What major discrepancies exist between "versions" of the Bible? Based on a comment from @AndrewThompson,

  'the' Bible (any one you care to name) is no more evidence of anything than the BOM is. You might take the numerous discrepancies between versions of 'the' Bible as the proof of that statement.

there is a belief out there that "versions" of the Bible apparently have "numerous discrepancies".  I'd like to know what these are.

What is the most egregious textual variant measured in terms of its impact on theology?

P.S. If you are going to cite the game of "telephone" please be prepared to cite a specific example, demonstrably showing manuscript evidence. If there are so many "discrepancies" this should be an easy exercise. The Codex Vaticanus, the Codex Sinaiticus, and the Dead Sea Scrolls are all online.  Additionally, there are several "Critical Appartus"es, the best are by Bruce Metzger, that will catalog every known variation. These things can be checked, I'd just like a good example of something significant.

There are none.

Translation Choices aren't Biblical Version issues

I categorically have to rule out translation choices as different "versions" because by definition, languages that change will change their wording to make things clear. Whether one translates the term "cell phone" into German as Mobil Telefon or Handy, for instance, is completely arbitrary, although the act of translating does introduce different connotations. By the same token, should one literally translate Ich habe die Schnatuze voll damit! literally as "I have the nose full with it!" or idiomatically translate the meaning to "I'm sick of it" or "I'm fed up with it!"  Of course those expressions mean nothing until the language catches up with it, proving the point that language changes.

Unlike the Qu'ran, the Bible has no problem with itself being translated.  If you want to quibble over a translation, you are quibbling over language, not the "Bible."  As such, I would confine any "discrepancies" to the original Greek and Hebrew (and Aramaic parts of Daniel).

There are some very bad translations out there (see Was Jesus a Separate God?), but again, those are not the fault of the manuscripts, but rather translation choices that lacked scholarship.

Manuscripts are pretty consistent

There are admittedly, minor textual variations amongst the various manuscripts, but are there any that have any impact on theology?  Most are the grammatical equivalent of a transposed comma or a changed preposition. In a few cases (e.g. the Woman caught in adultery in John 8), there are sections that are missing in older manuscripts, but no textual variations once the story is added to the corpus.

In his book, The Text of the New Testament, It's Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration, Bruce Metzger analyzes thousands of manuscripts, and points out every miniscule variation amongst the miniscules, codices, papyri, and manuscripts.  Glancing through the linked table of contents, it will become obvious how minor the variations are.

When the Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered in the 1947, after having been buried for nearly two milennia, there were no significant discrepancies.

When Tischendorff uncovered (stole?) the Codex Sinaiticus in the 1800s, there were no significant discrepancies.

In short, this book is way less fluid than modern edits to Charles Dickens or William Shakespeare.

An examination of claims that manuscripts have significant theological variation
This is detail, but I think its worthwhile.  If you like the short answer, stop reading - but I think in trying to make the case that there is "significant theologcal variation, this text indavertently shows how little disagreement there really is

I'd like to show some examples that one commentator says are "significant", from @CwallenPoole's excellent answer:

Here is the case -

  This statement is clearly false. It is not true to the evidence. Dr. Sumner wrote: "The rare parts about which there is still uncertainty do not effect [sic] in any way any doctrine." This is false! Doctrine IS affected. Dr. Robert L. Thomas, John MacArthur's professor in his California Seminary, wrote: "No major doctrine of scripture is affected by a variant reading." False, again. Dr. H.S. Miller wrote: "No doctrine is affected." False again. Dr. Stanley Gundry stated: "Only a few outstanding problems remain, and these do not affect doctrine or divine command to us." False again. Dr. Ernest Pickering wrote: "Important differences of textual readings are relatively few and almost none would affect any major Christian doctrine." False again!

N.B. That's a fair number of good scholars to disagree with.  (Kurt Aland is also mentioned, the same Aland of Nestle-Aland - probably the best Greek NT out there.)  So, we have a lot of scholars making the claim I'm making.  Let's give the author a chance to debunk them.

  John 3:15. "That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life."

  Do you know what the "B" (Vatican) and "Aleph" (Sinai) manuscripts do to the three words, "should not perish"? They REMOVE them. So, in the two false Greek texts, there's no hell in Jn. 3:15. What versions follow these corrupted Greek texts? The NIV follows them, the NASV follows them, and the NKJV in the footnotes, follows them. So do the other modern versions and perversions. For them, there is no hell in Jn. 3:15. Is this not a major doctrine?

So, the claims is "should not perish" is not supported by the manuscript evidence.  Okay, let's assume its true.  The doctrine of annihilationism is not predicated solely on this Scripture, and in any case, isn't accepted by most Christians.  In either case, the significant theological point is "Believe in Jesus, Have eternal life."  Hell has other scripture to make the case one way or the other.

  Mark 9:44 and 9:46. Another example is Mark 9:44 and 46. Both verses are gone: "Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched".

  Because "B" (Vatican) and "Aleph" (Sinai) remove both verses, so does the NKJV in the footnotes; so does the NASV (by putting them in brackets); and so does the NIV. So do the other modern versions and perversions. In so doing, they take away the fires of hell. Is this not a major doctrine? ... Now these false Egyptian Greek texts and the false English perversions will assist them in their heresy of a "fireless hell"!

Again, neither a widespread position, nor the exclusive basis of the claim.

  John 6:47. Let me see if you can accurately lead a soul to Christ using exclusively Jn. 6:47 as rendered in the new versions. Note John 6:47 in the KJV, where the Lord Jesus declared: "Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life."

  That verse is as clear as a bell, on how to receive "everlasting life." But, the Westcott and Hort Greek text, following the "B" (Vatican) and "Aleph" (Sinai) manuscripts, takes out those two vital and precious words, "on me." Because of their reliance on these false Egyptian Greek texts, the NIV also removes "on me." So does the NASV. So does the NKJV in the footnotes. So do the other modern versions and perversions. If you're trying to lead a soul to Christ with those new versions and perversions, using Jn. 6:47 exclusively, you'll never lead them to Christ, because "on me" (Christ) is gone from that verse in their perversions! All they say is something like this: "Whoever believes has everlasting life." Believes what? Their verse doesn't say. Their verse merely says "believes." According to these perversions of John 6:47, if I were to believe in atheism, Christ promises me everlasting life. The same if I believe in humanism, or in the Easter Bunny, or the Tooth Fairy, or in Santa Claus, or in Rudloph the Red-Nose Reindeer, or in Bugs Bunny, or in Buddhism, Taoism, Judaism, Modernism, or in anything else! That's major false doctrine in my judgement, and it stems directly from false Greek texts and false English perversions!

Okay, so we're missing the words "on me" from believes "on me".  From the whole of Scripture, does anybody really think John 6:47 allows belief in Santa Claus to get you into heaven?

  Romans 1:16. Here's what it says in the accurate KJV: "For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek."

  The heretical Greek texts of "B" (Vatican) and "Aleph" (Sinai) remove the two words, "of Christ" in this verse. Because of this, the NIV also removes these words. So does the NASV. So does the NKJV in the footnotes. So do the other modern versions and perversions. This certainly is doctrine. "Gospel" means "good news" or a "good announcement." What "gospel" could be inserted there instead of the "gospel of Christ"? Was it the good news about a pay raise? Was it the good news about a new car, a new hat, or a new house? No! It's the gospel or good news about Christ. That's doctrine! That's theology!

So, is the "Gospel" so radically different from the "Gospel of Christ"?  Don't think its major.

  John 7:8. Was the Lord Jesus Christ a liar? If you believe the false Greek text, "Aleph" (Sinai), and some of the versions, He was. Note Jn. 7:8: "Go ye up unto this feast: I go not up yet unto this feast; for my time is not yet full come."

  According to the Greek text "Aleph" (Sinai), the word "yet" must be removed. The NASV omits it also. So does the NKJV in the footnotes. So do some other modern versions and perversions. Why do I say this removal of "yet" makes the Lord Jesus Christ out to be a liar? Because He went up to the feast in question. If He told his brethren that He was NOT going up to the feast, and then later went up to that feast, He would have told a lie, would He not? This certainly is a major theological doctrine. As in all of the other 356 doctrinal passages, the KJV has superior theology here. The perversions are inferior in their theology and doctrine! Stay away from them!

Is it just me, or is this a stretech?

Here's the point - a scholar doing his best to present "theological differences" between manuscript versions fails to make a compelling case that theology is fundamentally altered by manuscript evidence.  I still challenge someone to show me a case where Bible "versions" really change theology dramatically.


The Omnibenevolence of God Does the Bible contain an unambiguous statement that God is All-Good?

(Note: I am not questioning whether God is All-Good or not, nor how we can indirectly infer God is All-God. I am not asking whether the Bible contains God is All-Loving or All-Merciful or All-Powerful, but whether Bible explicitly mentions God is All-Good or a term that unequivocally means All-Good.)

ADDENDUM

(In response to people wondering why I am wondering what I am wondering.)

In Islam there is this concept of Most Beautiful and Perfect Names and Attributes of Allah. (Obviously, all of them are from the Quran.) By itself, it is whole subject of endless research and commentary. Though God is not bounded by any number of perfect attributes, it is believed that 99 of them are mentioned in the Quran. I read that even though God is Perfectly Just, All-Just (or Absolute Just) is not a name mentioned in the Quran. (When I learned why, I was most amazed.) Then I realized that, to my understanding, there is no name that would correspond to All-Good, even though Allah is All Good. (And I have a theory why.) All of this made me curious: whether God is ever mentioned as All-Good in the Bible. I would guess not, this why I am asking here.

Finally, the answer will help me with my own research and book.

