What was Jerome's defense for translating the Hebrew word קִיקָיוֹן (kikayon) in Jonah 4:6, etc. into Latin as hedera? In the Vulgate translation of Jonah 4:6–7, 4:9–10, Jerome translated the Hebrew word קִיקָיוֹן  (kikayon) into Latin as hedera, which is the equivalent of the English word "ivy."

Some, including Augustine, expressed their discontent with this particular translation of Jerome. In response, what was Jerome's personal defense for his translation of the Hebrew word קִיקָיוֹן into Latin as hedera?

This is a famous spat between Jerome and Augustine. You may have seen "The Very Secret Diary of St Augustine" that has been circulating recently:

  Correspondence Jerome continues. Infuriating. Do not understand why he does not see my point! Translation of "gourd" vital to understanding of gospels.

The argument plays out in a series of their letters. The basic point is the divergence between the Hebrew, Greek (both the Septuagint and other versions), and traditional Latin. The Septuagint called it a "gourd" (κολοκύνθῃ) but the alternative translation from Hebrew by Aquila of Sinope uses "ivy" (κισσός). These correspond in Latin to cucurbita and hedera respectively. The "Vetus Latina" traditional Latin versions followed the cucurbita route; the controversy arose when Jerome picked hedera instead. In the lengthy and snippy correspondence between him and Augustine, this was one of the points of debate.

Augustine wrote to Jerome (his letter 71 of 403AD) with concern that the bishop of Oea (now Tripoli) had been confronted by an angry congregation, dismayed at the "very different rendering from that which had been of old familiar to the senses and memory of all the worshippers, and had been chanted for so many generations in the church." He was concerned not just about the specific gourd issue, but with the reliability of the Biblical texts in general, and the danger of public confusion. Jerome replied (letter 75 in the
Augustinian corpus, 404AD):

  I have already given a sufficient answer to this in my commentary on Jonah. At present, I deem it enough to say that in that passage, where the Septuagint has gourd, and Aquila and the others have rendered the word ivy (κίσσος), the Hebrew manuscript has ciceion, which is in the Syriac tongue, as now spoken, ciceia. It is a kind of shrub having large leaves like a vine, and when planted it quickly springs up to the size of a small tree, standing upright by its own stem, without requiring any support of canes or poles, as both gourds and ivy do. If, therefore, in translating word for word, I had put the word ciceia, no one would know what it meant; if I had used the word gourd, I would have said what is not found in the Hebrew. I therefore put down ivy, that I might not differ from all other translators.

In the commentary that Jerome mentions, he had written:

  For gourd or ivy in Hebrew we read qiqaion, which is also written qiqaia in the Syriac and Punic languages. It is a type of shrub or sapling with wide leaves like a vine, and which casts a large shadow and is supported by a trunk and often is found growing in Palestine especially in sandy areas. It is interesting to note that if the seed is cast on the ground it germinates quickly and in a few days it can be seen to have grown from a seedling to a bush. For my part when I was translating the prophets I wanted to just transliterate the Hebrew word seeing that Latin has no word for this kind of tree. But I feared that the men of letters would find in this some argument, imagining those animals of India or the mountains of Boeotia or even other marvels of this type. I have also followed the example of the former translators who translated it as ivy, in Greek chissos, because they had no other word to use.

Basically, then, Jerome wanted to pick some familiar word rather than an exotic/mysterious one, and felt that "ivy" was a better fit than "gourd" for this plant which is a bit like both, but not really much like either. In particular, his commentary points out that the function of the plant in the story is to provide shade, which is more naturally associated with ivy than with a gourd. He goes on to say that rejecting the bad arguments of the "gourd-lovers" shouldn't lead us to ignore the imagery of Isaiah 1:8, where Zion is compared to a hut in a cucumber field.

This did not quite satisfy Augustine, who replied (letter 82 of 405AD):

  My only reason for objecting to the public reading of your translation from the Hebrew in our churches was, lest, bringing forward anything which was, as it were, new and opposed to the authority of the Septuagint version, we should trouble by serious cause of offense the flocks of Christ, whose ears and hearts have become accustomed to listen to that version to which the seal of approbation was given by the apostles themselves. Wherefore, as to that shrub in the book of Jonah, if in the Hebrew it is neither gourd nor ivy, but something else which stands erect, supported by its own stem without other props, I would prefer to call it gourd in all our Latin versions; for I do not think that the Seventy would have rendered it thus at random, had they not known that the plant was something like a gourd.


What is the origin of the Christian tradition of praying before eating? This is sort of related this other question about holding hands when praying before a meal. However this question is more generally about the praying itself.

When looking at the origin of Christianity, it seems that it has some features that are carryovers from Judaism. One example is the belief of an atoning sacrifice given instead of sins (other religions may have the concept of sacrifices but typically to attempt to gain favor of a deity, as opposed to cover for sins).

However I have not been able to find any examples from the Bible showing that people prayed before eating, or that it was even required to do so.

What would be the origin of this tradition?

It appears to be a custom that predates establishment of the Christian religion, but you can find a scriptural example in 1 Corinthians 11:23-25(KJV)

  That the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took
  bread: And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take,
  eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance
  of me. After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had
  supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye,
  as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me.

A more modern rendering: (NAB)

  23 * For I received from the Lord what I also handed on to you, that
  the Lord Jesus, on the night he was handed over, took bread,
   24 and, after he had given thanks, broke it and said, “This is my body that is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.”
  25 In the same way also the cup, after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.”
  26 For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the death of the Lord until he comes.

In current Catholic practice, for example, the Grace said before a meal is a form of being thankful (albeit in somewhat stilted language):

  Bless us oh Lord, and these thy gifts, which we are about to receive,
  through thy bounty

There is a deeper tradition involved in the Greek and Roman churches where the meal (the Eucharistic meal, the Lord's Supper) is by its name a communal prayer, and a communal act of thanksgiving.  Prayers of thanksgiving well predate Christian practice, in the Psalms.  As instructed in the current Catholic teaching ...

  2588 The Psalter's many forms of prayer take shape both in the liturgy
  of the Temple and in the human heart. Whether hymns or prayers of
  lamentation or thanksgiving, whether individual or communal, whether
  royal chants, songs of pilgrimage or wisdom meditations, the Psalms
  are a mirror of God's marvelous deeds in the history of his people, as
  well as reflections of the human experiences of the Psalmist.

There is also the admonition from the Apostle Paul:  Pray constantly.

1 Thessalonians 5: 16-18.

  16 Rejoice always.   17 Pray without ceasing.   18 In all
  circumstances give thanks, for this is the will of God for you in
  Christ Jesus.

An allusion to giving thanks before a meal also comes from Romans 14:6

  Whoever observes the day, observes it for the Lord. Also whoever eats,
  eats for the Lord, since he gives thanks to God; while whoever
  abstains, abstains for the Lord and gives thanks to God.

Matthew 15:34-36 is another example Jesus demonstrating the giving of thanks before eating

  34 Jesus said to them, “How many loaves do you have?” “Seven,” they
  replied, “and a few fish.”   35 He ordered the crowd to sit down on
  the ground.   36 Then he took the seven loaves and the fish, gave
  thanks, broke the loaves, and gave them to the disciples, who in turn
  gave them to the crowds*.

While that doesn't confirm the origin of this custom, @toothbrush points to a Jewish thanksgiving custom/prayer thought to be the thanksgiving that Jesus used:

  (@Toothbrush)These passages reference the Jewish blessing (There are
  also other blessings pronounced for other foods.)

  for bread (ברוך אתה יהוה>אלוהינו מלך העולם המוציא לחם מן הארץ; Blessed are You, LORD our God, King of the universe, Who brings forth bread from the earth)
  for wine (ברוך אתה יהוה אלוהינו מלך העולם בורא פרי הגפן — Blessed are    You, LORD our God, King of the universe, Who creates the fruit
  of the vine).


