What specific thing in the Bible separates the Old Testament from the New Testament? We have the Old Testament and the New Testament. Does Old Testament just simply refer to the time before the Incarnation and the New Testament to the time afterwards?
I do not see one specific thing that occured in the Old Testament that would be the Bible.

What specific thing is the Testament in the Old Testament and New Testament?

What is the definition of Testament and who came up with the name Old Testament and New Testament?

There's a little bit of history to the titles Old Testament and New Testament that needs to be explained.

We begin with the Greek word διαθήκη (diatheke) which has two major distinct sub-senses and cannot be translated with a single English word.

a last will and testament
a compact/contract/covenant, and in this sense it was used to translate בְּרִית (berith) from the Hebrew scriptures

You may be more familiar with the Biblical language of the Old and New Covenants. There are several passages which talk about them, which I'll quote (all from the NIV) but not really dig deeply into.

  Jeremiah 31:31-32:
  “The days are coming,” declares the Lord,
   “when I will make a new covenant
  with the people of Israel
   and with the people of Judah.
  It will not be like the covenant
   I made with their ancestors
  when I took them by the hand
   to lead them out of Egypt,
  because they broke my covenant,
   though I was a husband to them,”
  declares the Lord.

  Luke 22:20: In the same way, after the supper he took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you.

  2 Corinthians 3:13-15: We are not like Moses, who would put a veil over his face to prevent the Israelites from seeing the end of what was passing away. But their minds were made dull, for to this day the same veil remains when the old covenant is read. It has not been removed, because only in Christ is it taken away. Even to this day when Moses is read, a veil covers their hearts.

  Hebrews 8:6-7: But in fact the ministry Jesus has received is as superior to theirs as the covenant of which he is mediator is superior to the old one, since the new covenant is established on better promises. For if there had been nothing wrong with that first covenant, no place would have been sought for another.

  Hebrews 8:13: By calling this covenant “new,” he has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and outdated will soon disappear.

  Hebrews 9:15-18: For this reason Christ is the mediator of a new covenant, that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance—now that he has died as a ransom to set them free from the sins committed under the first covenant.
  In the case of a will (διαθήκη), it is necessary to prove the death of the one who made it, because a will is in force only when somebody has died; it never takes effect while the one who made it is living. This is why even the first covenant was not put into effect without blood.

So we read in Jeremiah of the promise of a New Covenant and Jesus's identification of the cup at the last supper before his death as the symbol of the New Covenant. We read in 2 Corinthians Paul say that the Old Covenant refers to the writings of Moses. In Hebrews the contrast between the Old and New Covenants is of major importance. Hebrews identifies the Old Covenant as the Israelite sacrificial system, while the New Covenant was instituted by Jesus's self-sacrifice on the cross. And in the last quote there we see the author bring both senses of διαθήκη together as he explains why Jesus's death was required to institute the New Covenant, joining the two concepts of contract and will.

These Biblical examples show the development of this idea of there being an Old Covenant of animal sacrifice which was done away with by the New Covenant of Jesus's self-sacrifice. But how did we get from there to calling the whole Hebrew Bible by the name of the Old Covenant?

The first aspect is that it is an example of synecdoche, where one thing is referred to by the name of one of its parts. So although the Mosaic covenant is only one of many covenants in the Hebrew Bible, because it was the foundation of the state of Israel, and it specified the statutes governing the formal Israelite religion, and it contained the promise of blessings and curses the prophets retold, it came to be used by Christians to refer to the whole Hebrew Bible, even though there was nothing "old" about the Noahic or Abrahamic covenants, nor were the Psalms etc. superseded.

Second, it arose through the breadth of meaning in the Greek word διαθήκη which is not shared by any of its English translations. BDAG explains that even when used in the sense of a covenant, διαθήκη has less of the sense of an agreement between two parties, and more of a "declaration of one person’s initiative". Similarly the English words testament and testimony are both derived from the Latin word testor. So the Old διαθήκη is not just a covenant, not just a will, but a testimony and witness to God.

The specific use of the terms Old Testament and New Testament to refer to the two parts of the Bible arose quite early in the history of the church. One noteable use was from Tertullian who was wrote against Marcion, who taught that the Hebrew and Greek scriptures revealed two gods who were at odds with each other, Creator and Christ. Tertullian countered by saying that the two collections of texts were two witnesses to the one God:

  the Divine Word, who is doubly edged with the two testaments of the law and the gospel.
  ...
  it is certain that the whole aim at which he [Marcion] has strenuously laboured, even in the drawing up of his Antitheses, centres in this, that he may establish a diversity between the Old and the New Testaments, so that his own Christ may be separate from the Creator, as belonging to this rival god, and as alien from the law and the prophets.

(Tertullian here also refers to the "law and gospel", two other labels for the Old and New Covenants, which has been used by many over the years, most notably Martin Luther.)

And there we have it. The two titles are terms where the part is used to refer to the whole, and the specific old thing is the Mosaic covenant.


Were all the various systems of Gnosticism Docetist? From Pelikan's first volume of The Christian Tradition:

[The Savior] is also a way of distinguishing between Gnostic and non-Gnostic species of
Christianity, for one of the characteristics of Gnostic doctrine was its denial that the
Savior was possessed of a material, fleshly body .... an explicit effort to protect the
person of the Savior from involvement in matter and in suffering soon became a hallmark
of most Christian Gnostics.

Is Docetism a necessary feature of the label "Gnosticism", and are all Gnostics necessary Docetist, or are there examples of Gnostics that were not Docetist?

If Docetism is a necessary feature of Gnostics, why is this so? Pelikan mentions that they were very concerned with preserving the conflation of the Savior with matter.

Short Answer: No, Docetism was not a necessary feature of Gnosticism (or even the Christian variety of Gnosticism.) It was however, a very popular solution for Gnostics, who necessarily held that God cannot interact directly with the material world.

Gnosticism held that the material world was evil and the spiritual world was holy. At first glance this might sound semi-Christian, but here are a few key implications of Gnosicism:

A holy God could not possibly have any association with the wicked material realm. Thus, He could not have created the physical realm, nor could He directly interact with it, let alone come and be encased in it.
The goal was to escape the physical realm (through the layers of intermediary states) to the spiritual realm. The idea of a physical resurrection was absolutely appalling to Gnostics. Why would you want to be raised back up into the disgusting, wicked, base elements that you had finally been freed from upon death?

Docetism was one way of reconciling Gnostic philosophy with Christianity. Yes, Jesus was God, they would say, but He most certainly was not a real, physical man. Nor did He die, and He most certainly did not raise up in a physical body.

Arianism (including Socianism) would be the other obvious solution for the Gnostic Christian. Yes, they would say, Jesus was a real man, but He most certainly was not God.

There were other fringe solutions as well, such as the idea that Jesus was something in between God and man, but Docetism and Arianism were by far the most prominent solutions.


Christians showing purported satanic signs I have read about satanic symbols and signs and that made me conscious of people around me doing them. Christians, relatives, people I know who I believe cannot belong to any cult. Here are the common signs

The first and last it's claimed to be making obeisance to Satan showing his 2 horns and the middle one is claimed to be representing 3 6's = 666. Note the literal meaning written under the images, it is believed it is coded like that so people wouldn't know the actual meaning.

From the image below, captured from wikipaedia - OK-Sign, note the highlighted comment

How do other Christians view this? Does it matter if Christians show them?

As for "how other Christians view this", the answer is "it depends on the Christian in question."

Some Christians, as you pointed out, believe these are signs of the devil, others don't. Just like some Christians see Harry Potter as Satan's way of luring kids into witchcraft, while others think it's a good read and good movies. Some Christians see Satanic symbols in the Proctor and Gamble logo, or the mark of the beast in UPC barcodes.

As for whether or not it matters, I defer to Romans 14 (KJV)

  1 Him that is weak in the faith receive ye, but not to doubtful
  disputations.

  2 For one believeth that he may eat all things: another, who is weak,
  eateth herbs.

  3 Let not him that eateth despise him that eateth not; and let not him
  which eateth not judge him that eateth: for God hath received him.

  4 Who art thou that judgest another man's servant? to his own master
  he standeth or falleth. Yea, he shall be holden up: for God is able to
  make him stand.

  5 One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day
  alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind.

  ....

  14 I know, and am persuaded by the Lord Jesus, that there is
  nothing unclean of itself: but to him that esteemeth any thing to be
  unclean, to him it is unclean.

To those that believe these are Satan's signs, it matters. To those that don't, it doesn't.


Affordability of Festivals During the lifetime of Jesus, there were three major festivals that took place each year : Passover (around April) is an 8 day celebration, the Feast of Weeks (around May) is another 3 day celebration, and the Feast of Tabernacles (around October) is 7 days long.

It was expected for all faithful to make a pilgrimage to Jerusalem to attend these festivities.

Nazareth is about 150 kilometers from Jerusalem. If I'm doing my math right, someone walking 4.5 km/hr for about 8 hours a day and stopping for meals will take about 5 days to make the trip, each way.

I'm curious how families in Jesus' time could do this? They'd be out of work for without pay for at least 2.5 weeks for the festivities themselves, and then maybe another six weeks out of work traveling. 8.5 weeks out of work, total.

How did contemporary families in Jesus' time handle the festivals? Did they only go to one per year? Save up to make it every few years? From the text, I get an impression that many families made every festival, every year, but the economics of it don't make sense.

It has nothing to do with economics or “affordability”.  Leviticus 23:2 refers to the seven Jewish festivals, literally “appointed times,” also called “holy convocations.” These were days appointed and ordained by God to be kept to the honour of His name.  The Jewish feasts are closely related to Israel’s spring and fall harvests and agricultural seasons. They were to remind the Israelites each year of God’s ongoing protection and provision.  The Feast of Unleavened Bread followed immediately after Passover and lasted one week, during which time the Israelites ate no bread with yeast in remembrance of their haste in preparing for their exodus from Egypt.