No
"Omnibenevolence" is a big word and taking you at your word, is God benevolent to all people?  No.

As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated. (Romans 9:13; Malachi 1:2-3)

Ye shall not afflict any widow, or fatherless child. If thou afflict them in any wise, and they cry at all unto me, I will surely hear their cry; and my wrath shall wax hot, and I will kill you with the sword; and your wives shall be widows, and your children fatherless. (Ex 22:22-24)

If any man defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy... (1 Cor 3:17)

And Jesus ... cast out them that sold and bought in the temple, and overthrew the tables of the moneychangers, and ... would not suffer that any man should carry any vessel through the temple. (Mark 11:15-16)

Thou hast not lied unto men, but unto God. And Ananias hearing these words fell down, and gave up the ghost. (Acts 5:1-11)

When the even was come, they brought unto him many that were possessed with devils: and he cast out the spirits with his word.  (Matt 8:16)

There are a great many examples of God acting unkindly toward others.  When he flooded the earth leaving only Noah and his family, it was not an act of ultimate charity or forgiveness.
Some may try to explain that by definition God acts in the best interests of all, that the individual's choices to wickedness leave no room for "better" than what God can judge for them.
But, then God ceases to be God.  He certainly has no need of justification or rationalization from mortals.

For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion. (Romans 9:15)

But...
Paul makes an important point:

What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid. (Romans 9:14)

That God does not act with omnibenevolence is truth.  That God always acts with righteousness is also truth.
If this answer doesn't sit well, then I ask for another word than "omnibenevolence" or a more suitable (and more accredited) definition than "unlimited or infinite benevolence."  From Wikipedia we discover:

Omnibenevolence (from Latin omni- meaning "all", bene- meaning "good" and volens meaning "willing") is defined by the Oxford English Dictionary as "unlimited or infinite benevolence". Some philosophers have argued that it is impossible, or at least improbable, for a deity to exhibit such a property alongside omniscience and omnipotence, as a result of the problem of evil. However, some philosophers, such as Alvin Plantinga, argue the plausibility of co-existence. The word is primarily used as a technical term within academic literature on the philosophy of religion, mainly in context of the problem of evil and theodical responses to such. Although even in said contexts the phrases "perfect goodness" or "moral perfection" are often preferred because of the difficulties in defining what exactly constitutes "infinite benevolence". (emphasis mine)


Is Gertrude the Great's mariology considered erroneous in modern Catholicism? Gertrude the Great (1256–1302) was a German nun who is recognized as a saint by the Roman Catholic Church, but was never formally canonized.  I don't know if it's related, but apparently her views on the veneration of Mary were outside the norm compared to her contemporaries:

  Of special interest at a time when devotion to Mary was so strong is Gertrude's concern that veneration was being given to Mary that properly belonged to Jesus Christ, who, possessing maternal as well as masculine characteristics, left no need for a feminine expression of deity. (Everett Ferguson, Church History, I)

Ferguson goes on to say that Gertrude still highly regarded Mary, and was concerned that Mary found her devotion to Christ displeasing.

Much more could probably be said about Gertrude's mariology.  But Ferguson's brief summary makes me wonder: does Catholicism today consider Gertrude's mariology in line with its teachings, or not?  And if not, is there reason to believe that this divergence prevented her from being formally canonized?

Note that I'm not limiting my question specifically to whether anything contained in Ferguson's summary would be problematic.  I'm asking about Gertrude's mariology more broadly.

Fergusson doesn't appear to understand Catholic mariology. Mary is not a "feminine expression of deity"; she is not a feminine aspect of God; she is not God, as Protestants often blasphemously allege Catholics believe.
Although St. Gertrude the Great was not canonized, that doesn't mean this holy Benedictine is not a saint. Her feast was celebrated in the universal Church on 16 November in the 1960 calendar (previously it was on Nov. 15, but that is now for St. Albert the Great), and her name is in the Roman Martyrology (cf. pt. 1, ch. 10 of Life and Revelations of Saint Gertrude the Great).
Perhaps you're referring to ibid. pt. 3, ch. 19:

How the praises offered to the Saints may be referred to God.
AS ST. GERTRUDE was accustomed to refer all that was sweet and agreeable to her Beloved when she heard or read the praise of the Blessed Virgin or of the Saints, and was more than usually moved thereby, she raised her heart to God, so that she thought more of Him than of the Saint whose memory was honored; and as she heard a sermon on the Feast of the Annunciation, in which the Blessed Virgin was spoken of exclusively, and no mention was made of the Incarnation of the Son of God, she was so grieved, that as she passed the altar of the Blessed Virgin, returning from the sermon, she did not salute her with her usual devotion, but rather offered her salutation to Jesus, the blessed Fruit of her womb. But afterward she feared she had displeased this august queen, until Our Lord consoled her by these loving words: “Fear not, Gertrude, My beloved; for although you have referred the honor and praise which you usually render to My dear Mother exclusively to Me, it will not be the less agreeable to her.”

This summarizes very well the Catholic doctrine of the relationship between latria (worship due to God alone) and hyperdulia (the highest form of veneration of the saints, due to the Queen of Saints alone). Dulia (δοῦλος = servant) is meant to direct us to God, so of course the Blessed Virgin would not be displeased that St. Gertrude "offered her salutation to Jesus". Christ told us who our mother is (Jn. 19:27: "Behold thy mother") and commands us honor our father and mother (4th commandment). If a child says "I love you" to her father, and not simultaneously to her mother, does that mean she doesn't love her mother?


Which Protestant churches as of today officially recognize homosexual marriage unions? Which Protestant churches as of today officially recognize homosexual marriage unions? Is there any such information available?

I think these are the same churches that approve ordination of lesbians. You can find a list here.

When reading the list keep in mind that some traditional churches have a wide range of different churches under the same umbrella.  For example, one Lutherian or Anglican church might openly preach against homosexuality of any kind, while just a few blocks away, another might ordain a lesbian as their rector or senior pastor!


Why did Jesuits and Franciscans disagree about indigenous labor in their missions? Alejandro Murguía in "The Medicine of Memory" wrote that Jesuit missions in New Spain were averse to controlling native labor. When Franciscans and Dominicans took over after the expulsion of the Jesuits, their missions did rely on the compelled labor of missionized natives.

What was the theological(?) disagreement between Jesuits and Franciscans that led to their diametrical policies with regard to native labor?

The reason the Dominicans and Franciscans were allowed to fill the void when the Jesuits were expelled (and subsequent rebellions put down) was because the Bourbons had taken over rule of Spain from the Hapsburgs in 1700.  The Bourbons hated the Jesuits, but encouraged the other religious orders who filled the void.
"The Medicine of Memory" appears to be about the Missions in California, rather than the ones in Mexico and South America.  St. Junipero Serra gets a bad rap from Indian activists around the time of his canonization; he even received a decapitation.  But there, he didn't take over for the Jesuits. There simply were no Spaniards in the area, there was no military to enforce Californian natives to build missions until 1776 (that year seems important).
When St. Junipero died in 1784 there were "4,500 Indians living in missions".  If at that point things started to go awry, it more likely attests to the degradation in treatment of the native populations in the second generation to the normal decay of things when a popular and respected leader passes from this world with no clear plan of succession (not unlike St. Francis himself).  It takes a while for things to sort themselves out. (For a modern parallel, when Tito died, Yugoslavia went to the dogs).
Nevertheless:

the Spanish government never authorized Indians to be bought and sold, as were the Blacks of Africa.  The Indians were treated as persons, not property
Christ and the Americas, Ch 4

The best argument against the underpinning argument that the Franciscans, and even the Spaniards, were not unjust in their governing was that

for 300 years, during which time Spain governed the New World without professional soldiers or standing military forces, except in a few places on the frontier to protect against raids from uncivilized tribes
ibid.

The book Christ and the Americas says that the denigration of the Spanish achievements in the Americas was due to The Black Legend, an early form of Fake News.   Oddly enough, it was a Dominican, Servant of God Bartolemeo de las Casas, who first spread the word about abuses.  Doubly odd, he is already venerated as a Saint in the Episcopal and Lutheran Church.  Not to cast too many aspersions,  but it would seem that the very same anti-Catholic, anti-Spanish sentiment that prompted the English and the Dutch to promulgate propaganda would extend to the memory of the good Bishop.


What exactly is a "Hail Mary"? The practice of a saying a "Hail Mary" is often referred to in colloquial speech, sometimes as a way to caricaturize Catholics. References to the practice instantly conjure up images of Catholicism, priests, and confessionals.

However, beyond these references with my Protestant background I don't actually know much about the practice. I don't even have the vocabulary to properly ask this question. What should a non-Catholic like myself understand about the practice? Where did it originate and what is the purpose? Do other traditions employ such a ritual? Is it fair to call them a ritual?

Edit: If it's simply a prayer, what is the purpose of repeating it more than once? At least the pop-culture references often involve saying "so-many" Hail Mary's in the sense of more being somehow better.

The Hail Mary is simply a prayer. It happens to be recited 53 times during the course of praying the rosary. It is said in place of the psalms for the illiterate.  Since there are 150 or so psalms and traditionally the Rosary is split up into 15 decades to mediate on different events in the lives or Jesus and Mary, each decade consists of 10 Hail Mary prayers.

Because the purpose is contemplating the life of Jesus and the original purpose was about as far as illiterate medieval's could grasp.  It was certainly a good prayer, shouldn't be construed with any biblical injunction on vain repetition - so long as there is no vanity involved.

Numbers of prayers are also often assigned by priests as penance during confession.  As far as I know, this is a relatively modern practice (1900's and later).  Easy (and private) penances might bring more people into confession while still conferring the same grace.

