Historical origins of the doctrine of God's self glorification Within the Reformed tradition, it is a considered a fundamental principle of doctrine that the 'Chief End' of Man, of Creation and most importantly of God Himself is His own self glorification. We see this in the Westminster Catechism, throughout Calvin's Institutes and by so many within the Puritan tradition, e.g. Johnathan Edwards writing an entire essay on the subject; 'A Dissertation Concerning The End For Which God Created The World '. In fact, one of the 'Solae' of the Reformation, 'Sola Deo Gloria' shows how central God's glory was in the minds of the reformers.

'Q. 1. What is the chief end of man?
A. Man’s chief end is to glorify God, and to enjoy him forever.' - Westminster Catechism, Shorter

'And God had regard to it in this manner, as he had a supreme regard to himself, and value for his own infinite, internal glory.' - Jonathan Edwards, 'A Dissertation Concerning The End For Which God Created The World'.

'The meaning of all this is, that the world, which was made to display the glory of God, is its own creator' - Calvin's 'Institutes', Chapter 5.5. (Calvin is here referencing Virgil, but acknowledges the the world was created for the display of Gods glory).

'Zeal in Christianity is a burning desire to please God, to do His will, and to advance His glory in the world in every possible way' - J.C. Ryle,

This doctrine is so singular and remarkable that it can properly be described as the defining principle of Reformed theology. My question is, what are the pre-reformation precedents for this doctrine? I.e. do we see this teaching in the writings of Augustine, of the Schoolmen, in the Eastern church etc..? Although I can clearly see its Biblical precedent, it seems to be a question that was not explicitly addressed until the Reformation.

Although I can clearly see its Biblical precedent, it seems to be a
question that was not explicitly addressed until the Reformation.

This "doctrine of self glorification" can actually be found in the earliest Judaic writings:

"I have fashioned this nation for Myself, they will relate my praise" (Isaiah 43:21)

and

"You are my servant, O Israel, through whom I will be glorified" (Isaiah 49:3)

The majority of Biblical scholars believe that the written books of the Torah were a product of the Babylonian captivity (c. 6th century BCE), based on earlier written sources and oral traditions, and that it was completed with final revisions during the post-Exilic period (c. 5th century BCE). The Hebrew religion out of which Judaism evolved, was polytheistic, becoming officially monolatrous during the late monarchy and monotheistic around the time of the Babylonian Exile.
This means that many of the oldest Torah texts were first written or finalized during the transition from polytheism to monotheism. Many echoes of the "struggle for supremacy" between these (usually city) deities can be found in the OT.
According to the available evidence, Israelite religion in its earliest form did not contrast markedly with the religions of its Levantine neighbours in either number or configuration of deities (See Mark S. Smith: The Early History of God). At some stage Yahweh joined the Israelite pantheon, possibly from Midian, where Egyptian records show that a god called YHW was worshipped. "Self-glorification" as witnessed in the texts of the OT is an obvious way to make Yahweh the top deity.
Yahweh (YHWH) was worshipped during the early, polytheistic centuries of Israel and Judah, although it is thought that Yahweh only entered Hebrew belief some time after the people became established as identifiable groups. So, Yahweh clearly was a polytheistic deity. The Canaanite father of the gods was El (Hebrew: Elohim), but Yahweh became the national god and then syncretised with El as one supreme God above all others. Evidence of this syncretization is easily found in the OT:

(Exodus 6:7)
Many verses take on a completely different meaning if you know of the polytheistic origin of Judaism:

Thou shalt have no other gods before me (Exodus 20:3)

Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me; (Exodus 20:5)

Clearly these self-glorifying statements make more sense in a polytheistic context before Yahweh became the state deity.
One of the titles that Yahweh calls himself, "El Shaddai" (usually translated as the almighty) takes on a very different meaning in the aforementioned Midian origin of Yahweh:
The biblical account describes the Midianites as worshiping more than one deity, including both Baal-peor and Yahweh. Both of these deities are likewise described as being worshiped by the Israelites themselves, although Baal worship was supposedly forbidden to them. Scholars speculate that the worship of Yahweh may have actually begun among the Midianites and was later adapted by the Israelites. Supporting this theory is the fact that Exodus states that God was known as as El-Shaddai by the Israelites until Moses' encounter with Him at Sinai, after first meeting the Midianite priest Jethro and marrying into his family:

Moses’ father-in-law replied, “What you are doing is not good. 18 You
and these people who come to you will only wear yourselves out. The
work is too heavy for you; you cannot handle it alone. 19 Listen now
to me and I will give you some advice, and may God be with you. You
must be the people’s representative before God and bring their
disputes to him. 20 Teach them his decrees and instructions, and show
them the way they are to live and how they are to behave. (Exodus 18)

After this event we get Mozes' encounter, where Yahweh states:

(Exodus 6:3).
In conclusion, not only does self-glorification clearly predate the Reformation, but its origin is very likely strategical writing to ultimately establish an imported Yahweh as the state deity and to syncretize this deity with Elohim.


How have Calvinist theologians dealt with statements about God repenting? There are a number of OT passages that seem to show God changing his mind.1 Perhaps most well-known is his approach to Nineveh in the book of Jonah (summarized in 3:10). An example from Jeremiah also exemplifies this possibility (quoting ESV):

  Jer 26:2
  Thus says the LORD: Stand in the court of the LORD’s house, and speak to all the cities of Judah that come to worship in the house of the LORD wall the words that I command you to speak to them; do not hold back a word.
  Jer 26:3 It may be they will listen, and every one turn from his evil way, that I may relent of the disaster that I intend to do to them because of their evil deeds.

Verse 3 appears to indicate that God has an intention which he considers “change-able” contingent upon the actions of men. The term translated “it may be that” (ʾûlay, alternatively, “perhaps”) generally carries an element of uncertainty, and the one translated “relent” (nḥm, alternatively “repent”) indicates regret.2

I’m guessing that Calvin himself wrote about this, which would be interesting. I’m also interested in more recent theologians. I would especially like to see Jeremiah 26:3 addressed directly.

1. In addition to those cited in the question, see Exodus 32:14; 1 Sam 15:11,35; 2 Sam 24:16; Amos 7:3,7; Jer 18:8; Joel 2:13; etc., all using the same verb.

2. That’s the basic meaning anyway. In the context of potentialities (here, an “intention”), you can’t “regret” something not yet done in English, so we translate using other 6-letter re***t words.

John Calvin does indeed treat this verse.  He says:1

By saying אולי, auli, “if peradventure,” he made use of a common mode of speaking. God indeed has perfect knowledge of all events, nor had he any doubt respecting what would take place, when the prophets had discharged their duties; but what is pointed out here, and also condemned, is the obstinacy of the people; as though he had said, that it was indeed difficult to heal those who had grown putrid in their evils, yet he would try to do so.
As to God’s repentance, of which mention is made, there is no need of long explanation. No change belongs to God; but when God is said to turn away his wrath, it is to be understood in a sense suitable to the comprehension of men: in the same way also we are to understand the words, that he repents. (Psalm 85:5; 110:4.) It is at the same time sufficiently evident what God means here, even that he is reconcilable, as soon as men truly turn to him: and thus we see that men cannot be called to repent, until God’s mercy is presented to them.

John Frame
also deals with this verse and ones like it.  He says that the Hebrew 'ulay "may be construed anthropomorphically as God's taking their own way of speaking on his own lips." He finds a parallel with Deut 13:3:2

For the Lord your God is testing you, to know whether you love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul.

The "finding out" language, he notes, is often associated with God's testing:2

God knows how the test, the search, will come out, but the fact does not make the actual test superfluous.  Scripture stresses the importance of both divine sovereignty and human responsibility.  In some senses, God responds to our responses to him.  So our responses to tests are important to God.  The gospel itself is such a test, and our response to it is crucial to our relationship with God.

Specifically in relation to Jeremiah 26:3, he writes:2

Here let us simply note that God sometimes announces judgment not for the purpose of describing his eternal plan, but to test the response of people.  That test is not complete, of course, until the response actually takes place. Until then, the test is not finished, the results not sealed.  Positive and negative responses are still possible.  So there is an element of uncertainty that God here expresses by the term "perhaps." [emphasis in original]

Regarding the "relent" language, he quotes the Lord's words in Jeremiah 18:7–10:3

7 If at any time I declare concerning a nation or a kingdom, that I will pluck up and break down and destroy it, 8 and if that nation, concerning which I have spoken, turns from its evil, I will relent of the disaster that I intended to do to it. 9 And if at any time I declare concerning a nation or a kingdom that I will build and plant it, 10 and if it does evil in my sight, not listening to my voice, then I will relent of the good that I had intended to do to it.

Frame explains:3

Here the Lord states a general policy: many prophecies of judgment and blessing [...] are conditional.  God reserves the right to cancel them or reverse them, depending on people's response to the prophet.
We are interpreting [these passages] as expressions of his preceptive will, rather than his decretive: as warnings, not as predictions of what will certainly happen.  So there is no question of his decretive will failing.  His preceptive will, of course, unlike the decretive, can be disobeyed, but at great cost.

Louis Berkhof treats this language generally, saying,4

And if Scripture speaks of His repenting, changing His intention, and altering His relation to sinner when they repent, we should remember that this is only an anthropopathic way of speaking.  In reality the change is not in God, but in man and in man's relations to God.

Calvin, Commentary on Jeremiah and Lamentations
Frame, Systematic Theology, pages 320–21
Frame, Systematic Theology, pages 370–71
Berkhof, Systematic Theology, 1.1.6.B, page 59


According to the Catholic Church, why should we pray if God has already decided the best future for all of us? According to Roman Catholic Church,

  if God knows everything, including the future (which he does, if he's
  omniscient)

  Refer : What is the biblical evidence for God's omnipotence and omniscience?

and

  if God has the power to bring about any state of affairs (which he
  does, if he's omnipotent)

  Refer : What is the biblical evidence for God's omnipotence and omniscience? and Power, Authority and Sovereignty in the Character of God

and

  if he always wants to bring about the best state of affairs (which he
  does, if he's omnibenevolent)

  Refer : Matthew 26:24, is God Omnibenevolent? and
  How can a Wholly Good God Deliberately Create Evil?

then God has already decided what's going to happen in every single case. To everyone. Always.