Jews were commanded under the Mosaic Law to travel to Jerusalem to celebrate Passover, Shavuot and Sukkot.  Here is a brief extract from a detailed article on Passover:

  Together with Shavuot and Sukkot, Passover was one of the Three Pilgrimage Festivals (Shalosh Regalim) during which the entire population of the kingdom of Judah made a pilgrimage to the Temple in Jerusalem. In Israel, Passover is the seven-day holiday of the Feast of Unleavened Bread, with the first and last days celebrated as legal holidays and as holy days involving holiday meals, special prayer services, and abstention from work; the intervening days are known as Chol HaMoed ("Weekdays [of] the Festival"). Every family large enough to completely consume a young lamb or wild goat was required to offer one for sacrifice at the Jewish Temple on the afternoon of the 14th day of Nisan (Numbers 9:11), and eat it that night, which was the 15th of Nisan (Exodus 12:6). If the family was too small to finish eating the entire offering in one sitting, an offering was made for a group of families. The sacrifice could not be offered with anything leavened (Exodus 23:18), and had to be roasted, without its head, feet, or inner organs being removed (Exodus 12:9) and eaten together with unleavened bread (matzo) and bitter herbs (maror). One had to be careful not to break any bones from the offering (Exodus 12:46), and none of the meat could be left over by morning (Exodus 12:10 Exodus 23:18).  Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passover

Apart from the fact that participating in these holy festivals was a command, we should perhaps realise they were also holidays.  Nobody could work.  Everybody got together with family and friends and had a really good time on the journey there and back.  When Jesus was 12 years old, Joseph and Mary brought Jesus along on the trip to celebrate the Feast with them.  Luke 2:41-52 describes how Joseph and Mary only discovered Jesus was not in the caravan some two days after they left Jerusalem!  Probably less to do with parental negligence than the fact that this journey was a great excuse to catch up on events and everybody was having a really good time.

These religious festivals were a cause for celebration and, regardless of the time or the cost involved, they were also holidays.  I suspect that people looked forward to these gatherings.

P.S. Going back 2,000 years we need to remember that Jewish people were probably more spiritually minded than today's materialistic society.  Their lives revolved around God, whom they believed in. Also, family played a huge part in the lives of those people.  That, of course, is an opinion, but it goes some way to explain why they would make the journey to Jerusalem to worship God.  They probably looked forward to those holy days, just like some people look forward to Christmas or Thanksgiving.


What is the age at which Peter the Apostle died? In John 21:18–19 (RSVCE) we hear Jesus telling Peter:

  “Truly, truly, I say to you, when you were young, you girded yourself and walked where you would; but when you are old, you will stretch out your hands, and another will gird you and carry you where you do not wish to go.”  (This he said to show by what death he was to glorify God.) And after this he said to him, “Follow me.”

Neither the Acts of the Apostles nor the Epistles give an account of how and at what age Peter died. If the words of Jesus to Peter are to be taken as a prophecy, the latter must have died at a ripe age.

My question therefore is: what account does the Catholic Church give on the death of Peter the Apostle, with specific reference to the age at which he died?

The Catholic Church does not know with any exactitude the real timeline of the Apostle Peter. So much of this question is simply based on tradition.

For the most part, it is believed that the Apostle St. Peter was born in Bethsaida (John 1:42, 44), about the year 1 AD.

  St. Peter's true and original name was Simon, sometimes occurring in the form Symeon. (Acts 15:14; 2 Peter 1:1). He was the son of Jona (Johannes) and was born in Bethsaida (John 1:42, 44), a town on Lake Genesareth, the position of which cannot be established with certainty, although it is usually sought at the northern end of the lake. The Apostle Andrew was his brother, and the Apostle Philip came from the same town. - St. Peter, Prince of the Apostles

As for how and when the Apostle St. Peter died, it is traditionally believed that he died between 64 and 67 AD and was crucified upside down at Rome. That makes St. Peter between 63 and 66 years old when he died. Historical documents are not more sure of anything more exact. One can read what the Catholic Encyclopedia has to say on this subject. Some even claim he died in 55 AD.

Here is a traditional way of reading about St. Peter's death.

  Saints Peter and his older brother Andrew. Both were crucified as old men. Peter was, of course, our first pope, Christ’s Vicar, the head of the visible Church. Andrew was the first called by Christ to be an apostle. He was a disciple of Saint John the Baptist. Andrew was there when John pointed at Jesus on the banks of the River Jordan and said: “Behold the Lamb of God!” Andrew followed Christ after His holy baptism and innocently asked Him where He lived. Jesus innocently answered: “Come and see”. Saint Andrew preached the Faith in Asia Minor (Turkey) and in Scythia, east of Turkey (north of Iran). He also preached in Greece and Macedonia. He was crucified in Achaia at Patras in the year 61. Tied to an X-shaped cross after being scourged, he made the cross his pulpit and preached to the people for two days before he died. Peter was martyred under the Nero persecution in the year 67. Peter, too, was, as His Master, crucified by nails on Vatican hill. His wish to be crucified upside down, out of reverence for Jesus, and out of his profound humility, was granted. Saint Paul, the Apostle, was beheaded on the same day as Peter outside the walls of Rome. - How Did the Apostles Die?

Other Catholic websites will state that he died in the year 64 AD.


How it is possible to be one God in three persons (Jesus, Holy Ghost, and God the Father)? 1)”Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one. Deuteronomy 6:4

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

  3)In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” John 1:1

  4)He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. For by[a] him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things were created through him and for him. And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together. Coossians 1:15-17

  5)”and behold, a voice from heaven said, “This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased.” Mathew 3:17

According to these 5 verses, it tells that Jesus was created before all the rest. And in another verse says that Jesus always existed. And in another verse, it says that Jesus is God. This where I can’t explain. How can Jesus, Holy Ghost and God be one God?

In first, I thought that Jesus and Holy Ghost are 2 different creators that are uncreated and God is the uncreated one which it will equal 3 gods.

CLARIFICATION

I had a conversation today with my religious teacher, and I asked him, “sir, can I ask you something?” And he said, “yes, you can” and I asked him, “is that true that Jesus is God’s creation?” And he said, “no, Jesus is God, in fact, he part from trinity of one God.” And I asked, “how can this be possible?” And he said, “I don’t know”. What I found that in Bible says that God has sent Jesus, what is that suppose to mean? Is Jesus another creator like God Himself? And in another verse I find this:

  ”this is My beloved son! So listen to him”

Which it indicates that Jesus and God are different and not 3 in one God. But some rumors say opposite that Jesus, Holy Ghost and Father are three persons in one God.

  “I’ll be a Father to you, and you will be My sons and daughters, Says the Lord Almighty” [Corinthians, 6:18]

My questions are:

How it is possible to be 3 persons in one God?
Is there anything in Bible that clarifies the concept of trinity?

Can anyone please find something in Bible that can clearly explain how this is possible?

God is not a person.  God is a Being.
Within the One Being of God subsist the three persons of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.
Together, these three make up the One Being of God.
When Jesus was baptised in the River Jordan, all three were present: the Father whose voice was heard from heaven, the Son who was being baptised, and the Holy Spirit who appeared in the form of a dove.
That is why, when the Son died, the Father and the Holy Spirit did not also die.  The Being of God was not killed when the Son was killed because the Son is not the Father, the Father is not the Son, and the Holy Spirit is neither Father nor Son.
There has only ever been the One Being of God and there will only ever be the One Being of God.
Expressions such as "person", "Father" and "Son" are used to help us grasp the concept of a complex creator God, although it must be noted that the pre-mortal Jesus was never created, but was active in creation, along with the Holy Spirit.
The best Bible verses to explain this are in John 1:1-5 and 14:

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.  He was with God in the beginning.  Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.  In him was life, and that life was the light of men.  The light shines in the darkness, but the darkness has not understood it...  The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us.  We have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth."

Jesus is the Word.  Jesus came to earth to be born of a woman.  Jesus was God with us, back then. The Son laid down his life then took it up again and has returned to heaven, from whence he first came.
Edit: To Subsist, within the context of the Being of God, is To Exist, To Be.
Response to additional question: 2 Corinthians 6:18 must be read within the context of the previous verses about Christians not being yoked with unbelievers. They are being told to have nothing to do with pagans and idolatry.  Verse 18 is a quote from 2 Samuel 7:14 where God, through the prophet Samuel, makes promises to David regarding his kingdom.  God says “I will be his father and he shall be my son.  When he does wrong I shall punish him...  But my love will never be taken away from him as I took it away from Saul.”  David was not God’s literal son.  This is the explanation given in the NIV Study Bible notes:

This familial language expresses the special relationship God promises to maintain with David’s descendants... It marks him as the one God has chosen and enthroned to rule in his name as the official representative of God’s rule over his people. ”
The Christians in Corinth are being reminded of their special relationship with God.  Verse 16 explains: “I will live with them and walk among them, and I will be their God, and they will be my people.”
Romans 8:14 says that those who are led by the Spirit of God are sons of God.  In other words, all who have entered into the new covenant Christ Jesus established are adopted into God’s family.  It’s a spiritual relationship.   Ephesians 1:5 explains: “In love he predestined us to be adopted as his sons through Jesus Christ.”

There is only one Son of God, and that is Jesus, who brought with him his divine nature which was added to his human nature.  Those who belong to Christ are adopted into God’s family as sons and daughters, but not physically.  2 Corinthians 6:18 is about our spiritual relationship with God.


When and why did the modern Young Earth Creationism movement gain such a large following? Flimzy, in his answer here points out that

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

and gives the source for this information. Yet, today, the view that the Genesis account is literal (Young Earth Creationism) is widespread. Given that the early church seems not to have taken the Genesis account literally, when and why did the modern YEC movement gain such a following among Christians, especially in America? Is there a specific event or set of events that prompted this shift, or was it a gradual process over time?

