Do Christians still make icons? Do Christians still make icons?

Typically, it's easy to find Christian icons from the Middle Ages. But are there any Christian icons in the modern age?

Yes, there are lots of examples! There are still professional Iconographers who go around painting Iconography for a living!
In the Orthodox Church the Temples are traditionally fully covered in frescoes.
Here is an example:

Since this is a great part of the Orthodox Church, there are many people who have been trained in this Holy Art and are going around the world adorning Temples.

In fact, at this very moment, the church which I am going to is having it's hitherto white and barren walls covered in frescoes! An iconographer from Serbia is doing all the painting of the frescoes throughout the whole church. At the moment, though, only slightly more than the dome is done.

Here is a snapshot of the dome from a little while ago:

There is also a slightly outdated video of the Iconographer at work which can be seen here.

And if you are really interested, every now and then, some very good Iconographer will hold an Iconography work-shop... I have never attended one, but from what I hear they are very fun.

I even found a link on OrthodoxWiki which has a list of Modern Iconographers.

Also, probably of great interest to you, is the website of one Iconographer, Vladimir Grygorenko. Take a look at his portfolio if you want to know the answer to this question...

And, a little more which probably won't be useful to you, here is a link which gives the Orthodox Iconographer some rules and prayers as guidance.
One of the prayers is as follows:

  A Prayer Before Beginning an Icon:

  O Divine Lord of all that exists, Thou hast illumined the Apostle and Evangelist Luke with Thy Holy Spirit, thereby enabling him to represent Thy most Holy Mother, the One who held Thee in her arms and said: The Grace of Him Who has been born of me is spread through the world!
  Enlighten and direct my soul, my heart and my spirit. Guide the hands of Thine unworthy servant so that I may worthily and perfectly portray Thine Icon, that of Thy Mother, and all the Saints, for the glory, joy and adornment of Thy Holy Church.
  Forgive my sins and the sins of those who will venerate these icons and who, kneeling devoutly before them, give homage to those they represent.
  Protect them from all evil and instruct them with good counsel. This I ask through the intercession of Thy most Holy Mother, the Apostle Luke, and all the Saints. Amen.

...
Simply put:

Yes, Christians do still make Icons!


Did Christ consort with mystics? In the time of Christ, were there mystics, Jewish or otherwise, with whom Christ consorted before or during the time of His ministry?

By "mystics" is meant those comparable to Sufi mystics, who seek hidden spiritual truths by various means, and not those who perform acts the results of which are unexplained by temporal science ("magicians".)

In John 2 (NIV), it says:

  23 Now while he was in Jerusalem at the Passover Festival, many people
  saw the signs he was performing and believed in his name. 24 But
  Jesus would not entrust himself to them, for he knew all people. 25 He
  did not need any testimony about mankind, for he knew what was in each
  person.

In the KJV, it says:

  23 Now when he was in Jerusalem at the passover, in the feast day,
  many believed in his name, when they saw the miracles which he did.

  24 But Jesus did not commit himself unto them, because he knew all
  men,

  25 And needed not that any should testify of man: for he knew what was
  in man.

While this does not say outright that Jesus did not consort with mystics, it attacks the very basis of the mystical approach to knowledge.

In the Socratic method of the Greeks, a teacher would ask questions and the pupils would answer them and the process would lead them to truth. Jesus needed no such dialogue to establish or explore truth. He did not need a school of researchers to perform experiments and write papers that he could attach his name to. All truth originated within Jesus.


For those who deny the Immaculate Conception, why did Jesus not have original sin? The Westminster Confession (8:2) says Jesus is of the substance of Mary:

  The Son of God, the second person of the Trinity, being very and eternal God, of one substance and equal with the Father, did, when the fullness of time was come, take upon Him man's nature, with all the essential properties, and common infirmities thereof, yet without sin; being conceived by the power of the Holy Ghost, in the womb of the virgin Mary, of her substance. So that two whole, perfect, and distinct natures, the Godhead and the manhood, were inseparably joined together in one person, without conversion, composition, or confusion.

Calvin gives his interpretation of 1 Corinthians 15:22 in Institutes book 2 chapter 1 section 6:

  Therefore, the only explanation which can be given of the expression, “in Adam all died,” is, that he by sinning not only brought disaster and ruin upon himself, but also plunged our nature into like destruction; and that not only in one fault, in a matter not pertaining to us, but by the corruption into which he himself fell, he infected his whole seed.

If Jesus is of the substance of Mary and Mary (a seed of Adam) is infected by Adam. How can Jesus have no sin?

There are at least several ways that this is explained.  Here are three common ones.

One approach, taken by early and medieval theologians before the doctrine of the immaculate conception was widely held, is described by Thomas Aquinas:

  As Augustine says (Gen. ad lit. x, 20), Christ was in Adam and the other fathers not altogether as we were. For we were in Adam as regards both seminal virtue and bodily substance, since, as he goes on to say: "As in the seed there is a visible bulk and an invisible virtue, both have come from Adam. Now Christ took the visible substance of His flesh from the Virgin's flesh; but the virtue of His conception did not spring from the seed of man, but far otherwise—from on high." Hence He was not in Adam according to seminal virtue, but only according to bodily substance. And therefore Christ did not receive human nature from Adam actively, but only materially—and from the Holy Ghost actively; even as Adam received his body materially from the slime of the earth—actively from God. And thus Christ did not sin in Adam, in whom He was only as regards His matter. (Summa Theologica, 3rd part, Q15, Art. 1, reply to objection 2)

So to Augustine and Aquinas, the invisible, spiritual side of Christ's human nature came directly from God, not Adam.

This is somewhat similar to the view of the Anabaptists, which believe, as summarized by Louis Berkhof:

  The prevailing opinion among the Anabaptists was that the Lord brought His human nature from heaven, and that Mary was merely the conduit or channel through which it passed. (Systematic Theology, 3.2.1.B)

But in the Reformed tradition, greater emphasis is placed on Christ's human nature coming from his mother, and as a result his sinlessness is instead attributed to the sanctifying work of the Holy Spirit.  He thus has two roles in the conception of Jesus – first, as the "efficient cause" of the conception, and second:

  He sanctified the human nature of Christ in its very inception, and thus kept it free from the pollution of sin. (Systematic Theology, 3.2.1.B)

So we see that there isn't a single answer to the question, but rather a variety of ways to explain how Jesus could have human nature and yet be sinless.


What do I do when watching a video of someone praying? Every once in a while I'll watch a message on video and the person in the video starts praying. Sometimes I feel compelled to pray along with them (especially if there's a group of us watching it), but then I feel silly as I realize I'm praying along with a video.

Is it nonsensical to pray along with what is essentially an audio clip? I'm not talking about having my own individual prayer while the video is running. I'm talking about having a unified prayer of agreement along with the person/words that are coming out of the screen.

Are there any examples in scripture of prayers being lifted up in such a way, obviously not with video but in some weird equivalent? Certainly God wants us to pray together and in groups and couples--what if it just so happens that the other "person" is a video? Is the spirit of unity and agreement still legit?

This is the kind of "agree" and "together" I'm talking about:

  Matthew 18:19-20 ESV Again I say to you, if two of you agree on earth about anything they ask, it will be done for them by my Father in heaven. For where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I among them.”

And the context of this verse was about 2 believers together, face-to-face, talking, and agreeing.

Edit: A good point was brought up: what if it's a live video stream? At that point the person is praying at the same time as you, but not together with you. Are you still praying with them even if they don't have a clue that you are? And (now this is messy) what if the video stream is an hour delayed?

I've wondered the same myself, especially during times when I'm watching a video of someone praying. However, technology allows people to communicate through Skype for instance. Which leads me to the belief that the spirit of unity and agreement is still legit. It may not be face to face, but it still matters, and there is still unity in that.

For example, Paul in his letters mentions praying for the different churches he is writing to all the time.

  “...God is my witness, whom I serve with my spirit in the gospel of
  His Son, that without ceasing I make mention of you always in my
  prayers” (Rom. 1:9, NKJV).

Even though it isn't in person, there is still unity in his prayer with the church in Rome. And there was quite a delay from Paul sending the letter to the recipients actually getting it.

So in my opinion, it doesn't matter if it's a live stream, delayed video, or whatever other thing you can think of. Prayer is conversing to God, and it doesn't matter if it's prerecorded or not.


What are the necessary circumstances that qualify a marriage for annulment in the Catholic Church? I understand that the Catholic Church issues annulments under certain circumstances for some marriages.  What are the specific circumstances necessary to qualify a marriage for an annulment?  I'm wondering if some annulments are denied, leaving the couple to resort to divorce instead, and what circumstances might lead to that.

Members of the Catholic Church are required to marry in front of a priest (or deacon) (CCC 1630). If one of the parties is Catholic, but there is a serious reason why the marriage should be celebrated in front of a civil servant or a non-Catholic minister, a dispensation can be granted. If no dispensation was granted and the couple did not observe this law — the marriage is considered invalid. Because the nullity of the marriage is clear from the circumstances there is no need for a canonical process to issue a Declaration of Nullity. The correction of this invalidity requires the couple to exchange their consent according to canonical form (commonly called "having the marriage blessed").

Impediments

If one of the parties were prohibited from marrying by a diriment impediment, the marriage is invalid. Because these impediments may not be known at all, the marriage is called a putative marriage if at least one of the parties married in good faith.

