Spirit of the Lord Upon David 1 Samuel 16:13 states that:

  So Samuel took the horn of oil and anointed him in the presence of his
  brothers, and from that day on the Spirit of the LORD came powerfully
  upon David.

and in 14:

  Now the Spirit of the LORD had departed from Saul

Is this a description of the holy spirit?

Thanks.

It is, indeed, presumed to be the Holy Spirit.  There is the idea that the Spirit did not indwell people in Old Testament times, but did "come upon" them.  The indwelling did not take place until after redemption has been accomplished with the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus.

  Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit
  within you, whom you have from God? You are not your own  1
  Corinthians 6:19 ESV

A key question would be what Spirit could it be if it is not the Holy Spirit.  There really are no other legitimate candidates for that.  The word "spirit" is typically used of our own spirits and of the Holy Spirit.  Since this particular use of "spirit" is distinguished as that of the Lord (and not ours), the best conclusion appears to be that it is, in fact, a reference to the Holy Spirit.

It is interesting to note that David specifically prayed that God would not take the "Holy Spirit" from him after his sin with Urriah and Bathsheeba:

  Cast me not away from your presence, and take not your Holy Spirit
  from me.  Psalm 51:11 ESV


Are there any individuals who are claiming to be the pope that are not Pope Francis? Are there any individuals who are claiming to be the pope that are not Pope Francis?

I came across the Wikipedia link on the  Palmarian Catholic Church and they claim to have their own Pope. And it is not Pope Francis!

Their present leader is Gregory XVIII.

  Claim to the papacy

  Following the death of Paul VI in 1978, Domínguez claimed that he had been mystically crowned pope by Jesus Christ in a vision. This reported vision took place in Santa Fe de Bogotá in Colombia, on the 6th of August 1978. He took the papal name Gregory XVII, and appointed his own cardinals. By these actions, the "Carmelites of the Holy Face" evolved into the Palmarian Catholic Church. Some Catholics previously associated with the Carmelites left the group as a result.

  The popes of the Palmarian Church do not claim to be the titular bishop of Rome. Rather, they claim that Christ transferred the position of Patriarch of the West and Supreme Pontiff to the new episcopal see of El Palmar de Troya. This is a departure from traditional Catholic doctrine, which identifies the papacy with the bishop of Rome. Catholic teaching also holds that personal revelations are not binding on the Church as a whole.

  In his capacity as pope, Domínguez called the Catholic Church a false church and declared Pope John Paul II excommunicated. Gregory XVII canonized Franco, Escrivá, and Columbus; and declared Paul VI a martyr or saint with Palmarian Catholic faith. - Palmarian Catholic Church

My question is quite simple:

What other individuals or groups, if any, claim to have a Catholic pope in lieu of the the Sovereign Pontiff who resides at the Vatican and who is presently known as Pope Francis?

Yes, there have been several. Salza & Siscoe's True or False Pope (1st ed.) pp. 7-8:

  Mirko Fabris (d. 2012), a stand-up comedian from Croatia, was elected by a "Conclave" in 1978 and became "Pope" Krav (his stage name). David Bawden, a seminary drop-out who lives with his mother in a farmhouse in Kansas, was elected "Pope" Michael by six lay people including his parents in 1990. During his "reign," Bawden has had to compete with various other Sedevacantist groups who have elected their own "Popes" – namely, Linus II (in 1994), Pius XIII (in 1998), Leo XIV (in 2006), Innocent XIV (in 2007), and Alexander IX (in 2007). Still other Sedevacantists have simply declared themselves Pope without an election, even claiming their election came from Heaven itself, such as Gregory XVII (in 1968), Emmanuel (in 1973), another Gregory XVII (in 1978), Peter II (1980), Gregory XIV (in 1983), another Peter II (in 1995), yet another Peter II (in 2005), Gregory XVIII (in 2011), and John Paul III (in 2015), among others.

David Bawden ("Pope Michael I") from Kansas is one such anti-pope. He has no apostolic succession, being invalidly elected by a conclave comprised of laymen, including his parents and four others. Pope Michael: A Documentary Film is free to watch online.

Conclavists are sedevacantists who elect their own popes.


Did Thomas Merton write "I see no contradiction between Buddhism and Christianity" ? If so, in which writing? Did Thomas Merton write the following:

  "I see no contradiction between Buddhism and Christianity"

If so, in which writings?

I read this in many places such as this one but am unable to find the original writing of Merton in which it is mentioned.

David Steindl-Rast, "Man of Prayer," in Thomas Merton, Monk, ed. Patrick Hark (Garden City, NY: Image Books, 1976), 90.

The 1974 ed. doesn't have such a quote, so, considering the influence of Modernism (spec. religious indifferentism) on the post-Vatican II religious life, either Merton himself became a Modernist or the author interpolated that quote.


How do the reformed view the "Left Behind" series? Are the teachings of Tim LaHaye as found in the Left Behind series consistent with the teachings of either reformed theology or Calvinism?

More generally, is the notion of "Biblical Fiction" considered as something that would help or mislead the reader?

No. The Left Behind series is A) entirely fictional and B) based on Dispensationalism.*

Dispensationalism is almost universally at odds with Reformed theology. The basic problem lies in the understanding of the way God relates to his people. Understanding this relationship in the context of covenants that get renewed with unfolding detail but don't fundamentally change (a defining feature of Reformed and Calvinistic theology) is substantially different and at odds with an understanding it which God's relation to men is set in the context of separate dispensations each with their own distinct characteristics.

Calvanism is not quite as broad a structure as Reformed theology and it is harder to draw a correlation to eschatology just from the points that it considers, but I think it is fair to lump them in together because it basically sets the stage for Reformed theology.

There are a few groups that use the label "Reformed" as an adjective rather than a noun. Rather than being "Reformed" they are "Reformed X" where X is something else. By this they could mean a variety of things, but usually it means they have incorporated some of the doctrines considered Calvinistic or some of the practices developed by Reformed churches, but they still hold onto another identity as their primary doctrinal framework. Among these are some groups who would hold to a Dispensational/Premillenial eschatology, but these are definitely a minority among those using the label "Reformed".

A key aspect of your question is that you asked about the "teachings". Even as somebody who disagrees with the interpretation from beginning to end, as a mental exercise in reading fiction -- reading with the same eye as I would read Tolkien or watch Batman -- it is possible to enjoy the the books as apocalyptic fiction.

However I agree with your labeling them as "teachings" because at the end of the day, without a strong theological background, it is almost impossible to listen to the Bible talked about and real verses analyse and commented on even inside a fictional setting and not take away something. The author is a professing Christian, the books match his own theology and he has made every claim of intending the books as a way to further people's understanding of Christianity.

As such, I think it is fair that the contents be treated with the same scrutiny that a theology textbook would be. It is, after all, more theological than anything many professing Christians will bother to study.

In this light, it is worth noting that even some modern Dispensational Premillenialists take issue with the some of the interpretation work that is scattered between the pages pure fiction. As for anybody with a different eschatology, it is almost inconceivable that they could even stomach the read.

* Please note I am refraining from commenting on whether A==B.


What is the origin of the "religion vs. relationship" dichotomy? These days the word "religion" often has a bad connotation.  Christians (including myself) often emphasize that they have a "relationship" with Jesus, not that they are "religious."

But this doesn't seem to be the case if we look back a little ways in church history.  John Calvin wrote The Institutes of the Christian Religion, for example, in the 16th century.  More recently than that, J. Gresham Machen wrote The Origin of Paul's Religion (1921).  These positive references to the word seem to be in line with James 1:27, which says:

  Religion that is pure and undefiled before God the Father is this: to visit orphans and widows in their affliction, and to keep oneself unstained from the world. (ESV)

But somewhere along the way, the word "religion" started getting compared negatively to a "relationship."  So here's my question: who was the first Christian theologian to place the words "religion" and "relationship" in sharp contrast, with a negative connotation for "religion"?

Note that I'm not interested in those who criticize "false religion" or "impure religion" or "mere religion" or the like – just those who treat "religion," unmodified, as negative and in sharp contrast to "relationship."

I've heard it claimed that it was Billy Graham, which seems plausible, but I'd love to see a published source indicating that he or someone else was the originator of this now-popular dichotomy.

Summary

The dichotomy started when some Christians (notably, evangelicals) began to define "religion" along the lines of this one:

  Religion is a set of rules that people must follow in order to obtain God’s blessing.

Since Christians are saved by grace (and not by works), Christianity would not be a religion according to this definition.  Source: Dictionary of Christianese.

The rest of this answer attempts to trace possible origins of the re-definition of religion which in turn produces this dichotomy.  Disclosure: Key insights in this answer (Karl Barth, John Stott, metonymy) I obtained from Dr. Randal Rauser's Christian Post newspaper opinion article which is worth reading word by word.

Dichotomy as competing definitions

"Christianity as religion" has been contrasted not only with "Christianity as relationship" but also with "Christianity as the gospel" or with "Christianity as Christ".  The common motivation is clearly to zoom into the essence of Christianity by excluding other elements of religion, as James A Fowler, a pastor and PhD in Biblical Studies, attempted to do in his 1998 book Christianity is NOT a religion shown by the table of contents (pdf here).  The book started with this epigram:

  Christianity has mistakenly been defined and described as a religion in which morality and belief-system in correspondence to the Book are regarded as the basis of the role-playing and problem-solving of the Christian life.

  Not true!

  Christianity is Christ!

and then delve into these chapters: Christianity is Not Religion, Christianity is Not a Book-Religion, Christianity is Not Morality, Christianity is Not a Belief-System, Christianity is Not Epistemology, etc.