Young earth creationism (YEC) holds that the creation of the universe took place (a) approximately 6000 years ago, and (b) lasted exactly six days.
Pre-Scientific Views
The first part, a 6000-year-old universe, was a common belief among Christians and Jews until the advent of modern geology in the 18th century. Many Christians over the centuries have attempted to use the Bible's chronologies to calculate the age of the universe. The best known of these was Bishop James Ussher, who published a chronology in 1650 stating that the universe was created on October 23, 4004 BC.
The second part, a literal six days, is of more recent origin. Ancient Christians generally held that creation happened instantaneously or that the days were either unspecified periods or represented 1000 years each.
The early reformers Martin Luther and John Calvin sought to discern the plain meaning of the text, and promoted belief in a 6000-year-old earth and a six-day creation. When Copernicus' De revolutionibus orbium coelestium was published, Luther and Calvin argued that a geocentric universe was the Biblical view.
Within about two generations Copernicus' views won the day, and the Bible's references to a geocentric earth were ignored. The 6000-year-old earth remained a popular belief until the 18th century, when Scottish scientist James Hutton published Theory of the Earth; or an Investigation of the Laws observable in the Composition, Dissolution, and Restoration of Land upon the Globe, laying the groundwork for modern geology, including the geologic time scale. Studies of rock strata convinced most scientists that the earth was much older than had been previously thought. By the 19th century, estimates of the age of the earth were in the millions of years. Most Christians at the time were prepared to accept the conclusions of geologists.
But then Ellen G White, founder of the Seventh Day Adventist movement, claimed that God had showed her visions of the creation of the universe and that it had literally happened in six days. (sources: 1 2 3)
Modern Young-Earth Creationism
The first attempt to give YEC a scientific footing was in 1906 when Adventist George McCready Price published a book titled Illogical Geology: The Weakest Point in the Evolution Theory in which he advanced the idea that geological strata were produced by Noah's flood. Though he had no formal training in geology, Price claimed to have "firsthand knowledge of field geology" due to having traveled extensively. Price's views were not taken seriously among geologists, and was not influential even among evangelical Christians for half a century.
In the 1950s, the seeds of the modern YEC movement were planted in reaction to two events. In 1954 evangelical theologian Bernard Ramm published The Christian View of Science and Scripture, which sought to reconcile scripture and modern science. Five years later, 1959 saw worldwide recognition of the centennial anniversary of Darwin's On the Origin of Species.
In response, hydraulic engineer Henry Morris (who acknowledge Price's influence) teamed with John Whitcomb, a Bible teacher who had studied some geology in college, to write The Genesis Flood which was published in 1961. The Genesis Flood brought Price's flood geology to mainstream evangelicals and kickstarted the creation science movement.
So YEC in its modern form—as an alternative to mainstream science—started to become popular in the 1960s, although its roots stretch back a little more than a century.


The Explosion of Thera 1642–1540 BCE If we take the eruption of Thera... Which I believe would have had a high impact on all the surrounding countries... Has anyone associated this event, even theoretically, to a Biblical event.

Also another event that need to be dealth with is the Bronze age collapse. 1177 BC.

Eric H. Cline, 1177 B.C. The Year Civilization Collapsed (Princeton University Press, 2014)

Donald B. Redford, The Coming of the Sea Peoples”, Egypt, Canaan, and Israel in Ancient Times (Princeton University Press, 1992), 241-256.

Every one was impacted and I suspect Israel too.
Where do we put this in the Biblical stories ?

Question: Where do we put the explosion of Thera in the biblical stories (of the Exodus)?

Opinions vary as to the date of the eruption of Thera.  One source places the event anywhere from 1645 B.C. to 1500 B.C.  Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Thera

Another source says this:

  In 1646 B.C. a massive volcanic eruption, perhaps one of the largest ever witnessed by mankind, took place at Thera (present day Santorini), an island in the Aegean not far from Crete.  Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minoan_eruption

With regard to when the Exodus happened, my NIV Study Bible gives 1446 B.C. as does this other source:

  The date of the exodus was 1446 B.C., in the 18th dynasty of Egypt, 480 years before Solomon built the Temple: 1 Kings 6:1. Source: https://www.bible.ca/archeology/bible-archeology-exodus-route-goshen-red-sea.htm

In other words, the crossing of the Red Sea happened long after the eruption of Thera.

Although one Egyptologist (Dr. Hans Goedicke of John Hopkins University) came up with the idea that the Exodus coincided with the volcanic eruption at Thera (in 1477 B.C.) the date of the Exodus (1446 B.C.) does not coincide with the supposed date of the eruption at Thera.  Until somebody can come up with a verifiable date for the eruption at Thera, it is a waste of time to speculate further.

As the author of this article says at the end of this paper, “The Thera theories are not only bad science, they are bad theology.”  https://www.blogs.hss.ed.ac.uk/science-and-religion/2014/02/26/thera-egypt-exodus/


What has been said about happy unbelievers? I've listened to many sermons, from Jerry Falwell to Tim Keller to Tullian Tchividjian. One common theme is that bad theology, that misapplication of Scripture, can be the direct cause of temporal sadness, even clinical depression. It wouldn't be too hard to find citations from the above pastors' work, and I imagine that every pastor eventually makes the claim.

For example, I just heard a sermon from Tullian that said having a legalistic, reward/punishment view for improving the behavior of your wife only leads to conflict. Here's another similar quote: "Legalism breeds a sense of entitlement that turns us into complainers".

Yet "legalism" may be a fair description of many philosophies and non-Christian religions. And we don't necessarily see a 1:1 correlation between depression and having other religions. I've known nonbelievers, usually immigrants, who have a very cheerful disposition.

Q:What have prominent theologians said about happy nonbelievers? Are they said not to be really happy? Having a short, temporal happiness? Or have they been careful to point out that bad theology causing unhappiness isn't indication lack of good theology dooms one to general unhappiness?

To be sure, unbelievers can live in a certain state of fulfillment (happiness).  However, that fulfillment would be limited to body and soul.  A person may be very healthy and may have a great career, a great family and great relationships.  Christianity would assert that fulfillment in these areas comes as a result of following the teachings of the Bible, whether knowingly or not.  For instance, overindulging the flesh does not lead to fulfillment.

However, from a biblical perspective, we are not merely bodies and souls, but spirits as well.  Just as our bodies need and enjoy and are satisfied with physical things, so too our spirits need and enjoy and are satisfied only within a relationship with God.

It should be noted, though, that many people who have never experienced a relationship with God really do not know or have no experience to understand what they are missing.  Thus, they may feel completely satisfied, having no understanding that there is more to be enjoyed.

A person who has never tasted ice cream may assume that all that they have is all they could ever hope for.  One stop at Dairy Queen, though, and they realize they were missing out and will never be satisfied again if they have to live without a hot fudge sundae.

So, there is a deeper spiritual fulfillment that can only be found in God that unbelievers do not experience.


Is Matthew 17:24 a reference to the Fiscus Judaicus? Matthew 17:24 says:

  "After Jesus and his disciples arrived in Capernaum, the collectors of the two-drachma temple tax came to Peter and asked, “Doesn’t your teacher pay the temple tax?”

My professor uses this verse as an example of the "Fiscus Judaicus," which would've been in operation after the Jewish Revolt in 70 C.E. His point is that Matthew erred and accidentally included a function that was present during the time Matthew wrote his gospel (roughly around 70 C.E), but would not have existed during Jesus' day.

So, my question becomes: Has Matthew erred in his writing and included a governmental function that did not exist in Jesus' day?

The tradition of giving half-a shekel to the Temple of God dates back to the times of the book of Exodus, as we see at Exodus 30:11-13 (RSVCE):

  The Lord said to Moses, “When you take the census of the people of Israel, then each shall give a ransom for himself to the Lord when you number them, that there be no plague among them when you number them. Each who is numbered in the census shall give this: half a shekel according to the shekel of the sanctuary (the shekel is twenty gerahs), half a shekel as an offering to the Lord.”

There were different taxes meant for the Temple and for the Roman Empire, as we read in Matthew 22:17-21 (RSVCE):

  “Tell us, then, what you think. Is it lawful to pay taxes to Caesar, or not?” But Jesus, aware of their malice, said, “Why put me to the test, you hypocrites? Show me the money for the tax.” And they brought him a coin. And Jesus said to them, “Whose likeness and inscription is this?”  They said, “Caesar’s.” Then he said to them, “Render therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.”

In fact, the Jews were required to pay the Temple-tax using the drachmas bearing Hebrew inscription and symbols, whereas the tax to Romans would be paid using the coins having the imprints of Caesar. The role of money-changers in the Temple was to facilitate exchange of the coins, so that the faithful would be able to pay their Temple-tax and  offerings in Jewish coins.


Was Origen and/or certain teachings considered a heretic and/or heretical? What was clear enough has become muddled for reasons unknown about Origen.  We can speculate the resurgence of the idea of universal salvation is one reason for Origen's rise.

  In the seventeenth century, the English Cambridge Platonist Henry More (1614 – 1687) was a devoted Origenist[240] and, although he did reject the notion of universal salvation,[240] he accepted most of Origen's other teachings.
  -wiki-

  A few of his views were unorthodox, to the point that later generations debated whether he was a saint or a heretic. ...  For instance, Origen believed in the pre-existence of souls and that one’s status in the present world was proportional to one’s commitment to God during this pre-existence. His negative attitude toward the material world wasn’t much different than that of the Gnostics he so strongly opposed. He also considered the Trinity a ranking, not an equality, and believed that everyone, even demons, would one day be forgiven and purified by God. These claims were key to his being declared a heretic by various councils in the centuries after his death.
  -source-

So, what does the earlier church (pre 1054) believe about Origen?

TL;DR: In his day, Origen was widely recognized as the most brilliant theologian of his time. Epiphanius attacked Origen centuries later and there was a lot of controversy. While Origen's beliefs on universal restoration have undoubtedly been a factor in his modern popularity, they weren't significant factors in his reception and controversy in the first millennium.

During his lifetime, Origen was incredibly popular and influential throughout the Christian world. He was widely regarded as the leading intellectual of Christianity. Origen was sought out by pagan philosophers and political officials. He had many devoted admirers among the bishops He was formally recognized by church synods as the chief theologian of Caesaria as the ultimate expert in theology. Later in life, he was considered the most orthodox of all theologians by the Christians of the eastern Mediterranean. When other Christian teachers were suspected of heresy, Origen was the one commissioned to correct them.

