How do Trinitarians interpret John 3:35? The Father loves the Son and has given all things into his hand.

  John 3:35 (ESV)

The Father gave the Son the following:

All authority (Matthew 28:18).
Life in Himself (John 5:26).
Authority to Judge (John 5:27).
The Name Above Every Name (Philippians 2:9).

As a Trinitarian, I do believe that God by his very nature is God in name, authority and nature. Why, then, it is recorded in the Scriptures that God gave Christ the divine nature,the divine name, and the divine authority? It seems that God Almighty made Jesus a God Almighty?

If the Son is equal to the Father (John 5:18;Philippians 2:6), what ,then, does it mean for Christ to be "given" the divine nature,the divine name, and the divine authority?

Trinitarians of different denominations are encouraged to answer:

Protestantism
Roman Catholicism
Orthodoxy

(As always a draft).

The key word that I will try to portray is a model. But first some definitions when dealing with the Trinity. It is necessary to point out the difference between the essential Trinity and the economical Trinity. The essential Trinity is a matter of the essence of the Triune God for His eternal existence; the economical Trinity is a matter of God's arrangement for His operation in His move to accomplish His eternal purpose.

The essential or the ontological Trinity refers to the essence of the Triune God for His existence. In His essence, God is one, the one unique God (Isa. 45:18b; 1 Cor. 8:6a). In the essential Trinity, the Father, the Son, and the Spirit coexist and coinhere at the same time and in the same way with no succession. There is no first, second, or third.

Essentially, God is one, but economically He is three—the Father, the Son, and the Spirit (Matt. 28:19; 2 Cor. 13:14). In God's plan, God's administrative arrangement, God's economy, the Father takes the first step, the Son takes the second step, and the Spirit takes the third step. The Father purposed (Eph. 1:4-6), the Son accomplished (vv. 7-12), and the Spirit applies what the Son accomplished according to the Father's purpose (vv. 13-14). This is a successive procedure or a succession in God's
economy to carry out His eternal purpose.

Karl Rahner, in his book, The Trinity, postulates:

  There is only one outward activity of God, exerted and
  possessed as one and the same by Father, Son, and Spirit,
  according to the peculiar way in which each of them possesses the Godhead…

  The activity which is common to all three persons and
  appropriated only to one is (as with the divine essence)
  possessed by each of the three persons in his own proper
  way. The threefold way of subsisting of this activity (considered principiative) is as intrinsic and necessary for its
  existence as it is necessary and essential for the divine
  essence to subsist as threefold.

God's eternal purpose is to work Himself into us and make us the same as His Firstborn Son. The Firstborn Son of God is the standard model for God's economy. This standard model has both divinity and humanity. Originally, He was the Only Begotten Son of God. As the Only Begotten Son of God, He was the embodiment of God, for all that is in the Godhead was embodied in Him (Col. 2:9). He was also the expression of God (Heb. 1:3). As the embodiment and expression of God, He became incarnated, bringing divinity into humanity and joining humanity to divinity. But before the incarnation, divinity had never been joined to humanity. Since the day of His incarnation, there was in this universe a wonderful Person who was both human and divine.

Your question touches on the fundamental question of why there is a biblical revelation of the economic Trinity.

With the above background, we can see the Triune God's purpose is to work Himself into us and make us the same as His Firstborn Son (Rom. 8:29). The Firstborn Son of God is the standard model for God's economy. This standard model has both divinity and humanity.

Originally, He was the Only Begotten Son of God. As the Only Begotten Son of God, He was the embodiment of God, for all that is in the Godhead was embodied in Him (Col. 2:9). He was also the expression of God (Heb. 1:3). As the embodiment and expression of God, He became incarnated, bringing divinity into humanity and joining humanity to divinity. But before the incarnation, divinity had never been joined to humanity. Since the day of His incarnation, there was in this universe a wonderful Person who was both human and divine.

As the Only Begotten Son, Christ was already in glory. That did not require glorification. However, once He was on earth in His humanity, He needed to be glorified (John 17:1, Luke 24:26). Since He was already in glory, why did He still need to be glorified? Although He was in glory as the Only Begotten Son, since He had put on humanity, the human part of His being had to be glorified, to be processed into glory. In His resurrection Christ entered into His glorification (Luke 24:26).

Without knowing Christ, in His humanity, sets before his disciples, a model of One who partakes of the Father's divine nature, then Peter would never wrote that we will be "partakers of the divine nature". (2 Pet. 1:4).

In His divinity as the only begotten Son of God, Christ had authority over all. However, in His humanity as the Son of Man to be the King of the heavenly kingdom, all authority in heaven and on earth was given to Him after His resurrection. Christ lived as One who is under authority (seen in His contact with the centurion's sick daughter - the centurion who lived under authority saw and recognize Christ as One who does also). This became a model for the church life as the kingdom of God for the believers' exercise and equipping in the divine authority—Rom. 14:17; Rev. 1:9; Acts 14:22; Matt. 18:18.

As God, before His incarnation, the Lord Jesus was the Lord already. But after His incarnation, this very God became a man. God was the Lord, but man was not. Yet the Lord became a man, and this man was crucified on the cross, buried, and resurrected from the dead. It was at this time that the man Jesus became the Lord. For God to be the Lord, there is no need of any kind of inauguration. But for a small man from a lowly town in a despised country to be made the Lord requires a real inauguration. He was not made the Lord as God. As God He was Lord already. Now this man from Nazareth was inaugurated to be the Lord of all.

Peter, preaching on the day of Pentecost, said, "Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ." Peter not only preached Christ as the Savior, but also as Lord of all. He never realized that Jesus was so great before the ascension. By the ascension he realized that the very man Jesus, whom he had been following for three and a half years, had been inaugurated to be Lord of all!

In other words, the extent to which we understand and appreciate the economy of the mystery is the extent to which we will understand, appreciate, and experience. Our experience of the economic Trinity reveals the eternal will, the intentionality of the immanent Trinity, that we can partake further and deeper of the organic dispensing that He immanently is and through which He economically flows.

The Triune God is revealed economically in the New Testament to implicitly and subjectively communicate
the axiomatic principles of His being, thereby convincing
the believers of the reality of the possibility of fellowship,
the communion of communication, within the sphere
of the mingled, organic identity of God and man, first in
the person and work of the incarnated Son and then in
the enlarged sphere of the many sons of God.
because, axiomatically, He is both organic and He exists
as an eternal dispensing (Revelation 22:1).


How does a person become a godparent in the Roman Catholic Church? Assume a young adult is close to Confirmation in the Roman Catholic church, but, while still a child, never finishes the process because the family moves away from the parish.  What would be the process for this person to become a godparent at this point in the Roman Catholic church? Would it matter if the person in question is the sibling of one of the birth parents?

According to the Catholic Church's Code of Canon Law - Canon 874 §1. states that in order for someone to be permitted to take on the function of sponsor (godparent) a person must:

  1/ be designated by the one to be baptized, by the parents or the
  person who takes their place, or in their absence by the pastor or
  minister and have the aptitude and intention of fulfilling this
  function;

  2/ have completed the sixteenth year of age, unless the diocesan
  bishop has established another age, or the pastor or minister has
  granted an exception for a just cause;

  3/ be a Catholic who has been confirmed and has already received the
  most holy sacrament of the Eucharist and who leads a life of faith in
  keeping with the function to be taken on;

  4/ not be bound by any canonical penalty legitimately imposed or
  declared;

  5/ not be the father or mother of the one to be baptized.

  §2. A baptized person who belongs to a non-Catholic ecclesial
  community is not to participate except together with a Catholic
  sponsor and then only as a witness of the baptism.

In conclusion - to address your question more specifically, it must be clearly noted that:

(A) The godparent must definitely be confirmed in the faith, both sacramentally as well as proactively.

(B) The godparent must be over the age of 16 unless given a special dispensation by the local bishop.

If this question actually pertains to you or someone you know, my advice would be to contact your local priest...he should have all the answers to questions pertaining to sacraments.


Annulment: How do Catholic courts evaluate evidence admission? (Fruit of the poisonous tree) Example: Say I'm married and I snoop into my spouse's personal belongings and discover some kind of evidence that, if it would be admissible, would prove beyond reasonable doubt (or balance of probabilities, whatever is the church's standard) that my church marriage is void or voidable (I'll say just 'invalid' to mean 'void or voidable'), that is for a church annulment and not church divorce (so no Pauline privilege, Petrine privilege, etc, although apparently these don't count as divorces or something).
To clarify (based on answers that are now deleted): I know what annulment is. In this example, the marriage is definitely invalid. The evidence points to behaviour that points to doubt on the intention or capacity to enter into marriage, and would do so beyond reasonable doubt (or balance of probabilities). The evidence is not about subsequent behaviour and doesn't have to be a document. Finally, If relevant, let's include the assumption that the the state marriage is invalid, but please state why the assumption is  relevant.
Question 1: Would the church consider the evidence inadmissible because it violates the church's equivalent of the US fourth amendment?

Eg Fruit of the poisonous tree: So here, I'd like to know if the church is more like the US or more like India or Ireland

Question 2: In general, how would one get an ecclesiastical warrant?

Would one need to get a civil warrant as well?

Or is there no such case where one obtains an ecclesiastical warrant but not a civil warrant?

I have a feeling we have to go by civil law here unless the law is unjust such as in North Korea or something. I mean, the couple's/respondent's/petitioner's living in a certain area and so their/h expectations of privacy would depend on the state laws.

But in the case a petitioner would seek a church annulment and not a state divorce and not a state annulment (is that possible? See my other question), would the church have to consult a state attorney?

I was thinking about Antarctica or Mars as in my other question, but the point is that one's expectations of privacy depend on one's location, if not one's state laws or lack thereof. Thus, I guess, the evaluation of evidence admission is based on such expectations. So, if one was in a Russian spaceship on Mars, then your privacy may be governed by Russian laws. And if you went on vacation to some ungoverned territory say another solar system or even time travelling to another time, there would be some expectations of privacy between humans. I guess this is where natural law may come in or something.