At the end of the day, it's a matter of definition as this blog article and another article argued the reverse position of how historically (as the OP pointed out) people have been referring to Christianity as a "religion".  Both articles in fact advocate that we should refrain from spreading "Christianity is not a religion" because by doing so we will lose the status of Christianity as "the one true religion", or "the religion of religions".

Because it's a matter of definition that no official institution seems to promote, the problem of tracing the origin of the dichotomy will be similar to tracing how certain idioms became popular.  So this becomes a problem of etymology, and the tools to find the origin will be similar to what lexicographers use when building an etymological dictionary.

Dichotomy usage in the wild

While doing research for this answer, I came across the Dictionary of Christianese - The casual slang of the Christian church... authoritatively defined.  I think the phrase "Christianity is a relationship not a religion" can indeed be seen as a "Christianese" (delightfully constructed word, BTW), so naturally the dictionary has an entry for it, prefaced by a blog-article style introduction which like the 2 articles above is also arguing that it's a matter of definition.  True to its name, the official entry has usage citations from published sources (journals, books, encyclopedias, etc.) starting from 1958 as the earliest citation.

  1958 Episcopal Church, Diocese of Fond du Lac J. of the Annual Convention 86 : May we go forward remembering that Christianity is not a religion which merely lays upon us weak, human beings the hopeless task of living an impossibly good life helped only by the example of a man who lived a perfect human life 2,000 years ago, but rather that Christianity is a relationship to God whereby He communicates to us His strength and vitality which enables us to live on a higher plane.

It also includes a citation from Billy Graham as well (as the OP suspected):

  1971 Graham The Jesus Generation 148 : [Consider] the novel thought that Christianity was not so much a “religion” as a relationship with a Person.

Dichotomy origin in specific definitions of religion

Can we do better in finding the earlier origin of the dichotomy, maybe not so much in the explicit use of the phrase "Christianity is a relationship not a religion" but a thought, a concept, a distinction, or an idea that prominent theologians used to construct a thesis related to "religion" which in turn lend itself to the dichotomy?  So this becomes a task that Bible background / theological dictionaries tackle, such as articles describing what Religion / Law / Repentance / Messiah / After-life meant to various groups of people around the time of Jesus.  The articles typically will also address a cluster of ideas around those concepts, citing key documents, movements, or people that could have contributed.  Therefore we are looking for theologians with widespread influence who could have contributed to defining "religion" in a way that makes it contrary to "relationship".

Karl Barth as a possible origin

Dr. Randal Rauser, a professor of Historical Theology writing the Aug 2019 opinion article I mentioned above, offered an implied definition of "religion" which could serve as the opposite of "relationship" in the dichotomy, and thought that Karl Barth used that definition in his 1918 Romans commentary:

  The speaker, in this case, is clearly not adhering to a conventional dictionary definition of “religion”. Instead, she is invoking a rhetorical use of the word, one popular among some Christians. It seems to me that it can be defined roughly like this:

  religion. n. Those beliefs one holds and actions one undertakes to address the human problem and relate rightly to ultimate reality which are inconsistent with the revealed beliefs and practices commended by God and which seek to redress that human problem primarily through human effort.

  This usage was famously invoked by Karl Barth in his much-lauded theological reflection on the book of Romans in which he “translated” Paul’s reference to the Law as “religion”. Thus, in Barth’s calculus, the law/religion are what we do to relate rightly to God while Jesus Christ is what God does to relate rightly to us.

For those who want to dig deeper into Karl Barth's contribution to this understanding of "religion", I found these 3 helpful resources which can serve as a starting point:

Karl Barth's commentary on the Romans (first English translation edition was in 1918).  This OCR'd PDF scan is the 6th edition of the English translation (1932).
2015 notes on Karl Barth's thoughts on religion referencing the Romans commentary as well as Church Dogmatics (of course) plus other scholarly references by a retired Methodist pastor George Plasterer.
A 2012 paper on Karl Barth's position on world religions, in terms of the common threefold typology (exclusivism, inclusivism, pluralism) used in religious studies: Karl Barth's Theology of Religion -- An Analysis of the Church Dogmatics I & IV.

John Stott as a popularizer

The same Christian Post opinion article plus others I found on the net points to popular quotes attributed to John Stott, like the following, which seems to be taken from a book / interview (unfortunately I cannot find the definitive origin of the quote in John Stott's writings, so I don't know the date):

  “I’ve learnt very early on that Christianity is not a religion and it is not an institution, it is a person. It was enormously helpful for me to discover that Christianity is Christ and and that what matters is a personal relationship to Christ.

  So the verses which came to mean much to me were Philippians 3 verses 8,9, where the Apostle Paul says, “That what was gain to me I counted loss for Christ. Indeed I have counted all things but loss in comparison with the overwhelming gain of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord for whom I’ve suffered the loss of all things (Paul went on) and count them as refuse or rubbish in order that I may gain Christ and be found in him, not having my own righteousness based on Law, but the righteous that comes from God through faith in Christ.”

  It’s all Christ, Christ, Christ, Christ. Knowing Him, loving Him, serving Him, trusting Him, gaining Him. ‘To me to live is Christ’, Paul said, and I think, I hope without boasting I can say the same, it is a Person.”

But I did find this quote from his 1992 book The Contemporary Christian, recipient of Christianity Today 1994 Critics Choice Award.  The book was recently (June 2019) republished by IVP in 5 smaller books, the first being The Gospel - A Life-changing Message, and I found what looks like a publisher excerpt here.  As you can see, IVP even prominently started the summary of the book as follows:

  What is the authentic gospel? How do we answer the sceptics?

  Christianity is not a religion, but God's good news for the world. This implies that it has both a divine origin and a human relevance: it comes from God and it speaks to our condition.

Here's the first paragraph of the book's introduction to the first part (The Gospel), which was already present back in 1992:

  Christianity is not a religion, let alone one religion among many. It
  is God’s good news for the world. The Christian gospel has both a
  divine origin (it comes from God) and a human relevance (it speaks
  to our condition). So, before we ask the question, ‘What is the gospel?’,
  we must explore the logically prior question, ‘What is a human
  being?’

  ...

Conclusion: dichotomy origin as an effect of the evangelistic ethos

Now that we have identified several prominent personalities influencing the community which promoted a particular meaning of "religion", the next step is to inquire the motivation of that change, since ultimately language is a human product.  From the survey of usage it does not look like it is a temporary change; the change seems to be gaining force toward permanence, at least within certain Christian groups.  The Wikipedia article on semantic change includes a list of types as well as motivations of semantic change.  In the article, Dr. Rauser pegged the type of change as metonymy.  How about motivation?  Below is my personal argument that the motivation is the fervent desire to spread the gospel, which resulted in a semantic change to better fit the group's ethos.

Regardless of the terms used to describe Christianity, it is a unique "religion" which breaks a lot of attempts to categorize it.  It is also an intensely proselytizing "religion" because Jesus, the founder, was Himself providing the imperative to bring God's good news (the new covenant) to the end of the world in order to gather all sheep into his Kingdom at the end of time.  Who can beat God when He Himself sets His will to call us to Him?

All the persons quoted in the articles and books above were "on fire" from within to communicate this good news, and have to face a multitude of challenges from a variety of audiences who have "prejudiced" themselves against this good news by trying to put the Good News in a box, a category that will make this Good News "safe", that will put them "in control" by barricading themselves in a comfort zone of their own making.  Thus an academic makes his/her own notion of religion using high-sounding scholarly language to recast the good news as a respectable "systematic theology" that he/she can attend to whenever comfortable, at the cost of a real encounter with God.  A non-intellectually inclined person falsely thinks of God as a being to be "appeased" by prayer & fasting & sacraments done mostly in a behavioral / ritualistic manner, also at the cost of a real encounter with God.  In both cases, the Good News would not have produced the effects that the real God intended within the person.

But God's way to save a person (through the Holy Spirit) is to initiate the action from above, literally pursuing the target like a hunter, and demolish any categories that become an idol / barrier to the full effect of the good news, which includes the full personal revelation of God's being to a potential convert's heart.  It is sometimes necessary for the Holy Spirit to reconfigure this person's mind and ideas so this full personal revelation can touch the person's heart.  It is then no wonder that many committed Christians including heavy-weights like Karl Barth, Billy Graham, and John Stott felt free as ambassadors of God to adjust the long-standing dictionary definitions of "religion" when they feel that the definitions are obstructing the force of God's redemptive actions in human hearts & minds.

In the final analysis, it's not that the older definition of "religion" is bad or wrong; it's clear that dichotomy wouldn't work without a re-definition of "religion".  The dichotomy also doesn't imply that theology, sacraments, and activities are in themselves bad; the dichotomy is a rhetorical device to put those things in perspective so the "relationship" aspect which implies Christ and the God-initiated Good News can truly shine.


Why did Jesus need to die for our sins? I feel silly asking this because I feel like it should be obvious. Why did Jesus need to die for our sins?
I am asking because this part of Christianity still confuses me. I thought Judaism taught that we will go to heaven if we believe in Judaism, but after a purification (by fire??) of our earthly sins. So Jesus' dying also guaranteed that we would go to heaven, but weren't believers guaranteed entry into heaven to begin with?
So does that mean that Jesus sacrificed himself on the cross so we would not have to go through the purification process? Is this the reason he died on the cross? Otherwise we all could have just become Jews and went through the purification process to go to heaven. Please help me understand what I am missing because I feel this can't be right.