However, the bishop of Origen's home area, Demetrius, was threatened by Origen's activity and harshly attacked Origen throughout his lifetime. The accusations against Origen faded with the death of Demetrius, but they did not disappear entirely and they continued to haunt him for the rest of his career. Demetrius' diatribes had limited influence in Origen's lifetime, but provided source material for later opposition to Origen.

After his death around 253 CE, Origen was hailed as a martyr of the faith for his perseverance despite lengthy torture during the Decian persecution His work, On the First Principles became a landmark book which systematically laid out the foundations of Christian theology for centuries to come.

Every Christian theologian who came after him was influenced by his theology, whether directly or indirectly. He continued to be regarded as the bastion of orthodoxy and his philosophy practically defined Eastern Christianity. Origen himself was revered as one of the greatest of all Christian teachers;

As time progressed, however, Origen became criticized under the standard of orthodoxy in later eras, rather than the standards of his own lifetime. In the early fourth century, the Christian writer Methodius of Olympus criticized some of Origen's more speculative arguments, but otherwise agreed with Origen on all other points of theology. Peter of Antioch and Eustathius of Antioch also criticized Origen as heretical.

It was Epiphanius of Salamis who vociferously attacked Origen around 394 CE and sought to have him denounced as a heretic, causing an enormous stir among theologians known as the First Origenist controversy. He has been quite controversial ever since.

Much of this is adapted from the Origen article on Wikipedia. See that page history for full attribution.


What happens to a human after he dies according to Catholicism? What happens to a human after he dies according to the Catholicism? A good answer should reference official church sources.

In the Penny Catechism Q 332. asks, "What are the four last things to be ever remembered?"

The answer is:

  The four last things to be ever remembered are Death, Judgment, Hell, and Heaven. [cf. Ecclus 7:36].

Therefore after death the body turns to dust and the soul of man is judged1.

The soul of man then goes to hell or to heaven (perhaps via purgatory) and awaits the resurrection of the body so that each one may receive good or evil, according to what he has done in the body. [cf. CCC 366.]

1. cf. Heb 9:27 (RSVCE).

Cf. Particular Judgment | New Advent.

Please see also: ARTICLE 12 "I BELIEVE IN LIFE EVERLASTING" of the Catechism of the Catholic Church.


Why do Daily Office readings in the BCP 1928 sometimes repeat? Can anyone explain why the Daily Office readings in the 1928 (Episcopalian) Book of Common Prayer (containing the 1943/45 revision of the lectionary) sometimes repeat on Sundays readings that were read on weekdays during the previous week?

For example, the First Sunday after Easter calls for an Evening Prayer reading of Zephaniah 3:14-20 and John 20:19-31.  But Zephaniah 3:14-20 was already read on Friday Easter Week's Evening Prayer, and John 20:19-23 was read on Wednesday Easter Week's Evening Prayer.

I'm not a scholar of liturgical history, but the lectionary for Sunday's readings and weekday readings have followed separate cycles probably since 1561.  Additionally, both cycles lean towards giving readings appropriate to the season.  As a result things get repeated for the benefit of those who normally only show up on Sundays.

If you want to learn more, I recommend checking out haligweorc a blog by Derek Olson who really is a scholar of liturgical history among other things.


Was Jesus a Cynic (Greek philosophy)? Cynicism is a school of Greek philosophy. It taught that

  the purpose of life was to live in virtue, in agreement with nature. As reasoning creatures, people could gain happiness by rigorous training and by living in a way which was natural for humans, rejecting all conventional desires for wealth, power, sex, and fame. Instead, they were to lead a simple life free from all possessions. (Wikipedia)

Some scholars have suggested that Jesus shows signs of being influenced by Cynicism, such as Burton L. Mack and John Dominic Crossan of the Jesus Seminar. They say that Jesus was more heavily influenced by Greek ideas than Jewish prophetic traditions. What evidence is there that Jesus was influenced by Cynicism and taught in accordance with it?

Some scholars have also stated that Q, the hypothesised shared source of Matthew and Luke, has strong similarities with Cynicism. What in Q has been identified as Cynic teaching?

Your definition of cynicism includes
" rejecting all conventional desires for A. wealth, B. power, C. sex, and D. fame."

A. Regarding wealth-
His Father owns the cattle on a thousand hills- Proverbs and He miraculously fished a coin out of a fish's mouth. www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+17%3A24-27&version=CEV  Any possible possession he could need was available to him.  But as far as I can tell, he lived with little money, IMHO
i. to relate more closely to the poor.
ii. gave most of his money away
iii. demonstration of His dependence on Father and Holy Spirit

B. Power-
Similar to money he had all power one could possibly want, but chose to be a servant as demonstration of His love to us.  The name he most frequently used for himself was "Son of Man".  https://www.biblegateway.com/quicksearch/?qs_version=NASB&quicksearch=+%22son+of+man%22&startnumber=26&begin=47&end=50  This giving up of power culminated in the ultimate sacrifice on the cross.  After the cross, He is now seated on His throne & now has all the power in His own right.

C. Sex
Although He, Himself lived an entirely celibate life, he made clear sex is a good thing in marriage  "and the two shall become one flesh; so they are no longer two, but one flesh." https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark%2010&version=NASB
The term one flesh has several meanings one of which is making love.

D. Fame
There are times when he certainly avoided the spotlight.  He was confident & secure enough in His own identity to not seek it.  However, considering 2,000 years later, many or most people on the earth since then have heard His name, I would certainly say He is extremely famous.

One other point-
Can you clarify your definition of natural?  I'm going to take m
"living in a way which was natural for humans..."  For humans, rebellion, pride & selfishness are natural.  The goal is not self sufficiency, but dependency on Father.  He had none of these.  We don't teach those characteristics to children, but they exhibit them.  1 Corinthians 2:14 on the same site as above.

To summarize, Christ lived not seeking these but was confident His Father would provide them when the appropriate time came.


Where in the Biblical narrative does God first reveal himself as the only living and true god? It seems upon course consideration that God has always taught that he is the only actual God. But upon closer inspection, it appears that God reveals himself to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob as "El Shaddai" which is "God Almighty" or "The Almighty God", El being the general word for "a god" in the Canaanite language. He is also referred to as "El Elyon" which is "Most High God" or "Uppermost God."

He says to Moses in Exodus 6:3,

  "I appeared to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, as God Almighty, but by My name, YHWH, I did not make Myself known to them."

These names from Genesis, as well as much of the dialogue in the narrative that forms a context for them, seem to me to suggest that the patriarchs revered YHWH as the greatest of the gods or the god of gods, but not necessarily the only real God.

Later, the Spirit of Prophecy reveals through Isaiah that YHWH is the only true God.

  Isaiah 43:9-13 (NASB)

  9 All the nations have gathered together
  So that the peoples may be assembled.
  Who among them can declare this
  And proclaim to us the former things?
  Let them present their witnesses that they may be justified,
  Or let them hear and say, “It is true.”
  10 “You are My witnesses,” declares the Lord,
  “And My servant whom I have chosen,
  So that you may know and believe Me
  And understand that I am He.
  Before Me there was no God formed,
  And there will be none after Me.
  11 “I, even I, am the Lord,
  And there is no savior besides Me.
  12 “It is I who have declared and saved and proclaimed,
  And there was no strange god among you;
  So you are My witnesses,” declares the Lord,
  “And I am God.
  13 “Even from eternity I am He,
  And there is none who can deliver out of My hand;
  I act and who can reverse it?”

  Isaiah 44:6 Thus says the LORD, the King of Israel and his Redeemer, the LORD of hosts: 'I am the first and I am the last, And there is no God besides Me.

I can't find any references before Isaiah that clearly state that there are no other gods, without qualifiers like "before me" or "like me". Where in the biblical narrative is it first made clear that YHWH is not only the most powerful and greatest God, but he is the One True God, and that all other beings or objects that might be called "gods" are false?

I think you are missing something by eliminating verses that contain the qualifiers along the lines of "there are no gods like me." I think these are very strong statements for God being the only living god.

What you seem to be saying is that a statement like this is comparative in nature, i.e. "No god is like me in what I am able to do" or "No god is as great as I am." I would posit that God is actually talking about his nature in statements like these. So what God is saying is more along the lines of "No god is of the same nature as I am." In other words, no other gods exist.

That being said, to specifically answer your question, I would say Deuteronomy 6:4 is a strong statement for God being the one true god:

  Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one.
   (NIV)

The footnotes in multiple translations note that this could also be translated as

  The Lord is our God, the Lord alone


What is the Biblical basis for disbelief in the doctrine of the Trinity? In related form to a previous question on the basis for the Trinity, what is the Biblical basis for disbelief of the doctrine?

Not all Christians (and perhaps not all branches of Christendom) hold to a Trinitarian view - how are those views justified from the Bible?

Specifically, what verses do non-Trinitarians cite to support their views / contradict the doctrine of the Trinity?

note - I am a very committed Trinitarian, personally; this question should not be a platform to rail against non-Trinitarian beliefs

Yes, it's long!

Yes, I know this is a long answer. Sorry about that!

However, given the huge amount of ink (and pixels) that has been expended on the doctrine of the Trinity for almost two thousand years now, I do not see how justice can be done to the subject in the brief answers that are preferred here on StackExchange.

I therefore ask for your patience and indulgence as I attempt to give a proper answer on the most highly debated and contested issue in the history of Christian doctrine.

The theological basis for this response

This answer is based on the Bible interpretations and Christian theology put forth by Emanuel Swedenborg (1688-1772), which is the basis for the Bible interpretations and theology of the various New Church, or Swedenborgian, denominations that were founded after his death.

This theology is not unitarian as that is usually defined, because Swedenborg stated that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are all fully divine, and are God.
This theology is not trinitarian as that is usually defined, because although Swedenborg stated that there is a Trinity in God, he denied that the Trinity consists of three persons, but stated that Father, Son, and Holy Spirit exist in a single person of God.
It is also not modalist, as explained in this answer.

Though Swedenborg's theology has been identified with many earlier theologians and heresies rejected by Roman Catholic, Protestant, and Orthodox Christianity, a closer examination shows that his theology fundamentally disagrees with every such theology or heresy that has been attributed to him. To the best of my knowledge as a lifelong scholar and teacher of Swedenborg's theology, his solution to the problem of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit presented in the Bible as being one God is unique in the history of Christian thought. It skips over all the creeds, and relies on the Bible's own statements.