I suppose you are refering to some document or something equivalent.

The code of canon law, about "The Nature and Trustworthiness of Documents" in its numbers 1540 to 1543, but specially the last one, states that if a "document is otherwise defective, it is for the judge to decide what value, if any, must be afforded them.", but I have not found reference about how the documents should be obtained to be valid.

But is my opinion, that must be obvious and your conscience must be clearly convinced, that the information you obtained is true and you had the right to know it.


Malachi 4:6 vs Matthew 10:35: did Jesus come to reconcile parents and children or the reverse? Malachi 4:6: He [Elijah] will turn the hearts of the parents to their children, and the hearts of the children to their parents; or else I will come and strike the land with total destruction.
Matthew 10:35: For I have come to turn a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law.

Is Malachi 4:6 about someone other than Jesus Christ? Jesus taught to love your neighbor as yourself, as Malachi suggests, but why then does he say what he says in Matthew 10:35?
Matthew 10:37 goes on to say that if you do not love Jesus more than your brother, you are not worthy of Jesus, but he starts the section in verse 34 by saying "Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword."

This scripture in Malachi 4:5-6 refers to John the Baptist, not Jesus.

Luke 1:17 "And he [John the Baptist] will go on before the Lord, in the spirit and power of Elijah, to turn the hearts of the fathers to their children and the disobedient to the wisdom of the righteous–to make ready a people prepared for the Lord."

Matthew 11:14 "And if you are willing to accept what I [Jesus] say, he [John the Baptist] is Elijah, the one the prophets said would come."


How do those who believe that Jesus is a created being understand the verses which say everything that was created was created by him? There are some people who claim that Jesus is a created being, but this claim is nowhere confirmed, rather the Bible says:

Everything became through the Word, and without the Word did not
become one that has become. (John 1:3)
From him and through him and for him are all things; to him be the
glory for ever and ever. Amen. (Romans 11:36)
Colossians 1:15-16 (NIV): The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him.

I mean, that's pretty obvious.
So if the Bible says that everything was created through him, how is it possible that he is a created being? Did he create himself?

Warning: These are not my own beliefs, but I also don’t believe in straw-manning so this is only my best attempt to describe in their strongest form, what I might believe if were an Arian.

I think the argument could be made that Arianism and semi-Arianism try to grapple with just these texts. Taking their cue from Colossians 1:15, Arians and semi-Arians both deny Christ is homoousios with the Father - they reject the idea that he is the exact same, un-created substance and instead argue he is the uniquely first among created things. In the Profession of Faith of Arius Arians confess this about Jesus:

  He who has begotten the only-begotten Son before aeonian times (χρόνων αἰωνίων), through whom also he made the aeons and everything, who produced him not in appearance but in truth, giving him existence (ὑποστήσαντα) by his own will, unchangeable and unalterable (ἄτρεπτόν τε καὶ ἀναλλοίωτον), a perfect creature (κτίσμα) of God, but not like one of the creatures, a product (γέννημα), but not like one of the things produced (γεγεννημένων)...

Four relevant observations can be made from this: (1) Jesus is begotten before the creation of everything else, (2) in fact before time itself, (3) it is through him that God made time and everything, and (4) although a creature Jesus' creation is not like one of the other creatures, and although a product he is not like any other thing produced.

According to Arius then, Jesus is a sort of 'third thing' unlike the un-created Father, but unlike anything else created in time including time itself. Here is how they might interpret the verses you cite:

John 1:3 Your translation uses the word "become" which makes this verse a slam dunk for an Arian. Becoming involves change or creation in time. While Jesus was created, he was done so in a uniquely nontemporal way. Therefore, Jesus is not something which became, but existing prior to what has become, he can - without difficulty - be involved in the creation of all of it. Even with a different English translation, the greek word ginomai can by an Arian always be translated to involve the creation of things in time.

Romans 11:36 This verse doesn't, on first observation seem to refer to Jesus specifically, the him being a reference to verse 33's use of theos. So I don't think an Arian would be easily forced to thing of this as a reference to Jesus. Although perhaps it is a cross-reference to point out Jesus is referred to in other passages in the exact same way God is being referred to here. Still, an Arian can say this is about God and that similar passages can also be about Jesus since according the the Arian profession of faith:

  ...the Father gave him the inheritance of everything...

Colossians 1:15-16 It has already been pointed out that this passages seems to support the unique creation of the Son. It is then a matter of reading from the text to feel inclined to interpret verse 16 as including the (uniquely created) Son in the creation of all other things. The exception seems to be demanded by verse 15.

An even stronger explanation for these passages can be fielded by the semi-Arians such as are represented by the 359 Creed of Nike - many believe Sir Isaac Newton was a semi-Arian. They were homoiousians meaning they rejected both the Arian claim that Jesus was unlike the essence of the Father and the Orthodox (homoousios) view that Jesus and the Father are of the exact same essence. The Creed of Nike can affirm belief

  ...in one only-begotten Son of God who before all ages and before all beginning and before all conceivable time and before all comprehensible substance (οὐσίας) was begotten impassibly from God through whom the ages were set up and all things came into existence, begotten as only-begotten, sole from the sole Father, like to the Father who begot him, according to the Scriptures, whose generation nobody understands except the Father who begot him.

Semi-Arians believe Jesus was of 'like' not the 'same' substance as the Father. Here Christ is described as being created impassibly. Impassibility is a term used only of God an comes from negative theology which tends to emphasize God's inability to change or be change, be created or 'caused' in any sense to become. This tells us something about the way Jesus was made uniquely different from the creation of anything else, and at the same time tells us "nobody understands except the Father". This clarifying that Jesus' creation was 'creation' in a sense we are not capable of understanding means that it is only natural to include exceptions for Jesus when dealing with the creation of things we refer to as being 'created'.

In the end, Jesus' being created before time, in a way different from all the rest of created things, allows an Arian to involve him in the creation of "all things" because "all things" shouldn't include Jesus.


What is role of speaking in tongues in Assemblies of God denomination? A previous question was answered listing perhaps only one denomination, and it wasn't AOG, that held speaking in tongues as sign of spiritual maturity. Does the Assemblies of God group speak in tongues?

Assemblies of God strongly believe and encourage speaking in tongues. It is considered as  the physical evidence of receiving the Holy Spirit.

This site   mentions about this matter. It says,

  The baptism of believers in the Holy Spirit is witnessed by the
  initial physical sign of speaking with other tongues as the Spirit of
  God gives them utterance. (Acts 2:4)

  The speaking in tongues in this instance is the
  same in essence as the gift of tongues, but is different in purpose
  and use.
  ( 1 Corinthians 12:4-10 , 1 Corinthians 12:28 )

The preachers in AG churches many times encourage their members to speak in tongues and sometimes it became a burden to some of the members who are not speaking in tongues, but this is some exceptional case. Some preachers take less importance to tongues but not diminish it. The worship in AG churches are all centered around inviting the Holy Spirit, singing, praying and speaking in tongues. Worship services are mostly lively and sometimes  noisy because many people speak in tongues loudly.


Why did early Christians in Acts still go to the Jewish temple every day? In the Acts of the Apostles we find that the early believers were every day visiting the temple and afterwards meeting in each others homes.

  Every day they continued to meet together in the temple courts. They broke bread in their homes and ate together with glad and sincere hearts, praising God and enjoying the favor of all the people. And the Lord added to their number daily those who were being saved. (Acts 2:46-47, NIV)

If the Old ceremonial ways of the Old Testament were finished at the death of Christ (or as other conjecture after Pentecost) why did the church still attend temple gatherings?  Was it because they were not fully aware of the full implication of the New Covenant and may have even offered sacrifices? Was it because they just wanted to get together and evangelize their brethren? Was it some mishmash of both reasons plus possibly more?  What was going on in their heads?

In Acts 2:1, it is written,

  And when the day of Pentecost was fully come, they were all together with one accord (ὁμοθυμαδὸν).

  καὶ ἐν τῷ συμπληροῦσθαι τὴν ἡμέραν τῆς πεντηκοστῆς ἦσαν ἅπαντες ὁμοθυμαδὸν ἐπὶ τὸ αὐτό

We see that the first Christians were all together with one accord in the Temple at the time they received the Holy Spirit (Acts 2:4).

Being Pentecost, "there were, dwelling at Jerusalem, Jews, devout men, out of every nation under heaven" (Acts 2:5), for Pentecost was one of three annual feasts during which men were required to pilgrimmage to the Temple in Jerusalem in order to appear before YHVH (Exo. 23:14-17).

The apostles desired to share the Gospel of Jesus Christ with their brothers (cp. Acts 2:14-41).

And, in Acts 2:46, it is written,

  And they, continuing daily with one accord (ὁμοθυμαδὸν) in the Temple, and breaking bread from house to house, ate their food with gladness and simplicity of heart.

So, they continued to remain in the Temple, not all day, but rather, during the morning and evening prayers (our 9 a.m. and 3 p.m.) where a gathering of Jews would always be. This crowd may not have been as large as the one at Pentecost (which only lasted one day), but the apostles took advantage of any opportunity to share the Gospel with as many of their brothers as possible. We even see this with Paul who would rush to Jerusalem for a feast in order to share the Gospel (cp. Acts 18:21).


Adam and Eve Clothed in Light Before the Fall - Origin of this belief? I've stumbled multiple times across the claim that Adam and Eve were clothed in light before the fall, and afterward they saw their nakedess not merely as a new form of enlightenment ("Suddenly I feel like I should put on some clothes!") but rather visual change had occurred.

What original sources contain this information to make it such that some commonly believe this?

It seems this interpretative tradition goes back millennia to the ancient Jews. BioLogos has a short article on the development of the tradition that Adam and Eve "wore" garments of light, attributing it to the Jewish squeamishness regarding the naked body, then exacerbated by Greek culture, rampant with nudity, flooding the Jewish populations at the time of Alexander the Great.