A Baptist would point back to the garden of Eden and the nature of the problem.  There are sins that a person commits by an act of the will in opposition to what is known to be right and there are sins committed in some degree of ignorance, both of omission and commission.  Remedies for these (more accurately atonement of these) were prescribed for God's people, the Jews, in the levitical law and the sacrificial system.
Requisite was the offering of a sacrifice according to the penitent's means and the nature of the offense.  A reading of Leviticus is useful here as a manual regrading the levitical system. Genuine repentance for an act on the part of the transgressor is an integral part of the offering and is sometimes explicit and sometimes implicit but always required.  Often God expresses displeasure over the offerings being given for the expressed reason that "their hearts are far from me".
This brings us to what lies beneath.  When Adam fell he did more than disobey God, he internalized rebellion.  His created nature changed when he decided to take for himself that which is the purview of God alone:  knowledge of good and evil.  Since like begets like, all of Adam's progeny (humanity) are born with this rebellion within the fabric of their natures.  Oswald Chambers, a Scottish Baptist (1874 - 1917) describes this sin nature as a disposition:

The Bible does not say that God punished the human race for one man’s sin; but that the disposition of sin, viz., my claim to my right to myself, entered into the human race by one man, and that another Man took on Him the sin of the human race and put it away (Hebrews 9:26) — an infinitely profounder revelation. The disposition of sin is not immorality and wrong-doing, but the disposition of self-realization — I am my own god. This disposition may work out in decorous morality or in indecorous immorality, but it has the one basis, my claim to my right to myself. - The Bias of Degeneration

It is for the destruction of the power of this disposition in humanity that Christ died.  He did not come only to expiate each and every individual sin (which we all need) but to break the power of that which binds us all, to call us all to turn to the Living God through himself, to give us the gift of the Holy Spirit and thereby, to set us free from the law of sin and death.

For the law of the Spirit of life has set you free in Christ Jesus from the law of sin and death. For God has done what the law, weakened by the flesh, could not do. By sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, he condemned sin in the flesh, in order that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit. For those who live according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who live according to the Spirit set their minds on the things of the Spirit. For to set the mind on the flesh is death, but to set the mind on the Spirit is life and peace.
For the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God, for it does not submit to God's law; indeed, it cannot. Those who are in the flesh cannot please God. You, however, are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if in fact the Spirit of God dwells in you. Anyone who does not have the Spirit of Christ does not belong to him. But if Christ is in you, although the body is dead because of sin, the Spirit is life because of righteousness. If the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, he who raised Christ Jesus from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through his Spirit who dwells in you. - Romans 8:2-11

Jesus is the once for all sacrifice that all of the law and the prophets foreshadowed and pointed towards.  Under the Law one must offer sacrifice continually, day by day and year by year in order to redress transgression and sin because it dealt on the order of action.  Jesus sacrifice was on the order of disposition to reconcile us once for all.

But in these sacrifices there is a reminder of sins every year. For it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins. Consequently, when Christ came into the world, he said, “Sacrifices and offerings you have not desired, but a body have you prepared for me; in burnt offerings and sin offerings you have taken no pleasure. Then I said, ‘Behold, I have come to do your will, O God, as it is written of me in the scroll of the book.’” When he said above, “You have neither desired nor taken pleasure in sacrifices and offerings and burnt offerings and sin offerings” (these are offered according to the law), then he added, “Behold, I have come to do your will.” He does away with the first in order to establish the second. And by that will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. And every priest stands daily at his service, offering repeatedly the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. But when Christ had offered for all time a single sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God, waiting from that time until his enemies should be made a footstool for his feet. For by a single offering he has perfected for all time those who are being sanctified. - Hebrews 10:3-13

In the temple there was a thick curtain separating the holy place (ritual service) from the most holy place (where God's presence dwelt):

And you shall make a veil of blue and purple and scarlet yarns and fine twined linen. It shall be made with cherubim skillfully worked into it. And you shall hang it on four pillars of acacia overlaid with gold, with hooks of gold, on four bases of silver. And you shall hang the veil from the clasps, and bring the ark of the testimony in there within the veil. And the veil shall separate for you the Holy Place from the Most Holy. You shall put the mercy seat on the ark of the testimony in the Most Holy Place. - Exodus 26:31-34

Even in the Levitical system that God instituted there was no personal access to God Himself except through religious ritual and faith that God would express mercy through heartfelt obedience.  In Matthew's Gospel account of the death of Jesus Christ it is recorded that, at the moment of Jesus' death, the veil in the temple was torn from top to bottom:

And Jesus cried out again with a loud voice and yielded up his spirit. And behold, the curtain of the temple was torn in two, from top to bottom. And the earth shook, and the rocks were split. - Matthew 27:50-51

The Epistle to the Hebrews declares that Jesus condemned and removed the sin within humanity that separates us from God which the veil typified:

Therefore, brothers, since we have confidence to enter the holy places by the blood of Jesus, by the new and living way that he opened for us through the curtain, that is, through his flesh, and since we have a great priest over the house of God, let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, with our hearts sprinkled clean from an evil conscience and our bodies washed with pure water. - Hebrews 10:19-22

Sin causes separation between God and man and it is woven into the fabric of our flesh.  When the Son of God emptied Himself and veiled his glory within flesh he identified Himself with all humanity.  When he offered His own life to God as a spotless sacrifice (think Day of Atonement, Leviticus 16) He permanently removed the barrier restricting mankind's access to Almighty God.
Now that a better and permanent access has been opened there is no benefit for for those in Judaism to remain in the foreshadowing of religious ritual, serving in the Holy Place as though the veil of separation from God's presence still remained.
The following is from a Messianic Jewish blog entitled "The WORD in Hebrew":

When the phrase “Completed Jew” is used, it’s used in the sense of “completed faith” – Unlike in other religions or heritage, when a Jew comes to faith in the Jewish Messiah, it is not a “conversion”, but a COMPLETION OF FAITH . Since Jesus was Jewish and came to the Jewish people to be their Messiah, There is nothing more Jewish a Jewish person can do than to follow Him. Believing and following the Jewish Messiah, YESHUA, is a completion of faith for the Jew.


What is the Biblical basis for moral absolutism? In this world of moral relativism, do any Christians make a scriptural (Biblical) case for moral absolutism? That is, how do they use the Bible to make the case that there is such a concept as absolute "right" and "wrong"?

The existence of Moral absolutism is actually fairly easily identified biblically in verses such as:

  Then the LORD God said, "Behold, the man has become like one of us in knowing good and evil. Now, lest he reach out his hand and take also of the tree of life and eat, and live forever-" - Genesis 3:22 ESV

In which God specifies that

Good and evil exist, as separate and opposite attributes.
They can both be known (not evaluated or judged), and therefore are not relative.

Also communicated without relativism:

  See, I have set before you today life and good, death and evil. - Deuteronomy 30:15 ESV

And note here that Solomon asks for discernment, recognizing that he is not the arbiter of that decision (which pleases the Lord):

  Give your servant therefore an understanding mind to govern your people, that I may discern between good and evil, for who is able to govern this your great people?" - 1 Kings 3:9 ESV

What is sometimes less easily identifiable is whether or not actions that carry an absolute moral value are treated in the same manner.  Often they are not due to the fact that God is forgiving.  David writes:

  1 Blessed is the one whose transgression is forgiven, whose sin is covered.
  2 Blessed is the man against whom the LORD counts no iniquity, and in whose spirit there is no deceit.  - Psalm 32:1-2 ESV

Sin is always sin, and evil is always evil, but God has provided a means for the faithful to seek forgiveness.

Before Christ (as one example):

  27 "If anyone of the common people sins unintentionally in doing any one of the things that by the LORD's commandments ought not to be done, and realizes his guilt,
  28 or the sin which he has committed is made known to him, he shall bring for his offering a goat, a female without blemish, for his sin which he has committed.
  29 And he shall lay his hand on the head of the sin offering and kill the sin offering in the place of burnt offering.
  30 And the priest shall take some of its blood with his finger and put it on the horns of the altar of burnt offering and pour out all the rest of its blood at the base of the altar.
  31 And all its fat he shall remove, as the fat is removed from the peace offerings, and the priest shall burn it on the altar for a pleasing aroma to the LORD. And the priest shall make atonement for him, and he shall be forgiven. - Leviticus 4:27-31 ESV

After Christ's resurrection, and through faith in Him:

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

Also contributing to confusion is the timetable by which God chooses to punish those who have sinned against him.  Some are stuck down immediately (Uzzah is a good example), while others will live a full life of sin before facing judgement.  Again, the determination of good / evil is not realitive even though the punishment can be.

Finally, the biggest contributor masking the absolute moralism present in scripture is the inherent difference between true good / true evil and law.  Good / evil morality is unchanging, however laws (including God's laws for man) can be created, edited, or dissolved as needed to fit a particular people at a particular time.  God forbidding the people of Israel from wearing garments of different cloths is not inherently immoral, for example.  This subject of Covenant theology or Dispensational theology addressing the transformation of God's law for man is a discussion beyond the scope of this question, but for the sake of sticking with biblical references to the argument, Jesus establishes a new law for Man in his time on Earth:

  A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another: just as I have loved you, you also are to love one another. - John 13:34

To summarize, God tells us biblically that good and evil exist without variability, but his dealings with us in forgiveness, punishment, and law are according to his will.  Because his will is not ultimately knowable, how are we to navigate this path?  By seeking his guidance in reading scripture and prayer:

  5 Trust in the LORD with all your heart, and do not lean on your own understanding.
  6 In all your ways acknowledge him, and he will make straight your paths.
  7 Be not wise in your own eyes; fear the LORD, and turn away from evil.  - Proverbs 3:5-7 ESV

And

  But from there you will seek the LORD your God and you will find him, if you search after him with all your heart and with all your soul. - Deuteronomy 4:29 ESV

And

  7 "Ask, and it will be given to you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you.
  8 For everyone who asks receives, and the one who seeks finds, and to the one who knocks it will be opened. - Matthew 7:7-8 ESV

So according to the bible, and addressing the question asked, God, who is ultimately knowledgeable of what is absolutely good and evil, establishes law, punishment, and forgiveness as needed by man, and provides for us a means of seeking His will, knowledge and guidance of this absolute.


