What's the difference between the Apostle's claims and the claims of others who started religious movements? So I recently watched a documentary about a new age movement and felt a bit rattled by what I perceived to be some examples of peoples behaving in a way that undermines the common arguments for trusting the gospel accounts.
The video was about a new age movement called Breatharianism which basically claims that humans don't need to eat food but can instead subsist on the divine energy within them. While the gurus of this movement certainly did benefit financially and otherwise by promulgating their message which they had to have known was a lie, they also seemed to me at certain points to risk their lives for it.  At multiple points, there was evidence that the gurus who claimed to have gone years without eating actually did eat regularly.  So they knew what they were saying was a lie.  Yet, they several times volunteered to undertake tests to prove this thing they knew was a lie.  Even after knowing that some of their followers had died genuinely trying to follow the no eating rule.
For instance, the most prominent woman volunteered to be monitored by 60 minutes to ensure she didn't eat for an entire week.  The experient was ended by 60 minutes and not by her when the doctor who was monitoring her told her she was in imminent danger of dying.  Certainly, it worked out in her favor, she got more publicity for nothing, but it seems as though she was determined to do this thing that she knew very well could have killed her despite the fact she had to know what she believed was a lie.
Lots of people say, it's not plausible that the Apostles knowingly lied about seeing Jesus resurrected because of the persecution and eventual death they suffered because of it.  It doesn't seem rational to die for a lie.  And yet these breatharian people seem to be willing to do so.  So what's the difference here?

I found the subtitle over at Snopes.com to be interesting:

Claims about "breatharians," people purportedly living on light alone, do not offer proof that they survive this way.

Now, let's compare that to one of my favorite verses from the Old Testament (emphasis mine):

Bring ye all the tithes into the storehouse, that there may be meat in mine house, and prove me now herewith, saith the Lord of hosts, if I will not open you the windows of heaven, and pour you out a blessing, that there shall not be room enough to receive it. (Malachi 3:10)

People are willing to die for many reasons. Some good, some bad. One hopes that in most cases, they are willing to give their lives for something noble, useful, and true.

Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends. (John 15:13)

What are the Breatharians dying for? I honestly don't know. The only benefit I can see to the practice of Breatharianism is saving a few dollars on food. Theoretically (I assume), if the practice were at all correct, subsistence on the energy of the universe wouldn't cause you to loose weight (at least not below a healthy weight, right?). In short, there's no purpose or value to the belief and no proof that it's valid.
Christianity, on the other hand, offers a way to prove its worth. And if that Old Testament verse wasn't good enough, let me leave you with something from the New Testament.

Prove all things; hold fast that which is good. (1 Thes 5:21)

So, care to know more about Paul the Apostle's faith, belief, and the Savior he served and eventually died for? You can prove all things by sitting down with us and asking some questions. What you'll discover is the world is full of confused people who will do almost anything to save or earn a dollar — but the faith you're looking for is free.

Ho, every one that thirsteth, come ye to the waters, and he that hath no money; come ye, buy, and eat; yea, come, buy wine and milk without money and without price. (Isa 55:1)

Huh.  Maybe what the Breatharians did was confuse a real life with a metaphor.


What is the sin of St.Peter that made St.Paul opposed him in Galatians2:11? Paul Opposes Cephas

11 When Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned. 12 For before certain men came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles. But when they arrived, he began to draw back and separate himself from the Gentiles because he was afraid of those who belonged to the circumcision group. 13 The other Jews joined him in his hypocrisy, so that by their hypocrisy even Barnabas was led astray.

(Galatians2:11-13)

In the above passages Peter was just eating with the gentiles and when he separated himself when certain Jews arrived, how come St.Paul opposed Peter and in other passages it even said the harsh words rebuked.

We know that Peter and the Apostles are with Jesus and know the Gospel of Jesus and St.Paul was the one not around during Jesus public ministry.
So, how come he opposed Peter whom is much knowledgeable to him by being around with Jesus personally?

The New Testament was not yet written at that time when St.Paul opposed Peter. What is the basis or the teaching of Christ that St.Paul used to opposed Peter?

It is true that they didn’t have the NT so what was the issue? Hypocrisy

'There shall be one standard for you; it shall be for the stranger as well as the native, for I am the LORD your God.'" Leviticus 24:22

Peter was setting up division in the body of Christ between the Jew and the Gentiles. But no one enters by blood rights into the body of Christ according to John1:13

who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God

Therefore if all men enter by the will of God there should not have been an issue for Peter to have remained at the table with the gentiles.
User SLM comment added to the answer

“The apostles and the elders were gathered together to consider this matter. And after there had been much debate, Peter stood up and said to them, "Brothers, you know that in the early days God made a choice among you, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel and believe. And God, who knows the heart, bore witness to them, by giving them the Holy Spirit just as he did to us, and he made no distinction between us and them, having cleansed their hearts by faith.”
Acts 15:6-9 ESV

Apostle Paul was in the audience

“And all the assembly fell silent, and they listened to Barnabas and Paul as they related what signs and wonders God had done through them among the Gentiles.”
Acts 15:12 ESV

It would be hypocritical of Peter to acknowledge the Gentiles (Ten Lost tribes of Israel and gentiles) as being indistinct from the Jews (Tribe of Judah and Benjamin only) if both are accepted into the body and receive the same Holy Spirit by faith.
It could be that Paul is pointing out Peter’s inconsistency or hypocrisy


What is the difference between obeisance and worship? After reading the answers to this question, I realized that many do not necessarily see it as idolatry if someone prostrates before someone else (e.g. Jesus), as long as it is done to pay obeisance rather than as an act of worship. However, from an external observer's point of view, doing obeisance and worshipping are indistinguishable acts. In both there is a person in prostration, saying nice things to someone else. This must imply that if there is any difference, it is not found in the physical act itself, but in the attitude of the heart.
Question: what is the difference between obeisance and worship? In particular, I'm interested in understanding what aspects of obeisance make it different from worship so as to not be considered idolatry when targeted to someone other than God.

The best way to address this question is to start with definitions.
Definition of obeisance
1 : a movement of the body made in token of respect or submission : bow
//After making his obeisances he approached the altar.
2 : acknowledgment of another's superiority or importance : homage
//makes obeisance to her mentors
//The players paid obeisance to their coach.
Worship
Definition of worship (Entry 2 of 2)
1 : reverence offered a divine being or supernatural power
also : an act of expressing such reverence
2 : a form of religious practice with its creed and ritual.
I found some examples of "obeisance" at the jw.org site.
OBEISANCE

The act of bowing, kneeling, prostrating the body, or making some other gesture to betoken submission; or simply the paying of respect. It adequately translates the Hebrew hish·ta·chawahʹ and the Greek pro·sky·neʹo in many cases.

Hish·ta·chawahʹ means, basically, “bow down.” (Ge 18:2) Such bowing might be done as an act of respect or deference toward another human, as to a king (1Sa 24:8; 2Sa 24:20; Ps 45:11), the high priest (1Sa 2:36), a prophet (2Ki 2:15), or other person of authority (Ge 37:9, 10; 42:6; Ru 2:8-10), to an elder relative (Ge 33:1-6; 48:11, 12; Ex 18:7; 1Ki 2:19), or even to strangers as an expression of courteous regard (Ge 19:1, 2). Abraham bowed down to the Canaanite sons of Heth from whom he sought to buy a burial place."

In doing some research on this subject I found the following blog to be very helpful.  The answer I will quote from may have been given by a Jehovah’s Witness since they direct readers to jw.org for further information..
https://www.question.com/what-root-word-does-worship-come-from-and-what-it-1124088.html
I will only quote a few (in my view pertinent) statements.

True worship of the Creator embraces every aspect of an individual’s life.
Hebrew and Greek Terms.
Most Hebrew and Greek words that can denote worship can also be applied to acts other than worship. However, the context determines in what way the respective words are to be understood."

I agree, context is key and is always key in how we understand, define and interpret Scripture.

Worship That Is Acceptable to God. Jehovah God accepts only the worship of those who comport themselves in harmony with his will. (Mt 15:9; Mark 7:7) . Having become acquainted with God through the Bible and evidence of the operation of God’s spirit in his life, the person who worships with spirit and truth definitely ‘knows what he is worshiping."

Jesus says the following at Luke 4:8, "It is written, "You shall worship the Lord your God and serve Him only." The word for worship is "proskuneo" which refers to worship or adoration of God alone and Him only in the immediate context.
Then at Hebrews 1:6, God the Father says, "And when He again brings the first-born into the world, He says, "And Let all the Angels of God "proskuneo/worship" Him."
To me, one of the highest forms of worship can be found at John 20:28 when Thomas declared to Jesus Christ Himself, "My Lord and my God."
Another "highest" form of worship can be found at Acts 7:59-60 and what Stephen said in his dying breath. "And they went on stoning Stephen as he called upon the Lord and said, Lord Jesus, receive my spirit!" Verse 60, And falling on his knees, he cried out with a loud voice. Lord, do not hold this sin against them!" And having said this, he fell asleep."
It's pretty obvious to me by looking at these Scriptures one can determine the difference between paying "obeisance" like what Abraham did at Genesis 18:2, and God the Father saying His Son should be "worshipped."
After all, Jesus did say at John 5:22-23, "For not even the Father judges anyone, but He has given all judgment to the Son, verse 23, in order that all may honor the Son, even as they honor the Father, He who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent Me."


What was the problem at Babel? In the Genesis account of the tower of Babel a bunch of guys got together to build a really tall tower somewhere in the desert. God gets wind of the affair but it doesn't sit well:

  Genesis 11:5–6 (ESV)
  And the Lord came down to see the city and the tower, which the children of man had built. And the Lord said, “Behold, they are one people, and they have all one language, and this is only the beginning of what they will do. And nothing that they propose to do will now be impossible for them.

So what does He do? He scrambles all their language as a punishment and their plans are foiled.

What was the problem with building a tall tower? Are modern skyscrapers a problem for God? Should the guys in the Burj Khalifa be worried?