So why should we pray?

It certainly is true that our Father knows what we need before we ask Him (cf. Matt. 6:8), but this does not mean that our asking for what we think we need accomplishes nothing.
In the first place, we are created in the image and likeness of God. That creation gives us a dignity which merits the hearing, at least, of our desires. God knows what we need. He even knows what we want. But it's important to Him—precisely because he gave us will and rationality—that we be aware of our wants, and have an opportunity to declare them. Telling God what we want, in this view, is simply exercising our abilities as the image and likeness of God.

Our Father knows what we need before we ask him, but he awaits our petition because the dignity of his children lies in their freedom.
(Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraph 2736)

In addition, petitionary prayer opens us to be able to come closer to God, to allow Him to transform us into people more fully and constantly willing to trust in Him and to desire for ourselves what He desires for us. With this in mind, even if we don't receive what we ask for, we can still draw closer to God in our asking:

God wills that our desire should be exercised in prayer, that we may be able to receive what he is prepared to give.
St Augustine, "Epistula 130", quoted in Catechism paragraph 2737.

"Transformation of the praying heart," the Catechism continues (2739), "is the first response to our petition."
Of course, it doesn't follow that God doesn't listen to our prayers—that he never gives us what we ask for simply because we do ask for it. God will give us what is good, when we ask for it. And if there is only one "best" for us, surely He will give us that, even if we ask for something else.

Do not be troubled if you do not immediately receive from God what you ask him; for he desires to do something even greater for you, while you cling to him in prayer.
Evagrius Ponticus, "On Prayer", quoted in Catechism paragraph 2737.

But it needn't follow that there is only one best thing for us. God hasn't necessarily "already decided the best future for each of us". What that "best" is depends on our freely chosen actions. And even accounting for them, there may be multiple equally good futures God could offer to us. And if one of these includes giving what we asked for, why should He not decide, as we are making the request, to do that? In this way, if we are praying in Him, in accord with what really is good for us: in this way God can actually decide to fulfill our request simply because we asked for it.
Note: Of course, God's will is carried out regardless of our prayer life. There's nothing saying we must pray for what we want. But to refuse to pray, knowing that God is listening, is refusing not only an opportunity to communicate with God, our loving father, but also a chance to align ourselves more closely with His will. It seems a dreadful disrespect of God to do this.


How does Reformed Theology consider passages that may imply that God is the "subject of sufferings"? In A Dissertation Concerning the End for which God Created the World, John Edwards makes the following statement,

  Because it is evident, by both Scripture and reason, that God is infinitely, eternally, unchangeably, and independently glorious and happy: that he cannot be profited by, or receive anything from, the creature; or be the subject of any sufferings, or diminution of his glory and felicity, from any other being.

It is however not immediately evident by either Scripture or reason to me that God is infinitely and unchangably happy, nor that God is not subject to any sufferings. In fact, numerous passages in the scriptures describe instances in which God is angry or wrathful and is thus unhappy, and also instances when God is greiving or sorrowful and is thus subjected of suffering.

For me personally, the sufferings of God, especially the contrast between those sufferings caused in him by the Acuser, Man, and those caused in him by the ministry of Jesus, is a central theme of the narrative of redemption.

How are passages that contain these themes handled by Edwards and other Reformed teachers that follow him, in the context of his statement here?

The point Edwards makes here is that since God accomplishes his purposes in all things, even evil things, he cannot be said to be carried away by emotions and thus experience involuntary ecstasy or distress.  But Edwards clearly admits that God can feel pleasure – the crucial point being that God, not the creature, is its ultimate source:

Though he has real pleasure in the creature's holiness and happiness; yet this is not properly any pleasure which he receives from the creature.  For these things are what he gives the creature.1

Similarly, Edwards refers to God's "hatred"2 and "indignation"3 toward sin, but contends that since he wills that it occur, and that it ultimately glorifies him, it does not distress him:

There is no inconsistence in supposing, that God may hate a thing as it is in itself, and considered simply as evil, and yet that it may be his Will it should come to pass, considering all consequences.4
The judgments God executes on the wicked, are spoken of as being for the sake of his name, in like manner as for his glory.5

This is often referred to as the doctrine of impassibility, that is, that God does not have passions.  J. I. Packer explains:

Not impassivity, unconcern, and impersonal detachment in face of the creation; not insensitivity and indifference to the distresses of a fallen world; not inability or unwillingness to empathize with human pain and grief; but simply that God's experiences do not come upon him as ours come upon us, for his are foreknown, willed and chosen by himself, and are not involuntary surprises forced on him from outside, apart from his own decision, in the way that ours regularly are.6

In this light, some passages in which God is said to experience negative emotions (grief, jealousy, etc.) are often said to be anthropomorophisms.  Millard Erickson argues that stories of God experiencing pain "are simply descriptions of God's actions and feelings in human terms, and from a human perspective,"7 and A. A. Hodge writes:

When [the Scriptures] speak of his repenting, of his being grieved, or jealous, they use metaphorical language also, teaching us that he acts toward us as a man would when agitated by such passions.  Such metaphors are characteristic rather of the Old than of the New Testament, and occur for the most part in highly rhetorical passages of the poetical and prophetical books.8

(Specifically on the similar issue of God "repenting," see How have Calvinist theologians dealt with statements about God repenting?)
Many in the Reformed tradition desire to carefully safeguard the idea that God can experience emotions.  For example, John Frame argues that scriptural references to God's compassion, delight, jealousy, and grief are examples of emotions, and that emotion is inseparable from intellect and will.  Like Edwards, he appeals to God's ordaining will to reconcile God's emotional responses with his impassibility:

God responds (both transcendently and immanently) only to what he has himself ordained.  He has chosen to create a world that often grieves him.9

That said, some Reformed thinkers, while still accepting the immutability of God, don't find the doctrine of impassibility helpful.  For example, Wayne Grudem:

I have not affirmed God's impassibility in this book.  Instead, quite the opposite is true, for God, who is the origin of our emotions and who created our emotions, certainly does feel emotions.10

Summary
Some recent Reformed theologians are less committed to the traditional doctrine of God's impassibility, suggesting that it does not align with scriptural references to God's pity, grief, and regret.  But Jonathan Edwards and the general Reformed tradition tend to interpret such passages as anthropomorphic or analogical – not in order to deny that God is relational, but to argue that he is never carried away by passions or altered in any way by his creatures.  As Richard Muller summarizes early Reformed thought:

In the usages found in the Christian tradition, immutability (or, indeed, impassibility, when the term is actually used) in no way implies an absence of relatedness, love, long-suffering, compassion, mercy, and so forth.  Impassibility, when attributed to God in the Christian tradition and, specifically, in medieval and Protestant scholastic throught, indicates, not a Stoic notion of apatheia, but an absence of mutation, distress, or any other sort of negative passiones.11

References:

Edwards, Works, v2, 212
Ibid., 197
Ibid., 380
Ibid., 162
Ibid., 238; emphasis in original
Packer, "Theism for Our Time," quoted in Robert Reymond, Systematic Theology, Chapter 7
Erickson, Systematic Theology, Chapter 11
Hodge, The Westminster Confession of Faith: A Commentary, Chapter 2, 74
Frame, Systematic Theology, 412–14; emphasis in original
Grudem, Systematic Theology, 166
Muller, Post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatics, v3, 310; emphasis in original


Is there an instance of parents lying to their children that was approved by God in the Bible? Is there any instance in the Bible in which:

Parents lied to children, and
God approved of it?

There is an instance in 1 Kings 22:22 in which the Lord is said to put a lying spirit in the mouths of the prophets, but that appears to be God -> spirit -> deceive a king, which seems different from parent/child relationships.

Finding God's approval for men's actions is uncommon. More often than not, the actions of people are recorded in all their embarrassing detail without an explicit endorsement or condemnation by God.

I concur with the problematic comparison of humans to God, for God knows exactly who he is and what he should do, he is sovereign and sinless, and doesn't exactly have to behave the same way as we do (e.g. worship, prayer, etc.).

I cannot think of an instance in the (Protestant) Canon when a parent lied to his children in an attempt to do something morally good.

Is Lying Ever Allowable?

On the contrary, one could make an argument that God doesn't want us to lie at all. One example I can think of is Jesus' praise of Nathaniel: "Behold, an Israelite indeed, in whom there is no deceit!" (Jn 1:47, NASB)

There are at least a few instances where people lied for "good reasons" and God blessed them (without necessarily approving of their method, but perhaps of their motives). One example is the Hebrew midwives who wouldn't murder the newborn sons they were to help deliver (Ex 1). Perhaps they were actually telling the truth and only deliberately arrived after the children were born, but I think it's safe to say that they deliberately employed a measure of deceit in what they told Pharoah.

A strict "no-deceit" rule of personal conduct does introduce difficult questions, like when I play a strategy game and do things to trick my opponent. It doesn't seem like it ought to be wrong since everything is strictly hypothetical and your opponent has no assurance that you are attempting to represent yourself in a plain and transparent way, but I consider this a weakness either in my argument or in the way I live.


What does Paul's "we will judge the world and the angels" mean? 1 Corinthians 6:1-4
1 When one of you has a dispute with another believer, how dare you file a lawsuit and ask a secular court to decide the matter instead of taking it to other believers! 2 Don’t you realize that someday we believers will judge the world? And since you are going to judge the world, can’t you decide even these little things among yourselves? 3 Don’t you realize that we will judge angels? So you should surely be able to resolve ordinary disputes in this life.