If Satan is unable to become incarnate will he possess and control the Antichrist While doing research into the Antichrist, I came across an article that suggested Satan will possess and control the Antichrist, the first beast that comes out of the sea.  Revelation 13:5 says that this beast receives power from the dragon (Satan):

The beast was given a mouth to utter proud words and blasphemies and to exercise his authority for forty-two months. He opened his mouth to blaspheme God, and to slander his name and his dwelling place and those who live in heaven. He was given power to make war against the saints and to conquer them. And he was given authority over every tribe, people, language and nation. All inhabitants of the earth will worship the beast—all whose names have not been written in the book of life belonging to the Lamb that was slain from the creation of the world. (Revelation 13:5-8)

Then came a statement that made me stop and think:
>Satan works through the Antichrist, for Satan himself is not able to become incarnate.
I began to investigate what it means to be incarnate. Here are a couple of partial quotes:

The word incarnation means “the act of being made flesh.” It comes from the Latin version of John 1:14, which in English reads, “The Word became flesh and made His dwelling among us.” Because of the near-exclusive use of the Latin Vulgate in the church through the Middle Ages, the Latin term became standard.  https://www.gotquestions.org/incarnation-of-Christ.html

When Christ took on the form of a human, His nature did not change, but His position did. Jesus, in His original nature of God in spirit form, humbled Himself by laying aside His glory and privileges (Philippians 2:6–8). God can never stop being God because He is immutable (Hebrews 13:8) and infinite (Revelation 1:8). If Jesus stopped being fully God for even a split second, all life would die (see Acts 17:28). The doctrine of the Incarnation says that Jesus, while remaining fully God, became fully man.  https://www.gotquestions.org/God-incarnate.html

While angels are spiritual beings (Hebrews 1:14), they can appear in human, physical form (Mark 16:5) - but that is not an incarnation.
Jude verse 6 refers to those fallen angels who abandoned their own home (heaven) whom God "has kept in darkness, bound with everlasting chains for judgement on the great Day."
2 Corinthians 11:14 says that Satan is still free to "masquerade as an angel of light" - but that is not an incarnation.
What, then, does it mean or imply for Satan, a created, fallen, angel to become incarnate?  Can Satan take on human flesh as Jesus did, i.e., be born as a human being?  Or can Satan only take on the outward appearance of a human?
As for the Antichrist, if Satan is unable to become incarnate, is that why Satan has to possess and control him?
I am looking for a Christian overview on this specific question and am pleased to receive both Protestant and Catholic views.

As Christ is manifest in His Body on earth (the Church) so will the created spirit (the entity known as Diabolos and Satan and Serpent) seek to be manifested, not in one human being, but in all of humanity on earth.
This is quite obvious in the book of the Revelation. The mark of the beast, none buying or selling without that mark, all being pressed upon to worship, and so forth, see all of Revelation chapter thirteen. This is global, it is all humanity.
And it is also clear in what Paul expresses in Thessalonians regarding :

Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition; Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God.  [2 Thessalonians 2:3-4 KJV]

'Man' of sin is anthropos (not aner) and can be translated 'humanity' rather than an individual human (aner). Thus it is the manifestation of a spirit within all humanity that is in view. The 'humanity of sin' may be seen as all of the sons of Adam who are not in Christ by repentance and faith and a new birth in the Holy Spirit.
We see the desire of spirit to be embodied when the demons begged Jesus to be permitted to go into the swine, rather then be cast out into the abyss.
Spirit desires manifestation.

There are many who assume a degree, more or less, of 'messianic' pretension and there are always a few of them scattered around the earth. But I believe that is an actual distraction to the reality of 666 - humanity (the number 6) in a triune and conglomerate structure, as one : a global entity, motivated and energised by a single, diabolic, serpentine and draconian . . .. spirit, whose diverse power becomes more and more fluid within humanity with increasing electronic ability and decreasing barriers of nation, of human structure and of previously accepted rules and laws.


Why can't God persuade all mankind, in their free-will, to believe in him? Jesus, before He was risen to heaven, left the task of evangelism to his disciples and Christians.  Since men are fallible and are not all-powerful, they are taught to pray and rely on God in their evangelical work.  The question is, since God is all-powerful and omniscient, why can't God persuade all mankind, in their free-will, to believe in him?

According to Romans 1:19-20, God tries to reveal himself to his people.

  What may be known of God is manifest in them for God has shown it to them. For since the creation of the world his invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse (Romans 1:19,20).

However, God is also a loving God, and by that virtue, God should be trying hard to convince every person to believe in him.  The fact that some people cannot be persuaded seems to signify either that God is not all-powerful, or He does not want to.

(Note: this question assumes this is possible without conflicting with mankind's free-will, as God can assess each individual's knowledge/personality/character and convince them through multiple mediums such as people/nature/experiences).

I think the verses you quote are actually the answer:

  What may be known of God is manifest in them for God has shown it to them. For since the creation of the world his invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse (Romans 1:19,20).

In other words, God already made it obvious in nature that He exists, so why would He waste His time jumping through hoops to prove it to people who simply despise the idea of His existence because they want to live without moral law and are simply recalcitrant in their "unbelief"?   Francis Bacon says concerning the idea contained in these verses (The two books of Francis Bacon: of the proficiency and advancement of learning, Divine and Human, Page 86):

  And as concerning divine philosophy or natural theology, it is that knowledge or rudiment knowledge concerning God, which may be obtained by the contemplation of His creatures; which knowledge may be truly termed divine in respect of the object, and natural in respect of the light. The bounds of this knowledge are, that it sufficeth to convince atheism [of God's existence], but not to inform religion: and therefore there was never miracle wrought by God to convert an atheist, because the light of nature might have led him to confess a God: but miracles have been wrought to convert idolaters and the superstitious, because no light of nature extendeth to declare the will and true worship of God.

Furthermore, as we consider further the quoted verses, we find that they already know that God exists, for "God is manifest in them."  There is no such thing as an atheist, only an anti-theist.  Verse 21 shows it even more:

  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. (Romans 1:21 KJV)

So they knew God, but they rejected Him.  Further, it says in verse 25 "They exchanged the truth about God for a lie" (NIV) and one cannot exchange what one never had.

And again, in verse 28 "Furthermore, just as they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, so God gave them over to a depraved mind," (NIV) so it becomes clear, again, that there are no atheists, only anti-theists.  They had the knowledge of God's existence, but did not consider it worthwhile to retain, and so they threw it away.  Should God now jump through whatever hoops they demand in order to convince them that the knowledge they already have is worthwhile to retain?


Is Jesus speaking from Himself or is the Holy Spirit speaking through Him? When Jesus spoke, are the words recorded His own as the Messiah, or those of God delivered through Him by his Holy Spirit? How can we distinguish?

Jesus and the Holy Spirit who filled Him sometimes operated independently. When the woman who had bleeding for twelve years touched Jesus’ cloak and was healed (Luke 8:44-47) Jesus said, ‘Who touched me?’ and, ‘Someone touched me; I know that power has gone out from me.’

A distinction also seems implicit in Luke 12:10: ‘Everyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but anyone who blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven.’

And for us, then and now: ‘At that time you will be given what to say, for it will not be you speaking, but the Spirit of your Father speaking through you.’ (Matthew 10:19-20)

So how do we interpret such as Jesus saying ‘before Abraham was born, I am!’? (John 8:58). Is Jesus saying He is God, or is God saying I am God through his Holy Spirit?

Jesus spoke for the Father.

John 12:49 says,

  "For I did not speak on My own initiative, but the Father Himself who sent Me has given Me a commandment as to what to say and what to speak."

John 14:10 says,

  "Do you not believe that I am in the Father, and the Father is in Me? The words that I say to you I do not speak on My own initiative, but the Father abiding in Me does His works."

So the words that Jesus spoke were the Father's words. Now, how he came to know and speak those words is that the Spirit of the Father rested upon him. The words that he spoke are the Fathers words, and he only spoke the words that the Father bade him speak, and did the things that the Father bade him do.


How many modern day pages were lost by Martin Harris? The "lost 116 pages" were the original manuscript pages Joseph Smith translated. These pages were lost by Joseph Smith's scribe Martin Harris during the summer of 1828 and are presumed to have been destroyed.

These lost 116 pages were handwritten on the paper of the day.  If these pages were printed in the Book of Mormon as modern pages, how many pages would this be?

Zarahemla Research Foundation gives the following description of the pages.

  Description of the Original Manuscript. The paper used for the
  Original manuscript was called "foolscap." Foolscap originally
  referred to a watermark of a jester's cap on writing paper. This term
  came to apply to writing paper which generally measured 12" to 13-1/2"
  wide by 15" to 17" long, whether or not it carried a watermark. The
  surviving Original manuscript pages are of two sizes and three kinds
  of paper-one, a coarse mesh machined paper, the others of finer
  handmade texture.