Though it is beyond the scope of the question and this answer to present a full explanation of Swedenborg's doctrine of a Trinity in one person of God, it will be necessary to provide a sketch of it at the end in order to properly answer the question from a Swedenborgian Christian perspective.

The definition of "Trinity"

Also in order to properly answer the question, it is necessary to be specific about the meaning of "the Trinity" as it is almost universally defined in Christianity today.

"The Trinity" does not mean merely an acceptance of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as God. Rather, it specifies that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are each distinct persons of God.

The most compact definition of the Trinity as almost universally accepted in Christianity today is:

One God in three persons.

Beyond that, the definition of "Trinity" as used in most Christian theologies gets less unanimous and more conflicted. However, it is commonly stated that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit share a single substance or essence, which is expressed in three distinct persons or hypostases.

The question as asked is:

  What is the Biblical basis for disbelief in the doctrine of the
  Trinity?

This response is based on the above widely accepted definition of the Trinity.

Note that though I will commonly refer to the doctrine of "a Trinity of persons," if I simply refer to "the doctrine of the Trinity" or "trinitarian doctrine" without specifying otherwise, I am referring to the same doctrine, as defined above.

This response is not based on prooftexting

While I am perfectly capable of prooftexting with the best of 'em, I doubt that anyone who has spent any significant time reading pro-trinitarian and anti-trinitarian debates has not already read whole volumes of selected verses from the Bible purporting to demonstrate one position or the other. I suppose that if all the arguments were put together, nearly every verse in the entire Bible that says anything at all about God has been brought forward both in support of and against both positions.

And yet, each side of the debate still continues to believe that its position is correct while its opponent's position is incorrect based on the Bible.

In short, prooftexting the Trinity has already been done, and has failed to produce any significant results.

Therefore though this response will necessarily make reference to the Bible from time to time, my main approach will be to take a broader view based on the Bible as a whole, and why, from the perspective of Swedenborgian theology, trinitarian theology as adhered to in most of Christianity today does not have a sound biblical basis.

The Trinity is not taught clearly, if at all, in the Bible

The primary biblical basis for disbelief in the Trinity is disarmingly simple:

The specific teachings that distinguish the doctrine of a Trinity of persons in God from competing doctrines are not taught clearly, if at all, in the Bible.

The word "trinity" does not appear in the Bible.
The word "persons" is never used in reference to God in the Bible.

I am aware that this has been stated many times. Even defenders of the doctrine of the Trinity commonly admit these things.

However, I do not think that such defenders fully realize the force of these facts.

The Bible is the primary source and basis of Christian doctrine

All of the major Christian denominations consider the Bible to be the first and foremost authority in the church.

Even the Roman Catholic Church, though it also asserts the authority of the church itself on doctrinal matters, still holds the Bible as the primary authority on matters of Christian doctrine, and generally argues that its promulgated doctrines are either supported by, or are at least not in conflict with, the Bible.

The doctrine of a Trinity of persons in God is held by all the major branches of Christianity (Roman Catholic, Protestant, and Orthodox) to be a fundamental doctrine of the church. The Athanasian Creed, in which that doctrine is most clearly articulated of any of the widely accepted Christian creeds, after spending most of its text explaining that doctrine, states:

  This is the catholic faith; which except a man believe truly and
  firmly, he cannot be saved.

In other words, the Athanasian Creed, which is accepted as doctrinally correct in most of Christianity, states that unless a person believes that there is a Trinity of persons in God, that person cannot be saved.

Now, here is the problem with that:

As any honest defender of trinitarian doctrine will admit, the doctrine of a trinity of persons in God is not clearly and unmistakably taught in the Bible. And yet, it has been adopted as fundamental to Christianity and to salvation by the vast bulk of Christian churches, clergy, and theologians.

How can a doctrine that is not clearly articulated in the Bible be essential to salvation?

How can a doctrine that took several centuries of debate and dissension among human theologians to establish as the primary doctrine of Christianity be considered fundamental to Christian belief, and necessary for salvation?

Such a position impugns both the Bible and its divine Author (as is believed by most Christians) as being incapable of providing the clear, basic teachings necessary for salvation.

It holds that God's Word alone is not sufficient to provide faithful Christians with what they need to believe in the Lord Jesus Christ and be saved. By implication it claims, instead, that the Bible must be "helped" by human theologians in order to get its teachings into a form that is effective in saving the faithful.

I fully understand that there are some Christian doctrines that require human interpretation of the Bible in order to be seen and understood.

However, Swedenborg, and Swedenborgians generally, hold that:

Any doctrine that is essential to Christianity and essential to salvation must be clearly present in the plain words and teachings of the Bible, without the need for interpretation by human theologians.

Quite simply, the doctrine of a Trinity of persons in God fails that test.

Not only is it not clearly taught in the Bible, but it was not even clearly formulated until several hundred years after the last books of the Bible were written.

At minimum, then, the doctrine of a Trinity of persons in God must be rejected as being fundamental and necessary Christian doctrine.

Since that doctrine is not taught clearly, if at all, in the Bible, any claim that Christians must believe in it, or that it is essential to Christian belief, cannot be sustained based on the general principle that the Bible is the primary source of Christian belief, and provides all of the teachings necessary for salvation.

The Trinity is at best a secondary, non-essential doctrine

Based on all of this, the most that can be claimed for the doctrine of the Trinity is that it could be accepted as a secondary, non-essential doctrine of the church.

However, I am not aware of any Christian branch, church, or denomination that considers the Trinity to be a secondary doctrine. All of the trinitarian churches that I am aware of consider it to be fundamental, primary Christian doctrine. If they were asked to relegate it to secondary status, they would vigorously defend it as a fundamental doctrine of Christianity, if not the fundamental doctrine of Christianity.

Therefore the doctrine of a Trinity of persons in God as it is promulgated and held to by all of the major groups of Christians that believe in it cannot be supported in the doctrinal position that they give it because it fails the test of being clearly taught in the Bible.

It is not necessary to biblically disprove the Trinity

Based on the above argument, it is not necessary to disprove the doctrine of the Trinity of persons using Biblical citations, as has often been attempted—and just as often refuted.

All that's necessary is to show that it is not clearly and unequivocally taught in the Bible as necessary for salvation. And I have yet to see any cogent, Bible-based argument that the Bible itself teaches that it is necessary to believe in a Trinity of persons in God in order to be Christian and to be saved.

So the crux of this response is that the burden of proof rests on trinitarians to show that this is a clear, unequivocal teaching of the Bible, without a belief in which a person is not Christian and cannot be saved.

I do not believe it is possible to show such a thing based on the Bible.

Just a few Bible texts to illustrate the above response

I stated above that I would avoid prooftexting. That is still my intention. I do not claim that the following quotes prove the position of Swedenborgian theology. (I also in no way believe that it is necessary for a Christian to accept Swedenborg's theology in general, or his formulation of the Trinity in particular, in order to be saved.)

However, if I do not provide at least some quotes from the Bible, it may seem that this response doesn't fulfill the parameters of the question. So here are a few to whet your whistle.

I stated earlier that:

The word "trinity" does not appear in the Bible.

It is not fundamental to this argument to reject the idea of three-ness in God. As I said at the beginning, Swedenborg accepted the idea that there is a Trinity in God—though not as it is usually defined.

However, it is quite striking that whenever a number is specifically attributed to God in the Bible, that number is always one. Just two examples, one from the Old Testament and one from the New Testament:

  Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord (Deuteronomy 6:4)

and:

  I and my Father are one. (John 10:30)

There are no corresponding verses that state that God is three.

Yes, I am aware of the statement in 1 John 5:7:

  For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word,
  and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.

However, the Comma Johanneum, spanning 1 John 5:7-8, is now widely accepted by Bible scholars as a later, most likely post-Nicene, addition to the Greek text of the Bible from Latin sources. In other words, it was most likely added to the Bible after the doctrine of the Trinity had been formulated by Christian theologians.

So it now seems quite clear that the one and only verse in the entire Bible that even approaches a trinitarian formula is a later addition, and not part of the original text of the Bible. (And even if it is accepted as genuine, it still doesn't say that there are three persons in God.)

The fact of the total absence from the Bible of any statement clearly attaching the numeral "three" to God invalidates the Trinity as fundamental Christian doctrine.

I also said earlier that:

The word "persons" is never used in reference to God in the Bible.

This is even more telling as to the lack of a biblical basis for the doctrine of the Trinity.

Proponents of the Trinity can argue that there are "threes" associated with God, such as the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

But they cannot point to a single verse in which those three are called "persons," individually or collectively.

The reality is that the language used in Christian formulations of the doctrine of the Trinity is not based on the Bible. Rather, the wording commonly used is based primarily on ancient (non-Christian) Greek philosophers, sometimes as formulated in Latin rather than in Greek.

The very fact that this doctrine could not be properly formulated without borrowing vocabulary from non-Biblical sources should give pause to those who believe that it is a fundamental Christian and Biblical teaching.

In particular, words such as "persons," "essences," "hypostases," and so on, as they are used in trinitarian formulations, are derived from Greek and Roman philosophy, not from the Bible.

Does this mean they are wrong?

Not necessarily.

But it means that the formulation of the doctrine had to rely on non-biblical sources in order to provide a statement of it that was satisfactory to Christian theologians and the major branches of Christianity.

The Bible never calls the Father, or the Son, or the Holy Spirit "persons."

And yet, stating that they are "persons" is fundamental to the doctrine of the Trinity.

This should establish that the primary basis of the doctrine of the Trinity is human philosophy and reason, not the Bible.

As I said previously, if the Trinity were claimed only as a secondary doctrine, that would not be a major problem. But since it is claimed as an essential doctrine of the church, a belief in which is necessary for salvation, it is invalid because it is based on human reason and interpretation, not on the plain language of the Bible.

