Power, Authority and Sovereignty in the Character of God It is held that God is All Powerful and has Supreme Authority over His creation and is Sovereign. I have long pondered on the relation of these three aspects of His Nature, and wonder: are any of these three more or less essential in the Nature of God?

If we look first at the example of Man: if he gets powerful enough, he can seize authority, and/or sovereignty. Also, if he has authority, he can amass power. But there are those with authority who lack imperium, and there are those with imperium that lack authority, and  nowadays we have so-called Sovereigns who lack both power and authority.

Concerning God there is none above Him in Power, and no power in any but by Him. And there is no Authority above Him, and no authority in any but by Him.

But can one of these two be considered more essential to His nature?
Can His power be thought to precede His authority?
Could His authority be thought to precede His power?
Could His sovereignty be considered the souce of His power and authority?

Has this matter been addressed in Classical scholarship?  If so, what were their different conclusions concerning this?

In order to be Sovereign, God would have to be All-Powerful, or Omnipotent.  That means God can do anything that pleases Him, but His actions will always be in accord with the rest of His character (Revelation 19:6; Jeremiah 32:17, 27).  The word omnipotent comes from omni- meaning “all” and potent meaning “power.”  To say God is All-Powerful is to say God is Omnipotent.

In order to be Sovereign, God would have to be the Supreme Authority, meaning that all of His creation put together cannot thwart His purposes (Psalm 93:1; 95:3; Jeremiah 23:20).

  God is, by nature, sovereign. He is judged by no one and has absolute authority over the entire universe and everything in it. His sovereignty is expressed in many ways, including His omnipotence. All of His ways are right (Psalm 145:17), and whether mankind believes God’s ways to be “fair” is irrelevant. The Lord God is not constrained by time or place. He has a plan, He has had it from eternity past, and His purpose will be accomplished (Daniel 4:37; Psalm 115:3).  The Almighty’s sovereignty speaks to His right to do whatever He wishes, and His omnipotence speaks to His ability to do so.

All three attributes work together in perfect harmony.  God’s Power and God’s Authority are what make God Omnipotent and Sovereign.

However, the most important element of God’s nature is His holiness. Holy means “set apart” and God is clearly separate from His creation based on His nature and attributes. Holiness is the foundation of all other aspects of God’s character.  More here: https://www.gotquestions.org/nature-of-God.html


In John 4:1-3, in whose name were Jesus' disciples' baptizing? In regards to John 4:1-3, were Jesus' disciples in this passage baptizing with John's baptism?  If not, and they were baptizing in the name of Jesus, did the people who receive this baptism have to be re-baptized to receive the Holy Spirit (as did those who received John's baptism)?

There's no indication of either.

  It happened that while Apollos was at Corinth, Paul passed through
  the upper country and came to Ephesus, and found some disciples. He
  said to them, "Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?"
  And they said to him, "No, we have not even heard whether there is a
  Holy Spirit." And he said, "Into what then were you baptized?" And
  they said, "Into John's baptism." Paul said, "John baptized with the
  baptism of repentance, telling the people to believe in Him who was
  coming after him, that is, in Jesus." When they heard this, they were
  baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. And when Paul had laid his
  hands upon them, the Holy Spirit came on them, and they began
  speaking with tongues and prophesying. (Act 19:1-6)

In Acts 19:1-6, there's no indication anyone had to be baptized again, other than John's disciples who still didn't realize Jesus was the Messiah.
In John 4, Jesus' disciples were already following Jesus, instead of John. There's no indication Jesus' disciples were baptizing in any name other than Jesus'.


Which denominations teach that Christ received the Holy Spirit at His Baptism by John? A Christian from an unspecified confession made the statement to me recently that "The holy spirit was fully given to Christ at his baptism in order to give it to others through his resurrection".

This is not the teaching of my particular faith (Orthodox Christianity) nor was it, I think, a belief in the early Church.  John Chrysostom writes, for example, "He came to Jordan not for the forgiveness of sins and not for receiving the gifts of the Spirit" (Discourse On the Day of the Baptism of Christ).

I am curious which denominations hold that Christ did, in fact, receive the Holy Spirit at Baptism, and would like links, if available, to doctrinal statements to the like.  I think it would be best if you answer the question only if you personally belong to the specific denomination and are not surmising the beliefs of others.  Thank you!

As a Reformed Baptist, I can say I have never heard this taught as worded in the question.

The baptism of Christ clearly states (Matt 3) "He saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and alighting on him" - and that the Father said, "This is my Son, the Beloved, with whom I am well pleased" (3:17).

As taught in RB circles, this was a special manifestation of all three Persons of the Trinity at one time - as signs of: the Trinity, Jesus' special place in earthly ministry (which was to "begin" about 40 days hence after His wilderness temptation period), how His followers were to be baptised, that Jesus actually was God, and, perhaps, but only perhaps (ie, not dogmatically) that it was a special outpouring/enabling of the Spirit as Jesus was to enter His ministry period in the earth.

It has never, in my experience of 30+ years of paying attention, that Jesus didn't "have" the Spirit until His baptism. He most certainly knew who He was far earlier than this - else how could He, at age 12, have been able to debate with the religious leaders of the day in the temple, and tell His parents, "Did you not know that I must be in my Father’s house?" (Luke 2:49)


Why did the blood sacrifice in Genesis take place as acceptable to God? I have asked pastors where is it commanded by God to have a blood sacrifice as an offering in Genesis since that is the beginning.  It doesn't seem to be explained until Leviticus.  Can someone please tell me if God commanded this to be done in Genesis? Where in Genesis was it commanded that sacrifice was necessary.  From what I am reading it appears to be open as an interpretation.

In the Pearl of Great Price in the book of Moses it says:(Moses 5:5-7)

  5 And he gave unto them commandments, that they should worship the
  Lord their God, and should offer the firstlings of their flocks, for
  an offering unto the Lord. And Adam was obedient unto the commandments
  of the Lord.

  6 And after many days an angel of the Lord appeared unto Adam,
  saying: Why dost thou offer sacrifices unto the Lord? And Adam said
  unto him: I know not, save the Lord commanded me.

  7 And then the angel spake, saying: This thing is a similitude of the
  sacrifice of the Only Begotten of the Father, which is full of grace
  and truth.

When Adam left the Garden of Eden he was commanded by God to give a sacrifice. We see this is continued on by his sons with the whole Cain and Abel situation. It was meant as a similitude of Christs sacrifice. So when Christ died on the cross that law was fulfilled and it was no longer needed for man to sacrifice living animals though Christ has asked other sacrifices of man.

I don't think there is anything written in Genesis specifically if you look at it chronologically but if you look at the story of Abraham and his son Isaac Genesis talks about sacrifice there. But it doesn't explain anything or imply whether sacrifice had been happening before. It is an interesting story as Abraham was almost sacrificed by his own father and that was the reason he left his homeland, so for him to do the same to his only son was very significant.

It was probably written in other scriptures that have not survived to this time era, which is unfortunate as that would have been interesting.


Was Mormon a priest according to the LDS? Background

Before John the Baptist laid hands on Joseph Smith to establish the Aaronic Priesthood, and Peter, James, and John laid their hands upon Joseph Smith to establish the Melchizedek Priesthood, there were several figures of note according to the book of Mormon well after the original 12 apostles' time. Not the least of which was Mormon himself.

Question

Because Mormon existed before the moment where the priesthoods were reestablished though Joesph Smith, I had this question come to mind: Was Mormon himself a priest in the sense that the Aaronic and Melchizedek priests are in the LDS today?

Almost certainly.  While neither his writings, nor those of his son Moroni, explicitly speak of their ordination to the Priesthood, we know that Mormon served as a church leader in his time, struggling to teach what remained of his people and stave off their encroaching descent into apostasy.  Such leadership requires proper authority and Priesthood ordination.

See Moroni chapter 8, consisting of an epistle written by Mormon to Moroni, in which he mentions his leadership role in the church and speaks to clarify certain points of doctrine, with an explanation which he received by revelation from the Lord.  Latter-Day Saints believe that any person can receive revelation, but only covering themselves or matters which they personally have stewardship over.  Therefore, in order to receive revelation regarding doctrinal matters affecting the entire church, he would have needed to be someone with responsibility for the entire church.

As for the original point raised in the question:

  Before [the restoration of the Priesthood in modern days], there were several figures of note according to the book of Mormon well after the original 12 apostles' time. Not the least of which was Mormon himself.

  Because Mormon existed before the moment where the priesthoods were reestablished though Joesph Smith, I had this question come to mind: Was Mormon himself a priest in the sense that the Aaronic and Melchizedek priests are in the LDS today?

The state of general apostasy that necessitated the restoration of the church and the priesthood was not immediate upon the death of the original apostles, either in the Old World or among the Nephites.  It was instead a gradual process, as described in 4 Nephi.  Mormon mentions how the church prospered for a long time, but then as contentions and divisions began to arise among the people, the church began to decay along with it.  In 4 Nephi verses 24-40, he describes how they went from a state of harmonious unity to societal division and widespread sectarian violence over the course of about forty years, and this was still almost a hundred years before Mormon and Moroni's day, when the apostasy among the Nephite people finally became complete.


Words the Holy Ghost teaches with Is there a compilation of Biblical words in which the Holy Ghost teaches with?