Diriment impediments include:

Being too young. The absolute minimum age is 16 for males, 14 for females, but episcopal conferences can set a higher limit

Antecedent and perpetual impotence (not to be confused with sterility)

Being already married

If one party is a Catholic and the other has not been baptized (unless a dispensation is granted)

The man was ordained to holy orders

Either party made a public perpetual vow of chastity in a religious institute

Abduction with the intent of marriage (known as raptus), is an impediment as long as the person remains in the kidnapper's power

Impediment of Crime, bringing about the death of one's own spouse or the spouse of another, with the intention of marriage

Close relationship by blood, called Consanguinity, even if the relationship is only by law

Close relationship by marriage, called Affinity

Some of these laws can be relaxed by a dispensation before the ceremony.

For example, Catherine of Aragon and Henry VIII of England received a dispensation from the impediment of affinity (Catherine had previously been married to Henry's brother Arthur, who died). Henry based his request for an annulment on the grounds that the dispensation had been improperly given in that his father, Henry VII, had pressured the Archbishop of Canterbury into granting the dispensation.

The correction of this invalidity after the marriage requires first that the impediment has ceased or has been dispensed, and then a "convalidation" can take place or a sanatio in radice can be granted to make the marriage valid.

Grounds for nullity

A marriage may be declared invalid because at least one of the two parties was not free to consent to the marriage or did not fully commit to the marriage.

Grounds for nullity include:

Simulation of consent; that is, the conscious and positive exclusion at consent by either or both of the contracting parties of one or all of the essential properties or "goods" of marriage: a) exclusivity of the marital relationship; b) the permanence of the marital bond; c) openness to offspring as the natural fruit of marriage (canon 1101§2)

Deliberate deceit about some personal quality that can objectively and gravely perturb conjugal life (canon 1098)

Conditional consent; the condition must concern the past or present (canon 1102)

Force or grave fear imposed on a person to obtain their consent (canon 1103)

A serious lack of the discretion of judgment at consent concerning the essential matrimonial rights and obligations to be given (canon 1095 n.2)

Psychic incapacity at consent to undertake the essential obligations of marriage (canon 1095 n.3). According to Canon 1095 a marriage can be declared null only when consent was given in the presence of some grave lack of discretionary judgment regarding the essential rights and obligations of marriage, or of some real incapacity to assume these essential obligations.


Is it possible to repent after death in Catholicism? In the following quote from the Catechism, it seems to imply that you can repent of a mortal sin after death. How does that fit with the standard "Once damned always damned after death" view that the Catholic church teaches elsewhere?

  Suicide

  2280 Everyone is responsible for his life before God who has given it
  to him. It is God who remains the sovereign Master of life. We are
  obliged to accept life gratefully and preserve it for his honor and
  the salvation of our souls. We are stewards, not owners, of the life
  God has entrusted to us. It is not ours to dispose of.

  2281 Suicide contradicts the natural inclination of the human being to
  preserve and perpetuate his life. It is gravely contrary to the just
  love of self. It likewise offends love of neighbor because it unjustly
  breaks the ties of solidarity with family, nation, and other human
  societies to which we continue to have obligations. Suicide is
  contrary to love for the living God.

  2282 If suicide is committed with the intention of setting an example,
  especially to the young, it also takes on the gravity of scandal.
  Voluntary co-operation in suicide is contrary to the moral law.

  Grave psychological disturbances, anguish, or grave fear of hardship,
  suffering, or torture can diminish the responsibility of the one
  committing suicide.

  2283 We should not despair of the eternal salvation of persons who
  have taken their own lives. By ways known to him alone, God can
  provide the opportunity for salutary repentance. The Church prays for
  persons who have taken their own lives.

I'm curious about the phrase "salutary repentance". Does this mean that someone in Hell can repent?

Short answer: For the general case, no.

Your question asks about both the general case, and an outlier case of suicide.  That series of articles in the Catechism addresses in part whether or not the disordered act of suicide is with full consent of the will, or is not with full consent of the will.  If it is not then it may not meet the gravity of mortal sin during judgment.  That's in the hands of our Lord.

General case: the point of repentance is to turn toward God during this life.

  CCC 1021 Death puts an end to human life as the time open to either
  accepting or rejecting the divine grace manifested in Christ.

The hope for salutary repentance is an edge case, as this repentance is something that can only be given by God.  How this may happen is neither known nor taught by the Church.  It's in God's hands.

All repentance (especially for a grave sin) comes from God. We are
incapable of contrition without grace (from @AthanasiusofAlex comment)

  CCC 2283 We should not despair of the eternal salvation of persons who have taken their own lives. By ways known to him alone, God can provide the opportunity for salutary repentance. The Church prays for persons who have taken their own lives.

If there is a hope for salutary (beneficial) repentance, it would logically happen at particular judgment.  We (the faithful) don't know.  We can only hope and pray.  (It never hurts to ask).

  CCC 1037 God predestines no one to go to hell; for this, a willful
  turning away from God (a mortal sin) is necessary, and persistence in
  it until the end. In the Eucharistic liturgy and in the daily
  prayers of her faithful, the Church implores the mercy of God, who
  does not want "any to perish, but all to come to repentance":

At judgment, will Jesus make a judgment that this soul has willfully turned away from God, to the last, or not?  The truth cannot be hidden at judgment.

  CCC 1033  To die in mortal sin without repenting and accepting God's merciful love means remaining separated from him for ever by our own free choice.

Did the suicide willfully separate themselves from God by their own free choice?  Jesus will see the truth of the matter, and judge accordingly.

Once the person is dead, all that the Church can do is pray for them.  This includes the Church Triumphant (most importantly Mary, Mother of God) to whom prayers of intercession are offered with great frequency.

  Holy Mary, Mother of God, pray for us sinners, now and at the hour of our death.

This intercessory prayer asks Mary to make an appeal to her Son for the sake of a sinner; this is an appeal to show mercy.  Jesus sits on the throne of judgment.  Mercy is within His authority.

Kyrie eleison (Lord have mercy), Christe eleison (Christ have mercy)

The basic question

  I'm curious about the phrase "salutary repentance."  Does this mean that someone in Hell can repent?

From the above, salutary repentance (if given) would happen at judgment.  Once particular judgment is completed, alea iacta est.  Since one does not go to Hell until after particular judgment, it would then follow that once in Hell the chance for repentance (of any sort) is moot.

To be clear, any assumption that the soul (suicide) in question is in Hell before a chance at that possible salutary repentance is unsupported by current Catholic teaching.  Judgment comes first, and then one is either with God, or is not.

  1030 All who die in God's grace and friendship, but still imperfectly purified, are indeed assured of their eternal salvation; but after death they undergo purification, so as to achieve the holiness necessary to enter the joy of heaven.

The question whose answer is known only to God and the person now dead is whether or not the person was in friendship with God (perhaps imperfectly purified) or if that person had, in their heart, willfully turned their back on God and remained unrepentant to the end.

  I. The Particular Judgment

  CCC 1022 Each man receives his eternal retribution in his immortal soul at
  the very moment of his death, in a particular judgment that refers his
  life to Christ: either entrance into the blessedness of heaven-through
  a purification or immediately, or immediate and everlasting damnation.

The willful act of turning away from God and obstinately refusing to turn back toward Him is the surest way to damnation.

In a particular case, is it possible to be offered the chance to turn back toward God when facing particular judgment?  With God, all things are possible (Matthew 19:26)

Jesus will know the truth of what is in one's heart.  Whether or not salutary repentance is given is wholly in the hands of God.  All we can do is pray for God's mercy.
So we do.
We Catholics offer prayers for the dead.


According to the LDS, is Jesus "the Son" or "the Father"? I was reading this other SE question about Mormon viewpoint on the Trinity, but it did not provide an answer to this specific question.

So for example 1 Nephi 13:40 says:

  40 And the angel spake unto me, saying: These last records, which thou
  hast seen among the Gentiles, shall establish the truth of the first,
  which are of the twelve apostles of the Lamb, and shall make known the
  plain and precious things which have been taken away from them; and
  shall make known to all kindreds, tongues, and people, that the Lamb
  of God is the Son of the Eternal Father, and the Savior of the
  world; and that all men must come unto him, or they cannot be saved.

The passage in Mosiah 15:2-4, on another hand, seems to also be talking about Jesus and says:

  2 And because he dwelleth in flesh he shall be called the Son of God,
  and having subjected the flesh to the will of the Father, being the
  Father and the Son— 3 The Father, because he was conceived by the
  power of God; and the Son, because of the flesh; thus becoming the
  Father and Son— 4 And they are one God, yea, the very Eternal Father
  of heaven and of earth.

And the passage in Ether 3:14 says:

  14 Behold, I am he who was prepared from the foundation of the world
  to redeem my people. Behold, I am Jesus Christ. I am the Father and
  the Son. In me shall all mankind have life, and that eternally, even
  they who shall believe on my name; and they shall become my sons and
  my daughters.

So since Mormons do not believe in trinity, in am curious on how these passages should be understood.

Is Jesus the Son or the Father? Or somehow both?

Matt's comment is correct.  Jesus is both the "Father" and the "Son" because He has various of roles, some of which fall into a "Father" category and some of which fall into a "Son" category.

Before diving in, I wish to make clear that Mormon doctrine is that Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ are two separate and distinct personages, as based on, e.g.,  The First Vision of Joseph Smith, where he saw Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ as two separate beings.

Since the two are separate, it can be confusing when Jesus is referred to as "the Father".  Referring to Jesus as "the Father" is not saying He is the same person as Heavenly Father.