I am not sure how to take this description and turn it into the number of modern Book of Mormon pages.

In other words, I would like to know what percentage of the Book of Mormon was lost.

Taking the liberty of assuming that the "116 lost pages" were similar in size and content to what was presented to the publisher for printing, I think we can uncover a reasonable estimate.

The Printer's Manuscript is the earliest complete pre-publication document we have of the original translation.  Like the Original Manuscript, it was written by hand and had the addition of punctuation.  While the scribes were different, it is probably reasonable to assume that the content would be reasonably similar overall.

This table provides a correlation to the current publication and the Printer's Manuscript.  According to the table, 116 pages would cover the extant from 1 Nephi through Words of Mormon.

In narrow columns, new chapter divisions, cross references, footnotes, etc., the "116 lost pages" would be about 144 pages of the current typed version, or about 21% of the total translated pages.

In regards to the amount of content lost, the "116 lost pages" contained the "Book of Lehi" and covered—according to the Words of Mormon—the same time period as the books from 1 Nephi to the Omni.  Nephi states some of the things previously recorded, perhaps in the Book of Lehi, which were intentionally left out of his personal account.


Catholic Communion under One Kind And when He had taken some bread and given thanks, He broke it and gave it to them, saying, "This is My body which is given for you; do this in remembrance of Me." And in the same way He took the cup after they had eaten, saying, "This cup which is poured out for you is the new covenant in My blood. - Luke 22:19-20

It seems that the institution of the Eucharist intended for both the flesh and blood of Christ to be consumed. Why does the Catholic Church reserve this two-fold consumption only for the priests whereas the laity commune with Christ only under one kind? Is there any Biblical basis for it?

I researched this question a bit - to me it feels very odd and random that communion under both kinds is kept, but only for the priest. If there's a problem with communion under both kinds, why not remove for the priest as well? And if there's no problem, why exclude the laity?

According to Canon 925 of the Code of Canon Law, Communion may be given under the form of bread only, wine only "in the case of necessity", or under both species "according to the norm of the liturgical laws". I don't have a copy of the Missale Romanum, which would contain the appropriate liturgical rubrics, but everywhere I've gone in the United States and Ireland it's been typical to offer both species.
EDIT: I've found this copy of an older translation of the 1566 catechism, which was the one in force up until the current 1983 catechism was published. That catechism has this to say:

Why The Celebrant Alone Receives Under Both Species
It is clear that the Church was influenced by numerous and most cogent reasons, not only to approve, but also to confirm by authority of its decree, the general practice of communicating under one species. In the first place, the greatest caution was necessary to avoid spilling the blood of the Lord on the ground, a thing that seemed not easily to be avoided, if the chalice were administered in a large assemblage of the people.
In the next place, whereas the Holy Eucharist ought to be in readiness for the sick, it was very much to be apprehended, were the species of wine to remain long unconsumed, that it might turn acid.
Besides, there are many who cannot at all bear the taste or even the smell of wine. Lest, therefore, what is intended for the spiritual health should prove hurtful to the health of the body, it has been most prudently provided by the Church that it should be administered to the people under the species of bread only.
We may also further observe that in many countries wine is extremely scarce; nor can it, moreover, be brought from elsewhere without incurring very heavy expenses and encountering very tedious and difficult journeys.
Finally, a most important reason was the necessity of opposing the heresy of those who denied that Christ, whole and entire, is contained under either species, and asserted that the body is contained under the species of bread without the blood, and the blood under the species of wine without the body. In order, therefore, to place more clearly before the eyes of all the truth of the Catholic faith, Communion under one kind, that is, under the species of bread, was most wisely introduced.
There are also other reasons, collected by those who have treated on this subject, and which, if it shall appear necessary, can be brought forward by pastors.

On the other hand, there's this from Aquinas' Summa Theologica (Third part, Question 80, Article 12 - "Is it lawful to receive the body without the blood?")

I answer that, Two points should be observed regarding the use of this sacrament, one on the part of the sacrament, the other on the part of the recipients; on the part of the sacrament it is proper for both the body and the blood to be received, since the perfection of the sacrament lies in both, and consequently, since it is the priest's duty both to consecrate and finish the sacrament, he ought on no account to receive Christ's body without the blood.
But on the part of the recipient the greatest reverence and caution are called for, lest anything happen which is unworthy of so great a mystery. Now this could especially happen in receiving the blood, for, if incautiously handled, it might easily be spilt. And because the multitude of the Christian people increased, in which there are old, young, and children, some of whom have not enough discretion to observe due caution in using this sacrament, on that account it is a prudent custom in some churches for the blood not to be offered to the reception of the people, but to be received by the priest alone.

(emphasis added)
Compare the current catechism, para. 1390:

1390    Since Christ is sacramentally present under each of the species, communion under the species of bread alone makes it possible to receive all the fruit of Eucharistic grace. For pastoral reasons this manner of receiving communion has been legitimately established as the most common form in the Latin rite. But "the sign of communion is more complete when given under both kinds, since in that form the sign of the Eucharistic meal appears more clearly." This is the usual form of receiving communion in the Eastern rites.

It appears, therefore, that there was not a Biblical basis for the older practice of Communion under only one species, but largely a group of closely related practical and theological considerations.
Sorry for the lengthy answer, but I wanted to get everything I could find on the question.


In Eastern Orthodoxy, when doing a service, do little mistakes really matter, and should they be cause for concern? I have a question about the Ecclesiastical Typikon regarding the singer of the church. Does it really matter (i.e., it is a big problem) if he fails sometimes or instead of a song he sings another one? I am referring to a small mistake, like: at the Theotokion the singer must sing, for example, the Theotokion for Transfiguration of Jesus (on the last day of the afterfeast), but instead he mistakenly sings It is Truly Meet. Is there any problem?

Is there any Saint who has spoken about this kind of involuntary mistake? And also about if the Typikon (and all the Holy Services books) should be complied very very precisely (or maybe is more useful to pray much better)?

You clarified your question in a comment:

  If there are a dogma regarding that, if it is considered a sin, if God
  and/or The Church focuses on very precisely compliance of Typikon or
  Orthodox Tradition, if it does not matter a such kind of mistake in
  generally

Sin, as John wrote, is lawlessness (1 John 3:4).  This is also the definition cited in The Longer Catechism of the Orthodox Church, by Metropolitan Philaret.  The 20th century Orthodox theologian and monk, Justin Popovic explained this verse:

  The law of God is the Gospel:  lawlessness is sin.  Its [sin's] only
  law is to be without the law of God and against the law of God.  In
  essence, the law and that which is lawful is only that which is divine
  and of the Gospel; lawlessness is everything that is in opposition to
  that which is divine and of the Gospel.

  Commentary on the Epistles of St. John the Theologian, (tr. Sebastian Press, 2009), p. 40

In the Gospel, we are commanded to be perfect (Matthew 5:48).  In this sense anything we do or fail to do in dishonoring or honoring God and our brothers and sisters through inattention is sinful.  The prayers and rubrics in the Typicon were prescribed by our hierarchs for the spiritual benefit of all who read and attend the service, so we fall short of helping our brothers and sisters when we make mistakes in the service through our inattention.  But we also fall short when we have an unkind word for them or an unkind thought about them.  There is not a special checklist that God maintains that relates specifically to errors of one sort or another.


Movies and Music during Lent for Orthodox Christians Last year I was told that the Orthodox do not participate in movies and TV during Lent. Fine -- I assumed it had to do with the fact that new movies/TV are egregiously filled with sin, and Lent is the time of year to avoid sin even more so than usual. There is no canon prohibiting movies, but this practice could be inferred from the principles of Lent. However I still assumed that watching a G rating movie would be fine. It wasn't the TV/movies per se, but the sin involved in the majority of it.

Today I just heard that the Orthodox also do not participate in secular music during Lent. Initially I suspected that, yes, the lyrics in the majority of new secular music are egregiously filled with sin, so an inference could be made to prohibit secular music during Lent. However, non-lyrical music, specifically classical music, or "G rated" lyrical music, can't seem to me to fit into this category.

Has there ever been any actual proclamation made by the Church regarding music and TV during Lent? If so, is it a total fast from all movies and secular music, or simply from those which perpetuate sinful activity? Or am I missing the point here -- is it not necessarily to do with the sin in movies/music but more about denying yourself the pleasure of movies and music?

Is there any evidence at all to back up the notion that an Orthodox should avoid music or movies during Lent, aside from the fact that one should avoid sin during Lent, of which most new music and movies are deeply intertwined with?

I know very little about the Orthodox church, but I am familiar with Lenten practices of other churches.

Lent is not a time for giving up things which are sinful. Things which are sinful are bad for you, and should be 'given up' all the time. In other words if movies (or music) 'perpetuate sinful activity', then they should be avoided at all times, not just during Lent. One should not "avoid sin during Lent" - one should avoid sin all the time.

What many people do during Lent is to give up something which is not in itself bad. Things like chocolate, sugar, coffee or meat (all popular choices) are not bad in themselves. But abstaining from them for a time allows a person to focus more on God, to become more self-disciplined and to better identify with people who don't have the kind of resources and luxury as us. Movies or music might well fall into this category. However these choices are usually personal and not something prescribed by the church.

P.S. Some people do indeed use Lent as a starting point to give up some sinful activity they have previously been doing - but the purpose is always to continue avoiding it after Lent is over, not to go back to the sin.