I would say, Yes, definitely.
For example the word 'redemption' has a common meaning in the English language and is used in regard to mortgages and financial transactions. It is also used in a very loose way meaning that one can 'redeem' oneself from a bad mistake by correcting that mistake.
But in scripture we see two Hebrew words in the Old Testament scripture translated 'redeem' - gaal and padah. These two words are related and have precise meanings.
Then in the New Testament Greek scripture we see two sets of words, which relate to the two Hebrew words. One set of Greek words is agorazo/exagorazo. The other set is lutron/lutrosis/apolutrosis.
I am not going to go into all this as this answer is not about 'redemption' as such : it is about how words are used.
If one studies the very logical setting out (by the Holy Spirit who inspired all of scripture) of the two Hebrew words and the two sets of Greek words, one will come to an understanding of what we call (in the English language) 'redemption'.
Strictly speaking, we need two words to describe 'redemption' since there are two Hebrew words and two sets of Greek words.
But it is, in my view, sufficient (for the time being until we can really sort this out properly) to at least be aware of what is there in scripture, so that we can be intelligent in our reading of it.
This is a word (strictly speaking - two words) which the Holy Spirit would have us to understand. I would say.

I study the KJV myself and I have found Young's Analytical Concordance an invaluable tool. All of the above (regarding the word 'redemption') is set out, very neatly and simply, in the two halves of Young's Concordance, the first half being a list of the English words used in the bible and the second half being a Hebrew/Greek lexicon (that is all written in both anglicised letters and original letters) so that one can see the different English words that a particular Hebrew/Greek word has been translated into.
Without Robert Young's extensive lifelong labours, or the equivalent, such as I would not have been able to write this answer at all.


What is the LDS Church's instruction concerning debt? Doctrine & Covenants 64 teaches:

  Behold, it is said in my laws, or forbidden, to get in debt to thine enemies; but behold, it is not said at any time that the Lord should not take when he please, and pay as seemeth him good. Wherefore, as ye are agents, ye are on the Lord’s errand; and whatever ye do according to the will of the Lord is the Lord’s business.

This appears to suggest that officers of the church can pay or not pay a debt as they believe they are spiritually instructed.

What is the LDS Church's instruction concerning debt, especially in realation to the above verse?

The Church's Stance on Debt
The official stance of the LDS Church regarding debt is summarized in the following statement from the Church's website:

Since the early days of the Church, the Lord's prophets have repeatedly warned against the bondage of debt.... When it is necessary to incur debt, such as a reasonable amount to purchase a modest home or to complete one's education, the debt should be repaid as quickly as possible.
~lds.org/topics/debt

There are no caveats or exceptions for Church officers or other leadership.
Concerning the Verses in Doctrine and Covenants
I can't find any specific, authoritative statements regarding the meaning of the verses referenced from Section 64. Here is how I read it as a member of the LDS Church.
First we have to back up a little bit and read the preceding verse:

26 And it is not meet that my servants, Newel K. Whitney and Sidney Gilbert, should sell their store and their possessions here; for this is not wisdom until the residue of the church, which remaineth in this place, shall go up unto the land of Zion.

The Lord is speaking to two specific members of the Church in these verses: Newel K Whitney and Sidney Gilbert, both of whom ran some small businesses on the behalf of the Church. The three verses quoted in the question are actually three separate but related statements directed at the two businessmen:

27 Behold, it is said in my laws, or forbidden, to get in debt to thine enemies;
28 But behold, it is not said at any time that the Lord should not take when he please, and pay as seemeth him good.
29 Wherefore, as ye are agents, ye are on the Lord’s errand; and whatever ye do according to the will of the Lord is the Lord’s business.

Verse 27 is a clear denunciation of debt, which is still taught in the Church today. This may have been an important reminder for the two businessmen.
Verse 28 is, I believe, an almost parenthetical reminder to the two men of their own position before the Lord; a rephrasing of the Lord's proclamation, "My ways [are] higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts" (Isaiah  55:8). After all, He has given men everything, and men are eternally indebted to Him; therefore, anything man does for Him does not require recompense (though He may give it anyway in His love and mercy). He is effectually saying, "Remember who is in charge here."
Verse 29 is similar to verse 28 in that it reminds the businessmen that they are working under the direction of the Lord. It also emphasizes that they are His agents doing His business, as long as they follow His will.
Each verse conveys a distinct idea. The Lord instructs these two men to: 1) avoid debt; 2) remember that the Lord is God; and 3) remember that you are an agent of the Lord, and that you should follow His will.
I do not read in these verses that the Lord is giving permission to his officers to refuse paying their debts. To my knowledge, Church officers have never refused to pay their debts by referencing these verses, and I don't see any reason to believe that the Church interprets these verses in that way.


If heaven is not monotonous why would this world be monotonous if God willed to happen in that fashion? I have a question that I have been thinking about for a long time now.

Here it is. Heaven is the place where good people will end up. There are two types of evil.  Natural evil like volcanic eruption, earthquake, flood, drought etc. And there is Volitional evil which is the consequence of human actions. Like unjust wars and genocide. God gave us free will and we can choose. If God rewarded all the good people for good acts and punished the bad people for bad deeds or stop the Natural disasters from occurring then the world would be monotonous and predictable and won't follow the natural order.

But then in heaven everything is orderly, has unwavering and everlasting joy and felicity and is not monotonous for a single day.

I am not challenging God's judgement. I believe in God. I just like to know  Him better. In heaven there is no evil and life is not boring for a single day. If heaven is not monotonous in any way why would this world be monotonous if He had willed to remove all the evil from the face of the earth? After all God is ominous and almighty. He can make everything possible on earth and in the universe.

God is Love

  Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love. (1 John 4:8)

Definition of Ultimate Love

  Greater love has no one than this: to lay down one’s life for one’s
  friends. (John 15:13)

Magnification of Ultimate Love

  6 You see, at just the right time, when we were still powerless,
  Christ died for the ungodly. 7 Very rarely will anyone die for a
  righteous person, though for a good person someone might possibly dare
  to die. 8 But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we
  were still sinners, Christ died for us. (Romans 5:6-8)

Christ's Love is Ultimate Love

  This is how we know what love is: Jesus Christ laid down his life for
  us. And we ought to lay down our lives for our brothers and sisters.
  (1 John 3:16)

It was God's Will that Christ Prove God's Ultimate Love

  41 He withdrew about a stone’s throw beyond them, knelt down and
  prayed, 42 “Father, if you are willing, take this cup from me; yet not
  my will, but yours be done.” (Luke 22:41-42)

God is humble. He does not boast about who He is and what He can do, He proves who He is and what He can do. He does this by making a promise and then fulfilling it. Thus the eternal bliss we may enjoy in Heaven is built upon the sure foundation of God's actual, demonstrated love for us. Christ had to die for those God loved, but to be an even greater demonstration of love, the ones he died for had to be sinners. And if there are to be sinners in this world, then there must be suffering and death, God's justice and stern discipline whereby he teaches us wisdom and perfects us through trials.

Our sin and suffering make us suitable objects of Christ's love to display the Glory of God and lay the foundation for a perfect heaven. The cornerstone of the new Jerusalem is Christ and its foundation is the Apostles and Prophets.

Without the evil and suffering of this world, God would lack the proper foundation on which to build the next. Why? Everyone in Heaven will know personally this one truth: If God loved me enough to die for me while I was a sinner, He will never in the eternity spread out before me abandon me or stop loving me now that I am a saint.


Why can't God cope with Iron chariots? One of the core beliefs of Judaism and Christianity is that God is
  omnipotent, able to do anything that is logically possible. But
  surprisingly, the Bible does not consistently support this idea ...
  there’s the following little-known Bible verse: “And the Lord was with
  Judah; and he drave out the inhabitants of the mountain; but could not
  drive out the inhabitants of the valley, because they had chariots of
  iron.” — Judges 1:19 Source

I think the quotation is self-explanatory. How is this verse understood by Christian apologists?

וַיְהִי יְהוָה אֶתּ־יְהוּדָה
  And the LORD was with Judah
  וַיֹרֶשׁ אֶת־הָהָר
  and he took possession of the hill [country]
  ...כִּ֣י לֹא לְהוֹרִישׁ אֶת־יֹשְׁבֵי הָעֵמֶק
  but he could not drive out those living in the valley...

The pronoun "he" in the final line is of interest. In fact, the Hebrew has no pronoun, nor does it have a form of "could". Technically, there is neither subject nor finite verb in the clause at all. The MT would be more formally translated using a dummy subject: "it was not possible to drive out...", as both Gesenius (§ 114l) and Jouon-Muraoka (§ 160, n. 14) have it.1

The question remains: not possible for whom? There are at least two helpful comments that can be made from the Hebrew text that are not evident in English:

Line 3 is a dependent clause, subordinated to line 2 and constituting a concession ("...although it was not possible to drive out"); and
the English "took possession" and "drive out" are actually the same word: hôrish (~"dispossess").

For both reasons, the one who dispossesses in line 2 must be the same one who dispossesses in line 3.

The identity of the subject of line 2 is best derived from the context:

  v. 17: And Judah...defeated the Canaanites
  v. 18: Judah also captured Gaza
  v. 19: And the LORD was with Judah... and ? took possession but ? could not drive out...
  v. 20: And [Caleb] drove out from [Hebron] the three sons of Anak...
  v. 21: But the people of Benjamin did not drive out the Jebusites...
  v. 22: The house of Joseph also went up against Bethel, and the LORD was with them.

Notice who is doing the capturing, driving, defeating, etc: people. In every verse. Verse 20, in fact, repeats for a third time hôrish, and Caleb is the only possible subject. As the people go about their various aggressions, the LORD was with them. That's his role here (cf. v. 2).

It's clear, then, that it was Judah who was "unable to cope" with the iron chariots in v. 19. There is no suggestion of Yahweh being unable to accomplish his purpose here. Still, sensitive readers of the text, including (I should hope) Christian apologists, are likely to find the "exceptive" clause of v. 19 disquieting.