In my study of Mormon canon, I have identified two ways in which Jesus is "the Father" (there are likely more, but only two I have a good understanding of):

Jesus Christ is the Perfect Son of Heavenly Father, and is a perfect representative of Him.  "He that hath seen me hath seen the Father" (John 14:9), "The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise." (John 5:19).  As I understand these scriptures, the Father that Jesus is referring to is His Father, not Himself.  But the point of these scriptures is that Jesus the Son of God so fully follows what His Father does that He is doing exactly what Heavenly Father Himself would be doing, and so Jesus Christ is "the Father" is that his words, actions, and perfection are a perfect representation of the words, actions, and perfection of His Father.
Jesus Christ is the Father of salvation to those who follow Him.  A few verses after the scripture in Mosiah 15 you quote are two verses that teach that Jesus is the Father to those who receive Him and obtain salvation through Him. (Mosiah 15:11-12):

  11 Behold I say unto you, that whosoever has heard the words of the prophets, yea, all the holy prophets who have prophesied concerning the coming of the Lord—I say unto you, that all those who have hearkened unto their words, and believed that the Lord would redeem his people, and have looked forward to that day for a remission of their sins, I say unto you, that these are his seed, or they are the heirs of the kingdom of God.
  12 For these are they whose sins he has borne; these are they for whom he has died, to redeem them from their transgressions. And now, are they not his seed?

Jesus' role as "the Son" is due to the fact that He is the Son of God.  This is the role He is most often viewed in and I don't think I need to add much to help understand how Jesus is a Son.  If you need more clarification, let me know.

Later addition: I have found a third way in which Mormon canon identifies Jesus as "the Father".  From Mosiah 3:7 (the future tense is because this was a prophesy made before Jesus' birth):

  And he shall be called Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the Father of heaven and earth, the Creator of all things from the beginning; and his mother shall be called Mary.

Mormons believe that, although Heavenly Father was the one who planned the creation of heaven and earth, it was the pre-mortal Jesus Christ who actually created heaven and earth.  Thus, in this sense Jesus is "the Father of heaven and earth, the Creator of all things from the beginning."


What is the basis of the non catholic denominations to hold catholics as Idolaters I was reading this article on an authoritative bible site . I was wondering what is the doctrinal bases to hold Catholics as Idolaters

Here is the excerpt:

  Life Magazine, reporting the ceremonies in Ottawa, Canada, in June,
  1947, at the Marian Congress, pointed out that a great procession of
  devout people knelt and kissed the foot of the giant statue of Mary
  "Until the paint wore off its toes." Pictures in L'Europeo, an Italian
  newspaper, of April 5, 1947, shows that devout Catholics in Naples
  continue to crawl at full length on their stomachs before the images
  of their Madonnas and lick the ground with their tongues on their way
  to the statues. Some years ago, the New York Department of Health was
  compelled to put a stop to this practice among the Italian people in
  the Bronx, because it resulted in so many cases of tetanus. Such
  idolatry!

The basis for claiming that Catholicism is idolatry, whether valid or not, is that various Catholic beliefs conflict with Protestant beliefs and doctrines. The list includes the following (and includes a Catholic answer to each claim in the interest of being fair and balanced, and not turning this into a Truth answer):

Catholics pray to saints, and to Mary. Many Protestants equate this to worshiping them.

The Catholic view is that they are asking these saints and Mary to intercede with God for them.

Catholics practice confession to a man (A Priest, etc.) when Scripture tells us we should confess our sins directly to God. They believe that the priest has the power, through the authority of the Church, to absolve sins. Non-Catholics believe this is attributing powers that only God has to the Church, or to a man.

The Catholic position is that this is a delegated authority - delegated to the Church by Christ, and to the Priest by the Church.

Some non-Catholics equate the Eucharist with idolatry, claiming that Catholics worship the transmutated wafer and wine as idols.

This is clearly not how Catholics view the Eucharist. Catholics hold to a very literal interpretation of "Take, eat, this is my body" and "take, drink, this is my blood".

Some Protestants claim that the God worshiped by Catholics is nothing like the God of the Bible. They go so far as to say that all of the additional sacraments, ritual, and mysticism in the Catholic Church borrow from Pagan religions, and that the Church has become polluted, and no longer worships the true God.

Of course, Catholics don't see it this way.

* Note that in the above, it's not only Catholics that practice these things or hold these views. It's phrased that way because the question asks about Catholics only.


Why are Ahimelech and Abiathar reversed in 2 Sam. 8:17? In 1 Samuel 22:20-23, we see that Ahimelech was killed by the order of Saul and his son Abiathar escaped:

  20 But one son of Ahimelech the son of Ahitub, named Abiathar, escaped
  and fled after David. 21 Abiathar told David that Saul had killed the
  priests of the LORD. 22 Then David said to Abiathar, “I knew on that
  day, when Doeg the Edomite was there, that he would surely tell Saul.
  I have brought about the death of every person in your father’s
  household. 23 “Stay with me; do not be afraid, for he who seeks my
  life seeks your life, for you are safe with me.”

However, in 2 Samuel 8:17, Ahimelech is referenced as one of David's priests, and the son of Abiathar:

  17 and Zadok the son of Ahitub and Ahimelech the son of Abiathar were priests, and Seraiah was secretary,

Obviously both can't be true, but I can't seem to find any compelling information that would explain this reversal of names.

I have a list of alleged Biblical contradictions that contains this question.

We must first attempt to establish a reference point in time for these verses.

1 Samuel 22:20-23 occurred before David ascended to the throne.  King Saul was then in pursuit of David, and had recently ordered the deaths of 85 priests, after accusing them of treason [1 Samuel 22:17, 18].  Abiathar, son of Ahimelech, was one who had escaped death.
2 Samuel 8:17 occurred at least 7 1/2 years into David's forty-year reign [2 Samuel 5:4].

2 Samuel 5:5:  David reigned over Judah in Hebron 7 1/2 years; then 33 years over all Israel in Jerusalem.  2 Samuel 8 was during his [early?] reign in Jerusalem.

Next, we must attempt to identify these men.

"Ahimelech" was a name given to at least two men that David knew:

The first was identified as a priest in 1 Samuel 22:20-23.
The second was identified in 1 Samuel 26:6 as "Ahimelech the Hittite."
Though possessing the same name, these are clearly not the same person.

What, then, of the third Ahimelech, in 2 Samuel 8:17?

We know he was a priest; apparently, he was much more.

Zadok was not only a priest in David's reign; he was the High Priest--the lineage can be verified in Ezra 7:1-5.
This Ahimelech was apparently a co-High Priest; he is paired with Zadok several other times in Scripture:  2 Samuel 15:24, 29, 35; 17:15; 19:11; 20:25.
He must have died early in Solomon's reign; in 1 Kings 4:4, we read of "Zadok and Abiathar" as priests.

I conclude, though "Ahimelech" and "Abiathar" are named in both passages, they are not the same two men in both passages.  Therefore, there is no contradiction.


Can a marriage proceed if fiancé is unconscious? On the morning he was to be married an elderly man is stricken by a massive stroke. His elderly fiancé is devastated.
He lies in a coma unresponsive with no hope of recovery.
Not withstanding the legalities of the concept in various countries, does the Catholic Church permit a marriage to be performed so that his fiancé can fulfill his wish to marry and there by also be given legal status as his wife and eventual heir?

No, marriage in the Catholic Church is not a sacrament ministered by a priest. It is rather a sacrament ministered by the couple. Each minister of the sacrament needs to state their consent. The priest is simply the official witness. (source)
The Catechism of the Catholic Church states:

Section III. Matrimonial consent. "The Church holds the exchange of consent between the spouses to be the indispensable element that "makes the marriage." If consent is lacking there is no marriage." CCC 1626

Since the fiance is unconscious, he cannot be a co-minister in the sacrament, and therefore cannot get married at that point in time.


Is SIN a sin just because God says it is sin? What then shall we say? That the law is sin? By no means! Yet if it
  had not been for the law, I would not have known sin. For I would not
  have known what it is to covet if the law had not said, “You shall not
  covet.” (Romans 7:7, ESV)

In the Old Testament, working on Sabbath was a sin because God said so. Eating pork was a sin because God said so. In the New Testament, we are relieved from some laws but adultery is still a sin.

Suppose, after the Judgement Day, we all live in a New Earth, and God says,

  "There will be no more monogamy, no more marriage. You are free to sleep with anyone
  you wish, either male or female.",

will it still be a sin to do this?

Is "sin"  a sin just because God says it is sin?

And when God says it is no longer a sin, will it still be a sin?

Let's clarify the definition of "sin". Sin is often defined as performing acts that are contrary to specifically noted prohibitions in scripture. In the Old Testament, prohibitions against eating unclean animals, specific instructions about performing certain rituals and ceremonies, etc.

I believe the Biblical definition of "sin" is not so much about actions (dos and don'ts), but about our relationship with God. Sin is really unbelief, and as James taught us, our faith or our unbelief in God is manifested by the things we do (see James 2).

In John 16 Jesus speaks of how the Comforter, when He comes, would reprove of sin not because of a failure to keep ordinances (which the Pharisees excelled at), but because of unbelief.

John 16:8-9
And when he is come, he will reprove the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment:
Of sin, because they believe not on me;

The Pharisees and religious men of Jesus' day lived spotless lives according to the law, but they were the greatest sinners of all, because they simply didn't believe His message. Outwardly they appeared holy and righteous, but inwardly they were "full of dead men's bones".

Matthew 23:27 -
Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye are like unto whited sepulchres, which indeed appear beautiful outward, but are within full of dead men's bones, and of all uncleanness.

Performing various actions is often considered "sin", but true sin is failing to take God at His Word, which becomes manifested by our actions. To answer your question pointedly, failing to take God at His Word will always be "sin".