What does the passage above mean when it says "believers will judge the world and the angels"?

The book of Revelation refers to the final judgment (Rev. 20:11-13; NASB quoted):

  Then I saw a great white throne and Him who sat upon it, from whose presence earth and heaven fled away, and no place was found for them. And I saw the dead, the great and the small, standing before the throne, and books were opened; and another book was opened, which is the book of life; and the dead were judged from the things which were written in the books, according to their deeds. And the sea gave up the dead which were in it, and death and Hades gave up the dead which were in them; and they were judged, every one of them according to their deeds.

At this point all are judged; that both men and angels are subject to this judgment is suggested by the Revelator saying that both earth and heaven try to flee from the presence of Him who is on the throne to judge.   (As to why angels would be judged -- recall that there are both the unfallen angels that serve God, and also the fallen angels that serve the devil; see, e.g. Rev. 12:7 where Michael and his angels battle the dragon and his angels.)

As regards who does the judging, certainly that belongs to Him who is on the throne, but a few verses earlier (Rev. 20:4) we also see others will as well:

  Then I saw thrones, and they sat on them, and judgment was given to them. And I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded because of their testimony of Jesus and because of the word of God, and those who had not worshiped the beast or his image, and had not received the mark on their forehead and on their hand; and they came to life and reigned with Christ for a thousand years.

I admit that the text isn't very clear on who the 'they' are that sit on the thrones here. Given, however, that the only other people mentioned in the chapter at this point are the angel who locks Satan in the abyss, and Satan himself, the implication appears to be that the martyrs and faithful mentioned immediately afterwards, reigning with Christ, are the ones sitting on the thrones and given the power of judgment.

The beliefs of individual denominations about the further nature of the final judgment vary widely; the Wikipedia article describes several.  But in general this idea of the final judgment appears to be what Paul has in mind.


How can we understand the SDA interpretation of Daniel 9:26? According to the SDA interpretation of Daniel 9 the seventy weeks terminate in AD34.

Daniel 9:26 New King James Version (NKJV)

  26
  “And after the sixty-two weeks
  Messiah shall [a]be cut off, but not for Himself;
  And the people of the prince who is to come
  Shall destroy the city and the sanctuary.
  The end of it shall be with a flood,
  And till the end of the war desolations are determined.

Im interested especially in the destruction of the city and the sanctuary which according to them(SDA) fell during this period.

Does the destruction of the city and sanctuary take place during this period in time.

How can we understend this interpretation?

Seventh Day Adventist Robert Wood gives this information on Daniel 9:26.

  The “threescore and two weeks” or 434 literal years, also mentioned in the previous verse, begins after the “seven weeks” or 49 years mentioned in verse 25 which brings us to the same date, 27 A.D.[57] when Christ was anointed by baptism. Sometime after that date, Jesus would be “cut off,[58] but not for himself . . .” meaning: “He died the just for the unjust, . . . Tho innocent and undeserving of punishment, our Substitute and Surety was brought under the curse and condemnation that should have been ours.”[59]

  Now, as we look back retrospectively on what happened, the same “people[60] of the prince” who were instrumental in Christ’s crucifixion in 31 A.D. also came and destroyed “the city and the sanctuary” in 70. A.D. by what Gabriel called an overwhelming “flood,” a great, irresistible army of Rome, represented by the “dreadful,” devouring, breaking, stamping “fourth beast” of Daniel 7:7, 19, 23. It was the most guilty of all “the transgressors” of Daniel 8:23 who had not yet “come to the full.” This all happened, we can suppose, mid shaft of the “legs of iron” in Daniel 2:33.

  So, the “in the year 70 AD . . . The Roman army, led by the future Emperor Titus, with Tiberious Julius Alexander as his second-in-command, besieged and conquered the city of Jerusalem” which “was the decisive event in the ‘First Jewish-Roman War’ followed by the fall of Masada in 73 AD.”[61]

  But, that was only the beginning of “a series of revolts by the Jews against the Roman Empire.” The second was the “Kitos War (115-117)” and the third is called the “Bar Kokhba revolt (132-135).”[62] Interestingly, the “Arch of Titus, depicting and celebrating the sack of Jerusalem and the Temple, still stands in Rome.”[63] But, in spite of the ongoing Jewish resistance even after the fall of Jerusalem, Gabriel predicted their revolts would be fruitless, observing that “desolations are determined” or decreed [64] in which their final destruction at “the end of the war” were inevitable.

Explore Daniel & Revelation


What writings are held as "biblical canon" by Swedenborgians? Reading an article on Emanuel Swedenborg, I came across the following fact:

  It should be noted, however, that Corinthians is not included in the list of books that, according to Swedenborg, constitute the divinely inspired Biblical canon. (Source: Heaven and Hell (Swedenborg), on Wikipedia)

What list of books did, according to Swedenborg, constitute divinely inspired biblical canon?

Emanuel Swedenborg (1688–1772) listed the books that he considers to be the Word of God ("divinely inspired Biblical canon," in the words of the question) in three places: Arcana Coelestia ("Secrets of Heaven") #10325, The New Jerusalem and its Heavenly Doctrine #266, and The White Horse #16.

Here is the listing from Arcana Coelestia #10325:

  The books of the Word are all those which have the internal sense; books which do not have it are not the Word. The books of the Word in the Old Testament are: The five Books of Moses; the Book of Joshua; the Book of Judges; the two Books of Samuel; the two Books of Kings; the Psalms of David; and the Prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Lamentations, Ezekiel, Daniel, Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi. And in the New Testament they are: The four Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, John; and the Book of Revelation.

The other two listings are copied from this listing in Arcana Coelestia, with only minor variations in wording. The books listed are the same in all three places.

Here are the books in list form:

Old Testament:

Genesis
Exodus
Leviticus
Numbers
Deuteronomy
Joshua
Judges
1 Samuel
2 Samuel
1 Kings
2 Kings
Psalms
Isaiah
Jeremiah
Lamentations
Ezekiel
Daniel
Hosea
Joel
Amos
Obadiah
Jonah
Micah
Nahum
Habakkuk
Zephaniah
Haggai
Zechariah
Malachi

New Testament:

Matthew
Mark
Luke
John
Revelation

In the Old Testament, the books included are all those in the Jewish Law (Torah) and Prophets (Nevi'im), as mentioned by Jesus in the Gospels, with the addition of Psalms, Lamentations, and Daniel from the Jewish Ketuvim, or "Writings." (Re: Jesus' reference to the Scriptures that testify of him, see Luke 24:27, 44.)

In the New Testament, the books included are those in which the life and teachings of Jesus Christ himself are given (the four Gospels) and "The Revelation of Jesus Christ" (see Revelation 1:1).

Swedenborg did not reject the rest of the books of the Protestant Bible. He considered them "good books of the church" (see link below). However, he saw them as historical, instructional, and doctrinal writings rather than as divinely inspired books of the Word of God. For his view of the Acts and Epistles specifically, see "Third Letter of Emanuel Swedenborg to Dr. Beyer," reproduced in Documents Concerning Swedenborg, R.L. Tafel, Ed. London: Swedenborg Society, 1877, Volume II, Part I page 240.


What does it mean that God is the saviour of all people, especially those who believe? So this verse puzzles me:

  1 Timothy 4:10, ESV: For to this end we toil and strive, because we have our hope set on the living God, who is the Savior of all people, especially of those who believe.

What did Paul mean by saying that God is the savior of all people and especially those who believe? How does being a believer make him more of a savior than he already is?

Just one week back I encountered the same question in my personal meditation.

I think the key is in understanding the term Saviour.

Saviour to all men: Originally all men ought to have been destroyed in Adam when he sinned. The Bible says,

  And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world. Revelation 13:8

So the reason why this world was allowed to continue was because of the fact that the Jesus took it upon Himself to save the human race. I Peter 1:18-21 clarifies it further.

  Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers; But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot: Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you, Who by him do believe in God, that raised him up from the dead, and gave him glory; that your faith and hope might be in God. I Peter 1:18-21

So the fact that the world is continuing, that food is growing, that animals are living is all thanks to Christ. So God in Christ is the saviour to all men in giving them a probationary time to choose what they want.

Especially of those that believe: This refers to people who have made the choice to stand in the side of Christ, to accept Christ as the Son of God, believing on His name thereby becoming Sons and Daughters of God themselves:

  But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: John 1:12


Is 1 Corinthians 15:27 problematic for trinitarians? Bible hub has several translations of 1 Corinthians 15:27.
NKJV reads

  For “He has put all things under His feet.” But when He says “all things are put under Him,” it is evident that He who put all things under Him is excepted

To me, as a non trinitarian, this scripture seems to support the idea that Jesus as a unique spirit creation of Jehovah occupies a lesser position than the Almighty Jehovah but is at the same time in a superior position to every other being in heaven and on earth.

I’m sure the Christians who believe Jesus is co-equal with the Father have an explanation of this verse too.

How do trinitarians interpret and explain it?

The Queen of England is greater than me in that she is my Queen and I am her loyal subject.. but we are equal in that we are both human.
My father is greater than me in that he is my father, but we are equal in nature, in that we are both human.
The Son of God is, and always has been from eternity, subordinate to the Father in his role as the Son.  This subordination is not because of any difference in nature, each one has the divine nature and is therefore God.  The three members of the Godhead are equal in nature, but have different roles.
So Jesus called God his Father "making himself equal with God" (John 5:18) - that is Jesus is equal with God the Father in that they share the same nature.  But "my Father is greater than I" - that is in the Father's role as the Father.
In this understanding Christ was always, is always, and always will be subject to the will of his Father, obeying Him as His Father.  This obedience springs out his perfect love for his Father.  His obedience is no contradiction of his Divine Nature: Jesus always was, is, and always will be God the Son.