The problem was not with the building, but with the intent of the builders, as shown in verse 4:

  They said, "Come, let us build for ourselves a city, and a tower whose top will reach into heaven, and let us make for ourselves a name, otherwise we will be scattered abroad over the face of the whole earth."

This is in direct opposition to what God had just commanded Noah a few years before (Genesis  9:7):

  As for you, be fruitful and multiply; Populate the earth abundantly and multiply in it.

The people in their journeyings found a place they liked, and decided to quit following God, and rather settle where they were comfortable. On top of this, they displayed the hubris to build a tower to "reach heaven" - ie, to find God on their own, rather than through His intended means.

God's judgement was not upon the tower, per se, but on the people. Nowhere else in scripture can I think of a place where towers are forbidden or condemned (indeed, almost all ancient city states had towers for protection - and Jesus references a tower that collapsed onto some people in Siloam in a neutral fashion).

The "problem at Babel" was pride, arrogance, and an unwillingness to follow God's command to replenish the earth after the flood.


Catholic Blessing at a civil wedding Can a Catholic Priest attend and provide any type of blessing at a civil wedding preformed outdoors between a catholic man and non-catholic woman?

Some background

In order to answer the O.P.’s question, a little background must be given regarding how the Catholic Church views marriage.

For any marriage in which one of the parties is (or was) Catholic, generally for the marriage to exist at all, two conditions must be met*:

The other party must be at least a baptized Christian (Code of Canon Law [CIC] 1086), and
The they are bound to observe the so-called canonical form, which means that the marriage must be witnessed by a person with the necessary faculties: usually a priest or deacon (CIC 1108).

If these conditions are not met, and no other action is taken, the marriage cannot come into existence. The local bishop of the Catholic party, however, can dispense from either or both of these requirements. Such a dispensation is not difficult to obtain, but it must be done in writing. (It is generally written both on the marriage certificate and in the baptismal register.)

In addition, if the non-Catholic party is a baptized Christian, the Catholic party should obtain a license (i.e., permission, not a document like a driver’s license) to marry from his local bishop. This permission is not necessary for the validity of the marriage, but marrying a non-Catholic without it is illicit. (See CIC 1024-1029.)

(There is one exception to all this: if the non-Catholic party is Eastern Orthodox or Oriental Orthodox, after the Catholic party obtains the license from his local bishop, the marriage may be done before a priest of the non-Catholic party’s church. See CIC 1027)

Regarding a Catholic priest giving a blessing at a civil marriage

Returning to the O.P.’s question, therefore, the Catholic Church by default does not recognize a strictly civil marriage involving a Catholic party.

Therefore, unless the couple has the intention of having the religious ceremony before witnesses as canonical form requires (this is common in countries, like Mexico, in which clergy may not function as justices of the peace), or else the couple has obtained a dispensation from canonical form from the bishop, it would be highly improper for a Catholic priest to be present at a civil marriage and give a blessing. (Speaking plainly, he would basically be blessing a fictitious marriage.)

If the non-Catholic party is non-baptized, and the impediment to marriage is not dispensed, then likewise a priest should not give a blessing to the couple.

However, there are remedies that might accomplish what the O.P. is seeking.

If for some reason having the wedding ceremony in a church before properly delegated witnesses is a difficulty, one solution is for the Catholic party to seek a dispensation from canonical form.

If the party is non-baptized, in addition, a dispensation from the impediment due to disparity of cult is necessary. (It can be asked for at the same time.)

Another solution is to have a very simple wedding ceremony in the Church. Note that the wedding need not take place in a Mass. (In fact, it is recommended that marriages with a non-Catholic party not take place during a Mass, to avoid mortifying the non-Catholic party, who may not receive Communion.) In fact, if the non-Catholic is not baptized, the ceremony need not take place in a church. (See CIC 1118.)

If, for whatever reason, the parties go ahead with their (invalid) civil marriage, but later on wish to regularize their situation, they may either opt for a simple convalidation (that is, a simple exchange of consent according to canonical form) or else—especially if having a simple convalidation would cause anguish for one of the spouses—even a radical sanation (which is a convalidation done in secret that does not require a renewal of consent). The necessary dispensations are dealt with at the same time as one seeks the convalidation.

(It should be noted that entering an invalid union is never a good situation to be in, and it should be avoided at all costs. It is much better to encourage a person to seek one of the solutions mentioned above: either dispensation from the requirement of canonical form, or following the canonical form, albeit in as simple a ceremony as the couple desires.)

* Two conditions in addition to the usual conditions for marriage: namely, that the parties consist of one man and one woman, that they are both free to marry, that their decision to marry not due to fear, that they intend to be married lifelong, that they have not absolutely excluded the possibility of having children, and so on. There are also other impediments (see CIC 1083-1094), but these two are the ones most relevant to the O.P.


How can one offer Christ's sacrifice to God? I'd like to know what is the Catholic theology behind offering Jesus's suffering to the Father.

I'm trying to understand this prayer (from St. Bridget's 12-Year Prayer) more deeply:

  Eternal Father, through Mary’s unblemished hands and the Divine Heart
  of Jesus, I offer to Thee the terrifying suffering of the Heart of
  Jesus on the Mount of Olives, and every drop of His Sweat of Blood, as
  atonement for my and all of humanity’s sins of the heart, as
  protection against such sins, and for the spreading of Divine and
  Brotherly Love.

I don't fully understand how can one offer somebody's else suffering to gain grace for oneself.

I have a theory but I'm not sure if it's correct. My theory or understanding is that none of us is capable of such a sacrifice which brings reconciliation with God. So offering it up to the Father it reminds him of this reconciliation. And here I think is the problem with my understanding. I don't think God the Father needs to be reminded of his suffering. That's why I'm asking what is the teaching...

Part of the answer can be found in Colossians 1:24.

  Now I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake, and in my flesh I complete what is lacking in Christ's afflictions for the sake of his body, that is, the Church.

The question a Christian must answer is, "What is lacking in Christ's afflictions?"  I think most would agree that nothing at all is lacking, so what does Paul mean?

From a Catholic worldview, when we are baptized into Christ, we are part of the body of Christ.  Being part of that body is not simply metaphorical but actual and real.  Saint Bridget has made Christ's sacrifice her own by uniting herself to that sacrifice in her devotions and selfless life, forming herself ever more into the likeness of Christ.

God the Father is well aware of Christ's sufferings, as his mother is and as we should be. We are called as Catholics to unite our sufferings to Christ's.

Bridget in her prayer is acknowledging Christ's sacrifice and joining herself to it, like Paul suffering for Christ's sake for the Gospel to our benefit. In this prayer, she points out the blood that the Lord sweat from his skin in the garden.

By combining this prayer with the Hail Mary and Our Father, Bridget shows this prayer to be contemplative prayer, like the rosary.  In contemplative prayer, she prays not just by repeating the verses, but rather by putting herself in the garden in the anticipation and fear that the Lord experienced. By imagining herself as Jesus and experiencing the fear and pain of what is coming, including the falling away by the few that should have been faithful, she joins in that suffering. Contemplative prayer is a powerful way to unite to Christ and experience his suffering.

In your question you asked:

  I don't fully understand how can one offer somebody's else suffering to gain grace for oneself.

Bridget is not offering just anybody's suffering up to the Lord, only the suffering of the one person whose suffering can and does merit grace.


Why not directly confess our sins to God? Why should we confess our sins to the Catholic priest, when God is everywhere and He listens to us every time? Is this the only way to be forgiven? What is the assurance that sins are forgiven?

Since the question is about confession to a priest, the answer would rely upon the teachings of the Catholic Church. As such the best place to find the answer about why Catholics would confess to a priest are found in the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

The particular paragraphs that cover this are under the heading "Ministry of This Sacrament" in regards to the Sacrament of Reconciliation. Here it is clarified that, in keeping with the teachings of the Catholic Church, Christ "entrusted to his apostles the ministry of reconciliations, bishops who are their successors, and priests, the bishops' collaborators, continue to exercise this ministry." This is why Catholics confess to a priest.

To answer the second part of the question it is important to understand most fully what confession is according to the teaching of the Catholic Church. The purpose of confession is to reconcile one back to God where sin has severed or separated one from God to any degree. A practicing Catholic would not deny the truth that confession could be made directly to God or to Christ but would argue that due to our subjective nature in regards to self, a more perfect confession could be made when an Examination of Conscience is done and confession is made to a priest who, according to the Catechism, "is fulfilling the ministry of the Good Shepherd who seeks the lost sheep, of the Good Samaritan who binds up wounds, of the Father who awaits the prodigal son and welcomes him on his return, and of the just and impartial judge whose judgment is both just and merciful. The priest is the sign and the instrument of God's merciful love for the sinner."

Further, as the Catechism states, once confession to a priest has been accomplished with a "contrite heart and religious disposition, reconciliation is usually followed by peace and serenity of conscience with strong spiritual consolation."

And while this becomes a personal experience and difficult to justify, nonetheless I believe it is worth saying that people who do participate in confession with a contrite heart and belief in the teachings of the Catholic Church will attest to the power of the sacrament.


Are there any Biblical passages that say that devil is able to make you doubt your faith? Is the devil able to and make you doubt your faith?

Are there specific Biblical passages relating to this topic?

Sometimes I find myself doubting my faith when reading certain passages of the Bible, such as the beginning of Matthew (before Jesus gets his disciples) where Jesus seems more like a man than like God. A specific example is "What if Christianity is just a big hoax perpetrated by ancient people?"

I try to race these thoughts out of my mind and I try not to dwell on them, but is the devil able to give me such doubts or is he powerless to intervene in my relationship between me and God? The only other alternative seem to be that there are signs of my lack of faith, hinting that I am not truly saved.

From the Temptation of Jesus Christ (Matthew 4:1-11), we can see 3 ways of temptation by Satan in order to introduce doubts in our faith.