The article does not list any ancient Jewish sources as having discussed this topic, but it does mention and quote one Christian: Ephraem, the 4th century Syrian theologian. The most revealing quote is:

  It is because of the glory with which they were clothed that they were not ashamed. When it was taken away from them—after they had violated the commandment—they were indeed ashamed, because they were now naked (Commentary on Genesis, 2:14). [Other quotes are offered in the article]

In a different vein of "study", nearly 1500 years later, Blessed Anne Catherine Emmerich had an extensive and very vivid personal revelation in which she described Adam and Eve as clothed in light.

  They were like two unspeakably noble and beautiful children, perfectly luminous. and clothed with beams of light as with a veil. From Adam's mouth I saw issuing a broad stream of glittering light, and upon his forehead was an expression of great majesty. Around his mouth played a sunbeam, but there was none around Eve's. I saw Adam's heart very much the same as in men of the present day, but his breast was surrounded by rays of light. In the middle of his heart, I saw a sparkling halo of glory. [More at Shield of Faith]

The LDS even have their own take on it, as presented in Meridian Magazine. The Nakedness and the Clothing of Adam and Eve is a very well sourced article on the topic, though it is centered around LDS theology, which you may not be looking for. Again there doesn't seem to be any ancient Jewish sources quoted, but many other sources that make the claim are cited. For example:

  Rabbinical tradition taught that, following his transgression, “Adam. lost his [heavenly] clothing-God stripped it off him,”15 and similarly that Eve “was stripped of the righteousness in which [she] had been clothed.”16

The most common explanation and defense for the belief is multifaceted. First, God is clothed in light; his Shekinah. This radiant glory of God shines though in the most righteous, like it did when Moses came down from Mount Sinai. Similarly, Adam and Eve, in the image of God, radiated God's glory. Second, some, Jews particularly, argued that the Garden was a very holy place. In fact, the most holy of places. And Adam was a priest of sorts. Since God required his priests to be ornately clothed while in the tabernacle, Adam likewise must have been clothed.

There are multiple reasons why a Christian would believe this and there are multiple sources with different motivations seemingly conceiving it independently. I personally do not find the origin of this idea the main component in its continued adherence throughout the ages.


What are the biblical justifications for racial segregation? What are some of the biblical arguments used to promote racial segregation?

I am not asking about slavery or racial superiority, per se (see related question), but about the idea that it is good for society to separate itself along racial characteristics and to avoid miscegenation.

Answers do not need to emphasize its American manifestation.

Bob Jones/Bob Jones University is probably the most (in)famous defender of American racial segregation on the Christian side of things.
In 1960, Bob Jones Sr. issued a sermon entitled "Is Segregation Spiritual?" apparently issued in direct response to a call by Billy Graham for church leaders to get behind ending segregation.  The sermon was then made into pamphlet form and published as a justification of the universities stance against allowing black students.  Here is a scan of the pamphlet, which I will summarize below.
Jones' argument is based largely on a single Bible verse, Acts 17:26:

And he [God] made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined allotted periods and the boundaries of their dwelling place,  (ESV)

To which he says

Now, what does that say? That says God Almighty fixed the bounds of their habitation...  God Almighty did not make of the human race one race in the sense that He did not fix the bounds of their habitation. That is perfectly clear. It is no accident that most Chinese are in China.

He then suggests that racial conflict exists solely because man has disobeyed God's plan and moved out of their appointed territories.  In fairness, he makes it quite clear that "superiority" of one race doesn't enter into the equation:

The Chinese people are wonderful people. The Japanese people are ingenious–they are wonderful people. The Koreans are wonderful people. The Africans are wonderful people. In many ways, there are no people in the world finer than the colored people who were brought over here in slavery in days gone by.
You talk about a superior race and an inferior race and all that kind of situation. Wait a minute. No race is inferior in the will of God. Get that clear. If a race is in the will of God, it is not inferior. It is a superior race. You cannot be superior to another race if your race is in the will of God and the other race is in the will of God. But the purposes of these races were established by Almighty God; and when man attempts to run contrary to the directive will of God for this world, there is always trouble. Now, that is the trouble.

Jones says white men broke God's will when they brought black slaves to America (duh), but God overthrew that evil plan and created a good one its place by ending slavery and making the former slaves into Christians, saying the black church is in many ways superior to the white church.  He then claims the desire to integrate comes not from blacks, but from "Satanic agitation" using misguided white pity.  And integrating will destroy not only the white church, but also the black church.
Jones then supplies some examples of "the races [mixing] up in large numbers" that caused problems.   Again and again he says none of these things would have happened if people just stuck to their assigned habitation.
Then, Jones turns to his only other Biblical argument:

God Almighty had a purpose for the Jewish race; and for that purpose to be carried out, He had to separated them from among the nations of the earth. God chose Israel; and through the loins of Israel, He brought us the Messiah... [The Jews] have been scattered over the face of the earth, and they have kept their racial identity through the years.
The Jews are back in Palestine with a Government today. God scattered them, but He brought them back to their homeland...
Yes, God chose the Jews. If you are against segregation and against racial separation, then you are against God Almighty because He made racial separation in order to preserve the race through whom He could send the Messiah and through whom He could send the Bible. God is the author of segregation. God is the author of Jewish separation and Gentile separation and Japanese separation. God made of one blood all nations, but He also drew the boundary lines between races.

So, God created race, God authored the boundaries that separate the races, God segregated the Jews from all others and His salvation plan could not have occurred otherwise, and God wants the boundaries to remain (Acts passage).  Therefore, segregation is God ordered, and integration is a "Satanic aggregation".  But, all races are equal in God's eyes - they just have different traits and different purposes; they should remain separated so that each race can fulfill its intended purpose.
(It should go without saying, but I obviously do not endorse any of this myself.)


In Protestant faith is one's old self dying on the cross with Jesus symbolic, or the actual assumption of a new Eternal life? Many years ago I accepted Jesus as my savior in a small Baptist church. Up until that time I had never felt any guilt over sinning. Since that day though I have a guilt feeling every time. Years ago in a sermon the preacher said that the old person was crucified with Christ when he died on the cross, because Jesus assumed all sin of everyone who accepted him, and gave their sin burden to him. At the time he quoted a scripture which said that we became a new creature when we accept salvation. I found the scripture some years later; it is:

note: All scripture is quoted from the King James translation.

  2nd Corinthians 5:17  So that if any one is in Christ, that one is a new creature; old things have passed away; behold, all things have become new.

For many years, especially; as a child, and throughout my teens; every time I messed up I always wondered If I was really saved, since I was sinning again just as I had before. I cannot tell you how many times I have asked Jesus to save me again.

Recently I used a new study lesson which has caused me some deep self examination, because of these scriptures:

Rom 7:18 through 20

  For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh) dwells no good thing. For to will is present with me, but how to perform that which is good I do not find. For I do not do the good that I desire; but the evil which I do not will, that I do.   But if I do what I do not desire, it is no more I working it out, but sin dwelling in me.

So I went back and restudied this scripture:

  John 17:2  As thou hast given him power over all flesh, that he should give eternal life to as many as thou hast given him.

Then the next verse jumped out at me:

  John 17:3  And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.

At the end of the lesson was these  verses:

  Rom 7:24 & 25  O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death? I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin.

Taking both John 17:3 and Romans 7:18 through 23, Did we begin our new eternal life at  salvation, but will not be able to escape the sin nature we got from  Adam and Eve gaining the knowledge of good and evil until physical death?

First of all, it's good that you feel "guilty" when you sin, that means your conscience has become much more active upon receiving the Lord. However, there is no need to dwell upon the fact of your sin afterwards, as Christ has died for us already and His blood washes us of all sins

  Heb. 7:27  Who does not have daily need, as the high priests do, to
  offer up sacrifices first for his own sins and then for those of the
  people; for this He did once for all when He offered up Himself.

  Heb. 9:12  And not through the blood of goats and calves but through
  His own blood, entered once for all into the Holy of Holies,
  obtaining an eternal redemption.

  1 John 1:7  But if we walk in the light as He is in the light, we have
  fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus His Son cleanses
  us from every sin.

  1 John 1:8  If we say that we do not have sin, we are deceiving
  ourselves, and the truth is not in us.

  1 John 1:9  If we confess our sins, He is faithful and righteous to
  forgive us our sins and cleanse us from all unrighteousness.

Note that 1 John is an epistle written to believers, so that implies that though we have been saved, we may still sin from time to time. Therefore just apply the blood of Christ, you are doing it right! :)

However, we can overcome our flesh and sin, and the answer lies in the following verses:

  Rom. 6:6  Knowing this, that our old man has been crucified with Him
  in order that the body of sin might be annulled, that we should no
  longer serve sin as slaves;

  Rom. 6:11  So also you, reckon yourselves to be dead to sin, but
  living to God in Christ Jesus.

  Rom. 6:12  Do not let sin therefore reign in your mortal body so that
  you obey the body’s lusts;

  Rom. 6:13  Neither present your members as weapons of unrighteousness
  to sin, but present yourselves to God as alive from the dead, and your
  members as weapons of righteousness to God.

  Rom. 6:14  For sin will not lord it over you, for you are not under
  the law but under grace.

Here it says that we need to know that our old man has been crucified with Christ (Rom. 6:6) as a divine fact, that is, we reckon by faith that we are dead to sin, which means that in the face of sin, we are dead. That verse mentions that the result of our old man being crucified  is that our body of sin is annulled, literally meaning "unemployed, jobless, inactive". By standing upon this fact in faith, we overcome sin. The way to do it is presented in Romans 8:

  Rom. 8:1  There is now then no condemnation to those who are in Christ
  Jesus.

  Rom. 8:2  For the law of the Spirit of life has freed me in Christ
  Jesus from the law of sin and of death.

  Rom. 8:3  For that which the law could not do, in that it was weak
  through the flesh, God, sending His own Son in the likeness of the
  flesh of sin and concerning sin, condemned sin in the flesh,

  Rom. 8:4  That the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled
  in us, who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the
  spirit.