In which US states are Catholic dioceses being investigated for Sexual Abuse? I recently read something in my parish’s bulletin saying that our diocese was getting investigated by the Attorney General for sex abuse.

With this announcement, Wisconsin will join at least 22 other states that have launched investigations into sexual abuse by Catholic clergy and others in position of leadership.
https://www.catholicworldreport.com/2021/04/23/wisconsin-attorney-general-to-investigate-sex-abuse-by-catholic-clerics/

But I can't find a list of which states are getting investigated currently.
Are there new allegations of sexual abuse that Catholics should know about or is this just the same stories as before being rehashed?

In which US states are Catholic dioceses being investigated for Sexual Abuse?

With this announcement, Wisconsin will join at least 22 other states that have launched investigations into sexual abuse by Catholic clergy and others in position of leadership.

Here are the states which I have been able to narrow down as to date (officially investigations only):

California
Colorado
Delaware
Florida
Georgia
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Missouri
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
Vermont
Virginia
Washington, DC
West Virginia

This list was compiled with the following articles:

22 State AGs Investigating Sexual Abuse in the Catholic Church
Even more states have launched investigations into clerical abuse since the Pennsylvania report
Trail of Abuse Leads to Seminary
Sexual abuse scandal in the Catholic archdiocese of Los Angeles
Legislature Considers Sex Abuse Investigation Of Catholic Church


Will good, God-fearing people who don't believe in Jesus' divinity be excluded from Heaven? Will Jews, Buddhists, and all others who truly believe in God but not that Jesus is God, and who adhered to the Ten Commandments and who have done charitable acts throughout their lives,
be excluded from getting into Heaven solely because of their non-belief in the divinity in Jesus?

Per Scripture, the only way to heaven is by putting our trust in Christ and accepting His free gift of salvation.

The question you pose is based on a common misunderstanding of the relationship between how "good" we are and whether or not we are "good enough" to get to Heaven.  The problem is that not one of us has ever kept the Ten Commandments, much less the hundreds of other laws in the Bible, and therefore not one of us is "good enough" to get to Heaven on our own merits.

There's a much more complete explanation of this here.

A longer version of the same answer would go like this:

First, everyone on earth has sinned, save Jesus.

  Romans 3:23 (KJV)

  For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;

When you examine it, every one of us has broken each and every one of the Ten Commandments, if not in deed, then in heart and in intent.  For example, perhaps we've never committed adultery physically, but as Jesus said, if we've looked at someone with lust, we've committed adultery in our hearts.

  Matthew 5:28 (KJV)

  But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in
  his heart.

We've all broken the other Commandments in spirit as well, but even if one of us has squeaked away with not committing all of them, it doesn't matter.  The Bible tells us that if we've broken even one, we're guilty.

  James 2:10 (KJV)

  For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point,
  he is guilty of all.

So, the none of these people are sinless by the standards laid forth in Scripture.

Romans 1 touches on the subject of whether or not we are held guilty if we've never heard the Gospel message.  It lays out a few truths:

God reveals Himself to us, and we are without excuse.
Our ancestors had access to the truth of God, and chose to turn from them.

  Romans 1:18. (KJV) For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in
  unrighteousness;
  19. Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.
  20. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even
  his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
  21. Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and
  their foolish heart was darkened.
  22. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
  23. And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and
  creeping things.

Their unbelief and rebellion against God meant that their children, their children's children, and so on were not taught about God.  It's not His fault, it's theirs.  Because they chose to rebel when they knew the truth, and didn't teach their children, they doomed their children to not knowing the truth of God.  This is one reason that Proverbs 22:6 is important.  (Again, KJV)

  Train up a child in the way he should go: and when he is old, he will
  not depart from it.

In Romans 2 (KJV), we read:

  11. For there is no respect of persons with God.
  12. For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law: and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by
  the law;
  13. (For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.
  14. For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law
  unto themselves:
  15. Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while
  accusing or else excusing one another;)

These theoretical people you mentioned are guilty.  Scripture here tells us that "he shall perish without law". They will perish because they have sinned, and ignored the conscience that God has placed in each and every one of us.

Finally, it should be noted that even in civil, earthly law, ignorance of the law is not an excuse for breaking the law.

If I were to carry a concealed weapon in a state that doesn't allow concealed carry, for example, and I was arrested, would I be able to avoid the consequences by telling the Judge "I didn't know"?  No.  I'd be punished according to the law, whether I intentionally broke the law or not.

As we saw in Romans 2 (quoted above), the Bible tells us that God will not accept ignorance as an excuse.  They will perish without the Law, as God's word states, because they have sinned and broken the law, not because they have rejected Jesus.  Accepting Jesus is the only way to be saved.  He pays the penalty for our guilt.  However, the reason we are guilty is not because we didn't accept Him, it's because we chose to sin.

We can try to blame God all we want, and we can even try to blame the ancestors, but the simple fact remains that these people will be condemned because of their own sin.


What language(s) was Christ likely to have spoken during his mortal ministry? 1st-century Palestine was a relatively small area, surrounded by other countries, and part of the Roman Empire, which influenced commerce, government, and other areas of society. Jerusalem was a major destination for pilgrims during Jewish feasts, with people coming from all over to celebrate. Jesus spent a lot of time teaching and interacting with people during his ministry.

Before his ministry, he spent time in Egypt. Growing up, he may have accompanied Joseph when traveling to trade and sell craftsman or carpenter wares. Jesus was familiar with the Hebrew scriptures, but his followers recorded his teachings in Greek and Aramaic. In these varied situations, what are the languages that Jesus may have spoken?

(The question What language did Jesus speak? is related, but seems to be focused more on what his main language was (for example, with his family). I'm wondering more broadly what languages he would have studied or used to communicate beyond his "mother tongue.")

The answers to this question will vary according to the various perspectives.

Nevertheless, it is thought by some that Jesus spoke only Aramaic.

St. Thomas Aquinas seems to be of this opinion also:

  Christ in His own person purposed preaching to only one nation, namely the Jews. Consequently, although without any doubt He possessed most perfectly the knowledge of all languages, there was no need for Him to speak in every tongue. And therefore, as Augustine says (Tract. xxxii in Joan.), "whereas even now the Holy Ghost is received, yet no one speaks in the tongues of all nations, because the Church herself already speaks the languages of all nations: since whoever is not in the Church, receives not the Holy Ghost." - Question 176. The grace of tongues

Even Pope Francis has spoken on this:

  Language is communication. Without language, whether written or spoken or in whatever medium it may be, one is unable to communicate with others in a meaningful, relational way. When we ask how God communicates with humanity, language necessarily plays a role in this inquiry. This is perhaps why there may be such high stakes surrounding the answer to the question What language did Jesus speak?

  In the Summer of 2014, during his visit to Israel, Pope Francis found himself in a minor scholastic repartee with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. The exchange was short, but not without implication: “Jesus was here, in this land. He spoke Hebrew,” Netanyahu said, in connection to the strong relationship between Judaism and Christianity. “Aramaic,” the pope corrected. “He spoke Aramaic, but he knew Hebrew,” said the prime minister, regaining his ground.

  First the historical matter. Did Jesus speak Aramaic, Hebrew, or Greek?

  It is likely that Jesus’ primary language was in fact Aramaic, as the pope suggested, and as Netanyahu admitted. Aramaic, a Northwest Semitic language, was popularized as the lingua franca of the ancient Near East in the Neo-Assyrian period (745-609 BCE) and was used widely as the language of diplomacy during the Persian period (539-332 BCE). The Hellenistic, Hasmonean, and Roman periods in Palestine all display a use of Greek and Hebrew as well. Hasmonean coinage, for instance, bears examples of each of these languages being used in official minting. Thus when we arrive at the figure of Jesus, a Roman period Palestinian Jew from the Galilee region of the province of Judea, and as we move into the works of the New Testament authors, it is not surprising to find that all three of these languages cooperate together.

  Documentary and textual evidence seems to point to the use of Aramaic as a “default” language for communication in Jewish Palestine at this time. While Hebrew may have been favored for biblical, poetical, or liturgical texts (and may have even been used colloquially especially in Jerusalem), Aramaic appears to have been the “low” language, to frame things in sociolinguistic terms.  These two registers of language existed simultaneously, in a condition known as diglossia, and Aramaic seems to have been the vernacular. Thus when Pope Francis corrected Prime Minister Netanyahu, he was, in fact, correct. Jesus likely spoke Aramaic, but the prime minister’s caveat also holds water—Jesus knew, and maybe at times even spoke, Hebrew. I would not doubt if Greek were in his repertoire as well, but it is hard to say how much language knowledge a first-century Jewish Galilean mason possessed beyond the two already determined. - Speaking the Same Language

Outside Jesus' mother tongue, he may hay employed other languages, but the Sacred Scriptures are silent on this issue for the most part.

  Aramaic

  Christ taught and spoke mainly in Aramaic. The Gospels record some of Christ's words in the original Aramaic. When He healed a little girl, He said in Aramaic, “Talitha cumi,” (Mk 5:41) which means, 'Little girl, get up.' When He healed a deaf man, who spoke poorly because he was deaf, He said, “Ephphatha,” which is Aramaic for, “Be opened.” (Mk 7:34). On the Cross, when Christ cried out to His Father in Heaven, He spoke in the language of His daily life on earth, “Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani?” which means, “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” (Mk 15:34). Christ mainly spoke Aramaic, as was the custom for persons living in Israel and other areas around the Mediterranean during that time period.

  Hebrew

  Christ also spoke and taught, occasionally, in Hebrew. He often read the Scriptures and taught in the synagogues on the Sabbath. “And he came to Nazareth, where he had been brought up; and he went to the synagogue, as his custom was, on the sabbath day. And he stood up to read; and there was given to him the book of the prophet Isaiah. He opened the book and found the place where it was written…” (Lk 4:16-17). When Jesus read from the Scriptures, He read in Hebrew. The Hebraic Jews of Israel generally knew both Aramaic (their daily language) and Hebrew (the language of their faith). Hebrew was their preferred written language since it was the language of their Scriptures. After reading the Scriptures, Jesus could have taught in either Aramaic or Hebrew and been understood. However, He probably taught in the synagogue in Hebrew.