How do monergists respond to Bible verses that support the doctrine of synergism? How do Lutherans, Calvinists and other protestants that believe in monergism respond to biblical passages that seem to support synergism such as these?
For example:

  "Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect." Matthew 5:48
  "Why do you ask me about what is good?" Jesus replied. "There is only One who is good. If you want to enter life, keep the
  commandments." Matthew 19:17
  "Here I am! I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in and eat with that person, and they
  with me." Revelation 3:20

The parable of the goats and sheep Matthew 25:31-46

  You, my brothers and sisters, were called to be free. But do not use your freedom to indulge the flesh ; rather, serve one another humbly in love. Galatians 5:13

A monergist response to your verses would, I think, be along the lines of:
"Be perfect". We can have fellowship through Jesus taking our sins. In Christ we have His perfection. Who will be in Christ? Those that the Father has given Him. John 17:2 - " He should give eternal life to as many as you have given Him." "have given Him" It's a done deal.
"commandments". When God gives a command He either does or does not give the grace for that command to be obeyed. If His will is that someone obeys that command He gives them the grace to obey. If His will is that they do not obey He does not give the grace for that command to be obeyed. Only in this way can He be preeminent in all things. see Colossians 1: 18 "that in all things He may have the preeminence".
Rev 3:20. We choose to open or to leave shut. But, why do we choose one thing or another? We choose on the basis of who we are. Who are we? That depends upon how we were made.
We choose on the basis of how we were made. Judgement is having to live with the consequences of how we were made. Goats and sheep don't make themselves. Goats and sheep are separated on the basis of what they are, i.e. how God made them.
"Freedom". Gal 5:13. Freedom here  is freedom from the Law, Old Testament Law, not freedom from some philosophic system of "free will".
[Our wills are not free of how and why God made them].
At one level monergism and synergism are about how people are saved but these spill over into wider issues about ultimate responsibility for evil. Synergism I suggest tries to protect God from the accusation that He is ultimately responsible for evil by saying something He created is autonomous from Him and this created evil. But synergism attacks God's uniqueness because by saying something other than God created evil it means that something other than God can create.
Monergists believe that at the start of every causal chain is one starting point, the Alpha of Rev 21:6. When God, who is light, created darkness [Isaiah 45:7] He had a holy motive for doing so. There is a single purpose behind everything in creation-"all things were created through Him and for Him", Col 1:16.


Why were the interpreters called "Urim and Thummim"? Urim and Thummim are lots in the pouch of the priests (High Priest? I don't remember) in the Old Testament. Not sure what "lot" is in this context but I am imagining some kind of dice. In any case, sometimes the lot were cast and the result seen as manifestation of divine will. Revelation.
The interpreters (on the breastplate which Joseph Smith got together with the plates) were clear stones you would look into and see something. Joseph Smith used them to translate the Book of Mormon, and I suppose there could be some other revelations he had through them.
The connection is both are physical objects used to inquire God and receive revelation, but that's about it. It's not even obvious whether or not the Urim and Thummim were stones (right?). The interpreters are more like the Liahona than the Urim and Thummim in my mind. The Book of Mormon, as far as I am aware, doesn't use the term "Urim and Thummim", nor does any angel that visited Joseph Smith (right?). The interpreters appear in the Book of Mormon from nowhere, as far as I am aware, King Mosiah just happens to have them.
So why did (I assume Joseph Smith) start calling them "Urim and Thummim"? Just to give them a biblical name or is there something more to it? And when did this association start?

Well, a simple search would have revealed that the association is (contrary to the question claiming otherwise) made in D&C 10:1:

1 Now, behold, I say unto you, that because you delivered up those
writings which you had power given unto you to translate by the means
of the Urim and Thummim, into the hands of a wicked man, you have lost
them.

And even earlier, Moroni himself in Joseph Smith - History 1:35:

35 Also, that there were two stones in silver bows - and these stones
fastened to a breastplate, constituted what is called the Urim and
Thummim [...]

I also found this question on BH.SE which has the following insights which are somewhat consistent with Joseph's Urim and Thummim:

the OT's Urim and Thummim were on or in a breastplate
they could give complex answers, and in one case also no answer
some views say they were actually the twelve stones and illuminated to give answers, some more exotic views even speaking of letters moving on the stones

But all in all, it's not clear what they were, the Bible doesn't tell much about them, just that they were in some relation to the breast plate of the high priest and were used to inquire God.


What is conciliar folly? From Gloria.tv:

  During Sarah's "renewal" Paul VI laicised ten thousands of priests and
  furiously persecuted the Priestly Society of Saint Pius X who was able
  to gather the sheep shattered during the conciliar folly over
  which Paul VI was presiding.

What does this mean?
What was conciliar folly?

"Conciliarism" refers to a movement in the medieval Catholic Church that sought to promote the authority of a council of bishops over that of the Pope; it was eventually condemned at the Fifth Lateran Council.  In this case, the "conciliar folly" being referred to is the Second Vatican Council, which many so-called "traditionalist" Catholics reject on the grounds that the reforms it introduced were heretical, sacrilegious, or impious.  Though of course the Second Vatican Council is in no way associated with the long-suppressed medieval conciliar movement, the author appears to be trying to make such a comparison in order to discredit it.

The Society of St. Pius the X is a Catholic organization formed in the wake of Vatican 2 specifically to resist those changes.


What are the reasons for fasting from midnight before Eucharist? According to traditional Catholic rules (before Vatican the 2nd Council), as well as in Eastern Orthodox traditions, those who want to receive the Sacraments should fast, i.e. do not consume any food or liquids, from midnight until receiving Holy Communion.

Presumably, this rule is based on the Canon XLI of the Council of Carthage (419):

  That by men who are fasting sacrifices are to be offered to God.
  THAT the Sacraments of the Altar are not to be celebrated except by those who are fasting,
  except on the one anniversary of the celebration of the Lord’s Supper; for if the commemoration
  of some of the dead, whether bishops or others, is to be made in the afternoon, let it be only with
  prayers, if those who officiate have already breakfasted.

At least, it is how this tradition is explained in the Eastern Orthodox Church.

But I don't see in this canon any mentioning of midnight. Why fasting is obliged to be from midnight?

Prior to the Council decision in 417 CE, Augustine opined in letter 54 in 400 CE that "for the honour of so great a sacrament, that the body of the Lord should take the precedence of all other food entering the mouth of a Christian;".

Augustine recognized that the Lord and apostles ate the Thanksgiving [Eucharist] after eating (Mat. 26:26, etc), but believed that the apostles or successors had the authority to make changes.  This accounted for the variety of observances in churches.

But why midnight?  Augustine says, "As to the question whether upon that day it is right to partake of food before either offering or partaking of the Eucharist,"

In the Roman time frame, a day began and ended at midnight.  So, that day would start at midnight from which no food/water was taken until the sacrament.  Centuries later, Aquinas confirms this understanding.

In addition, there are references to pagans fasting until midnight and then breaking their fasts with revelry.  Christians apparently reacted against this practice not with revelry, but with beginning a fast at midnight.  Again, this would account for the variety of observance as not all the same practices were found throughout the world.

Letter 54 of St. Augustine (A.D. 400)

Summa Theologiae (Question 80): The use or receiving of this sacrament in general

A History Of The Church, from the Edict of Milan, A. D. 313, to the Council of Chalcedon See page 185.


How do Premillennialists explain Matthew 25:31-46? Premillennialists believe Jesus will return, reign with His saints for 1,000 years, and then after the 1,000 years are completed the final judgment of the wicked will happen.

Matthew 25:31-46 states that "when the Son of Man comes in His glory, and all the angels with Him, then He will sit on His glorious throne. All the nations will be gathered before Him, and He will separate them from one another . . . ." The righteous will be sent off into the kingdom, while the wicked will be sent off into Hell. And so "These will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life."

I'm curious how Premillennialists typically explain this passage. At first blush it looks like it's saying the final judgment happens right at the Lord's return -- for both the righteous and the wicked.

At first blush it looks like it's saying the final judgment happens right at the Lord's return -- for both the righteous and the wicked.

  Matthew 25:32  And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he
  shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep
  from the goats:

This division is done between those who followed Jesus under great persecution during the tribulation and those who persecuted them.

  Matthew 25:40  And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I
  say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of
  these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.

Jesus declares that the contempt, hatred, and murderous rage people had against his followers (brethren) during the tribulation is justification for the death penalty and also indicates that at the second resurrection they will face their final judgment.

  Matthew 25:46  And these shall go away into everlasting punishment:
  but the righteous into life eternal.

The tribulation period starts with the death of 25% of the people on earth.

  Revelation 6:8  And I looked, and behold a pale horse: and his name
  that sat on him was Death, and Hell followed with him. And power was
  given unto them over the fourth part of the earth, to kill with sword,
  and with hunger, and with death, and with the beasts of the earth.

A further third of those remaining are killed during the tribulation.

  Revelation 9:18  By these three was the third part of men killed, by
  the fire, and by the smoke, and by the brimstone, which issued out of
  their mouths.

The picture painted in Revelation is not one of confusion or mystery. One gets the idea that most people know who God is and why things are happening and instead of sorrow and shame, they shake their fist in the face of God and come together to try to fight him.