  Rom. 8:5  For those who are according to the flesh mind the things of
  the flesh; but those who are according to the spirit, the things of
  the Spirit.

  Rom. 8:6  For the mind set on the flesh is death, but the mind set on
  the spirit is life and peace.

  Rom. 8:7  Because the mind set on the flesh is enmity against God; for
  it is not subject to the law of God, for neither can it be.

  Rom. 8:8  And those who are in the flesh cannot please God.

  Rom. 8:9  But you are not in the flesh, but in the spirit, if indeed
  the Spirit of God dwells in you. Yet if anyone does not have the
  Spirit of Christ, he is not of Him.

  Rom. 8:10  But if Christ is in you, though the body is dead because of
  sin, the spirit is life because of righteousness.

  Rom. 8:11  And if the Spirit of the One who raised Jesus from the dead
  dwells in you, He who raised Christ from the dead will also give life
  to your mortal bodies through His Spirit who indwells you.

  Rom. 8:12  So then, brothers, we are debtors not to the flesh to live
  according to the flesh;

  Rom. 8:13  For if you live according to the flesh, you must die, but
  if by the Spirit you put to death the practices of the body, you will
  live.

Verse 13 is quite clear that the way to put the flesh to death is by the Spirit, and the prior verses in Rom. 8 gives in detail how that works.

From Romans 7 (which you quoted), we see that we still have the flesh, and even Paul himself struggled with his flesh, and that there is a "law" in his members, that is, in his flesh, which works against the law in his soul that wants to follow the righteous law of God. Note that we can interpret the "law" in his flesh and in his soul not as something to be followed, but as like a natural law, such as the law of gravity. Therefore as long as we are in our flesh, we will constantly fail to please God and overcome our sins (Rom. 8:3-8). However, we see that we as believers are in Christ Jesus (Rom. 8:1), and that we have received the "law of the Spirit of life" upon our salvation, which is stronger than the law of sin in our flesh. The way to overcome, then, is to live according to our spirit (Rom. 8:4), set our mind on the spirit (Rom. 8:6). The Spirit of God which dwells in our spirit is the factor that overcomes the sins in our flesh (Rom. 8:9). Practically speaking, when we set our mind on our spirit, we are victorious and will not sin because of the law of the Spirit and life. However, whenever we set our mind to our flesh, we will fail. Therefore to overcome the flesh and sin, we must exercise to set our mind on our spirit (1 Tim. 4:7-8, Acts 24:16).

And finally, we have

  Gal. 2:20  I am crucified with Christ; and it is no longer I who live,
  but it is Christ who lives in me; and the life which I now live in the
  flesh I live in faith, the faith of the Son of God, who loved me and
  gave Himself up for me.

The result of being in our spirit is that our being crucified with Christ becomes a reality. It is no longer us that try to be good and follow the law, but that Christ in us (in our spirit) would work out all things. We cannot overcome sin, but Christ can. Just allow Him to be the overcoming One in us


According to Jehovah’s Witnesses how many people will live on the earth? According to JW teaching all the dead will be resurrected to earth except the 144k that get heavenly life. There will be a judgement of all these at the end of the millennium.

Estimates by scientists are that perhaps 108 billion people have lived since human life began. If nearly that many are judged righteous will there be enough space on earth for them? Wikipedia states that there are 123 billion acres on earth's surface, including 37 billion acres of dry land.

So either there will be a crowded earth, more dry land will become available or a majority of the resurrected will be judged unrighteous. What do JWs, or others with similar views, expect will be the case?

The official teaching is that the "vast majority" of those who have lived on earth will in fact be resurrected (see Watchtower, March 15, 2006). Jehovah's Witnesses' most recent statements indicate 20 billion as a "liberal estimate" of the number of individuals who have lived on the planet. Based on a 20 billion estimate Jehovah's Witnesses feel that the earth would be capable of comfortably supporting those brought back in the resurrection.

This estimate is mentioned in both the Reasoning From The Scriptures handbook as well as the Jehovah's Witnesses Bible encyclopedia Insight On the Scriptures. (Note both of these publications were published towards the end of the 20th century and no new estimates have been provided since that time; it is likely that both publications will be updated in the years to come and perhaps provide new estimates).

Along the same lines, though not stated dogmatically, it is generally believed that the powers of procreation may be only allowed for a specific period of time for those who survive Armageddon. Once the earth's capacity had been reached these would be rescinded. (see Watchtower, December 15, 2003.

This concept is based on the supposition that those resurrected will not marry and therefore not bear children (Matthew 22:29, 30). However starting in 2014  the belief of the Resurrected no longer being eligible to marry has been stated with less certainty (see See Watchtower, August 15, 2014


Have any noteworthy church councils denounced Full Preterism as heresy? Full preterists believe that all prophecies in the Bible have already been fulfilled, including those related to the final resurrection, the Second Coming of Christ, and the Final Judgment.

I have met some Protestant preterists who believe that their beliefs are in accord with the ecumenical creeds, despite language in the creeds that seems to imply that the Second Coming and other eschatological events are yet to come.

Do any Roman Catholic or Protestant councils or creeds specifically state that full preterist beliefs are heretical?

I'm not sure if this is helpful or not, but there is no evidence of condemnation from the Catholic Church in a council of Preterism. Lists like this one or this one, and books dedicated to the subject, like this one, this one, and this classic make no mention of it. The Catholic Encyclopedia makes no mention of this doctrine either.

My understanding however is that the Catholic Church does not stand with preterism. The creeds clearly state that we are still waiting for the Second Coming. So many texts (e.g. here), including in the Catechism, takes this same tone. From the later (which is official doctrine, i.e. infallible), point 1040 reads:

  The Last Judgment will come when Christ returns in glory. Only the Father knows the day and the hour; only he determines the moment of its coming. Then through his Son Jesus Christ he will pronounce the final word on all history. We shall know the ultimate meaning of the whole work of creation and of the entire economy of salvation and understand the marvelous ways by which his Providence led everything towards its final end. The Last Judgment will reveal that God's justice triumphs over all the injustices committed by his creatures and that God's love is stronger than death.

Surrounding points have the same tone, i.e. an event to come.

So, even if the Catholic Church has not officially declared preterism as a heresy, some of its tenets are clearly heretic (from the Catholic point of view).


What did Christ mean in Matthew 10:34? In Matthew 10.34 Christ says,

  (KJV) Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.

To me this requires some explanation, even after many years of thought.

In the passage, Jesus says twice he hasn't come to bring peace; yet he is called Prince of Peace. This saying about the sword has never been mentioned in any church I've been to and it seems like Christians forget it, or want to forget it.

From the context, it is evident that he aims to bring division between those who are faithful and those who are not, even within the same family (hence the sword analogy- as though he is cutting between people) - but this doesn't seem to be consistent with the message of love that is preached to Christians and goes against the doctrine of loving your enemies.

What did Christ mean in Matthew 10:34 when he said that he did not bring peace, but a sword?

The sword is an important symbol in Christian imagery, and does not always symbolize war and violence. In fact, the sword is a definitive symbol of the word of God. In the context of the passage you cite, history teaches us that the word of God is a source of discord among men. Consider these passages from the New Testament:

(Hebrews 4:12 NASB) For the word of God is living and active and sharper than any two-edged sword, and piercing as far as the division of soul and spirit, of both joints and marrow, and able to judge the thoughts and intentions of the heart.

In this passage, the word of God is compared to a double-edged sword for its ability to penetrate to the core of the person- even to the source of his psychological (ψυχῆς) and spiritual (πνεύματος) being.
When Christ was presented at the Temple on the eighth day for circumcision, consider the blessing that Simeon, who the Scriptures call righteous, speaks over the infant Jesus while in the Spirit (speaking as a Prophet):

(Luke 2:26-35 NASB) And it had been revealed to him by the Holy Spirit that he would not see death before he had seen the Lord’s Christ. And he came in the Spirit into the temple; and when the parents brought in the child Jesus, to carry out for Him the custom of the Law, then he took Him into his arms, and blessed God, and said,
“Now Lord, You are releasing Your bond-servant to depart in peace,
According to Your word;
For my eyes have seen Your salvation,
Which You have prepared in the presence of all peoples,
A Light of revelation to the Gentiles,
And the glory of Your people Israel.”

And His father and mother [Joseph and Mary] were amazed at the things which were being said about Him. And Simeon blessed them and said to Mary His mother, “Behold, this Child is appointed for the fall and rise of many in Israel, and for a sign to be opposed— and a sword will pierce even your own soul— to the end that thoughts from many hearts may be revealed.”
Do you see how this use of the symbol of the sword is identical to that of the author of Hebrews? This sword that Simeon speaks of is not a sword of war, but the word of God that penetrates to the soul (ψυχὴν).
Paul, in his epistles, also compares the word of God to a sword:

(Ephesians 6:13-17) Therefore, take up the full armor of God, so that you will be able to resist in the evil day, and having done everything, to stand firm. Stand firm therefore, having girded your loins with truth, and having put on the breastplate of righteousness, 15 and having shod your feet with the preparation of the gospel of peace; in addition to all, taking up the shield of faith with which you will be able to extinguish all the flaming arrows of the evil one. And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God.

The penultimate use in the New Testament Scriptures of the image of the sword is the most poignant and definitive- it is wielded by the resurrected and eternal Christ, ascended to the Father and filling the cosmos. Does he wield this sword in his hand or at his side? No, but instead the sword comes from his mouth; it is the very word of God:

Revelation 1:12-18 NASB Then I turned to see the voice that was speaking with me. And having turned I saw seven golden lampstands; and in the middle of the lampstands I saw one like a son of man, clothed in a robe reaching to the feet, and girded across His chest with a golden sash. His head and His hair were white like white wool, like snow; and His eyes were like a flame of fire. His feet were like burnished bronze, when it has been made to glow in a furnace, and His voice was like the sound of many waters. In His right hand He held seven stars, and out of His mouth came a sharp two-edged sword; and His face was like the sun shining in its strength.
When I saw Him, I fell at His feet like a dead man. And He placed His right hand on me, saying, “Do not be afraid; I am the first and the last, and the living One; and I was dead, and behold, I am alive forevermore, and I have the keys of death and of Hades.

