Why could not Mary Magdalene touch the resurrected body of Jesus? In John 20:17 it is written that, when Jesus appears to Mary Magdalene after resurrection, He says to her:

  Do not touch me, for I am not yet ascended to my Father

However, Jesus does tell to other disciples to touch Him, after resurrection. For example, later on, in John 20:27, when Jesus appears to His disciples for a second time and Thomas (the Doubter) is with them, He says to Thomas:

  Put your finger here; see my hands. Reach out your hand and put it into my side. Stop doubting and believe.

Similarly, in Luke 24:39 it is written that post-resurrection Jesus said to His disciples:

  See my hands and my feet, that it is I myself. Touch me, and see. For a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see that I have.

Thus, I fail to understand why Jesus would negate Mary Magdalene to touch Him but not to His disciples.

How have theologians and the teachings of Catholic, Anglican, Orthodox or Protestant churches interpreted the words of Jesus to Mary Magdalene? How is the fact that He had not yet ascended to the Father related to Mary not touching Jesus? Surely, once He was gone to the Father, it would be impossible to her for touching Jesus!

One possible explanation is that Jesus did not have a physical body (e.g. this or this  discussion). Personally, I do not believe this was the case, as it it at odd with the other texts (where Jesus says that "a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see that I have"). Neither did Aquinas.

A question from readers in a Watchtower magazine addresses this subject very well. It approaches this seeming conflict by examining the original language of the verses and what the literal original meaning would have been. Your question may be a duplicate of one already asked here on CSE. However below is an answer that I found plausible:

Why did the resurrected Jesus invite Thomas to touch him yet stop Mary Magdalene from doing so earlier?
Some older translations of the Bible give the impression that Jesus told Mary Magdalene not to touch him. For instance, the King James Version renders Jesus’ words: “Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father.” (John 20:17) However, the original Greek verb, which is usually translated “touch,” means also “to cling to, hang on by, lay hold of, grasp, handle.” Reasonably, Jesus was not objecting to Mary Magdalene’s merely touching him, since he allowed other women who were at the grave to ‘catch him by his feet.’—Matthew 28:9.
Many modern-language translations, such as the New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures, The New Jerusalem Bible, and The New English Bible, help us to understand the real meaning of Jesus’ words by rendering them: “Stop clinging to me.” Why would Jesus say that to Mary Magdalene, who was a close associate?—Luke 8:1-3.
Evidently, Mary Magdalene feared that Jesus was about to leave and ascend into heaven. Moved by her strong desire to be with her Lord, she was holding fast to Jesus, not letting him go. To assure her that he was not yet leaving, Jesus instructed Mary to stop clinging to him but instead to go and declare to his disciples the news of his resurrection.—John 20:17.
The exchange between Jesus and Thomas was different. When Jesus appeared to some disciples, Thomas was absent. Later, Thomas voiced his doubts about Jesus’ resurrection, saying that he would not believe it unless he saw Jesus’ nail wounds and put his hand into Jesus’ speared side. Eight days later, Jesus again appeared to the disciples. This time, Thomas was present, and Jesus invited him to touch the wounds.—John 20:24-27.
Thus, in Mary Magdalene’s case, Jesus was dealing with a misplaced desire to prevent him from leaving; in Thomas’ case, Jesus was helping someone who had doubts. In both instances, Jesus had good reasons to act the way he did.

Why did the resurrected Jesus invite Thomas to touch him yet stop Mary Magdalene from doing so earlier?


What is the reason for the absence of the Cross as a symbol in the LDS Church? As I was looking at some references for this question dealing with the usage of the inverted pentagram in the LDS Church and particularly on the Temple in Salt Lack City, I came across an article that indicated that in the LDS Church (and its Temples) the symbol of the Cross is completely absent.

The Cross has been a prominent symbol in Christianity for much of its history.  So, my question is this:

For what reason is the usage of the Cross as a symbol excluded by the LDS church?

This question was answered directly by Gordon B. Hinckley, who was the most recent president of the church before the current one.  In an article in 2005, he wrote:

  “I do not wish to give offense to any of my Christian
  colleagues who use the cross on the steeples of their cathedrals and
  at the altars of their chapels, who wear it on their vestments, and
  imprint it on their books and other literature. But for us, the cross
  is the symbol of the dying Christ, while our message is a declaration
  of the Living Christ.”

An when asked what then is the symbol of the LDS, he said:

  the lives of our people must become the most meaningful
  expression of our faith and, in fact, therefore, the symbol of our
  worship.

I know this site prefers explanations over quotations, but there really isn't much more that can be added to that.


What is a "non-theistic" Christian? The comments to this response suggest that there is such a thing as a Christian who does not believe in God. To me, that is rather contradictory, sort of like social networking without all of the people.

So...

how does it work?

What are the major authors?
Do they have a denomination?

Are there any statistics related to them? (How many, location mostly)

First, define a Christian ;p It actually isn't as simple as you'd think - for example, consider the definition this site uses:

  As far as the scope of this site is concerned, any group that identifies themselves as Christian are to be considered on-topic and allowed to label themselves Christian.

You would perhaps need to ask the author, but "cultural Christians" may be one answer; for example, the recent results of a UK MORI (i.e. well-respected/independent survey) of only people who self-identified as Christian showed that 65% are actually non-religious cultural Christians, i.e. identify as Christian for reasons such as "was Christened as a child", "parents are Christian", etc. Likewise, only 10% used religion as a primary tool in morality issues. Summary document - but emphasis: while the survey was commissioned by the Dawkins Foundation, the survery was conducted independently paying scrupulous attention to the actual questions to ensure the questions weren't leading, etc.

I can't know whether this relates to the thoughts of the answer you are thinking of, but that number is pretty telling, particularly when interpreting geographic religion statistics - i.e. how people identify might not actually relate much to their religious beliefs, but more to their historic/cultural identity.


Sex outside of marriage is a sin. But what about "less than sex"? Inspired by Is masturbation a sin?

This is a tough subject that I've grappled with my whole life.  It's clear in God's word that sex outside of marriage (adultery) is a sin.

But, what is acceptable if sex isn't?

More clearly, I expect that kissing isn't a sin.  But how far beyond kissing is allowed?  How far is "too far"?

This is a very difficult issue.  And for someone trapped in the chains of sexual sin, there is no easy answer - but there is the stunning grace of God for freedom.

I would answer this question by starting with another question: Do you want to live your life seeing how close you can get to sin without actually crossing the line?  Are you motivated to be the most Godly person you can be (growing daily in Christ-likeness), or are you motivated to "get away with" as much as possible without actually going to hell?

When Jesus said, "But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart" in Mat 5:28 he was addressing the inclination of the heart.

In my opinion, when you indulge in sexual lust you are sinning.

We then have to define "sexual lust".  Generally, lust is any desire which elevates your needs over another's.  A good working definition for sexual lust might then be, any thought or action that seeks to use another human for your personal gratification without love or respect for their person.

So if you apply the spirit of this to your treatment of your girlfriend/boyfriend, it becomes "is doing X with this person bringing both of us closer to God, respecting them as a person and expressing pure Godly love?"  If not, I think you have your answer.


What is the evidence that Ignatius of Antioch was ordained by the Apostles? What evidence do we possess today indicating that Ignatius of Antioch was ordained by the Apostles?

Whenever you have questions like this, the first place to turn is wikipedia.  Of course, you can never really "trust" wikipedia, but you can still get a good overview of the situation, and---much more importantly---you can use its references to track down the information you really want.  So, if you visit the wikipedia page on Ignatius, you will find two primary sources.  I have tracked them down for you.  The first is Theodoret, who wrote in Dialog 1---the immutable:

  You have no doubt heard of the illustrious Ignatius, who received episcopal grace by the hand of the great Peter, and after ruling the church of Antioch, wore the crown of martyrdom.

But then in the Apostolic Constitutions VII.iv we read:

  Now concerning those bishops which have been ordained in our lifetime, we let you know that they are these:---James the bishop of Jerusalem, the brother of our Lord; upon whose death the second was Simeon the son of Cleopas; after whom the third was Judas the son of James. Of Cæsarea of Palestine, the first was Zacchæus, who was once a publican; after whom was Cornelius, and the third Theophilus. Of Antioch, Euodius, ordained by me Peter; and Ignatius by Paul.

So, there appears to be conflicting evidences, and both very late (fourth and fifth centuries CE).

According to wikipedia, Eusebius also mentions Ignatius.  This has, oddly enough, proved more difficult for me to track down.  But you can explore the references---and pretty much everything by Eusebius has a free online English translation available.