Is there any difference in meaning between "Holy Spirit" and "Holy Ghost"? Is there any difference in meaning between Holy Spirit and Holy Ghost?

When should we use Holy Spirit and Holy Ghost?

By the way, Wikipedia says:

  Holy Spirit, or Holy Ghost, is a term found in English translations of the Bible, but understood differently among the Abrahamic religions

I already asked about the English meaning. But what are the differences in religious meanings?

Holy Ghost is from the KJV, Holy Spirit is more modern.

It's actually a little more complicated than that. In the New Testament, the KJV uses the term Holy Ghost 89 times, and the term Holy Spirit 4 times. So it actually uses both. But modern translations use Holy Spirit exclusively.

The wikipedia article is not saying that Holy Ghost and Holy Spirit are understood differently.  Its trying to say that Judaism, Christianity, and Islam view the Holy Spirit differently.

Nonetheless, some people might argue that Holy Ghost gives a more personal character to the Holy Spirit than Holy Spirit, assuming that Ghost sounds more like a person than Spirit.  But that's probably a pretty iffy argument.


Which version of the Gospels do the authors of the Philokalia refer to? Which version of the Gospels do the authors of the Philokalia (such as Gregory Palamas) refer to? Clearly this would be some Greek version.

But I would like to know what would be the closest thing to that version, today. Both original greek versions and translation from those would be an acceptable answer. Thanks!

It is almost impossible that the writers of The Philokalia consulted exactly the same Gospel manuscripts.  It is a collection of writings from over 20 different authors spanning almost 1,000 years from different locations around the Mediterranean and Middle East.

For example: Isaiah the Solitary lived in Gaza in the 5th century; John Cassian lived in Gaul in the 4th and 5th centuries; John of Damascus in Syria in the 8th century; Gregory Palamas in Greece and Constantinople in the 14th century.

The 1904 Patriarchal Text mentioned in the comments was compiled from a number of disparate Greek texts and lectionaries that had been in use over the last two millennium.  It does not claim itself to be any kind of "original text".  In content it ends up being closest to the Majority Text.


Looking for the Bible Verse: "If any of you have more than one  give that to another" "If any of you have more than one <some-thing> give that to another"

I'm pretty sure there's a Bible verse that reads something like this, I'm not sure what the <some-thing> is there, I keep thinking that Jesus said this, but I'm not entirely sure.

Can somebody help me out on what the verse is?

Thanks!

Sounds like you're thinking of Luke 3: 11 to me:

  He answereth and saith unto them, He that hath two coats, let him impart to him that hath none; and he that hath meat, let him do likewise.

This is part of John the Baptist's preaching to the people who came to him.


Under Catholic dogma can someone publicly rebuke the Pope like Paul rebuked Peter? In Galatians chapter 2 Paul explains how he had to rebuke the Apostle Peter as he was acting hypocritically over a matter very serious and central to the meaning of the gospel:

  When Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned. (NIV, Galatians 2:11)

The rebuke does not seem as some extremely reverential private matter but the rebuke was more stinging seemingly very public being said in front of 'them all':

  When I saw that they were not acting in line with the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas in front of them all, “You are a Jew, yet you live like a Gentile and not like a Jew. How is it, then, that you force Gentiles to follow Jewish customs? (NIV, Galatians 2:14)

I was just wondering if other church leaders within the Roman Catholic faith can correct the Pope in the same way or not?  I suspect 'No' but have no assurance of my suspicion.

Under Catholic dogma can someone rebuke the Pope like Paul rebuked Peter?

This question, and the evidence of the Galatians passage, was hotly contested by mediaeval  theologians and canonists, especially during the Western Schism (when there were up to three simultaneous papal claimants). It certainly seems to show that dissent is possible, and that an individual Pope might not always practice what he preaches.
Beyond ordinary criticism of a particular Pope, the passage was read in the context of an ongoing debate about papal fallibility and power. A rebuke might imply the ability to censure or even remove a Pope. It was generally accepted that there was no regular authority which could judge the Pope - any such tribunal would be ipso facto superior to him if it could command his obedience. Some believed that a general council could do it in an emergency, as a special exception; the council might possess some kind of legitimacy as a representative assembly of the church, even if it was not convened by the Pope himself. The college of cardinals was another possibility, for the same reason, and because of its direct institutional association with the Holy See.
The scope of this emergency power was probably imagined as being limited to two cases:

Heresy
Manifest grave crimes (including acts destructive of the constitution of the Church, the classic hypothetical being a Pope who tried to depose all bishops in order to cut off the apostolic succession)

For the first, the point is that heretics are automatically excommunicated, and also forfeit any church office they might have held. The influential canon lawyer Huguccio of Pisa argued that cases of papal heresy should be treated differently, depending on whether the Pope has fallen into an old heresy (already anathematized by a general council, etc.) or a new one (in which case the Pope could not be automatically removed). The other case distinguishes manifest crimes from clandestine ones. Legally, the idea is that if the crime is public knowledge, then the question of a trial does not arise, obviating the need for a Pope to be judged by another authority at all. In such cases, there may be some "declaratory" action by the college of cardinals (say) which amounts to recognizing that the Pope has forfeited his office, rather than them actually ordering his removal.
Contemporary canon law does not allow a general council to be constituted except by papal authority (CIC 338 §1), and does not give any express power to anyone to declare that a Pope has forfeited the papacy. It has recently been demonstrated that a Pope can resign of his own accord. Automatic excommunication for heresy is still applicable to the Pope, according to some commentators - although this is very much a hypothetical. The argument is that although the Pope is the supreme legislator of the Church, and the final interpreter of its law - therefore potentially able to exempt himself from the juridical consequences of heresy - he only has authority to legislate or interpret according to divine law. God's law (in this interpretation) does not permit a heretic to be in charge of the Church.
The Galatians case touches the "heresy" idea. Early commentators questioned the extent to which the disagreement here might be counted as heresy, and its relation to the Petrine office. It was agreed that the Pope did not teach with his supreme authority in all circumstances, and in particular, he could have legitimate scholarly or theological disagreements without any question of heresy arising for either party. (Good news for the theologians!) This is obviously an attractive option in reading the interaction between Peter and Paul, because neither of them are doing wrong. Jerome even suggested that the disagreement might have been staged (Commentarium in Epistolam Beati Pauli ad Galatas; in Migne's Patrologia Latina vol. 26). In any case, this kind of rebuke does not necessarily amount to bringing down the full force of anathema on an errant Pope.
For the Church today, the relevant law is Canon 212 of the Code of Canon Law:

Can. 212 §1. Conscious of their own responsibility, the Christian faithful are bound to follow with Christian obedience those things which the sacred pastors, inasmuch as they represent Christ, declare as teachers of the faith or establish as rulers of the Church.
§2. The Christian faithful are free to make known to the pastors of the Church their needs, especially spiritual ones, and their desires.
§3. According to the knowledge, competence, and prestige which they possess, they have the right and even at times the duty to manifest to the sacred pastors their opinion on matters which pertain to the good of the Church and to make their opinion known to the rest of the Christian faithful, without prejudice to the integrity of faith and morals, with reverence toward their pastors, and attentive to common advantage and the dignity of persons.

This should obviously be read in combination with an understanding of what the Church teaches about its own Magisterium, including the differentiated roles of the Pope, the bishops, etc. See especially canons 747-755 on the obligation to respect the authentic doctrine that the Church expounds. But the basic tenor is that people are bound to follow the teaching of the Church and respect its discipline, but can still make their opinions known if they are doing it in an orderly way. This does not amount to license to contradict the established doctrine of the Church. Publicly denouncing the Pope on the steps of St Peter's with a megaphone - no. Polite conversation, writing scholarly articles, and so on - yes.
As Paul Clayton mentions in comments below, the Pope also has a regular confessor, who has a specific duty in the examination of his conscience. This creates a situation where he could be rebuked for sinful behaviour, though obviously in private. His advisors, especially the cardinals, could also raise concerns in a discreet way (as opposed to calling him out in public).

References and further reading
The Church, the Councils and Reform: The Legacy of the Fifteenth Century. Gerald Christianson, Thomas M. Izbicki, and Christopher M. Bellitto (eds.). Catholic University of America Press, 2008.
Fallibility instead of infallibility? A brief history of the interpretation of Galatians 2:11-14. Karlfried Froehlich. In: Teaching Authority and Infallibility of the Church, ed. Paul C. Empie, T. Austin Murphy, and Joseph A. Burgess. Augsburg Fortress, 1980.
The Bible in Medieval Tradition: The Letter to the Galatians. Ian Christopher Levy. Wm. Eerdmans, 2011.
St Paul's Epistle to the Galatians. J. B. Lightfoot. Warren F. Draper, 1870.
Foundations of the Conciliar Theory. Brian Tierney. Cambridge University Press, 1995.
Origins of Papal Infallibility 1150-1350. Brian Tierney. Brill, 1972.


How can a non-physical God create a physical universe? I was just curious on how God could create a universe of physical matter when God is a non-physical being to begin with. How can a non-physical being create physical matter? Thanks if anyone can answer this question ;)

Your question is a creative one and as humans we tend to think in human terms.

In our day however we have a greater capacity of understanding how such things could even be possible.

I'm going to use the example of computer games as what might be a humanly relatable comparison. I'm usually not one to use elaborate world-oriented illustrations, but this time I will.

Think of a programmer, and a computer. Perhaps even a game, with a character in it.

The environment is completely virtual, and yet its perfectly possible for it to reflect any system or idea the programmer may wish to present. On a very simple level we can emulate reality through  a game, or even invent our different realities. We can interact with it through a window (monitor or television), and yet even that requires a high level of abstraction and visualization.