There is a solid, Bible-based alternative to Trinitarian doctrine

The Christian theologians who developed and established the doctrine of the Trinity were facing a tough challenge. As recounted in scholarly histories of the doctrine such as this one (with thanks to Marc for calling it to my attention), the doctrine of the Trinity as now accepted in most of Christianity was formulated primarily in response to Arianism, which in effect denied the full divinity of Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit by saying that they were created rather than eternal beings.

The challenge was to develop some doctrine that accepted Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as fully divine without rejecting the nature and role of each. The result, over time, was the doctrine of the Trinity.

Perhaps the most cogent argument in favor of this doctrine is not that it is clearly taught in the Bible (because it isn't), but rather that it is (as is commonly believed) the only doctrine that fully accepts the divinity of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as presented in the Bible, maintaining that all three of them are God.

In order to do that, trinitarian doctrine defined each of them as "persons," and stated that all were equally eternal, infinite, and divine.

It is often claimed by trinitarians that this is the only possible doctrine that could be derived from the many statements about God throughout the Old and New Testaments.

However, I believe that Swedenborg presented a superior doctrine, more soundly based on the Bible's entire presentation about God, in the form of a doctrine of a Trinity in a single person of God.

If there is a doctrine that preserves the full divinity of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and that harmonizes with all of the statements about them in the Bible while maintaining that they are fully one, and not unbiblically "three persons," then the claim that the doctrine of the Trinity is the only fully Bible-based doctrine about God falls to the ground.

That doctrine also becomes unnecessary and not to be believed because it introduces non-biblical concepts that are not needed to formulate a doctrine of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit that is fully based on the Bible's own statements about them and about God in general.

Offering a full presentation of that doctrine would be far beyond the scope of this response, and would swell it to massive size. For those interested, please see my readable, plain English presentation of it in the article, "Who is God? Who is Jesus Christ? What about that Holy Spirit?" And for Swedenborg's own far more extensive and theological presentation of that doctrine, see his work True Christianity.

However, to complete this argument, here is a thumbnail sketch, with some reference to its biblical basis.

Swedenborg's doctrine of a Trinity in one person

In Genesis 1:26 we read:

  Then God said, “Let us make humankind in our image, according to our
  likeness."

And God proceeded to do just that in Genesis 1:27.

Since we humans are created in God's image, our nature should, in a finite way, reflect God's infinite nature.

This means that if there is a Trinity in God, and humans are created in the image of God, then there must be a trinity in us as well.

According to Swedenborg, this is precisely the case. There are three essential parts of a human being without which we would not be human:

Soul
Body
Actions

("Actions" includes what we say or write as well.)

These are all common Biblical concepts.

This forms the basis for a simple, clear understanding of the Trinity in one divine Person of God:

The Father is the divine soul.
The Son is the divine body, or human manifestation.
The Holy Spirit is all of God's words and actions flowing out from God.

We would never say that there are three "persons" in a human being because that human being has three essential parts: soul, body, and actions.

Similarly, if God has a divine soul, which is the Father, a divine body, which is the Son, and a divine proceeding or flowing outward, which is the Holy Spirit, we would never say that there are three "persons" of God. Rather, we would say that there is one God with three essential components.

Another way of formulating the Trinity in God is:

The Father is the divine love, which is the underlying substance or soul of God. (1 John 4:8 and 4:16 state that "God is love.")
The Son is the divine wisdom, which is the expression or human presence of God. (John 1:14 states that "the Word became flesh and lived among us.")
The Holy Spirit is the divine proceeding, which is God's truth and power flowing out into the universe, and to humans and angels. (John 14:26 says, "The Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you everything.")

If we think of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit in this way, many otherwise confusing statements in the Bible make perfect sense.

For example, the highly philosophical opening statement in the Gospel of John (John 1:1-18) becomes a luminous poetic expression of God expressing himself through his eternal Word, which was made flesh (human) as Jesus Christ.

It also makes perfect sense that Jesus said "Whoever has seen me has seen the Father" (John 14:9), since Jesus is the human presence and expression of the Father, which is his inner divine soul.

And of course, when Jesus says, "I and the Father are one" (John 10:30), that also makes perfect sense.

Swedenborg's doctrine offers a better, more Biblical alternative

Much of the language applied to God in the Bible is poetic and symbolic rather than literal and technical. If we consider God's problem in attempting to convey lofty spiritual and divine ideas to us dense, materialistic human beings, we can perhaps understand why the Bible uses metaphors such as "Father, Son, and Holy Spirit" in describing God.

However, if we interpret these metaphors as Swedenborg does, as referring to distinct essential components of one God in a single divine Being, or Person—components that are commonly reflected and described throughout the text of the Bible itself—then everything that the Bible says about God, and about the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, falls beautifully into place.

This, of course, barely scratches the surface. It may raise more questions than it answers. But I hope it is enough to show that there is a coherent, Bible-based alternative to the widely accepted brain-bending and logic-defying doctrine of a Trinity of persons in God.

And if there is another doctrine that affirms the full divinity of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, while seeing them as fully and unequivocally one, just as the Bible says God is, then that doctrine must be seen as more in accord with the Bible's statements about God than the trinitarian doctrine that took hold in Christianity only in response to the Arian Controversy that erupted in the fourth century of the Christian church.


What is an overview of Christian viewpoints on whether evangelized gentiles are expected to tithe? What are the main views in Christianity regarding the issue of whether evangelized gentiles are expected to tithe? Which scriptures are commonly cited to support each position? Lastly, is this a controversial topic or does there appear to be consensus among the majority of denominations?

I fear this post might turn out to be one of those “Too Long/Didn’t Read” answers, but that’s the problem in asking for an overview.  In light of the history of tithing (below) it would be remiss to ignore events from 567 to the Protestant Reformation so here is a brief historical overview:

In the early Christian Church the custom of consecrating to religious purposes a tenth of the income was voluntary, and it was not made obligatory until the Council of Tours in 567.  The second Council of Macon, in 585, enjoined the payment of tithes under pain of excommunication; and Charlemagne, by his capitularies, formally established the practice within those portions of the ancient Roman Empire to which his legislation extended.

The introduction of tithes into England is ascribed to Offa, king of Mercia, at the close of the 8th century; and the usage passed into other divisions of Saxon England, and was finally made general by Ethelwolf. They were made obligatory in Scotland in the 9th century, and not long after in Ireland. At first the choice of the Church to whom a person paid tithes was optional; but by a decretal of Innocent III, addressed to the archbishop of Canterbury in 1200, all were directed to pay to the clergy of their respective parishes.

The Disestablishment Act of 1869 abolished tithes and created a common fund for the support of the Protestant Episcopal Church and clergy. In France tithes were abolished at the Revolution, and this example was followed by the other Continental countries. In the Canadian provinces of Quebec, tithes are still collected by virtue of the old French law, yet in force there. In the United States, tithes are exacted by the Mormon hierarchy. See Bingham, Christ. Antiq. bk. 5, ch. 5, § 1 sq.
[Copyright Statement: These files are public domain.  Bibliography Information: McClintock, John. Strong, James. Entry for 'Tithes'. Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological and Ecclesiastical Literature]  Source: https://www.studylight.org/encyclopedias/eng/mse/t/tithes.html

Views of churches that support tithing:
The following extract from a Catholic source refers to Genesis 14 and 28 and tithes paid by Abraham to Melchisedech and tithes paid by Jacob.  It also mentions Leviticus 27:30, Deuteronomy 14:22 and Numbers 18:21 regarding the tithes that had to be given to the sons of Levi (the priests).  There is also an interesting paragraph showing how tithes were common in the ancient world, for example the “Babylonians, Persians, Greeks, Romans, and later, the Mohammedans”.

Tithe - Generally defined as "the tenth part of the increase arising from the profits of land and stock, allotted to the clergy for their support or devoted to religious or charitable uses". A more radical definition is "the tenth part of all fruits and profits justly acquired, owed to God in recognition of his supreme dominion over man, and to be paid to the ministers of the church".

The payment of tithes was adopted from the Old Law, and early writers speak of it as a divine ordinance and an obligation of conscience. The earliest positive legislation on the subject seems to be contained in the letter of the bishops assembled at Tours in 567 and the canons of the Council of Maçon in 585. In course of time, we find the payment of tithes made obligatory by ecclesiastical enactments in all the countries of christendom. The Church looked on this payment as "of divine law, since tithes were instituted not by man but by the Lord Himself." (C. 14, X de decim. III, 30) https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14741b.htm

You have already provided links to show that tithing is compulsory within the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (Mormons): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tithing_in_Mormonism
and Seventh Day Adventists: https://www.adventist.org/articles/use-of-tithe/
Those articles are self-explanatory and I do not intend to extract information on why they hold that view or present the scriptures they use in support of tithing.
Although most Protestant churches do not insist on tithing, but encourage voluntary giving, there are exceptions. For example, the United Methodist Church:

Wesley says, “Render unto God, not a tenth, not a third, not half, but all that is God’s.” For some of us, after earning and saving all we can, while caring for our family’s basic needs, there may not be much left over. For others, there may be much, indeed. Whatever that is, we say, give it all!

The United Methodist Church, in its Book of Discipline, emphasizes tithing as a “minimum goal of giving” and encourages local churches to find creative ways to become “tithing congregations with an attitude of generosity.”  The church asks all those being ordained to “teach and model generous Christian giving with a focus on tithing as God’s standard of giving.”  Source:  https://www.umc.org/en/content/ask-the-umc-what-does-the-united-methodist-church-teach-about-tithing

As for Baptists, I found an old question on Christianity Stack that gives a brief overview:

Baptists encourage tithing, but do not require it. More frequently, they equate "stewardship" with obedience, and their definition of stewardship includes cheerful and sacrificial giving, which "goes beyond the tithe" to also include acts of service.  Not Tithing Is Stealing? (Baptist perspective)

I can vouch for the fact that Baptist churches in England and in Scotland do not view tithing as compulsory although they (rightly) point out that members of the church should contribute towards the upkeep of the church, which includes paying the minister an annual stipend.
Scriptures that are used by churches that do not support tithing:  This is based on the Christian understanding that the Mosaic Law (which included regulations on all the various tithes expected from the Israelites) has been fulfilled in Christ Jesus and Christians are no longer under that Law:

Colossians 2:14: [God] having cancelled the written code with its regulations, that was against us and that stood opposed to us; he took it away, nailing it to the cross.