But then, according to the post-Nicene fathers, we should consult the so-called Dictionary of Christian Biography and Literature to the End of the Sixth Century for more information.  There---in particular, in the Euodius/Evodius entry, we find the following very rich information:

  Evodius (1), according to early tradition, first bp. of Antioch (Eus. Chron. ann. Abr. 2058; H. E. iii. 22). His episcopate has indirectly the older testimony of Origen, who speaks of Ignatius as the second bishop after Peter (in Luc. Hom. 6, vol. iii. p. 938; see also Eus. Quaest. ad Steph. ap Mai, Scr. Vet. i. p. 2). This tradition has all the appearance of being historical. Ignatius early acquired such celebrity that it is not likely the name of an undistinguished person would have been placed before his, if the facts did not require this arrangement. The language used about episcopacy in the Ignatian epistles agrees with the conclusion that Ignatius was not the first at Antioch to hold the office. As time went on, the fitness of things seemed to demand that Ignatius should not be separated from the Apostles. Athanasius (Ep. de Synodis, i. 607) speaks of Ignatius as coming after the Apostles without mention of any one intervening; Chrysostom makes him contemporary with the Apostles (Hom. in Ignat. vol. ii. p. 593); the Apostolic Constitutions (vii. 46) have recourse to the expedient adopted in the parallel case of Clement of Rome, the hypothesis of a double ordination, Evodius being said to have been ordained by Peter, Ignatius by Paul. Theodoret (Dial. I. Immutab. iv. 82, Migne) and others represent Ignatius as ordained by Peter. The authorities are given at length by Zahn (Patres Apostol. ii. 327).
  There is reason to believe that the earliest tradition did not include an ordination even of Evodius by Peter; for the chronicle of Eusebius places the departure of Peter from Antioch three years, or, according to St. Jerome's version, two years before the ordination of Evodius. The chronology of the early bishops of Antioch has been investigated by Harnack (Die Zeit des Ignatius). He infers that the earliest list must have contained only names of bishops of Antioch without any note of lengths of episcopates, but still that Eusebius must have had the work of some preceding chronologer to guide him. We may well believe, as Harnack suggests, that Eusebius got his chronology of early bishops of Antioch from Africanus, to whom he acknowledges his obligation, and whose chronicle has generally been believed to be the basis of that of Eusebius. If the belief had been entertained at the beginning of the 3rd cent. that Evodius had been ordained by Peter, it is incredible that Africanus would have assigned a date which absolutely excludes an ordination by Peter. The date assigned by the chronicle of Eusebius to the accession of Evodius appears to have no historic value, and thus, while we accept the episcopate of Evodius as an historic fact, we have no data for fixing his accession, but may safely place it considerably later than a.d. 42.

This is, obviously, full of references.  But the abbreviations are hard to decode, and so I leave it to you to investigate further.


How can the sun be created after day and night? "Light" was created on day 1 - Genesis 1:3-5.  However the sun was created on day 4 - Genesis 1:14-19.

How is this possible?

Let's look more closely at your linked verses:

  5 God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day. (Genesis 1:5)

This verse implies the creation of light and the implementation of it to create the first day. Darkness already existed, so only light was needed.

  16 God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night.

This verse implies the creation of the sun and moon—notice the "greater" and "lesser" lights.

These lights—the sun and the moon, which were created three days after light itself was—are simply vessels to carry greater and lesser versions of the previously created light which govern the limits of the day and of the night.

And if we read a bit further:

  16 cont. He also made the stars. 17 God set them in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth, 18 to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good.

Stars were created to be vessels for light as well, but to separate this greater light (the sun) from this lesser light (the moon), and to govern both day and night.

Before questioning the bible (and God, by extension), always look more closely at what is being said and you will understand. This is especially true for scripture, because many times we find it to be ambiguous, but upon closer examination it just comes to us.


Can a physically healthy, married couple honor God without having children? If a married couple is physically able to have children (at least potentially) can they honor God without having children?

Roman Catholics, for example, say that sex has at least two purposes according to God: uniting a couple and producing offspring. Therefore if a couple is able to have kids they should at least try to at some point in time.

Under what circumstances would other church doctrines weigh in on whether or not a couple, otherwise able to have children, might choose to adopt rather than procreate in the natural fashion?

Short Answer: Yes. Just as a person can honor God without getting married, a couple can honor God without having children.

From a Biblical perspective, Paul's advice in 1 Corinthians 7:17-35 is highly relevant:

  Only, as the Lord has assigned to each one, as God has called each, in this manner let him walk. . . . Was any man called when he was already circumcised? He is not to become uncircumcised. Has anyone been called in uncircumcision? He is not to be circumcised. . . . Each man must remain in that condition in which he was called. . . . Brethren, each one is to remain with God in that condition in which he was called. . . .
  I think then that this is good in view of the present distress, that it is good for a man to remain as he is. Are you bound to a wife? Do not seek to be released. Are you released from a wife? Do not seek a wife. But if you marry, you have not sinned . . . . Yet such will have trouble in this life, and I am trying to spare you. But this I say, brethren, the time has been shortened, so that from now on those who have wives should be as though they had none . . . and those who use the world, as though they did not make full use of it; for the form of this world is passing away.
  But I want you to be free from concern. One who is unmarried is concerned about the things of the Lord, how he may please the Lord; but one who is married is concerned about the things of the world, how he may please his wife, and his interests are divided. . . . This I say for your own benefit; not to put a restraint upon you, but to promote what is appropriate and to secure undistracted devotion to the Lord.

Here we see Paul encouraging the saints in Corinth to stop worrying about trying to fit some external form and just serve the Lord. He lists off a whole series of questions where a person might be inclined to think that they need to "do" something different in order to please the Lord, and Paul's response is two-fold:

"I want you to be free from concern." The form of this world is passing away, so don't worry about it -- just remain as you are and serve the Lord
We are not talking about matters of "sin" here, so if you choose not to "remain as you are" (or, of course, if God leads you in another direction) that's OK too.

The reason this is a great passage to use in addressing your question is that God also created marriage for a specific purpose, which the Catholic teachings would also affirm. However, God created this before man fell into sin, and in the fallen world we live in, Paul suggests that his readers remember that this world is passing away, and so at the end of the day all that matters is devotion to the Lord.


Confessional Lutheranism: How does Unlimited Atonement work? I recognize that concerning the mysteries of the faith that Lutherans do not typically like to answer "how does this doctrine work?" type of questions, but I'm hoping for an explanation.

Issues, Etc. has a post on Lutheranism vs. Calvinism. I'm more or less in total agreement with the pastor on the first two of the five Calvinistic points. However, he loses me when talking about limited atonement.

At 29:37 in the audio, he begins to tell a story about a friend from seminary who was a Calvinist, and this Calvinist's need for assurance of absolution following a grievous sin. The pastor goes on to explain from 31:40 - 32:46 that because Christ has taken the form of man, that he represents all men. Every sin has been paid for, for every man.

I understand and believe this. Christ was spoken of as the last Adam, a title which confers universality (in the same way that the first Adam did). How is it that if every sin has been paid for that we are still able to speak in terms of particular redemption, meaning that some set of men will still pay for their sins in eternal hell? What makes this work? How does this doctrine mesh with Paul's argument in 1 Corinth 15:22 that in Christ, all will be made alive?

I am not familiar with what modern Lutherans might believe, if any different from Luther, but I am very familiar with what Calvin and Luther thought.  They thought the same in many ways but used different lenses. I do not see them at disagreement. They differed in emphasis and detail.  Luther emphasized Christ dying for all (which Calvin also believed). Calvin emphasized election more than Luther (which Luther believed).
What makes them seem different is that Calvin speculated deeper on the subject where Luther does not really form an opinion. Calvin sees the death of sin as like physical debts. Son can’t be aid for twice, therefore sins are either paid for by Christ or by the sinner.  In Calvin’s view Christ only died effectually for sin. In Luther’s Christ died provisionally for all sin and effectually only for those that receive it.  In other words Christ paid the penalty and then the sinner pays, so the sin is paid for twice – under a Calvinist view of Luther.
Luther himself would not draw this Calvinistic distinction and was happier leaving something hidden behind a veil of the unknowable.  The end result is the same.
As far as the recording you had linked to I do not find the Lutheran representing Luther’s view so well. Luther and Calvin both believed that our assurance comes from our belief that Christ died for sin in general, and not faith that we are ‘elect’.  Both Luther and Calvin believed that if we have faith in Christ then we are ‘elect’.
The other things to remember is that Arminian thought was really not that developed while Luther was writing and even while Calvin was writing minute detailed responses to Arminian beliefs, such as that found in John Owen’s ‘Death of Death, in the Death of Christ’ treatise was not needed.
In both Luther and Calvin, they limited atonement in scope. Calvin limited more strictly in eternity but neither limited the atonement in its power by making it dependent on human effort.
But to answer the question specifically, 'How did Luther think it worked?' He didn't he did not see much value in thinking too much about things he thought were incomprehensible.
Because Luther did not think about predestination that much some of the more interesting things he said were recorded by his close friends:

No. 3655b: Speculations About Predestination Unhealthy December 25, 1537
He [Martin Luther] spoke at length about the idle people who occupy themselves with disputation about predestination beyond the limits of Scripture. It is flue most ungodly and dangerous business to abandon the certain and revealed will of God in order to search into the hidden mysteries of God.” (Luther's Works 54.249)
No. 514: Predestination Is an Impenetrable Mystery Spring, 1533
“Paul wasn’t discussing predestination322 with the Jews but was disputing only with those who opposed it and said, ‘We are the people of God, we have the fathers, the promises were given to us,’ etc. He didn’t touch upon predestination except to repudiate the righteousness of the law. Paul said that we should not preach as if we could become good by our works, our fathers, etc. These don’t help. The others, those who believe, have it just as good as those who have fathers, etc. God has decreed it so from eternity. Hence Paul attacks only this.
“By grace alone are we saved. God doesn’t want to be obligated to anybody. Once we believe, he tells us (and this, too, is by grace), ‘Give, and it will be given to you [Luke 6:38]. You are bound to give in any ease, whether out of pity for the Turks or some other unfortunates, so you may just as well do it when I command it.’ We have no claim on him. So Esau and Jacob also testified to righteousness.323
“Otherwise one can’t settle the deep questions of theology, but Paul simply argues that it is by grace alone that we are saved. He meant to stick to this. Think what it means that you are not saved by the law, etc., but the Jews have works! Nobody but Christ can solve this. Hence he [Paul] said, ‘O the depth [of the riches and wisdom and knowledge of God,’ Rom. 11:33]!” (Luther's Works 54.90)


What were the Jehovah's Witness arguments against doing the Nazi salute? For this question I am looking for answers from Jehovah's Witnesses, if possible.

In this YouTube video ("The Schoolgirl The Nazis and The Purple Triangles") this lady Simone Arnold talks about how she repeatedly got in trouble in Germany during WW2 because of her refusal to do the Hitler salute.