It is important to note that the Epistle to the Hebrews, from which we cited the first passage, was written around 20 or 30 years before John penned his Revelation of Jesus Christ at Patmos. Either John read the epistle, which I don't find to be likely, or the double-edged sword that is the word of God is a common revelation.
In summary, the symbol of the sword is interpreted to be the word of God, that comes from the mouth of Christ. It is with this word that he cuts to the core of people, exposing their hearts. It is by the sword of his mouth, the word of God, that he makes war with the powers of evil and the nations that oppose him, and they are defeated- he strikes them down with the authority that he was given by the Father. Consider this final passage in closing.

(Revelation 19:11-16) And I saw heaven opened, and behold, a white horse, and He who sat on it is called Faithful and True, and in righteousness He judges and wages war. His eyes are a flame of fire, and on His head are many diadems; and He has a name written on Him which no one knows except Himself. He is clothed with a robe dipped in blood, and His name is called The Word of God. And the armies which are in heaven, clothed in fine linen, white and clean, were following Him on white horses. From His mouth comes a sharp sword, so that with it He may strike down the nations, and He will rule them with a rod of iron; and He treads the wine press of the fierce wrath of God, the Almighty. And on His robe and on His thigh He has a name written, “KING OF KINGS, AND LORD OF LORDS.”


A Warning from Jesus If Jesus really loves everyone, why does Jesus show no mercy on the non believers?

Matthew 7:21-23:

Not everyone who calls me their Lord will get into the kingdom of heaven.
Only the ones who obey my Father in heaven will get in.
On the day of judgment many will call me their Lord.
They will say, "We preached in your name, and in your name we force out demons and
worked many miracles."  But I will tell them, "I will have nothing to do with you!
Get out of my sight, you evil people!"

Since this question is on hold due to opinion base, I'll attempt to form it more not opinion base.  Matthew 7:21-23 has always disturbed me.  Why does this passage warn and state the response from Jesus to the individuals who confront him with mercy?  The quotes could be left out and the passage could just be:

Not everyone who calls me their Lord will get into the kingdom of heaven.
Only the ones who obey my Father in heaven will get in.
On the day of judgment many will call me their Lord.

Is this due to translation from the old testament to the new testament?

The best explanation I heard on this passage goes like this : "Depart from me all those who professed to be my followers, yet lived your lives as if I had never given you commands to live by". In other words, all those who never tried to be holy like Jesus.  And, by the way, ALL sins are mortal unless they are forgiven by Jesus. And He can forgive EVERY sin.


Does anyone know where CS Lewis said (or maybe implied) the following...? "Several times, then, Lewis suggests that heaven will be a place where thinking and experiencing come together. On earth we think about what love is; in heaven Love is a Person we can experience. On earth we read books about many different things, especially God, on the one hand, while some of our experiences of Him are so intense that we cannot put them into words; in heaven the Divine Word speaks to us face to face in a language that lets us hear and say everything we never could before. In heaven to think a thing will be to do it; to do a thing will involve knowing it completely. On earth our words are abstract thoughts that never quite say everything we want them to. In heaven language is a person, and to communicate will be to offer everything we are and to receive back every thought, feeling, and meaning from those with whom we share words".

Charlie Starr

I've read several of Lewis's works (Narnia series, Great Divorce, Mere Christianity, pieces of a  few others), and I'm not aware of any of his writings that suggest what that author describes.

Certainly, Lewis had some very interesting views about what life will be like after we die (or after the return of Christ). In The Last Battle, "heaven" is depicted as a place that is ever increasing in meaning and depth - like an onion, which you can peel layer by layer, and each layer is deeper than the previous, except that each new layer is bigger than the one before.

In The Great Divorce, he develops the idea that realness depends on our proximity to God. Thus, people closest to God (ie, in heaven) are most real, but those furthest are the least real (ie, in hell).

But, although those ideas are certainly very imaginative and abstract, I don't think he ever suggested that heaven would be so unlike our current existence that even things like thinking and acting become conflated.

As I understand, Lewis's goal was to portray the idea of eternity as something that is infinitely good, in a broad sense - it is infinitely "real," infinitely large, and has as its infinite climax the enjoyment of God himself. It would take a finite being an eternity to fully explore such a place, and I think that was his point. The idea is that there will always be more to see, more to explore, more to enjoy (thus, the "layers" from The Last Battle). And not only is there always more in the sense of joy, but also in the sense of substance, thus the portrayal of people becoming more "real" in The Great Divorce.

But, I don't think it would accurate to say that Lewis's views meant that one abstract concept (such as language) would some how transform into a concrete concept (like a person), like that quote suggests. Lewis did use abstract concepts in bizarre ways, but not because he was trying to communicate that heaven is a strange place where concepts are in some perpetual state of moving back and forth between abstract and concrete. (Imagine the absurdity of suggesting that a person would be a language, even though the article suggests the converse - language will be a person. And if language is a person, what language would I use to speak with him?)

Lewis was simply trying to use creative examples to make his point: heaven is a place that is so good (in the broadest sense possible) that it will take us finite creatures an eternity to explore (or, in other words, we will never run out of new and better experiences).


Is the commandment to multiply, and replenish the earth in effect today? Adam and Eve were commanded to multiply and replenish the earth.

Genesis 1:28-30
28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.
29 And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.
30 And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so.

The same commandment was also given later to Noah and his sons.

Genesis 9:1-3
1 And God blessed Noah and his sons, and said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth.
2 And the fear of you and the dread of you shall be upon every beast of the earth, and upon every fowl of the air, upon all that moveth upon the earth, and upon all the fishes of the sea; into your hand are they delivered.
3 Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you; even as the green herb have I given you all things.

In both cases the commandment to multiply and replenish the earth is followed by a commandment to have dominion over the earth (perhaps the two are related, but that's for another discussion). I point that out because surely the commandment to have dominion over the earth is still applicable to us. Does that mean the commandment to multiply and replenish the earth is still applicable? Its pretty significant if having a family is a commandment as opposed to being a suggestion or just optional.

A commandment is in effect until it is fulfilled. God has not told us it is fulfilled, so it is in effect unless we believe it to be fulfilled to His satisfaction.

Personally I don't believe it to be fulfilled. All the "over population" we see is simply a mismanagement of resources. There is plenty of livable earth and resources available. Not that replenishment requires exhaustion of resources, but our level of waste is appalling, and better urban planning could improve the living conditions where population is high.

I believe the commandment to have domion over the earth includes a stewardship to care for it, which clearly we can do better. Perhaps that is why the two commandments were given together. As we do better with our stewardship to care for the earth we can do better to replenish the earth.

Searching around for any Christian statements on the commandment to multiple and replenish in modern times I found the following:

  We declare that God's commandment for His children to multiply and replenish the earth remains in force.

-The Family: A Proclamation to the World
  The First Presidency and Council of the Twelve Apostles of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints September 23, 1995

As well as the Catholic church stance on birth control:

  . . . it is always intrinsically wrong to use contraception to prevent new human beings from coming into existence.

Wikipedia summarizes other Christian views on birth control, which go both directions. Of course Birth control isn't exactly what you asked, but they are related.

No doubt someone could find links to contradict me. I guess it comes down to your personal beliefs.

My personal belieft is we are each to have as many children as we can reasonably support and care for. I have four children. My wife an I believe any more and we would not be able raise and care for them effectively (but that may be a failing on our part). I have friends with 6 or even 8 children who do quite well as taking care of them.

As an aside: It continues to be important that we specifically as Christians multiply and replenish the earth, and raise our children as good Christians to be a force of good in the Lord's work. To stop having children because one believes the world to be flawed is to give up hope of improving the world. Children raised up with good Christian values are the greatest hope for a better tomorrow.


How long was it before Adam and Eve sinned? Do we have any idea how long Adam and Eve were together sinless in the Garden of Eden before they sinned?

They were created on the sixth day. They sinned before they had children.

Any other clues as to how long they were sinless together?

Genesis 5:3 says:

  When Adam had lived 130 years, he had a son in his own likeness, in his own image; and he named him Seth.

By virtue of this, we know that Cain killed Abel within 130 years of Adam being created, because Seth was not born until after that occurred. This means that the Fall had to occur within that time. Other than that, the Bible is silent.


Will Adam and Eve be resurrected to eternal life or are they dead forever? Ge 2:17 but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die. (KJV)

The penalty for sin is death.

  Ge 3/19 In the sweat of your face you will eat bread until you return to the ground, for out of it you were taken. For dust you are and to dust you will return.”

Death means going back to the dust of the ground.

Ao, Will Adam and Eve be resurrected to **eternal life [1] ** and why do you answer that way?

This question  is for mainstream evangelicals.

  [1] John 17:3 And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent. (KJV)

The answer to your question, I believe, is found in 1 Corinthians 15.

  20 But Christ has indeed been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep. 21 For since death came through a man, the resurrection of the dead comes also through a man. 22 For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive. 23 But each in turn: Christ, the firstfruits; then, when he comes, those who belong to him. 24 Then the end will come . . ..

Notice the words "in Adam all die." That means all God's image-bearers have this in common with the first man, Adam: They sin, and they die. Just as Adam became subject to death because of his disobedience (see Romans 5:19), we too are subject to death for our disobedience. By default, all of humanity is in Adam.

  . . . for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God (Romans 3:23).

Since all of God's image-bearers, including Adam (and Eve!), are all sinners, we all are in need of the regenerative grace of God. Once regenerated--though each of us will die physically, we will then be in need of the resurrection power of God in order to live forever. The clear teaching of Scripture is that "in Christ, we all shall be made alive" (1 Corinthians 15:22).