Personally, I pray the Rosary every day.  Sometimes it's not done very well, most of the time it is done in a distracted way - but that's my problem, not a problem with the prayer.

Another thing I do is pray 3 Hail Mary's (This is also known as the "Little Office of Our Lady") before bed, asking for the grace of purity while remembering her as a model of purity.

As far as extra-biblical prayers are concerned, the Our Father is straight out the didache (teaching of the 12 apostles).  So even though that's ancient and the Hail Mary is comparatively modern. Catholics continually pray new prayers and invoke the communion of Saints for intercession. We don't ask Mary to forgive our sins, but we do ask her for protection.

The Hail Mary is one in a collection of Marian Antiphons found in the liturgy of the Hours (Book of Christian Prayer).

It is also prayed as part of the Angelus (a prayer traditionally prayed at 6:00 AM, Noon, and 6:00 PM).


Does the Codex Amiatinus exist online anywhere in *text* format? Wondering if there is a complete etext (i.e. not image or PDF) form of the Latin Codex Amiatinus for free download online. Wikipedia links to images, but I would like text.

I have found a text copy on The Internet Archive, but the text appears to be an OCR rendering from scanned images—its quality is very uneven, to say the least.


What kind of baptism is essential to salvation, and what does 'essential' mean in this context? (Catholic perspective) I'm a protestant and I've often heard statements to the effect that "Catholics believe that salvation is impossible without baptism", but I've also encountered the terms "Baptism of blood" and "Baptism of desire" that are not specifically 'washing' with water but nonetheless may be regarded as 'baptism'. I've also read that in Catholic thought, God Himself is not 'bound' by His sacraments, which I assume means He may choose to bestow salvation if He so wills, regardless of baptism.

What are the precise nuances of the terms 'baptism' and 'essential' (or 'necesary') in Catholic understanding in this context?

edit

To clarify, by tagging the question catholicism, I'm indicating that I'm interested in learning about current mainstream Catholic thought. That of course includes any implications of recent councils such as Vatican II.

My take on Catholic teaching is that it is conflicted on the issue, on the one hand wanting to take the stance that baptism is absolutely necessary for salvation, but also recognizing that there are real problems with that position.

The end result seems to be that it's necessary except where it's either practically impossible, or is prevented by circumstances outside of the believer's control. In other words, baptism is far and away the norm -- "I was going to get around to it one day", won't wash on judgement day.

Specifically, the CCC currently states that:

  1257    The Lord himself affirms that Baptism is necessary for salvation. He also commands his disciples to proclaim the Gospel to all nations and to baptize them. Baptism is necessary for salvation for those to whom the Gospel has been proclaimed and who have had the possibility of asking for this sacrament. The Church does not know of any means other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude; this is why she takes care not to neglect the mission she has received from the Lord to see that all who can be baptized are “reborn of water and the Spirit.” God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism, but he himself is not bound by his sacraments.

Holding baptism necessary for those "to whom the Gospel has been proclaimed and who have had the possibility of asking for this sacrament." This allows for other mechanisms in God's economy of which the church specifically decries knowledge.

  1258    The Church has always held the firm conviction that those who suffer death for the sake of the faith without having received Baptism are baptized by their death for and with Christ. This Baptism of blood, like the desire for Baptism, brings about the fruits of Baptism without being a sacrament.

This then allows that the sacrament may be effected without the actual practice thereof, in special cases, where a greater sacrifice for Christ is made, in this case martyrdom.

  1259    For catechumens who die before their Baptism, their explicit desire to receive it, together with repentance for their sins, and charity, assures them the salvation that they were not able to receive through the sacrament.

This conveys salvation via the genuine intent to be baptized, forestalled by unforeseen circumstance - the baptism of desire.

  1260    “Since Christ died for all, and since all men are in fact called to one and the same destiny, which is divine, we must hold that the Holy Spirit offers to all the possibility of being made partakers, in a way known to God, of the Paschal mystery.” Every man who is ignorant of the Gospel of Christ and of his Church, but seeks the truth and does the will of God in accordance with his understanding of it, can be saved. It may be supposed that such persons would have desired Baptism explicitly if they had known its necessity.

This allows that those ignorant of the Gospel, yet obedient to it's precepts according to the revelation granted them may also see salvation.

  1261    As regards children who have died without Baptism, the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God, as she does in her funeral rites for them. Indeed, the great mercy of God who desires that all men should be saved, and Jesus’ tenderness toward children which caused him to say: “Let the children come to me, do not hinder them,” allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism. All the more urgent is the Church’s call not to prevent little children coming to Christ through the gift of holy Baptism

Lastly, this allows that those for whom baptism is physically impossible, the yet unborn children, the church allows for God to work salvation apart from baptism.

For myself, I note that Jesus himself made an exception for the thief crucified with him, which person I suppose falls under the provision of not having the possibility to be baptized before his death.

A note about infallible teachings (ex cathedra doctrine).

The doctrines on Baptism are not accorded this unique ex cathera status. See my answer to another question for more detail, including a link to a Vatican article explaining the ex cathedra exercise of the church's Magisterium. This other answer includes a longer list, for which I cannot find a Catholic source of authority (and it makes the erroneous claim that all Catholic doctrine is considered infallible).


What soteriological doctrines are most prevalent within Protestantism throughout the world? As we all know, there are many Protestant denominations: Anglican, Lutheran, Baptist, Presbyterian, Reformed, Methodist, Adventist, Congregationalist, etc.

In India, we have AG, IPC (Indian Pentecostal Church), Church of God, and other numerous independent congregations.

But as a new Pentecostal, I am curious to know which soteriological doctrine is taught/followed in the most churches around the world: Calvinism, Arminianism, Lutheranism or something else?

Below I have reproduced a table from a 2011 Pew study on Christian Movements and Denominations which used data from the Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary Center for the Study of Global Christianity.

+-----------------------------------------------------+-------------------------------+
|                Denominational family                | Percentage of all Protestants |
+-----------------------------------------------------+-------------------------------+
| Historically pentecostal denomination               | 10.8%                         |
| Anglican                                            | 10.6%                         |
| Lutheran                                            | 9.7%                          |
| Baptist                                             | 9.0%                          |
| United churches (unions of different denominations) | 7.2%                          |
| Presbyterian or Reformed                            | 7.0%                          |
| Methodist                                           | 3.4%                          |
| Adventist                                           | 2.7%                          |
| Congregationalist                                   | 0.5%                          |
| Brethren                                            | 0.5%                          |
| Salvation Army                                      | 0.3%                          |
| Moravian                                            | 0.1%                          |
| Other (independent, nondenominational and others)   | 38.2%                         |
+-----------------------------------------------------+-------------------------------+

I would classify each of these denominations as one of the following:

Lutheran: influenced by the theology of Martin Luther, the father of the Reformation. Over time, Lutheranism has evolved on the issue of soteriology, but it remains distinct from Calvinism and Arminianism while emphasizing the principle of sola fide (salvation by faith alone), which is common to all Protestant denominations. Above, Lutherans (obviously) and Moravians would qualify as Lutheran.
Arminian: influenced by the theology of Jacob Arminius, whose followers drafted the Five Articles of Remonstrance in opposition to what they perceived as errors in Reformed soteriology. Arminian denominations also have a historical connection to the teachings of John Wesley, an avowed Arminian. Above, these denominations include Pentecostalism, Methodism, Adventism, and the Salvation Army.
Reformed: influenced by the theology of John Calvin, and united in adherence to the five points of Calvinism, which are summarized in the acronym TULIP and based on articles drafted at the Synod of Dort in response to the Five Articles of Remonstrance. Above, I would only classify "Presbyterian or Reformed" as Reformed.
Anabaptist: rooted in the Radical Reformation, which occurred at the same time as the Reformation but took a different tack. Early Anabaptists have been called proto-Arminians, and among modern Anabaptists you'll be hard-pressed to find any Calvinists; you'll either find people close to Arminianism, or adherents of open theism, which is even further from Calvinist doctrine. Above, I would only classify "Brethren" churches as Anabaptist.
Mixed: many denominations have no stance on these soteriological doctrines. While individuals (or individual congregations, or even the odd denominational institution) may have their own convictions, the Anglican, Baptist, United, and Congregationalist families as a whole do not take a position on Calvinism or Arminianism.

Another complication is that individuals may or may not adhere to the official or traditional teachings of their denomination. For example, though Pentecostalism is rooted in the Wesleyan/Holiness movement, as of 2010 31% of American Pentecostal/charismatic pastors described themselves as reformed according to Barna Research.

But below, I have used the original Pew table to demonstrate what percentage of world Protestants belong to denominational families that are either Lutheran, Reformed, Anabaptist, or mixed.

+---------------------------------------------+-------------------------------+
| Denominational family's soteriological bent | Percentage of all Protestants |
+---------------------------------------------+-------------------------------+
| Mixed                                       | 65.5%                         |
| Arminian                                    | 17.2%                         |
| Lutheran                                    | 9.8%                          |
| Reformed                                    | 7.0%                          |
| Anabaptist                                  | 0.5%                          |
+---------------------------------------------+-------------------------------+

I haven't been able to find good statistics on how many Protestants in the "mixed" category identify as Calvinists, how many identify as Arminians, and how many would identify as some kind of "other." Affable Geek has a couple posts on this site explaining how a lot of Baptists let Calvinist and Arminian principles operate side-by-side.