2 Corinthians 9:7: Each man should give what he has decided in his heart to give, not reluctantly or under compulsion, For God loves a cheerful giver.

Is this a controversial topic or does there appear to be consensus among the majority of denominations?
Tithing was not made obligatory until the Council of Tours in 567 and my understanding is that it is compulsory within the Catholic Church.  By the time we get to the 19th century, most Protestant churches adopted a much more relaxed approach to financial giving (I think handing over one-tenth of your crops disappeared hundreds of years ago).  Since our eternal salvation does not depend upon adhering to a legalistic approach to tithing, I think it would be safe to say that most Protestants do not find the subject controversial.  Those who want to give a percentage of their income every month can do so, but nobody insists it has to be a minimum of 10%.  People give what they can.


Apart from Milan is there any other Roman Catholic place where Lent does not start on Ash Wednesday? In Milan and, I gather, throughout that whole region, Lent does not begin on Ash Wednesday as it does in most Roman Catholic and Protestant areas, but on the following Sunday.

A friend told me that the carnival continued there later than elsewhere in Italy. I initially assumed this was simply an extra-religious extension but in fact it seems they follow a different "rite", the Ambrosian rite, and Lent really is later than elsewhere.

The standard Lent consists of 46 days of which 6 are Sundays and 40 are weekdays, giving the 40 days of Lent from Ash Wednesday to Easter Eve; but apparently in Milan Sundays count toward the 40.

My question is whether there are any other parts of the Roman Catholic Church, whether geographical or otherwise, in which the normal liturgical calendar does mot apply.

(By the words "standard" and "normal" I mean no more than the most usual.)

For those who may follow the Mozarabic Rite (at least in the old form) which starts Lent on the Monday following the First Sunday of Lent. There are some priests that still use the Mozarabic Rite which is also called the Visigothic Rite or the Hispanic Rite.

  Ash Wednesday (Feria quarta in capite jejunii) is an evident late Roman borrowing, rather clumsily inserted, for the Sunday that follows, though called "Dominica prima Quadragesimæ", has a Mass and an Office in which Alleluia is used, and at Vespers there is the well- known "Endless Alleluia" (Alleluia Perenne) hymn. In the Hymnal this hymn is entitled "Ymnus in carnes tollendas". The true liturgical Lent does not begin till the Monday after Ash Wednesday. - Catholic Encyclopedia

There is one small interesting note about this Rite in regards to ashes:

  The Mozarabic Rite was the first to use ashes within the liturgical celebrations of the Church. Ashes were used prior to the Mozarabic Rite, but this was done outside of liturgical events, e.g., marking people for penance.

It could be noted that both the Abrosian and Mozarabic Rites had Advents that consisted of six week durations, unlike the four weeks in the rest of the Roman Rite world.

  There are six Sundays of Advent, as there were in the Gallican and are now in the Ambrosian. The key day for Advent Sunday is therefore St. Martin (11 Nov.), as it is in the Ambrosian Rite, and, as according to the Council of Mâcon (581), it was in the Gallican, but Advent Sunday is that next after, not, as in the Roman, that nearest to the key day. Thus Advent Sunday may be on any day from 12 to 18 Nov. - Mozarabic Rite


Is there any historical evidence that the early church believed in the doctrine of intercession of saints during the 1st and 2nd centuries AD? Motivated by a related question, I would like to know if there is any historical evidence that the early church believed in the doctrine of intercession of saints during the 1st and 2nd centuries AD.

The Revelation in the New Testament by St. John is a good start to be considered about the early Church belief in the doctrine of intercession of the Saints. With this vision of St. John, it foreshadow the new Jerusalem temple where in the Catholic mass, the Priest make an offering of incense for prayers and worship to God.
Pope Clement of Rome and Saint Policarp says with reference from:

The Ante-Nicene-Fathers Vol.1, The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyrs & Irenaeus by Philip Schabb

The Epistle of Polycarp to the Philippians337, A.D 65-100-155

Chapter XII.—Exhortation to various graces.
For I trust that ye are well versed in the Sacred Scriptures, and that nothing is hid from you; but to me this privilege is not yet granted.404 It is declared then in these Scriptures, “Be ye angry, and sin not,”405 and, “Let not the sun go down upon your wrath.”406 Happy is he who remembers407 this, which I believe to be the case with you. But may the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, and Jesus Christ Himself, who is the Son of God, and our everlasting High Priest, build you up in faith and truth, and in all meekness, gentleness, patience, long-suffering, forbearance, and purity; and may He bestow on you a lot and portion among His saints, and on us with you, and on all that are under heaven, who shall believe in our Lord Jesus Christ, and in His Father, who “raised Him from the dead.”408 Pray for all the saints. Pray also for kings,409 and potentates, and princes, and for
36 those that persecute and hate you,410 and for the enemies of the cross, that your fruit may be manifest to all, and that ye may be perfect in Him. It

ANF01. The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus Philip Schaff

The First Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians, A.D. 30-100

Chapter LVI.—Let us admonish and correct one another.
Let us then also pray for those who have fallen into any sin, that meekness and humility may be given to them, so that they may submit, not unto us, but to the will of God. For in this way they shall secure a fruitful and perfect remembrance from us, with sympathy for them, both in our prayers to God, and our mention of them to the saints.247 Let us receive correction, beloved, on account of which no one should feel displeased. Those exhortations by which we admonish one another are both good [in themselves] and highly profitable, for they tend to unite248 us to the will of God.

Please see below bible verses and the corresponding commentaries.

Revelation 5:8

8 And when he had opened the book, the four living creatures and the four and twenty ancients fell down before the Lamb, having every one of them harps and golden vials full of odours, which are the prayers of saints.

Commentary: Irenaeus of Lyons A.D. 202

Since, therefore, the name of the Son belongs to the Father, and since in the omnipotent God the Church makes offerings through Jesus Christ, He says well on both these grounds, "And in every place incense is offered to My name, and a pure sacrifice. "Now John, in the Apocalypse, declares that the "incense "is "the prayers of the saints."

Revelation 8:3 RHE

3 And another angel came and stood before the altar, having a golden censer: and there was given to him much incense, that he should offer of the prayers of all saints, upon the golden altar which is before the throne of God.

Revelation 8:4 RHE

4 And the smoke of the incense of the prayers of the saints ascended up before God from the hand of the angel.

Commentary: George Leo Haydock A.D. 1849
Stood before the altar, having a golden censer. In the visions is an allusion to the tabernacle and its parts. The altar of perfumes was in the sanctum, and here the golden altar is said to be before the throne of God. The incense from the censer is said to be the prayers of all the Saints, which the Angel offered up. The altar seems to signify our Saviour Christ, as the prayers of all the faithful are always made through the merits of Christ, our only chief Mediator or Redeemer. By the fire cast upon the earth, (ver. 5.) is signified the fire of divine charity, now to be exercised by the ways of justice, to draw persons to their conversion by punishments. (Witham)
We may observe both in this and other places of the Apocalypse, that St. John makes continual allusions to what was done in the temple of Jerusalem, for which he gives us symbolical reasons. Thus on the present occasion, the incense which was offered morning and evening in the temple, on the golden altar, is represented as done here in heaven. (Calmet)

1 Timothy 2:1 RHE

1 I desire therefore, first of all, that supplications, prayers, intercessions and thanksgivings be made for all men:

Commentary: George Haydock

Intercessions, as in the Protestant translation. If men's intercessions to God in favour of others, are no injury to Christ, as our mediator, how can it be any injury to Christ for the Angels and saints in heaven to pray or intercede to God for us? (Witham)
St. Augustine writes thus on this verse: By supplications are meant what are said before the consecration. By prayers, are what are said in and after the consecration and communion, at mass, including the Pater Noster; which St. Jerome also says, our Lord taught his apostles to recite at the daily sacrifice of his body. (lib. iii. contra Pelag. chap. 5) By intercessions, what are said after the communion: and by thanksgivings, what both the priest and people give to God for so great a mystery then offered and received. (ep. 50. ad Paulin.) See St. Chrysostom on this place.

As the following passages show, the early Church Fathers not only clearly recognized the biblical teaching that those in heaven can and do intercede for us, but they also applied this teaching in their own daily prayer life.

Hermas
“[The Shepherd said:] ‘But those who are weak and slothful in prayer, hesitate to ask anything from the Lord; but the Lord is full of compassion, and gives without fail to all who ask him. But you, [Hermas,] having been strengthened by the holy angel [you saw], and having obtained from him such intercession, and not being slothful, why do not you ask of the Lord understanding, and receive it from him?’” (The Shepherd 3:5:4 [A.D. 80]).

Clement of Alexandria
“In this way is he [the true Christian] always pure for prayer. He also prays in the society of angels, as being already of angelic rank, and he is never out of their holy keeping; and though he pray alone, he has the choir of the saints standing with him [in prayer]” (Miscellanies 7:12 [A.D. 208]).

Origen
“But not the high priest [Christ] alone prays for those who pray sincerely, but also the angels . . . as also the souls of the saints who have already fallen asleep” (Prayer 11 [A.D. 233]).

Cyprian of Carthage
“Let us remember one another in concord and unanimity. Let us on both sides [of death] always pray for one another. Let us relieve burdens and afflictions by mutual love, that if one of us, by the swiftness of divine condescension, shall go hence first, our love may continue in the presence of the Lord, and our prayers for our brethren and sisters not cease in the presence of the Father’s mercy” (Letters 56[60]:5 [A.D. 253]).

Anonymous
“Atticus, sleep in peace, secure in your safety, and pray anxiously for our sins” (funerary inscription near St. Sabina’s in Rome [A.D. 300]).

“Pray for your parents, Matronata Matrona. She lived one year, fifty-two days” (ibid.).

“Mother of God, [listen to] my petitions; do not disregard us in adversity, but rescue us from danger” (Rylands Papyrus 3 [A.D. 350]).