Perhaps a better question for you to ask would be this: Why wouldn't Adam be resurrected to eternal life? True enough, "the guilty pair, bowed down with care" couldn't believe in and receive Jesus Christ into their lives, since the Lamb of God ("the seed of the woman") would not come onto the scene for thousands of years. Yet God did prefigure the atoning death of his Son when he clothed Adam and Eve with the skins of animals--animals whose blood had to be shed to provide a temporary covering for sin.

Regarding sin, the Bible makes clear that until Christ's atoning work had been accomplished on the cross at Calvary, the sins of all God's children were covered (see, for example, Psalm 32:1; Psalm 85:2; Romans 4:7; Proverbs 10:12; Proverbs 17:9; and 1 Peter 4:8).

Moreover, Christ's blood, shed at the cross, was efficacious for the forgiveness of sins committed both prior to and after his crucifixion. His atoning death was a fait accompli as far as God was concerned, since in the eternal counsels of God, the Lamb was slain before the foundation of the world (see 1 Peter 2:19-20; Revelation 13:8; Colossians 1:17-18; and Ephesians 1:11).

No mere mortal can ever truly know whether or not a person is a possessor of eternal life. The Scriptures tell us clearly,

  . . . the firm foundation of God stands, having this seal, "The Lord knows those who are His," and "Everyone who names the name of the Lord is to abstain from wickedness" (2 Timothy 2:19 NASB Updated, my emphasis).

Was the first man Adam saved? Was he a possessor of eternal life? I believe he was. There are no passages in the Bible of which I am aware that indicate Adam remained under God's condemnation for having disobeyed God's clear command not to eat of the forbidden fruit. That Adam's son, Abel, sacrificed to God the firstlings from his flock indicates to me that Adam may have taught his son the significnce and importance of blood sacrifice (Genesis 4:4).

Jesus referred to Abel as righteous (see Matthew 23:35), and the apostle John referred to Cain in 1 John 3 as follows:

  For this is the message which you have heard from the beginning, that we should love one another; not as Cain, who was of the evil one and slew his brother. And for what reason did he slay him? Because his deeds were evil, and his brother’s were righteous (vv. 11-12).

In conclusion, I see no reason why Adam would not be counted among the righteous children of God. Not that Adam was any more or any less deserving of redemption than any other child of God. Whether before or after Calvary, the fact remains that Adam, and all who are "in Adam" were, are, and will be dead in trespasses and sins. What is required for each of us to pass from death to life is the blood which Jesus interposed between sinners and a holy God.


What impact did Karl Barth have on Roman Catholic theology? I ran across a book on Amazon called Karl Barth, Catholic Renewal and Vatican II.  It seems strange to me that Karl Barth, a neo-orthodox Protestant, would have an impact like what the book's blurb says:

  From the 1920s on, Karl Barth’s thought was received with great interest not only by Protestants but also by Catholic theologians, who analyzed it in detail. [...] Dahlke shows how the preoccupation with Barth's 'Epistle to the Romans' and the ‘Church Dogmatics’ triggered a theological renewal among Catholic theologians.

What is an overview of Barth's impact on Roman Catholic theology?

There are a number of helpful, some very detailed, works on Barth and Roman Catholicism. Barth himself had an ambivalent but intensely engaged dialogue with Catholicism throughout his academic career, especially leading up to, during, and after Vatican II. On the one hand he rejected a number of fundamental Catholic doctrines (e.g. the understandings of grace, salvation, church authority vs scriptural authority, Mary, and natural theology - in particular the analogia entis - 'analogy of being'). On the other he regards Catholicism as no worse, and in many ways better, than 19th century Liberal Protestant theology, and was somewhat hopeful for reform, especially at Vatican II. A hope partly rewarded, and not without his own influence (as you seem to have read.)

If you are happy to do some solid reading, one place to start is with the treatment of Barth's theology by his younger Catholic compatriot and friend,

Hans urs Von Balthasar: The Theology of Karl Barth (the 2nd edition is better than first, being written in 1961 after more of Barth's Church Dogmatics was published.)

Von Balthasar is regarded as something of a vexed interpreter of Barth by many today, but Barth himself spoke highly of him. Here you will see at play something of Barth's influence on one Catholic scholar. Hans Kung also has a work on Barth.

For a more analytical assessment and Barth's early engagement with Catholicism, you may prefer to start with:

Amy Marga, Karl Barth's Dialogue with Catholicism in Goettingen and Muenster (2010)
Donald Norwood (ed.), Reforming Rome: Karl Barth and Vatican II (2015), for his later engagement.

There are various summary articles in academic journals also, and a number of works in German, but I'll leave those for you to hunt down, depending on whether you can access and read them.

One side note, most recent scholarship would no longer regard Barth as 'Neo-orthodox', a term regarded as misapplied to Barth. (See for example the works of Bruce McCormack: Karl Barth's Critically Realistic Dialectical Theology and more recent: Orthodox and Modern) Both are relatively dense reading in places, the former particularly, but very instructive all the same.

Of course, far and away the best way to understand Barth's engagement with Roman Catholicism is to read the Church Dogmatics. Here you will both see it in action and get the proper context to his arguments, as well as come to understand Barth much more deeply on a wider basis. It can be a daunting task. But its rewards are manifold and significant.


In the Anglican Church, how is the Archbishop appointed? The current Archbishop of Sydney is retiering this week. What is the process involved in appointing the new Archbishop in the Anglican Church?

i.e. who can nominate them, who can vote for them, what voting system is used, does anyone have to approve the decision, etc.

If you feel this question is too broad, please let me know and I'll split it up.

If the process is different around the world, then please specify how it works for Sydney.

Just in case you were wondering, the Archbishop of Sydney is not the chief clergyman of the Anglican Church of Australia. That is Dr Phillip Aspinall, Archbishop of Brisbane. Also, methods of appointing bishops differ very much within the Anglican church. Typically they are elected by a synod. In the Church of England they are nominally appointed by the monarch, although the monarch acts only on the advice of the church.

The new Archbishop of Sydney will be elected by a special "election synod" (a parliament of representitives of the church, generally both clergy and laity) over the 5th-9th August.

  The election of the Anglican Archbishop of Sydney is a robust, competitive and energetic internal church process, where candidates' personal lives, doctrinal views and pastoral actions are scrutinised closely, openly assessed and lobbied over. The election synod can be both unsettling and tense for Sydney Anglicans as they seek to identify the successful candidate.

I don't know what the minimum qualifications are, although I assume you would have to be a member of the Church of Australia. You do not have to already be a bishop, and there have been recent appointments of non-bishops.


Why did Pope Pius XII mention the soul of Mary? In Munificentissimus Deus Pope Pius XII defined the dogma of the Immaculate Conception:

  By the authority of our Lord Jesus Christ, of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, and by our own authority, we pronounce, declare, and define it to be a divinely revealed dogma: that the Immaculate Mother of God, the ever Virgin Mary, having completed the course of her earthly life, was assumed body and soul into heavenly glory.

I can understand the need to define the fact that the body of the Blessed Mother is in Heaven, but was Mary not already a canonised saint before the document was produced?

Even the protestant reformers did not contest the sainthood of Mary.

Canadian Thomist philosopher Charles de Koninck was a big defender of the Assumption. He saw Munificentissimus Deus (1 November 1950), which Pius XII promulgated only a few months after his anti-Modernist and pro-Thomist encyclical Humani Generis (12 August 1950), as contra Cartesian dualism (mind-body dualism),* since the Pope stresses the unity of the body and soul in proclaiming our Blessed Mother was assumed both body and soul into heaven.
*Cartesian dualism says that there are two types of beings, utterly disconnected from each other: "thinking things" (res cogitans) and "extended things" (res extensa); cf. Four Ages of Understanding p. 523 or the more popular account, ch. 2 of Philosophy of Mind by Dr. Ed Feser.
From De Koninck's "The Immaculate Conception and the Divine Motherhood, Assumption and Coredemption":

THE SIMULTANEITY OF MARY’S DEATH AND ASSUMPTION
The person of Mary, being merely human, depends, for its reality, upon the actual union of body and soul.  If, then, her soul had been maintained in a state of separation; if, during some course of time, she had been in death, she would have ceased, for that time, to exist as a human being, as a person, and as Mother of God.  Such a state would mean that, during some lapse of time, however brief, the grace of Motherhood—the seat of her habitual grace and of all her privileges as Mother of God—would have been withdrawn.  Now, “what is bestowed through God’s grace is never withdrawn except through fault.”  But Mary, conceived Immaculate and wholly confirmed in the good, could never have committed the slightest of faults. For this reason, we have argued elsewhere that no lapse of time occurred between Mary’s death and Assumption, in which her soul would have been in a state of separation from her body; but that, on the contrary, her resurrection from death took place in the same instant as her death itself.


When was the early Christian apology "Dialogue with Trypho" written? I recently became aware of the Dialogue with Trypho, a Christian apology regarding Jesus being the Messiah, written by Justin Martyr sometime during his lifetime (in the years 100–165). However, Wikipedia doesn't say more specifically when during his lifetime this apology was written.

Have any historians more specifically dated Dialogue with Trypho?

Justin's Dialogue with Trypho is usually dated toward the end of his life, after AD 155.  According to Craig D. Allen, this is largely based on evidence that it was written after his First Apology, which can be dated with some confidence to 151–154.  The line of reasoning is as follows:

Justin mentions the First Apology in his Dialogue with Trypho, so the latter work must come after the former.
The First Apology calls Lucius Pius, born in AD 130, a "lover of learning" and a "philosopher," suggesting a date after AD 145
The First Apology mentions the popularity of Marcion, and he was in Rome between 139 and 142, again suggesting a date after AD 145
The First Apology makes reference to Felix the governor of Alexandria, who appears to have held office between 151 and 154.