  Revelation 16:14  For they are the spirits of devils, working
  miracles, which go forth unto the kings of the earth and of the whole
  world, to gather them to the battle of that great day of God Almighty.

  Revelation 16:21  And there fell upon men a great hail out of heaven,
  every stone about the weight of a talent: and men blasphemed God
  because of the plague of the hail; for the plague thereof was
  exceeding great.

The judgment is similar to that which will take place at the second resurrection. Those who are judged to have tortured and killed the followers of Jesus (his brethren) will eventually end up in hell. This particular judgment is for death in that they have no role to fulfill in the 1,000 year kingdom.

  Matthew 25:34  Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand,
  Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you
  from the foundation of the world:


What scriptural arguments are there, if any, that there is hell but it is not eternal? The Catholic Church teaches that there is hell and it is eternal [cf. The Hell There Is! | Catholic Answers].

What is the [common] scriptural basis, if any, for the Christian groups which teach that there is a hell but that it is not eternal?

What is the [common] scriptural basis, if any, for the Christian groups which teach that there is a hell but that it is not eternal?

Much of the trouble with the determination of “eternal” comes from the definition of the Geek word aion. It can mean a period of time like a lifetime, an age or true eternity. One of the Biblical proofs that aion does not always mean true eternity can be seen;

  Jude 1:7  Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in
  like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after
  strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance
  of eternal fire.

Here one might say that the effects are eternal rather than the fire, however that does not help impart support for the idea of eternal torment as torment that continues eternally.

Another problem in declaring the eternality of torment is the problem of “eternal” life.

  Romans 6:23  For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is
  eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

  John 10:28  And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never
  perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand.

One can ask if the gift of God is eternal life, then how do those who reject Christ merit or receive it and how can torment be truly eternal if life is not.

Another problem of the subject is our limited ability to understand the concept of eternity itself. This can be seen in part if we consider the question, if eternity is the end of time or time unending.

A further problem exists as we are told that punishment is in proportion to works.

  Revelation 20:12  And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before
  God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is
  the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which
  were written in the books, according to their works.

If one considers a hypothetical person who lived out his life in routine and harmless normality. His biggest crime was not being interested in Jesus. It is difficult to resolve the idea of eternal conscious torment with a merciful God.

There are only a few ways to consider this dilemma.

God is unjust.
Mans slightest infraction deserves eternal torment (making God just).
Torment is not eternal but proportionate.
The system is more complicated than we know or can understand.

There is a lot of flexibility in how to translate the word “eternal” (aion). Some translations (i.e. YLT), use the phrase “age lasting”.


What is the Biblical Basis for Christ returning with a physical body at the Second Coming? I've heard Christians claim that at the Second Coming Christ will return with a physical human body, what is the Bible basis for this belief?
It is clear that he has a physical flesh body once:

And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us
John 1:14

I'm interested in an answer from any mainstream Christian belief that believes Christ will have a physical body at the Second Coming.

Will Christ at the second coming be made of flesh?
Yes.  This is what the Bible says:
It is true that “the Word became flesh and dwelt among us” (John 1:14).  The Word gave up the glory he had in heaven and became a little lower than the angels in order to do the will of his Father in heaven.

But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels, now crowned with glory and honour because he suffered death, so that by the grace of God he might taste death for everyone (Hebrews 2:9).

This is Jesus, who lived, died and then was resurrected with a body of flesh and bones.   The resurrected Jesus told his disciples he was not some sort of spirit creature:

A spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see I have (Luke 24:39).

Acts 1:9-11 tells us that just as his disciples saw him ascend into heaven, so he will return in the same way:

After He had said these things, He was lifted up while they were watching, and a cloud took Him up, out of their sight.  And as they were gazing intently into the sky while He was going, then behold, two men in white clothing stood beside them, and they said, “Men of Galilee, why do you stand looking into the sky? This Jesus, who has been taken up from you into heaven, will come in the same way as you have watched Him go into heaven.

Jesus was resurrected with a glorified body of flesh, an incorruptible body, fit for eternity in heaven.  His followers, who look to a heavenly citizenship, await the return of the Lord Jesus Christ who is empowered to

transform our lowly bodies so that they will be like his glorious body (Philippians 3:20-21).

His glorious body is an incorruptible body, one that will never die.  In this way, Jesus' resurrected body is different from his pre-resurrection body.  Nonetheless, when he returns, in glory and accompanied by all the heavenly hosts, it will not be as a spirit creature, but as the resurrected Christ - and every eye will see him.
As a response to the comment left by @user47592: Jesus own words prove that the resurrected Jesus was not a spirit creature but had a body of flesh and bones (Luke 24:39). Acts 1:11 informs us that Jesus will return “in the same way as you have watched Him go into heaven.”  It was not a spirit creature that ascended into heaven.  It was the glorified, resurrected body of Christ Jesus that his disciples saw.
There is nothing invisible about the return of Jesus:

Look, he is coming with the clouds, and every eye will see him, even those who pierced him; and all the peoples of the earth will mourn because of him.  So shall it be!  Amen (Revelation 1:7).

Nowhere in the Bible does it say that Christ Jesus will return as a spirit creature.
If you disagree, feel free to down-vote my answer but it would be more honest to post your own answer to the OP’s question and explain to everybody why you disagree with Ken Graham and myself.


What arguments from scripture are given by Baptists for the belief that one third of the angels were banished from heaven with Satan? I remember being taught in an Independent Fundamentalist Baptist Church when I was in middle school that Satan took one third of the angels in heaven with him after being cast out of God's presence for rebellion. The only biblical reference I can locate that might be construed as support for this belief is Revelation 12:4:

  Its tail swept a third of the stars out of the sky and flung them to the earth. The dragon stood in front of the woman who was about to give birth, so that it might devour her child the moment he was born. (NIV)

I'm sure there are other scriptures that are commonly used in conjunction with this one to justify the belief, but I can't find any that seem to make sense in context, or that address the topic specifically.

After discussing this and other issues regarding angels with conservative Baptist friends of mine, I found that some of them base a significant portion of their beliefs about angels, the nephilim, and other supernatural activity and beings on the Book of Enoch, but they always emphasized that they do not view Enoch as canon and as having much less authority than the scriptures.

How do Baptists who hold this position defend it using canonical scripture? Also, are there any significant denominations or popular preachers who have maintained this belief?

This is a long answer. Please bear with me.

I’m not sure how old this idea is, but its a combination of mistakes in interpretation. We always come into difficulties when we take any document out of context. The same is especially true for the Bible. That is what happens here and when done in several different bible passages, it leads to some man-made idea which is not taught in the bible.

Here are the passages which are used to explain this process. Notice how some can be taken out of context when a person just refers to a single verse or two.

Isaiah 14:12
“How you have fallen from heaven, O star of the morning, son of the dawn! You have been cut down to the earth, You who have weakened the nations!”

Luke 10:18 (the “He” is Jesus)
And He said to them, “I was watching Satan fall from heaven like lightning.

II Peter 2:4-10
For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but cast them into hell and committed them to pits of darkness, reserved for judgment; and did not spare the ancient world, but preserved Noah, a preacher of righteousness, with seven others, when He brought a flood upon the world of the ungodly; and if He condemned the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah to destruction by reducing them to ashes, having made them an example to those who would live ungodly lives thereafter; and if He rescued righteous Lot, oppressed by the sensual conduct of unprincipled men  (for by what he saw and heard that righteous man, while living among them, felt his righteous soul tormented day after day by their lawless deeds), then the Lord knows how to rescue the godly from temptation, and to keep the unrighteous under punishment for the day of judgment, and especially those who indulge the flesh in its corrupt desires and despise authority.

Jude 1:6-7
And angels who did not keep their own domain, but abandoned their proper abode, He has kept in eternal bonds under darkness for the judgment of the great day, just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities around them, since they in the same way as these indulged in gross immorality and went after strange flesh, are exhibited as an example in undergoing the punishment of eternal fire.

Revelation 9:1
Then the fifth angel sounded, and I saw a star from heaven which had fallen to the earth; and the key of the [a]bottomless pit was given to him.

Revelation 12:4
And his tail *swept away a third of the stars of heaven and threw them to the earth. And the dragon stood before the woman who was about to give birth, so that when she gave birth he might devour her child.

Let me break each passage down one by one.