How does the Trinitarian defend this argument from a JW? Upon discussing the relationship of Father and Son (the Trinity) with a Jehovah's Witness today; they disagreed (of course) with the understanding that the Trinity doctrine holds the Father and Son as One, but separate.

They quoted that the bible teaches that husband and wife become "one" and that this should be the way we view the relationship between Father and Son.

My question is; what is the biblical basis of explaining this and thus defending the Trinitarian doctrine against this interpretation?   I am specifically interested in the argument of the husband and wife "oneness" thing posed to me today by JW's as an apparent way to explain the oneness of God thus opposing the Trinitarian viewpoint.

According to Genesis, a husband and wife become one flesh (Genesis 2:24).  Since God is spirit (2 Corinthians 3:18), it is unclear how this Scripture fits their argument.

Furthermore, Scripture witnesses to the Divine Trinity in many other places.  For example:

Matthew 28:19

  Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of
  the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost

2 Corinthians 13:14

  The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the
  communion of the Holy Ghost, be with you all. Amen.

John 15:26

  But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the
  Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he
  shall testify of me

1 John 5:7

  For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word,
  and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.


Do Messianic Jews accept the entire New Testament? Do Messianic Jews accept the entire New Testament as a base of their belief?
What is the position of Messianic Judaism (if there is a common position) on passages in the Gospel of John and the letters of Paul that can be understood as that Jesus was a form of God?

Addition, as asked to say more about what are the passages that can be understood as that Jesus was a form of God.
John 1:1

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word
was God.

John 1:14

And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, full of grace and truth;
we have beheld his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father.

Stating «the Word was God» and «the Word became flesh» he sets the base for the thought that God, the Holy Spirit and Jesus are the same, which is not the Jewish (and Muslim) concept of God.
Numbers 23:19

God is not man, that he should lie, or a son of man, that he should
repent. Has he said, and will he not do it? Or has he spoken, and will
he not fulfil it?

Hosea 11:9

I will not execute my fierce anger, I will not again destroy E'phraim;
for I am God and not man, the Holy One in your midst, and I will not
come to destroy.

Do Messianic Jews accept the entire New Testament as a base of their belief?  Yes.

The Holy Bible is the main religious text for Messianic Jews. They follow the teachings of the Torah (Old Testament) while also holding the New Covenant (New Testament) as God’s Truth. They believe Old Testament prophesies about the coming Messiah were fulfilled in the New Testament with the birth, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

Bible - Messianic Jews believe the Bible is God’s Holy Word and follow the Old and New Testament. The Old Testament serves as a history of the Jewish nation, God’s covenant with Abraham, and the commandments given to Moses. The New Testament fulfills the Old Testament through the coming of Jesus Christ, the Promised Messiah and God’s Son.

Jesus Christ - Messianic Jews believe that Jesus Christ is the Promised Messiah prophesied in the Old Testament. He is referred to in Hebrew as Yeshua and regarded as the way of salvation for all who believe in his death and resurrection. They believe that Jesus’ death was payment for the sins of all. (Acts 2)

Trinity - Most Messianic Jews believe in the Trinity as God in three parts. God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit are all displayed in the New Testament Scriptures through the Gospels (the first four books) and the book of Acts.

Sin - Messianic Jews acknowledge that sin is any behavior that is against the teachings of the Bible. Sin can only be forgiven through faith in the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. (2 Corinthians 5)

Source: https://www.christianity.com/church/denominations/what-do-messianic-jews-believe-and-practice.html
Most, but not all, Messianic Jews accept the orthodox view of the Trinity.  God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit as three representations of the same divinity.

God the Father: Messianic Jews believe in God, and that he is all-powerful, omnipresent, eternally existent outside of creation, and infinitely significant and benevolent. Some Messianic Jews affirm both the Shema and the Trinity, understanding the phrase "the LORD is One" to be referring to "a differentiated but singular deity" and "eternally existent in plural oneness".

God the Son: Most Messianic Jews consider Jesus to be the Messiah and divine as God the Son, in line with mainstream Christianity, and will even pray directly to him. Many also consider Jesus to be their "chief teacher and rabbi" whose life should be copied.

God the Holy Spirit: According to some Messianic Jews, the Spirit is introduced in the Old Testament, is the inspirer of prophets, and is the spirit of Truth described in the New Testament.

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messianic_Judaism#The_Trinity
You say: “Stating «the Word was God» and «the Word became flesh» he sets the base for the thought that God, the Holy Spirit and Jesus are the same, which is not the Jewish (and Muslim) concept of God.”
Please be aware that the the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are not “the same”.  That is not the Trinitarian concept.  Trinitarians acknowledge that there is only the One Being of God within whom subsist the three personages of Father, Son and Holy Spirit.  Each is co-eternal and co-equal but they are DISTINCT, one from the other.  Source: Athanasian Creed.


According to Lutherans, do angels pray for us? I was looking at this question, and the answers don't really cover any viewpoints aside from that of the Roman Catholic Church. The second answer quotes Grudem, but the answerer's claim that he speaks for all Protestants isn't exactly accurate. So, according to Luther and Lutherans, do angels in heaven pray for humans on earth?

Most assuredly they do.
The traditional doctrinal standard for the Lutheran Churches is the Book of Concord. One of documents in the BoC is the Apology of the Augsburg Confession, also called the Defense of the Augsburg Confession. It is an explanation of one of the other documents in the BoC, the Augsburg Confession. The Apology was written by Luther's chief collaborator Philip Melanchthon rather than Luther himself.
From the 9th Article of the Apology defending the 21st Article of the Augsburg Confession:

Besides, we also grant that the angels pray for us. For there is a testimony in Zech. 1:12, where an angel prays:

O Lord of hosts, how long wilt Thou not have mercy on  Jerusalem?

Although concerning the saints we concede that, just as, when alive, they pray for the Church universal in general, so in heaven they pray for the Church in general

In addition to believing that the angels intercede for the Church, Lutherans also believe that the saints at rest do the same. The answer you mentioned does not represent the Lutheran position. I doubt it represents the current Anglican position. Asserting that it represents Protestants in general is overreaching.


How do Young Earth Creationists account for radiometrical dates of more than 7000 years? How do Young Earth Creationists account for all the things which have been radiometrically dated to more than 7000 years ago?
For example, the oldest carbon-14-dated seed that has grown into a viable plant was Silene stenophylla (narrow-leafed campion), an Arctic flower native to Siberia, which was dated to be from about ~32,000 years ago. (See reference.) That would put them before plants existed for Young Earth Creationists (at the earliest, ~12,000 years ago).

The literal answer is that YECs "account" for no such thing. They reject the accuracy of such dates, based on an alternate interpretation of the available evidence. However, that isn't very satisfying, so let's address the question you really want to ask, which is "how do YECs account for such supposed ages?".
The short version is that there is no such thing as "radiometric dating".
Rather, there is the ability to measure relative concentrations of various radioactive isotopes. I'm not going to attempt a detailed explanation (you could try here to start), but the short version is that, based on several (sometimes unprovable, sometimes falsified) assumptions, Uniformitarian Evolutionists (UEs) claim to be able to establish the age of certain artifacts (rocks, fossils, seeds, etc.) based on ratios of certain radioactive isotopes and their byproducts.
It should also be noted that these methods often employ various self-reinforcing feedback loops based on UE assumptions (chief of which is that God does not exist). To wit, various techniques such as position of an artifact within geological strata and alternate dating methods of colocated artifacts are used to help "dial in" the dating methodology.
The critical point here, however, is that these techniques have expected results. The methods may be adjusted in order to arrive at the "correct" results, and data that does not fit UE expectations may be discarded entirely (often written off as "contamination"). Simply the way in which these dating methods have been developed ought to be sufficient to place them into question.
Another problem is consistency. Different methods used on the same artifact can give wildly different results. In fact, there is evidence of systemic discrepancies; I'll come back to this point shortly. Other issues are known and sometimes even acknowledged by UEs.
However, to really understand why YECs reject UE "dating", we need to look at the main three assumptions on which those methods rest:

The relative proportions of radioisotopes are fixed at the time the artifact "comes into existence" (when a rock is formed in its current state, when an animal dies and begins the process of fossilization).

UEs themselves acknowledge that this assumption is problematic. YECs further point out that e.g. ¹⁴C concentrations may have been dramatically different prior to the Flood.

The relative proportions of radioisotopes are known at the time the artifact "comes into existence".

Not only does this rely on various assumptions, it has been, in at least some instances, demonstrably falsified. Lava rocks whose formation has been observed by living humans have, for example, been "dated" as "millions of years old". Also, again, effects of the Flood offer an alternate explanation for many observations.

The rate of radioactive decay has remained constant.

While this assumption does seem reasonable, and is even an explanation that a YEC would prefer (the YEC philosophy is to prefer non-miraculous explanations unless no other explanation seems reasonable), it is unprovable until and unless someone creates a working time machine. In fact, even non-YEC sources have shown evidence that the rate of decay is not constant and are experimenting with altering it, while some (YEC) experiments have already demonstrated that greatly accelerated decay is within the reach of not only God, but of Man. Moreover, there is evidence that the rate of decay was dramatically altered by God on at least one occasion in the past. Such evidence includes the previously mentioned systemic inconsistencies in radiometric "dating".
Really, the upshot of all this is that you should read the R.A.T.E. report, volumes I and II. These express a number of very specific problems with radiometric dating as accepted by UEs, at least some of which, TTBOMK have not been refuted plausibly. The upshot is that YECs possess a cohesive interpretation (admittedly based on Christian dogma) of the available evidence which ought to be weighed against — not simply ignored or rejected out of hand — the interpretation favored by UEs (based on athiestic dogma which UEs will often vociferously deny).
Finally, one would be remiss to not also consider that other evidence, not related to radiometric dating, can also be interpreted as indicative of an Earth that is thousands, not millions or billions, of years old. I wouldn't know where to start here, but see the links from my original version of the answer.
Now, obviously, not everyone accepts the YEC interpretation. However, the main point here isn't to argue which is right or wrong, but to answer the question of how YECs can "account for" certain evidences which are interpreted by UEs as indicating certain ages of various artifacts. Hopefully this answer can help you on a path to understanding that.