  We are left to wonder why iron chariots should have proven so decisive if Yahweh was indeed with Judah as verse 19a says he was....There is something profoundly unsatisfying about the simple juxtaposition of the two statements in verse 19.... It is the beginning of a much more mixed picture of Israel’s military fortunes that will be revealed in the rest of the book.2

1. The alternative, which most English translations appear to have adopted, is to add a form of יָכְלוּ = "they could", with the Greek (both versions), Targum, some Hebrew manuscripts, and the BHS apparatus. It's interesting that the grammarians seem to find the MT as written less objectionable than do the translators!

2. Barry G. Webb, The Book of Judges, NICOT; (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2012), 108-109.


Is voluntary passibility consistent with an essentially impassible God? The majority of Christian theologians have held that God is 'impassible' where impassibility means God's inability to be changed/affected by creatures, particularly in reference to his emotional life. This helped to distinguish the one true God from the pagan gods who could be manipulated with sacrifices or often seemed to lack control over their own power. However, many theologians today have argued for more qualified versions of impassibility in which God voluntarily, by choice, created the world in such a way as to allow it to influence his emotions and his decisions. Some theologians suggest it is incompatible to claim that an impassible God would impassibly choose to become passible, while others claim that he does so in a biblical-ly supported paradox. Does this seem logically/biblically/theologically problematic to you and if so help me flesh out potential objections. For context, much of the discussion seems to revolve around the nature of Jesus' hypostatic union.

The inability for God to truly suffer (be passible) is at the heart of virtually every Christian tradition's conception of God, since according to the IVPs Divine Impassibility: Four Views of God's Emotions and Suffering:

  Despite modern bewilderment or offense taken at the strong account of divine impassibility, historically it commanded wide ecumenical backing, being maintained by the Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholics, Lutherans, Reformed, Anglicans, Presbyterians, Congregationalists, Baptists, Methodists, and more. Among Protestants, it enjoyed sponsorship from figures as diverse as John Calvin, James Arminius, John Gill, and John Wesley. (21)

I need other perspectives on this topic. What are potential objections to the voluntary passibility?

An example of voluntary passibility is given by Professor Richard Bauckham (emphasis added):

  It seems increasingly obvious that the Greek philosophical inheritance in traditional theology was adopted without the necessary critical effect of the central Christian insight into the divine nature: the love of God revealed in the cross of Christ. For the Greeks, suffering implied deficiency of being, weakness, subjection, instability. But the cross shows us a God who suffers out of the fullness of his being because he is love. He does not suffer against his will, but willingly undertakes to suffer with and for those he loves. His suffering does not deflect him from his purpose, but accomplishes his purpose. His transcendence does not keep him aloof from the world, but as transcendent love appears in the depth of his self-sacrificing involvement in the world. Finally, if Christians know anything about God from the cross, it is that 'the weakness of God is stronger than men' (1 Cor. 1:25).

This short 2015 First Things magazine article The Impassible God of the Bible - Replying to Some Objections mentions one potential objection to the passibility of God.

Concluding paragraph:

  Put positively, because the Christian God is radically transcendent (which “impassibility” gestures toward), therefore God can take human nature to himself without displacing it or destroying it. And because the transcendent God has taken human nature to himself, the suffering which God undergoes in that nature is redemptive, rather than simply passive victimhood and solidarity with us. Because it is God who suffers in Christ, that suffering is not simply the suffering a fellow-sufferer who understands but is instead the suffering of One who is able to end all suffering by overcoming it in resurrection and ascension and immortality. Paradoxically, perhaps, it is only by affirming impassibility that we can maintain the deepest soteriological import of the suffering God takes on himself in and through the Incarnation.

The paragraph can be read as a potential objection to God's passibility, even at the most obvious example where God is passible (the suffering of Christ for us), by saying that merely suffering together is not sufficient to be redemptive.

Using an analogy of God as an ideal psychoanalyst / counselor, God is willing to journey together with our suffering: cry together with us, angry with others who harm us, understand our pain, etc.  But if the counselor is so overcome with our suffering that he/she becomes incapacitated with sadness / anger / hopelessness, how can the counselor help us?

Therefore, when the counselor is out of the counseling session, the counselor needs to be "impassible" when reviewing his notes about us.  He/she needs to be able 1) to see our blind spots (which is not possible if the counselor cannot "get out" of our situation) and 2) to suggest avenues for healing.

In the same way, God, while being impassible, can still identify with our suffering.  I think the doctrine of impassibility of God properly understood still allows for this, and thus passages in Scripture where God is portrayed as angry, pained, compassionate, etc. can coexist with His impassibility.  One way is to go with this writer's approach by "reflecting deeper on the doctrine of God and the Trinity as well as Christology."


Why in the Book of Exodus did God let the people travel for exactly 40 years? What is the symbolic idea behind this number?

Also, what might be His intention behind the travel?

The field of Biblical numerology can be a pretty mirky pond. There are some clear trends (three for completion, seven for perfection, a thousand for a really big number, etc.) and a lot of speculation and conclusions that may or may not be warranted.

In this case however, the answer is pretty much spelled out in another verse. The 40 years of wandering was an exact calculation, one year for one day, based on how long the spies spent looking around the land before they were originally supposed to enter.

  Numbers 14:34 (ESV)
  34   According to the number of the days in which you spied out the land,  forty days, a year for each day, you shall bear your iniquity forty years, and you shall know my displeasure.’

The logical next question is, "Why did the spies spend 40 days on their quest"? To that we are not given any definite clues. It does seem like a reasonable amount of time to get around to a bunch of different places on foot and get an idea of the lay of the land without making your movements too obvious and getting caught.

There are actually quite a few references to 40 in the Bible. The flood. The spies. The wandering in the desert. The reigns of many of the Judges. Moses life has three periods of 40 years each. The temptation of Jesus. The surmised time between the resurrection and the ascension that Jesus spent back on earth. However the connections between these references is faint at best, and I think it is safe to say, since we are not told explicitly that there is any meaning to this number, that it is of no particular consequence that the spies took 40 days to get their spyin' done.


Did Samuel act as a priest on top of being a prophet? Thinking about the life of Samuel, you can see that in some ways lived like a priest on top of being a prophet, despite being from the half-tribe of Ephraim.

One, he was brought up in the temple by Eli and thus lived out his life in priestly service together with the sons of Eli.

Two, he performed some duties that were traditionally assumed to be for priests. For example, by appointing leaders and offering sacrifices. In Numbers 27, it is Eleazar the high priest who commissioned Joshua. However, it was Samuel who anointed both Saul and David. In regards to offerings, in 1 Samuel 13 we see Saul waiting for Samuel to offer the burnt offering and peace offering. According to Leviticus 1, priests and the offerer were the only ones involved in making the sacrifice.

So in regards to this info, did Samuel act as a priest?

Pay close attention to the words and what they are referring to here:
1 Samuel 1:1

There was a certain man of Ramathaim-zophim of the hill country of Ephraim whose name was Elkanah the son of Jeroham, son of Elihu, son of Tohu, son of Zuph, an Ephrathite.

Samuel,  and even his father,  were not Ephrathites, for Ephrathites were generally Judahites. Zuph was the Ephrathite. Samuel is neither Ephrathite nor Ephraimite, though he did live in the hill country of Ephraim.
Samuel was a Levite.
1 Chronicles 6:27,28

27 Eliab his son, Jeroham his son, Elkanah his son.
28 The sons of Samuel: Joel his firstborn, the second Abijah

Being a Levite explains why he was in Ephraim since the Levites lived throughout Israel. Also,  if we read further back in Samuel's heritage we see he is a Kohathite. Which ties it all together:
Joshua 21:5

5 And the rest of the Kohathites received by lot from the clans of the tribe of Ephraim, from the tribe of Dan and the half-tribe of Manasseh, ten cities.

So we see that Samuel is a Kohathite, of the tribe of Levi,  living in a Levite city in the hill country of Ephraim.
But what is an Ephrathite?
Caleb,  of the tribe of Judah, had a son who apparently settled Ephratha.
1 Chronicles 2:50

50 These were the descendants of Caleb. The sonsfn of Hur the firstborn of Ephrathah: Shobal the father of Kiriath-jearim,

Ephratha is also synonymous with Bethlehem,  though it is usually used more in the sense of the region around Bethlehem.
Micah 5:2

2 But you, O Bethlehem Ephrathah,
who are too little to be among the clans of Judah

It is probably in this sense that Zuph was an Ephrathite,  that is,  he simply lived in that region. Like one who lives in New York is a New Yorker even if they are African American or Italian.
So was Samuel a priest?
Absolutely yes, or at least,  he could have been. He was to be a priest first,  trained by Eli. But when God spoke to him and delivered a prophecy against Eli and his family,  then Samuel became a prophet.
He could not be the high priest at the Tabernacle or the Ark of the Covenant, which was at Shiloh,  since he was not of Aaronic lineage, but he could be a lesser priest.
However,  the Ark was taken at the same time that Eli and his sons died and when it was returned it was put under the control of the descendants of Eleazar.  So Samuel never was put in that role.
It is possible he was seen as adopted by Eli. This, combined with his Levite heritage, would have settled any questions regarding offering sacrifices.
Samuel took the role of Judge after the return of the Ark as well.  So while he was qualified to sacrifice and was given prophecies at times,  his other role was as a Judge.
1 Samuel 7:17

17 Then he would return to Ramah, for his home was there, and there also he judged Israel. And he built there an altar to the LORD.