The video mentions Jehovah's Witnesses points of views about army service and the Hitler salute, but it does not provide much of any references to the Bible. The same thing is mentioned in this article from the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum:

  While Witnesses contended that they were apolitical and that their
  actions were not anti-Nazi, their unwillingness to give the Nazi
  salute, to join party organizations or to let their children join the
  Hitler Youth, their refusal to participate in the so-called elections
  or plebiscites, and their unwillingness to adorn their homes with Nazi
  flags made them suspect.

The Wikipedia article on "Nazi salute" also states (last paragraph under "From 1933 to 1945"):

  Jehovah's Witnesses came into conflict with the Nazi regime because
  they refused to salute Adolf Hitler with the traditional "Heil Hitler"
  salute, believing that it conflicted with their worship of Jehovah.
  Because refusing to salute Hitler was considered a crime, Jehovah's
  Witnesses were arrested, and their children attending school were
  expelled, detained and separated from their families.

What I am curious about is the reasoning against these smaller acts of loyalty to the "state" or ruler, such as the Nazi salute. After all doing this salute did not seem to be a problem for most Germans, a vast majority of whom were baptized Protestant or Catholic.

So, assuming that the Jehovah's Witness reasoning comes from their interpretation of the Bible, I would like to ask:

What were (or are) the Jehovah's Witness arguments against doing the Nazi salute?

As you state (emphasis mine):

  the reasoning against these smaller acts of loyalty to the "state" or ruler, such as the Nazi salute

Jehovah's Witnesses are only loyal to Gods Kingdom, as Jesus said himself (John 18:36):

  My Kingdom is no part of this world. If my Kingdom were part of this world, my attendants would have fought that I should not be handed over to the Jews. But as it is, my Kingdom is not from this source.

Jehovah's Witnesses do not take part in this world's politics and they don't 'take their sides' in conflicts. They don't declare their loyalty to any other government then Gods Kingdom, no matter how small.

Jehovah's Witnesses have "deep respect" (1 Peter 3:14) for the government and their officials, and they listen to them as long as they don't ask us to disobey Gods laws.

Related required reading from the site of Jehovah's Witnesses on Political Neutrality.


What is biblical theology? My understanding of biblical theology is that it is a theological understanding that is presented by a book of the Bible. Does it automatically become systematic theology when you pull from another book of the Bible if that other book is written by the same author?

Here's a definition of "biblical theology" from Wayne Grudem's popular Systematic Theology (pages 22-23):

  "Biblical theology" has a technical meaning in theological studies. [...] [It] gives special attention to the teachings of individual authors and sections of Scripture, and to the place of each teaching in the historical development of Scripture.  So one might ask, "What is the historical development of the teaching about prayer as it is seen throughout the history of the Old Testament and then of the New Testament?"

Here the difference between systematic and biblical theology is blurred, but he continues:

  Yet there is still a difference, for biblical theology traces the historical development of a doctrine and the way in which one's place at some point in that historical development affects one's understanding and application of that particular doctrine.  Biblical theology also focuses on the understanding of each doctrine that the biblical authors and their original hearers or readers possessed.

While systematic theology builds on biblical theology and may sometimes use its methods,

  the focus of of systematic theology remains different: its focus is on the collection and then the summary of the teaching of all the biblical passages on a particular subject.

Thus, your original understanding of biblical theology is incorrect: it is not limited to a single book of the Bible.  And by extension, no, biblical theology does not "automatically" become systematic theology just because multiple books of the bible are used.  Systematic theology requires careful organization of biblical teaching on doctrines, with the specific goal of communicating those doctrines accurately, clearly, and concisely.


Why did Saul name two of his sons Eshbaal and Merib-baal? A common practice in ancient Israel was to incorporate god's name when naming a son.

Two of Saul's sons have interesting names: Merib-baal and Eshbaal  (A later redactor changed the names to Mephiboshet and Ishboshet to hide the fact that their names contain the word baal.)

That being said, what motivated Saul, a worshiper of Yahweh, to incorporate Baal into his sons' names?  Why did Saul's sons' name do not contain "yah", instead of "baal"?

First, just to be clear Meribbaal/Mephiboshet is actually the grandson of Saul (and son of Jonathan).  With that out of the way, the honest truth is that no one can know for sure why Eshbaal and Meribbaal were named as such.  The Bible doesn't tell us why, and we have no other source.

We can same something about what the word baal means though.  Baal is a common word in Ancient Near East cultures.  As a common noun, it could mean "master", "husband", or "owner" in Hebrew.  It could be used to form complex nouns.  In Genesis 39:19 Joseph is described as a "baal of dreams" = dreamer; in Genesis 49:23 we find "baal of arrows"=archers; and in 1 Kings 1:8 we find "baal of hair"=hairy man; among other such uses within the OT.

Naturally, a word that means "master" is a natural candidate to be adapted to describe a deity (just as Lord, a synonym for master, is used to describe God in English).  And this is what several ANE cultures did.  There wasn't a single distinct god named Baal, but rather several different gods with that name or derivatives of it.  Here is what Encyclopedia Britannica, hardly a religious apologetic, has to say about the use of the term in Israel:

  In the formative stages of Israel’s history, the presence of Baal names did not necessarily mean apostasy or even syncretism. The judge Gideon was also named Jerubbaal (Judges 6:32), and King Saul had a son named Ishbaal (I Chronicles 8:33). For those early Hebrews, “Baal” designated the Lord of Israel, just as “Baal” farther north designated the Lord of Lebanon or of Ugarit.

In other words, in Saul's time (11 century BC), it was simply a term used to talk about God just as we might variously use "Lord", "Father", "Yahweh", etc. and yet not be referring to multiple different gods.

This changed, again according to Encyclopedia Britannica when Jezebel attempted

  in the 9th century BC, to introduce into Israel her Phoenician cult of Baal in opposition to the official worship of Yahweh (I Kings 18). By the time of the prophet Hosea (mid-8th century BC) the antagonism to Baalism was so strong that the use of the term Baal was often replaced by the contemptuous boshet (“shame”); in compound proper names, for example, Ishbosheth replaced the earlier Ishbaal.

So no, there is no real evidence to suggest people in Saul's time with "baal" as part of their name derived it from Baal worship.  Those names could mean "master of X", or be a reference to Israel's master (Yahweh), without needing to invent a contradiction in what the Bible teaches about the history of Israel.


Does playing Video games affect our relationship to God? I am asking this question because the question about video games being sin was placed on hold, but I feel so compelled to answer it that I have decided to ask and answer my own question.

Every now and then a passage jumps up and sticks with me. Right now it's Romans 14. The entire chapter is summed up in the very first verse,

  Accept the one whose faith is weak, without quarreling over disputable matters. -Romans 14:1

If there ever was a disputable matter, it's video games. I've been a gamer my entire life. I've also been a Christian my entire life. The games I've played run the gambit from educational to religious to violent to outright demonic. However, no matter what, there's never been a game that's been able to distract me from God. If anything, there were games I put down because my relationship with God made playing them uncomfortable. But my point here in the next few verses.

  2 One person’s faith allows them to eat anything, but another, whose faith is weak, eats only vegetables. 3 The one who eats everything must not treat with contempt the one who does not, and the one who does not eat everything must not judge the one who does, for God has accepted them. 4 Who are you to judge someone else’s servant? To their own master, servants stand or fall. And they will stand, for the Lord is able to make them stand. -Romans 14:2-4

I can handle games, video or otherwise, without losing sight of God and his purpose for me. And there are plenty of Christian game makers and gamers unions that say I'm not alone. But, here in Romans, Paul says that we shouldn't judge one another for what our faith allows us to do. Just because I play games, I'm not going to sit here and insist that playing games isn't a sin. Because while I can play a game without being desensitized to violence, death, and disobedience to God, that doesn't mean everyone can. I shouldn't judge them and they shouldn't judge me because both of us go before God who is our master and he makes both stand.

But, and this is how you know I'm a Methodist, it goes so much farther than I think it's right and you think it's wrong and we should all be OK with that. When I was 19, my father forbade me to bring my Magic: the Gathering cards into his house because he thought they were tarot cards. My father, the nerd, who handed me my first video games and my first fantasy novel couldn't wrap his mind around a card game because it said Magic on it. But, I never brought my cards to his house again because of what comes next in Romans 14.

  14 I am convinced, being fully persuaded in the Lord Jesus, that nothing is unclean in itself. But if anyone regards something as unclean, then for that person it is unclean. 15 If your brother or sister is distressed because of what you eat, you are no longer acting in love. Do not by your eating destroy someone for whom Christ died. -Romans 14:14-15

Methodists were among the biggest supporters of the prohibition movement. The lasting effect on us is that we hold Romans 14 and other similar passages to heart especially this next bit.

  19 Let us therefore make every effort to do what leads to peace and to mutual edification. 20 Do not destroy the work of God for the sake of food. All food is clean, but it is wrong for a person to eat anything that causes someone else to stumble. 21 It is better not to eat meat or drink wine or to do anything else that will cause your brother or sister to fall.

We know some people can't handle alcohol so we ask our Elders not to drink in solidarity with our brothers and sisters who are struggling with addiction. We use grape juice and not wine in worship because it's better to make worship easier for those who are struggling than it is to follow the church traditions.

Now, I'm not giving up video games (or alcohol) anytime soon, but, I am aware of of the effect games have on others. I have put games up for the sake of other people and played them elsewhere. I also help my friends with kids to be aware of the content of certain games so they can make informed decisions about what their kids play. I'm something of an advocate for age appropriate play to help protect games from being judged en masse. That and this entire post is how I best understand Romans 14:16-18.

  16 Therefore do not let what you know is good be spoken of as evil. 17 For the kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking, but of righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Spirit, 18 because anyone who serves Christ in this way is pleasing to God and receives human approval.