  Latin and Greek

  Did Christ ever use Latin or Greek? The society of first century Palestine was a multi-lingual society. Aramaic was widely used. The Hebraic Jews generally knew Hebrew as well as Aramaic. The Roman influence in the region brought the Latin language into usage. Jews who were not of Hebraic descent, who were converts or were children of converts, generally used Greek as their written language instead of Hebrew. Many important scholarly works were written in Greek; Greek scholarship competed with Latin scholarship for the attention of educated readers. Thus, the title on the Cross was written in Hebrew, Greek, and Latin (John 19:20). Though Aramaic was the most common spoken language, those who were literate used Hebrew or Latin or Greek (or more than one of these) as their written language. Christ lived in a society where Latin and Greek were used, so He had some familiarity with those languages. - The Writing of the Gospels - Which Languages Did Jesus Use?

Some believe that Jesus spoke Greek before Pilate.

  “In what language did Jesus and Pilate converse? There is no mention of an interpreter. Since there is little likelihood that Pilate, a Roman, would have been able to speak either Aramaic or Hebrew, the obvious answer is that Jesus spoke Greek at his trial before Pilate.” - In which language did Pilate and Jesus likely converse during Jesus's trial?

Further information can be read here: Two Archaeologists Comment on The
Passion of the Christ

And Greek was spoken in Egypt at the time of Christ.

  Even in areas in Galilee where Greek culture did not dominate—like Capernaum—Greek influence was still felt. This is because the region of Galilee lay on trade routes to Damascus and elsewhere. Greek, as a language of international commerce and trade, was spoken by individuals traveling through the area.

  Additionally, even though most Jews in Galilee fiercely resisted the influence of Hellenism, Greek was still spoken by select Jewish communities, especially in the south, in the areas around Jerusalem and Judea.

  Greek was spoken more frequently in these areas because returning Jewish diaspora from Greek-speaking areas brought the language with them to Jerusalem. Many of them came from Alexandria, in Egypt, a region also conquered by the Greeks and still heavily influenced by Hellenism.

  The same was true for other regions around the Roman Empire. As these Jews returned to their homeland, they brought with them their language—no longer Hebrew, but Greek. In fact, it’s possible that as much as 20% of the Jewish population in Jerusalem spoke Greek. - What Language Did Jesus Speak?


Why do people expect coherence in the bible? Lots of questions on this site are asking how some text from the old testament fits to a contradictory one from the new testament or a passage of one book to the other.
Why do people expect to find this kind of coherence in the bible? Clearly the different text passages are written several hundred years apart, by different people with different interpretations of the exisiting scriptures in mind and with a varying set of personal beliefs and values.

Different denominations and groups within denominations hold to varying doctrines of inspiration and inerrancy. If that denomination believes that God inspired the writer and that some version of what that writer wrote down (the "autographs") is inerrant, then they must account for apparent discrepancies. The logic is:

God only speaks the truth
God is logically consistent
The Bible contains all and only the words God intended it to have
Those words must be true and logically consistent

Some people believe that God dictated the Bible, word for word. That is not the prevailing view. It is a view that some sects and some people in other religions believe about their Holy Texts.
One model that many Christians accept is called "Verbal Plenary Inspiration".
This model means that every word is inspired, all the words are useful (Old and New Testaments) and authoritative and the Holy Spirit was involved. It allows for the personality of the speaker (say a prophet) to shape the vocabulary choice, organization and style of the message while simultaneously capturing absolute truth precisely.
Other people allow for errors in science and history in the Bible and say only the spiritual truths are inspired, the rest is the fallible opinions of the writers.
Depending upon your view of how the Bible came about and what measures God has taken to safeguard the words from corruption, the consistency of the different parts of the Bible may be a small or large issue for you.
Scripture itself makes claims about which views of innerancy and inspiration and transmission it endorses:

"Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away."
(Matthew 24:35)

16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking,
correcting and training in righteousness, 17 so that the servant of
God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work. (2 Timothy
3:15-17)

13 And we also thank God continually because, when you received the
word of God, which you heard from us, you accepted it not as a human
word, but as it actually is, the word of God, which is indeed at work
in you who believe. (1 Thessalonians 2:13)

21 For prophecy never had its origin in the human will, but prophets,
though human, spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy
Spirit. (2 Peter 1:21)

If you take the above Bible quotes at face value, it narrows down the acceptable range of views that an orthodox Christian may believe considerably. For all that reduced set of possible ideas of inspiration, the presence of actual inconsistencies in the Bible is impossible, hence must be addressed by attempts to explain the Bible passages in such a way as to remove the apparent inconsistency.


What does the Bible say about Egypt aside from the story of Moses in Exodus? I am fascinated with ancient civilizations and the civilization that leaves me with the MOST questions is Ancient Egypt. Like many ancient cultures, the Egyptians were very advanced(construction, writing, navigation, astronomy).  I remember being at church once, and the preacher was telling the story of the Exile. While the Egyptians decided to go after Moses( after he parted the sea ) one of the Pharoah's servants said, "They've got God on their side! We must turn back!"

We all know that the Pharoah pushed forward, leading to the death of him and his men.

My question is about the servant's comment.

Were the Egyptians fully aware of the existence of the Christian (at the time Hebrew) God, yet actively go against him and live life worshipping their own deities?

How were the Egyptians able to build the most amazing structure on the planet without(or even "actively against") God?

Does the Bible shed any light on these ancient "slave-drivers" ?

It's pretty clear from the Bible that people outside the Hebrews knew about the existence of God.

To make that more specific, they knew that there was a God that the Hebrews worshipped, just as the Hebrews knew there was a god (or gods) that the Egyptians worshipped, and the same for any other race. That doesn't mean they knew that the Hebrew God was the Almighty Creator of the Universe.

They (the Egyptians) might have assumed that he was just one among many gods (or possibly that he didn't exist and the Hebrews made him up). It was a pretty normal assumption in those days that a people thought of their god as one among many - perhaps the best, the most powerful, the one who was on their side, but just one among many.

You might be seeing a number of things going on in Egypt. The Egyptians might assume that the Hebrew god wasn't real, or that their own gods were more powerful. That would explain why Pharaoh might press an attack even knowing that the God of the Hebrews was against him - he is relying on protection from his own gods.

As for your last point, it's never been true that being a follower of God assures you worldly success. Plenty of civilizations have achieved great things without being followers of God.

To answer the bigger question in the title, there are places where you can search the Bible for specific words. Here are the results of a search for the word "Egypt". You can read all those passages to find out what the Bible says about Egypt. You can also read something called a Bible Dictionary which will tell you all sorts of things about Egypt in the Bible.


What is the source DNA for the body of Jesus? This question focus on the physical body used by Jesus during his time on Earth.

I believe there is much biblical support for and little question that the body of Jesus gestated in the body of Mary for 9 months following the normal course of growth and birth.

If a sample of the blood of Jesus was tested by today's science what DNA results would be supported by the bible?

It seems like there are only 3 options:

Jesus has 100% Mary's DNA with a divinely created Y chromosome
Jesus has DNA created entirely by God at the time of his "Conception" (assume this includes a sampling of DNA from anything more than 2 humans, as well as no relationship to any human living at the time)
Jesus has 50% DNA from a human female (Mary's) and 50% DNA from a human male (this need not be a challenge to Mary's virginity, today's science can do it)

There are several questions on this site, asking for clarification on what Jesus looked like, and a couple of questions asking about the creation of his body; How can Jesus, born of mankind, be sinless? & Was Christ the man created? are two good examples similar to my question, but don't really answer what I am looking for.

The question What was the conception of Jesus? seems to be asking what I am asking, but is either not well written or not well received as there is a single unaccepted answer, with only one up vote.

There are a couple of potential sources to obtain such a sample (i.e. Shroud of Turin, Holy Grail). If a source was offered, and a test made, what results would be supported by the Bible or other canon sources?

My first posting as an answer. (Pardon my english mistakes if any)

The short answer is obviously 3 (except the Mary's part).

Let's think about the Wine Miracle where water turns into wine to get some idea of characteristics of an miracle. The wine is obviously really wine although we don't know whether it is zinfandel or cabernet souvignon nor the age of it (3 years maybe?). Although the wine wasn't fermented from real grape juice that came from real grape trees with history of sunshine and raining, it was real wine in every physical aspect.

Jesus was fully humane and fully divine. So, from physical observance, Jesus must be a real human though the conception process had a jump between a non-miraculous process and another non-miraculous process during the conception.

The question may be the exact point of miracle whether it was the seed(no bad intention) or a fetus appearing Mary's womb. Then, it may be helpful to understand what they thought about birth process at the time and until about 17th century. Up util 17th century, people believed that the essence of a baby comes only from its father, none from mother's side. Figuratively, the seed and the soil. I am quite sure people reading the bible up until that time could imagine The Holy Spirit overshadowing Mary easily and agreed that Jesus is 100% from the Father. But now in 21st century, we know that half essence comes from its mother's side so that the imagination part becomes difficult (with the idea of 100% from the Father) or we need to image a fetus suddenly appearing in Mary's womb.

I think it is also possible to explain the Trinity even after accepting the half of Jesus came from Mary but this wasn't what the two apostles writing about the birth of Jesus thought about.

Anyway, we now need to imagine a bit different (the fetus) from what they imagined at the time or before 17th century (the seed) if we want to keep the intention of the apostles. Either way is miraculous.

Jesus is fully humane and fully divine. So, I am sure that it is the choice 3. But we don't know whether half of it is Mary's or what the other half looks like because of the same reason that we don't know whether the wine is of zinfandel or of cabernet souvignon. Its miraculous jump is impossible to figure out precisely. Just taking the whole as a miracle may be reasonably good enough as in the case of the Wine.