First, Isaiah 14:12. Look at the context in Isaiah 14. The Lord God is speaking of rescuing His people from captivity. He will also punish their oppressors. Within this subject, God gives a “taunt” against the king of Babylon. Babylon was the ones who had taken God’s people captive. Daniel, Ezekiel, etc. were among those captives. Within the context of that “taunt” from God, it says the above passage. Taken within the context its about the king of Babylon. He had made himself out to be like God. Look at Daniel 7 and we can see this of Belshazzar in Daniel 5. He taunted God by drinking wine from the sacred vessels taken from God’s temple in Jerusalem and praised his gods. (see verse 22 - that is Daniel’s explanation.) This passage is not about the devil.

Luke 10:18 - Just before Jesus made this remark, seventy of His followers who had been sent out by Jesus returned happy because the demons had been subject to Jesus’ name. Jesus said “I was watching Satan fall from heaven like lightning.” Its not clear when Jesus saw this. But it connects with what the disciples were doing. The demons are being defeated by the name of Jesus. So we can safely say Satan fell from heaven.

II Peter 2:4-10 - All these events seem to be in order. The first one is when the angels sinned and they were “cast” into “hell”, also “committed” to “pits of darkness”. This sounds very much like Jude 1:6-7 where we learn they did not “keep their own domain”. They tried to usurp their authority. Now they are in hell.

Revelation 9:1 - Now we go to Revelation, which is highly symbolic since it is a series of visions. A “star from heaven” had “fallen” to the earth. It seems this “star” was given the key to the “bottomless pit”. He opened the bottomless pit and smoke and locusts came out of the pit. They had power to hurt only those people who did not have the “seal of God on their foreheads.” (v. 4) They could not kill anyone. Their power lasted five months. They also had a king over them (v.11), the “angel of the abyss”. His name is given. In Hebrew it is “Abaddon” and in Greek it is “Apollyon”. (v.11)  It means “the destroying one” in both languages according to Strong’s accordance (see word # 623). This may have been part of God’s plan or even desire because this is the fifth trumpet. And notice this angel’s subjects are hurting only those who have not followed God. This is part of God’s judgment. Would Satan help God in His judgment?

Therefore, this “angel” had power or control over releasing these locusts, whatever they are or were. So far it says nothing about other angels or the devil. However, I’m sure many people think the “destroying one” fits the devil. But that doesn’t mean it is the devil.

Last, Revelation 12:4 - we read of a dragon. His tail “swept away a third of the stars of heaven and threw them to the earth”. This is the only passage that I am aware of in the bible that refers to a “third” of anything refering to something from heaven. But continue on. There is a woman in heaven. The dragon and the woman are both in heaven. This dragon stands before the woman who was about to give birth in order to devour her child. She gave birth to a male child who is to rule all the nations with a rod of iron. This sounds like Jesus. The description of a rod is used of him in Revelation and even in Genesis 41. But God rescued the child to His throne. The woman fled into the wilderness where she was nourished for a time. Then Michael and his angels waged war against the dragon and his angels (v. 7-8). The dragon was defeated and he was thrown down along with the angels (v. 9). So the dragon doesn’t quit. He goes after the woman. But she was given wings to rescue her so she could fly to the wilderness. In verse 9 the dragon is identified as the “serpent of old” (probably the Garden serpent) and as “Satan”. Now, notice also that his angels were thrown down with him to the earth. If the stars of heaven refers to angels, and the dragon threw them down with his tail, then why were they thrown down again later? That means they were back in heaven again. Did they come back? Why would the dragon cast them down in the first place with his tail? It seems God wants him and the angels who help him to be cast down. So why would Satan do purposefully what God wanted? And then change his mind and bring them back with him. And why would God let him? Therefore, it seems that it is saying Satan disrupted heaven. He did not belong there. That is what is meant by the sweeping away of the third of the stars. He was and is a trouble maker.

So these are the things I can be certain about from these passages:

Angels sinned against God because they did not remain in their proper domain or territory.
When they sinned, the angels were cast into hell, a pit of darkness.
Satan fell from heaven. Its already happened.
An angel was given charge or control over the bottomless pit. He opened it up and locusts came out. They could only hurt people who have rejected God. Therefore, this is a judgment from God.
The dragon in Rev. 12 is Satan. Satan tried to eat Jesus but God took Him to His throne.
The stars the dragon swept away with his tail were not angels.
Satan had angels to help him in a fight against Michael. He lost that fight and he and his angels were cast down to the earth. From there he persecuted the woman. But God rescued her.
Satan goes off to make war against the rest of the woman’s descendants.
God is in control.


Was the fall of man inevitable? Given that:

Life of man continued in eternity in Eden
During this time the tree of knowledge was present
At any given point in time, man had the free will to make the choice: I will eat the forbidden fruit

it seems like a mathematic inevitability that the probability of eating the fruit = 100% as time → infinity?

I might be thinking of this too naïvely or simplistically but it seems like regardless how figurative or literal you take the account, the core issue still stands?

Unless 1. is not as simple as it seems and eternity is a more complex notion than simply time continuing indefinitely as we understand time now? Or 2. is debatable, i.e. the tree could have only been a one-time test which would not have continued into eternity?

Well, let's have a look at the actual text.

  Genesis 2: 16-17

  16 And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the
  garden thou mayest freely eat:

  17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not
  eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely
  die.

Verse 17 is particularly interesting.  "In the day that thou eatest thereof" is not an "if" statement but a "when" statement.  This makes me think that yes, it was part of the plan, and that Satan's temptation did not consist of getting them to eat the fruit per se, but of getting them to do it before they were ready (whatever else that would have consisted of.)  Unfortunately, the Scriptures are silent on any further details.


What do charismatic Christians actually mean by the phrase "tonight is an open heaven"? I have heard this phrase bandied around for about the last 10-15 years and I am wondering how it originated and if it has any scriptural basis.

My own belief is that in the light of the cross and the finished work of Christ, it is always an open heaven and God is always accessible everywhere.

It's a term used to describe  the revelation of something the Holy Spirit showed them in a dream or a word of knowledge.


Are we supposed to ASK for wisdom or SEEK it--or are they the same thing? I'm a bit confused on a seeming "contradiction" on how to obtain wisdom from God.

James 1:5-6 ESV If any of you lacks wisdom, let him ask God, who gives generously to all without reproach, and it will be given him. But let him ask in faith, with no doubting, for the one who doubts is like a wave of the sea that is driven and tossed by the wind.

This has been my staple how-to-get-wisdom verse for a while. Then I read these passages in Proverbs:

Proverbs 8:17 ESV I [wisdom] love those who love me, and those who seek me diligently find me.
Proverbs 2:1-6 ESV My son, if you receive my words and treasure up my commandments with you, making your ear attentive to wisdom and inclining your heart to understanding; yes, if you call out for insight and raise your voice for understanding, if you seek it like silver and search for it as for hidden treasures, then you will understand the fear of the Lord and find the knowledge of God. For the Lord gives wisdom; from his mouth come knowledge and understanding;

They seem to say we need to do a bit more than just ask; that we need to also seek diligently--or is that the same as asking? I'm not exactly sure.

We ask when we have the desire.

  Take delight in the LORD, and he will give you the desires of your
  heart. (Psalm 37:4, NIV)

Psalms tells us that God will give us the desires of our heart. Simply asking without any sincere desire will not be successful. Only a sincere request is granted.

And we should ask according to His will. We can't ask whatever we want. God gives only what we need and He answers according to His divine wisdom and will. And James 1:5 you posted confirms that it is the will of God to give wisdom to His children.

  This is the confidence we have in approaching God: that if we ask
  anything according to his will, he hears us. (1 John 5:14-15, NIV)

"Seeking" implies "effort": We also need to apply our own effort when we want something. One cannot simply pass examination by only praying but not studying.

Ask, seek and knock

  "Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and
  the door will be opened to you.  (Matthew 7:7, NIV)

Asking, seeking and knocking are the ways to a successful prayer. First, we need to ask God - and ask according to His will. Second, we need to seek for it or give effort from our side. We seek only when we have the desire. Third, we need to have a sincere desire to keep on knocking on the doors of Heaven.

  Matthew Henry's Concise Commentary (Matthew 7:7)

  Prayer is the appointed means for obtaining what we need. Pray; pray
  often; make a business of prayer, and be serious and earnest in it.
  Ask, as a beggar asks alms. Ask, as a traveller asks the way. Seek, as
  for a thing of value that we have lost; or as the merchantman that
  seeks goodly pearls. Knock, as he that desires to enter into the house
  knocks at the door. Sin has shut and barred the door against us; by
  prayer we knock. Whatever you pray for, according to the promise,
  shall be given you...