Can someone atone for the sins of another, in the life after death, if they asked this grace from Our Lord before their own death in this life? At 1 Peter 2:24 we read:

" He himself bore our sins in his body on the cross, so that, free from sins, we might live for righteousness; by his wounds you have been healed. "

Of course,  one would be able to take up the divine punishment for somene else's sins while one is still living  on this earth. But, is it possible for a person to take up the divine punishment for someone else , say for the dying  mother of a prodigal son, in the life after death . To elaborate,  can that mother pray like this: " Lord, let me be given more time in purgatory , but spare my son of your divine punishment and let him be in heaven on the day of his death "

What do the teachings of Catholic Church tell us of such a prospect ?

Can someone atone for the sins of another, in the life after death, if they asked this grace from Our Lord before their own death in this life?

The answer is No.

To elaborate, can that mother pray like this: " Lord, let me be given more time in purgatory , but spare my son of your divine punishment and let him be in heaven on the day of his death "

The short answer is No again.

Explanation

The soul after death has no "body" and the soul undergoing purification in purgatory has no "body" to offer as a sacrifice for atonement.
A good read as foundational teaching is St.John Paul II Theology of the Body,to know the reason why God had given us a body animated by a soul.

  According to author Christopher West, the central thesis of John Paul's Theology of the Body is that "the body, and it alone, is capable of making visible what is invisible: the spiritual and the divine. It was created to transfer into the visible reality of the world, the mystery hidden since time immemorial in God, and thus to be a sign of it."[1]
  A rational soul was given a body to merit graces while still alive and after death the soul has no longer the means to acquire graces.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theology_of_the_Body

Jesus the Logos was incarnated precisely to atone for our sins.
Jesus Christ by His sufferings, passion, crucifixion and death had won for us infinite graces in atonement for the sins of all humanity. Jesus paid our ransom with His most precious blood up to last drop. Jesus needed a "body" as a means for atonement.

  Atonement (also atoning, to atone) is the concept of a person taking action to correct previous wrongdoing on their part, either through direct action to undo the consequences of that act, equivalent action to do good for others, or some other expression of feelings of remorse. From the Middle English attone or atoon (“agreed”, literally “at one”), now meaning to be "at one", in harmony, with someone.[1] Atonement "is closely associated to forgiveness, reconciliation, sorrow, remorse, repentance, reparation, and guilt".[2] It can be seen as a necessary step on a path to redemption.[3]

  Atonement in Christianity, in western Christian theology, describes beliefs that human beings can be reconciled to God through Christ's sacrificial suffering and death.[6] Atonement refers to the forgiving or pardoning of sin in general and original sin in particular through the suffering, death and resurrection of Jesus,[7][8]
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atonement

Another word related to your question is "reparation", since another person will be offering a sacrifice for the benefit of another person. And reparation can only be accomplish by a soul using his body as a means of sacrifice.

A good read will be St.Louis De Montfort writing on reparation;

  Reparation is an ambiguous term. Even in profane use it may be employed in the sense of
  repair of a damaged object or an act of justice whereby payment of some sort is made
  for damage done. In religious use it has a variety of meanings. It means principally
  the work of redemption accomplished by Our Lord Jesus Christ, in the sense of
  "repairing the damage done" by Adam’s revolt and the sin of his progeny; Christ
  restores us to God’s friendship. The term is also used in a generic way for restitution
  for injuries, usually when moral theology cannot measure precisely what such payment
  would entail. In popular devotional literature and also in ascetical theology,
  reparation is the making of amends for insults given to God through sin, either one’s
  own or another’s. Through Saint Margaret Mary’s devotion to the Sacred Heart of Jesus—a
  devotion stemming through Saint John Eudes back through Saints Gertrude and Mechtilde
  and Saint Francis’ devotion to the Five Wounds and Passion of Christ—"reparation" took
  on a more distinctive meaning. Saint Margaret Mary saw Christ’s heart and his love
  ignored and ridiculed; the response of man is to be reparation through adoration,
  prayer, and sacrifice.
  https://www.ewtn.com/library/montfort/Handbook/Reparat.htm

To console your good motive on the question, the soul in purgatory can pray for us and plead for God to help us in our needs. There are a lot of stories where a soul in purgatory has an interaction with the living like the story of Maria Simma who was visited by a number of souls in purgatory. Also, Susan Bertone books in purgatory is a good reference too.

If you are familiar with the prayer for the poor souls in purgatory like the "Read me or Rue it" and also the famous Saint Gertrude. In God mysterious ways the poor souls in purgatory have been given a grace to know who are the people who are offering prayers & sacrifices for them and in turn these poor souls out of gratitude also in God mysterious ways had been able to help us in their pleading.

And the Catholic Church teaches that the souls in purgatory after purification enter in heaven like the saints. As St.Paul teaches that all of us will receive a crown in heaven and will be like Christ, our purified souls will be glorified.These poor souls now glorified in Heaven becomes for us generous intercessor.
We belong to a Catholic Church who are composed of Church Triumphant, Church Sufferings and Church Militant and all this church are inter-connected in the beautiful Wisdom of God.

In closing, the poor souls can pray for us in a form of pleading to God but they can no longer make atonement for our sins. The poor souls pleading in behalf of us is different if a poor souls would desire to atone for our sins.


Why do Rastafarians believe it is okay to use cannabis? Almost every denomination and sect of Christianity believes it is wrong to use cannabis. For some reason they always quote Scripture that pertains to alcohol as reasons for why one should not use it. Why do Rastafarians believe it is okay to use cannabis?

Disclaimer: I am not Rastafarian. I do not personally agree with some of the things I'm about to write, but I will try to answer the question with respect to their beliefs.
Rastafarianism is a unique sect of Christianity. They hold many Orthodox positions, but they also have a few views that many may find strange. So they're really no different than any other sect of Christianity in that aspect.
One position in particular is their view of cannabis as a "sacred herb". They call cannabis "Ganja", and though it is not the most important aspect of their religion, it is the one that they are usually associated with.
Most Rastafarians use cannabis strictly as a religious sacrament, believing it to be too sacred to use for recreational purposes. Some believe nothing should be held in such a high regard, so they use it for whatever purpose they deem appropriate, and some do not use it at all. One thing that they all have in common is that they believe the so-called War of Drugs is a war against people, and they quote Yeshua as a reason for why it should be put to an end:

"Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God." Matthew 5:9

Medicinal Purposes
One reason Rastafarians believe it is okay to use cannabis is because of its medicinal properties. They quote Revelation, which says:

"In the midst of the street of it, and on either side of the river, was there the tree of life, which bare twelve manner of fruits, and yielded her fruit every month: and the leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations." Revelation 22:2

They believe cannabis is this tree of life. Although many would believe this interpretation is a bit too far fetched, it is interesting that cannabis has shown to possess unequivalent healing properties. It was discovered in the 1990's that the human body contains what is known as the endocannabinoid system, with cannabinoid receptors in the brain and central nervous system. The name comes from the fact that these cannabinoid receptors are identical to the molecular structure of the cannabinoids present in cannabis. According to Wikipedia, the endocannabinoid system is:

Known as "the body’s own cannabinoid system", the ECS is involved in a variety of physiological processes including appetite, pain-sensation, mood, and memory, and in mediating the psychoactive effects of cannabis.

Some scientist even believe that a lot of human health problems stem from what is known as a cannabinoid deficiency, and the US government actually own a patent on the cannabinoids present in cannabis- Patent 6630507.
Religious Sacrament
Most Rastafarians use cannabis as a religious sacrament. They gather together and smoke the dried buds of the cannabis plant, then accompany this with Scripture study. In this sense, cannabis is viewed as a sacramental incense (the burning of dried plant matter), similar to what the Catholics do for their religious services. They believe cannabis brings them closer to God (whom they call Jah) by healing their mind and spirit:

"For so YHVH said unto me, I will take my rest, and I will consider in my dwelling place like a clear heat upon herbs, and like a cloud of dew in the heat of harvest." Isaiah 18:4

Illegality of Cannabis
Many people are surprised when they learn that cannabis is harmless and yet still illegal, especially since the Drug Enforcement Agency openly admits that there has never been a reported death as the result of cannabis consumption; but this is no shock to the Rastafarian. They believe it's illegal status is part of the prosecution against their people. The reason for this belief is because it's thought that the West (which they call Babylon) wishes to suppress people from a particular side effect- which seems to be a keen awareness of exposing things Rastafarians deem unhealthy to the soul; such as consumerism, economic exploitation, political deception, social injustice, and media brainwashing.
God Made It
If I was to agree with anything that Rastafarians believe, it would be that God made cannabis, and He gave it to us as a food, a medicine, a tool, and a blessing. To the Rastafarian, cannabis is not to be confused with alcohol, which must be fermented and manufactured. Alcohol is well known, in both the world and the Scriptures, for its devastating effects on the human mind and body (which explains why "Babylon" is so eager to push it on society). Cannabis grows everywhere, whether man plants a seed or not. The first chapter in the Scriptures say:

"And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.
And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it [was] good.
And the evening and the morning were the third day." Genesis 1:11-13

Then...

"And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.
And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so.
And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it [was] very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day." Genesis 1:29-31

Other verses include:

"He causeth the grass to grow for the cattle, and herb for the service of man." Psalm 104:14

And...

"Better is a dinner of herbs where love is, than a stalled ox and hatred therewith." Proverbs 15:17

And...