Old answer, for posterity:
As noted in a comment, I'm not entirely sure what you're asking, as your assumption seems to be faulty. However, the critical point seems to be "Christians who reject plants existing >7,000 years ago".
Well... the only such Christians I know are Young Earth Creationists, who reject anything (other than God, of course) existing more than 7,000 years ago.
Naturally, this also means they reject the claimed age of, well, anything as being more than 7,000 years. So I think the answer to your question is that they don't reconcile anything, but rather reject the validity of any dating that gives an answer of more than 7,000 years.
Here are a couple places you can start if you want to learn more about why YECs reject Uniformitarian dating:

https://creation.com/how-old-is-the-earth
https://answersingenesis.org/age-of-the-earth/


How do Christians that advocate libertarian free will interpret Romans 9:14-24? Romans 9:14-24 (ESV):

14 What shall we say then? Is there injustice on God's part? By no means! 15 For he says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.” 16 So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy. 17 For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, “For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I might show my power in you, and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.” 18 So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills.
19 You will say to me then, “Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?” 20 But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, “Why have you made me like this?” 21 Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use? 22 What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, 23 in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory— 24 even us whom he has called, not from the Jews only but also from the Gentiles?

How do Christians who believe in the existence of libertarian free will interpret this passage? (Btw, related.)

Here is Aquinas' commentary on Romans:

But if willing does not depend on the man willing or exertion on the man exerting himself, but on God moving man to this, it seems that man is not master of his own action, which pertains to freedom of will. But the answer is that God moves all things, but in diverse ways, inasmuch as each is moved in a manner befitting its nature. And so man is moved by God to will and to perform outwardly in a manner consistent with free will. Therefore, willing and performing depends on man as freely acting; but on God and not on man, as initial mover.

Further:

But two difficulties seem to exist in regard to hardening: first, hardening of heart seems allied to sin, as it says in Sir (3:27): "A hard heart shall fear evil at the last." Consequently, if God hardens the heart, He is the author of a sin—contrary to what is said in Jas (1:13): "God is no tempter to evil." The answer is that God is not said to harden anyone directly, as though He causes their malice, but indirectly, inasmuch as man makes an occasion of sin out of things God does within or outside the man; and this God Himself permits. Hence, he is not said to harden as though by inserting malice, but by not affording grace. The second difficulty is that this hardening does not seem ascribable to the divine will, since it is written: "This is the will of God, your sanctification" (I Th 4:3) and "He desires all men to be saved" (1 Tim 2:4). The answer is that both mercy and justice imply a disposition of the will. Hence, just as mercy is attributed to the divine will, so also that which is just. Therefore, the interpretation is that he has mercy upon whomever he wills through His mercy and he hardens whomever he wills through His justice, because those whom He hardens deserve to be hardened by Him, as was stated above in chapter 1.


Did Jesus mean a truly spiritual man should feel this rewarded NOW, or in the world to come? Mark 10:28–31 (NKJV):

  Then Peter began to say to Him, "See, we have left all and followed You." So Jesus answered and said, "Assuredly, I say to you, there is no one who has left house or brothers or sisters or father or mother or wife or children or lands, for My sake and the gospel's, who shall not receive a hundredfold now in this time—houses and brothers and sisters and mothers and children and lands, with persecutions—and in the age to come, eternal life. But many who are first will be last, and the last first.”

Note the "now in this time."

Should Christians feel worried if they do not feel spiritually rewarded to that degree in the present age? Or did he mean through the hope of the true joy... that is in "the age to come, eternal life"?

What Jesus was doing is telling his disciples that they would become a child of the kingdom, but since they were pre new testament and pre crucifixion, they would have no understanding what the Kingdom of God really referred to.
Remember that these men were under the impression that the Messiah; whom they believed Jesus to be, was going to set up an earthly Kingdom, and a Heavenly Kingdom would never cross their minds until Jesus had arisen and they realized that Jesus was much more than just a man.
So let's us take a look at Scriptures and see if we can determine what Jesus really had in mind.
Once Jesus had been resurrected from the dead the true meaning of the kingdom of God was understood, Paul said in his epistle to the Romans:

Romans 14:17  KJV  For the kingdom of God is not meat and drink; but righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost.

Even though Jesus had on many occasions tried to explain the Kingdom of God, not only to his disciples but also to the crowds as indicated in the following Scriptures: It was not ever grasp by any of them until his resurrection.
Matthew 13:24  through 33  King James Version

24  Another parable put he forth unto them, saying, The kingdom of heaven is likened unto a man which sowed good seed in his field:
25  But while men slept, his enemy came and sowed tares among the wheat, and went his way.
26  But when the blade was sprung up, and brought forth fruit, then appeared the tares also.
27  So the servants of the householder came and said unto him, Sir, didst not thou sow good seed in thy field? from whence then hath it tares?
28  He said unto them, An enemy hath done this. The servants said unto him, Wilt thou then that we go and gather them up?
29  But he said, Nay; lest while ye gather up the tares, ye root up also the wheat with them.
30  Let both grow together until the harvest: and in the time of harvest I will say to the reapers, Gather ye together first the tares, and bind them in bundles to burn them: but gather the wheat into my barn.
31  Another parable put he forth unto them, saying, The kingdom of heaven is like to a grain of mustard seed, which a man took, and sowed in his field:
32  Which indeed is the least of all seeds: but when it is grown, it is the greatest among herbs, and becometh a tree, so that the birds of the air come and lodge in the branches thereof.
33  Another parable spake he unto them; The kingdom of heaven is like unto leaven, which a woman took, and hid in three measures of meal, till the whole was leavened.

So let's take a look at the first parable see how it applies to your question. the first parable is contained in verses 24 through 30.
Let's start with verse 24 and 25. Jesus is likening the Kingdom of God to the world.

God created the world in a perfect state and Satan introduced havoc in it, then went happily on his way.

verses 27, and 28.
Here Jesus is telling them that when God talked to him and the Angels they asked if he wanted them go directly to the end times and begin the judgment.
verses 29 and 30 are his answer.
He told them that  no otherwise when the evil ones were destroyed those who would accept Salvation would also be destroyed. So he would wait until  the proper time and then separate the righteous from the unrighteous.
In the second parable verses 31 and 32:
Jesus is telling us that even though the Kingdom of God would start with just those few followers there; that it would grow to include many people from many Nations.
And in the third parable verse 33:
He is describing the spread of the Gospel from Jerusalem throughout the World.
So to answer that part of your question about when, the answer is that he was trying to tell them once they entered into the Kingdom of God they would again enjoy the companionship with God lost by Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden and that once  the Kingdom of God was established through his death and resurrection they would again be a part of the family of God in which all would be of common status.


Looking for a passage on the effect of good/bad actions on your family through time I don't remember the exact context surrounding the story/situation, but the message was about the impact of one's good or bad deeds through time.

I remember it said something like: good things go down on your family for three(?) generations, while bad things will affect you for twenty(?) generations.

If you recall a similar passage, let me know, it may be the one I'm looking for.

Exodus 20:5-6: You shall not bow down to them or serve them; for I the Lord your God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and the fourth generation of those who hate me, but showing love to a thousand generations of those who love me and keep my commandments.
Exodus 34:7: keeping steadfast love for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin, but who will by no means clear the guilty, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children and the children’s children, to the third and the fourth generation.

Implied in the warning of Exodus 20:5 and Exodus 34:7 is the likelihood that children will choose to repeat the sins of their fathers.  A Jewish Targum (1) specifies that this passage refers to “ungodly fathers” and “rebellious children.”  Those generations that commit the same sins their ancestors will receive the same punishment.
Under Old Testament law a generational curse was a consequence for a specific nation (Israel) for a specific sin (idolatry). The history books of the Old Testament (especially Judges) contain the record of this divine punishment meted out.  However, when Israel turned from idols to serve the living God, the “curse” was broken and God saved them (Judges 3:9, 15; 1 Samuel 12:10-11).  The cure for a “generational curse” is repentance of the sin in question, faith in Christ, and a life consecrated to the Lord (Romans 12:1-2).
Jeremiah 32:18 says that the consequences of sin from one generation are visited on the next generations.  Sin’s destructive consequences hurt the person committing the sin as well as those around him. Each generation has the choice to let their natural inclination repeat the cycle or to find a better way. People often want to break negative cycles but do not know how because the way of thinking they were raised with has confused them.  The cure for a “generational curse” is repentance of the sin in question, faith in Christ, and a life consecrated to the Lord (Romans 12:1-2).
(1) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Targum


Anne and Joachim are the parents of Mary - is this a Catholic dogma? Apparently the Catholic Church has recognized Joachim and Anne as saints, and it is said that they are the father and mother of the virgin Mary. Is the belief that Joachim and Anne are the parents of Mary dogmatically declared by the Roman Catholic Church?