Ramah is in the hill country of Ephraim.
There are many cases of non-priests making sacrifices and offerings on altars. They are usually at least prophets, such as Elijah,  or Judges,  such as Gideon. But some are neither,  such as Samson's parents, though they did it at the behest of an angel.
The rules for only Aaronic priests were specific to the Sanctuary and the Ark
Numbers 18:1,2

1 So the LORD said to Aaron, “You and your sons and your father’s house with you shall bear iniquity connected with the sanctuary, and you and your sons with you shall bear iniquity connected with your priesthood.
2 And with you bring your brothers also, the tribe of Levi, the tribe of your father, that they may join you and minister to you while you and your sons with you are before the tent of the testimony.

This chart and the site it is from has a lot of great info on the Levites:


What impact did the False Decretals have on Gratian's collection of Canon law? In the ninth century, a series of elaborate forgeries were written under the pseudonym of Isidore Mercator, which are now known as the Pseudo-Isidorian Decretals (or simply the False Decretals).  Among these documents are over 100 letters ostensibly written by popes and bishops in the early church, in which these popes and bishops repeatedly quoted works written centuries after their lifetimes.

Everett Ferguson indicates that this was no small thing:

  This collection became the most influential forgery in the history of the Roman Catholic church.  It became the basis of the claims for the papal monarchy in the later Middle Ages. (Church History, 18.IV.B)

This is obviously a sensitive subject, and doubly so because the gradual discovery of the fraud occurred during the Reformation period, during which the RCC faced broader challenges to its authority.  Nonetheless, I'm hoping that it's possible to politely probe the influence of these documents on the medieval church.

One particular point of disagreement I seem to have uncovered relates to the decretals' impact on the Decretum Gratiani (or Concordia discordantium canonum), an important 12th-century collection of canon law.  Wikipedia seems to downplay their impact on Gratian's work, not listing the False Decretals as one of his sources, and saying that his work "ended the immediate influence of the False Decretals" (source).

At the same time, the Catholic Encyclopedia notes that "many fragments" of the false decretals "are to be found in the 'Decretum' of Gratian."

Thus I'd like to limit my query here to the impact of the Pseudo-Isidorian Decretals on Gratian's Decretum.  Ways of viewing "impact" might include:

the percentage of Gratian's text that, directly or indirectly, comes from the False Decretals
the percentage of Gratian's supporting references that ultimately come from the False Decretals
any instances of statements or rules that Gratian rests solely or primarily on the False Decretals

Note that I am framing this as something that is, at least theoretically, objectively answerable.  I'm specifically not asking how much of Gratian's text ought to be kept or discarded, for example, nor do I care how Catholics and Protestants have defended or attacked the legitimacy of Gratian's collected canons.  Instead, I'm interested in a textual analysis of the use (intentional or unintentional) of the Pseudo-Isidorian Decretals in the Decretum Gratiani.

I will try an answer based on the one source I found online with a quick search. My answer relies on the summary in the review [2] on the book [1]. The whole book [1] gives more details. If someone has special questions in the comments and I have time, I will search it in the library.

The Pseudoisodorian Decretals were important for Gratian. 400 out of 4000 chapters of the Decretum Gratiani were "pseudoisidoric" ("psedoisidorianisch"). 220 of them deal with processual matters. For the justification of the papal primate Gratian used Pseudoisidor "fewer" ("weniger"). The direct sources of Gratian for these cittations are less clear.

[1] Fuhrmann, Horst: Einfluß und Verbreitung der pseudoisidorischen Fälschungen. Von ihrem Auftauchen bis in die neuere Zeit. (Schriften der Monumenta Germania« histórica 24, I-IIΙ.) Anton Hiersemann, Stuttgart 1972—1974.
(title in English: Influence and distribution of pseudoisidoric counterfeits. From their emergence to newer times; 3 Volumes, intersting is here esp. Vol. 2)

[2]  Landau, Peter: Horst Fuhrmann, Einfluß und Verbreitung der pseudoisidorischen Fälschungen. Von ihrem Auftauchen bis in die neuere Zeit. In: Zeitschrift der Savigny-Stiftung für Rechtsgeschichte. Kanonistische Abteilung, 1975, Vol.61(1), pp.377-392 (388f.). (buyable online)


What is the earliest reference to the notion that we killed Jesus? In this blog post, Catholic professor Edward Feser discusses the Crucifixion:

  No silly talk here of “Flying Spaghetti Monsters” and the like; Nietzsche, unlike so many of his successors, still had a sense of the noble, indeed of the Holy. (The New Atheist is none other than Nietzsche’s Last Man in rationalist drag.) And what he said of the modern, metaphorical “death of God” is true of the real thing: We are each of us guilty of it. We are each of us the worst of murderers. We have, each of us, slain our Maker and sought to make ourselves gods in His place. And we cannot possibly atone.

  For the crucifixion, in its sublime gruesome blasphemousness, lays bare the true meaning of sin. It is Non serviam, “My will, not thine, be done!” pushed through consistently. To rationalize evil, we must obliterate the Good. To justify lawlessness, we must put to death the Lawgiver. And yet there can be no “rationalization” of any action in the absence of Good. There can be no “justification” without Law. In the crucifixion we see the sheer, satanic madness of sin.

  And we cannot possibly atone. Yet we are not without hope. For the Supreme Lawgiver against Whom we offend is also Infinite Mercy. The God Who can lay down His life can raise Himself up again. And He lays it down willingly, for those He calls His “friends” – for us, His very killers! Even as we commit the greatest of crimes against Him, His thoughts are – astoundingly – with us: “Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do.” Having put Him on a cross, we can but humbly kneel before it – in sorrow, in thanks, in worship.

Now it's standard Christian doctrine that Jesus died for the sins of humanity.  But my question is, what is the earliest reference to the notion that we, i.e. all humans, killed Jesus?  Is it mentioned in the Bible itself, or in the writings of early Church Fathers, or what?

There seems to be two distinct issues here. One is that the claim that Jesus' death was for the sins of all men. The other is related to the sense in which all men may have participated in the killing of Christ.
Universal atoning work of Christ
The atoning work of Christ was universal, in that it applied, at least in some way, to all men. There is still some debate over the extent of this topic, which would most clearly be articulated in the debate for an against "Limited Atonement" (one of the five points of Calvinism). Some would believe that the crucifixion was for only for those who would actually believe, and some would believe that it was for all, whether or not they choose to take advantage of it. Regardless, both sides still accept the relevant verses, such as:

Romans 5:18 - Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.
1 John 2:2 - And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.

The death of Christ was the death that was meant for all men, and in that sense. If it were not for our sins, Jesus would not have had to die. Consider this famous passage:

Isaiah 53:5 - But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed.

and in the same chapter:

Isaiah 53:11 - He shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied: by his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many; for he shall bear their iniquities.

That is spelled out further in the New Testament:

I Corinthians 5:21 - For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.

The picture is the same as that of the sacrifices in the Old Testament. Our sin was placed upon our Saviour. Jesus had never sinned. However, he became, in God's eyes, the very sinner that we are as our sins were placed upon him. Because God cannot tolerate sin, He had to punish that man, His own son, with the punishment that rightfully belonged to us. He was reaping the punishment that we purchased through our actions.
Therefore, in that sense, we killed Jesus. When we choose to act contrary to God's law, we are bringing down judgement upon ourselves, which God's great mercy and love demand that Christ take that punishment. So, while we aren't there literally being the executor of that judgement, since the Gospel, it has been known that we are the reason for that judgement.
There is a further sense in which a believer would at first want to accuse those who performed the crucifixion, but it becomes clear upon some reflection that were we there, just as the Jews in their hate and the Romans in their ignorance crucified Christ, we too, are just as hateful and ignorant, and in their shoes, we would have done the same thing. This theme is sometimes approached within Christian literature, but I cannot find an earliest source for this. I am not certain whether this is something that is just a universal understanding upon reflection or whether there were some original source.
Nihilism and death of morality
The author being quoted here, however, brings in another concept, one that specifically originated from a secular source, and then applying that to Christianity. He isn't quoting a terribly old concept, but one of a specific, relatively recent, concept. His approach to it is novel, but making a point that is as old as the Gospels.
The author is bringing up a reference to a work from Nietzsche titled Thus Spake Zarathustra. In it, there was a famous quote stating that God is "dead", but most people seem to miss that this was not, as is taken these days, as a statement about God or a desire for this to happen, but instead as a lament of the dangers of modern philosophies. Nietzsche championed a school of philosophy called Nihilism, which did not believe in God, nor any ultimate goal for humanity. Even though he did not believe in God, his work admitted the problem that without God, we would lack much of what makes us great. He was lamenting the fact that people, in their attempt to find naturalist answers, have removed a great advantage, even if he didn't himself believe that God existed.
From the section labeled The Madman:

God is dead! He remains dead! And we have killed him! How shall we console ourselves, the most murderous of all murderers? The holiest and the mightiest that the world has hitherto possessed, has bled to death under our knife, -- who will wipe the blood from us? With what water could we cleanse ourselves?

This isn't particularly speaking about Christianity, but of how this current world of secular reasoning was killing all gods and all morality.
Although this was a completely secular point of view, it seems to understand a bit of the truth of what we believers know from Romans:

Romans 1:18-25 - 18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; 19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. 20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: 21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. 22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, 23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things. 24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: 25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

Romans 1 deals with the nature of man and his tendency toward sin. This seems to be much of what the author quoted in the question is addressing. As men, we tend to want to fight against the Creator. We want to worship the creation instead. We ignore the very natural and obvious things that we see because we do not want to be ruled the way they tell us we should be ruled, and so we, in a figurative since, attempt to kill God in our own hearts so that we may continue to sin without a conscience.
God is the ultimate moral judge and dictator of our actions. He is the Sovereign master of each person, and when we tell him "No" or refuse to follow His orders, we are in a figurative sense putting that ruler to death in our minds and hearts. The ultimate sin is pride, and this is our tendency, to refuse God to rule as God.
Tying them together
The author is tying these ideas together in a novel way. He is taking the old literal since in which Jesus, as God and God's sacrifice, was killed because of the sin which we commit every day and showing how this is caused by the sin is the figurative sense, in which we try to put him to death in our own hearts and lives. Nevertheless, as the ultimate Lamb of God, he willingly allows this for our sakes. We, in our ignorance and sinfulness, bring death upon the Christ, but in his love and mercy, he willingly takes that death, and in exchange gives us life. We are each one of us committing this wrong, and to each one of us, hope of salvation is offered through Christ's death.
It would seem to me that the idea that Christ died for all humanity is as old as the Gospel, the idea that all humanity killed God figuratively is as old as Nietzsche, and this particular combination of the two is likely new to this article.