Was the Trinity looked upon by John of Damascus and Gregory of Nyssa as a combination of Jewish monotheism and pagan polytheism? John of Damascus says "of the Greek we have the distinction of hypostases.".   That is adding Greek doctrine to "Christianity."
When John says "we have" something "from" the Greeks he is speaking of the source of the belief, and not a mere agreement.
Is there an exegetical reason to doubt based on these two statements from Gregory and John that: the Trinity was looked upon by the Fathers themselves as a combination of Jewish monotheism and pagan polytheism?
Church Fathers attribute the Trinity to a mixture of Pagan and Jewish teachings.
Gregory of Nyssa - Oratio Catechetica 3 PG 45, 17 D-20 A
Gregory of Nyssa, Last of the great Cappadocians and brother of Basil of Caesarea, was bishop of Nyssa in 372. Gregory states that "Orthodox" doctrine is a combination or syncretizatation of Jewish monotheism and Pagan polytheism:

"the truth passes in the mean between these two conceptions, destroying each heresy, and yet, accepting what is useful to it from each. The Jewish dogma is destroyed by the acceptance of the Word and by the belief in the Spirit, while the polytheistic error of the Greek school is made to vanish by the unity of the nature abrogating this imagination of plurality."

John of Damascus - De Fide Orth. I, 7 PG 94, 808 A
John of Damascus, who followed Gregory of Nazianzus agrees that "Christianity" takes what s best in Judaism and paganism:

"On the one hand, of the Jewish idea we have the unity of God's nature, and, on the other, of the Greek, we have the distinction of hypostases, and that only."

Patristics scholar Wolfson says:

evidently the opposition of orthodoxy to Arianism was not so much on the ground that it was a combination of Jewish monotheism and heathen polytheism as on the ground that the combination was not to its liking. In fact, its own conception of the Trinity was looked upon by the Fathers themselves as a combination of Jewish monotheism and pagan polytheism, except that to them this combination was a good combination; in fact, it was to them an ideal combination of what is best in Jewish monotheism and of what is best in pagan polytheism**, and consequently they gloried in it and pointed to it as evidence of the truth of their belief. We have on this the testimony of Gregory of Nyssa - one of the great figures in the history of the philosophic formulation of the doctrine of the Trinity - and his words are repeated by John of Damascus the last of the Church Fathers.
(The Philosophy of the Church Fathers: Faith, Trinity, Incarnation Third Edition, Revised https://www.amazon.com/dp/B002MS4UN6/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_api_i_jxjkEbZW3TCV8)

TL;DR: When the 3 quotes are considered in proper genre and context they fail to support OP's argument.

First, it is helpful to distinguish the following 3 angles when reading the Church Fathers talking about the Christian dogma of Trinity.  (The section references mentioned below are from the Catholic encyclopedia entry "The Blessed Trinity")

Revelation: The "raw data", solely from how God revealed himself in the OT, in Jesus and in manifestations of the Holy Spirit, as recorded in the New Testament by different authors such as St. John, St. Paul, etc.

Without this revelation there is nothing to go by.
That is why we often speak of Trinity as "The Mystery of the Trinity".
This is 100% God initiated action, which is why for Christianity any proper understanding of the Trinity should not say more than what NT says.
See "Dogma of the Trinity" and "The Trinity as a mystery" sections.

Usage in the church: How Trinity is implied in baptism, doxologies, theologies, catechism, apologetical writing, refuting heresies, etc.

Through the writings we see how the Church Fathers appeal only to the New Testament as the source of their teaching of the dogma.
Language precision is not necessary, but appeal to NT is a must.
Greek philosophical concepts are sometimes used to assist in describing but not as a source for the dogma.
See "Proof of the doctrine from Scripture" and "Proof of the doctrine from Tradition" sections.

Language refinement: Development of how Trinity is defined in various Greek and Latin theologies by the Church Fathers, development of the formulas in the creed, etc.

This is where Greek philosophical concepts and language became critical, to the point of some philosophically inclined Church Fathers having to stretch existing terminologies or even invent new ones.
Borrowing Greek terminologies & concepts is like a physicist (Church Father) needing to describe his/her experiment using mathematical language.  A mathematician (Greek philosopher) has no expertise in conducting the experiment, so proper credit belongs to the physicist.
100% for description, not for the source (which is only NT).
Underlying mystery is still maintained.  That is why for practical purposes, inability to define Trinity completely (in philosophical language) is unnecessary for belief, because God cannot be reduced to a formula.
The goal for definitions (used in the creeds) is for easy refutation of heresies.
See "The doctrine as interpreted in Greek theology" and "The doctrine as interpreted in Latin theology" sections.

Now responding to your 3 quotations.  All of them need to be interpreted in context according to the proper genre of the work.

St. Gregory of Nyssa's The Great Catechism (c. AD 385) Chapter III, pdf here

The genre is Angle #2 above (usage in the church), for apologetic/catechical (teaching) purpose to explain the faith to the educated Greek speaking intelligentsia.
Full text of Chapter III for context:

  AND so one who severely studies the depths of the mystery, receives secretly in his spirit, indeed,
  a moderate amount of apprehension of the doctrine of God’s nature, yet he is unable to explain
  clearly in words the ineffable depth of this mystery. As, for instance, how the same thing is capable
  of being numbered and yet rejects numeration, how it is observed with distinctions yet is apprehended
  as a monad, how it is separate as to personality yet is not divided as to subject matter. For, in
  personality, the Spirit is one thing and the Word another, and yet again that from which the Word
  and Spirit is, another. But when you have gained the conception of what the distinction is in these,
  the oneness, again, of the nature admits not division, so that the supremacy of the one First Cause
  is not split and cut up into differing Godships, neither does the statement harmonize with the Jewish
  dogma, but the truth passes in the mean between these two conceptions, destroying each heresy,
  and yet accepting what is useful to it from each. The Jewish dogma is destroyed by the acceptance
  of the Word, and by the belief in the Spirit; while the polytheistic error of the Greek school is made
  to vanish by the unity of the Nature abrogating this imagination of plurality. While yet again, of
  the Jewish conception, let the unity of the Nature stand; and of the Hellenistic, only the distinction
  as to persons; the remedy against a profane view being thus applied, as required, on either side.
  For it is as if the number of the triad were a remedy in the case of those who are in error as to the
  One, and the assertion of the unity for those whose beliefs are dispersed among a number of
  divinities.

Chapter III is showing how Trinity is the best way to understand the nature of the Christian God (who is still a mystery, by the way, indicated by the 1st sentence).  So here's Gregory of Nyssa affirming the source is Angle #1 (revelation).  The rest of the chapter beginning with "But when you have gained the conception of what the distinction is in these..." is an Angle #3 activity (speculative understanding of the mystery), and Gregory's advice is for the believer NOT to commit an error by straying to the Jewish heresy (not accepting Jesus as the Word), or to the Pagan heresy (by construing the Christian God polytheistically).  There is NOTHING here indicating Gregory of Nyssa saying that the dogma of Trinity is derived from pagan sources.
The year was around 385 AD, after major debates on the formulation of the doctrine (an Angle #3 activity) had been done.

St. John of Damascus (675-749 AD)'s De Fide Orthodoxa (An Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith) Book I Chapter VII (Concerning the Holy Spirit, a reasoned proof) pdf here

The genre is traditional Christian theology (Angle #3) deriving mostly from theologians of the 4th and 5th centuries, providing a comprehensive overview of Christian dogma.  Damascene supports his writing through logic and quoting Scripture.  (summary taken from here)
Full Text of Chapter 7 for context:

  Moreover the Word must also possess Spirit. For in fact even our word is not destitute of spirit; but in our case the spirit is something different from our essence. For there is an attraction and movement of the air which is drawn in and poured forth that the body may be sustained. And it is this which in the moment of utterance becomes the articulate word, revealing in itself the force of the word. But in the case of the divine nature, which is simple and uncompound, we must confess in all piety that there exists a Spirit of God, for the Word is not more imperfect than our own word. Now we cannot, in piety, consider the Spirit to be something foreign that gains admission into God from without, as is the case with compound natures like us. Nay, just as, when we heard of the Word of God, we considered it to be not without subsistence, nor the product of learning, nor the mere utterance of voice, nor as passing into the air and perishing, but as being essentially subsisting, endowed with free volition, and energy, and omnipotence: so also, when we have learned about the Spirit of God, we contemplate it as the companion of the Word and the revealer of His energy, and not as mere breath without subsistence. For to conceive of the Spirit that dwells in God as after the likeness of our own spirit, would be to drag down the greatness of the divine nature to the lowest depths of degradation. But we must contemplate it as an essential power, existing in its own proper and peculiar subsistence, proceeding from the Father and resting in the Word , and showing forth the Word, neither capable of disjunction from God in Whom it exists, and the Word Whose companion it is, nor poured forth to vanish into nothingness , but being in subsistence in the likeness of the Word, endowed with life, free volition, independent movement, energy, ever willing that which is good, and having power to keep pace with the will in all its decrees , having no beginning and no end. For never was the Father at any time lacking in the Word, nor the Word in the Spirit.

  Thus because of the unity in nature, the error of the Greeks in holding that God is many, is utterly destroyed: and again by our acceptance of the Word and the Spirit, the dogma of the Jews is overthrown: and there remains of each party only what is profitable. On the one hand of the Jewish idea we have the unity of God's nature, and on the other, of the Greek, we have the distinction in subsistences and that only.

  But should the Jew refuse to accept the Word and the Spirit, let the divine Scripture confute him and curb his tongue. For concerning the Word, the divine David says, For ever, O Lord, Your Word is settled in heaven. And again, He sent His Word and healed them. But the word that is uttered is not sent, nor is it for ever settled. And concerning the Spirit, the same David says, You send forth Your Spirit, they are created. And again, By the word of the Lord were the heavens made: and all the host of them by the breath of His mouth. Job, too, says, The Spirit of God has made me, and the breath of the Almighty has given me life. Job 33:4 Now the Spirit which is sent and makes and establishes and conserves, is not mere breath that dissolves, any more than the mouth of God is a bodily member. For the conception of both must be such as harmonizes with the Divine nature.