Methodius
“Hail to you for ever, Virgin Mother of God, our unceasing joy, for to you do I turn again. . . . Hail, you treasure of the love of God. Hail, you fount of the Son’s love for man” (Oration on Simeon and Anna 14 [A.D. 305]).

“Therefore, we pray [ask] you, the most excellent among women, who glories in the confidence of your maternal honors, that you would unceasingly keep us in remembrance. O holy Mother of God, remember us, I say, who make our boast in you, and who in august hymns celebrate the memory, which will ever live, and never fade away” (ibid.).

“And you also, O honored and venerable Simeon, you earliest host of our holy religion, and teacher of the resurrection of the faithful, do be our patron and advocate with that Savior God, whom you were deemed worthy to receive into your arms. We, together with you, sing our praises to Christ, who has the power of life and death, saying, ‘You are the true Light, proceeding from the true Light; the true God, begotten of the true God’” (ibid.).

Cyril of Jerusalem
“Then [during the Eucharistic prayer] we make mention also of those who have already fallen asleep: first, the patriarchs, prophets, apostles, and martyrs, that through their prayers and supplications God would receive our petition” (Catechetical Lectures 23:9 [A.D. 350]).

Hilary of Poitiers
“To those who wish to stand [in God’s grace], neither the guardianship of saints nor the defenses of angels are wanting” (Commentary on the Psalms 124:5:6 [A.D. 365]).

Ephraim the Syrian
“You victorious martyrs who endured torments gladly for the sake of the God and Savior, you who have boldness of speech toward the Lord himself, you saints, intercede for us who are timid and sinful men, full of sloth, that the grace of Christ may come upon us, and enlighten the hearts of all of us so that we may love him” (Commentary on Mark [A.D. 370]).

“Remember me, you heirs of God, you brethren of Christ; supplicate the Savior earnestly for me, that I may be freed through Christ from him that fights against me day by day” (The Fear at the End of Life [A.D. 370]).

The Liturgy of St. Basil
“By the command of your only-begotten Son we communicate with the memory of your saints . . . by whose prayers and supplications have mercy upon us all, and deliver us for the sake of your holy name” (Liturgy of St. Basil [A.D. 373]).

Pectorius
“Aschandius, my father, dearly beloved of my heart, with my sweet mother and my brethren, remember your Pectorius in the peace of the Fish [Christ]” (Epitaph of Pectorius [A.D. 375]).

Gregory of Nazianz
“May you [Cyprian] look down from above propitiously upon us, and guide our word and life; and shepherd this sacred flock . . . gladden the Holy Trinity, before which you stand” (Orations 17[24] [A.D. 380]).

“Yes, I am well assured that [my father’s] intercession is of more avail now than was his instruction in former days, since he is closer to God, now that he has shaken off his bodily fetters, and freed his mind from the clay that obscured it, and holds conversation naked with the nakedness of the prime and purest mind” (ibid., 18:4).

Gregory of Nyssa
“[Ephraim], you who are standing at the divine altar [in heaven] . . . bear us all in remembrance, petitioning for us the remission of sins, and the fruition of an everlasting kingdom” (Sermon on Ephraim the Syrian [A.D. 380]).

John Chrysostom
“He that wears the purple [i.e., a royal man] . . . stands begging of the saints to be his patrons with God, and he that wears a diadem begs the tentmaker [Paul] and the fisherman [Peter] as patrons, even though they be dead” (Homilies on Second Corinthians 26 [A.D. 392]).

“When you perceive that God is chastening you, fly not to his enemies . . . but to his friends, the martyrs, the saints, and those who were pleasing to him, and who have great power [in God]” (Orations 8:6 [A.D. 396]).

Ambrose of Milan
“May Peter, who wept so efficaciously for himself, weep for us and turn towards us Christ’s benign countenance” (The Six Days Work 5:25:90 [A.D. 393]).

Jerome
“You say in your book that while we live we are able to pray for each other, but afterwards when we have died, the prayer of no person for another can be heard. . . . But if the apostles and martyrs while still in the body can pray for others, at a time when they ought still be solicitous about themselves, how much more will they do so after their crowns, victories, and triumphs?” (Against Vigilantius 6 [A.D. 406]).

Augustine
“A Christian people celebrates together in religious solemnity the memorials of the martyrs, both to encourage their being imitated and so that it can share in their merits and be aided by their prayers” (Against Faustus the Manichean [A.D. 400]).

“At the Lord’s table we do not commemorate martyrs in the same way that we do others who rest in peace so as to pray for them, but rather that they may pray for us that we may follow in their footsteps” (Homilies on John 84 [A.D. 416]).

“Neither are the souls of the pious dead separated from the Church which even now is the kingdom of Christ. Otherwise there would be no remembrance of them at the altar of God in the communication of the Body of Christ” (The City of God 20:9:2 [A.D. 419]).

Reference:

NIHIL OBSTAT: I have concluded that the materials
presented in this work are free of doctrinal or moral errors.
Bernadeane Carr, STL, Censor Librorum, August 10, 2004

IMPRIMATUR: In accord with 1983 CIC 827
permission to publish this work is hereby granted.
+Robert H. Brom, Bishop of San Diego, August 10, 2004


If "the Kingdom of God comes not with observation", how can it be "taken by violence"? Matthew 11:12 (KJV):

  And from the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven suffereth violence, and the violent take it by force.

Similarly, in Luke 16:16:

  The law and the prophets were until John: since that time the kingdom of God is preached, and every man presseth into it.

Whereas Luke 17:20 reads:

  And when he was demanded of the Pharisees, when the kingdom of God should come, he answered them and said, The kingdom of God cometh not with observation:

How can it be 'taken' as Matthew 11/Luke 16 suggests in light of what Luke 17:20 says?

The verses cited, when taken in the broader context of the pericopes to which they belong, both emphasize the importance of believers taking an active role in preparing themselves for the Kingdom of Heaven.

What Matthew reports Jesus to say in 11:12 relates to what He had just said to the multitude:

  Matthew 11:11

    Verily I say unto you, among them that are born of women, there has not arisen a greater than John the Baptist.  Notwithstanding, He that
    is less, in the kingdom of Heaven is greater than he.

The eastern Church Fathers (e.g. John Chrysostom, 4th century) understood Christ to be referring to Himself in Matthew 11:11.  He, Christ, was not born of woman - i.e. a married woman, gyne in Greek - but of a virgin (parthenos).  He, Christ, is "less" than John the Baptist in years (the Greek microteros also means "younger"), but He is greater in the Kingdom in Heaven.  The Kingdom of Heaven suffering violence and the violent taking it by force refers to what His followers must do to attain the Kingdom of Heaven:  leave one's father and mother (Matthew 19:29, Mark 10:29, Luke 18:29); despise one's own life (John 12:25); etc.  (See Chrysostom's Homily XXXVII on Matthew).

Similarly, I think we must consider Luke 17:20 in the context of the verse that follows:

  Luke 17:20–21 (KJV 1900)

    And when he was demanded of the Pharisees, when the kingdom of God should come, he answered them and said, The kingdom of God cometh not
    with observation: Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for,
    behold, the kingdom of God is within you.

Here He is admonishing the Pharisees not to sit passively and wait for the Kingdom to come, but rather to attend to themselves in order to prepare to receive it.  Cyril of Alexandria (4th/5th c.) comments on this passage:

  For ask not, He says, about the times in which the season of the
  kingdom of heaven shall again arise and come, but rather be in
  earnest, that ye may be found worthy of it, for it is within you, that
  is, it depends on your own wills, and is in your power whether or not
  you receive it.  For every man who has attained to justification by
  means of faith in Christ, and is adorned by all virtues, is counted
  worth of the kingdom of heaven.

  Commentary Upon the Gospel of St. Luke, Part II, Sermon CXVII (translated from the Syriac by R. Payne Smith, Oxford University
  Press, 1859), pp. 541-542.

The Greek phrase translated as "is taken by violence" in the King James Version is βιαζεται (biazetai), a passive form of the verb βιάζω (biazo).  In the Greek, Matthew 11:12 and Luke 16:16 use the same word, βιάζω, conjugated differently.   It conveys the meaning of achieving something by force.  Both the KJV and RSV (the versions coincidentally recommended within the Greek Orthodox Church) use the word "violence" in their translations, but other versions choose something more mild.  The the NIV, NASB, and ESV omit translating the phrase βιαζεται altogether, even though it appears in all available Greek manuscripts.  Although the image of the Kingdom of Heaven being "taken by violence" may seem somewhat incongruent, the Lord Himself said that He came not to bring peace, but a sword (Matthew 10:34).  The Russian Orthodox monk and writer Theophan the Recluse provided the following exegesis of Matthew 11:12, which, although written for Russian faithful living in the late 19th century could perhaps also be applied today:

  The Kingdom suffereth violence - that is, it is attained with
  violence, with labor, force, and difficult spiritual struggles.
  Therefore, only those who lead a labor-filled ascetic life attain it.
  Thus, every sort of comfort is renounced along the path to the
  Kingdom.  Pleasures of all types distance us from the Kingdom.  But
  these days we have concern only for pleasures - sometimes emotional,
  but more often fleshly: to eat, drink, have fun, make merry, and
  luxuriate in everything.  We have said to the Kingdom, "I beg you to
  excuse me," although there is a feast in the Kingdom - a royal feast -
  one so sumptuous that we could not even conceive of it, because we do
  not have the taste for it.  What is considered sweet there is bitter
  to us, what is pleasant there is repulsive to us, what gladdens one
  there is a burden to us.  We have gone totally separate ways.  And the
  Kingdom, together with the violent who take it by force, withdraws
  from us.  We are glad about this, and are even ready to drive them
  away more quickly.  Indeed, we have already started talking about it,
  but the evil one has not yet managed to arrange this*.

  Thoughts for Every Day, p. 133

* Theophan, writing in 1881, may have been referring to the revolutionary movements - all intensely secular - that were starting to take hold in Russia at the time.  The editors note, "He identified the spiritual sickness of the modern West, with its symptoms of materialism, naturalism, deism, atheism, neopaganism, hedonism, and other antichristian belief systems."