So, if you desire to have wisdom, ask to God, seek for it, knock on the doors of Heaven and God will give you wisdom beyond measure.


Did God accept a sacrifice that was against His own law? I am seeking a biblical answer to the following objection:
"Since God clearly prohibited human sacrifices in the Pentateuch, why would He choose to atone for the sins of humanity seemingly in the form of a human sacrifice?"
Now granted it wasn't just a human sacrifice, but Jesus was also fully human so why did God the Father accept a human sacrifice even though it was against his law?
Examples from the Scriptures:
"There shall not be found among you anyone who burns his son or his daughter as an offering, anyone who practices divination or tells fortunes or interprets omens, or a sorcerer" Deuteronomy 18:10
"You shall not give any of your children to offer them to Molech, and so profane the name of your God: I am the Lord." Leviticus 18:21
"And he burned his son as an offering and used fortune-telling and omens and dealt with mediums and with necromancers. He did much evil in the sight of the Lord, provoking him to anger." 2 Kings 21:6

Jesus was not 'burnt'.

Jesus was not offered to Molech or any other god.

Jesus offered himself, voluntarily. He was not 'offered' by another.

The "commandment of the Father is everlasting life" (John 12:50) ergo, the sacrifice was not a contradiction of Deity in any way, as that sacrifice was the only possible way to fulfill that commandment.

The events in the garden of Gethsemane, and the involvement of the Father in those events, clearly demonstrate that the will of the Father was being fully satisfied by the course that Jesus took.

In the gospel (not in the law) the righteousness of God is revealed (Romans 1:17). The righteousness of God far exceeds the law that was delivered to men to keep. His righteousness is a justifying righteousness. And justification is through redemption (Romans 3:24). And redemption is through (and only through) the shedding of blood. Without the shedding of blood, there is no remission (Hebrews 9:22).

God's name was not profaned by this, nor his name dishonoured. Much to the contrary, in all of this, God is greatly glorified, and that for all eternity.


Why do Solemnities have different readings for the vigil masses? If Solemnities (like today August 15th) are kind of like extra Sundays, why do the vigil masses have different readings and why don't Saturday evenings have a different set of readings from the Sunday readings?  And is there anything notable between the kinds of readings that are in the Vigil Mass vs Mass during the day?

I noticed today, for the Assumption, that the Gospel during the day was the whole Visitation, and the Vigil Mass Gospel  was almost exactly the opposite (depending on ones reading of the Bible). So they seem to have something to do with each other, but I'd like to know more about the way the readings are chosen for solemnities.

Why do Solemnities have different readings for the vigil masses?

In a nutshell, the solemnities in the of the old rite of Pope St. Pius V (Extraordinary Form of the Mass) had True vigils of these major feasts such as Christmas, Epiphany, Easter, Ascension (where celebrated on the Thursday after the Sixth Sunday after Easter), Pentecost, St. John the Baptist, Ss. Peter and Paul, and the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mother.

In the Extraordinary Form of the Mass (EF) vigils were not anticipated Masses as is found in the Mass of Pope Paul VI (Ordinary Form of the Mass (OF).

  As part of the reforms of the Second Vatican Council, the Church gave permission for Mass to be celebrated at night (whereas formerly Mass could only be said in the morning). Furthermore, the Church said that one can fulfill the Sunday obligation by attending Mass on Saturday evening. Some call them anticipated Masses while others prefer to call them vigil Masses.

  Over the centuries, the vigil Mass often took on a somewhat “penitential” character. Vigils for the Ascension, Christmas, and so forth were not as “bright” and “happy” as the actual feast day. - "Anticipated" Mass or "Vigil" Mass on Saturday Night?

In former days a true vigil Mass was celebrated the morning prior to the feast in question and thus did not fulfill one's obligation of going to the particular Feast Day Mass in question.

Vigil masses introduced under Pope Paul VI are in fact anticipated masses for the following day (Sunday or a particular Solemnity). Vigil Masses of the Extraordinary Form of the Mass are truly the day before a solemnity are were clearly not an anticipated mass. In fact they were of a different color (Violet) and were often days of fasting.

The Vigil Masses you question about are a remnant of the proper vigils of the Masses of Pope Pius V and thus have different readings than that actual feast day, just as the vigils and feasts had different reading in the old rite.

  A Roman Catholic Mass which takes place the evening before a Sunday or Holy Day is sometimes called a Vigil Mass because it is celebrated within the period of time for the Vigil. The Roman Missal includes special readings for the Vigils of High Feasts: Christmas, Epiphany, Easter, Ascension (where celebrated on the Thursday after the Sixth Sunday after Easter), Pentecost, St. John the Baptist, Ss. Peter and Paul, and the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mother. Where there are not special readings assigned to a Vigil Mass, it may also be called an “Anticipated Mass” because the readings are simply anticipating the readings of the next day. Attending a Vigil Mass or Anticipated Mass fulfills a Catholic's obligation for attending Mass for that Sunday or Holy Day. - Vigils (Wikipedia)


Does the Catholic Church allow the use of birth control to save the woman's life? Does the Catholic Church have any process of being allowed to use birth control if it is necessary to preserve the life of the woman?  (For example, suppose a woman must take certain medications to control a serious health condition and it is not allowed to take such medications during pregnancy)

The Purpose of the medication cannot be to prevent life, but to heal or prevent further illness.  An example might be Chemotherapy, that weakens the body or some kind of hormone treatment (of which I don't know I'm not a doctor) that would effect the normal reproductive cycle.

Lawful Therapeutic Means

The Church does not consider at all illicit the use of those therapeutic means necessary to cure bodily diseases, even if a foreseeable impediment to procreation should result there from—provided such impediment is not directly intended for any motive whatsoever.

Paul VI. (1968). Humanae Vitae. Vatican City: Libreria Editrice Vaticana.'

The idea mainly is that the Act of Sexual intercourse between a man and woman who are in the union of Sacramental marriage should always be open to the possibility of life. If the act of bonding is for purely lust of the flesh, it damages the relationship, even if it does not appear to do so on the surface. The desire for union between a Husband and Wife, is Good and beautiful, as long as that desire is is open to the relationship God intended it for.  LIFE


When did Mary and Joseph learn that they were never supposed to have marital relations, according to Roman Catholic doctrine? Roman Catholic doctrine teaches that Mary remained a virgin her entire life, even after marrying Joseph.  It would seem that Joseph and Mary, at their betrothal, had likely expected to have, and anticipated having marital relations with each other in marriage.

So, according to Roman Catholic teaching, when and how did Mary and Joseph learn that marital relations would be denied them?  Did they just never desire that, or did they specifically have to battle the temptation?  It admittedly seems strange to me that this would be withheld from them.

Is it even right to say they were not supposed to have marital relations?  Or should it be said that they never even desired that?

For many the miracle of the Virgin Birth is one thing, but lifelong abstinence from sexuality is impossible to accept. The lives of monastics and ascetics around the world and throughout history attest to the fact that it is possible. Sexual purity is only one of many challenges set for these spiritual warriors, and for many, perhaps most of them, it is not the greatest.

Mary’s Vow of virginity was before the Annunciation:

Two important facts are depicted in this verse. First, already at this moment:

  Mary is a virgin betrothed to Joseph, meaning that she is at the first stage of Jewish marriage. She is truly married to Joseph but not yet living with him, for she has not arrived at the second stage of marriage known as the "coming together," when husband and wife typically would begin to live in the same house and consummate the marriage.

  Second, Mary has been told by Gabriel that at some time in the future she will bear a son who will be the royal Son of David, the Messiah-King. Notice the future tense: "You will conceive in your womb and bear a son" (Lk. 1:31, emphasis added). So far, Gabriel gives no indication that the conception will take place right now or in the immediate future. In fact, the timetable is quite open-ended. Without giving any time specification, the angel simply informs Mary that she will conceive this child at some time in the future.

  In this light, Mary’s question seems rather peculiar: ... If Mary is planning on consummating her marriage with Joseph in the near future, the answer to her question should be obvious. While she does not right now have the power to conceive a child (since she doesn’t yet "know" man sexually), if Mary intends to know Joseph after the coming together, then she evidently will be able to have a child at that point. Therefore, if Mary is planning on consummating her marriage with Joseph, her question ... simply does not make sense. (source)

This view has been held by theologians such as St. Augustine, St. Thomas Aquinas, and St. Bonaventure and even Martin Luther.

Luther wrote on the Virginity of Mary:

  It is an article of faith that Mary is Mother of the Lord and still a virgin. ... Christ, we believe, came forth from a womb left perfectly intact. (Weimer's The Works of Luther, English translation by Pelikan, Concordia, St. Louis, v. 11, pp. 319-320; v. 6. p. 510.)