Ignoring the word of God: Satan told Jesus to turn the stones into bread. Satan always reminds us of our daily needs and make us worry over it instead of putting our faith in the Word of God. This introduces doubt in us over the importance of God's word in our daily life. As Jesus resisted the temptation by using the Word of God, we should also resist the temptation by meditating "Man shall not live on bread alone, but on every word that comes from the mouth of God".
Doubting the power of God: Satan told Jesus to jump down from the temple to see whether God will help or not. When we have trials and temptations, we question the power of God by pondering "Can God really deliver me from this trouble?".  Satan will try to make us doubt the power of God but we must resist it by saying "Do not put the Lord your God to the test".
Worldly pleasures: Satan tried to offer the whole world to Jesus on one condition, worshiping Satan. Satan is ready to give us worldly pleasures if we worship him knowingly or unknowingly by pursuing worldly pleasures. Worldly things can drift us away from our faith.  When we are attracted by worldly pleasures, we should reply, “Away from me, Satan! For it is written: ‘Worship the Lord your God, and serve him only.’”

If you have doubt over the authenticity of the Bible itself, you will have to make a little extra research on the history of "How we get our Bible". Many good articles here and elsewhere will be convincing enough on the authenticity of the Bible.


Why do Christians stand when we sing? In my experience, every church I've either been in or seen recorded ask the congregation to stand when they sing. Without having done a scientific study, it seems this is a near-universal practice among Christians (and please correct me if this is wrong).
Is there a biblical basis for this, or is it merely a wide-reaching convention? If so, is there anything to suggest when or how this practice may have begun?
I recognise this question may be at the border of what's on-topic. I've tried to keep in on-topic by not asking why we sing, but for the biblical basis and history of this specific Christian practice. Given this practice seems to be the same amongst many denominations, I hope it's ok not to specify a particular group.

Why do Christians stand to sing ?
I think the reasons are fundamental to the act, so I do not see biblical instructions or precedents to be relevant.
One may ask, how one should eat a meal : should one sit, or recline ? One may ask, how should one read the bible  : should one be seated or kneeling ?
These are matters of preference and matters of practicality, I suggest.
So I am answering under your suggestion of 'wide-reaching convention'.
After a comment mentioned common practice in Germany, I have to maybe say that my own experience is solely in the UK and solely within Protestant Trinitarianism.

Often, God is being addressed in what is being sung. So : reverence is one reason. This is expressed both individually and corporately, by an entire congregation, by standing.

For proper singing, the lungs need to be filled to capacity, not to make a loud noise, but in order to sustain a note and to sing the whole line without pause.

Abdominally, standing is a better posture than sitting, if one wants to repeatedly fill the lungs and exercise the abdominal muscles.

Singing is a physical activity, sometimes accompanied by (small) body movements or movement of limbs in an expressive manner, so standing is better than sitting.

I don't mean anything excessive by these movements, I refer only to very slight swaying in time to the music, or the tapping of a foot to keep rhythym and to very small gestures of expression as the heart engages with the words and with the melody.
Singing for spiritual purposes is an engagement of the whole person : spirit, soul and body. It is active. It is focused.
And it is very effective.

Paul encourages singing of psalms and hymns and songs in his epistles and the psalms repeatedly encourage singing and praising throughout that book of one hundred and fifty examples of praise, worship, petitioning, pleading, lamenting, crying out and triumphing.
I don't see there is any commandment or statute regarding standing to sing in the bible but there are examples which are worthy of note. Just as nowhere in the bible am I told to pray three times a day, yet I read that Daniel did so : not that he advertised the fact but when people put him under surveillance, they couldn't help but notice.
For example, there is a hint in Psalm 134 [KJV version]:

(1) Behold, bless ye the Lord, all servants of the Lord. which by night stand in the house of the Lord.

(2) Lift up your hands in the sanctuary and bless the Lord.


Are the Ten Commandments in OT arranged in the order of their importance to the believer? At Luke 18:18-20 we see:

  A certain ruler asked him, “Good teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?” “Why do you call me good?” Jesus answered. “No one is good—except God alone.  You know the commandments: ‘You shall not commit adultery, you shall not murder, you shall not steal, you shall not give false testimony, honor your father and mother.’

We see that Jesus is not quoting the commandments in the order of sequence they were given to Israel through Moses.

My question is: Are the Ten Commandments in OT arranged in the order of their importance to the believer, that is, if a person takes God's name in vain  and then commits adultery, will his former sin be considered  more serious than the latter one?

What do the teachings of Catholic Church tell us on the subject?

There is no biblical basis for the claim that the Ten Commandments are arranged in order of importance, and to my knowledge, there is no Roman Catholic teaching on the subject either. There are a couple places where Jesus does provide us with some insight into the degree of importance of the various commandments, but one stands out. Matthew 22:37.

It is important to notice that Jesus is not citing the Ten Commandments when he is discussing the two greatest commandments. The two greatest commandments are:

Love the Lord with all your heart, soul, mind and strength
Love your neighbor as yourself.

The first two commandments of the Ten Commandments are

No other gods before me
No graven images.

Jesus considers the two "Greatest" commandments to be a summary of all of the commandments.

If anything, the Luke 18:18 passage suggests that the Ten Commandments are not all in order of importance, since he freely rearranges them however he wishes.


Were the 12 apostles all Jewish? I'm talking about the 12 listed in Matthew 10: 1-4.

1 And when he had called unto him his twelve disciples, he gave them power against unclean spirits, to cast them out, and to heal all manner of sickness and all manner of disease.
2 Now the names of the twelve apostles are these; The first, Simon, who is called Peter, and Andrew his brother; James the son of Zebedee, and John his brother;
3 Philip, and Bartholomew; Thomas, and Matthew the publican; James the son of Alphæus, and Lebbæus, whose surname was Thaddæus;
4 Simon the Canaanite, and Judas Iscariot, who also betrayed him.

So, what I expect as an answer would be any scriptures that provide evidence that any or all of the 12 were Jewish. Also any other good sources that address this topic would be appreciated.
Why do I care? Trying to shed more light on these verses in the Book of Mormon, 1 Nephi 14: 20-27. In those verses, it uses the phrase "the book proceeded out of the mouth of the Jew".

The original 12 apostles/disciples of Jesus were all Jewish.  By Jewish I understand you to mean "of the twelve tribes of Israel"/ Israelites.  Since one can interpret Jewish to be the religion, and there are Gentiles who adopt Judaism and are sometimes considered Jewish from a religious perspective, one needs to be careful with the term.  But from a Hebrew/Israelite/race perspective, even the two understood replacements for Judas Iscariot (Matthias replaced by a process of the other 11, and/or Paul as a replacement directly by Jesus) were Jewish.  It isn't until very late into some of Paul's letters that there is any mention of apostles who are not Jewish (mentioned with the title/description of apostle), such as Apollos.
If you go to the Wikipedia entry for the Apostles of Jesus, there is a list of the twelve with a link to a biography of each, but I had trouble finding reference to their Jewish heritage.  It's like all articles on this subject that I found just assumed it was true without showing any evidence.  I do know some of these Scripture declares it directly, but not for all.
I know inherently that this is true - all the 12 disciples were Jewish, but I'm having a hard time finding references to prove it.

Thanks to a comment from Mr. Bultitude, which speaks to the Jewishness of the names of the apostles, assuming that Thaddeus is actually Jude as most scholars believe:

Each of their names has a Hebrew origin, with the exceptions of Andrew (Greek name, but Peter's brother) and Philip (Greek name, but from the same city as Peter and Andrew) and the possible exception of Thaddeus (probably Aramaic name, so still evidence that he's Jewish, and he's also identified with an apostle known as Jude, which is absolutely a Jewish/Hebrew name)

I saw a quote that Judas Iscariot was the only Judean, and the rest were Galilean.  This may be confirmed at Pentecost in Acts 2:

1 Now when the day of Pentecost had come, they were all together in one place. 2 Suddenly a sound like a violent wind blowing came from heaven and filled the entire house where they were sitting. 3 And tongues spreading out like a fire appeared to them and came to rest on each one of them. 4 All of them were filled with the Holy Spirit, and they began to speak in other languages as the Spirit enabled them.
5 Now there were devout Jews from every nation under heaven residing in Jerusalem. 6 When this sound occurred, a crowd gathered and was in confusion, because each one heard them speaking in his own language. 7 Completely baffled, they said, “Aren’t all these who are speaking Galileans? 8 And how is it that each one of us hears them in our own native language? [ Acts 2:5-8 (NET) ]

If there is some way to show that all 12 (or 11 + Matthias) of the apostles were present at Pentecost (this follows from the narrative...), this may be a proof, though it feels somewhat weak.  The issue is that Galilean may or may not necessarily imply Israelite/Hebrew/Jew.

A completely different way to tackle this may be to look at how the apostles behaved toward the question of spreading the gospel to non-Jews at the start.
While Jesus did bring the gospel to the Samaritan's directly (See the story of Jesus and the Samaritan women in John 4 - which completely surprised the disciples that he even spoke with them) it's not until well after the start of the church in Jerusalem that they even officially consider the possibility of extending the church to the gentiles.  Even though Philip pretty quickly spread the gospel to the Ethiopian Eunuch (Acts 8:27-40), and others, apparently not the apostles, spread the word to gentiles (Acts 11:19-22):

19 Now those who had been scattered because of the persecution that took place over Stephen went as far as Phoenicia, Cyprus, and Antioch, speaking the message to no one but Jews. 20 But there were some men from Cyprus and Cyrene among them who came to Antioch and began to speak to the Greeks too, proclaiming the good news of the Lord Jesus. 21 The hand of the Lord was with them, and a great number who believed turned to the Lord. 22 A report about them came to the attention of the church in Jerusalem, and they sent Barnabas to Antioch. [ Acts 11:19-22 (NET) ]

In fact, it was so bad that God had to send Peter a vision and directly send him to Cornelius, a Gentle, and poured out his Spirit on them in order to finally get the point across to the church that the good news was for everyone, even though he told them that directly in the Great Commission.  In fact, this was so against their teaching, that Peter had to go back and defend/explain his actions of even entering into a Gentile house, which was against the purification laws of the Jews:

1 Now the apostles and the brothers who were throughout Judea heard that the Gentiles too had accepted the word of God. 2 So when Peter went up to Jerusalem, the circumcised believers took issue with him, 3 saying, “You went to uncircumcised men and shared a meal with them.” 4 But Peter began and explained it to them point by point, saying, ... [ Acts 11:1-4 (NET) ]

Even after this the Gentiles were accepted, but then many started saying that the Gentiles had to essentially convert to Judaism and obey all the Mosaic laws - which leads to "the Jerusalem Council" in Acts 15, where it was decided this line of reasoning was incorrect.  Paul would end up fighting against that position for the rest of his career, with evidence found liberally throughout his letters.
So, what is the point of all this?  If any of the original apostles were not Israelites, how could the infant church adopt a position that excluded Gentiles at the start?