In other words, John Damascus, writing long after the doctrine of Trinity was settled, said that the only element borrowed from paganism is the "distinction in subsistences", which to me is an Angle #3 activity (language refinement) to help describe the Trinitarian God.  The language borrowing doesn't add/remove God's attribute or add/remove the 3 persons (to make it 4 or 2, for instance).  Therefore, I don't think that counts as a pagan source of the dogma.  If we look at Chapter 1 title of the book it is quite obvious that the source is only OT and NT:

  "That the Deity is incomprehensible, and that we ought not to pry into and meddle with the things which have not been delivered to us by the holy Prophets, and Apostles, and Evangelists."

More resources:

PDF of Wolfson's book.  Your quote appears on page 362 (PDF page 401)
Reviews of Wolfson's book: here and here
Excellent Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy's History of Trinitarian Doctrines


Why do Seventh Day Adventists change the moral law using the ceremonial law? Why do Seventh Day Adventists change the moral law using the ceremonial law?

Seventh Day Adventists say that the Law of Moses is divided into two sets of laws, the moral law and the ceremonial law.

They say that the moral law is the ten commandments written on stone and placed inside the ark of the covenant. They say that the moral law is immutable and can't be changed in any way.

SDA's say that the ceremonial law was written by Moses in the book, and placed beside the ark.

SDA's say that the greatest and most important commandment in the moral law is that everybody in the world must keep the sabbath from sunset friday to sunset saturday.

However, if you search the moral law for laws about the sabbath, you find Deuteronomy 5:12-15. Nowhere in these verses can you find the words "sunset" or "friday" or "saturday".

So where does "sunset friday to sunset saturday" come from? The SDA's had a meeting in Battle Creek Michigan, in November 1855, where they decided that the sabbath should start at sunset. To support their decision, they select a few words from Genesis 1:5, and a few words from Leviticus 23:32.

Obviously Genesis 1 was not written on stone and placed inside the ark. Neither was Leviticus 23 written on stone and placed inside the ark.

Clearly Genesis 1 and Leviticus 23 are both "ceremonial law" according to the SDA definitions.

According to SDA definition of moral law, the moral law is only Deuteronomy 5:6-21, and nothing else. Only Deuteronomy 5:6-21 was written on stone and placed inside the ark.

Why do SDA's change the moral law by using ceremonial law? Isn't the moral law immutable and can't be changed in any way?

Do SDA's really believe that the ceremonial law has been abolished? Or do they tell people to obey whichever parts of the ceremonial law they select?

Dr McGowan asks for a reference showing that they decided this in 1855:

A division among them was arising over this question. So Elder J. N. Andrews, the best scholar they then had, was requested to study the subject and present his conclusion to the conference held at Battle Creek, Mich., Nov. 16, 1855. This he did, and decided that sunset was the Scriptural time to begin the Sabbath. The conference voted to accept his view....

“Then, four days after Andrews and the conference had settled it, Mrs. White had a vision in which an angel told her that sunset was the right time!!! ... In that vision she complained to the angel and asked for an explanation. She says: ‘I inquired why it had been thus, that at this late day we must change the time of commencing the Sabbath. Said the angel, “Ye shall understand, but not yet, not yet.”’ (‘Test.,’ Vol. I., p. 116).
https://m.egwwritings.org/en/book/756.2590

Adventists do not divide the law of Moses into moral and ceremonial. Rather, they (like all of us) share the state and ceremonial interests of the Israeli people, and the moral principles from God, not Moses that are binding on all people in General.
It is logical that morality does not change. There must be a standard of decency. In my opinion, the ten commandments is not the worst option for this.
It is important to understand to whom Moses spoke about religious and other organizational laws. Former slave. To the unorganized herd which for 40 years found religion, and signs of statehood. It's beautiful. But it doesn't have much to do with me today. If you really want, is nowhere explicitly forbidden to continue to offer sacrifices to God as did the Jews. It just doesn't make much sense. Today, I have nothing to do with the Jews of the old Testament. But I still think not killing or stealing is pretty good stuff. That makes sense, doesn't it?
Saturday is not bad. in General, rest after 6 days of work is great. this is what the commandment says. This is not the greatest commandment. This is probably the most ignored commandment. With the rest 9(until that) argue less.

Saturday is celebrated in the evening for the following reason. In Genesis, in the name of God, it is said that there was evening and Morning, Day 1, etc., That is, the day begins with evening. What is the starting point of a new day? Today you can do it with chronometers. Previously, this was done by focusing on the sun.


What are the Christian doctrines denied by the Igreja Maná (Mana Church), if any? In the city where I live there's a church called Mana Church.

I know they venerate (not to the level of God) the founder, Jorge Tadeu.

This gives me chills because of Luke 4:8 [KJV]

  And Jesus answered and said unto him, Get thee behind me, Satan: for
  it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt
  thou serve.

In fact, they call this person Apostle. Without providing clarity, this term is misleading people into believing Jorge Tadeu is at the same level of authority as "the twelve" (Matthew 26:14; John 6:67, 20:24; 1 Corinthians 15:5) and we know

  a true apostle in the New
  Testament style is no longer possible because it would require that
  the person had been with Christ and/or have seen the risen Lord.

Can't stop thinking if there are any christian doctrines they deny? If yes, which ones? (Psalms 11:3)

  If the foundations be destroyed, what can the righteous do?

Based on the Portuguese Wikipedia page they look like a fairly typical pentecostal/charistmatic church. Whether that's a denial of Christian doctrine depends on you.

Personally I do think that teaching that we can all expect great prosperity in this life is a false gospel, and that to expect all Christians to speak in tongues is a denial of 1 Corinthians 12:4-31, but I'm not certain this church actually teaches those things, they could teach softer more acceptable versions.

As to calling their founder an Apostle, that's not uncommon in Pentecostalism, or Christianity more broadly. That webpage you found, CARM, is the work on one individual and of course lots of people would disagree with that criteria for Apostlehood. As apostle means "one who is sent" I think there's a very good case for calling Christian missionaries "apostles". Either way, it's not very noteworthy.

All in all, it looks like a pretty typical Pentecostal church. I can't see any major warning signs.


Are subheaders of Bible chapters part of the original text? I'm attempting to store the Bible text of several translations into a single database. What I'm noticing is that some translations have some sort of subheaders within the chapters that don't seem to belong to the chapter verses themselves.
I always assumed the text consists purely of books -> chapters -> verses. But it seems there is text outside of the verses like these subheaders. For an example of what I mean see below:
In the English Standard Version (Romans 1), for example:

The Righteous Shall Live by Faith
16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation
...

I have a couple of questions regarding these headers:

Is there is an official name for these subheaders?
Are they part of the original text or added by the translation?
Do they belong to a verse or are they outside of the verse text?

Any clarification is appreciated.

In the prefaces of many Bible translations, there are notes that describe the origin of these headers:

  As an aid to the reader, sectional headings have been inserted. They are not to be regarded as part of the biblical text and are not intended for oral reading. It is the committee’s hope that these headings may prove more helpful to the reader than the traditional chapter divisions, which were introduced long after the Bible was written. (NIV 2011 preface, emphasis added)

These section headings are added by the translation committees (or, on occasion, the publishers) to break up the text and help readers find what they are looking for.  It becomes clear that these aren't "part of the text" when we realize just how much they vary.  Here's a quick sampling for Romans 1:16:

ESV: "The Righteous Shall Live by Faith"
KJV: None
NASB: None
NIV: None
NLT: None
RSV: "The Power of the Gospel"

But it's not just the section headings that aren't part of the original text.  As the NIV preface indicates, even the chapter divisions (and verse divisions) are relatively recent innovations – the chapters we use today are based on a system developed by Stephen Langton in the 13th century.  And even these divisions are not fully standardized – see Are chapter and verse divisions international? for some exceptions.

So consider section headings as simply aids to the reader, not as components of the original text.  They should also be regarded as separate from the chapter and verse divisions.

N. B.: There are some "headings" in the Bible that are commonly considered "part of the text" – the titles of Psalms, such as in Psalm 14, "To the choirmaster. Of David" (ESV). These are usually considered "canonical" but not necessarily original – some of them may have been added by editors in the centuries leading up to the apostolic era.  For more on this, see Mark David Futato, Interpreting the Psalms, pages 119–122.


Are there any records of animal-like behaviors outside the "Toronto Blessing"? The so-called "Toronto Blessing" is well known for the controversy around the many reports of very strange manifestations. Among them, animal-like behaviors, such as walking or barking like a dog, are certainly part of the strangest ones, as illustrated by this video.
Are there any records of similar animal-like behaviors in Christianity outside the Toronto Blessing, either before or after?

There are ample videos on this phenomenon, like this one. Since 65% of Americans identify as Christian, it's reasonable to assume some of the subjects are Christian.
This phenomenon is not unique to Christianity. The oldest written record of such behavior is in the Egyptian Ebers Papyrus, as part of Ancient Egyptian healing techniques, dating to 1550 BCE. Another Egyptian papyrus (Pap. A. Nr. 65) from around the 3rd century C.E. describes the laying of hands on the patient, hand passes, and eye-fixation.
Practically all ancient cultures, including the Sumerian, Persian, Chinese, Indian, Egyptian, Greek, and Roman, used self-suggestion or hypnosis in some form. In Egypt and Greece, the sick often went to healing places known as sleep temples or dream temples to be cured. In ancient India, the Sanskrit book known as The Law of Manu described the techniques used in great detail.
For many centuries, especially during the Middle Ages, kings and princes were believed to have the power of healing through the “Royal Touch.” This was attributed to divine powers. Before hypnosis was well understood, the terms “magnetism” and “mesmerism” were used to describe these phenomena.
The "Toronto Blessing" has been investigated by Andrew Newton, who had this to say about it:

the phenomena so closely resembled mass hysteria that most observers –
scientists and laymen alike – deduced that it was indeed a text book
case of mass hysteria. Those who took part in it were all emotionally
very suggestible and there is no doubt that expectancy and wish
fulfillment played a major part in the experience.