If humans can do this with a machine, we could even present the idea that we are ourselves in an environment created by a master programmer, complete with laws of cause and effect, intelligent characters locked into the game, and even characters separate from it, controlled from the outside. Our human characters have the capacity to experience the world in pre-programmed ways through our senses (and really, our senses are just translators for environmental events, which are little more than information).

This idea is not too far fetched:

Psalm 139:16

  Your eyes saw my unformed body; all the days ordained for me were
  written in your book before one of them came to be.

Some believe this could even loosely refer to matters of DNA, but it implies a design by a higher authority on both events and physical matters.

Luke 10:20

  However, do not rejoice that the spirits submit to you, but rejoice
  that your names are written in heaven."

Luke 12:7

  Indeed, the very hairs of your head are all numbered. Don't be afraid;
  you are worth more than many sparrows.

You can look through a technological window (the television or monitor) and see the character's gaming world just how it should be perceived. We could speculate that the spiritual realm (where God himself resides) can see us the same way, and even interact with it, the same as many might interact in an online game. Thus we have stories of angels materializing, and things such as miracles (and even sorceries)...created by higher beings who understand the programming, and even have the capacity to exploit it for better or worse.

Creation is in a way a giant program of cause and effect, the programming of which we ourselves know we can alter. Thus even in the bible, you have the stories of the nephilim: Genesis 6:4 where wicked angels corrupted God's creation to an extreme.

So from even our human understanding shows that its perfectly possible to create one realm from another realm as in my gaming example.

Origin of physical matter...

In my personal opinion its easier to picture the creation of a physical realm from a spiritual realm, than a spiritual realm from a physical one.

We know that God resides in a source of light so powerful it can't be approached:
1 Timothy 6:16

  who alone is immortal and who lives in unapproachable light, whom no
  one has seen or can see. To him be honor and might forever. Amen.

By way of comparison today, we know that when matter decays it takes the form of electromagnetic radiation, and we know light is a visible spectrum of electromagnetic radiation. So we know that the source of matter is energy (we could loosely refer to as "light"), and we know that God is the source of energy itself, and is often associated with light.

Even modern day "big bang" theory has energy as the dominant player, creating the rest of the physical world and reality we know. So its not hard to put an intelligent director (and source) behind that energy that defines our universe.

And yet our universe we can see is only a small part of the bigger picture:

  26:14 -  Behold, these are but the outskirts of his ways, and how
  small a whisper do we hear of him! But the thunder of his power who
  can understand?”


How many New Testament manuscripts do we really have? How does the Bible size up with other books from the ancient world?

Is it really true that the New and Old Testament is the book from the ancient world that has the largest amounmt of extant manuscripts?

Into how many ancient languages has the Bible been translated?

And finally, if we did not have all the manuscript evidence some believe we could still get the gist of the New Testament from early church correspondence. If this is true how does this improve or maintain the general case for an historically accurate New Testament?

Old Testament

The Dead Sea Scrolls currently housed in the Israeli Dead Sea Scroll museum and available online, is a collection of 972 manuscripts from the period 408 - 308 BC.  Seeing as the Old Testament itself consists of books written between 1000 - 600 BC and the late 450s, this is a pretty good collection. There are others, but this is the most well-known and complete collection.

New Testament

According to the site Christian Apologetics Research Ministry, there are currently 5,686 known fragments of New Testament manuscripts.  That site also shows how much closer to the date of composition these manuscripts are than many other contemporary texts. The earliest of these (p52) dates to sometime between 96 and 125 AD.  Seeing that some people date John to the 90s (others to the 60s), the gap is extremely small indeed.

More interestingly, a good apparatus (like this) can actually show you every variation on the texts, and you will see they are few and far in between. This question shows how an apparatus works.

Other Questions

Finally, you said that we could probably piece together the gist of the bible from early church correspondance.  This is completely accurate - as many of the early church fathers were already quoting New Testament Scripture by 100 AD  (Martyrdom of Polycarp? 1 Clement? the Didache!)  Indeed, Contra Celsius, in 150 is sometimes used to verify reconstructions.
Even the existence of extra-biblical works, both pro and con lend credence to the theory that at least "something" was already going on about Jesus pretty shortly after the events of the New Testament.

More importantly, however, is the fact that much of the New Testament actually is correspondance between churches.  Epistles are just that - letters (often from Paul) to churches that predate the Gospels and give a "second witness" to the Good News.


Are there any Protestant denominations or churches that reject penal substitution? I come from a background in Protestant/Evangelical churches. The trademark salvation message in those churches is that Christ bore the wrath of God for your sins to satisfy his justice that we have offended by our sin; it's basically a teaching of the penal substitution theory woven into a call to repentance. John Piper also seems to declare the theory as gospel in his books.

Since becoming a catechumen in the Eastern Orthodox church I have rejected this theory as an acceptable way to explain salvation. It is my opinion of most Protestant/Evangelical churches that they teach the theory as fact (perhaps less so in for high church Protestants).

Are there any Protestant denominations (or individual churches) that explicitly reject the penal substitution theory, and more generally the idea that Christ's death was needed to "pay" or satisfy God the Father?

For reference, the teaching of the Eastern Orthodox church sometimes uses the ransom theory of atonement to explain Christ's death being a ransom paid to death. However, that is just one teaching that can help a Christian who is meditating on the meaning of His death.

Not all Anglicans have held to Penal Substitution Theory.  For example, the nineteenth to early 20th century Anglican bishop Charles Ellicott did not.  See his commentary on Galatians 3, for example.  The Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion does not express Penal Substitutionary Atonement.  So, if you look at some of the continuing Anglican denominations you may find a church that is Protestant but does not hold to Penal Substitution Theory. Some of those continuing denominations are "Anglo-Catholic", so I'm not sure they are actually Protestant.

I am in a denomination called the Federation of Reformed Churches.  I do not hold to Penal Substitution Theory.  I've expressed this in a paper sent to my fellow Presbyters.  None of them attempted to bring any charge against me.  So, there are Reformed Presbyters who can tell the difference between theory and scriptural data and have some appreciation of the history of the doctrine of Christ as our propitiatory sacrifice.

It is interesting to note that Calvin did not write his view on penal substitution theory into either the Geneva Confession of 1536 or the later French Confession.  (There is some question as to whether Calvin wrote those documents or just influenced them.)  Calvin seems to have been more careful of such things than the Lutherans and many of the other Reformed, such as Ursinus.

There have been Reformed believers and are at least some now who do not hold to Penal Substitution Theory. Furthermore, it is not hard to find Arminian teachers who do hold to it.  So I do not think that holding to or not holding to the theory has any direct relationship to one's doctrine of free will.


Could Satan have created the "World"? According to Genesis 1:31, all that God created was good. However, not only in the human realm, but also in nature, there is much that seems violent and evil. Darwin, for example, could not conceive of a good God creating an animal such as the Ichneumon Wasp, or the Cuckoo. Could it be that the world, at least in parts, is a creation of the devil?
If this is a heresy, what is it called?

A most definite no.

Satan does not have the power to create; only God does. Theologians for centuries have been using the phrase ex nihilo to describe God's creative activities. That saying is fine as far as it goes, but I suggest that a better expression than "God created all things out of nothing" is

  God created all things out of the fullness of his being.

If God is who the Bible says he is, then he is eternal, having no beginning and no end. He is the Alpha and Omega, the first and the last. In other words there never was (nor will there ever be) a "time" when God did not exist.
For all eternity, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit enjoyed the perfect communion of love, as only the Triune God could.

Time, on the other hand, is a creation of God. Christians and non-Christians alike have difficulty conceiving of a "time" when all there was, was God, but according to the Judeo-Christian Scriptures, time and eternity did not coexist until God created time and space by fiat, which we read about in Genesis, Chapters 1 and 2. Much later in God's revelation, he made clear that after Adam's fall, God would one day make all things new, and that in newness they would remain forever, as they originally were intended.

Jesus had an interesting "take" on his relation to eternity. In a famous confrontation with his critics, Jesus said,

  Before Abraham was born, I am (John 8:58).

Whether Jesus was claiming here to be the Great I AM of Exodus 3:14 is perhaps immaterial in the context of this question. What is clear is that Jesus was claiming to have been alive eternally, and no one but God is eternal. Ergo, Jesus was claiming divinity.

As for the devil (aka Satan, aka Beelzebub, aka Mephistopheles), even he had a beginning and at one time was perhaps the epitome of all angelic beings; that is, until he was filled with pride and determined to be "like" God Most High, whereupon God cast him out of heaven. One day God will consign him to the place prepared for him and those who joined him in their rebellion against God.

God's image bearers, too, can live eternally, according to Jesus' words in John Chapter 3 and elsewhere, but each image bearer began his or her life in time and space. Eternal life, however, is a gift of God, just as the gift of salvation is purely a gift of God's grace and not of works (Ephesians 2:8-9).

Satan does, however, have the temporary ability to kill, steal, and destroy what God has created, just as the sheep stealer enters the sheepfold belonging to someone else and helps himself (see the Gospel of John, Chapter 10). Satan's days are numbered however. His attempts to destroy what God is building on earth, the quintessence of which is his holy catholic (i.e., universal) church  comprised of all true Christians, will one day come to an end, when God wages the ultimate battle in which Satan will be defeated forever.