What is The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints view of historical-critical methods? What is The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints view of historical-critical methods? The method calls for understanding the world behind the ancient text, accepting that the text has human origins, but still contains divine inspiration. However, with regards to the controversies surrounding the Book of Mormon concerning historical inconsistencies, and the fact that the no one except Joseph Smith, the presumed translator of the golden plates, has access to the original language of the text (Reformed Egyptian), how can the historical-critical method be applied to this book in the same way it is applied to the Bible or the Quran? More so, how is it possible to defend the faith when the culture or world behind the text is a mystery or unknown?

The official stance seems to be that it's a non-issue.

The official narrative is what it is.  It claims that Joseph Smith was singled out by God through the angel Moroni to receive the golden plates, and the means to translate them via God's supernatural fiat.  If true, one wouldn't need external validation. If it came directly from God through His supernatural power, well, God's word is all we need.   God doesn't need humans to verify His revelation, humans just need to have faith in it.

From FAIR wiki, an LDS site dedicated to LDS Apologetics:

  It is important to remember that what we do know for certain is that
  the translation of the Book of Mormon was carried out "by the gift and
  power of God." These are the only words that Joseph Smith himself used
  to describe the translation process.

  As Elder Russel M. Nelson stated in the July 1993 Ensign, the "details
  of this miraculous method of translation are still not fully known."
  We do know, based upon witness accounts, that Joseph employed
  instruments designated for that purpose: The Nephite interpreters and
  his own seer stone. Many have offered their own opinions about how
  these devices "functioned" in the process, but it should be kept in
  mind that these opinions are given by people who never performed the
  translation process itself: They can only report on what they observed
  the Prophet doing at the time. We also know that at some later point
  in time, both the Nephite interpreters and Joseph's seer stone were
  referred to using the term "Urim and Thummim." Whether Joseph used the
  "original" Urim and Thummim (i.e. Nephite interpreters or
  "spectacles") or his own seer stone to perform this sacred task is
  beside the point, and it does not diminish the power of the resulting
  work. One should read the Book of Mormon itself and evaluate its
  message rather than get wrapped up in the detail of its exact method
  of translation.

and further down...

  Church response

  In 1993, Elder Russell M. Nelson stated that "[t]he details of this
  miraculous method of translation are still not fully known." 1

  All that we know for certain is that Joseph translated the record "by
  the gift and power of God." (DC 135:3)


Why are some people born into famine and starvation? I was raised Christadelphian, and after 17 years of education and reading the bible, I dismissed my faith and left the church. One of my main reasons for turning my back on God was this.

Why is it that children are born in Africa, with HIV or AID's, these children die of starvation and disease before they even learn to speak.

  John 3:16 NIV

  For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that
  whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.

These children never have the chance to become baptised and give themselves to christ, they're minds never mature to an age where it's possible for them to understand this concept, nor in many places in the world, has the word of the christian god even reached.

If God is just, loving and merciful, why does he allow this to happen?

I believe this is one of the most challenging questions to answer because it's so painful to see such terrible suffering in the world that occurs especially when it's at no fault of the suffering soul.  Therefore, this question requires a sincere answer in response to the emotions it invokes as well as the possible contradiction posed by Epicurus.

In response to Epicurus; he makes a fatal error in his logic by not considering the possibility that God has a sufficient reason for allowing such suffering in the world.  If this is even possible it completely eliminates any logical contradiction concerning the existence of a good God and the existence of evil.  In God's omnipotence He can choose to allow terrible things to occur in order to bring about a greater good later.  Think about the story of Joseph (Gen 37-50),  or, most importantly, the betrayal of Christ which brought about atonement for our sins.  In this past century alone, our world has seen the most despicable dictators such as Joseph Stalin, Pol Pot, and Saddam Hussein to name a few.  Even in the face of the massive killings of China people are rushing to the Lord at a rate faster than any where else in the world.  In Pakistan you can receive the death penalty for conversion yet they still are unable to stomp out the forest fire of belief in Christ.  In Africa, from the early 1900's to date, the population has gone from less than 5% Christian to around 50%, in the face of famine, raping and brutal murders.  God exchanges the suffering of the world, not only for many good things, but also for His most cherished affection, which is us.

Some may say if God is Omnipotent (all powerful) then why not just eliminate evil altogether and let us live in happy harmony.  I suggest this premise has not been thought through very carefully for if God's standard is perfection He would ultimately have to either revoke our free will or eliminate all mankind since we have all fallen short of His glory (Rom 3:23) and deserve death (Rom 6:23).  Even the atheist must admit that he has committed some evil according to God's standards, thereby qualifying for elimination.  But as we have seen, God doesn't want to eliminate us but wants all people to be saved (1 Tim 2:4).

What about the children who die before being baptized, where do they go.  I would first like to say that although Jesus commands a professing Christian to be baptized, he never requires it for salvation.  In fact, he tells the criminal on the cross next to him who had a repented heart, "Truly, I say to you, today you shall be with Me in Paradise" (Luke 23:43).  This thief did not have the opportunity to be baptized yet Christ is telling him he will be in heaven.  I would also like to point out in contrast to the Christadelphian claim, that the bible indicates here and in Luke 16:22 that believers will indeed be in heaven immediately after dying.  Romans 10:9-13 tells us how to be saved and baptism is not part of it.  Furthermore the bible indicates that a child who dies goes to be with the Lord.  (2 Sam 12:23) When Davids son dies he says, "I will go to him, but he will not return to me", meaning David will see him again in heaven.  And again in Ezekiel 16:21 God calls the young children of Israel who were being sacrificed by fire, His children, and we know from John 1 that to be a child of God is to be saved.

Lastly, about the people who are unreached by the gospel before there death.  Read Romans 1 and 2 very carefully and you will find that although a man may not have heard the gospel he still has the testimony of God's existence from creation and an inner conviction (also see John 16:8).  This conviction is the same conviction that drives any person to repentance.  Christ is not limited to just using people to share the gospel, he can do so by coming Himself to a believing and contrite soul, in a vision, as he has done for so many people already.  Many Muslims who have come to Christ will testify that they were met by Christ having never heard the gospel a day in there life, Amazing!! Read Acts 10 and you will see the story of a man who loved God but never heard the Gospel, and God sent Peter to him so that He may hear.

I hope this makes sense, I know it's very long answer but these are questions that many have written entire books about.  I really hope and pray that you would reconsider your disbelief.  Think about this, you lost your faith because of all the injustice going on, meanwhile the people being treated unjustly are gaining such strong relationships with God.  James 1 was written just for these people to remain strong during trials, and I plead with you to do the same.


Does 2 Corinthians 10:3-5 assume Christian pacifism? In 2 Corinthians 10:3-5 Paul makes a contrast between spiritual warfare and war "according to human standards":

  Indeed, we live as human beings, but we do not wage war according to human standards; for the weapons of our warfare are not merely human, but they have divine power to destroy strongholds. We destroy arguments and every proud obstacle raised up against the knowledge of God, and we take every thought captive to obey Christ.

In using the phrase "we do not wage war according to human standards", is Paul assuming or expecting Christians will all be pacifists, or is he merely highlighting the contrast between physical and spiritual warfare?

The passage you quote is very near the start of a new topic in Paul's letter.  2nd Corinthians 8-9 covers the topic of giving; particularly giving to the church in Jerusalem.  The context leading into the passage in question in 2nd Corinthians 10:1-2 (ESV):

I, Paul, myself entreat you, by the meekness and gentleness of Christ—I who am humble when face to face with you, but bold toward you when I am away!—I beg of you that when I am present I may not have to show boldness with such confidence as I count on showing against some who suspect us of walking according to the flesh.

So the topic Paul is directly addressing is the perception among the Corinthians that he is walking according to the flesh because of the way he writes his letters to them (i.e., boldly).  This thread started back in 2nd Corinthians 7:8-9 (ESV):

For even if I made you grieve with my letter, I do not regret it—though I did regret it, for I see that that letter grieved you, though only for a while. As it is, I rejoice, not because you were grieved, but because you were grieved into repenting. For you felt a godly grief, so that you suffered no loss through us.

Presumably, this is a reference to 1st Corinthians, which is a stark appraisal of the Corinthians.  As usual with Paul, we have to read between the lines a bit to understand what his detractors were accusing him of.  It appears he was accused of being only interested in winning a theological argument by hook or by crook, and not caring for the people of the church in Corinth.
Paul's defense against the charge is the passage quoted in the question and following in 2nd Corinthians 10:3-12 (ESV):

For though we walk in the flesh, we are not waging war according to the flesh. For the weapons of our warfare are not of the flesh but have divine power to destroy strongholds. We destroy arguments and every lofty opinion raised against the knowledge of God, and take every thought captive to obey Christ, being ready to punish every disobedience, when your obedience is complete.
Look at what is before your eyes. If anyone is confident that he is Christ’s, let him remind himself that just as he is Christ’s, so also are we. For even if I boast a little too much of our authority, which the Lord gave for building you up and not for destroying you, I will not be ashamed. I do not want to appear to be frightening you with my letters. For they say, "His letters are weighty and strong, but his bodily presence is weak, and his speech of no account." Let such a person understand that what we say by letter when absent, we do when present. Not that we dare to classify or compare ourselves with some of those who are commending themselves. But when they measure themselves by one another and compare themselves with one another, they are without understanding.