What did Jesus do regarding the Jews believing that some diseases were sometimes due to sin? In relation to these two questions:

What evidence is there that the Jews thought leprosy was due to sin?

What does it mean to say that mental illness is a modern-day leprosy?

Obviously, Jesus didn't go into details about biology and psychology. Those things barely work with some people in modern society. So what did He do? Did He actually correct some people? What did Jesus say to convince them?

As far as I am able to recall, Jesus showed sympathy to the diseased by interacting or dining with them, which implies "So what if disease or their diseases are caused by sin? We still shouldn't refuse to interact with them."

That's a great lesson really, but did He also correct people? I kind of feel that He probably didn't because that wasn't really His point of being on Earth (left that to the scientists centuries later).

On the other hand, I kind of feel that such lesson or even a nudge towards things like that would have been largely helpful. I don't see any practical value in Jesus talking about calculus or gravity those don't have much to do with morality and religion, but I think some lessons or nudges about very simple biology such as some of the causes of diseases, which might eventually lead those people to think that, more often than not, diseases are caused more by physical evils than moral evils.

You ask: What did Jesus do regarding the Jews believing that some diseases were sometimes due to sin?

There's one passage in particular where explicitly corrects the disciples regarding a man born blind in John 9:

  As he passed by, he saw a man blind from birth. 2 And his disciples asked him, “Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?” 3 Jesus answered, "It was not that this man sinned, or his parents, but that the works of God might be displayed in him."

Admittedly, Jesus may not go as far as addressing the scientific causes of this "disease" (I'm not aware of any teaching of Jesus along those lines), and the inference to the "disease" being a result of the Fall is weak at best.  Nonetheless, he does clearly teach that a) the disease was under God's sovereignty and b) the disease was not due to the man's sin.


Is faith the only thing we need to attain salvation? There may be some denominations that believe faith is the only necessary thing to have to attain salvation or eternal life. However, I do not conform with this because faith is just the beginning, and faith is not just the only commandment given by Christ. Can you tell me Biblical facts or verses concerning this topic, whether faith is the only thing necessary or not?

There are a number of verses which can be brought.

Romans 5:1 — Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ.
Romans 4:5 — But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.
Romans 3:28 — Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.

There is also

James 2:24 — Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.

... which might support the different view that we are justified simply by works and how we act. However, context is important and James goes on to say

James 2:26 — Indeed, as the body without spirit is dead, so also faith without works is dead.

The point is that faith engenders good works.

Matthew 5:16 — Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven.
Galatians 5:22 — But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control.

We are not justified by slavishly following the Law (which is what “not justified by works” is saying) — we are justified by faith, and that faith will transform our lives with the fruit of the Spirit which pervades every act so that our works show that we are justified.
Peter wrote of this in 2 Peter 1:

1 3 His divine power has given us everything we need for a godly life through our knowledge of him who called us by his own glory and goodness. 4 Through these he has given us his very great and precious promises, so that through them you may participate in the divine nature, having escaped the corruption in the world caused by evil desires.
5 For this very reason, make every effort to add to your faith goodness; and to goodness, knowledge; 6 and to knowledge, self-control; and to self-control, perseverance; and to perseverance, godliness; 7 and to godliness, mutual affection; and to mutual affection, love. 8 For if you possess these qualities in increasing measure, they will keep you from being ineffective and unproductive in your knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ. 9 But whoever does not have them is short-sighted and blind, forgetting that they have been cleansed from their past sins.

Peter deliberately lists the fruits of the Spirit. In "making every effort" to add those virtues to faith, Peter is saying "allow the Spirit to do his work" because a living faith will engender good works (cf James 2:26). Any effort we bring to bear for ourselves is using our conscience to do good works. Verse 4 says that we participate in the divine nature by virtue of God's great and glorious promises. This means that it is necessary that we believe those promises will be fulfilled: this is faith.
This is not to say that good works are not inherently good! They point towards — and ultimately come from — God, as Pope Francis and Pope Benedict XVI have pointed out. One's conscience is God-given, formed by the natural Law, and in doing what we inherently perceive to be good we are allowing the Spirit to work in our lives.
But we are saved by faith. That is all that is necessary. Everything else comes from faith.


Is Seventh Day Adventistism considered an orthodox denomination? Because of their Sabbath day standards, and unique lifestyle, my question is:
Is 7th Day Adventistism considered an orthodox Christian faith?

I'll first direct you to a decent summary of SDA differences from typical (i.e. common) protestants: What are the main differences between 7th Day Adventists and Catholic/Protestant churches?

Now let's examine a few definitions of orthodox.

  orthodox adjective
    or·tho·dox | \ˈȯr-thə-ˌdäks  \

      Definition of orthodox (Entry 1 of 2)

        1a : conforming to established doctrine especially in religion
          // orthodox principles
          // the orthodox interpretation
        1b : CONVENTIONAL
          // took an orthodox approach to the problem
          // orthodox medicine

        2 capitalized : of, relating to, or constituting any
        of various conservative religious or political groups: such as
          a : EASTERN ORTHODOX
            // Greek Orthodox rituals
          b : of or relating to Orthodox Judaism
            // Orthodox Jews in their black suits and hats and modest dresses
  - Merriam-Webster

In a religious academic setting, Orthodox is almost always used as in the second definition. That is, it is a specific thing, a proper noun. In this case, Seventh Day Adventist is trivially not Orthodox.

Outside of the academic setting, but still within highly religious settings (i.e. casual Bible studies, sermons, religious books for popular consumption) orthodox takes more of the first definition. The scope of it's use tends to coincide with many preferring to call their own beliefs "orthodox", which is to say they believe what they think is right and all biblically significant characters believed it as well. In a phrase, they think what they believe is historically correct. Many protestant denominations believe this about themselves.

However, the fact is most of them do not fit this definition. They have little to no evidence that their particular beliefs were common or even existed before the founding of their denomination. What is clear is that Catholics have quite a broad leg to stand on in this regard, and they are not shy to mention it as a point of validity for themselves. And in a broad sense, "Catholic" refers also to those ancient denominations that take the name "Orthodox". These are the first denominations and they have the history to prove it. Therefore, even in these settings, "orthodox" should be reserved for only these old denominations because they have the traditions of the first Christians.

As Protestants are outsiders to Orthodoxy, Seventh Day Adventists are outsiders to Protestants. It is clear that they have quite a few beliefs that most Protestants roundly reject and would even call heresy. And SDAs gladly accept this image. They understand they have some starkly different beliefs on some really big topics, and it is on exactly those topics that they proselytize. They preach consistently on keeping the Sabbath and the mercy of Annihilationism, neither of which are tenets of common protestant denominations.

The answer is clear: No, Seventh Day Adventists are not orthodox. They do not use the label for themselves and no other denomination calls them such. The word simply doesn't fit with any definition.

I came across my own answer here a year later and notice one missing point that is probably related. Adventists consider themselves a "remnant church". They believe strongly that their beliefs are the original beliefs of Christianity and that remnants of their orthodoxy has survived through the ages (claims of African churches mostly), though they do recognize that their prophet, Ellen White, is responsible for their creation as an American denomination. Contrast this with LDS (mormons) who believe that they are a restoration of a once lost orthodoxy.

A caveat: As you tighten scope of any labeling effort, you will often find the word "orthodox" used in conjunction with other specific terms. This is usually to denote that within a denomination there are disagreements and even schisms. For example, see the Anglican Orthodox Church and the Orthodox Presbyterian Church. Both already protestant and distinctly not Orthodox Anglican and Presbyterian Churches split into one or more denominations, with one keeping closer to their respective traditional beliefs. The SDA is no stranger to this usage of the word, as this article references an "Adventist Orthodoxy". Given some time and a significant disagreement, we may see the birth of The Adventist Orthodox Church, but that name would only imply that it holds to the traditional beliefs of Adventists.


Can I be baptized as a non-Catholic Christian if I was baptized as a Catholic when I was little? I was baptized as a Catholic at a young age, however have never attended a Catholic church or mass, or otherwise practiced Catholicism. Instead, I now am a non-Catholic Christian. Would other Christian denominations typically allow me to be baptized into their denomination, even if I was baptized as a Catholic? What is an overview of common views?

It's going to depend on the denomination you want to be baptized by.

For denominations that accept infant baptism you have no need to be rebaptized. Your Catholic baptism is a valid Christian baptism. Even if you want to  those denominations probably won't baptise you again, because it is virtually universally believed that you cannot be validly baptized twice. However they will happily admit you to their denomination on the basis of your Catholic baptism. They may even have a ceremony for admitting you.

Denominations that do not accept infant baptism will not consider your previous baptism valid, and will be very happy to baptize you. They will probably require it if you are to join their church.

If you want to be rebaptized, but your new denomination considers you already baptized, there is nothing to stop you having a private ceremony in which you dedicate you life to Jesus and are immersed in water. Your denomination may not consider it a baptism, but since they believe you are already baptized it won't be a problem.