In conclusion, I've thought for a long time about why God in Genesis began his creative work on the planet we call Earth when it was "without form and void [, with] darkness covering the face of the deep." One possibility is that Satan and his minions, once they were excommunicated from heaven forever, deliberately despoiled what God had created, and so God, who makes all things new (and not all new things) re-created what Satan had destroyed. This re-creation presages,  perhaps, what God will do when evil is defeated once and for all, since the promise in Revelation is that he will destroy the corrupted heavens and earth and create a new heavens and a new earth in which only righteousness dwells.


Does the Chicago Statement meaningfully support a doctrine of Biblical inerrancy? The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy makes the statements:

  WE AFFIRM  that inspiration, though not conferring omniscience,
  guaranteed true and trustworthy utterance on all matters of which the
  Biblical authors were moved to speak and write (Article IX).

  WE AFFIRM  that inspiration, strictly speaking, applies only to the
  autographic text of Scripture, which in the providence of God can be ascertained from available manuscripts with great accuracy (Article X).

  We further affirm that copies and translations of Scripture are the
  Word of God to the extent that they faithfully represent the original
  (ibid.).

Thus, the Chicago Statement draws a distinction between the "autographic text of Scripture", which is inerrant; and  "copies or translations of Scripture", which may not be.

It would seem, therefore, that it has little practical bearing on everyday Bible-readers, since they are reading "copies and translations" and not actually the "autographic text of Scripture".  It states that believers can rely on these copies and translations to the extent that they "faithfully represent the original", but how does one ascertain that what they are reading does, in fact, "faithfully represent the original", without appeal to some extra-Scriptural authority such as a Church, tradition, or other human source (viz. Article I).

How do prominent supporters of the Chicago Statement (e.g. Evangelical Theological Society) address this criticism?

The standard answer to the questions you've raised—determining text of the original autographs from the copies that we have, and of translating the texts—is that they issues should be addressed with a commonsense approach to the problems, rather than by an appeal to a specific authority, and certainly not to a religious authority.

So for instance, the task of textual criticism can be carried out just as effectively by a non-believer, because the arguments invoked in that field are not religious in nature: they depend on assumptions about what kind of mistakes are likely to occur when copying a text (any text) by hand, and how those mistakes are likely to be corrected by later copyists.

By the same token, translations can be evaluated from a strictly secular perspective—as of course a translation of any book would be.

The extent to which “everyday Bible-readers” engage with these issues will of course depend on the person. For evangelical scholarship, the key point is that in principle the decisions made are accessible to anyone's scrutiny. A person who was concerned about different translations could simply read several translations, to see how important the differences are. Textual criticism would be harder to get into, but a good study Bible has comprehensible footnotes about those things.

Perhaps the most succinct summary of the state of affairs comes from Mark Noll's book The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind, where he comments that evangelicals, or at least fundamentalists, have basically accepted a scientific approach to the Bible. They're willing to collect the individual facts and synthesize them for themselves—or to trust experts to do that work for them. I believe he was speaking specifically to problems of theology, but the comment is no less applicable to issues of translation and textual criticism.


What is the history behind Angelus prayer? In Roman Catholicism the faithfuls are supposed to say Angelus prayer thrice a day and at designated time of the day. When and how saying of Angelus came into being and what is the history behind it?

V.-Leader says

R.-All say

  V. The Angel of the Lord brought the message to Mary,

  R. And she conceived from the Holy Spirit.

  V. Hail, Mary, full of grace, the Lord is with you. Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb, Jesus.

  R. Holy Mary, Mother of God, pray for us sinners now and at the hour of our death. Amen.

  V. See the servant of the Lord;

  R. Do to me according to your Word.

  V. Hail, Mary, full of grace, the Lord is with you. Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb, Jesus.

  R. Holy Mary, Mother of God, pray for us sinners now and at the hour of our death. Amen.

  V. And the Word was made flesh,

  R. And lived among us.

  V. Hail, Mary, full of grace, the Lord is with you. Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb, Jesus.

  R. Holy Mary, Mother of God, pray for us sinners now and at the hour of our death. Amen.

  V. Pray for us, holy Mother of God.

  R. So that we will be made worthy of the promises of Christ.
  Let us pray: Lord, through the angel's message we have come to know that Christ your Son became human. We pray to You, pour Your grace into our hearts so that by His cross and suffering we will be brought to the glory of His rising from the dead, through Jesus Christ, our Lord.

  R.Amen.

Another Revision is as:
[edit]

  V. The angel of the Lord declared unto Mary,

  R. And she was conceived by the Holy Spirit.

  V. Hail Mary, full of grace, the Lord is with thee. Blessed art thou amongst women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb, Jesus.

  R. Holy Mary, Mother of God, pray for us sinners, now and at the hour of our death. Amen.

  V. Behold the handmaid of the Lord.

  R. Be it done unto me according to thy Word.

  V. Hail Mary, full of grace, the Lord is with thee. Blessed art thou amongst women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb, Jesus.

  R. Holy Mary, Mother of God, pray for us sinners, now and at the hour of our death. Amen.

  V. And the Word was made flesh.

  R. And dwelt amongst us.

  V. Hail Mary, full of grace, the Lord is with thee. Blessed art thou amongst women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb, Jesus.

  R. Holy Mary, Mother of God, pray for us sinners, now and at the hour of our death. Amen.

  V. Pray for us, O Holy Mother of God.

  R. That we may be made worthy of the promises of Christ.

  V. Let us pray: Pour forth, we beseech thee, O Lord, your grace into our hearts, that we to whom the incarnation of Christ Thy Son was made known by the message of an angel, may by His Passion and Cross be brought to the glory of His resurrection; through the same Christ our Lord.

  R. Amen.

The prayer is a simple recitation of the Biblical Tradition:

Luke 1:28, 35, 42 (and end of Jeremiah 37:3)

Luke 1:38

repeat Luke 1:42 & end of Jeremiah 37:3

then John 1:14

repeat Luke 1:42 & end of Jeremiah 37:3

Jeremiah 37:3 & Hebrews 13:18-19 & other places asking "Pray for us".

Hebrews 13:9-11

Almost any source on the subject introduces with the Catholic Encyclopedia quote "The history of the Angelus is by no means easy to trace with confidence, and it is well to distinguish in this matter between what is certain and what is in some measure conjectural."

The first record of such a prayer in writing comes from an Italian Franciscan monk Sinigardi di Arezzo (died 1282). The Angelus is used as the introduction to the Hail Marys in an 11th-century monastic custom of reciting three Hail Marys during the evening bell.


What is meant by "Get behind me Satan"? Considering
Matthew 16:23:

Jesus turned and said to Peter, "Get behind me, Satan! You are a stumbling block to me; you do not have in mind the things of God, but the things of men."

Why did Jesus choose the "Get behind me Satan" phrase here?  Is there context for this elsewhere in the gospels or in the Bible?

In context:

  21 From that time forth began Jesus to shew unto his disciples, how
  that he must go unto Jerusalem, and suffer many things of the elders
  and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised again the
  third day. 22 Then Peter took him, and began to rebuke him, saying, Be
  it far from thee, Lord: this shall not be unto thee. 23 But he turned,
  and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence
  unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those
  that be of men.

The context here is that Peter was suggesting that Jesus take a course of action other than the one that He was predestined to fulfill.  Jesus knew His destiny, and he knew the will of the Father.  What Peter was suggesting was that Jesus go against the will of the Father.

As such, Peter's words were the words of an adversary of God.  Not consciously, I'm sure.  I have no doubt that Peter sincerely didn't understand what he was suggesting - He just wanted Christ to live.  He loved Jesus, and didn't want to see Him die.  Nonetheless, his suggestion was in direct opposition to the will of God.  The word translated Satan here is usually applied to Satan as we think of him, but it literally simply means "adversary".

From Barnes' Notes on the Bible:

  Get thee behind me, Satan - The word "Satan" literally means "an
  adversary," or one who opposes us in the accomplishment of our
  designs.

  It is applied to the devil commonly, as the opposer or adversary of
  man; but there is no evidence that the Lord Jesus meant to apply this
  term to Peter, as signifying that he was Satan or the devil, or that
  he used the term in anger. He may have used it in the general sense
  which the word bore as an adversary or opposer; and the meaning may
  be, that such sentiments as Peter expressed then were opposed to him
  and his plans. His interference was improper. His views and feelings
  stood in the way of the accomplishment of the Saviour's designs. There
  was, undoubtedly, a rebuke in this language, for the conduct of Peter
  was improper; but the idea which is commonly attached to it, and
  which, perhaps, our translation conveys, implies a more severe and
  harsh rebuke than the Saviour intended, and than the language which he
  used would express.

This is also the understanding in Clarke's Commentary on the Bible:

  Get thee behind me, Satan - Υπαγε οπισω μου σατανα. Get behind me,
  thou adversary. This is the proper translation of the Hebrew word שטן
  Satan, from which the Greek word is taken. Our blessed Lord certainly
  never designed that men should believe he called Peter, Devil, because
  he, through erring affection, had wished him to avoid that death which
  he predicted to himself. This translation, which is literal, takes
  away that harshness which before appeared in our Lord's words.