He then examines the testimonial of two of the participants.  The first is a man called Mick Brown. He went to Toronto and attended a meeting led by John Arnott, pastor of the Toronto Airport Vineyard. Here is Mick Brown’s testimony:

“A body came falling towards me. I rested it on the ground and moved
on. I found myself beside John Arnott, who was moving through the
crowd, blessing people, who fell like ninepins. I didn’t even see his
hand coming as it arched through the air and touched me gently –
hardly at all – on the forehead. “And bless this one, Lord….” I could
feel a palpable shock running through me, then I was falling
backwards, as if my legs had been kicked away from underneath me. I
hit the floor – I swear this is the truth – laughing like a drain.”

Newton's analysis:

The interesting thing about that testimony is that Mick Brown is not a
Christian. He is an unconverted Daily Telegraph journalist who went to
Toronto to write a report on the Toronto Blessing for the Daily
Telegraph magazine, from which the above quotation is taken. Yet when
Pastor Arnott touched him, Mick Brown experiences exactly the same
phenomena as all the professing believers. He becomes “slain in the
Spirit” and laughs hysterically. Later he told a Christian newspaper
that his experience had made no difference to his unbelief in
Christianity. He was and still is a non-believer. So we are left with
the same physical and emotional experience, the same Toronto Blessing,
the same hysterical reaction but without the religiosity.
This forces us to ask two very important and searching questions:
First, how can this be the Holy Spirit at work? and second, does the
Holy Spirit bestow the same emotional and physical experience on
believer and non-believer alike – ‘slaying in the Spirit,’
uncontrollable laughter, a state of euphoria?
If these things had no spiritual or religious meaning or significance
in the life of atheist Mick Brown, how can precisely the same things
have any authentic spiritual meaning or significance in the lives of
professing Christians? Clearly we are dealing with an experience that
is not truly spiritual in nature, but can be happily shared by
believers and non-believers alike. Obviously it must be up to the
individual to interpret the associated emotions and find meaning… or
not.
Another obvious question is, what is the power that John Arnott has to
induce this experience in a non-Christian who has absolutely no belief
that the Toronto Blessing is a work of God, since he does not even
believe in God? Is it possible that this is nothing more that
hypnotism working on a suggestible mind? Mick Brown had not
participated in any of the warm-up techniques of the worship, and had
no expectation that anything would happen to him. Yet when John Arnott
touched him, quite by accident, down he goes, gibbering away and
laughing hysterically. This seems to point us in the direction of John
Arnott and others like him actually possessing or at least channeling
some kind of supernatural power. Or not…
Stage hypnosis employs the same mental sleight of hand, as do the
industrial scale antics of American TV evangelists, such as the market
leader, Benny Hinn. Once a participant has seen other volunteers
collapsing and falling into what appears to be a trance-like state,
that participant also becomes suggestible. This happens quite
unconsciously and is as reliable as clockwork. One does not have to
take part in the warm up tests and exercises to be affected by it –
merely watching it work with others is enough to increase
suggestibility.

The second testimony is that of Glenda Waddell, a member of staff at Holy Trinity Brompton, the Anglican church in London which acts as the British headquarters of the Toronto Blessing. Here is Ms. Waddell’s testimony of how she first received the Toronto Blessing:

“To my absolute horror I just knew beyond any shadow of doubt my hands
were doing strange things and I was going to roar. I said, “Oh Lord,
I’d do anything but please, please, don’t make me roar. Only the men
roar and the women don’t roar.” But it came and I did roar quite
loudly and I made a lot of awful noise and I was crawling around the
floor doing terrible things and half of me was thinking, ‘This cannot
be me.’ But another part of me knew that it was.”

Newton's analysis:

The disturbing thing about Ms Waddell’s testimony is that it presents
us with a picture of the Holy Spirit supposedly at work. And yet her
experience makes it painfully obvious it was not the Holy Spirit at
work.
By her own account, Ms Waddell was invaded and possessed by a power
which reduced her to bestial behavior, crawling around and roaring
like a wild animal – all against her conscious will. She was simply
taken over, physically and spiritually, by a controlling force. That
is not how the Holy Spirit operates in a believer’s life. He does not
sanctify individuals by possessing them like a demon and forcing them
to do weird, sub-human things. He is supposed to work through the Word
of God, bringing truth to bear upon our minds, enlightening our
understanding. Anyone with any spiritual discernment must see that
this darker force was not the Holy Spirit.
An important thing to understand about mass hysteria is that it can
creep up even on those who are on their guard against it. From the
accounts of the two people in the extract above, it seems to me this
is what happened.


Are there non Catholic/Orthodox churches that use a Crucifix? Are there churches outside of the Catholic and Orthodox traditions that use a crucifix as opposed to a cross?

I just watched a movie in which the main character is in a church that has a crucifix on the wall, but the service looked neither Catholic nor Orthodox. I have heard that perhaps Lutheran and Anglicans do this as well, but I don't know how to verify this.

Lutherans

Lutherans consider the crucifix to be a powerful reminder of the sacrifice of Christ for our salvation. The Apostle Paul says in 1st Corinthians, chapter 1: “We preach Christ and Him crucified.”

The history of Lutheranism demonstrates that the crucifix was a regular and routine feature of Lutheran worship and devotional life during Luther’s lifetime and during the period of Lutheran Orthdoxy. It was also the case among the founding fathers of the Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod.

  It was a good practice to hold a wooden crucifix before the eyes of the dying or to press it into their hands.40 This brought the suffering and death of Christ to mind and comforted the dying. But the others, who haughtily relied on their good works, entered a heaven that contained a sizzling fire. For they were drawn away from Christ and failed to impress His life-giving passion and death upon their hearts.

  Luther's works, vol. 23 : Sermons on the Gospel of St. John: Chapters 6-8

  And I say at the outset that according to the law of Moses no other images are forbidden than an image of God which one worships. A crucifix, on the other hand, or any other holy image is not forbidden. Heigh now! you breakers of images, I defy you to prove the opposite!”

  Luther's Works. Vol. 40 (Vol. 40, Page 85-86)

Some Lutherans began to move away from crucifixes during the age of Lutheran Pietism, which rejected much of Lutheran doctrine and consequently many Lutheran worship practices. At the time, Lutheran Pietists, contrary to the clear postion of Luther and the earlier Lutherns, held that symbols such as the crucifix were wrong. This was never the view of historic Lutheranism.


How does a person determine whether they are a "false Christian" or "inconsistent Christian"? Many Protestants believe once saved, always saved. Christians who accept Jesus get saved. They also continue sinning and no one is perfect. My question is to those who hold this position.
I have heard many times people say that continued sinning is also evidence that someone is not a Christian. One can find quite a few Bible verses along these lines:

1 John 2:4, "The one who says, “I have come to know Him,” and does not keep His commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him."
Matthew 7:21 “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name and in your name drive out demons and in your name perform many miracles?’ Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!’
2 Peter 2: If they have escaped the corruption of the world by knowing our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ and are again entangled in it and are overcome, they are worse off at the end than they were at the beginning. It would have been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than to have known it and then to turn their backs on the sacred command that was passed on to them. Of them the proverbs are true: “A dog returns to its vomit,” and, “A sow that is washed returns to her wallowing in the mud.”

How does one know, therefore, whether they have "really" become saved? Are all Christians saved? What is the statement really being made here? Many people have prayed to God in Jesus' name at one point in their life, and accepted Jesus' free gift of salvation. Then they went on in their lives and sometimes they made mistakes or they sinned. Many people later had doubt, they went back and forth about what they believe. Is someone who never has any serious doubts the one who can be sure they are a Christian?
Because going by sins, there doesn't seem to be any way to tell. One who kills others can be a "true Christian" while one who has lust in his heart for a woman can be an "unsaved sinner", even though both prayed to God to forgive their sins in the name of Jesus at some point in their lives.
I think passages like this make it clear that trying to determine one's Christian status from sinning is dubious:

James 2:10 For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles at just one point is guilty of breaking all of it.

So my question is -- what is really being claimed and can you give some consistent framework for people to operate in and determine if they are actually saved or not?

First, there is a framework in the Bible to help believers identify themselves as being ‘genuine’ or not. However, although this framework is infallible to guide the elect into an 'assurance of salvation' it provides no reliable means to an unbeliever. A wicked soul can and will deceive themselves as part of the curse they are under. Secondly, this framework is ‘personal’ as it involves the ‘internal witness’ of the Holy Spirit and does not extend to an infallible judgment of another person's state.  There is a framework for that (for discerning the sate of others) but it is more general and less determinative primarily for the purpose of identifying false teachers. To answer your question then I will define the scope to be; “an individual who is trying to determine for their own conscience sake, whether they are really saved or no.”  I am answering as someone who firmly believes in once saved always saved. Naturally the question therefore as regarding whether my faith is genuine or not is the most important question I could ever ask myself.