A few denominations such as Jehovah's Witnesses and Latter Day Saints will require you to be rebaptized when you join them no matter who previously baptized you. There may also be a few other exceptions, mostly denominations that do not believe in the Trinity.


How do Trinitarians explain Jesus' response to the scribes and Pharisees at Luke 5:20-24? Luke 5:20-24 has Jesus forgiving the sins of a paralyzed man.

"When Jesus saw their faith, He said, “Friend, your sins are
forgiven.” 21 But the scribes and Pharisees began thinking to
themselves, “Who is this man who speaks blasphemy? Who can forgive
sins but God alone?” 22 Knowing what they were thinking, Jesus
replied, “Why are you thinking these things in your hearts? 23 Which
is easier: to say, ‘Your sins are forgiven,’ or to say, ‘Get up and
walk?’ 24 But so that you may know that the Son of Man has authority
on the earth to forgive sins...” He said to the paralytic, “I tell
you, get up, pick up your mat, and go home.”"

Trinitarians think that the scribes and Pharisees were incorrect here in that Jesus was not blaspheming because he was, indeed, God. Yet, instead of simply stating he was God, Jesus says something different.

"But so that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on the
earth to forgive sins ..."

If the scribes and Pharisees were wrong in thinking Jesus was a man, why didn't Jesus correct them, but instead reinforce that belief by calling himself 'Son of Man' and saying he has 'authority' (why would God need to say he has authority to do something)?

In Trinitarian theology, Jesus is both God and Man, so the title "Son of Man" isn't incorrect in that regard.
Throughout Matthew, Mark and Luke, Jesus generally encourages the "Messianic secret" -- He doesn't directly state He is God. Instead He does or says things which lead sincere people to that conclusion.
This miracle relies on a somewhat subtle argument. The Pharisees accuse him of blasphemy for stating his sins were forgiven because only God can forgive sins. They aren't wrong on that point, but suppose Jesus were a fraud, He could say "Your sins are forgiven" which would, yes, be blasphemous as it would be claiming a power which belonged to God, but there would also be no way to prove or disprove that He wasn't God. Similarly if he stated, "but I am God," it couldn't be directly disproven.
Forgiveness of sin is not an observable act -- there is no physically discernible change that proves that Jesus did in fact accomplish what He said, so on the surface the Pharisees cannot distinguish the act of a blasphemer from God being present.
Hence, the miraculous healing. The argument thus becomes, given that Jesus can miraculous heal the paralyzed man, which only God can do, He must be God and thus can forgive sins.


What were the major disagreements between Erasmus and Luther during the Protestant Reformation? Although Erasmus inspired many of Luther's ideas, they disagreed on many subjects, such as whether the Catholic Church should have a moral reform or a reform of beliefs.

Did Erasmus disagree with Luther's decision to break away from the Catholic Church? It seems like Erasmus may have thought Luther had gone too far by starting the Protestant Reformation, but I am not completely sure.

Sources would be really helpful.

EDIT: Sorry, I have been busy lately, so it has taken me awhile to find some time to write this.

I am actually not sure where I came up with the idea of Erasmus thinking Luther had gone too far. I probably just assumed it, because Erasmus wanted moral reform of the church, meaning he did not want to change the practices and doctrines of the Catholic Church. I must have assumed that because Erasmus did not think the church needed a reform of beliefs, then he probably would have thought Luther had gone too far by trying to reform the church this way. There is no evidence I have to support this, which is why i put that it "seems" like he thought Luther went too far.

This is also the reason why I was thinking Erasmus may have disapproved of the protestant reformation, despite the influence he may have had on it.

This goes back to the question, did Erasmus disagree with Luther's break away with the church?

To understand how Erasmus viewed Luther it is helpful to see on what topic they decidedly became engaged in hot argument against each other. The topic they chose to hurl their missiles at each other what a on their opposite understanding of the role of the 'human will.'

Erasmus was a Catholic who never wanted to separate from the stablished Catholic religion. However he was also a highly regarded academic with a strong humanistic persuasion. He was also much older then Luther, and a although not really providing Luther with any direct inspiration theologically, he did publish a Greek New Testament that Luther was grateful to have and use.

In simple terms to understand Erasmus, the idea of humanism should play central. In other word he sought to use critical thinking and scholarship along with the value of individual humanity to try and obtain a more free and liberal world that would tolerate new ideas and not just forcibly follow the dogmatics of religious powers who were at times corrupt in addition to ignorant. So Erasmus was not a regions reformer per se, but rather a Catholic with a liberal and humanistic view that naturally would like and dislike Luther all at the same time.

Luther on the other had was principally a theological reformer, absolutely focused on opposing works in salvation versus faith alone. Erasmus in some ways did not seem to want to deal directly with doctrines and theology or at least had more general interests in education and scholastic topics that had effects of humanity as a whole.

Now with these very different drivers of course one would expect some initial interest in each other and a final separation as is what history shows.  Basically Erasmus encouraged people to read Luther's writings and wanted people like Luther to express their views as part of a liberalized acceptance of human opinion under a humanistic tolerance.  Luther on the other hand would have loved the support of a respected academic such as Erasmus if he could only make him his disciple.

What history shows is that as Luther caused a violent political uproar over justification by faith alone, Erasmus was pressured to distance himself from Luther and finally  chose the subject of 'free will' to launch an attack, writing a diatribe that implied Luther's predestination based doctrines to limit the free will of men to far and become obnoxious to the spirit of a humanist.

Luther in response wrote a book called the 'Bondage of the will'. In it he argues against Erasmus's view of a free will that is aligned with Catholic doctrine that allows for some role of works in Salvation.  Luther shows that a sinner is without the ability to be real righteous or chose anything towards salvation but only the elect can be delivered from an enslaved will to one under the liberty and control of the Spirit.   We need not go too deep in explaining the theology of either side, only notice that this is what Erasmus chose to take a stance against Luther, while still liking Luther in some ways according to his humanistic tolerance of ideas.

Some quotes from a summary of this dispute from a book called 'MARTIN LUTHER’S THEOLOGY, Its Historical and Systematic Development' by BERNHARD LOHSE, will help underline the points I have mentioned above.

  LUTHER’S DISPUTE WITH ERASMUS
  Erasmus’s Diatribe de libero arbitrio (1524)
  While the debate about reforms was still going on and Luther was developing in greater detail his view of the temporal authority against opponents to “left” and “right,” the next great dispute occurred, this time between Luther and Erasmus. The dispute had to do with the starting point of Reformation theology, with the radical view of sin and bondage of the human will in respect of grace...

  Erasmus advocated a Christianity reinvigorated by the Sermon on the Mount. It was not the abundance of ecclesiastical norms and regulations, and certainly not the subtleties of scholasticism that should determine the church’s teaching and preaching, but rather humility and discipleship. Erasmus held that some questions with which philosophy and theology dealt were too complex for him to want to discuss them in public. Among them was the problem of the freedom of the will.
  When, after intense pressure, Erasmus finally dealt with the freedom of the will in his Diatribe, he singled out that point at which he knew he was in conscious agreement with Luther’s traditionalist opponents, despite all their other differences....

  What is significant is Erasmus’s definition of free choice or freedom of the will: “By free choice in this place we mean a power of the human will by which a man can apply himself to the things which lead to eternal salvation, or turn away from them.” Erasmus argued that Scripture as well as ancient and more modern scholars hold various views regarding the freedom of the will. Against Luther he stressed that to contest the freedom of the will easily opens the door to godlessness. Since the New Testament speaks often of reward, there can be no such thing as mere necessity. Erasmus left open the question whether as primary cause of all occurrences God effects some things only through secondary causes, or whether he is omnipotent. For his defense of a limited freedom of the will he also cited the scholastic distinction between necessitas consequentis (unconditioned necessity) and necessitas consequentiae (conditioned necessity). Above all he opposed the idea that God would harden a person’s heart. For the rest, he emphasized that we owe God “all the work without which we can do nothing, and that the contribution of free choice is extremely small, and that this itself is part of the divine gift.” We may summarize his position to read that the grace of God is the principal cause and the human will the secondary cause in obtaining salvation.
  Admittedly, at certain points in his Diatribe, Erasmus laid himself open to attack. His statement on skepticism is highly problematic: “And, in fact, so far am I from delighting in ‘assertions’ that I would readily take refuge in the opinion of the Skeptics, wherever this is allowed by the inviolable authority of the Holy Scriptures and by the decrees of the church, to which I everywhere willingly submit my personal feelings, whether I grasp what it prescribes or not.” Luther responded in all asperity: “Spiritus sanctus non est Scepticus” (the Holy Spirit is no skeptic). Of course in his Hyperaspistes Erasmus made clear what he meant by these unguarded statements: “It is not a matter of indifference but of reserve toward too hasty assertions, just as the ancient church reflected long before it handed down decisions, for example, in the doctrine of the Holy Spirit.” This very passage indicates to what great extent Erasmus and Luther misunderstood each other.

  Luther’s Response in The Bondage of the Will (1525)
  In drafting his refutation, Luther took more time than with any other polemical piece against the traditionalists....