What general theological framework(s) are represented in the Life Application Study Bible commentary? I was recently shown an excerpt of commentary from the NIV edition of the Life Application Study Bible from Tyndale/Zondervan. Frankly I was rather surprised by how blatant the eisegesis was in that specific case. Since I don't have a full copy of it to review key passages I can't tell whether this is a persistent issue or just one poorly thought out bit that slipped through.
It's remarkably hard to find reviews of Study Bibles online that delve into what kind of theological background the commentary is from. Some of them are obvious¹ but most of them seem to specialize in being as "middle of the road" as possible. It's easy to find descriptions of how many maps and illustrations and reader aids a given work includes and most tout "a broad range of scholarship", but a lot harder to find anything specific about the backgrounds of the actual commentators.
With that in mind I'm looking for a general break down of what went into the writing and editing of this particular work:

Who were the major contributors and from what theological traditions do they hail?
Were there any explicit boundaries set by the project as for as what hermeneutical approaches and/or theological traditions would be represented in what light?
Are there strong theological biases² evident at any point in the commentary? Specifically is are there consistent trends towards explanations that endorse specific views on key issues such as:

Arminian vs. Calvinist views on soteriology.
Complementarian vs. Egalitarian views of gender roles.
Premillennial, Postmillennial, or Amillennial views on eschatology.
Dispensational vs. Covenantal views on the nature of the church through history.
Credobaptist vs. Pedobaptist views on baptism.
Cessationist vs. Continuationist views of apostolic gifts?

Are there any notable trends in which denominations or traditions have embraced the use of or disapproved of the content of this work?

Note this same commentary content seems to have been published alongside a number of different English translations. As far as I can tell it isn't important to this question that the NIV edition is used for review.
¹ For example it's no mystery what theological framework the notes in the MacArthur Study Bible will represent. One can easily lookup the general editor's views on a variety of subjects and understand how he'll be evaluating passages.
² I don't use "bias" in a negative sense here, in fact I think bias is both impossible to avoid and even necessary, but I like to understand specifically what presuppositions are involved all the time.

Question: What general theological framework(s) are represented in the Life Application Study Bible commentary?
KB: The Life Application Study Bible NIV (LASB) is the version I have used for about 16 years now so I’m very familiar with it. I use both the Kindle version and the leather-bound version of the LASB. You mention the LASB 'commentary' by which I take it you mean the application notes and other material outside of the Bible itself.
Here is how the NIV Bible describes its theological framework:
From the Preface to the LASB (2nd Edition):

“The complete NIV Bible was first published in 1978. It was a
completely new translation made by over a hundred scholars working
directly from the best available Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek texts.
The translators came from the United States, Great Britain, Canada,
Australia and New Zealand, giving the translation an international
scope. They were from many denominations and churches — including
Anglican, Assemblies of God, Baptist, Brethren, Christian Reformed,
Church of Christ, Evangelical Covenant, Evangelical Free, Lutheran,
Mennonite, Methodist, Nazarene, Presbyterian, Wesleyan and others.
This breadth of denominational and theological perspective helped to safeguard the translation from sectarian bias...”
[KB: emphasis added]

The publisher makes this mention of contributors specifically to the life application study notes:

Tyndale House Publishers gratefully acknowledges the role of Youth for Christ/USA in preparing the Life Application Notes and Bible Helps.

KB: The full list of contributors is about 10 pages long so I won't reproduce it. There are many types of notes and ‘commentary’outside of the actual Bible itself in the LASB. Some of them may have a point of view while others are strictly textual or historical in nature. I have read much of the extra material in the LASB and I have not found a particular bias or personal point of view.
You had many in-depth questions that are far beyond the scope of this answer so I won't be able to help with those.
If you want more in-depth information, I recommend you go to the NIV web site or take a look at this page: The History of the NIV Translation.


Does the word 'testament' in the titles OT and NT imply the death of the testator in both covenants? A will or testament is a legal declaration by which a person, the testator, names one or more persons to manage his estate and provides for the transfer of his property at death. This property an inheritance.

What I am wondering is the origin of the word Old Testament, or New Testament.  Does 'testament' imply the death of Life in order that we receive an inheritance?  Is the Old Testament, a 'Testament' or just a Covenant?  Was the Old Covenant truly a Testament, or is only the New Covenant a Testament?  If the Old Covenant was also a Testament which would not be ratified until the testator died, in what sense is the Old Covenant a testament before the actual death of Christ?

Does the word testament in the titles 'Old Testament' and 'New Testament' imply the death of the testator in both covenants and thus provide a biblical basis for calling the two divisions of the Bible testaments, rather then just covenants?

It has more to do with the translators and languages than the bible itself. The word Testament is derived from Latin testamentum-a will. I understand you confuse it with the modern meaning of the word, but Blue Letter Bible tries to explain it as follows:

  The word "testament" is an old English word that means, "covenant." The Latin term testamentum was used to translate the Greek and Hebrews words for covenant. The English word was derived from the Latin. Hence the Old and New Covenants became the Old and New Testaments.src

Old and New Testaments just means old and new covenant. That is the covenants before and after Jesus Christ. That is here both Testament and covenant have the same meaning. The sourced cited above goes on to even say:

  It is unfortunate that the English word "testament" is used to describe the Old and New Covenants that God has made with His people.

I also don't understand how the 'Old Testament' implies the death of testator? God did not die in the Old Testament.

Note: The word covenant came into usage only in Middle English (12th - 15th century) borrowed from Old French, from present participle of convenir, meaning to agree; src So, we can't blame the translators for not using the proper word.


How did the Crusades affect the King's power? How did the Crusades affect the King's power/authority, during and after the Crusades?

They helped to break down feudalism by increasing the authority of kings.

Some nobles died in battle without leaving an heir. Their lands passed to the king.
Some nobles sold their land in an effort to raise money to pay the special tax levied by the king to offset the cost of the crusades.
Some nobles gave their serfs a chance to buy their freedom in an effort to raise money they needed to buy armor and weapons
Some young men who could buy their way out of feudal obligation joined the crusades. Many died. That reduced the work force. If a farm failed, it passed to the king.


Did St. Thomas come to India? Did St. Thomas the apostle come to India? Most of the Indian people believe that he came to south India, and spread the good news even before the Roman Catholic Church is formed. However, the church doesn't accept this teaching. What is the truth?

Yes Saint Thomas had been to India and there are enough of evidences which seems to substantiate those claims. There are christian communities in South Western India (Kerala State) which trace back their ancestry to conversions that happened during that time.A substantial part of the Christian community in that Indian state has Syrian Christian lineage. It is said that they had come over to India from Syria and Iraq during the early part of Islamic persecution. Some claims are also made about Christians coming there in the First Century along with the Traders along the Spice route.
The RC church does not have much history in this part, but grew rapidly among the populace following the Portugese conquest of south India. Demographically a majority of RC population in India, can trace back their lineage to Hindu communities in South India unlike the Syrian Christians who are predominantly of the Orthodox and Marthoma church folds.


Do Matthew and John have a discrepancy with regards to Jesus before Pilate? Matthew 27:11-12 (Mark has a very similar account in Mark 15:1-11)

  11 Meanwhile Jesus stood before the governor, and the governor asked him, “Are you the king of the Jews?”
  “You have said so,” Jesus replied.
  12 When he was accused by the chief priests and the elders, he gave no answer. 13 Then Pilate asked him, “Don’t you hear the testimony they are bringing against you?” 14 But Jesus made no reply, not even to a single charge—to the great amazement of the governor.

John 18:33-37

  33 Pilate then went back inside the palace, summoned Jesus and asked him, “Are you the king of the Jews?”
  34 “Is that your own idea,” Jesus asked, “or did others talk to you about me?”
  35 “Am I a Jew?” Pilate replied. “Your own people and chief priests handed you over to me. What is it you have done?”
  36 Jesus said, “My kingdom is not of this world. If it were, my servants would fight to prevent my arrest by the Jewish leaders. But now my kingdom is from another place.”
  37 “You are a king, then!” said Pilate.
  Jesus answered, “You say that I am a king. In fact, the reason I was born and came into the world is to testify to the truth. Everyone on the side of truth listens to me.”

How do we reconcile these texts with one another, then, seeing that Matthew essentially states that Jesus was silent while John reports Jesus holding a conversation with Pilate?

John's account of Pilate's questioning of Jesus is more detailed: in Matthew it's given only four verses, 27:11-14, but in John it's given nine verses, 18:33-38, 19:9-11.

In both gospels Jesus responds to Pilate's question of whether Jesus is the king of the Jews: Matthew 27:11 and John 18:34-37.

And in both gospels Jesus is later silent when Pilate questions him at the insistence of the Jewish leaders: Matthew 27:12 and John 19:7-9.

John 18:28 explains that Pilate's questioning took place without the Jewish leaders being present, because they refused to enter the governor's headquarters so that they wouldn't be defiled. Matthew collapses the whole of John 18:28-19:11 into four verses which of course means it is less detailed. But in both gospels Jesus' two kinds of responses, accepting the title of king of the Jews and not deeming the Jewish leader's accusations worthy of a reply, are presented.


Why was the prodigal son spoken harshly of by his elder brother? In the parable of the Prodigal Son, Jesus narrates : "Not long after that, the younger son got together all he had, set off for a distant country and there squandered his wealth in wild living" (Lk 15:13)

But,  when the prodigal son returns home to a warm welcome, his elder brother comments to his father :".. when this son of yours who has squandered your property with prostitutes comes home, you kill the fattened calf for him!".

One is amused by the remarks of the elder son with reference to the off-home stay of his younger brother, which in fact, was not the narrative given by the story-teller (Jesus). My question is: was Jesus intending to bring out the degeneration of relations over property and wealth  by 'making' the elder son speak harshly of the younger one ? Are there some commentaries available on this subject ?

The brother's harsh remark betrayed that he had the spirit of a hireling, rather than that of a son. His service for the father was not one motivated by love, but rather by the promise of reward. Even though he had not gone into great excesses like the younger brother, his failure to show the same concern for his lost brother as the father did showed that he had yet to discern the love of the father for himself. "He that loveth not knoweth not God, for God is love" (1 John 4:8).