In a nutshell: Anyone who has genuine faith in Christ by relying on his death, in order to be relieved from a genuine sense of condemnation and fear of eternal punishment for their sins and a corresponding genuine relief of that fear by faith, is most likely a genuine believer. The question therefore amounts to how can one determine ‘a genuine fear of hell’ and a corresponding ‘genuine relief and peace with God’ by trusting in his death for one’s forgiveness and justification.  To answer one first must be clear that such faith is truly in Christ and not based on works of the law, or practicing any religious rules under any Church claimed authority, effectively replacing faith in Christ with faith in Church, church doctrine, or church practice. In essence if one has never even accepted that a person can be saved by doing nothing more then simple faith, then they are automatically excluded from having any biblical assurance of salvation as they are trusting something in addition to a personal reliance on Christ's work. In addition anyone who has this genuine conviction that Christ’s death is sufficient to provide salvation apart from works of the law, baptism into a particular denomination, or any other external work, has only genuinely come to share in that faith if they are found to persevere to the end with it:

  We have come to share in Christ, if indeed we hold our original conviction firmly to the very end (NIV Heb 3:14).

Therefore one part of the framework is that ‘faith in Christ’ as a means to obtain peace from a fear of eternal damnation can’t be fully destroyed in one who has come to have it. Although this is only a guide it is very helpful because a person who thinks they had become a Christian but then falls into various sins and begins to deny that they had salvation and no longer has any relief of salvation and no longer feels any need for relief because they no longer fear eternal damnation for the guilt of their sin, which faith is to relive, has obviously never been saved in the first place.

We have now narrowed the question therefore to those who have fallen into various external, or internals sins, yet still fear eternal damnation and still find some measure of relief and hope that Christ has and does forgive them for their sin.  The question is while in this condition how can a person know if they have genuine faith, or no? One way to narrow the question further is to apply doctrinal tests. For example, if anyone denies a fundamental doctrine of the gospel, such as that “Christ is God and became man, and who died as an atoning sacrifice for sin". If they are to deny this type of doctrine then their faith is not in Christ as only God could have lived a holy life perfectly under the strict severity of the law and only a man could through blood be a proper sacrifice for human sin. Therefore such a faith could not be genuinely believing in Christ as a means of taking on the punishment of our sin, and no genuine relief could be obtained under the false doctrine.

  Every spirit that acknowledges that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, 3 but every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus is not from God. (NIV 1 Jn 4:2–3).

Third, a person with faith has the Spirit of God, which means at a minimum they value God above all other things. It is impossible to genuinely believe in hell, one’s proper eternal damnation for the least sin and eternal salvation offered by simple faith in Christ and not secretly value Christ above any other thing. It is not rational to believe Christ and at the same time not value him above all things. Even the weakest believer must value Christ above all or they have never had any faith whatsoever.

We have now narrowed the question to this: For those believers who hold to the primary doctrines of the gospel such as original sin, the trinity, justification by faith in Christ apart from works, etc. and hold him in view as something more valuable then anything else and from fear of eternal damnation find some comfort and relief in his death so that they are not driven to insanity with the otherwise extreme fear that they would rationally hold under their conviction, if they were to fall into various sins, internal or external, how can they know if they have ever had genuine faith, or no?

We now come to a very personal aspect of the question. For outwardly no man would be able to determine who has genuine faith for the confession of the mouth is right, the person seems to have genuine faith, yet they may be not going to church for a long period, may be living in an adulterous relationship, etc.  For example there was a member of the Corinthian church that was having sexual relations with his father’s wife (I guess a kind of Mother in law). One would never know if this person had genuine faith but after being excommunicated from the church it turned out that his faith possibly was genuine and he repented of his sin. Yet, here we find another principle. When it is very unclear if a person is a Christian, or not, it is best to assume not and then the fear of hell will drive one back to the comfort and relief of salvation in Christ.

Still, the answer is not sufficient. For many who are backslidden may be so because there faith in Christ is weak and there fear of condemnation great.  From this weak faith they stumble into many sins and this only heightens their fear of hell so they try not to think about it. In such a case excommunication and warnings of hell only drive them deeper into despair, so they really need to be reminded of the free grace in Christ and find encouragement to go to him for relief of their fear. In this struggle, to differentiate the condemnation of the Devil who accuses the elect, versus the practical duty of one to encourage their own soul although eternally saved to fear hell more and to encourage ones return back to faith for relief, only the Holy Spirit’s internal witness can distinguish.  The fact is that those who have been regenerated by the Holy Ghost as a result of first being justified freely by the grace in Christ, through faith, apart from the works of the law, have an internal witness of the Holy Ghost. Not only so by the Holy Ghost is also the one who preserves correct doctrine in the mind of the believer. (1 John 2:20)

  The Spirit you received does not make you slaves, so that you live in fear again; rather, the Spirit you received brought about your adoption to sonship. And by him we cry, “Abba, Father.” 16 The Spirit himself testifies with our spirit that we are God’s children. (NIV Ro 8:15–16)

The conclusion: The elect who have genuinely trusted in Christ receive relief from there dread of eternal damnation and consolation that is never fully destroyed. They therefore persevere and although possibly stumbling into various sins, they never loose that fear of hell and comfort of faith to rescue them from it and therefore return or keep returning to live a life not dominated by the sins they used to commit prior to believing in Christ. During the times when they are down and the conclusion is not clear they are willing to assume the worst and encourage themselves to fear hell in order to arouse their own soul into obedience to faith. However when being accused by the Devil and condemned and so discouraged and fallen into sin through doubt, the Holy Spirit himself will provide assurance so that faith is not snuffed out and a bruised reed not broken, with the final conclusion that the believer will always persevere with faith and be swallowed up in glory forever. Sometimes it is not clear and is not meant to be clear as God himself provides the assurance to the elect ensuring their perseverance.


Converting to Judaism or Islam vs Trinitarian or Uniterian If a Christian "converts" to Judaism or Islam (or any of the Abrahamic religions), is he still considered saved as a Christian?  What if he/she converted from Trinitarian to Uniterian?  This is a general Christian question, so I am requesting an overview of Christian positions on such conversions.

There is no consensus among Christians on this question.  Assuming that the conversion is genuine and permanent, rather than momentary weakness, the three main schools of thought that apply to this issue are:

Conditional Security

According to this view, Christians can lose their salvation.  Thus, a Christian who converted to another religion would be seen to have lost his salvation, if he had it in the first place.  Christians who hold this view, such as Arminians, would answer "No".

Perseverance of the Saints

Another school of thought is that Christians cannot lose their salvation, and that true believers will persevere till the end.  According to this view, although true believers may fall and stumble temporarily, they will never fall away permanently.  A supposed Christian who permanently converted would be seen as having never been a genuine Christian in the first place.  Like the first view, Christians who hold this view would answer "No".

Free Grace Theology

Free Grace Theology is a view in which Christians cannot lose their salvation, and may fall away permanently.  This view teaches that the saved may or may not become disciples, and may or may not undergo the process of sanctification.  Christians may believe in Christ at one point, and subsequently forsake any identity with Christianity.  Christians who hold this view would answer "Yes".


Why do some Christians (Coptic orthodox and catholic) kiss the priest's hand? Considering kissing priest's hand is a christianity learning, where did this learning came from?

Considering kissing priest's hand is a custom
Where did this custom came from, Why it is wide spreading ?
What is it's historical story ?

In Western Catholicism it is usually connected to the anointing of a newly ordained priest's hands with the Sacred Chrism. His hands have been set aside for God to do the Lord's work, and so some people (particularly in more traditional circles) kiss the hand. This is especially common with newly ordained priests, but also happens with priests in general sometimes.


Who did Christ first appear to after his resurection? In First Corinthians, St. Paul says the Cephas (Peter) was the first that Christ appeared to after he was raised to life, yet in the Gospels it is said that Mary of Magdala was the first.  I am confused.

Peter was the first Apostle Jesus appeared to but Mary Magdalene was the first person to have seen Him after His resurrection.

Thank you. Hope this answer helps!


At what point is a new soul created according to the Catholic Church? It seems clear that Catholic Church rejected Origen's claim that souls were created and existed before conception and birth.

Does the Church pinpoint fertilization of the egg as the moment a soul is created, or upon implantation, or once the heart starts beating, or at some other stage before birth? Or is it upon the taking of the first breath, since the Greek word pneuma ("breath") is associated with the word "soul"? Or does it happen at some other point in time?

According to the Catholic Church, when do souls start to exist?

It seems clear that Catholic Church debunked Origen's claim that souls were created and existed before conception and birth.

It is more accurate to say "rejected" than "debunked" but there is substantial theological support to that rejection(cf. below).  Certainly the soul is there before birth according to current teaching of the RCC.   Current teaching has had the benefit of 1500+ years of theological development since Origen fell out of favor, and points to the soul being created "at the time of conception" bearing in mind that the unity of body and soul provides the complementary teaching that at conception (the beginning of the body) one finds the beginning of the soul.

Humans don't create souls, God does.  CCC 366 (below) points to that fusion as  happening immediately and being done by God.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church (Article 2270, in English):

  2270 Human life must be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of conception.

  From the first moment of his existence, a human being must be recognized as having the rights of a person - among which is the inviolable right of every innocent being to life.

  Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you.

The italicized portion comes from Jeremiah 1:5.

The above extract is a subset of a longer discourse beginning in article 2258 about life and not taking innocent life, per the Fifth commandment, which then goes to abortion and euthanasia and suicide and more.  The "before I formed you in the womb" stands out, when combined with earlier articles in the Catechism that presents the soul:

  365 The unity of soul and body is so profound that one has to consider the soul to be the "form" of the body i.e., it is because of its spiritual soul that the body made of matter becomes a living, human body; spirit and matter, in man, are not two natures united, but rather their union forms a single nature.

  366 The Church teaches that every spiritual soul is created immediately by God - it is not "produced" by the parents - and also that it is immortal: it does not perish when it separates from the body at death, and it will be reunited with the body at the final Resurrection.

