process of Christianization. Robin Lane Fox states "By the early fifth century, we know of the ownership of private icons of saints; by c. 480-500, we can be sure that the inside of a saint's shrine would be adorned with images and votive portraits, a practice which had probably begun earlier".
When Constantine converted to Christianity the majority of his subjects were still pagans and the Roman Imperial cult of the divinity of the emperor, expressed through the traditional burning of candles and the offering of incense to the emperor’s image, was tolerated for a period because it would have been politically dangerous to attempt to suppress it. Indeed, in the fifth century the portrait of the reigning emperor was still honoured this way in the courts of justice and municipal buildings of the empire and in 425 the Arian Philostorgius charged the orthodox in Constantinople with idolatry because they still honored the image of the emperor Constantine the Great, the founder of the city, in this way. Dix notes that this was more than a century before we find the first reference to a similar honouring of the image of Christ or his saints, but that it would seem a natural progression for the image of Christ, the King of heaven and earth, to be eventually paid the same cultic veneration as that given to the earthly Roman emperor. - Icons in Christendom

According to the Golden Legend, which is a collection of hagiographies, compiled by Jacobus de Varagine in the thirteenth century the king Abgarus sent an epistle unto Jesus and he answered him writing that he will send him one of his disciples (Jude Thaddeus) to heal him. The same works adds:

And when Abgarus saw that he might not see God presently, after that it is said in an ancient history, as John Damascene witnesseth in his fourth book, he sent a painter unto Jesu Christ for to figure the image of our Lord, to the end that at least that he might see him by his image, whom he might not see in his visage. And when the painter came, because of the great splendour and light that shone in the visage of our Lord Jesu Christ, he could not behold it, ne could not counterfeit it by no figure. And when our Lord saw this thing he took from the painter a linen cloth and set it upon his visage, and emprinted the very phisiognomy of his visage therein, and sent it unto the king Abgarus which so much desired it. And in the same history is contained how this image was figured. It was well-eyed, well-browed, a long visage or cheer, and inclined, which is a sign of maturity or ripe sadness. - History of the legend (Image of Edessa)

The Byzantine Catholic Church celebrates Feast of the Face of God on August 16.