Allen concludes:

  If 1 Apology lies between 151–154, and because the Dialogue mentions the Apology it is certain that the Dialogue was composed after that date.  Any conjecture regarding a more exact date than 155–167 is only that.  We must, therefore, be satisfied with an imprecise date for the Dialogue with Trypho. [Revelation, Truth, Canon, and Interpretation, 34]

That said, Susan Wendel suggests a tighter range, citing other scholarship:

  Scholars generally agree that Justin wrote the Apologies around 150–155 CE and produced the final form of the Dialogue with Trypho at a slightly later date (~155–160 CE). [Scriptural Interpretation, 11]

Wendel cites Eric Francis Osborn, who indicates the same range of 155-160 (Justin Martyr, 8) and Leslie William Barnard, who suggests circa 160 (Justin Martyr, 23).

So our best bet appears to be around AD 155–60, with a bit greater confidence on the first of those numbers than the second.


What is the origin of the idea that Michael is Jesus? I recently came across the idea of identifying the angel Michael as Jesus. I'm surprised I hadn't heard it before. Wikipedia documents it as common to Seventh Day Adventists and Jehovah's Witnesses. I'm not interested in biblical support of this theory; there are several other questions in that vein with good answers. I'd like to know more of its origin.

Sub-questions to help guide what I'd consider a good answer:

How old is this idea? Wikipedia says "early Protestants", but cites John A. Lees (1939) who in turn cites Ernst Wilhelm Hengstenberg (1849) who doesn't appear to have a source beyond himself. They are far too recent to be "early Protestants".
Who (or what group) came up with the idea?
If it started with the adventists, how did it spread to Jehovah's Witnesses?
Do any orthodox forks* of Christianity accept the idea?
Do any orthodox forks* of Christianity explicitly reject the idea? (I'm surprised not to see it mentioned in the Catholic Encyclopedia.)

* fork: picture the christian religion as a road. Way back, promoters of Arianism were a fork in the road that dead ended fairly quick. The Protestants led many forks in the road. Mormons are yet another fork in the road.

EDIT:

Re: "early protestants". I just found a reference by John Calvin in his Commentaries on Daniel vol. 2, pg 243.

  Some think the word Michael represents Christ, and I do not object to
  this opinion. [...] But as this is not generally admitted, I leave it
  in doubt for the present [...]

and there's a bit more in chapter 12, but so far I haven't found who he is referencing by "some". Calvin does go on to defend associating Michael with Christ.

There is much negative information on the internet on this subject making it very difficult to earnestly study it and where the belief that the Archangel Michael is Jesus Christ originated.

The Jehovah's Witnesses surely inherrited it from Charles Taze Russell, the founder of the movement that led to the formulation of the Jehovah's Witnesses.

He equates Michael with Christ in one of Daniel's prophecies:

  The Time is at Hand Page 145 - Written 1889
  The same events are referred to in Daniel’s prophecy: “And at that time shall Michael [Christ] stand up ...

Russell doesn't plainly say "Michael is Jesus" but I think his use of brackets implies it well enough that it was a position he held or was considering.

The Seventh Day Adventists surely inherrited this bit of theology from Ellen G. White, their prophetess, whom they hold in high regard.

She plainly states in several of her writings that Michael is Jesus.

  Patriarchs and Prophets Page 761 - Written 1890
  Again: Christ is called the Word of God. John 1:1-3. He is so called because God gave His revelations to man in all ages through Christ. It was His Spirit that inspired the prophets. 1 Peter 1:10, 11. He was revealed to them as the Angel of Jehovah, the Captain of the Lord's host, Michael the Archangel.

  The Desire of Ages Page 99 - Written 1898
  The words of the angel, "I am Gabriel, that stand in the presence of God," show that he holds a position of high honor in the heavenly courts. When he came with a message to Daniel, he said, "There is none that holdeth with me in these things, but Michael [Christ] your Prince."

  Prophets and Kings Page 572 - Written 1917
  For three weeks Gabriel wrestled with the powers of darkness, seeking to counteract the influences at work on the mind of Cyrus; and before the contest closed, Christ Himself came to Gabriel's aid. "The prince of the kingdom of Persia withstood me one and twenty days," Gabriel declares; "but, lo, Michael, one of the chief princes, came to help me; and I remained there with the kings of Persia."

Neither White nor Russell were the first to say this. There is much disinformation claiming that the concept is an old Arian doctrine, however, there is no evidence for that in the history books, and I can find no evidence that it predates the 18th century, though you found John Calvin discussing it in the 16th century.

The oldest source I can find on this subject is "The Glory of Christ as God-Man" by Isaac Watts. The linked source below was printed in 1795, but Watts died in 1748, so he clearly penned it earlier than 1748.

When examining the story of Daniel in the Lion's Den, Watts suggests it as a possibility that the Archangel Michael is Christ on page 223

  The Glory of Christ as God-Man Page 223 - Written before 1748 from an edition printed 1795
  And may not Christ himself be this Michael the Arch-angel, the Prince of Israel? It has been observed by some writers, that the scripture never speaks of arch-angels in the plural number; perhaps there is but one arch-angel and that is Christ.

Interestingly, in a footnote on page 224, Watts notes that some think that the angel that appeared to Daniel was not Gabriel, but was Christ. Also interesting, Watts does not seem to be giving his own theology, but parroting what he has read or heard elsewhere. The fact that John Calvin was discussing it 200 years earlier is evidence of that.

Moving on with another, pre-White, pre-Russell source ...

A man named William Kinkade wrote "The Bible doctrine of God, Jesus Christ, the Holy Spirit, atonement, faith, and election" in 1829, predating White and Russell by over 50 years. I cannot find any information on this particular man except that he wrote this book. In it, he dedicates an entire chapter to Michael and Jesus and the theology that they are the same person.

  The Bible doctrine of God, Jesus Christ, the Holy Spirit, atonement, faith, and election Page 153 - Written 1829
  To me this evidence proves beyond resonable dispute, that Michael is one of the names of Christ; because if the Church is the seat of this war, and if Christ is the Captain of our salvation, and the leader of his people, he must be the person who is here mentioned under the name of Michael.

Kinkade is not the only person of this time to hold this view, he claims.

  ibid Page 152
  I am not alone in this opinion; most of the principal writers of the Trinitarian school have advocated the same doctrine.

Kinkade goes on to mention more than a few sources that support his theology. Here are some that go beyond calling Jesus an Angel and actually call Jesus and Michael the same person, according to Kinkade [the numbers are mine, but the text is Kinkade's]:

  ibid Page 152 and 153

  Brown’s dictionary of the Bible on the words Michael, and Angel says, that both these words do sometimes refer to Christ; and also affirms that Christ is the archangel.
  Woods Spiritual Dictionary teaches nearly, if not exactly, the same on this subject that Brown’s does.
  Butterworth, Cruden, and Taylor in their concordances, assert that Michael and Angel are both names of Christ.
  Guyse in his Paraphrase on the New Testament, on Rev. 12:7, acknowledges that many good expositors think that Christ is signified by Michael; and also gives it as his opinion.
  Doctor Watts in his Glories of Christ, pp. 200-202, 218, 223, and 224, teaches the same doctrine.
  Thomas Scott, in his notes on the Bible ... asserts that Michael the Archangel is Jesus Christ.

The numbers below are for a brief description on the above sources listed by Kinkaid.

Wikipedia's article on John Brown lists his dictionary as first in print in 1769 and having numerous editions through 1868. This is the earliest edition I could find dated 1866. There is really no way of knowing which edition Kinkade was referring to.
I cannot find a "Spiritual Dictionary" written by someone named "Wood".
John Butterworth's Concordance is from 1812. Curden's Condordance, written by Alexander Cruden is around 1849. The edition that Kinkade used could be any one of many. John's Taylor's concordance is an Hebrew concordance. I cannot find an online source.
Guyse's paraphrase is in several volumes and the one linked does not seem to contain the related parts (Revelation). Wikipedia lists the dates for the volumes as 1739-52.
Isaac Watts was quoted above as the earliest source found. He had a desire to bring the Church to an Arian view, which may be the reason that there is confusion that the "Michael is Jesus" perspective was originally an Arian perspective.
Thomas Scott began writing his commentary (or notes, as Kinkade called them) in 1788. Searching the source linked does not reveal anything mentioning Michael. It may be the wrong source, or perhaps his notes on that subject have not survived.

Now whether White or Russell learned this theology from Kinkade or another source is unknown. We do know that both were very well read so they may have learned if from any of them. They also may have independently conceived it, though I doubt it.

Observations on the development of this theology

John Calvin in the 16th century mentions that "some think" Michael is Jesus then discusses it a bit further, but he clearly denies to hold that theology himself and further notes that it "is not generally admitted." Watts is also careful to flatly claim it as his own theology, but is clearly not hesitant to discuss it at length. It is not until the 19th century that various theologians began claiming it as their personal belief, while discussing it, and sometimes, in the case of Kinkade and White, even preaching it to convince their readers.

So what are we to make of this? The only option that makes sense is that no prominent theologian was willing to discuss this idea until Calvin, though he wrote at a time when "heretics" were still being burned. Before Calvin, I suspect it was something that insignificant or amateur theologians discussed quietly among themselves to avoid persecution and accusations. But, slowly, as the Catholic church lost its grip on the stately matters of its Church-State, theologians holding this view came out of the shadows, no longer fearing persecution for the implications that this theology makes on the nature and divinity of Christ.

But this still leaves the original question: Where did this theology originate? As it sits now, we do not know. But by my reasoning above it surely originated before Calvin, must have been somewhat known among theological circles, but quietly discussed, and was not openly professed until the 19th century. Because we cannot find any other theologians before Calvin mentioning it, or even the Catholic Church condemning it, I find it difficult to believe that it would remain a quiet or secret matter for more that 200 years before Calvin. I reserve the right, however, for the history books to disprove me.