But he answered and said, Every plant, which my heavenly Father hath not planted, shall be rooted up.
Let them alone: they be blind leaders of the blind. And if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch.
Then answered Peter and said unto him, Declare unto us this parable.
And Jesus said, Are ye also yet without understanding?
Do not ye yet understand, that whatsoever entereth in at the mouth goeth into the belly, and is cast out into the draught?
But those things which proceed out of the mouth come forth from the heart; and they defile the man.
For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies:
These are the things which defile a man: but to eat with unwashen hands defileth not a man." Matthew 15:13:20

Conclusion
I'll conclude this with a quote from a popular Rastafarian philosopher:

“Herb, herb is a plant. I mean herbs are good for everything. Why, why these people who want to do so much good for everyone, who call themselves governments and this and that. Why them say you must not use the herb?...Them just say, ‘no, you mustn’t use it, you mustn’t use it because it will make you rebel.’ Against what?”- Bob Marley

...One Love :)


Why do English-speaking Catholics say 'descended into hell' instead of 'descended into Hades' or 'into Sheol'? This article states that

In the context of the Apostles’ Creed, hell does not mean what we
understand by the word today. The Catechism of the Catholic Church
explains this point as follows: “Scripture calls the abode of the
dead, to which the dead Christ went down, “hell”—Sheol-- in Hebrew or
Hades in Greek—because those who are there are deprived of the vision
of God. Such is the case for all the dead, whether evil or righteous,
while they await the redeemer (no. 633).

If this is correct, this leads to the question: why is the word 'hell' used if it's not what is meant by 'hell' today? Why, instead, don't English-speaking Catholics say 'Hades' or 'Sheol' to make the meaning of the Apostles' Creed more clear?

Why do English-speaking Catholics say “descended into hell” instead of “descended into Hades” or “into Sheol“?
It is simply a matter of a bad translation from the Latin word for inferus.
The original Latin goes as such: ”descendit ad inferos” in the Apostles’ Creed.
Inferus has normally been translated as the lower regions or the netherworld.

Infernus
Etymology
From Proto-Italic *enðeros, from Proto-Indo-European *h₁n̥dʰér-o-s, from *h₁n̥dʰér. Cognate with English under, Sanskrit अधर (ádhara). *ð>f is irregular in word-internal position and is either explained as (Faliscan) dialectal influence or by assuming metanalysis as a compound with in.
Adjective
īnferus (feminine īnfera, neuter īnferum, comparative īnferior, superlative īnfimus or īmus); first/second-declension adjective

low

(in the masculine plural) the souls of the dead

(in the neuter plural) the netherworld, the underworld, Hell

References

inferus in Charlton T. Lewis and Charles Short (1879) A Latin Dictionary, Oxford: Clarendon Press

inferus in Charlton T. Lewis (1891) An Elementary Latin Dictionary, New York: Harper & Brothers

inferus in Gaffiot, Félix (1934) Dictionnaire illustré Latin-Français, Hachette

Carl Meissner; Henry William Auden (1894) Latin Phrase-Book1, London: Macmillan and Co.

(ambiguous) the gods of the upper, lower world: super; inferi

(ambiguous) the world below: inferi (Orcus and Tartarus only poetical)

(ambiguous) to descend to the world below: ad inferos descendere

(ambiguous) to be in the lower world: apud inferos ease

The fact is the phrase just up to very recently employed the word dead for the Latin word inferus. This is a practice I still follow as I believe it is more faithful to the Latin translation.

Roman Catholic Church
The initial (1970) English official translation of the Roman Missal of the Roman Catholic Church adopted the ICET version, as did catechetical texts such as the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

I believe in God, the Father almighty,
creator of heaven and earth.
I believe in Jesus Christ, his only Son, our Lord.
He was conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit
and born of the virgin Mary.
He suffered under Pontius Pilate,
was crucified, died, and was buried.
He descended to the dead.
On the third day he rose again.
He ascended into heaven,
and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
He will come again to judge the living and the dead.
I believe in the Holy Spirit,
the holy catholic Church,
the communion of the saints,
the forgiveness of sins,
the resurrection of the body,
and the life everlasting. Amen.

In 2008 the Catholic Church published a new English translation of the texts of the Mass of the Roman Rite, use of which came into force at the end of 2011. It included the following translation of the Apostles' Creed:

I believe in God,
the Father almighty,
Creator of heaven and earth,
and in Jesus Christ, his only Son, our Lord,
who was conceived by the Holy Spirit,
born of the Virgin Mary,
suffered under Pontius Pilate,
was crucified, died and was buried;
he descended into hell;
on the third day he rose again from the dead;
he ascended into heaven,
and is seated at the right hand of God the Father almighty;
from there he will come to judge the living and the dead.
I believe in the Holy Spirit,
the holy catholic Church,
the communion of saints,
the forgiveness of sins,
the resurrection of the body,
and life everlasting.
Amen.

Apostles' Creed (Wikipedia)

A new translation of the Mass of the Ordinary Form was inaugurated on the First Sunday of Advent in 2011. Surprisingly enough the Apostles’ Creed was overlooked!

The New Mass: Continuities and Changes
The changes (and their continuities with the older form of the Mass) are obvious from the first time the priest says, "The Lord be with you." In place of the familiar "And also with you," the congregation responds, "And with your spirit"—a literal translation of the Latin "Et cum spiritu tuo," found in both forms of the Mass. The Confiteor (the penitential rite), the Gloria ("Glory to God in the highest"), the Nicene Creed, and the dialogue between the priest and the congregation after the Agnus Dei ("The Lamb of God") and immediately before Communion all hark back to the older form of Mass—as well they should, because both forms of the Mass share the same Latin text for these parts.
Still, it would be a mistake to think that the new translation significantly alters the Novus Ordo. The changes put in place by Pope Paul VI in 1969 remain, as do all of the major differences between the Traditional Latin Mass and the Novus Ordo. All the new translation does is to tighten up some very loose translations of the Latin text, restore a certain dignity to the English text of the Mass, and reinstate a few lines at various points in the Mass that had simply been dropped in the earlier translation from Latin to English. - The New Translation of the Catholic Mass

We may yet need a fourth revision of its’ texts!


What is the significance of water from Jesus' side? John 19:34 "one of the soldiers pierced Jesus' side with a spear,
  bringing a sudden flow of blood and water."

I know this is supposed to be something great as in the next verse the apostle tries to ensure us just how true this is -

  John 19:34 The man who saw it has given testimony, and his testimony is true. He
  knows that he tells the truth, and he testifies so that you also may
  believe.

What is so significant about this? Is it symbolic of something?

Mason and Dan have both noted the literal significance of the blood/water issue. It was a medical indication that A) he was dead and B) he didn't die as the direct result of the crucifixion.

On practical thing we can note from this is that Jesus was in control of things right up to the end. We know from Scripture that nobody forced Jesus's life from him, he gave it up willingly. This is rightly applied to Jesus' willing submission to his captors, even stopping his disciples from fighting his arrest. However, we see this is true all the way to the end, when it is Jesus who surrenders himself to his Father and lets go of his own life rather than the physical reality of the cross actually taking his life.

  Luke 23:46 (ESV)
  46  Then Jesus, calling out with a loud voice, said, “Father, into your hands I commit my spirit!” And having said this he breathed his last.

Another practical result that came out of the deal was that finding him already dead at such an early time frame, they did not go on to break his legs to induce a quick death by suffocation as would have been required otherwise.

Thus, something that was said about him in the OT that could have been understood figuratively, also literally happened in spite of the odds.

  Psalm 34:20 (ESV)
  He keeps all his bones;
       not one of them is broken.


Can one sin be worse than another sin, or are all sins equal? Since all evil acts come down to disobedience against god, are all evil acts equivalent? Is no sin worse than any other sin? If one sin is worse than another sin does that imply that one act can be more disobedient than another act? Is sin and/or disobedience absolute or does it have degree?

There are two primary views of this.

There are different levels of sin
All sin is equal in God's eyes.

Unfortunately, they're both pretty sound beliefs.
All sins are not equal
There are many verses to back up this belief that all sins are not equal.  Here are some of them:
Matthew 12:31-32 (NIV)

31 And so I tell you, every kind of sin and slander can be forgiven, but blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven. 32 Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but anyone who speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come

1 Cor. 6:18 (NIV)

Flee from sexual immorality. All other sins a person commits are outside the body, but whoever sins sexually, sins against their own body.

John 19:11 (NIV)

Jesus answered, “You would have no power over me if it were not given to you from above. Therefore the one who handed me over to you is guilty of a greater sin.”

Matthew 7:3 (NIV)

“Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye?"

All sins are equal
The idea that "all sins are equal in God's eyes" comes from the idea that any one sin will lead to death.  If we commit a single sin, we are as guilty (in God's eyes) as if we had committed the worst sin--regardless of which sin we committed.
It's based on the idea that God's holiness is so extreme, that even one transgression is greater than he can accept.  This idea is supported with two key verses
James 2:10 (NIV)

For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles at just one point is guilty of breaking all of it.

Romans 3:23 (NIV)

for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God

The argument goes, therefore, that if even the smallest sin prevents us from attaining the perfection that God calls us to seek, then that one single sin is as great as the worst sin.
Summary
We can reconcile these two seemingly opposing viewpoints: we can clearly see that some sins are greater than others, but that any sin will prevent us from going to heaven without the saving grace and sacrifice of Jesus.
Essentially, any one sin is sufficient to keep us from God, but all sins are not the same.


Are there historical accounts of the character of the people of Sodom and Gomorrah? Are there any historical accounts, biblical or otherwise, that shed light on what types of people lived in Sodom and Gomorrah? I'm especially curious about any extra-biblical accounts of these two places.

Such accounts might shed some light on whether God's treatment of these two cities was justified.

Here are some of the most relevant Biblical accounts I have found:

[Genesis 13:13 NKJV] 13 But the men of Sodom [were] exceedingly wicked and sinful against the LORD.
[Genesis 18:20-26 NKJV] 20 And the LORD said, "Because the outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah is great, and because their sin is very grave, 21 "I will go down now and see whether they have done altogether according to the outcry against it that has come to Me; and if not, I will know." 22 Then the men turned away from there and went toward Sodom, but Abraham still stood before the LORD. 23 And Abraham came near and said, "Would You also destroy the righteous with the wicked? 24 "Suppose there were fifty righteous within the city; would You also destroy the place and not spare [it] for the fifty righteous that were in it? 25 "Far be it from You to do such a thing as this, to slay the righteous with the wicked, so that the righteous should be as the wicked; far be it from You! Shall not the Judge of all the earth do right?" 26 So the LORD said, "If I find in Sodom fifty righteous within the city, then I will spare all the place for their sakes."