  Central Themes in De servo arbitrio
  First, as to its context in the history of theology, Erasmus and Luther were aware that their dispute had to do with a problem that was repeatedly discussed and with varied results in the late Middle Ages. While Erasmus often maintained a certain distance from Laurentius Valla, Luther appealed to this Renaissance philosopher. This fact is worth noting, since Valla did not exclude the freedom of the will outright, though he severely limited it. More appropriately, Luther cited Wyclif in support of his position. In view of his infrequent references to Valla and Wyclif, the appeal to either indicates that he was clearly informed of the late medieval theological-philosophical controversy over the freedom of the will. In any event, he set his own dispute with Erasmus in this context. Finally, we should note first Luther’s choice of title for the treatise, a title that he did not explain but about the background of which scholars at that time were certainly aware. Only once had Augustine spoken of the “servum arbitrium” (bound will). By using this title Luther intended to make clear that he understood himself as defender of the Augustinian doctrine of sin and grace against Pelagians old and new. With the quotation from Augustine he was appealing to the tradition of the church fathers. (MARTIN LUTHER’S THEOLOGY, Its Historical and Systematic Development, BERNHARD LOHSE p159-160)

In conclusion: Erasmus was not a theological reformer but an 'emphasis reformer', turning away from a dogmatic religious feeling, to a humanistic one. Luther was a theological reformer that revolted from a theology that included some measure of works to obtain Salvation, to one of faith alone.  This abandonment of humanity to utter filth and enslavement to sin, without any free-will remaining, that is no ability to work your way to salvation in any sense, was offensive both to Catholic dogma and humanistic feeling, therefore Erasmus and Luther parted ways. So of course Erasmus thought Luther went to far, but it was not principally in his opposition to the Pope but in his theologically reformed ideas.


In Trinitarian theology who created the world? Did the father create the world by himself by fiat ("Let there be and there was...")?

Or,

Did the father order the son to create the world and the son did the work (where "Let there be..." was a command)?

Or,

Did the father create the world by his own hands?

Or,

Did the father say "Let there be..." and then he and the son undertook the project together by division of labor?

Or,

Did the son create the world by fiat?

And was the Holy Ghost involved in any of these scenarios?

In Trinitarian thought, God has one will and one action. Everything is accomplished by the Three Persons of the Trinity acting in unity. This applies to creation as well. The typical language is along the lines of 'The Father created through the Son in the Spirit', but there is always an emphasis that the Three Persons act in unity.
Concerning creation St Athanasius uses this unity of action in creation as a defense of the divinity of both the Word and the Spirit. In his first letter to Serapion he writes

The Son, like the Father, is creator; for he says: ‘What things I see the Father doing, these things I also do’. 'All things’, indeed, 'were made through him, and without him was not anything made’.
But if the Son, being, like the Father, creator, is not a creature; and if, because all things were created through him, he does not belong to things created; then, clearly, neither is the Spirit a creature.
For it is written concerning him in the one hundred and third Psalm: 'Thou shalt take away their spirit, and they shall die and return to their dust. Thou shalt put forth thy Spirit, and they shall be created, and thou shalt renew the face of the earth’.
As it is thus written, it is clear that the Spirit is not a creature, but takes part in the act of creation.
The Father creates all things through the Word in the Spirit; for where the Word is, there is the Spirit also, and the things which are created through the Word have their vital strength out of the Spirit from the Word.
Thus it is written in the thirty-second Psalm: 'By the Word of the Lord the heavens were established, and by the Spirit of his mouth is all their power

The Church Fathers often speak of this unity in action, but usually it is in the context of redemption or the arrival of the Spirit at Pentecost instead of creation.
Pope Leo the Great wrote in Sermon 77 on Pentecost

For the Majesty of the Holy Ghost is never separate from the Omnipotence of the Father and the Son, and whatever the Divine government accomplishes in the ordering of all things, proceeds from the Providence of the whole Trinity. Therein exists unity of mercy and loving-kindness, unity of judgment and justice: nor is there any division in action where there is no divergence of will. What, therefore, the Father enlightens, the Son enlightens, and the Holy Ghost enlightens: and while there is one Person of the Sent, another of the Sender, and another of the Promiser, both the Unity and the Trinity are at the same time revealed to us, so that the Essence which possesses equality and does not admit of solitariness is understood to belong to the same Substance but not the same Person.

St Ambrose in his treatise On the Holy Spirit wrote

But the Holy Spirit also was given, for it is written: I will ask the Father, and He shall give you another Paraclete.  And the Apostle says: Wherefore he that despises these things despises not man but God, Who has given us His Holy Spirit. Isaiah, too, shows that both the Spirit and the Son are given: Thus, says he, says the Lord God, Who made the heaven and fashioned it, Who established the earth, and the things which are in it, and gives breath to the people upon it, and the Spirit to them that walk upon it.  And to the Son: I am the Lord God, Who have called You in righteousness, and will hold Your hand, and will strengthen You; and I have given You for a covenant of My people, for a light of the Gentiles, to open the eyes of the blind, to bring out of their fetters those that are bound. Since, then, the Son is both sent and given, and the Spirit also is both sent and given, They have assuredly a oneness of Godhead Who have a oneness of action

This continues to to be the traditional understanding of the Trinity.
Much more recently, St John (Maximovitch) of San Francisco wrote

Men have also one nature. But whereas God is a Trinty One in Essence, in men there constantly occur divisions.
In Father, Son, and Holy Spirit there are One Thought, One Will, One Activity.
What the Father desires, that also the Son desires, and that the Holy Spirit desires. What the Son loves, that also the Father loves, and the Holy Spirit. What is pleasing to the Holy Spirit, is pleasing also to the Father and to the Son.
Their Activity is likewise one, everything is done jointly and harmoniously.


What is the "eschatological tension" I was listening to a recorded sermon on my way to work today and the preacher mentioned the eschatological tension. Is there a good definition of what the eschatological tension is?

If it makes a difference to this question then answers should be from a protestant view.

There seems to be no perfect definition: sources tend to give descriptions or examples. It does not depend on denomination, though different denominations might focus on different things.

The tension is, roughly, between the facts that:

Christ came and redeemed us by His Sacrifice; now we are Christians, living in this present world, with duties to love God and others
Christ has not yet come again, all has not yet come to pass; we are not yet at the end, though as Christians we strive towards it

This tension is not necessarily a bad thing. If there is concern, it is perhaps with directing ourselves properly. For example, a person might focus too much on yearning for heaven, feeling too strongly its absence in this world, and fall into neglecting or even despising worldly Christian duties and life. Or an individual might commit too much to this world, perhaps trying to solve its problems, or feeling too crushed by its problems, and forget where we are all going. Or an individual might feel no tension at all, no pull towards either good thing -- or too much of a pull from both directions. These are just examples: they're a bit at the extreme ends of the spectrum, and might be off the mark in certain contexts.

(end - the rest of this answer gives examples of usage in articles centered on various denominations)

From The Modern Eschatological Debate (pdf), in the Evangelical Quarterly:

  That is just the way in which it is given in Calvin, for with him
  every doctrine entails what we now call the eschatological
  tension.
  [...] That means that the eschatological tension that reached its acutest point in the person and work of the Mediator is enshrined in the tension between justus et peccator and between real presence and bread and wine. To the word of justification the sacraments add the pressure of imminence so that the two together on their Christological basis contain the heart of eschatology.

From an article in the Journal of Lutheran Ethics:

  In Romans 5 Paul writes of the two aeons: the new era that Christ is bringing into the world and the old aeon that is under the rule of law and sin. The same eschatological tension is present in other biblical sources. The new order of Christ is in tension with the old order, yet Christians must live in both. [...] All major Christian religious traditions recognize in some fashion this tension between Christ and the ongoing societal necessities of the world. They are aware that following Christ and living in the world is no easy task.

(The above article makes comments that some might find misrepresent other traditions, or are biased towards the Lutheran view.)

Pope John Paul II discusses the interplay between this tension and the Eucharist. From Ecclesia de Eucharistia, Church of the Eucharist:

  The eschatological tension kindled by the Eucharist expresses and reinforces our communion with the Church in heaven. It is not by chance that the Eastern Anaphoras and the Latin Eucharistic Prayers honour Mary, the ever-Virgin Mother of Jesus Christ our Lord and God, the angels, the holy apostles, the glorious martyrs and all the saints. This is an aspect of the Eucharist which merits greater attention: in celebrating the sacrifice of the Lamb, we are united to the heavenly “liturgy” and become part of that great multitude which cries out: “Salvation belongs to our God who sits upon the throne, and to the Lamb!” (Rev 7:10). [...]
  20. A significant consequence of the eschatological tension inherent in the Eucharist is also the fact that it spurs us on our journey through history and plants a seed of living hope in our daily commitment to the work before us. Certainly the Christian vision leads to the expectation of “new heavens” and “a new earth” (Rev 21:1), but this increases, rather than lessens, our sense of responsibility for the world today.
  [...] Lastly, the Magnificat reflects the eschatological tension of the Eucharist. Every time the Son of God comes again to us in the “poverty” of the sacramental signs of bread and wine, the seeds of that new history wherein the mighty are “put down from their thrones” and “those of low degree are exalted” (cf. Lk 1:52), take root in the world. Mary sings of the “new heavens” and the “new earth” which find in the Eucharist their anticipation and in some sense their programme and plan.


How do Catholics answer the question of idol worship within the faith? I'm in no way trying to be disrespectful or anything like that and please do not take it as such.

I would like to know how Catholics reconcile the fact that the Bible states:

4. Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any
thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is
in the water under the earth.
5. Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the Lord
thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the
children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;
 -- Exodus 20:4-5

If you walk into any Catholic Church, one sees not only statues of Christ, but also of Mary and several saints. Catholics then go up to these statues, kneel, and start praying. They also carry around necklaces with these saints and put up shrines to these saints in their homes.

How is this not in direct violation with the commandments?

In similar post on this form, the person answering that question said that these things are not idols, but instead are sacramental, but to me, it still looks likes idol worship under a different name.

I understand your concern, as a former Protestant, I'll do my best to be concice.
First of all, the official teaching of the Church concerning worship is as follows.