Luther also wrote on February 2, 1546 that Mary was "a virgin before the conception and birth, she remained a virgin also at the birth and after it."

Calvin also upheld the perpetual virginity of Mary, as did the Swiss reformer, Ulrich Zwingli, who wrote:

  I firmly believe that Mary, according to the words of the gospel as a pure Virgin brought forth for us the Son of God and in childbirth and after childbirth forever remained a pure, intact Virgin. (Zwingli Opera, Corpus Reformatorum, Berlin, 1905, v. 1, p. 424.)

Zwingly wrote in January of 1528: "I speak of this in the holy Church of Zurich and in all my writings: I recognize Mary as ever virgin and holy."

Reason for the belief that Mary was virgin after the birth of Jesus:

Pope St. Siricius said that God the Father reserved the womb of the Blessed Mother solely for his only-begotten Son. St. Ambrose and St. Thomas Aquinas assigned a spiritual meaning to Ezekiel 44:2:

  "Then said the LORD unto me; This gate shall be shut, it shall not be opened, and no man shall enter in by it; because the LORD, the God of Israel, hath entered in by it, therefore it shall be shut." (Ezekiel 44:2).

Mary is the gate, and Jesus was the only one to enter it. This has always been interpreted by the Fathers of the Church to be a typological reference to the Virgin Mary and the Incarnation. When we consider that God took flesh from the Virgin's womb, it is not difficult to imagine that this womb would remain virgin. The place where the saviour of this world was nourished was not to be used by any one else.:-- Base source.

Further reading here and this source:

  To say that they had sexual relation after birth of Jesus, Son of God, is to suggest something else that is greatly implausible...: that neither Mary nor her protector, Joseph, would have deemed it inappropriate to have sexual relations after the birth of God in the flesh. ... Mary became the vessel for the Lord of Glory Himself, and bore in the flesh Him whom heaven and earth cannot contain. Would this not have been grounds to consider her life, including her body, as consecrated to God and God alone?

Then Why Would Mary Marry?:

A variety of accounts have been offered:

  Perhaps since remaining a single woman was not as socially feasible in the ancient world of Judaism as it is today, marriage would have provided economic stability and social protection for Mary.

  Perhaps the marriage was arranged.

  Perhaps marriage would free Mary from other men seeking her hand in marriage and thus protect her vow.

  Perhaps God led Mary to marriage because in His providence, He wanted to protect her reputation for the future when she would conceive by the Holy Spirit. (source)

John Paul II wrote the following in a 1996 papal document:

  We can wonder why she would accept betrothal, since she had the intention of remaining a virgin forever . . . It may be presumed that at the time of their betrothal there was an understanding between Joseph and Mary about the plan to live as a virgin. Moreover, the Holy Spirit, who had inspired Mary to choose virginity in view of the mystery of the Incarnation and who wanted the latter to come about in a family setting suited to the child’s growth, was quite able to instill in Joseph the ideal of virginity as well.

If Mary had told Joseph of her vow of virginity (as surely she must have), then we are led to conclude that, since Joseph agreed to marry her, he too must have made a vow of perpetual continence (i.e. to refrain from all sexual relations even within marriage).

  Surely his wife's miraculous conception and birthgiving (confirmed by the angel in dream-visions) and the sight of God incarnate in the face of the child Christ would have been enough to convince him that his marriage was set apart from the norm. Within Mary's very body had dwelt the second Person of the Trinity. If touching the ark of the covenant had cost Uzzah his life, and if even the scrolls containing the Law, the Psalms, and the Prophets were venerated, certainly Joseph, man of God that he was, would neither have dared nor desired to approach Mary, the chosen of Israel, the throne of God, to request his "conjugal rights"!  (source)


How do Jehovah's Witnesses explain Paul's apparent equating of Yahweh and Jesus in Ephesians 4? Recently I was listening to a lecture by Reformed theologian Robert Cara, in which he mentioned how frequently NT writers connect and apply OT Yahweh references to Jesus.  A number of examples could be given, but one of the stronger ones is Ephesians 4:7–10, which reads:

  7 But grace was given to each one of us according to the measure of Christ's gift. 8 Therefore it says,

      “When he ascended on high he led a host of captives,
            and he gave gifts to men.”

  9 (In saying, “He ascended,” what does it mean but that he had also descended into the lower regions, the earth? 10 He who descended is the one who also ascended far above all the heavens, that he might fill all things.) [ESV]

Paul seems to be clearly talking about Jesus here, talking about his descent to the earth and his subsequent ascent into heaven, paralleling the quoted OT passage.  That passage is Psalm 68:18, which reads:

  You ascended on high,
     leading a host of captives in your train
      and receiving gifts among men,
  even among the rebellious, that the LORD God may dwell there. [ESV]

From context, the "You" of Psalm 68:18 seems to be Yahweh – the entire chapter interchangeably uses God, Lord, and LORD, and verses 22–26 seem to describe God/Yahweh "leading a host of captives" in more detail.

Thus, the argument goes, Paul is clearly applying an OT description of Yahweh to Jesus, indicating that he believes Jesus is truly the God of the Old Testament (Yahweh).

How do Jehovah's Witness's explain this?  Do they interpret Ephesians 4 differently, or Psalm 68 differently, or have some other explanation?

Lecture 06 Acts 1–2, starting 39:20

Jehovah's Witnesses agree that Ephesians 4:8 refers to Jesus and that Psalm 68:18 refers to Jehovah God (Yahweh). They also agree that it equates Jesus' actions with God's actions, but they disagree that it equates Jesus with God.
Jehovah's Witnesses believe Jesus is God's Son and God's representative, and as God's representative, it's Jesus' responsibility to imitate God. Ephesians 5:1 tells us to "become imitators of God, as beloved children." Jesus, being God's Son, gave a perfect example for the rest of God's children in imitating God.

Those favored with assignments of service by God’s undeserved kindness are also called “gifts in men,” and Jesus Christ, as God’s representative and head of the congregation, has given these to the congregation in order that its members individually might be built up and attain maturity. (Eph 4:8, 11, 12)
—Insight, Vol. 1, pg. 937 "Gifts of Service and 'Gifts in Men.'"

To confirm that Paul didn't equate Jesus with God, Jehovah's Witnesses could cite the verses directly above at Ephesians 4:4-6, where it says in the ESV:

4 There is one body and one Spirit—just as you were called to the one hope that belongs to your call— 5 one Lord, one faith, one baptism, 6 one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all.

This verse says the Father is "God and Father of all." If the Father is the Father of the Son, then according to this verse that would mean the Father is also the God of the Son. Therefore, the Son isn't God. He has a god: the same God and Father everyone else has.


Why are the White Cliffs of chalk not taken out by the Flood? So The Great Flood God sent out in the time of Noah.  Why did the flood not take out the chalk wall in Dover because chalk is so easily washed up.

catastrophist have made attempts to tackle the problem of how these kinds of chalk deposits could have formed during the flood, the details are still where difficult to understand in the framework of catastrophism.

Who says they weren't?

The famous cliffs of Dover looked very different thousands of years ago. Prior to the flood, during the time of Doggerland, there weren't any cliffs there at all, just rolling hills. It wasn't until the sea levels rose around 6,500–6,200 BC that the UK was cut off from the mainland and the water started eroding the hillside. The flood occurred ~4,000 BC, so the cliffs would have been relatively new still since the sea levels rose. We've seen far more erosion since the flood. The cliffs historically have eroded at a rate of about 1-2 inches per year, by that figure we can assume the cliffs may have extended up to half a kilometer further into the ocean at the time of the flood. The rate of erosion has since sped up, the cliffs are eroding at a rate of almost 12 inches a year now. Mass wasting events continue to occur on the cliffs, the most recent being in 2012 (see photo below).  Most undoubtedly the flood would have caused significant mass wasting events at the time, particularly after the flood waters would have receded, but there have been a few thousand years of waves beating against the shore since then to cut the cliffs back again. It won't be too long before the pile from the event shown below gets cleaned up by the waves, and the cliff looks like itself again.

The cliffs of Dover continue to be taken out by the sea year after year:


Is a Roman Catholic obligated to believe in the Trinity? There are many people who are technicially born into Christian homes, yet they don't fully agree with the doctrine of Trinity etc.