The Catholic Church is ambiguous about the very existence of Saints Anne and Joachim. In the apocryphal Infancy Gospel of James, believed to have been written around 150 CE, they are described as the parents of Mary, mother of Jesus and, although the Infancy Gospel of James is non-canonical, this became Christian tradition. However, since the genealogies of Jesus in Matthew and Luke name two different fathers for Joseph, theologians since the eighth century have argued that the genealogy in Luke is actually the family tree of Mary, and that Heli is her father, in which case Joachim ceases to exist.

Anne and Joachim are regarded as saints in the Catholic Church although, like all the earliest saints, they were never formally canonised. Anne  is the patron saint of Christian mothers and of women in labour, and Joachim is the patron Saint of fathers, grandfathers, grandparents, married couples, cabinet makers and linen traders. Nevertheless, these honours fall short of dogma. The Catholic website, http://www.catholic.org/saints/saint.php?saint_id=22, states that there is no historical evidence of Anne and Joachim, and any stories about Mary's father and mother come to us through legend and tradition.


There is more to know than that which is written I have heard it said many times in religious/spiritual and/or typical conversation that "there is more to know than that which is written [in the bible]." Is this comment scripturally inspired? If so where can the comment or its inspiration be found in scripture?

Try the very last verse of the book of John:

  Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written.

  — New International Version

Beside that, it is obvious that much of the minutia of daily life is missing from the Bible.


Are mainline Protestants our Brothers in Christ by virtue of the Trinitarian Baptism? [Catholic] If I am not mistaken, water baptism is one of the 7 sacraments and it can be performed by laymen and must not necessarily involve clergy. In such a case, since Protestants have no apostolic succession unlike the Orthodox, are their baptisms valid in their own right?

  To be clear, belief in the Holy Trinity is a prerequisit that seems
  obvious and mainline Protestants do believe in the Holy Trinity. Some of the
  Reformers had a similar view of Catholics being their brothers by
  baptism, notably John Calvin.

EDIT : My question is different to certain others because it deals with the validity of the sacrement of baptism in Protestant circles instead of merely if God will have extraordinary mercy on Protestants as opposed to ordinary mercy with sacrements. If the mercy is extraordinary it almost pushes salvation in Protestantism to the level of salvation in for instance paganism, where there are no elements of the Church to draw life from like a source of water. However if Protestantism has ordinary significance then we can safely say that Protestants are Christians, and not simply hope that they are.

The answer is yes, the Catholic Church views Protestants as brothers by virtue of the baptismal formula of Father, Son, Spirit.

Wounds to unity
817 In fact, "in this one and only Church of God from its very beginnings there arose certain rifts, which the Apostle strongly censures as damnable. But in subsequent centuries much more serious dissensions appeared and large communities became separated from full communion with the Catholic Church - for which, often enough, men of both sides were to blame." The ruptures that wound the unity of Christ's Body - here we must distinguish heresy, apostasy, and schism - do not occur without human sin:
Where there are sins, there are also divisions, schisms, heresies, and disputes. Where there is virtue, however, there also are harmony and unity, from which arise the one heart and one soul of all believers.
818 "However, one cannot charge with the sin of the separation those who at present are born into these communities [that resulted from such separation] and in them are brought up in the faith of Christ, and the Catholic Church accepts them with respect and affection as brothers . . . . All who have been justified by faith in Baptism are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers in the Lord by the children of the Catholic Church."

PS. There are those of the Catholic Church who disagree with the Catholic Church called sedevancatists.


How does the Bible describe the gender roles? Although the question could go all over the place I am looking to know how evangelicals define the role of a man and of a woman from the Bible.

What are the verses they use? Is there a short description of the different roles?

The biblical (at least, imo) view of gender roles is, in short, that the man symbolizes Christ and the woman symbolizes the church.

Delving in a little bit deeper, Eve was created as a "helper" for man, a "suitable partner" - not as a creature inferior, though, which I think could be inferred from the fact that Eve was made from the rib of Adam.

  But for Adam no suitable helper was found. 21 So the LORD God caused
  the man to fall into a deep sleep; and while he was sleeping, he took
  one of the man’s ribs and then closed up the place with flesh. 22 Then
  the LORD God made a woman from the rib he had taken out of the man,
  and he brought her to the man.

  Genesis 2:20-22

In Ephesians, Paul says:

  Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord. 23 For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the  Savior. 24 Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their  husbands in everything.
  25 Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave
  himself up for her 26 to make her holy, cleansing her by the washing
  with water through the word, 27 and to present her to himself as a
  radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but
  holy and blameless. 28 In this same way, husbands ought to love their
  wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. 29
  After all, no one ever hated their own body, but they feed and care
  for their body, just as Christ does the church— 30 for we are members
  of his body. 31 “For this reason a man will leave his father and
  mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one
  flesh.”[c] 32 This is a profound mystery—but I am talking about Christ
  and the church. 33 However, each one of you also must love his wife as
  he loves himself, and the wife must respect her husband.

  Ephesians 5:23-33

I think the key phrases here are "love his wife" and "respect her husband" - the woman has a supporting role to the loving, caring, providing husband; both epitomizing Christ and the Church. (See Hosea for great imagery on this)

I know this is in the context of marriage, but generally I think it still applies - man providing, woman helping/submitting, especially since this is the general role given at Creation.

Also, in the context of the church, there's some information provided by Paul in 1 Cor. 14:34

  "women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to
  speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says."

Ultimately though, these are minor distinctions: in Christ there is neither male nor female; we are all equally sinful but equally made righteous by the blood of Christ.


Denominational adherence to "The New Perspective On Paul" To be honest, I'd never heard about the New Perspective on Paul before today. Does anyone know of denominations that subscribe to the NPP interpretation, in part or in full?

Specifically, the following concepts, taken from this article:

Covenantal Nomism

  Briefly put, covenantal nomism is the view that one’s place in God’s
  plan is established on the basis of the covenant and that the covenant
  requires as the proper response of man his obedience to its
  commandments, while providing means of atonement for transgression

I read this to mean "God saves us by providing atonement, so long as we keep up our end of the bargain."

This of course, would be different than Sola Fide.

The righteousness of God

  Proponents of New Perspectivism argue that the righteousness of God,
  spoken of by Paul in Romans, is refering to God’s faithfulness rather
  than the positive imputation of Christ’s righteousness.

Justification

  According to Wright, justification isn’t merely an initial means by
  which someone is right with God, but rather a mark of who already is.

Denial of imputed righteousness

  N.T. Wright reinterprets texts classically used as prooftexts for
  imputed righteousness. He understands 2 Corinthians 5:21, for example,
  to refer to God’s covenant faithfulness. While many still profess
  agreement with the substance of the doctrine of imputed righteousness,
  the classic (or traditional) interpretations of texts relating to
  imputation have more or less been removed

The jury is still out on this one.

As a doctrinal perspective that is relatively new on the scene, theologians are still busy hashing out where they fall on the matter and denominations are examining how it compares to their established teachings. I know of no denominations that have officially embrassed it as their standard teaching. In fact I don't know of any yet who officially allow even partially, however there are quite a few thinkers these days that have gone this direction and many of the churches

While there may not be official adherence, there is certainly official rejection. Several denominations* have made statements against the teachings, and several have gone so far as to require all new ordination candidates to write their own refutations as part of their examination process.

* The OPC and several other Reformed / Presbyterian denominations.


What do Catholic traditions say was the real name of St. Thomas? The Gospels do not mention the real name of St Thomas, unlike in the case of other apostles. The name Thomas (Koine Greek: Θωμᾶς) given for the apostle in the Gospels is derived from the Aramaic or Syriac: ܬܐܘܡܐ Toma, equivalently from Hebrew Teom, meaning "twin". The equivalent term for twin in Greek, which is also used in the New Testament, is Δίδυμος Didymus. {Courtesy: Wikipedia}
So, if Didymus and Thomas were in fact nick-names, what was the real name of St Thomas the Apostle?
What do Catholic traditions have to say on this?

The 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia article on St. Thomas the Apostle says:

  The principal document concerning him is the "Acta Thomae", preserved to us with some variations both in Greek and in Syriac, and bearing unmistakeable signs of its Gnostic origin (...) it represents Thomas (Judas Thomas, as he is called here and elsewhere in Syriac tradition) as the twin brother of Jesus. The Thomas in Syriac is equivalant to didymos in Greek, and means twin.

So we have an ancient Syriac-language tradition which gives St. Thomas a birth name of Judas — which is the name of at least two other apostles, Judas Thaddaeus and Judas Iscariot. Since, however, we have a lot of repeated names among the Gospel characters, this is not an issue.

The Church does not regard the names that St. Thomas might have had or not particularly important to the Gospel message, so Catholics are free to believe or disbelieve in this Syriac tradition; but at any rate it exists.


What were the editions to the KJV since 1611 and who did them and when? So the King James Bible came out in 1611 with the authorized version, then in 1769 with the standard version.  Supposedly, there were some minor spelling corrections made in the late 1800's and in 1900.  Is there anything that documents these things?  Does anyone print the standard edition any more as it was in 1769?

There have been minor updates by the publishers. Generally these are spelling updates, or changes to the punctuation. But there have been a lot. Each publisher generally changes something or other. Rick Norris has compiled a huge book on these, called "Facts from 400 Years of KJV Editions: Do We Use a 1769 KJV?"

You can also purchase fascimile 1769 Bibles (or 1611s) that are photocopies, so definitely with no revisions. Example: https://greatsite.com/facsimile-reproductions/1769.html