If you follow the logic, the phrase "we are not waging war according to the flesh" is there to emphasize that Paul has a no-holds-barred attitude to attacking false doctrine that threatens the Corinthians salvation.  It's spiritual warfare in a sense, but the manifestation of the warfare is rational argument.

So it seems that reading Christian Pacifism into the text is just that.  However, there is an argument to be made based on the first verse of the chapter which characterizes Jesus as meek and gentle.  As Paul had previously told the Corinthians, "Be imitators of me, as I am of Christ."  (1st Corinthians 11:1)  So by extension, Paul may be suggesting that we, as Christians, remain meek and gentile in most circumstances.
Paul certainly knew of the story of Jesus cleansing the Temple, which appears neither meek nor gentle.   But it's possible that Paul intends us to recall that moment in Jesus' life since He was uncharacteristically violent for the purposes of opposing unprofitable doctrine, injustice, and corruption.  If Paul is suggesting what we call Christian Pacifism, it is a somewhat nuanced position.
Summary
While this particular passage can be read to support Christian Pacifism, it's certainly not the main point of Paul's argument here.


If a sin is not intentional but due to psychological or physical reasoning, will Jesus Christ still count that act as a sin? Sin is really vicious and annoying to God.

But what if a sin that is caused by a person's physical or mental ailments does God look upon that person with empathy, sympathy, and compassion?

For example, a person might have anger management problems due to his mental illnesses even though he is seeing a psychiatrist, therapist and taking med regularly. He is not into himself. What if he is deeply repentant after the act. But he continues to show anger. Because his physical and mental world does not cooperate with the spiritual realm. What if he is trying every day with all his body, mind and soul to get over it and taking baby steps. But he does not know when this burning problem will be resolved. Will Christ still look at him with Mercy? Or other acts related to mental and physical illnesses that are offending to God but the intention is not fully present. They are helpless. They wish that Christ would cure them immediately so that they would not commit those acts against God.

St. Paul was about to obliterate Christians and on the way, Christ showed his face in the cloud. And he never took up the sword again. He was cured of his sinful ways.

In the Bible, we also have a mentally ill teenage boy at the foot of the hill who was behaving erratically. Jesus Christ showed sympathy toward that boy.

If sin is not intentional but due to psychological or physical reasoning, does Jesus Christ still count that act as a sin? What does the Catechism of the Catholic Church say about it?

If a sin is not intentional but due to psychological or physical reasoning, will Jesus Christ still count that act as a sin?

Circumstances can definitely diminish the culpability of a sin in an individual and in some cases it may be negated completely of any culpability.

Here is what the Catechism of the Catholic Church has to say on this subject:

  1860 Unintentional ignorance can diminish or even remove the imputability of a grave offense. But no one is deemed to be ignorant of the principles of the moral law, which are written in the conscience of every man. The promptings of feelings and passions can also diminish the voluntary and free character of the offense, as can external pressures or pathological disorders. Sin committed through malice, by deliberate choice of evil, is the gravest.


Does the LDS Church teach that murder is unforgivable? Doctrine and Covenants 42:18 appears to teach that anyone who kills cannot ever be forgiven.
Does "killing" refer only to murder or to any killing, be it in self defense or as part of a way?

And now, behold, I speak unto the church. Thou shalt not kill; and he that kills shall not have forgiveness in this world, nor in the world to come. D&C 42:18

Does the LDS Church hold to this position today?  If so, how is God's forgiveness of David reconciled with that as well as the people mentioned in the book of Alma?

Nathan said to David, “You are the man... You have struck down Uriah the Hittite with the sword and have taken his wife to be your wife and have killed him with the sword of the Ammonites... David said to Nathan, “I have sinned against the LORD.” And Nathan said to David, “The LORD also has put away your sin; you shall not die. 2 Samuel 12 (portions) ESV
And I also thank my God, yea, my great God, that he hath granted unto us that we might repent of these things, and also that he hath forgiven us of those our many sins and murders which we have committed, and taken away the guilt from our hearts, through the merits of his Son.  Alma 24:10

Short answer: Yes, sorta.

Long answer:

Murder is a very serious sin, and while it can't be forgiven it can be pardoned. Also it will stop you from doing or holding certain church offices. See paragraph 4 of this article for more on why D&C 42 says it is unforgivable.

Now to address your scripture reference.

  Book of Mormon: Alma 24: 10) And I also thank my God, yea, my great God, that he hath granted unto us that we might repent of these things, and also that he hath forgiven us of those our many sins and murders which we have committed and taken away the guilt from our hearts though the merits of his Son.

Hopefully
this excerpt strait from the D&C study guide on chapter 42, can shed some light on the Alma scripture.

  “The second most serious sin is to commit murder—that is, to willfully shed innocent blood. Concerning this sin, the Lord has said: ‘Thou shalt not kill; and he that kills shall not have forgiveness in this world, nor in the world to come.’ (D&C 42:18.) Thus this is an unforgivable sin, which means that Jesus Christ cannot pay for (or ‘atone for’ or ‘forgive’) the penalty demanded by the broken law. This sin is a pardonable sin, however; that is, the sinner can eventually make full payment himself, and be received into a state of pardon. Apparently one reason this sin is unforgivable is that forgiveness is based upon repentance, and a murderer cannot fully repent of his sin for he cannot make restitution of the life he has taken” (Daniel H. Ludlow,A Companion to Your Study of the Book of Mormon[1976], 222).

Missionaries of the LDS Church, have to refer anyone who has confessed to murder and who wants to be baptized, or even taught!, to their direct head, the president of their mission. The president will then refer the case to the First Presidency of the Church (if warranted). The First Presidency then reviews each case and makes a determination on a case by case basis.

The LDS Church views only one sin as truly unforgivable(and unpardonable). That is the sin of Denying the Holy Ghost. This in turn is something that is extremely difficult to do. (I.E not something the average member is going to do).

In order to do this you must have a sure witness of Christ and then deny Him.

The easiest example of this is Cain, he walked and talked with God and yet denied God when he followed the devil and killed his brother. He is referred to as a 'Son of Perdition'.


Is there a digitized version of the Tyndale Bible available? Is there any websites that have a digitized version of William Tyndale's Bible online?

The reason for the absence of the Old Testament in the accepted website is that the Tyndale Bible did not include most of the Old Testament as he was only about half-way done translating it before he was executed.
This website includes the Old Testament books that he did complete: Genesis-Deuteronomy + Jonah, as well as the New Testament

http://wesley.nnu.edu/sermons-essays-books/william-tyndales-translation/


Why did foot washing become a common practice in Christianity? I am aware that some, but certainly not all, Protestant denominations employ the practice of foot washing in their services.  I understand that this is based on John 13, where Jesus washes the feet of His disciples.  However, how and why did this practice become adopted as a literal practice rather than a general principle?

What is the origin of this practice in churches?  Does it predate the Reformation or was it practiced before that in either the Orthodox and/or Catholic church?  What denominations employ this practice today?

The act of washing feet predates the Reformation. It was encouraged of the abbot of a Benedictine Monastery to wash the feet of guests by the Order of St. Benedict(c. 530). The washing of the feet is done yearly in the Roman Catholic Church.

I do not know what all denominations practice the washing of feet.

For more information, you can read about it in the Catholic Encyclopedia:

  The liturgical washing of feet (if we can trust the negative evidence of our early records) seems only to have established itself in East and West at a comparatively late date. In 694 the Seventeenth Synod of Toledo commanded all bishops and priests in a position of superiority under pain of excommunication to wash the feet of those subject to them. The matter is also discussed by Amalarius and other liturgists of the ninth century. Whether the custom of holding this "maundy" (from "Mandatum novum do vobis", the first words of the initial Antiphon) on Maundy Thursday, developed out of the baptismal practice originally attached to that day does not seem quite clear, but it soon became an universal custom in cathedral and collegiate churches. In the latter half of the twelfth century the pope washed the feet of twelve sub-deacons after his Mass and of thirteen poor men after his dinner.


In LDS belief, why are eternal families so important? I know that the family is central to God's plan, and that families give you more joy in life than anything else ever could. But I've often wondered why it is necessary for everyone to be sealed together?

I know the classroom answers. We teach in the LDS church that families can be together forever, sealed together by the power of the priesthood under the blessings of the temple, but why is that necessary? Why do we need to be sealed to our children and to our parents when in the beginning we were already part of an eternal family; sons and daughters of God.

What is the significance to coming to earth, raising one of our spirit brethren in mortality as our own physical offspring, then sealing them to us as such for time and all eternity? When we die, we're going to remember the pre-existence, and the relationships we had for an eternity as spirit siblings. Am I going to view my daughter as the spirit sister I knew her has? Or am I forever going to regard her as my very own offspring? After exaltation we teach that we begin families of our own, and produce spirit offspring just like our father in heaven, at which point our mortal children will be our spirit siblings, our children from our brief time in mortality, the spirit aunts and uncles to our new spirit children, as well as their brothers and sisters somehow?

What is it about taking our pre-existing family of children of God, and organizing them into lineages for time and all eternity that is so significant?

Eternal families are based in a life in that same organization after the Resurrection and Judgement (cf. Doc & Cov 130:2).

Regarding the resurrection,

  As part of His eternal plan, God has provided a resurrection for everyone.

  Everyone who has lived will be resurrected (see 1 Corinthians 15:21–22; Alma 11:41; D&C 29:26; 2 Nephi 9:22).
  Resurrection is the reuniting of the physical body and the spirit after death (see D&C 88:14–17; Alma 11:43; 40:23; 2 Nephi 9:12).
  We cannot receive a fulness of joy when the spirit and the body are separated (see D&C 93:33–34; 45:17; 138:50).
  Resurrection is brought about by the power of God (see John 5:21; Acts 26:8; 1 Corinthians 6:14; 2 Nephi 9:12).
  Resurrection restores every limb and joint to its proper and perfect frame (see Alma 11:43–44; 40:23; 41:2).