According to the creed of Roman Catholic Christianity, if someone is not 100% comfortable with the concept of Trinity (that is, believing it without a doubt in their mind), does that automatically make them 1) a Non-Christian and consequently 2) go to Hell

Trinity is a Dogma of the Catholic Church. Hence as with all dogmas a Catholic is bound to believe it in order to maintain the bond of faith.

You have asked: if someone is not 100% comfortable..... Who is this someone? If they are non-baptised person, Catholic church has no official stand regarding them, only God will know.

If they are baptized Catholic then:

Once a Catholic always a Catholic. Even a excommunicated person is a Christian who is not in union with the body of Christ. Baptism leaves a indelible mark on your soul.CCC 1272
No-one can be sure about any specific individual will or will not go to hell. That is, only God can tell whether they will be saved or not. But if they are willfully refusing to believe a dogma, a divinely revealed truth, proclaimed as such by the infallible teaching authority of the Church, then it can be implied that they are refusing to remain in the church. And those who refuse to remain in the Church will not be saved.CCC 846

One being not comfortable is different from one says he believes Jesus is not God. Your question title and its content differ in its meaning.

If one is not comfortable:

Please remember you don't have to understand a dogma to believe it. So, you can believe in a dogma even if you have doubt. All that is required is your full will, For as long as one remains willing to submit to the Church's decision he remains a Catholic Christian at heart and his wrong beliefs are only transient errors and fleeting opinionsCE : Heresy.

If one says he does not believe in a dogma, and they fully understand the way they are in disagreement with the Catholic Church:

This will make him a Heretic. A person who obstinately persists in heresy will not be in union with the church and hence cannot be saved.


Was there a war in Heaven? There seems to be an idea among some Christians of a metaphysical timeline that goes something like this:

All the angels are created sometime before or during the 7 days of creation in Genesis.
Satan desires to become like God, and starts a "war in heaven"
Satan loses the war and is cast out of Heaven along with many other angels before or during the time Adam and Eve reside in Eden.
Satan, fallen and cast out of Heaven, appears in Eden in the form of a serpent to tempt Eve, and Adam.
Satan continues to tempt, torment, and accuse mankind, as evident in Job.
Satan is bound for a time when the Messiah comes into power.
Satan is released from bondage and wages a final war upon Heaven with his fallen angels and many nations who follow him.
Satan is defeated and cast into the lake of fire, which is eternal destruction.

Was there a war in Heaven for which Satan was cast out that occurred before the fall of man?

What Biblical sources can be cited that describe the events that led to the exile of Satan from Heaven?

Yes, there was / is / will be a war in heaven, as described in Revelation 12:7-9:

  Then war broke out in heaven. Michael and his angels fought against the dragon, and the dragon and his angels fought back. But he was not strong enough, and they lost their place in heaven. The great dragon was hurled down – that ancient snake called the devil, or Satan, who leads the whole world astray. He was hurled to the earth, and his angels with him.

But the specifics of when that might be in relation to Earth history (or even if that makes sense from a heavenly perspective) is speculation, this side of eternity.

Some of the speculation includes:

During creation: see Bye's answer
During Jesus' earthly ministry: compare Revelation 12:9 with Luke 10:18
At some unspecified point in the future, taking the futurist interpretation of Revelation. (This interpretation implies that Satan is more active on Earth than currently, directly causing suffering to humans (see eg Revelation 13).

To your numbered points:

The Bible does not specify or even hint as to when the angels were created.
Isaiah 14:12-13 is believed by many Christians to hint that Satan wanted to be like God.
We know about the war but not when it was, see above.
This story is detailed in Genesis 3.
Job 1-2.
See Revelation 20:1-3. Many Christians believe in a literal 1000 year reign of Jesus on Earth during which Satan is bound (the Millennium).
Detailed a few verses later, Revelation 20:7-10.
See above passage.


What exactly do we know about Heaven? Most of us probably have a lot of vague ideas about Heaven, the place where the faithful are said to spend their afterlife. But when I really start to think about it, I can't back most of my ideas with the Bible.

What do we actually know about Heaven?

It's the dwelling place of God the Father

Matthew 6:9 (NIV)

  “This, then, is how you should pray:

  “‘Our Father in heaven,
  hallowed be your name

It's a place of treasures that thieves can't steal.

Matthew 6:20 (NIV)

  But store up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where moths and vermin do not destroy, and where thieves do not break in and steal.

It has many rooms

John 14:2 (NIV)

  2 My Father’s house has many rooms; if that were not so, would I have told you that I am going there to prepare a place for you?

It's an actual place

John 14:2-4 (NIV)

  2 My Father’s house has many rooms; if that were not so, would I have told you that I am going there to prepare a place for you? 3 And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come back and take you to be with me that you also may be where I am. 4 You know the way to the place where I am going.

It's being prepared for us

Compare this to the idea that it's just a "state of being".  It's not.  It's a place that is being prepared.

John 14:2 (NIV) supports this.  Also:

Jesus said in Matthew 25:34 (NIV)

  "Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world."

It's a place of reward

This is in the middle of a parable that Jesus was telling regarding what heaven would be like.

Matthew 25:23 (NIV)

  His master replied, ‘Well done, good and faithful servant! You have been faithful with a few things; I will put you in charge of many things. Come and share your master’s happiness!’

There won't be a need for marriage in heaven

Luke 20:34-36 (NIV)

  34 Jesus replied, “The people of this age marry and are given in marriage. 35 But those who are considered worthy of taking part in the age to come and in the resurrection from the dead will neither marry nor be given in marriage, 36 and they can no longer die; for they are like the angels. They are God’s children, since they are children of the resurrection.

It is everlasting/eternal

John 3:16 (NIV)

  For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.


Which Christian denominations believe there is a biblical basis for hunting animals for sport? We learn from Genesis (1:27) that man is created in the image and likeness of God.  Christians are commanded to be perfect, even as your Father in heaven is perfect (Matthew 5:48).

These taken together suggest to me that the ideal Christian life lies in striving to live as befits one created in God's image and likeness to the greatest extent possible.

One cannot imagine (I think) God arbitrarily destroying His creatures for pleasure.  This being the case, are there Christian denominations claiming to be "Bible-based" that see a Biblical basis for killing animals solely for sport?  If so, what Scriptures do they refer to?

As another answer stated - there aren't many [if any] denominations in mainstream Western groups that demarcate themselves or make a statement on hunting, etc...

So, assuming we say that the basic answer to the question is "there aren't denominations that specifically call out hunting" - we can then move to other forms of analyzing why the statement may have been made.

Therefore, OP may also be running into the distinctions between the Regulative and Normative theological interpretation and not necessarily denomination specific distinctives. In fact, there may not by any reason to believe the statement is anything other than a personal belief without more information from OP.

To put it very very simply

Regulative Theology:
One is not to do anything not explicitly commanded in Scripture

Normative Theology:
One is allowed to do anything not explicitly forbidden in Scripture

So - your friend's statement that there is a 'Biblical basis' for sport hunting could stem from a normative interpretation of the Bible, in that, since it is not expressly mentioned/forbidden, it is allowable.

Additionally, there could be a nearly infinite number of self-identified 'denominations' that it would be impossible to definitely answer the question as stated. With that in mind, we can look at the more well-recognized denominations (as opposed to splinter groups, Westboro-esque, etc...)

Southern Baptist Convention:
no mention of hunting, animals, or environmental management of any kind in the official 2000 Baptist Faith and Message

United Methodist Church:
no mention of hunting, animals, or environmental management of any kind in the Articles of Relgion

Note: UMC does include a note about earthly stewardship in the Social Principles: The Natural World section of their website. However, there is not a specific word on sport hunting one way or the other

(other references coming as I get the time :)


How do Christains argue that "messianic psalms" are messianic and refer to Jesus Christ? I've heard Christians assert that you can prove that Jesus Christ is the Messiah from the book of psalms. There doesn't seem to be any watertight argument for the existence of messianic psalms other than the New Testament says so, let alone that Jesus Christ is the Messiah referred to in the psalms.

The interpretation of the Old Testament in the New is an extremely complex subject and I recommend the book referenced in this summary article about the perspectives involved. However, there is significant support from Jewish sources for reading at least a some, but not all, of the Psalms as Messianic apart from the New Testament and according to Jewish (non-Christian) sources - which to be fair was largely written by Jewish writers as well.

Exhibit A: Psalm 2

Cited several times in Acts, Hebrews, and Revelation, Psalm 2 has been interpreted as Messianic by the Babylonian Talmud, Maimonides, and the Midrash on Psalms just to name a few. That these sources do so after the first century suggests that in spite of the temptation to interpret them apologetically as being non-messianic, it is a genuinely Messianic Psalm.