An article about Davinci's drawing surprisingly explains very well about people's thought on conception. An article (pdf)


According to Reformed theology, why does God tell people to repent if they don't have the choice to do so, as in Exodus 10:3? This question is addressed to those who believe in the doctrine of Total Depravity.

In Exodus 10:3 God asks the Pharaoh for how long will he remain proud. Why does God ask such a question if the Pharaoh can't repent?

And why does God tell all people to repent/or to not sin if they don't have the choice to do so? It's like telling a blind person to see.

  "So Moses and Aaron went to Pharaoh and said to him, "This is what the LORD, the God of the Hebrews, says: 'How long will you refuse to humble yourself before me? Let my people go, so that they may worship me." (Exodus 10:3 (NIV))

This is a good question and usually the misunderstanding of people who are curious of the doctrine.

I am going to address the second question first. When asking this question you are making a mistake in terms of what total depravity is. You are assuming that the individuals who are not called don't have a choice to repent. This is not what is believed. The person who typically believes in total depravity believes that by birth the individual is sinful (Psalm 51:5) and hates God and therefore will not look for God (Romans 3:10-11). Total depravity is not a choice that is given or not given, it is the state of a mans heart at birth. That his heart hates God because he loves sin (Romans 1:21). Nobody says that they do not have the option to repent. Rather that the individual DOES have the option to repent but they lack the desire to repent. Therefore because they don't want to repent they wont repent.

What happens to the individual that does repent is that God gives some a heart as a new gift (Ezekial 36:26). He makes the individual a new creature (2 Corinthians 5:17). God gives them a new desire for him. A longing to be with him. So because they have a desire for God they repent and turn to him. God never restricts anyone's repentance. Simply put they don't want to repent, because they don't want God. The people who do repent want God. God is not under any obligation to change a mans heart. Although He can and does. Typically they appeal to the many instances when God changes a man in scriptures or sets them apart from birth.

In the example of pharaoh, they do believe pharaoh has the option to repent. In fact it is clear that God tells him to. So he has the option to, and God demonstrates to him that he should over and over. But pharaoh hates God and doesn't want to repent and God is under no obligation to change his heart to make him want to repent. Even if God calls him to repent, because pharaoh has the option to repent. God gave him that option, and calls him to repent but pharaoh simply does not want God, and does not want to repent.

Hope this helps!


Does Christianity allow eating pork and horse meat, which even though it is prohibited by the Jewish Law? I am a Malaysian Muslim and am very curious about Christian diets. I've heard that Christianity prohibited eating Pork and Horse Meat but why do my Presbyterian classmates always eat both Pork and Horse Meat food for their lunch at my school?  As a Muslim, I eat Horse meat since it was allowed in Islam but my Presbyterian Christian classmates have ask a bit of my horse meat burger patty lunch food a few month ago. I also have warm them because I really respect my friend's religious beliefs, and said "this horse meat lah you Christian cannot eat kan?" but they did tell me Christianity allowed everything. So I'm curious about this.

Dietary rules among Christians vary from sect to sect. The starting point for understanding the Christian views on food regulation is in the book of Acts, chapter 10, when Peter has a vision and is told that he may eat any kind of food, even unclean food that does not meet Jewish regulations, such as pork. This is symbolic: Peter was told that Gentiles who are "unclean" by Jewish custom may join the Church and become Christians. However, it is also understood in a literal sense: Christians may in fact eat any food in normal circumstances.

However, there are circumstances in which a Christian should abstain from eating certain foods. This rule is binding on all small "o" orthodox Christians:

  1 Corinthians 8:

  8 Now about food sacrificed to idols: We know that “We all possess
  knowledge.” But knowledge puffs up while love builds up. 2 Those who
  think they know something do not yet know as they ought to know. 3 But
  whoever loves God is known by God.[a]

  4 So then, about eating food sacrificed to idols: We know that “An
  idol is nothing at all in the world” and that “There is no God but
  one.” 5 For even if there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or on
  earth (as indeed there are many “gods” and many “lords”), 6 yet for us
  there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for
  whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom
  all things came and through whom we live.

  7 But not everyone possesses this knowledge. Some people are still so
  accustomed to idols that when they eat sacrificial food they think of
  it as having been sacrificed to a god, and since their conscience is
  weak, it is defiled. 8 But food does not bring us near to God; we are
  no worse if we do not eat, and no better if we do.

  9 Be careful, however, that the exercise of your rights does not
  become a stumbling block to the weak. 10 For if someone with a weak
  conscience sees you, with all your knowledge, eating in an idol’s
  temple, won’t that person be emboldened to eat what is sacrificed to
  idols? 11 So this weak brother or sister, for whom Christ died, is
  destroyed by your knowledge. 12 When you sin against them in this way
  and wound their weak conscience, you sin against Christ. 13 Therefore,
  if what I eat causes my brother or sister to fall into sin, I will
  never eat meat again, so that I will not cause them to fall.

Thus, if a Christian has a friend who is offended by something he eats, he should avoid eating it in their presence so as not to harm their friendship or confuse the person about what is right or wrong. The above prohibition is meant to keep Christians from openly participating in the rituals of other faiths and prevent syncretism. Also, since many people keep pets, it is frowned upon to eat animals kept as pets by people we know.

Many religions ban the consumption of alcohol. Some Christian denominations do, but most teach that so long as one does not become intoxicated, they are free to drink alcohol. My personal practice is to never drink in the presence of people I know are struggling with current or past alcoholism, so as not to cause them to stumble.

Some Christian denominations ban the use of tobacco, or the consumption of caffeine, but most permit it.

I was directed by one of the commenters to this passage from Matthew 15, which gives Jesus' opinion on the matter. He said that our speech and conduct is more important than our diet when it comes to pleasing God:

  1 Then some Pharisees and teachers of the law came to Jesus from
  Jerusalem and asked, 2 “Why do your disciples break the tradition of
  the elders? They don’t wash their hands before they eat!”

  3 Jesus replied, “And why do you break the command of God for the sake
  of your tradition? 4 For God said, ‘Honor your father and mother’a and
  ‘Anyone who curses their father or mother is to be put to death.’b
  5 But you say that if anyone declares that what might have been used to
  help their father or mother is ‘devoted to God,’ 6 they are not to
  ‘honor their father or mother’ with it. Thus you nullify the word of
  God for the sake of your tradition. 7 You hypocrites! Isaiah was right
  when he prophesied about you:

  “ ‘These people honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far
  from me. 9 They worship me in vain; their teachings are merely human
  rules.’ ” 10 Jesus called the crowd to him and said, “Listen and
  understand. 11 What goes into someone’s mouth does not defile them, but
  what comes out of their mouth, that is what defiles them.”


Does the Catholic Church teach that God requires our consent to work miracles on us? Matthew 13:57-58 (RSVCE) says:

  57 And they took offense at him. But Jesus said to them, “A prophet is
  not without honor except in his own country and in his own house.” 58
  And he did not do many mighty works there, because of their unbelief. [58 And he did not do many miracles there because of their lack of faith. (NIV)]

Mark 6:4-6 (RSVCE) also says:

  4 And Jesus said to them, “A prophet is not without honor, except in
  his own country, and among his own kin, and in his own house.” 5 And
  he could do no mighty work there, except that he laid his hands upon a
  few sick people and healed them. 6 And he marveled because of their
  unbelief [6 He was amazed at their lack of faith. (NIV)]

  And he went about among the villages teaching.

Reading the above verses together, one reaches at the conclusion that God  cannot work miracles on us without our consent. I would like to know if there are authentic interpretations from the side of Catholic Church involving both Matthew 13:57-58 and  Mark 6:4-6 in order to establish the active involvement of the faithful in working of miracles by God.

OP Concludes
Reading the above verses together, one reaches at the conclusion that God cannot work miracles on us without our consent.
The Plain Correct Conclusion (as I see it)
Plain reading of these texts [where one always needs to begin in accordance with Church's rules for biblical interpretation] is that it was because of their unbelief/lack of faith in him that the LORD did not did not do [many] mighty works there.
Therefore the LORD did some but not as many as he would have wanted to perform had they had belief/faith in him. Therefore it is safe to conclude just from these texts that lack of unbelief/lack of faith cannot stop the LORD from working miracles to achieve his purposes, even while noting from the rest of the scriptures that the belief and faith in him from those who ought to believe in and have faith in him is very BIG with the LORD. Scripture has examples of the LORD requiring or encouraging faith before he performs a miracle.
Answer
Catholic doctrine taught by early Church Fathers especially St. Augustine being pre-eminent in this matter is that:

God's rule is absolute over men's wills by [virtue] of His omnipotence
and omniscience - through the infinite store, as it were, of motives
which He has had at His disposal from all eternity, and by the
foreknowledge of those to which the will of each human being would
freely consent. - Cf. Free Will | New Advent.

The way I explain this to myself is that as regards God and those who make themselves his enemies, if they were playing chess, God has infinite moves he can make and he knows beforehand ALL the moves his enemies will make. Actually, from the nature of infinity, he has infinite moves for each move of his enemies. He can't lose.

Whatever the LORD pleases he does,
in heaven and on earth,
in the seas and all deeps. - Ps 135:6 (RSVCE)

Therefore even if unbelief/lack of faith in him on the part of those who ought to believe might at quick glance appear to be a hindrance to God performing miracles, if he wanted to perform the miracle for his glory and the good of men, he will find a way to work that miracle.
One Old Testament example that comes to mind is the Massah and Meribah incident.


In John 14:16, according to the Catholic Church, who is the Spirit of Truth? "And I will ask the Father, and He will give you another Advocate to be with you forever – the Spirit of truth" (John 14:16–17, NIV)

From Jesus' words the Spirit of Truth is the Holy Spirit, but if we consider the succeeding verses below, it seems like it's describing the role of the Holy Spirit as a Teacher of Faith and someone who will testify in full about who Jesus is.