  Doctrines of the Gospel Student Manual; Chapter 32: The Resurrection and the Judgment

While the eternal intelligences inhabit the spirits created by our Eternal Parents (cf. Doc & Cov 93:29 and Abraham 3:21-22), our spirits will, in turn, inhabit the physical bodies which were created for us in this life by our earthly parents (cf. Doc & Cov 88:15).

Our sons and daughters will be organized in a grand family with Adam and Eve at the head of those from this earth.  This grand family is all organized within the Eternal family that includes all of the spirit children of our heavenly parents—including those from the innumerable worlds which God has created. Both lineages are important as they signify the various stages of our eternal progression and through the estates which we have kept (cf. Abraham 3:26).

This lineage is not a "ranking" system of "best to worst," rather it is a system of organization based upon the basic family unit.  Only those in the highest degree of the Celestial Kingdom will be a part of this grand family and are those who are "heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ"(Romans 8:17).


King David`s Successor Before Solomon was born, who was to become king? David has other sons so if Solomon had not been born, who would have been the heir? Would it be one of the sons who were killed?

If Solomon had not been born, obviously another son would have become king.  After David sinned with Bathsheba and was told an ingenious parable by the prophet Nathan, David pronounced his own judgement by saying that such a person must pay four times for this crime (2 Sam 12:6).  Thus, David had the following sons die:

The son from Bathsheba's first pregnancy (2 Sam 12:18)
David's eldest son and the one most likely to have succeeded as king, Amnon (2 Sam 13), if David had not decided to appoint Solomon as heir (1 Kings 1:29, 30).
David's next son, Absalom (2 Sam 15-17)
David's next son, Adonijah (1 Kings 1:1-52, 2:13-25)

This is somewhat academic, as David had made it quite clear who was to succeed him (1 Kings 1:29, 30).  It was the reigning kings prerogative to appoint his chosen heir which was often (but not always) the eldest son.  [Note the important example of this where Jacob chose Judah over Reuben as his primary heir, from whom came King David himself.]


Baptism of the Holy Spirit according to Martin Lloyd Jones' "Joy Unspeakable" Context

To the best of my understanding of Martin Lloyd Jones' "Joy Unspeakable", the baptism of the Holy Spirit is described as

not automatically granted to all Christians upon conversion
not necessarily granted to all Christians even in this life
the closest one can get to heaven on this side of eternity
an experience many greats (Spurgeon, Whitfield, Wesley, ...) had gone through

Question

What Christian denomination does Martyn Lloyd Jones beliefs on the Holy Spirit fall under? What else does that particular denomination believe about the baptism of the holy spirit? [Please cite resources so I can read more.]

Dr. Martin Lloyd Jones was a minister under a congregationalist background. Basically these churches are non-denominational in that they believe each congregation is its own independent denomination. They have their roots and beliefs in line with the reformed puritans such as John Owen.  Therefore they are generally staunchly Calvinistic and conservative.

However Lloyd-Jones particular views on the Holy Spirit are slightly unique. For example, although very similar to John Owen's, he had a slightly higher expectation that God could pour out extra-ordinary gifts during an outpouring or revival.  His emphasis was in the same vein of the puritans, is was not like the Pentecostal or other charismatic movements which put experience above God's word. On the contrary Lloyd-Jones was a through-and-through puritanical, conservative, cross-only preacher who emphasized the objective truth of scripture above experience.

This made Lloyd-Jones a leader among conservative evangelicals who though not necessarily interested in speaking on tongues, were still feeling like their was more inner renewal and power to be had in the Christian life than offered by tradition based churches that were becoming more and more liberal and ecumenical at that time.

This may seem odd, but being very familiar with Lloyd-Jone's theology and having myself been a member of various evangelical churches including,  Non-denominational, Apostolic (Calvinistic Pentecostal), Christian Missionary Alliance, Baptist, Independent Evangelical and now Anglican (in that order) - due to my need to frequently relocate to other cities, I would say there are no denominations (that I am aware of) that hold the same view as Lloyd-Jone's on the holy Spirit except individual independent evangelical churches and the Christian Missionary Alliance. The reason why it is the same as Christian Missionary Alliance is because A. W. Tozer partly founded that denomination.  Tozer and Lloyd-Jones were two very different men but had a similar conservative (anti liberal) emphasis on the Holy Spirit while retaining standard old school Christ centered gospel preaching.

I guess it is safe to say they were the most balanced leaders in their day among conservative evangelicals that only partially rejected the overall charismatic movement.  Lloyd-Jones specifically opposed the Pentecostal movement as it was against Calvinism and that 'speaking in tongues' as the evidence of 'baptism in the Spirit' was simply unbiblical.

Note: As far as resources go for a more in-depth understanding of the Spirit in the tradition of Lloyd-Jones I would actually turn to John Owen or even J.I. Packer. This is really more in the with Lloyd-Jones than any charismatic writer. You will notice the forward of many of Lloyd-Jone's book are by Packer because they are actually very similar. The thing that slightly confuses things is that in my view Lloyd-Jones confused a term, he identified 'sealing' with 'assurance of salvation' - this was his small mistake, but everything else is really standard reformed views according to Owen.  Actually for his wedding anniversary present he requested the works of John Owen.  I think that's really the place to go.


How did the Inquisition impact modern Christianity? Related Question

  How did the Crusades impact modern Christianity?

How did the Inquisition impact modern day Christianity own sense of morality and spirituality?
What do these things mean to a person of faith?

  The Inquisition, Inquisitio Haereticae Pravitatis (inquiry on heretical perversity), was the "fight against heretics" by several institutions within the justice-system of the Roman Catholic Church. It started in the 12th century, with the introduction of torture in the persecution of heresy. Inquisition practices were used also on offences against canon law other than heresy. (Wikipedia)

I'm addressing all of the inquisitions, not merely the Spanish Inquisition here.  Several were perpetrated by kings, not the Catholic Church.

I agree with the other answers that state that the Inquisition is a stain and an evil that should never have happened.  None of what I'm posting here should be taken in any way that detracts from @James Black's answer, or @Apocatastasis.  I'm merely listing some impacts not listed in their answers.

Impacts include:

A tendency to view Church authority with skepticism, particularly when we smell an abuse of power

For me, personally, this is why I tend to lean on the words of Scripture, which never changes, as opposed to religious teachings of any one denomination.

A cadre of anti-theists, who object to Christianity, among other reasons, on the basis of the fact that the Inquisition happened. Examples:  1  2
A rise in atheism, anti-theism, antireligion, and other beliefs based on the assumption that since the Inquisition(s) were perpetrated by "Christians" that Christianity supports such atrocities. (see previous references)

It doesn't.  At least not if you believe that Jesus taught that we are to love our enemies as well as our neighbors
I also personally think that  just because these officials were self-described Christians, their actions show that they had no idea what it means to be a Christian.

Christians that are stronger in their views of the importance of God's commandment to love our neighbors (and our enemies) because we have such a stellar (if horrific) example of how not to treat those who disagree with us. examples: 1 2
Christians and non-Christians alike that are better educated and on guard against such abuses, because as long as human nature is what it it, it could happen again if we're not vigilant. example: 1

Unfortunately, this isn't the majority.  Just like all other generations, we think we're so much more enlightened than they were in the past.  We're not.  The Germans refused to believe what the Nazis were doing because they thought it couldn't happen in their society.  If we can't learn the lesson that people are corrupt and it can happen as soon as we let our guard down, it will happen.  Time and time again.

Also, if my understanding of the history and timelines is correct, then at least some of the Inquisitions happened before or during the Protestant Reformation.

Medieval Inquisition - 1184
Spanish Inquisition - 1480
Protestant Reformation - 1517

Since the Reformation was as much about rebelling against abuses by the Church (See several of the points, including but not limited to  #10, 24, 27... here) as it was about differences in doctrine, you might be able to argue that the widespread existence of protestant denominations is at least partially due to the Inquisition.  Certainly, Church-sponsored torture and murder of those who simply believe differently are examples of corruption and abuse of power. If not a direct cause, the Inquisitions certainly would have added fuel to the fire.


Are there any active Christian ministries that preach from the Jefferson Bible? I've recently read the Jefferson Bible and I am actively considering making it my primary Bible.  Are there any current ministries that use this bible, and/or are there any active ministries that use this as their primary bible?

It is impossible to prove a negative, but I believe that there are not any active groups that self identify as "Christian" and use the Jefferson Bible, as it is called.

The reasons for this conclusion are based on the history of publication and the purpose of the work.

History of publication

Jefferson apparently did not want to publish his work. In fact, there is good evidence that even his own religious identity he guarded steadfastly unto his death. He lived in a time when deviation from orthodoxy was taboo. Additionally, as a Forefather in American history, an entire nation was looking to him at times (and even much of Europe too), and confusing the populace with his own uncertainty in faith would only complicate matters and jeopardize their trust in him.

Consequently, Jefferson's Bible was relatively unknown until the 1940's. And even today, most of Christendom is unaware of it. Mitch Horowitz, writer for CNN, considers the "what if's" had Jefferson published his work.

In light of the Jefferson Bible being more of a curiosity in history, rather than a religious work for the benefit of a religious group, it is unlikely that any self identified Christian group uses it in their ministries.

Purpose of the work

Jefferson was very likely a Deist, according to many historians, and that is in line with his goals for his bible. He states explicitly in a number of places that his work was meant to remove any elements of spiritualism. Consequently, the work only includes portions of the gospels, those being purposefully the passages that do not contain any miracles, hints at the Trinity, or specific elements of any specific god.

It is not only missing more than half of the text that nearly all other Christians use, but also is jumbled into what Jefferson believed was the correct chronology of Jesus' life.

Though the work is entirely from the Bible, it is entirely not the Bible. If any group was using it for their ministries, quoting from it would cause great confusion, as it appears like the Bible at first, but is missing most of it. Instead, what seems more likely, is that deists or even humanist/secular groups may use it, but as an adjunct to their own central doctrine, whatever that may be.