From that combination, and Jeremiah, the meaning comes across as either that

the soul was known to God before conception, or
that the soul and physical being/body are joined at the time of conception

Based on the unity of body and soul as a concrete teaching of the church, the latter articles are the more explicit.  The passage in Jeremiah can be understood as "formed in the womb" summarizing the entire process of gestation before birth, which marries up with the latter conclusion just fine.

Final Answer: at time of conception but it takes some putting together of puzzle pieces to get there.

Caveat

At what level of teaching can one place this conclusion, or the elements of official teaching that inform this conclusion?

The CCC notes DS as a source, which refers to Ludwig Ott's seminal
20th century work.  This source was cited in footnote 234 in CCC 366, as was the Council if Vienne of 1312 which addressed a variety of issues.

The relevant pronouncement from the Council of Vienne:

  In order that all may know the truth of the faith in its purity and all error may be excluded, we define that anyone who presumes henceforth to assert defend or hold stubbornly that the rational or intellectual soul is not the form of the human body of itself and essentially, is to be considered a heretic.

The English translation of Ott's work was found to be without significant error.  {Nihil Obstat Jeremiah J. O'Sullivan, D.O. Censor Deputatus. Imprimatur: ~ Cornelius, Ep. Corgagiensis et Ap. Adm. Rossensis. 7 October, 1954.}  The level of teaching presented in that tome of Catholic Doctrine was Sententia certa which fits into the teaching heirarchy (from strongest to weakest) as follows ...
Heirarchy of teachings

De fide
Fides ecclesiastica
Sententia fidei proxima
Sententia certa
Sententia communis
Sententia probabilis

You are invited to look up those terms if you want to know their precise meaning.  I did not find a Sententia fidei proxima match with CCC 366 (to answer @Nathaniel's comment).
Humani Generis reconfirms the Council of Vienne

When the Papal Encyclical Humani Generis (article 36) declares that the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God it reasserts a centuries old teaching.  I am wary of taking that statement out of context and asserting that this statement moves the teaching higher up the ladder (presented above) so I make no such assertion (given that I have already been falsely accused by one user here of declaring a dogma).  The CCC 366 is content to state that point in official teaching without further exposition, nor a further definition, semantically, of what "immediately" means here. (To answer @PeterTurner's comment).  The church writes in its own style, and from within its own context.

  In Roman Catholic theology, Sententia certa refers to teachings without final approval but clearly deduced from revelation.  These are below the Sententia fidei proxima level, but above Sententia communis.

Theological support for this position ... in general

It is Theologically Certain that souls are created at the moment they are joined with the body.
That is the argument made by Fr. John A. Hardon, S.J., as he makes the case, or at least attempt so, for promoting this position to the next echelon - Sententia fidei proxima.  Whether or not that appeal was successful is beyond the scope of this question, since the Catechism uses the term without further exposition.

  Positively stated, it is De Fide ex Jugi that human souls are
  immediately created by God.  Apart from the constant position of the
  Church since the time of St. Thomas, we have the recent declaration of
  Pius XII in Humani Generis to be quoted in the body of the proof. It
  is Theologically Certain that souls are created at the moment they are
  joined with the body. {SNIP}

Theological Support ... in detail

based on Immediate Creation of the Soul by God:
Source is Fr. John A. Hardon, S.J. at the linked (exhaustive) argument.   Selected excerpts are:

  It is De Fide Definita that spiritual substances, and therefore the soul, do not emanate from the substance of God.  This from the condemnation of Pantheism in the Vatican Council, DB 1804.

  Though not defined, it is De Fide ex Jugi Magisterio that material Traducianism is wrong. Thus St. Thomas' statement, quoted above, indicates the ordinary teaching of the Church.

  Positively stated, it is De Fide ex Jugi that human souls are immediately created by God. Apart from the constant position of the Church since the time of St. Thomas, we have the recent declaration of Pius XII in Humani Generis to be quoted in the body of the proof.
  It is Theologically Certain that souls are created at the moment they are joined with the body.
  {SNIP}
  Part Three: “The Human Soul is Immediately Created by God Alone.”
  Ecclesiastical Documents

  The Vatican Council defined against the pantheists that, “If anyone
  says that finite things, both corporeal and spiritual, or at least
  spiritual, emanated from the divine substance...Let him be anathemas
  DB 1801. Thus it is defined that however the soul originates, it is
  not by way of emanation from the deity.

  Benedict XII in 1341 condemned the errors of certain Orientals, on the
  occasion of prospects for reuniting the schismatic Armenians with
  Rome. "A certain teacher,” wrote the pope, "again introduced the
  teaching that the human soul of a son is propagated from the soul of
  his father, as his body is from the body of his father. He taught also
  that angels are propagated one from another. He gave as his reason for
  this that, since a rational existing human soul, and an angel existing
  in an intellectual nature are a kind of spiritual light, they
  propagate other spiritual lights from themselves" DB 533. The Armenian
  who held this doctrine was named Mechitriz, which means “paraclete."
  By condemning Mechitriz, Benedict XI condemned generationism, even of
  a spiritual kind, since the erroneous teaching referred to both human
  souls and the angels.

{my note here: the following point really stands out, since the Catholics believe that Jesus is both divine and human - his mother was wholly human}
**> the Bull Sollicitudo omnium ecclesiarum of Alexander VII (1661), the

  Pope declared that, "It is an ancient belief of the faithful of Christ
  regarding His most blessed Mother the Virgin Mary holding that her
  soul, in the first moment of its creation and infusion into the body,
  by a special grace and privilege of God, in view of the merits of
  Jesus Christ her Son, Redeemer of the human race, was preserved free
  from the stain of original sin” DB 1100.** Two centuries later, Pius IX
  adopted the statement of Alexander VII almost verbally in his
  definition of the Immaculate Conception. Alexander VII, therefore,
  pre-supposed that human souls are created and infused into the body by
  a special creative act of God.

  Pius XIII, in the Encyclical Humani Generis, when speaking on the
  subject of evolution of the human body, declared expressly that “the
  Catholic faith obliges us to hold that the human soul is immediately.
  created by God (animas a Deo immediate creari, Catholic fides nos
  retinere jubet)” - Weston translation, paragraph 37. Though speaking
  in context of the evolution of the first man, the incisum on the
  creation of the soul is of general import, as indicated by the plural
  collective animas creari.

  Sacred Scripture

  There is no direct, conclusive argument from Scripture proving that
  human souls are directly created by God.  True the soul of Adam is said
  to have been created by God (Genesis 2:7), but Scriptures are silent
  about the precise origin of souls after Adam.  A suasive argument can
  be deduced from such texts as “The dust returns to the earth from
  whence it came, and the spirit returns to God, who gave it”
  Ecclesiastes 12:7; and the words of the mother of the Maccabees to her
  sons, “I neither gave you breath, nor soul, nor life but the Creator of the world" II Maccabees 7:22. Both these texts show that God somehow specially produced the human soul, but not necessarily by immediate creation, which must be proved against spiritual generationism.

  The best argument from Scripture is indirect, reasoning from the different passages which say or describe the soul as spiritual and immortal. Then by analyzing the nature of spirituality or immortality we conclude that only God could produce a spirit.

  Patristic Evidence

  As noted before, the Patristic position on creationism labors under
  special difficulties because of the ambiguous (or better, hesitating)
  attitude of St. Augustine who favored immediate creation but feared
  its consequences in the Pelagian crisis. However there is a definite
  Patristic tradition which should not be minimized.

  As regards the Greek Fathers, it is commonly recognized that they had
  no sympathy with generationism but, as a group, professed immediate
  creation of the soul by God.

  The Latin Fathers before Augustine are most significant here; and
  among them we find, e.g., St. Hilary denying that the soul is
  propagated by the parents.(RJ 875); Lactantius declaring that, "This
  question may also be asked: whether the soul comes from the father
  rather than the mother, or whether it is generated by both. But I am
  justly delivered from this uncertainty, since none of these three is
  true...The power of giving origin to souls belongs to the one and only
  God" De Opificio Dei, 79.

  Theological Reason

  There are two distinct propositions that may be defended by
  theological reason: 1) that human souls are immediately created by God
  alone, and 2) that they are created at the time of their union with
  the body.

  The first assertum, which is properly our thesis, builds on the datum
  of revelation (also proveable by reason) that the soul is a spiritual
  substance. Given a substance which is spiritual, and therefore
  incomposite or integrally simple by nature, it cannot be divided to
  give "part of itself" to someone else, as Traducianism and even
  spiritual Gene rationism logically require.

  The second assertum answers the further question of when the soul is
  created, saying this takes place at the time of its infusion into the
  body. This follows logically on the defintion of the Council of Vienne
  (1311-1312), which declared:

  "We condemn as erroneous and opposed to Catholic truth every doctrine
  and opinion that rashly asserts that the substance of the rational,
  intellectual soul is not truly and by its own nature the form of the
  human body" DB 481.

  If, therefore, it is defined that the rational soul is truly, per se,
  and essentially the form of the body, then it must be created at the
  time at which it is joined with the body. Otherwise it could not be
  said that the soul (created by God) is essentially the form of the
  body; since then we should have either a pre-existing soul (minus a
  body) or an informed human body (minus a soul) - both of which are
  theologically untenable.

Postscript

When you work with concepts and doctrines about God being omnipresent, and thus unbound by time, the whole idea of "before" for God loses meaning.  This could lead to an understanding that God knowing you is a condition being unbounded by time at all.  While it is an interesting line of inquiry, it does not address your question.  God's creation of Adam, from the dirt as described in Genesis, and then Adam coming to life, and Adam having a soul, provides a useful template (or even a precedent) for the unification of body and soul at the time of creation-conception.