Idolatry
2112 The first commandment condemns polytheism. It requires
man neither to believe in, nor to venerate, other divinities than the
one true God. Scripture constantly recalls this rejection of "idols,
[of] silver and gold, the work of men's hands. They have mouths, but
do not speak; eyes, but do not see." These empty idols make their
worshippers empty: "Those who make them are like them; so are all who
trust in them."42 God, however, is the "living God"43 who gives life
and intervenes in history.
2113 Idolatry not only refers to false pagan worship. It remains a
constant temptation to faith. Idolatry consists in divinizing what is
not God. Man commits idolatry whenever he honors and reveres a
creature in place of God, whether this be gods or demons (for example,
satanism), power, pleasure, race, ancestors, the state, money, etc.
Jesus says, "You cannot serve God and mammon."44 Many martyrs died for
not adoring "the Beast"45 refusing even to simulate such worship.
Idolatry rejects the unique Lordship of God; it is therefore
incompatible with communion with God.46
2114 Human life finds its unity in the adoration of the one God. The
commandment to worship the Lord alone integrates man and saves him
from an endless disintegration. Idolatry is a perversion of man's
innate religious sense. An idolater is someone who "transfers his
indestructible notion of God to anything other than God."47
-Cathechism of the Catholic Church

However, as you said, Catholics still do pray to saints and use art(including statues) in their religious life. This is not worship because in Catholic theology it is understood that saints are glorified persons in Heaven always ready to help us in our Christian life.
Let me give you a comparaison.
For example, a Protestant when in need of prayer he will ask his Christians friends to pray for him or even to personally help him out. Because he recognizes that adding their prayers to his does make a difference, and that asking them for help personally is completely warrented.
The problem though arises because Protestants, among others, do not understand that the imperfect Christians on Earth are not seperated from communicating with the perfect Christians in Heaven.

Hebrews 12:18-24 King James Version (KJV)
[Old Covenant, hesitation]
For ye are not come unto the mount that might be touched, and that
burned with fire, nor unto blackness, and darkness, and tempest,
And the sound of a trumpet, and the voice of words; which voice
they that heard intreated that the word should not be spoken to them
any more:
(For they could not endure that which was commanded, And if so much
as a beast touch the mountain, it shall be stoned, or thrust through
with a dart:
And so terrible was the sight, that Moses said, I exceedingly fear
and quake:)
[New Covenant, boldness]
But ye are come unto mount Sion, and unto the city of the living
God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to an innumerable company of angels,
To the general assembly and church of the firstborn, which are
written in heaven, and to God the Judge of all, and to the spirits of
just men made perfect, 24 And to Jesus the mediator of the new
covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling, that speaketh better things
than that of Abel.

Emphasis added : Saints in Heaven are spirits of just men made perfect.
We Catholics understand this to be the consequence of being in Christ, of being part of his Mystical Body. That Body being what mediates when we ask the saints. As St. Paul the Apostle explains...

Colossians 1:24 King James Version (KJV)
Who now rejoice in my sufferings for you, and fill up that which is behind of the afflictions of Christ in my flesh for his body's sake, which is the church:

Thus far we have seen that it is logical for us to ask(the same as to pray) the saints in Heaven for intercession.
Now what exactly warrents us to use stautes, and to bow down to them, to be devouted to some of them?
It is right to warn people against the sin of idolatry when they are committing it. But calling Catholics idolaters because they have images of Christ and the saints is based on misunderstanding or ignorance of what the Bible says about the purpose and uses (both good and bad) of statues.
*One must understand that art aides us in triggering our human sensibility, like when you for instance keep pictures of people you like as for example your mother or even when you keep something symbolical concerning them. You would even be warrented to kiss the image of your mother or pay special attention to a royalty without being guilty of idolatry. Because to be in the sin of idolatry you need to make that person or thing your ultimate standard, your highest master... This distinction is indeed observed in the Bible.
To appeal to the 10 commandments about not making graven images is likewise a misunderstanding of the text as I will demonstrate(go to Catholic Answers for further details).
David gave Solomon the plan "for the altar of incense made of refined gold, and its weight; also his plan for the golden chariot of the cherubim that spread their wings and covered the ark of the covenant of the Lord. All this he made clear by the writing of the hand of the Lord concerning it all, all the work to be done according to the plan" (1 Chr. 28:18–19). David’s plan for the temple, which the biblical author tells us was "by the writing of the hand of the Lord concerning it all," included statues of angels.
Similarly Ezekiel 41:17–18 describes graven (carved) images in the idealized temple he was shown in a vision, for he writes, "On the walls round about in the inner room and [on] the nave were carved likenesses of cherubim."
If bowing to another human is idolatry, then why did Isaac allow Jacob to say: “May nations serve you and peoples BOW DOWN to you?” (Genesis 27:29)
If bowing is idolatry, then why did King David allow Bathsheba to “bow low and kneel before the king?” (‘What is it you want?’ the king asked. - No rebuke from David, 1 Kings 1:16)
If bowing is idolatry, then why did David bow down to Saul and “prostrate himself with his face to the ground?” (1 Samuel 24:8)
If bowing is idolatry, then why did Abigal “bow down before David with her face to the ground? Why did she “fall at the feet” of David? (1 Samuel 25:23)
I conclude by quoting St. Luke, when Jesus prayed and was transfigured.
Because in that moment there was a supernatural intercession of saints.

Luke 9:28-31 King James Version (KJV)
And it came to pass about an
eight days[8 is the number of new beginnings] after these sayings, he took Peter and John and James, and
went up into a mountain[hint] to pray. And as he prayed, the fashion of his
countenance was altered, and his raiment was white and glistering.
And, behold, there talked with him two men, which were Moses and
Elias: Who appeared in glory, and spake of his decease which he should
accomplish at Jerusalem.


Scriptural arguments against Prosperity Theology Beyond the arguments that claim prosperity theology misinterprets the meaning of the passages it uses to support it, what are some of the main scriptural-based references that would be used in a theological discussion against prosperity theology?

Scriptural arguments against Prosperity Theology

Some of the verses used to support it are taken out of context or are meant to apply the to nation of Israel.

To consider verses that come to bear on prosperity you might want to consider one that shows how prosperity can be a barrier to faith.

  Luke 18:25  For it is easier for a camel to go through a needle's eye,
  than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.

Another verse focuses on the suffocating and deceptive effects of prosperity.

  Matthew 13:22  He also that received seed among the thorns is he that
  heareth the word; and the care of this world, and the deceitfulness of
  riches, choke the word, and he becometh unfruitful.

Other verses make reference to unpleasant consequences of prosperity.

  1 Timothy 6:9-11  But they that will be rich fall into temptation and
  a snare, and into many foolish and hurtful lusts, which drown men in
  destruction and perdition.  For the love of money is the root of all
  evil: which while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith,
  and pierced themselves through with many sorrows.  But thou, O man of
  God, flee these things; and follow after righteousness, godliness,
  faith, love, patience, meekness.


What's the origin of this approach of trying to obtain meaning from the individual letters of Hebrew words? In a recent question about the names of God, two answers from different people wrote that the letters of the Tetragrammaton by themselves give the meaning of:

The Hebrew letters mean “Behold the hand, Behold the nail”. YHWH is our salvation.
Yud. (A hand)
Heh. (Behold)
Waw. (A nail)
Heh. (Behold)

(From one answer, here's the other.)
Another now deleted answer says that the Hebrew word for 'ten' has these symbolic letter meanings:

The first character is the `ayin, ע, and symbolically means to see, eye, discern, or divine providence.
The second character is the Shin, ש, and symbolically means the tree of life, burning bush, God’s spirit, etc.
The third character is the Resh, ר, and symbolically means a humble or penitent man like he is bending over in prayer.

Now at first glance this seems to me to be pseudo-linguistic nonsense. Spoken language precedes written language, and the meanings of words aren't derived from their sounds or letters. These "meanings" also seem pretty speculative. They don't have the historical evidence that gematria has, and most aren't based on the historic origins of these letters (except for Yod and Ayin):

Waw/vav came from a glyph for 'mace'
Resh comes from a glyph for 'head' (and the word ראש still has that meaning!)
Shin apparently came from a glyph for 'tooth'

But even if the rest of these letters did have the symbolic meanings claimed about them, so what? It's just not how language works! Words have their own meanings, often distinct from the parts that make them up. We all know that 'awful' doesn't mean 'full of awe' in modern English, even if that was its historic origin.
So where has this approach to Hebrew come from?

Do any branches of Judaism support this approach?
What is its historic origin?
And lastly, is there a name for this theory?

Psalm 119 may have been an influence, the presentation of each Hebrew letter heading the twenty two sections of the Psalm. I have always taken this as a demonstration of reverence for the word of God, the singling out of each letter as being important in the whole structure of scripture.

But perhaps meaning has been seen in each section of the Psalm that has been attached to the individual letters. It would be interesting to examine the psalm in detail to see if the meanings imposed, as in the OP, are taken from the Psalm.

צ (Tzaddi) the eighteenth letter of the Hebrew alphabet, heads the eighteenth section of Psalm 119 and is also the letter which is at the beginning of the Hebrew word for righteous, saddiq צַדִּ֣יק which is the first word of that section of the psalm.

So perhaps - in scripture - the letter tzaddi stands for righteousness.

There is much more to Hebrew scripture than the English translation displays. Lamentations, for example, is highly structured poetically. The first four of five poems are written as acrostics – chapters 1, 2, and 4 each have 22 verses, corresponding to the 22 letters of the Hebrew alphabet, the first lines beginning with the first letter of the alphabet, the second with the second letter, and so on see Wikipedia - Lamentations.

Even in his grief at the state of Jerusalem, Jeremiah poems his lament in a highly structured, artistic and intelligent expression of reverence towards God.