The Wikipedia article is well sourced and covers a good deal about the purpose of Jefferson's work. Once familiar with that, it becomes apparent of the difficulties and unlikelihood that any self identified Christian group uses it in their ministries.

Disclaimer

I always reserve the right to be proven wrong. There may indeed be a self identified Christian group that uses the Jefferson Bible. If so, I would bet they they are Unitarian, or even more liberal in their doctrine, especially regarding their Christology and Theology. Deists are said to be "the natural religion", which seems about as liberal in theology and doctrine as is possible. I would not be surprised if there are humanist/secular groups that stress moral living that use the Jefferson Bible, but probably as an adjunct to their more central ideologies. So called "Christian Atheists" are exactly what the Jefferson Bible would do well for. They are non-believers, however they find a high value in the ethics laid out in the Bible. But aside from assertions that they exist, I know nothing about them.


What is the justification used by the Nazarene denomination that permits women to be pastors/ elders? Nazarenes allow for, and indeed pride ourselves on, our allowance of women in the pastorate. What is their justification for doing so?

The Church of the Nazarene publishes a Manual which details their theology and doctrine. In Page 186, paragraph 501, the justification for ordaining women is presented:

  501. Theology of Women in Ministry. The Church of the
  Nazarene supports the right of women to use their God-given
  spiritual gifts within the church and affirms the historic right
  of women to be elected and appointed to places of leadership
  within the Church of the Nazarene, including the offices of
  both elder and deacon.

  The purpose of Christ’s redemptive work is to set God’s creation
  free from the curse of the Fall. Those who are “in Christ”
  are new creations (2 Corinthians 5:17). In this redemptive
  community, no human being is to be regarded as inferior on
  the basis of social status, race, or gender (Galatians 3:26-28).

  Acknowledging the apparent paradox created by Paul’s instruction
  to Timothy (1 Timothy 2:11-12) and to the church
  in Corinth (1 Corinthians 14:33-34), we believe interpreting
  these passages as limiting the role of women in ministry presents serious conflicts with specific passages of scripture
  that commend female participation in spiritual leadership
  roles (Joel 2:28-29; Acts 2:17-18; 21:8-9; Romans 16:1, 3, 7;
  Philippians 4:2-3), and violates the spirit and practice of the
  Wesleyan-holiness tradition. Finally, it is incompatible with
  the character of God presented throughout Scripture, especially
  as revealed in the person of Jesus Christ.

As far as I can understand the text, the Church of the Nazarene states that ordination cannot be restricted to men only because "no human being is to be regarded as inferior on the basis of social status, race or gender" citing II Cor 5:17 and Gal 3:26–28 as support.

Furthermore, while recognising the direct instructions by St Paul (I Tim 2:11–12, I Cor 14:34–35) regarding the role of women in Church, they reject their literal interpretation by asserting they are in contradiction to passages that "commend female participation in spiritual leadership roles," citing Joel 2:28–29, Acts 2:17–18, Acts 21:8–9, Rom 16:1–7 and Phil 4:2–3, as well as furthermore being "incompatible with the character of God presented throughout Scripture, especially as revealed in the person of Jesus Christ."


Meaning of the Parable of the Talents I’m wondering what people think of this interpretation of sermon of the Parable of the Fearful Investor.

I’ll provide this one example, but I have others if you'd like. The interpretation I usually see elsewhere, including with this forum, is that it is about investing to get something back, using money as a metaphor for your gifts. This interpretation gets to be a problem, and most preachers will tell you this, when the 3rd servant says the master is “hard” and reaped where didn’t sow. The parable doesn’t refute that and it has the master saying he should have taken interest on the money, which would be against Jewish law, so I just can’t map the master on to God.

As the link suggests, “Read the parable like someone living on a lake in Nicaragua or one of the “little ones” who followed Jesus around…”. Then, the lesson comes from the 3rd servant. He doesn’t play the capitalist’s game of exploitation and profit for profit’s sake. Yes, he’s cast out, but it’s cast away from the world that Jesus rejects in the rest of the gospels.

It's absolutely ridiculous to claim the Master isn't God/Jesus as it is in the other parables of the same nature (e.g. Mt 18:23,35; 24:44,46 etc). Not to mention that the wicked and worthless servant goes to Hell. Since interest/money refer to literal money, and the parable isn't talking literally about money but something spiritual (grace, spiritual gifts, skills), interest means Jesus coming back to find the grace given believers to be put to good use (Mt 7:19; Jn 15:1-2,6). That is, the spiritual gifts given the believer should return intact, and even more adundant, since they should convert more people, show good example, bring more people to Christ etc.


According Catholic theology, what does the suffering of hell consist of? According to Catholic theology, what does the suffering of hell consist of?

If there a principal suffering, what is it?

Catechism of the Catholic Church

IV. Hell

  1034 Jesus often speaks of "Gehenna" of "the unquenchable fire"
  reserved for those who to the end of their lives refuse to believe and
  be converted, where both soul and body can be lost. Jesus solemnly
  proclaims that he "will send his angels, and they will gather . . .
  all evil doers, and throw them into the furnace of fire," and that
  he will pronounce the condemnation: "Depart from me, you cursed, into
  the eternal fire!"

  1035 The teaching of the Church affirms the existence of hell and its
  eternity. Immediately after death the souls of those who die in a
  state of mortal sin descend into hell, where they suffer the
  punishments of hell, "eternal fire." The chief punishment of hell
  is eternal separation from God, in whom alone man can possess the life
  and happiness for which he was created and for which he longs.

The emphasis in this passage is mine. The catechism says that separation from God is the chief punishment in hell. The reference to hell fire is placed in a strange context, given that the Church can hardly deny Jesus' words, yet it seems (to me) as if the Church would rather gloss over the hell fire aspect - perhaps because the concept of fire causing suffering to a pure spirit is not something easy to explain.


Why "Sons of Levi" particularly? About 20 minutes into Handel's 'Messiah there is a chorus about the Messiah being like a refiner's fire.... "and He shall purify... the sons of Levi". This is taken from Malachi 3:3. My question is, why is it only the Levites that are singled out for purification? What about all the other tribes of Israel?

The significance of the sons of Levi was that they were the priestly tribe of Israel, and had special duties in the temple, offering sacrifices and leading worship. The priests had to be purified in order to perform their duties, as is referred to in the verses surrounding v. 3. In performing their duties, the sons of Levi facilitated the purification of the other tribes. It isn't that the Sons of Levi were the only ones singled out for purification, but that they were the first ones singled out for purification. One analogue to this might be in the safety instructions about flying, when the passenger traveling with small children is instructed, in the case of emergency, to put on their oxygen mask, and then to put on the mask(s) of the children in their care. In like manner, the Sons of Levi were purified first, so they would facilitate the purification of the rest of Israel.


Were Malachi and Isaiah normally bound or grouped together? This is probably not a surprised to scripture veterans, but noticed that Mark 1:2-3 is a quotation from two separate sources, Isaiah and Malachi, but it is ascribed only to Isaiah by the author of Mark. That leads the question above.

Rick Watts, a New Testament Professor at Regent College, wrote this article in response to a reader's question raising the same issue.  It turns out the discrepancy was already noted as far back as in the 4th century A.D. by St. Jerome, the famous Latin Vulgate translator!

It looks like the earliest manuscripts left "in Isaiah" intact while later manuscripts made the adjustment, thinking that Mark made a mistake, as St. Jerome observed "O Apostle Peter, your son Mark, not in the flesh but in the Spirit, has made a mistake."  So those later manuscripts inappropriately tampered with the text and changed it to "in the prophets".  It looks like KJV used a later manuscript while modern translations like NASB and ESV used an earlier manuscript.

Dr. Watts wrote that there was a pattern in the Gospel of Mark, when bringing together separate texts to form a composite citation that "mutually inform and interpret one another" (in this case Isaiah 40:3 and Malachi 3:1).  Mark, following common 1st century practice, would cite only the most important author that provides the "primary interpretative horizon", which in this case is Isaiah.


What does it mean for God to be a person? What does it mean when Christians say that God is a person? (Representative example here.) Does this mean that Christians believe that God is human?

My experience is with Judaism (in Judaism, God is not referred to as a person).

If we are strict with our terminology, God is not a person. God is an infinitely-perfect being. But God is a personal being:

  When we say that God is a personal being we mean that He is intelligent and free and distinct from the created universe. Personality as such expresses perfection, and if human personality as such connotes imperfection, it must be remembered that, as in the case of similar predicates, this connotation is excluded when we attribute personality to God. It is principally by way of opposition to Pantheism that Divine personality is emphasized by the Theistic philosopher. (source)

Your concern, however, is valid:

  Yet sometimes men are led by a natural tendency to think and speak of God as if He were a magnified creature — more especially a magnified man — and this is known as anthropomorphism. Thus God is said to see or hear, as if He had physical organs, or to be angry or sorry, as if subject to human passions: and this perfectly legitimate and more or less unavoidable use of metaphor is often quite unfairly alleged to prove that the strictly Infinite is unthinkable and unknowable, and that it is really a finite anthropomorphic God that men worship.

When we refer to God as a person, we mean that He is personal, not that He is a magnified human.

When speaking of God, we usually try to reserve the term "Person" to one of the three Divine Persons of the Trinity. There is one God, who is a Trinity of three Divine Persons: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. The Son is Jesus Christ, who is true God and true man. When speaking of Jesus being a person, we say that He is a Divine Person, not a human Person, and we say that He is God, in perfect unity with the Father and the Holy Sprit.


What is this box that can be found in Catholic churches? Please see the picture below. What is this 'box', gilded perhaps, that can be found in Catholic churches? Some make a genuflection before it, and even the Pope bows reverentially before it. What is its history and significance? What's kept in it? What is the name and purpose of the lamp beside it? Does the the 'box' have any scriptural basis? In the answer, please make a reference to the Church law that governs this box.

It is the tabernacle where the Eucharist is reserved for adoration. I personally do not like above picture because the Church in question looks very modern and plain.