  But the Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have told you.
  (John 14:26)

  When the Advocate comes, whom I will send to you from the Father — the Spirit of truth who goes out from the Father — He will testify about Me.
  (John 15:26)

My question is: according to Catholic teaching, is the Spirit of Truth a person in whom the Holy Spirit chose to dwell, to testify to and become the teacher and guide of the Apostles?

The Catholic Church holds that the "Spirit of Truth" here is simply the Holy Spirit:

  When he proclaims and promises the coming of the Holy Spirit, Jesus calls him the "Paraclete," literally, "he who is called to one's side," advocatus. "Paraclete" is commonly translated by "consoler," and Jesus is the first consoler. The Lord also called the Holy Spirit "the Spirit of truth." (Catechism, §692)

This section cites the verses you quote and a few others (John 14:16, 14:26, 15:26, 16:7, and 16:13) in support of its statements, so it's fair to say that this is how these passages are understood.  The Catholic Commentary on Sacred Scripture, though not as official as the Catechism, states in relation to John 16:13:

  The Holy Spirit is the Spirit of Truth (14:17; 15:26) because he leads the disciples to understand in faith the meaning of Jesus' revelation. (source)


How do Catholics believe God is eternal if Jesus died on the cross? The doctrine of the Trinity states that there are three Persons: God (the Father), Jesus (the Son), and the Holy Ghost.

The Church also teaches that Jesus died for the sins of humanity.
Jesus is 100% God and 100% man, and at the same time not mixed or separate.

So if Jesus is said to have died for the sins of humanity, and Jesus is God, then God died.

An entity that dies cannot be considered eternal.

Is the dictionary term "eternal" not correct, or are our rational minds incorrect in thinking that an entity that dies is not eternal?  (I don't mean to sound rude or harsh, but this is a theological matter, and the seriousness of the matter sometimes requires stating things bluntly.)

If one just states the usual, "It is a mystery," I think that might be another way of saying it doesn't make sense—just accept it. I am looking for a more direct and specific answer than that, based on Catholic theology.

I'm going to answer with an earthly illustration and then tie the scriptural doctrine to it at the end, so bear with me.

Suppose there is a video game developer.
He spends his days typing the computer code that is the game.
He experiences the game from the perspective of a programmer.

He knows how the graphics will be drawn to screen and how all the pieces will interact.
Then the game developer decides to experience the game differently.
He hits the preview mode button (f12 perhaps) and now when he types on the keyboard a character jumps and moves around. He is experiencing the game world as a player through what is called an avatar.

Something happens in the game and the avatar 'dies', which is to say that the game code prevents the developer from experiencing the game world through the avatar anymore.
At this point the game developer can...

A) Hit ESC and go back to experiencing the game as a programmer, looking at code
B) Wait (or use a shortcut key built for developers) for the avatar to respawn.

  In either case the developer exists even when the avatar is surrendered or lost.

Now for the Scriptual doctrine tie in...

The Spirit of the Son as 'developer':

  1 Corinthians 8:6 "Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and
  through whom we live."

  Hebrews 1:2 "his Son [Jesus]... through whom also he made the
  universe."

  John 1:2-3 2 He was with God in the beginning. 3 Through him all things were made; >without him nothing was made that has been made.

The Spirit of the Son then limited itself to experience the created universe through an avatar:

  Philippians 2:5-7 Christ Jesus, 6 who, although He existed in the form
  of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, 7 but
  emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in
  the likeness of men.

The Spirit of the Son was able to hit the 'respawn' button, resurrect the human body avatar-

  John 10:18 18 No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own
  accord. I have authority to lay it down, and I have authority to take
  it up again. This charge I have received from my Father.

  Ephesians1:19-20 according to the working of his great might 20 that
  he worked in Christ when he raised him from the dead

Returning to overseer of the 'source code'-

  Ephesians 4:10

  10 He [Jesus] who descended is the one who also ascended far above all
  the heavens, that he might fill all things.

  1 Peter 3:22  Who [Jesus] has gone into heaven and is at the right hand of
  God, with angels, authorities, and powers having been subjected to
  him.

The existence of the Son is not threatened by the loss of an avatar.

Remaining questions

The above is a cheap painting of doctrine that is common among many Christian denominations. Opinions diverge on the details of the Son's relationship to the human avatar.

  Did the Spirit of the Son leave the human avatar when it died and
  re-enter it on resurrection, or did the Son stay bound to the avatar
  and wait for resurrection 'in the dark'?

  Did the Son return to whatever the Son was before the incarnation, or
  is there something different about the Son after that experience? In
  other words, does the Son continue to bind itself to a immortalized
  version of the Jesus body?

You can find the second question discussed briefly
HERE


A quote from Calvin about all five points? I have heard that John Calvin either stated, or made reference to, the necessity of holding all 5 points of Calvinism. If one is dropped, the whole system collapses. I can't find this reference.

If this in fact IS in his writings, could someone provide a reference? Where was this said, and do any modern Calvinists teach this as well? (i.e. John Piper, etc)

Given that Calvin died in Switzerland on May 27, 1564, and that what became known as 'The Five Points of Calvinism' were not written down until after 154 sessions of the Synod of Dort called in 1618, the answer has to be that Calvin could not possibly have said all those five points had to be held, as even one being dropped would collapse the whole system. The system was not finalised in that form (of five points) until seven months of deliberation in 1618 had passed.

However, in response to the comment: “Calvin had no idea of the five points since they were created 54 years after his death”, it needs to be said that that is only half true. Calvin had more than a mere ‘idea’ of all of those points, as his massive work, 'Institutes of the Christian Religion' shows. The reason why the Synod of Dort’s conclusions came to be known as 'The Five Points of Calvinism' is because his theology provided the Reformers at that Synod with all the grounds they needed to counter the rise of what became known as Arminianism. Calvin’s written works were based on his study of, and regard for, the biblical scriptures. Though he died half a century before the Synod, he could have agreed with all five points and argued for every single one of them being interlocked and  essential for the unity of the Protestant faith. The situation is not unlike the way the official Trinity doctrine was formed. Long before Councils put down in writing the finished wording (to prevent men like Arius from perpetuating what was seen to be heretical teaching) the subject had been debated and written about. The climax of all that discussion over several hundred years resulted in the official Trinity doctrine. So with the debate raised by James Arminius – he and his followers wanted to change the position of Protestantism subscribing to the Belgic and Heidelberg Confessions of Faith. Upon examination, the Synod of Dort could find no ground on which to reconcile the Arminian viewpoint with that expounded in the Word of God, and Calvin had expertly expounded that Word so that the climax - the conclusions - could justifiably be called Calvin’s five points.

How, precisely, can that be claimed? Consider how Luther’s lack of a systematic theology was handled by other Protestant leaders. The Swiss Reformers were keen to organise and systematise the new Protestant theology. The teaching of Zwingli and Calvin greatly helped to enable this. Calvin’s first edition of his 'Institutes' was published in 1536, when he was aged 25 years, and yet had

  not only given genuine dogmatic form to the cardinal doctrines of the
  Reformation: he had molded those doctrines into one of the classic
  presentations of the Christian faith. [1]

Here is a scholar’s comment on Calvin’s theology, which illustrates how he would have heartily agreed with those ‘five points’:

  Calvin rejected natural theology in favour of God’s Word as the
  surest path to knowledge of God and elevated Scripture, inspired and
  illuminated by the Holy Spirit, as the sole supreme authority for
  Christian faith and practice. Although God is adequately revealed in
  nature and in his Word, sin has so blinded humans that they cannot
  gain a true knowledge of God apart from a special illumination of the
  Holy Spirit that Calvin called the inner testimony of the Spirit,
  which is given only to the elect when they are regenerated (born
  again). Calvin based his doctrinal arguments and beliefs entirely on
  Scripture and seldom appealed to philosophy or Christian tradition as
  absolute authorities, because both err frequently in matters
  pertaining to God and salvation… For Calvin, everything that happens
  redounds to God’s glory, even if we humans cannot see how, and God’s
  glory is the purpose why everything happens, even if we are unable to
  reconcile it with love, mercy or justice… his teaching on
  [predestination] is in all essentials identical to what we have
  already observed in Luther and Zwingli. [2]

We can fairly assume that, because of Calvin’s systematic theology, written down in his 'Institutes of the Christian Religion' 82 years before that Synod of Dort, the Synod could summarise its response to The Remonstrance of the followers of Arminius (the Five Points of Arminianism) presented to the Dutch Parliament in 1610. That is why their response is rightly attributed to Calvin, whose theology was used to counter the five points of Arminianism. The five points of the Synod of Dort have ‘John Calvin’ written all over them!

[1] T.H.L. Parker, John Calvin: A Biography (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1975) p50

[2] Roger E. Olson, The Story of Christian Theology (USA: InterVarsity Press, 1999) pp410-412


In the LDS Church, who decides where to place new Churches, and how? Fairly straightforward question:  In the LDS Church, who decides where to place new Churches, and how?  Are there specific criteria? Is there a process for determining whether a Church can be supported?

I'd imagine that the process has something to do with how many believers there are in a community.  I know that witnesses go out everywhere, and in my experience, I attended LDS services in a high school gym, and there was talk about a "real Church" being established, but I never really thought about it in detail, so I didn't ask.  I'd guess that there's a criterion for how many believers are in an area to make it worthwhile to place the building there.  (After all, people can be taught just fine in a high-school Gym.  A building seems to be a convenience rather than a need.)

What is the actual process, and if there are criteria, what are they?