Abraham negotiates it down to 10 people, and even still, if there were 10 righteous people in the city, God would not destroy it.  The next portion illustrates how great their sin is:

[Gen 19:1-18 NKJV] 1 Now the two angels came to Sodom in the evening, and Lot was sitting in the gate of Sodom. When Lot saw [them], he rose to meet them, and he bowed himself with his face toward the ground. 2 And he said, "Here now, my lords, please turn in to your servant's house and spend the night, and wash your feet; then you may rise early and go on your way." And they said, "No, but we will spend the night in the open square." 3 But he insisted strongly; so they turned in to him and entered his house. Then he made them a feast, and baked unleavened bread, and they ate. 4 Now before they lay down, the men of the city, the men of Sodom, both old and young, all the people from every quarter, surrounded the house. 5 And they called to Lot and said to him, "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us that we may know them [carnally]." 6 So Lot went out to them through the doorway, shut the door behind him, 7 and said, "Please, my brethren, do not do so wickedly! 8 "See now, I have two daughters who have not known a man; please, let me bring them out to you, and you may do to them as you wish; only do nothing to these men, since this is the reason they have come under the shadow of my roof." 9 And they said, "Stand back!" Then they said, "This one came in to stay [here], and he keeps acting as a judge; now we will deal worse with you than with them." So they pressed hard against the man Lot, and came near to break down the door. 10 But the men reached out their hands and pulled Lot into the house with them, and shut the door. 11 And they struck the men who [were] at the doorway of the house with blindness, both small and great, so that they became weary [trying] to find the door. 12 Then the men said to Lot, "Have you anyone else here? Son-in-law, your sons, your daughters, and whomever you have in the city--take [them] out of this place! 13 "For we will destroy this place, because the outcry against them has grown great before the face of the LORD, and the LORD has sent us to destroy it."

In the previous passage, the men of Sodom tried to rape the angels, who were also male.  Lot was trying to protect them.  They tried to break into Lot's house so they could rape them, and tried to harm Lot too.  Even when the angels struck the men with blindness, they kept trying to break in!  Their sin was indeed very bad.
I don't know of any extra-biblical sources, hopefully someone else can post these.


Bland white rice and tea in Chinese-American Christian Churches I am not a Christian, and have never been one. But there were times in my childhood when my family and I visited a Chinese-American Christian Church upon the request of a friend (usually my mother's). I was so young that I couldn't remember the denomination, and if it were printed out, I probably couldn't read it. But basically, the first thing was a liturgical service, but I almost never attended that and instead went to the basement, where the children's classroom was. After the liturgy, an evening meal was served. It was always a bowl of bland white rice and hot tea. No meat, no vegetables. This is not your typical Chinese dinner, which always serves meat and vegetables. There was one time in my memory when they served juice (that ran out when I thought I could go up for seconds), but most of the time, it was only bland and soft white rice and hot tea.

Is serving white rice and hot tea after a liturgical service common practice in Chinese-American Christianity? If so, what is the justification? If not, then it may indicate that it's a practice within that church.

I'm Chinese and am a Christian and I've attended many different churches and have not encountered what you described. I fairly convinced that the meal was more related to Chinese cultural practice and there isn't any theological significance that that particular meal.

Chinese children have traditionally been weaned on rice gruel (also called rice porridge, konji, congee, jook or chook), and it is to be a breakfast dish for adults. It is also served to invalids. It can be served with nothing else added to it except perhaps some soy sauce. Sometimes chicken stock or other flavouring is added. This is therefore just part of Chinese cultural practice.


Possible relic found? It might be "1st" class; a 3" high metal cross with a flat round container of a liquid at cross beam This has some lettering surrounding it. A male figure in "bibical dress" holding a tablet(?) is on the reverse, several symbols next to him and EVSINOBITVNRO PRAE SENTIAMVNIAMVR (what I can make out) written about the image. Three small holes at foot and hands position may have held a gem or stone originally. Any ideas? I doubt this is a treasure. I came across it in my husband's what-not drawer and have no idea where it came from.

The inscription on the cross is common of a Saint Benedict Medal

Eius in obitu nostro praesentia muniamur
May we be strengthened by his presence in the hour of our death
St. Benedict Medal (Wikipedia)

And the person in Biblical Dress is probably St. Benedict of Nursia, the founder of the Benedictine Order, an ancient order of religious brothers from Italy.

Unless the liquid contained in it was blood, it's likely as not that it contained Holy Water.
It might well be a 3rd degree relic (i.e. a sacramental touched to a 1st degree relic), but it's clearly a sacramental of some sort (i.e. a blessed item; not something that should be sold).  I wouldn't think there'd be any reason to have an unblessed container of liquid in a holy medal.


How old was Jesus when the Magi visited him? We read at Mtt 2:16 (NRSVCE)  :
"When Herod saw that he had been tricked by the wise men, he was infuriated, and he sent and killed all the children in and around Bethlehem who were two years old or under, according to the time that he had learned from the wise men."
No king would want to kill his male subjects since it is they who would form his armed  forces in future . Herod ordered  the male children to be killed because he feared for his throne, but would definitely minimize the upper age, in order to spare those who were beyond doubt ( of having been born the King of Jews ) . It implies that the Magi had taken nearly two years in travelling to Bethlehem after seeing the star, or in the alternative,  it took Herod some two years after the Magi's departure to realize   that he had been duped by them. Anyway, they visited Jesus after his presentation in the temple, where Joseph and Mary had been able to offer only the minimum requirement of a pair doves (Lk 2:24), not knowing what the Magi would later offer him .
Going by the above, it is evident that Jesus was nearly two years of age when the Magi visited him. My question therefore,  is: According to Catholic Church, how old was Jesus when the Magi visited him ?

How old was Jesus when the Magi visited him?
Possibly one year old! Possibly a little younger or maybe a little older! We do not know with any absolute certainty.
Scriptures tell us that after the Presentation of Jesus in the Temple the Holy Family went to the town of Nazareth.
The Magi would have visited Jesus only after his presentation in the Temple. Had they done so earlier, Joseph and Mary would have been able to buy a lamb with the gold that they got as a present from the Magi!

39 When Joseph and Mary had done everything required by the Law of the Lord, they returned to Galilee to their own town of Nazareth. - Luke 2:39

Assuming the Holy Family left the next day journey from Jerusalem to Nazareth would have taken anywhere from 4 to 7 days depending on variables. But this is only one interpretation proposed by Catholic theologians and others do exist.

It is about 120 Km from Narareth to Jerusalem and another 10 Km from Jerusalem to Bethlehem. (About 80 miles in all) If Mary had not been feeling very well it could have taken nearly a week to do the journey. - Nazareth to Bethlehem

And what are the variables that could make a trip from Jerusalem to Nazareth go faster or slower?

Galilee is north of Jerusalem; Bethlehem is to the south. The shortest route, 70 miles more or less as the crow flies, is through Samaria. Given the antipathy between Jews and Samaritans, Joseph and Mary likely skirted the area and went around the longer way.
Assuming an average pace of 2.5 mph, 20 miles a day, would mean a trip of four 8-hour days. Some speculation puts it at seven days, or ten. I think four days is about right. Mary in her late teens, strong, healthy peasant stock; even pregnant and near delivery she could have managed walking it.
That is if they didn’t bother with a donkey. With a donkey, no question, it was a seven- to ten-day trip. Yes, all the images depict Mary seated on a donkey. I suggest they are wrong.
I’ve hiked with pack burros; it is slower. A donkey will pretty much set its own pace and not usually the one you would like. You may be in front tugging a lead, but the donkey is in charge. You get to walk ahead and pretend you’re in command.
Even if they did have a donkey, I bet she walked. Donkeys aren’t fit for riding (again, yes, there are people who enjoy it over short distances; I’m not one of them at any distance). Eighty miles riding a donkey, picturesque as might be, still works out to, oh, let’s see, yes, 80 miles riding a donkey. Sensible people that they were, they walked. - Biblical travel: How far to where, and what about the donkey?

Now settled in at Nazareth, the Magi would have visited the Holy Family in their home town.

The Magi Visit the Messiah
2 After Jesus was born in Bethlehem in Judea, during the time of King Herod, Magi[a] from the east came to Jerusalem 2 and asked, “Where is the one who has been born king of the Jews? We saw his star when it rose and have come to worship him.”
3 When King Herod heard this he was disturbed, and all Jerusalem with him. 4 When he had called together all the people’s chief priests and teachers of the law, he asked them where the Messiah was to be born. 5 “In Bethlehem in Judea,” they replied, “for this is what the prophet has written:

6 “‘But you, Bethlehem, in the land of Judah,
are by no means least among the rulers of Judah;
for out of you will come a ruler
who will shepherd my people Israel.’ ”

7 Then Herod called the Magi secretly and found out from them the exact time the star had appeared. 8 He sent them to Bethlehem and said, “Go and search carefully for the child. As soon as you find him, report to me, so that I too may go and worship him.”
9 After they had heard the king, they went on their way, and the star they had seen when it rose went ahead of them until it stopped over the place where the child was. 10 When they saw the star, they were overjoyed. 11 On coming to the house, they saw the child with his mother Mary, and they bowed down and worshiped him. Then they opened their treasures and presented him with gifts of gold, frankincense and myrrh. 12 And having been warned in a dream not to go back to Herod, they returned to their country by another route.