Ellen White in her commentaries in the book Christ's Object Lessons goes into great detail.

  By the elder son were represented the unrepenting Jews of Christ’s day, and also the Pharisees in every age, who look with contempt upon those whom they regard as publicans and sinners. Because they themselves have not gone to great excesses in vice, they are filled with self-righteousness. Christ met these cavilers on their own ground. Like the elder son in the parable, they had enjoyed special privileges from God. They claimed to be sons in God’s house, but they had the spirit of the hireling. They were working, not from love, but from hope of reward. In their eyes, God was an exacting taskmaster. They saw Christ inviting publicans and sinners to receive freely the gift of His grace—the gift which the rabbis hoped to secure only by toil and penance—and they were offended. The prodigal’s return, which filled the Father’s heart with joy, only stirred them to jealousy.
  In the parable the father’s remonstrance with the elder son was Heaven’s tender appeal to the Pharisees. “All that I have is thine”—not as wages, but as a gift. Like the prodigal, you can receive it only as the unmerited bestowal of the Father’s love.

-

  It is true that you claim to be a child of God; but if this claim be true, it is “thy brother” that was “dead, and is alive again; and was lost, and is found.” He is bound to you by the closest ties; for God recognizes him as a son. Deny your relationship to him, and you show that you are but a hireling in the household, not a child in the family of God.
  Though you will not join in the greeting to the lost, the joy will go on, the restored one will have his place by the Father’s side and in the Father’s work. He that is forgiven much, the same loves much. But you will be in the darkness without. For “he that loveth not knoweth not God; for God is love.” 1 John 4:8.


Would the story of Jesus hold more significance if he were a man like us? I feel that whatever Jesus did, if it is because He is special (the son of God in a way that I am not - because aren't we all God's children?) then it holds little relevance to my life - because it is something I can not strive for or live by because I am not special.

However, if He was a man not unlike me, and He knew the way to live, and led by example, so that I can emulate Him, and strive for His loving approach to everything He faced, uncompromisingly, and with the moral strength and conviction to carry out the orders of the heart, then His story holds the utmost relevance to my life, as it can give me inspiration, and direction, to know that if He was like me, I can also be like Him.

The beautiful thing about Jesus is that he was a man, not unlike ourselves. Christians believe that Jesus was fully, 100%, human just like you or I. He walked, talked, had friends, slept, ate fish, wept, bled, hungered, was tempted, and basically lived through all the kinds of things you and I do.

In fact this belief is one of the basic tests of orthodox belief among Christians. Do you believe that Jesus was a real flesh and blood man?

  1 John 4:2 (ESV)
  By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God,

He even had to grow up physically and mentally.

  Luke 2:52 (ESV)
  Jesus increased in wisdom and in stature and in favor with God and man.”

It is just these attributes of his being fully man that make him able to be OUR high priest.

  Hebrews 4:15 (ESV)
  For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but one who in every respect has been tempted as we are, yet without sin.

Where Jesus was different is that he had a dual nature. He was also fully God, and although he laid aside many of his rights he still did not sin. This does not negate the fact that he was a real man, but he had to not sin in order to be able to make a propitiation for us.

  Hebrews 2:17 (ESV)
  Therefore he had to be made like his brothers in every respect, so that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in the service of God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people.

If he had NOT also been God and able to keep himself perfect, he couldn't have have won our salvation for his because he wouldn't have been a perfect sacrifice.

He is still the example we follow. He is model of a life lived to the glory of the Father. Just because we will always fall short of the mark (sin) doesn't invalidate the example. In fact his success as a perfect man gives us all all the more reason to rejoice that he did not fail.

If Jesus were just a really good moral teacher who lived a pretty good life, he would be nothing of note to us. Faith in him would have no power to save.

The thing is Christianity is not about living a good life and making your best effort to emulate some good role model. Christianity is the story of man that ALWAYS fail and needed something more. We needed a savior who could do it for us because we NEVER could.


Is the Theology of the Body in line with traditional Thomistic teaching on marriage? Question: Is the Theology of the Body in line with traditional Thomistic teaching on marriage?

It seems to me that the love of husband and wife is sometimes brought to the level of adornment which only belongs to God and that sometimes marriage is put on the same level of perfection as virginity.

Note: I am not an expert on Pope John Paul II’s teaching, but I am acquainted with his theology of the body via many popular presentations (so I hope they did not an error).

No.

"Theology of the Body," originally called "Catechesis on Human Love," is based on the philosophies of phenomenology and personalism (basically humanism), contradicting Thomistic teaching on several points:

Against Summa Theologica II-II q. 151 a. 1 co., which saysChastity takes its name from the fact that reason "chastises" concupiscence […] the essence of human virtue consists in being something moderated by reason, John Paul II thought St. Thomas incorrectly classified chastity as a virtue of temperance (Petri, O.P. p. 114n118). Cf. ibid. p. 166n12, which cites ToB no. 54: John Paul II "disagrees with Aquinas's conception that purity 'consists above all in holding back the impulses of sense-desire.' See also ibid., no. 130."
Against Summa Theologica III q. 64 a. 1 co. (which pairs the sacrament of "Matrimony," "a remedy against concupiscence in the individual", "to Temperance, being ordained against concupiscence"), John Paul II thinks the remedium concupiscentiæ end of marriage is outdated. Cf. ToB no. 84 §8:Does the Apostle in 1 Corinthians see marriage only from the point of view of a "remedium concupiscentiae [remedy for concupiscence]," as one used to say in traditional theological language?
Against Summa II-II q. 152 a. 4 co. (cf. Trent sess. 24 can. 10), John Paul II thinks the state of virginity or celibacy is not superior to that of marriage (ToB no. 78):Christ’s words reported in Matthew 19:11–12 (like Paul’s words in 1 Cor 7) give us no reason for holding either the "inferiority" of marriage or the "superiority" of virginity or celibacy on the grounds that by their very nature the latter consists in abstaining from conjugal "union in the body."cf. Gustavo Daniel Corbi, “Jovinian '82: The Resurrection of a Heresy,” trans. J. S. Daly, ICTION, Buenos Aires, 1982., whose appendix analyzes ToB no. 78.

John Paul II himself even noted ToB's limitations (Memory & Identity p. 12):

  If we wish to speak rationally about good and evil, we have to return to St. Thomas Aquinas, that is, to the philosophy of being. With the phenomenological method, for example, we can study experiences of morality, religion, or simply what it is to be human, and draw from them a significant enrichment of our knowledge. Yet we must not forget that all these analyses implicitly presuppose the reality of the Absolute Being and also the reality of being human, that is, being a creature. If we do not set out from such 'realist' presuppositions, we end up in a vacuum.

cited at the end of Petri, O.P.'s talk Aquinas & the Theology of the Body; cf. his book of the same title


According to the LDS faith, if our spirits lived with God before this life, why is spiritual birth during life on earth required? I am a member of the LDS faith, and based on the belief that our spirits lived with God before this life, then why is spiritual birth ("Being Born of the Spirit") during life on earth required? Based on scripture, in Rom 8:14 brought me to this question. "For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God." Now if all mankind had previously spiritually existed with God prior to our existence on earth, then shouldn't everyone be the sons of God, regardless of whether they are led by the spirit of God or not? I bring this point up due to my faith being firm on the Bible, and the scripture in Romans 8:14 is leading me to doubt spiritual pre-existence with God.

My take on this is that when born into this world after the Fall of Man occurred, we automatically obtained a spiritual death, which requires spiritual rebirth. If this is true, then a prior spiritual life with God before our earthly existence could be valid. As a member of the LDS faith, I wanted some advice on how I should think of this, without having to read the Doctrine and Covenants (D&C) and/or The Pearl of Great Price, which came after the Bible. God's Word will not contradict itself, and in my belief in the LDS faith, scriptures among all the books (The Bible, The Book of Mormon, D&C, and Pearl of Great Price) should be in one accord and in line, not contradicting one another. If that is not the case, I need to reconsider my beliefs.

You seem to have a misunderstanding of what death is. Death is separation, not ceasing to exist. Spiritual birth is required because of spiritual death.

spiritual death- separation from God (the first source is the Fall and the second is our own disobedience)
physical death- separation of the spirit from the body

Both deaths came because of the Fall, and both are overcome through the Atonement of Jesus Christ. See also

Helaman 14:16 - the Fall brought about both kinds of death
1 Corinthians 15:20-22 - the Fall brought death, through Christ we are made alive

Romans 8:6-7 on spiritual death

For to be carnally minded is death; but to be spiritually minded is life and peace.

Being carnally minded leads to sin, or to disobey God. See also

Mosiah 3:19 - natural man is enemy to God

Being righteous means we are born of God.

1 John 2:29

  If ye know that he is righteous, ye know that every one that doeth righteousness is born of him.

On being spiritually reborn, see also

John 3:3-6 - baptism is part of spiritual rebirth
2 Corinthians 5:17 - new person in Christ
1 John 3:9 - born of God when don't commit sin

In your first paragraph, you mention lots of thoughts or beliefs that you seem unsure of, there are many scriptures that let us know that we lived with God before we were here on earth and that we are his children. Also know that the Doctrine & Covenants, Book of Mormon, and Pearl of Great Price all contain principles of the gospel that are restored truths (and so are not completely or at all in just the Bible, that's why all are considered scripture).

Pre-earth life

Moses 3:5 - God created us in heaven
Romans 11:2 - he foreknew man
Doc&Cov 138:56 - received lesson before coming to earth

Children of God

Acts 17:29 - offspring of God
Romans 8:14-17 - children of God (read the next few verses, and verse 14 is about being heirs of God)