Conclusion

It would seem that the earliest surviving work to mention this subject is from the early 16th century. It does seem quite possible, however, that less popular theologians were teaching that the Archangel Michael is Jesus Christ before that time. Though, possible, however, the only evidence is Calvin's word that "some think". Even today, the belief is not common among Christians and is considered exclusive to non-trinitarian sects, such as the Jehovah's Witnesses, but this is not true, Seventh Day Adventists being classic trinitarians. These two groups together, make a meager 25 million persons among the billion plus Christian population.

Notes on the differences that JW's and SDA's look at this bit of theology.

The Witnesses would say that Michael is Jesus to support their belief that Jesus is not the Almighty God, but rather a god, and He has manifested Himself under the name Michael at times. To the Witness, they cannot reconcile Michael and Jesus being the same person and Jesus being the eternal God. Adventists can and do.

Adventists (I use this term to mean the modern SDA's) are classic trinitarians. They do, in fact, believe in the full divinity of Christ (though there is some evidence that there progenitors did not). And at the same time they believe that Michael the Archangel is actually Jesus Christ under a different name. They see no reason that the view that Michael is Jesus should affect the divinity of Christ.I have written more on this and much more on Adventists in general here: What are the main differences between 7th Day Adventists and Catholic/Protestant churches?

I feel compelled to give some credit to this blog post. Without it I would not have found Kinkade's work, which means I would not have found Watts' work either.


Does there exist within the Catholic Church a church, cathedral or even an altar dedicated to the Holy Spirit? Does there exist within the Catholic Church a church, cathedral or even an altar dedicated to the Holy Spirit?
With the recent events occurring in Turkey about Hagia Sophia I was wondering if there is such a thing as a church, cathedral or even an side altar within a church dedicated to the third person of the Holy Trinity known as the Holy Spirit or the Holy Paraclete.

In the Orthodox Church and the Roman Catholic Church, the feminine personification of divine wisdom as Holy Wisdom (Ἁγία Σοφία Hagía Sophía) can refer either to Jesus Christ the Word of God (as in the dedication of the church of Hagia Sophia in Constantinople) or to the Holy Spirit. - Sophia
Hagia Sophia (Latin: Sancta Sophia or Sancta Sapientia, 'Holy Wisdom'), officially the Great Holy Mosque of Ayasofya (Turkish: Ayasofya-i Kebir Camii Şerifi) and formerly the Church of Hagia Sophia, is a Late Antique place of worship in Istanbul. Built in 537 as the patriarchal cathedral of the imperial capital of Constantinople, it remained the largest church of the Eastern Roman (Byzantine) Empire, except from 1204 to 1261 when it was converted to a Roman Catholic cathedral. In 1453, it was converted into an Ottoman mosque upon the fall of the city. In 1935 it became a secular museum, and in 2020 will re-open as a mosque. Completed during the reign of the eastern Roman emperor Justinian I, it was then the world's largest interior space and among the first to employ a fully pendentive dome. It is considered the epitome of Byzantine architecture and is said to have "changed the history of architecture". - Hagia Sophia

If there are any churches, cathedrals or altars dedicated to the Holy Spirit are extremely rare, if they exist at all.

There are some churches dedicated to the Holy Spirit in Poland:
Google Maps
Exclude the westmost one - Armenian (not catholic) and the eastmost one - Orthodox.
Translation help (in case the map still shows Polish labels) - English to Polish:
church - kościół
of the Holy Spirit - Świętego Ducha/Ducha Świętego (the ordering of words is not that important in Polish due to extensive declination of nouns - 7 cases)
EDIT: The churches on the map are all Roman Catholic except for the 2 mentioned above. 95% of Polish citizens declare Roman Catholic faith. Most of them are not participating in religious practices but that's a different story. You may only find Protestant churches in bigger cities and some relatively small areas close to borders with Czechia and Germany. Orthodox churches are also present only in bigger cities and areas close to the eastern border with Ukraine, Belarus, Lithuania and Russia.


In Hebrew 5:9, what changed about the Son's perfection? In the book of Hebrews, we read:

  8 Son though he was, he learned obedience from what he suffered 9 and, once made perfect, he became the source of eternal salvation for all who obey him 10 and was designated by God to be high priest in the order of Melchizedek. Hebrews 5:8-10 (NIV)

Here, the writer to the Hebrews describes God the Son as being "made perfect". The simple reading of this would imply that he was imperfect before this event, but that would contradict my understanding of the rest of scripture.

How would a reformed protestant understand the idea of God the Son being "made perfect"?

Calvin has this to say about Hebrews 5:9, using the word 'sanctified' for 'perfect' :

  Sanctified suits the passage better than "made perfect." The Greek word teleiotheis means both; but as he speaks here of the priesthood, he fitly and suitably mentions sanctification. And so Christ himself speaks in another place, "For their sakes I sanctify myself." (John 17:19.) It hence appears that this is to be properly applied to his human nature, in which he performed the office of a priest, and in which he also suffered. [90]

Biblehub

Gill adds the word 'completed':

  And being made perfect,.... In his obedience, through sufferings; having completed his obedience, gone through his sufferings, and finished his sacrifice, and being perfectly glorified in heaven:he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him

Biblehub

Matthew Henry uses the word 'consecrated' in related to 'perfect' :

  (2.) By these his sufferings he was made perfect, and became the author of eternal salvation to all who obey him, v. 9. [1.] Christ by his sufferings was consecrated to his office, consecrated by his own blood. [2.] By his sufferings he consummated that part of his office which was to be performed on earth, making reconciliation for iniquity; and in this sense he is said to be made perfect, a perfect propitiation.

Biblehub


On what basis do Popes choose their papal name? Apologies if there is not a good answer to this but I was wondering how papal names are chosen. Is there a specific tendency for taking a papal name that is associated with a tradition or strain of thought? For instance does the name Benedict imply that you are from a particular subset of orders, does Pius imply that you have a particularly high Christology? Or are the names essentially down to the Pope in question's relatively arbitrary choice? This question could I suppose be reframed as do Papal names carry any particular connotations?

It varies.

For example, Benedict XVI chose his name after St. Benedict and Pope Benedict XIV.

Pope Pius XII likely chose "Pius" because he is in the episcopal lineage of Pope St. Pius X.

John Paul I and II chose theirs after the preceding John XXIII and Paul VI.

Christ chose St. Peter's for him. ☺

Other than that, yes, "the names essentially [come] down to the Pope in question's relatively arbitrary choice". After they are elected, a cardinal asks them which name they choose.


Is the catechism of the Catholic Church seen as official doctrine for Catholics? Or is it seen as something that can be challenged or even, in parts, refused?

Pope John Paul II wrote, in the Apostolic Constitution promulgating the Catechism in 1992,

The Catechism of the Catholic Church, which I approved 25 June last and the publication of which I today order by virtue of my Apostolic Authority, is a statement of the Church's faith and of Catholic doctrine, attested to or illumined by Sacred Scripture, Apostolic Tradition and the Church's Magisterium. I declare it to be a valid and legitimate instrument for ecclesial communion and a sure norm for teaching the faith.
This catechism is given to [the Church's Pastors and the Christian faithful] that it may be a sure and authentic reference text for teaching Catholic doctrine and particularly for preparing local catechisms. It is also offered to all the faithful who wish to deepen their knowledge of the unfathomable riches of salvation (cf. Jn 8:32). It is meant to support ecumenical efforts that are moved by the holy desire for the unity of all Christians, showing carefully the content and wondrous harmony of the Catholic faith. The Catechism of the Catholic Church, lastly, is offered to every individual who asks us to give an account of the hope that is in us (cf. 1 Pt 3:15) and who wants to know what the Catholic Church believes.

The Catechism is a sure norm for teaching the faith: it is a sure and authentic reference text for teaching Catholic doctrine. Thus it is official doctrine, inasmuch as it records what the Church teaches. That is, the Catechism puts forth what the doctrine is; it is not actually doctrine itself.
However, because it represents the teaching of the Church's faith, it is not something to be challenged by Catholics. It is an authentic statement of the teaching of the Church.
All of this is what is meant by "preparing local catechisms": the different Bishops' Conferences [which are generally arranged on a national basis] can prepare their own translation of the Latin original; YouCat, the Youth Catechism, has also been published. There are non-English translations too. Provided that these local versions — each prepared for particular circumstances — also represent the teaching, they do not challenge the Catechism. The Catechism is an authentic statement; it's not the authentic statement. But because it is an authentic statement of Catholic doctrine, it's a useful tool for stating what that doctrine is, and for comparing other teachings to see whether they are consistent with Catholic doctrine.
I am sure there are parts which non-Catholics might take issue with; and by the same token there will be parts which they might be surprised to find it does in fact contain.


Why does the Christian doctrine seem so far from the Bible? Upon reading the Bible, I have found that that Christian doctrine differs heavily from the scriptures.
A few of the differences:

Circumcision
Feast days
Following the statutes & judgements
Keeping the Sabbath

How is it that Christianity, which is supposed to be followers of Christ, don't seem to follow him at all?
I hold the view that there is only one Christ who brought one doctrine and therefore Christianity should all be following the same teachings. Yet there are many divisions and many varying teachings.

Welcome to the site. I'm assuming you are just starting to investigate Christianity. This is a good question, so I'll try to give you a simple answer.
Most of the Bible, which we call the Old Testament, was written for the Jews. It tells the story of their interaction with God, who gave them all sorts of laws and commands to follow. But one of the things he said was that there would be a person who would come who would set them free.
That person is Jesus Christ, and his story is in the later part of the Bible, the New Testament. The New Testament starts with the Gospels, and is the book of Matthew and everything after. Jesus (speaking for God) tells people that the old laws and commands weren't the point. You didn't have to follow all the old laws like circumcision or feast days, but a new law based around love. He gave his life specifically to free us from it. The old law is useful to know about, but the new law supersedes it.
So if you've been reading only the early part of the Bible, you will find a lot of things that Christians don't do. If you read the later part, especially the Gospels (the books Matthew, Mark, Luke and John) you will understand a lot more. I've simplified this a lot, and if there are specific points you don't understand then feel free to ask about them.