From page 6 of the Facilities Management Guidelines:

Factors that affect planning future meetinghouse needs include (1) the characteristics of typical Church units in the area, (2) past growth rate and patterns, (3) projected growth, (4) planned unit divisions, and (5) the size, location, and extent of existing building use

Matt is also right; on page 1, it says:

Planning New Facilities
Area administration office staff maintain plans for meetinghouse needs in all stakes. The stake president is asked to update the information for his stake in those plans regularly. For matters pertaining to new meetinghouse space, the stake presidency consults with the administration office.

Meetinghouses used to be funded by individual units, but are now paid for by tithing. Sacrament meeting attendance has been used to measure the need for a building in some wards I've lived in.
For instance, the Chinese branch in Manhattan met in a one room office until they had enough people attend that they became a ward and got their own chapel. However, because it was just one small ward, the church was one floor of a building. Meanwhile, Harlem had several wards, and their growth caused the LDS church to build a new meetinghouse there (all this was from 2003-2005 or so).
Likewise, temples are built according to the number of nearby active members (paying tithing, attending church) and demand on other nearby temples.


How do Jehovah's Witnesses explain Thomas's exclamation, "My Lord and my God"? In John 20, Jesus is resurrected and is showing Thomas the wounds in his hands, to prove that he is risen.  In John 20:28–29, we see Thomas's response:

  28 Thomas answered him, “My Lord and my God!” 29 Jesus said to him, “Have you believed because you have seen me? Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.”

This passage is often used as evidence of Jesus's divinity, since Jesus does not rebuke Thomas for calling him "God" like the angel does in Revelation 19:10, for example.

Since Jehovah's Witnesses do not believe that Jesus is God, how do they explain Thomas's exclamation, and Jesus's response?

If you look up the apostle Thomas in the Watchtower Online Library at JW.org, you can find three links that address the topic of John 20:28: a section on Jesus Christ from their book Insight, a section on Jesus Christ from their book Reasoning, and an Awake! magazine article called "Those Who Are Called 'Gods.'" I'll quote from all three sources in this answer.
Insight indicates that there are two permissible explanations of the passage:

Some scholars have viewed this expression as an exclamation of astonishment spoken to Jesus but actually directed to God, his Father. However, others claim the original Greek requires that the words be viewed as being directed to Jesus. Even if this is so, the expression "My Lord and my God" would still have to harmonize with the rest of the inspired Scriptures.

The first explanation is neither elaborated upon nor mentioned anywhere else, but it's consistent with hogarth45's anecdotal answer. The Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses seems to favor the latter explanation, that Thomas is calling Jesus "my God" in a way that doesn't jeopardize their beliefs about Jesus and God. They point out parallels between this use of the word "god" and other Biblical uses where they also don't believe Jehovah is the referent:

Insight mentions that in many cases of appearances of angels, the Bible "spoke of that angelic messenger as though he were Jehovah God" because "the angelic messenger was acting for Jehovah as his representative." Note, however, that Nicene Christians often interpret these same passages as instances of pre-incarnate appearances of Jesus.
They point out that earlier in John, Jesus approvingly quoted Psalm 82, which calls "powerful men" gods, and "Christ occupies a position far higher than such men."
Citing John 1:1 (NWT), they say that Jesus is "divine" or "godlike" or "a god." JWs even believe that, in Isaiah 9:6, "Mighty God" is a title appropriately given to Jesus, while noting carefully that it is not "Almighty God." He is even referred to as "the only-begotten god" in John 1:18.

All three sources also note that the context (John 20) includes two other significant mentions of the relationship between Jesus and God which, they say, demonstrate that he is not the Almighty God. Reasoning gives the most extensive treatment:

Shortly before Jesus' death, Thomas had heard Jesus' prayer in which he addressed his Father as "the only true God." (John 17:3, RS) After Jesus' resurrection Jesus had sent a message to his apostles, including Thomas, in which he had said: "I am ascending ... to my God and your God." (John 20:17, RS) After recording what Thomas said when he actually saw and touched the resurrected Christ, the apostle John stated: "These are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in his name." (John 20:31, RS) So, if anyone has concluded from Thomas' exclamation that Jesus is himself "the only true God" or that Jesus is a Trinitarian "God the Son," he needs to look again at what Jesus himself said (vs. 17) and at the conclusion that is clearly stated by the apostle John (vs. 31).


Was any of Flavius Josephus' work relevant to the Council of Nicea? I noticed that Eusebius transcribes the entirety of Josephus' Testimonium Flavianum in 324 AD, and that the First Council of Nicea occurs in 325 AD. Does any of Josephus' work feature throughout the contemporary arguments or literature?

The most important early Church documents that relate to the history of the First Council of Nicaea written by contemporaries of the period are, I think, the Acts and Canons of the Council; the Ecclesiastical Histories of Eusebius (263-339); and the writings of Athanasius (296-373).

Most of the Acts of the Council have not survived (the Nicene Creed is an example of a portion that did).  There is no mention of Josephus in the portion of the Acts that we have, nor in any of the Canons.

You have already pointed out that Josephus was mentioned in Eusebius.  References to him occur in least once in Books I, II, III, IV, IV, VI, VII, but as far as I can tell, nothing that is written is relevant to the Arian controversy, which was the subject of the Council.

Most, if not all, of Athanasius' works related to the Arian controversy, and hence the Council, can be found in the CCEL Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers collection, but I cannot find a single reference to Josephus by Athanasius in any of the documents available.

We might consider also the Church Histories of Socrates of Constantinople (380-439), Sozomen (400-450), and Theodoret (393-458).  All three of these wrote on the Council of Nicaea.  Socrates mentiones Josephus in Book V of his history, but on an unrelated matter (the celebration of Easter).  Sozomen mentions him twice, but again in completely unrelated contexts.  Theodoret does not seem to mention him at all.


Why did God need to plant the tree of knowledge of good and evil in the garden of Eden in the first place? Why did God need to plant the tree of knowledge of good and evil in the garden of Eden in the first place?

I mean Mormons say that God was in fact having a hidden desire for Adam and Eve to disobey His words and partake of that tree so that they could later be tested in the midst of sinful world whether they would seek God or merely enjoy the worldly pleasures.

When I confronted one Mormon on this point by saying that it seems a bit contradictory for God to have forbidden Adam and Eve to do something that He in fact wanted them to do, he confronted me with this question: otherwise, why do you think God planted that tree in the garden of Eden while He didn't want Adam and Eve to partake of that tree?

I believe that your question is very closely related to the one of "How could an omnipotent God who hates sin allow sin?  If He's omnipotent, couldn't He have prevented us from sinning?"

The answer to that, of course, is that God gave us free will because He loves us, and because He wants to be loved in return.  Our love for Him wouldn't be real love if it were forced.  We'd be little better than robots, programmed to behave a certain way.

I believe that the tree was planted there because without it, Adam and Eve wouldn't have had the choice to obey or disobey Him, and without choice, there can be no true obedience, or true love, only mindless followers with no will of their own.

I don't believe He wanted them to eat it at all, but He knew that they would.  He knows all of history; past, present, and future.  We may not understand why He did certain things, but we can be sure that He has His reasons, and that His wisdom is far higher than ours.  (1 Corintians 1:25, 1 Corinthians 2: 16)


How did Christians respond to abortion in the early Church? I think that the churches (all Christians, Catholics, Protestants, Greek Orthodox and others) should be involved in the fight against legalized abortion. I am looking to the history of the Church to see what forms of abortion occurred (e.g., abandonment/exposure), and how the early Church Christians responded, and the prevailing doctrines on abortion or its equivalent.

There were church commandments against it, and from the earliest times.

The Didache, i.e. the earliest Christian catechetical document (and contemporaneous with the Gospels, probably earlier than A.D. 70) says "οὐ φονεύσεις τ́κνον ἐν φθορᾷ" (you shall not murder an infant with abortion) and "οὐδὲ γεννηθὲν ἀποκτενεῖς" (nor slay the begotten). So both abortion pre-birth and the monstrous ancient (and regrettably, and shockingly, current) practice of awaying with unwanted and undesirable babies is here condemned.

Athenagoras, also a very early Christian, writes in his A Plea for Christians (a work against calumnies against the Christian faith by pagans, to the Roman Emperor), cap. 35:

  And when we [Christians] say that those women who use drugs to bring on abortion commit murder, and will have to give an account to God for the abortion, on what principle should we commit murder?

He wrote about A.D. 177.

Tertullian, writing in 197 (Apology, cap. 9):

  In our case [Christians'], murder being once for all forbidden, we may not destroy even the fœtus in the womb, while as yet the human being derives blood from other parts of the body for its sustenance. To hinder a birth is merely a speedier man-killing; nor does it matter whether you take away a life that is born, or destroy one that is coming to the birth. That is a man which is going to be one; you have the fruit already in its seed.

This sentiment, attitude, doctrine, is never taken back or rejected by any later Christians, so to cite more would be rather superfluous. That is to say, all abortion is considered murdering that infant.


What exactly is manna? In the Bible account of Exodus, God gives the Jews a type of bread called "Manna".

What exactly is manna? What is in it? Do Jews or Christians still eat it today? If so, do they eat it at certain times? What does it taste like?

I wanted to be a chef many years ago, but that didn't pan out, so to speak. Cooking food has always been a passion, as is learning. I want to find out more about this bread and try to recreate it if possible.

This is in reference to researching the historical diet of both the early Jews and Christians. The scope of that is much to wide to ask in total right now, so I will ask in parts, starting with manna.

Well, the word "manna" itself means "What is it?" so I'm not sure you're going to find a perfectly satisfactory answer to your question. :-)

In addition, it was created supernaturally by God, and He didn't share the recipe. :-)

Since it was a single miracle, and not something that people still eat today, no one really knows personally what it tastes like. However, the KJV states in Exodus 16:31, "It was like coriander seed, white; and the taste of it was like wafers made with honey."

I would not say that it was necessarily bread as we think of it, since Exodus 16:21 states that when the sun beat down in the afternoon, the manna melted.