From the above passage we can notice several points that can easily go unnoticed. The Magi visited the Holy Family in a house and not a manger. The Gospel does not state that the Magi actually went to Bethlehem; only that Herod had told them that the Newborn King was to be born in Bethlehem. Thus it is very conceivable that the Magi found the Holy Family at Nazareth and not Bethlehem. The Holy Family could have returned to Bethlehem after the presentation and found a house to remain in. The Catholic Encyclopedia admits that the interpretation of these variables in unknown and unsure!

Time and circumstances of their visit
The visit of the Magi took place after the Presentation of the Child in the Temple (Luke 2:38). No sooner were the Magi departed than the angel bade Joseph take the Child and its Mother into Egypt (Matthew 2:13). Once Herod was wroth at the failure of the Magi to return, it was out of all question that the presentation should take place. Now a new difficulty occurs: after the presentation, the Holy Family returned into Galilee (Luke 2:39). Some think that this return was not immediate. Luke omits the incidents of the Magi, flight into Egypt, massacre of the Innocents, and return from Egypt, and takes up the story with the return of the Holy Family into Galilee. We prefer to interpret Luke's words as indicating a return to Galilee immediately after the presentation. The stay at Nazareth was very brief. Thereafter the Holy Family probably returned to abide in Bethlehem. Then the Magi came. It was "in the days of King Herod" (Matthew 2:1), i.e. before the year 4 B.C. (A.U.C. 750), the probable date of Herod's death at Jericho. For we know that Archelaus, Herod's son, succeeded as ethnarch to a part of his father's realm, and was deposed either in his ninth (Josephus, Bel. Jud., II, vii, 3) or tenth (Josephus, Antiq., XVII, xviii, 2) year of office during the consulship of Lepidus and Arruntius (Dion Cassis, lv, 27), i.e., A.D. 6. Moreover, the Magi came while King Herod was in Jerusalem (vv. 3, 7), not in Jericho, i.e., either the beginning of 4 B.C. or the end of 5 B.C. Lastly, it was probably a year, or a little more than a year, after the birth of Christ. Herod had found out from the Magi the time of the star's appearance. Taking this for the time of the Child's birth, he slew the male children of two years old and under in Bethlehem and its borders (v. 16). Some of the Fathers conclude from this ruthless slaughter that the Magi reached Jerusalem two years after the Nativity (St. Epiphanius, "Haer.", LI, 9; Juvencus, "Hist. Evang.", I, 259). Their conclusion has some degree of probability; yet the slaying of children two years old may possibly have been due to some other reason — for instance, a fear on Herod's part that the Magi had deceived him in the matter of the star's appearance or that the Magi had been deceived as to the conjunction of that appearance with the birth of the Child. Art and archæology favour our view. Only one early monument represents the Child in the crib while the Magi adore; in others Jesus rests upon Mary's knees and is at times fairly well grown (see Cornely, "Introd. Special. in N.T.", p. 203).

It seems most logical that the Magi certainly visited the Holy Family after the Presentation. As we know the Magi presented gifts of gold, frankincense and myrrh. We also know that Mary offered “a pair of doves or two young pigeons.” If they had had enough money they would have offered a lamb as was the Jewish custom in those days. Besides, Jesus is the real Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world.

…7And the priest will present them before the LORD and make atonement for her; and she shall be ceremonially cleansed from her flow of blood. This is the law for a woman giving birth, whether to a male or to a female. 8But if she cannot afford a lamb, she shall bring two turtledoves or two young pigeons, one for a burnt offering and the other for a sin offering. Then the priest will make atonement for her, and she will be clean.’” - …7And the priest will present them before the LORD and make atonement for her; and she shall be ceremonially cleansed from her flow of blood. This is the law for a woman giving birth, whether to a male or to a female. 8But if she cannot afford a lamb, she shall bring two turtledoves or two young pigeons, one for a burnt offering and the other for a sin offering. Then the priest will make atonement for her, and she will be clean.’”- …7And the priest will present them before the LORD and make atonement for her; and she shall be ceremonially cleansed from her flow of blood. This is the law for a woman giving birth, whether to a male or to a female. 8But if she cannot afford a lamb, she shall bring two turtledoves or two young pigeons, one for a burnt offering and the other for a sin offering. Then the priest will make atonement for her, and she will be clean.’” - Leviticus 12:7-8

To further show that the Church does not know exactly how to explain the Biblical texts surrounding the events of Our Lord’s birth, I am going to let Fr. Ryan Erlenbus explain the differences in the various time scenarios proposed by Catholic theologians. It is impossible to know for certain when the Magi actually visited the Holy Family.

The Magi must have arrived shortly after Christ’s Nativity
There are several points which must be recalled from the biblical narrative: The Magi visit Christ in Bethlehem; the Magi visit Christ in what Matthew calls a “home,” which may be different from the “stable” where Luke states the Child was born; after the Presentation in the Temple (forty days after the Birth), Luke tells us that Jesus was taken to Nazareth; it seems that Joseph took his family to Egypt fairly soon after the Magi departed; when Herod realized he was deceived he had the children in Bethlehem and the surrounding towns killed.
In the previous article, we have seen that the Child was born in a stable and adored that night by the shepherds. However, the Magi probably came shortly later, after the Holy Family had received hospitality in some home in Bethlehem (hence, Matthew speaks of a house). Thus, we can be reasonably certain that the Magi came to Bethlehem at least a day or two after the Nativity. However, it is most certain that they did not come any later than forty days after Christ’s birth, since then the Holy Family would not be in Bethlehem, but in Nazareth (since Luke states that they returned to Nazareth after the Presentation in the Temple which, according to the Law, took place forty days after birth). Hence, we can reasonably conclude that the Magi arrived in Bethlehem somewhere between the second and the fortieth day after Christmas – why not accept the tradition of the thirteenth day?
The star appeared on the day of the Nativity
St. Thomas knew of two opinions about the apparition of the star seen by the Magi: Chrysostom (or the author of the Opus Imperfectum in Mtt.) and Augustine seem to state that the star was first seen by the Magi two full years before the birth of Christ, and that it took these two years for the wise men to make the journey and arrive in Bethlehem (on the thirteenth day after the birth).
On the other hand, St. Thomas mentions “others” who hold that the star first appeared only when Christ was born. According to this opinion, the Magi set off on their journey only on the day of the Nativity and were able to travel a long distance “owing partly to the Divine assistance, and partly to the fleetness of the dromedaries.” This is Thomas’ own opinion (ST III, q.36, a.6, ad 3).
Yet, it may be the case that the star appeared on Christmas day and the Magi arrived thirteen days later on account of the fact that they were not from the far East, but only from a nation a little to the east of Israel – this is the opinion of Cornelius a’ Lapide, and I share it as well.
A good reason to maintain that the star had not appeared to the Magi until the time of Christ’s birth is that, on the presumption that the Magi saw the star two years before the Nativity, the Magi would have learned of the Incarnation even before the Blessed Virgin Mary had! How strange this would be, for the Magi to know of the coming of the King before even the Mother!
Moreover, it seems that Christ should not have been made manifest to the world until after his birth, for until the Nativity he was hidden in the virginal cloister of his Mother’s womb. It is for this reason that the Nativity is celebrated with greater solemnity than the Annunciation (the Incarnation) – it was only in the Nativity that God’s Love was revealed openly to the world. Hence, Christ should first come into the world openly (by his birth) before he is manifested to the wise men. Therefore, we ought to conclude, as a matter of fittingness, that the wise men did not see the star until the very night of the Nativity. In this way also, Christ’s birth was heralded first to the Jews (to the shepherds) and then to the Gentiles (to the Magi).
The massacre of the Holy Innocents seems to have been nearly two years after the first Christmas
The primary reason why some (both of the past and of the present) hold that the star appeared two full years before the Nativity is based on the following line from Matthew 2:16, “Then Herod killed all the men children from two years old and under, according to the time which he had diligently inquired of the wise men.” This time inquired from the wise men seems to refer to Matthew 2:7, “Then Herod, privately calling the wise men, learned diligently of the time of the star which appeared to them.” Hence, it is quite clear that Herod’s massacre of the Innocents was determined (in relation to the age of the children killed) by the time when first the Magi saw the star. The slaughter takes place about two years after the star first appeared.
However, while it seems that we ought to maintain that the star had indeed appeared two years before the slaughtering of the Innocents, this does not determine the relation of the appearance of the star to the Nativity. For indeed, it is quite possible that the slaughtering of the Innocents did not occur until nearly two years after the Nativity. In which case, the star would have first appeared on the night in which Christ was born; and Herod would have (over a year later) killed the children of two years, since he knew that the Child could not be older than the star which marked his birth.


Biblical basis for claiming Eve was a virgin prior to the Fall In Against Heresies (book 3, chapter 22) Irenaeus attempts to draw a comparison between Eve and Mary similar to the comparison Paul draws between Adam and Christ.  He says that Mary obeyed in a state of virginity

  But Eve was disobedient; for she did not obey when as yet she was a
  virgin.

And that Eve, having been disobedient, was made the cause of death to the entire human race and Mary, obeying in the same state of virginity, became the cause of salvation for the entire human race.

Hosts of questions come to mind but this specific question is:  Is there biblical ground to claim that Genesis 2:25 "And the man and his wife were both naked and were not ashamed." means that they had not yet had moral and lawful intercourse as man and wife (as Irenaeus asserts) even though the command to have intercourse came before the fall?

Adam and Eve did not have intercourse before the Fall (although they could have) because Genesis 4:1, which is after the Fall, is the first reported instance that "Adam knew Eve his wife: who conceived".

St. Thomas Aquinas, in Summa Theologica I q. 98 a. 2 ("Whether in the state of innocence there would have been generation by coition?") ad 2, summarizes St. Augustine's argument:

  As Augustine says (Gen. ad lit. ix, 4), our first parents did not come together in paradise, because on account of sin they were ejected from paradise shortly after the creation of the woman; or because, having received the general Divine command relative to generation, they awaited the special command relative to time.