Here are some better pictures

  The tabernacle is a liturgical furnishing used to house the Eucharist outside of Mass. This provides a location where the Eucharist can be kept for the adoration of the faithful [hence the genuflecting and the Pope's reverential bow before it] and for later use (e.g., distribution to the sick).

  It also helps prevent the profanation of the Eucharist. Thus the law requires, "The tabernacle in which the Eucharist is regularly reserved is to be immovable, made of solid or opaque material, and locked so that the danger of profanation may be entirely avoided" (CIC 938 §3).

  The word tabernacle means "dwelling place." Any place someone dwells is a tabernacle. The term is also sometimes used for a temporary dwelling place. Thus the tent-like sanctuary that the Jews used before the Temple was built was called the Tabernacle, because God dwelt there. Similarly, for the feast of Sukkot the Hebrews erected temporary shelters to live in for the festival, which is often called "the feast of tabernacles" or "the feast of booths" as a result.

  The tabernacle in Church is so named because it is a place where Christ dwells in the Eucharist.

  cf. What is A Tabernacle?

As regards the lamp beside the tabernacle, it is a sanctuary lamp: A wax candle, generally in a red glass container, kept burning day and night wherever the Blessed Sacrament is reserved in Catholic churches or chapels. It is an emblem of Christ's abiding love and a reminder to the faithful to respond with loving adoration in return.

  Please note: The sanctuary lamp also serves to inform people that the Blessed
  Sacrament is indeed present in the tabernacle, because on certain
  occasions the tabernacle is empty and then it would be inappropriate
  to genuflect to it (though one might genuflect or at least bow to the
  altar on which it rests or to a nearby crucifix). –  Andreas Blass

Please see also: Tabernacle | New Advent.


Were the Gospels considered Scripture when the rest of the New Testament was written? When the New Testament was written1, were the books of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John already considered Scripture?

1 Acts - Revelation. Obviously there is overlap in when these were written (they are not included in the NT in chronological order), but were the known Gospels considered Scripture?

Given the clarification of the question, an entirely new answer is in order.

The quick answer is that most of the rest of the NT

was written before the Gospels, and
was sourced by eyewitnesses in any event.  Every writer was in some way written by somebody who had first-hand knowledge of Jesus.  As such, there would have been no need to go back and read somebody else's book.

The dates of the New Testament books can be found in this question.

The entire Pauline corpus (Romans - Philemon), if authored by Paul, predates the Gospels.

Paul was executed in either 62, 65, or 68 AD, and all of this excludes John (95), Matthew (post-70), and Luke.

Mark may have been been written prior to Paul's execution, but even given the earliest date for Mark and the latest for Paul's execution would have given only 10 years.  In any event, many eyewitnesses to the Resurrection were still alive at this point, and so Mark would have just been one more eyewitness.

The closest one could come to making a case for Scriptural recognition of Mark would be Paul's use of the Eucharistic formula, "Take, eat, this is my body," but again there, the question remains whether this was simply eyewitness account or drawing from the book.  Most scholars believe it to be background knowledge of the account, rather than Paul having read Mark's account.  (For that matter, Paul probably learned about it directly from Peter (Galatians 1:18), who is often seen as Mark's source!)
Additionally, James and Hebrews pretty clearly pre-date the Gospels, so again, no.
Acts, which chronicles the life of Paul, was written by Luke, and is clearly the second half of Luke-Acts.

When Luke begins Acts, he speaks of his own Gospel as "my former book". As such, Luke, when writing Acts, probably was unaware of his own inspired status, but he surely believed what he wrote to be an accurate account of the life of Jesus.
The only candidates for NT books after the "Synoptic Gospels" (Matthew, Mark, Luke) are the Johannine (1, 2, 3d John) books and the Petrine Books (1 & 2 Peter, and Jude which clearly borrows heavily from 2 Peter)

Of these,

John, if it is the same same, did author his own Gospel, and so again, we have the "are you aware of your own Scriptural status" problem.  If it is a different John, the author is still closely indebted to John the Apostle, and so would have considered the John the source, not the Gospel.
Peter, if written by the Apostle Peter (and yes, some doubt whether or not both books were written by Peter), would have had the same status of John.  John was an eyewitness, Peter was an eyewitness.  Peter would have been more influenced by what he saw than what he wrote.  Furthermore, Peter is most commonly ascribed the source of Mark's Gospel, so again, his own self-awareness in regards to inspiration is doubtful.

What may be most useful in answering your question is what Polycarp - a Christian matryr who died in 150AD, thought.  He considered Matthew, Mark, and Luke to be Scripture, along with Acts, the Pauline, and Johnanine corpuses.  Polycarp was a contemporary of John the Apostle, the last of the Apostoles to die.  He's about as early a figure as you are going to get, and he's already really close to the actual writing.  My guess is that he didn't include John in his recommendation list, either because he was so closely associated or it was really too recent.

Finally,
Remember that one of the classic marks of NT canonicity was apostolic claim to authorship.  In other words, every one of the books was, at one time or another, considered to have been written by an apostolic eyewitness of Christ.  This means all the works of the NT would have been written

at the same time (more or less)
by people who had some knowledge of each other
first-hand knowledge of the Christ whose life inspired the books in the first place.

tl;dr>
No, the authors of the epistles didn't see the Gospel books as Scripture - they considered the eyewitness accounts as Scripture. Most of the books you are talking about were authored before the Gospels, but while many of the eyewitnesses were still alive.


How do Christians reconcile Deuteronomy 13:1-4 with their belief in the abrogation of the Mosaic law? Deuteronomy 13:1-4 states:

All this word which I command you, that shall ye observe to do; thou shalt not add thereto, nor diminish from it.

If there arise in the midst of thee a prophet, or a dreamer of dreams--and he give thee a sign or a wonder,

and the sign or the wonder come to pass, whereof he spoke unto thee--saying: 'Let us go after other gods, which thou hast not known, and let us serve them';

thou shalt not hearken unto the words of that prophet, or unto that dreamer of dreams; for the LORD your God putteth you to proof, to know whether ye do love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul.

My understanding is that Christians believe that Jesus abrogated the Mosaic law (e.g. keeping the Sabbath, dietary restrictions, etc.) and they no longer feel bound by them. How, then, do they understand the above passage, which states that one may not subtract commandments from the Law, and which seems to imply that a true prophet will not do so?

The historical answer for this, as it applies to Gentiles, was recorded on the book of Acts.

Mosaic Law was given to the nation of Israel (the Jews), not the Church.

Early on in Church history, the question of whether adherence to Mosaic Law was to be applied to Gentile believers.

  Acts 15

  New International Version (NIV) The Council at Jerusalem

  15 Certain people came down from Judea to Antioch and were teaching
  the believers: “Unless you are circumcised, according to the custom
  taught by Moses, you cannot be saved.” 2 This brought Paul and
  Barnabas into sharp dispute and debate with them. So Paul and Barnabas
  were appointed, along with some other believers, to go up to Jerusalem
  to see the apostles and elders about this question. 3 The church sent
  them on their way, and as they traveled through Phoenicia and Samaria,
  they told how the Gentiles had been converted. This news made all the
  believers very glad. 4 When they came to Jerusalem, they were welcomed
  by the church and the apostles and elders, to whom they reported
  everything God had done through them.

  5 Then some of the believers who belonged to the party of the
  Pharisees stood up and said, “The Gentiles must be circumcised and
  required to keep the law of Moses.”

  6 The apostles and elders met to consider this question. 7 After much
  discussion, Peter got up and addressed them: “Brothers, you know that
  some time ago God made a choice among you that the Gentiles might hear
  from my lips the message of the gospel and believe. 8 God, who knows
  the heart, showed that he accepted them by giving the Holy Spirit to
  them, just as he did to us. 9 He did not discriminate between us and
  them, for he purified their hearts by faith. 10 Now then, why do you
  try to test God by putting on the necks of Gentiles a yoke that
  neither we nor our ancestors have been able to bear? 11 No! We believe
  it is through the grace of our Lord Jesus that we are saved, just as
  they are.”

  12 The whole assembly became silent as they listened to Barnabas and
  Paul telling about the signs and wonders God had done among the
  Gentiles through them. 13 When they finished, James spoke up.
  “Brothers,” he said, “listen to me. 14 Simon[a] has described to us
  how God first intervened to choose a people for his name from the
  Gentiles. 15 The words of the prophets are in agreement with this, as
  it is written:

  16 “‘After this I will return
      and rebuild David’s fallen tent. Its ruins I will rebuild,
      and I will restore it, 17 that the rest of mankind may seek the Lord,
      even all the Gentiles who bear my name, says the Lord, who does these things’[b]— 18     things known from long ago.[c]

  19 “It is my judgment, therefore, that we should not make it difficult
  for the Gentiles who are turning to God. 20 Instead we should write to
  them, telling them to abstain from food polluted by idols, from sexual
  immorality, from the meat of strangled animals and from blood. 21 For
  the law of Moses has been preached in every city from the earliest
  times and is read in the synagogues on every Sabbath.”

More is available at Grace Communion International.

  Why, then, these four rules? Some scholars say the Jews believed that
  these laws dated back to the time of Noah, and therefore applied to
  all nations. Others say that all four rules were associated with
  idolatry. Some say that these four rules were laws of Moses, and were
  given so Gentiles and Jews could eat together. None of these
  suggestions is fully convincing. (See later for more details.)

  However, the decree makes it clear that Gentiles do not have to be
  circumcised, nor do they have to obey the laws of Moses. They are
  circumcised spiritually, not physically. God never gave those commands
  to the Gentiles.

...

  To summarize: Some men said that Gentiles should be circumcised and
  obey the laws of Moses or else they could not be saved. Not so, said
  the apostles. Gentiles are saved by grace and faith. God is pleased to
  dwell in people who aren’t circumcised and who don’t keep the rituals.
  But since Moses is widely preached, we need to give a decree that
  clearly distinguishes the Christian faith from the Law of Moses. This
  pleased the entire church, so they wrote it in a letter and sent it to
  Antioch, where they “were glad for its encouraging message”