Genesis 2:25 doesn't prove Eve was a virgin before the Fall. As St. Augustine writes in City of God bk. 14 ch. 17, Adam and Eve knew of their nakedness before the Fall, but it did not cause concupiscence and shame in them:

  "They were naked and were not ashamed," Genesis 2:25 — not that their nakedness was unknown to them, but because nakedness was not yet shameful, because not yet did lust move those members without the will's consent


Are Christians supposed to be like-minded? Brotherly love is a commandment: 1 John 4:20,21 …and this commandment have we from him, That he who loveth God love his brother also.

Brotherly love is a Christian trademark: John 13:35 By this shall all [men] know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another.

The early church coexisted predominantly in harmony while under great threat of physical harm: Throughout the book of Acts (1:14; 2:1; 2:46; 4:24; 5:12; 7:57; 8:6; 12:20; 15:25; 18:12; 19:29) the early Church is said to be in “one accord”.  Paul in Romans 15:6 admonishes his followers: “That ye may with one mind [and] one mouth glorify God, even the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ”.

There was a oneness of “Spirit”: 1Corinthians 12:13 For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether [we be] Jews or Gentiles, whether [we be] bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit.  Also see: (1Corinthians 4:12; Ephesians 2:8; Ephesians 4:4; Philippians 2:2)

Today there are some 41,000 Christian Denominations in the World according to: http://christianity.about.com/od/denominations/p/christiantoday.htm.

Has their ever been any significant historical movements within Christianity to reverse the splintering?

Modern Christians seem to accept that a oneness of Spirit is an impossibility, are there any current movements within Christianity towards reconciliation and a common accord?

Most Christians await the return of Jesus Christ, are there any denominations that are concerned about His reaction to what He finds?

It is obviously the will of Jesus Christ, the builder of the Church, that Christians should live in one accord. However, if we can belief that everything is controlled and monitored by God, then I do not think we should take our present splintering situation negatively. This might be the will of God, who knows?
There are some reasons why new denominations are born.

The mother church goes off the right track.
Disagreement in political or management inside the church.
Commotion among the members.
Disagreement in specific doctrines.
etc.

When the mother church is clearly in the wrong and is not in a position to repent, there is no choice but to form a new group. Sometimes, political disagreement is the will of God to extend His kingdom as in the case of Paul and Barnabas, who splitted party which in fact was God's plan to reach out to Gentiles in Macedonia, for a greater ministry. It is also the work of Satan to divide the church by stirring the members to fight among themselves. Disagreement in doctrine is a serious issue where the power of Satan is usually at work. Satan brings confusion and doubt to the truth.
There is no doubt that some denominations are planted by the Devil as we see in  the parable of the Weeds. But God allow the true and false church to grow together.

Matthew 13:30 Let both grow together until the harvest. At that time I will tell
the harvesters: First collect the weeds and tie them in bundles to be
burned; then gather the wheat and bring it into my barn.’”

Everything is in God's hand. We must trust in Him.
There are some preachers who try bring denominations together and deliver good sermons towards unity in Christianity. Also, these days we have many non-denominational christians, who takes less interest in denominations but focus more on ministry and unification.
Actually, we are not that different from each other. Each of us are but a single organ in the Body of Christ and Christ is the Head of us all.


According to Catholic teaching that is biblically supported, who are "the enemies of Christians?" From Luke 1:68-79 (RSVCE), Catholics have a prayer that is termed CANTICLE OF ZECHARIAH (the Benedictus [cf. Traditional Prayers — Common Prayers | liturgyoffice.org.uk]). In it there is a section:

  [...]

  Through his holy prophets he promised of old that he would save us
  from our enemies, from the hands of all who hate us. He promised to
  show mercy to our fathers and to remember his holy covenant.

  This was the oath he swore to our father Abraham: to set us free from
  the hands of our enemies,

  [...]

From Catholic teaching that is biblically supported, who are these enemies of Christians because obviously applying this passage to Christians, the traditional enemies of Israel - like the nations they battled - may most likely not apply to Christians.

Regarding the promise to Abraham:

Christians consider themselves to be the (spiritual) descendants of Abraham, certainly as it applies to inheriting the promises of God to Abraham. This is based on passages such as Matthew 3:9, Luke 3:8, Romans 9, and Galations 3:7. Therefore the passage you quote is taken to mean that God promises to protect Christians from their enemies.

Regarding Enemies

As for the interpretation of the word 'enemies', there appears to be no reason not to take this word in its straightforward meaning - i.e. those who are opposed to you and would do you harm. That's almost certainly how it was intended in the original. There is nothing inconsistent with Christians having enemies - how could we be commanded to 'love your enemies' if we didn't have them? Note that the prayer does not ask for evil or punishment to be done to those enemies, but only that Christians are protected from them.


Why do many Christians talk about "believing in Jesus" rather than "believing in God"? What does it mean to "believe in Jesus"? Wasn't he just a temporary physical representation of God who visited Earth long ago, and might come again, but isn't currently here?

Why isn't the message to believe in God? Why Jesus? It really bothers me when messages which are repeated a lot don't make sense.

Why is the focus on Jesus rather than God? Don't a lot of people recognize that Jesus probably did exist as a historical, actual person? But many of those might still not believe in God. So "believing in Jesus" seems to mean nothing compared to "believing in God", yet this is what is focused on.

All three words of "believe in Jesus" are important.

Believe. Belief as it is used here is more than intellectual assent to a proposition or recognition of a historical fact. The scope of the meaning of belief that is here intended includes trust and obedience. James says that "faith without works is dead". This is an active belief.

  17 In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by
  action, is dead.

  18 But someone will say, “You have faith; I have deeds.”

  Show me your faith without deeds, and I will show you my faith by my
  deeds. 19 You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons
  believe that—and shudder.

  20 You foolish person, do you want evidence that faith without deeds
  is useless? 21 Was not our father Abraham considered righteous for
  what he did when he offered his son Isaac on the altar? 22 You see
  that his faith and his actions were working together, and his faith
  was made complete by what he did. 23 And the scripture was fulfilled
  that says, “Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as
  righteousness,” and he was called God’s friend. 24 You see that a
  person is considered righteous by what they do and not by faith alone.
  (James 2:17-24)

Jesus. Among the most central beliefs in orthodox Christianity is that Jesus is God come to us in the flesh, the incarnation. Some religions propose a belief in God but deny that God has a son or deny that God can take on human form. The Apostle John made this the essential test for discerning whether a spirit or message is from God. You must acknowledge the incarnation.

  1 Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to
  see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone
  out into the world. 2 This is how you can recognize the Spirit of God:
  Every spirit that acknowledges that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh
  is from God, 3 but every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus is not
  from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist, which you have heard
  is coming and even now is already in the world. (1 John 4:1-3)

(NOTE: All churches that accept the Nicene creed (or at least the Apostle's creed) believe in a physical incarnation. Many heretical groups denied this or parts of this, such as those that believed in Docetism, Ebionism, Arianism, Apollinarianism, Nestorianism, Eutychianism, Monophysitism, and Monothelitism. Some modern denominations also do not accept this, so would not be considered orthodox. See https://mbcpathway.com/2018/08/31/incarnational-heresies/)

in. This is the hardest of the three words. As a new believer, I had a hard time unerstanding this preposition as it applied to statements in the Bible. In has to do with abiding in Christ.

  1 “I am the true vine, and my Father is the gardener. 2 He cuts off
  every branch in me that bears no fruit, while every branch that does
  bear fruit he prunes so that it will be even more fruitful. 3 You
  are already clean because of the word I have spoken to you. 4 Remain
  in me, as I also remain in you. No branch can bear fruit by itself; it
  must remain in the vine. Neither can you bear fruit unless you remain
  in me.

  5 “I am the vine; you are the branches. If you remain in me and I in
  you, you will bear much fruit; apart from me you can do nothing. 6 If
  you do not remain in me, you are like a branch that is thrown away and
  withers; such branches are picked up, thrown into the fire and burned.
  7 If you remain in me and my words remain in you, ask whatever you
  wish, and it will be done for you. 8 This is to my Father’s glory,
  that you bear much fruit, showing yourselves to be my disciples. (John
  15:1-8)

You must also take into this the meaning of Jesus' name. From Matthew 1:21 we have:

"She will give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name Jesus, because he will save his people from their sins.”

A person must believe that it is through this belief, this faith in Jesus, that they are saved, not through any other cause, especially human effort and religious ritual. One passage that drives this home:

  “For through the law I died to the law so that I might live for God.
  20 I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ
  lives in me. The life I now live in the body, I live by faith in the
  Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me. 21 I do not set
  aside the grace of God, for if righteousness could be gained through
  the law, Christ died for nothing!” (Galatians 2:19-21)

Righteousness through the law, as Paul above speaks, means following religious, moral rules so well on your own that you earn God's acceptance. It can't be done, though many religions say it can.

(There is a debate between Protestants and Catholics as to whether personal acts of righteousness in obedience to Christ are part of this saving faith or follow as a consequence from it. That is another question, covered a lot on this site.)

Origin of the Phrase

I am unable to determine the origin of the phrase. However, it may be related to the Apostle's creed, where it begins the second section:

I believe in God, the Father almighty,
      creator of heaven and earth.

I believe in Jesus Christ, his only Son, our Lord,
      who was conceived by the Holy Spirit
      and born of the virgin Mary.
      He suffered under Pontius Pilate,
      was crucified, died, and was buried;
      he descended to hell.
      The third day he rose again from the dead.
      He ascended to heaven
      and is seated at the right hand of God the Father almighty.
      From there he will come to judge the living and the dead.

I believe in the Holy Spirit,
      the holy catholic* church,
      the communion of saints,
      the forgiveness of sins,
      the resurrection of the body,
      and the life everlasting. Amen.