Exhibit B: Psalm 110

Although less conclusive than Psalm 2, an article entitle "Is Psalm 110 a Messianic Psalm"  says that (footnote 32):

  ...even the first-century Jewish leaders considered the reference to [my Lord] in Psalm 110:1 to be prophetic of Messiah and to be used only of the
  Messiah and not of an earthly Davidic king...

This is especially significant because this is the verse most cited by Jesus himself to prove his Messianic identity.

Exhibit C: Psalm 22

On the other side, a previous discussion (here) seems to suggest conclusively that Psalm 22 has not been interpreted Messianic-ally by Jewish interpreters.

These are just three examples that show there is diversity in the way 'Christian' Messianic Psalms were viewed outside of Christianity. But two final points are worth noting:

(1) As "Dan" in the discussion on Psalm 22 notes, it is often difficult to find actual pre-Christian Rabbinic commentary which means that (a) there is apologetic incentive in later sources not disagree with NT interpretations and (b) significant potential for disagreement about what first century Jews really thought. See this article for the dates of Rabbinic literature.

(2) Considering Jesus, Paul, Stephen, and most of the early church were Jewish - some of them highly educated in the Law - so while we can assume bias on their part, this should not cause us throw out their testimony whole-sale, or discount its Jewish-ness. In fact Acts 17:11 tells us it is reading the scriptures eagerly that convinced the Bereans and many others of the validity of Jesus' claims to be the Messiah. This was before the writing of the NT and therefore means it was through reading directly from the Jewish scriptures that they were convinced.


When did Satan get cast out of heaven?  Or is that yet to come? This answer explains that it happened after Jesus ascended, and might even be something that will happen in the "End Times", but this answer says that it happened before Adam and Eve sinned.

What does the Bible say about this? I'm looking for an answer that explains all major verses about this event.

This may be an issue of semantics.  Here is my impression:

Satan sinned prior to Adam and Eve sinning, as Richard indicated in his answer (which you linked).  At that time he "fell" in the sense that DTest was asking about in his question.  (i.e. "fell from grace".)

However, after Satan's initial sin, he appears to have still had access to the realm where the angels stand before God (which we call "heaven").  This is what I was getting at in my "examples" link in my answer (which you linked).  Here are the verses from Job that I was referring to:

Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the Lord, and Satan also came among them. -Job 1:6
Again there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the Lord, and Satan also came among them to present himself before the Lord. -Job 2:1

(See also: Zechariah 3:1)  I also linked a passage from Luke in which Jesus says that He was watching Satan falling from heaven when "the seventy" were rebuking demons.  If he is still "falling from heaven" in Jesus' day, it seems logical to think he still had access to heaven, and must not have yet been banished in any ultimate sense.

The seventy returned with joy, saying, “Lord, even the demons are subject to us in Your name.” And He said to them, “I was watching Satan fall from heaven like lightning." -Luke 10:17-18

The passage from Revelation 12 seems to be describing a much more ultimate banishment in which he is forced out of heaven by Michael's armies, there is "no longer a place found for them in heaven", and he is "thrown down to the earth", resulting in "woe to the earth" because once Satan realizes what has happened, he has "great wrath, knowing that he has only a short time."  The context of this passage, which I was explaining in my answer (which you linked) seems to be about the End Times, and the casting down seems to happen after the ascension, since the resulting proclamation includes a description of how the "brethren" overcame Satan by the blood of Jesus.  It seems unnatural to interpret this as describing an event that happened back in Genesis 1-3.

Clarifications
Ezekiel 28:12-19, which may be one of the points of confusion, is a prophecy against Tyre (specifically addressed to the King of Tyre).  However, it is also partially addressing Satan, who was presumably working through the King of Tyre... for instance, in verses 12-15 it says things like "you were in Eden" and "you were the anointed cherub".  It is true that the passage also says "I have cast you as profane from the mountain of God" and "I cast you to the ground".  However, we need to read the entire passage and understand it as intended.  For instance, it also says things like "by the abundance of your trade you were internally filled with violence" and "you profaned your sanctuaries", referring to the city, not Satan.  Furthermore, there are statements like "I have destroyed you... from the midst of the stones of fire" and "I have brought fire from the midst of you; it has consumed you, and I have turned you to ashes on the earth".  I don't know of anyone who teaches that this happened to Satan - at least not yet (Revelation 20:10).
(Isaiah 14:3-21 is the same sort of story, but is about Babylon instead of Tyre.)
If there are other passages which seem to contradict this, make a note in the comments and I'll take a look.  This is just my tentative understanding based on the passages I'm aware of.  Hope that helps.


Proof of Prophethood? I'd like to know what prophethood designates in the Bible and what is the scriptural standard for identifying a true prophet? What I mean is, what if someone today stood up and claimed prophecy? How could we tell of his genuine or imposturous nature?

Moreover, I wanna know the basis and evidence on which the likes of Joseph, the son of Jacob, in specific, is regarded a prophet of God?

Robert P. Carroll says in 'Prophecy and society', published in The World of Ancient Israel: Sociological, Anthropological and Political Perspectives page 209, the Bible presents so many different, ambiguous and ambivalent stories and treatments of prophets that the modern reader has to admit that the ancient Israelite writers had no clear image of what a prophet is or should be.

Daniel I Block says in 'My Servant David: Ancient Israel’s Vision of the Messiah', published in Israel’s Messiah:In the Bible and the Dead Sea Scrolls, page 32, there is no evidence within the Old Testament that anyone in ancient Israel understood the office of prophet typologically. Nevertheless, the people seemed to know who their prophets were.  An Old Testament prophet did not necessarily predict the future, but his pious sincerity was accepted by his contemporaries, and he frequently claimed that God was speaking through his words.

The Bible contains accounts of some of the prophets, either in the books of Kings or books said to have been written by the prophets themselves. However, it appears there were prophets and seers whose books have been lost to us, such as a book of Shemaiah the prophet, mentioned in 2 Chronicles 12:15.

It appears that prophets could provide quite conflicting messages. Jeremiah is considered a prophet, but in Jeremiah 27:9,14,16,17 he tells the people not to listen to the other prophets, only to himself. He was recommending that Judah submit to the yoke of Babylon. In chapter 28, the prophet Hananiah (son of the prophet Azur) said that Babylon would soon be defeated. He took the yoke that Jeremiah had placed on his own neck to symbolise submission to Babylon, and broke it to demonstrate defiance of Babylon. In the event, Jeremiah was proven largely right, and Hananiah receives only a brief mention as a failed prophet; had events turned out differently it might be the book of Hananiah that we read in the Bible, with Jeremiah relegated to failed status.

Ronald E. Clements says in 'Israel in its historical and cultural setting', also published in The World of Ancient Israel, at page 13, the written form of prophecy can be seen frequently to have altered, and at times markedly transformed, the import of the prophet's original words in the Bible, even at times reversing their warnings or assurance.

If we define a prophet as someone through whom God spoke, then Joseph was not a prophet, as the Bible does not record God as ever communicating with him.


In what manner did Christian baptism differ from ritual washing as part of Jewish Teshuva (repentance.) When one believes in Christ as Lord and King, and undergoes a water baptism,  in what document is the method described? What immediate effect did this baptism have? How does this baptism compare to the method that the Judeans underwent as part of teshuva, and what was the immediate benefit to the person of this ritual?

I wondered this because IFAIK from the text, only five disciples were  baptized by John the Baptist in the Jordan, and none was baptized by Jesus.

Teshuva, to my knowledge, would take place in a ritual bathing pool called a Mikveh. Mikveh's were typically constructed with a set of steps separated by a middle divider (a risen stone divider several inches to a foot high) next to the entrance of the outer court of a Jewish synagogue or temple or in a town square. This water was also heated or "living" water, as the Jews called it, typically provided by hot springs or other means. Jews, before entering the Mikveh, often fasted several days to cleanse soul, spirit, and body, as the Mikveh was a required ritual bath upon intention to enter a synagogue or temple, as well as a pool used for other religious purification. Separate Mikveh's existed for men and for women. The partaker of the Teshuva would then walk down one side of the steps unclean, immerse oneself in water, and then walk up and out of the pool on the other side of the steps and be proclaimed clean. Only then were they allowed to enter the temple. The pools of Bathesda, and in particular, the pool of Siloam were probably both Mikvehs to this effect. (Bathesda in the gospel mentioning the "stirring of the waters" provided by it's probable hot springs periodically).

Partaking in a Christian baptism was essentially based on the same premise as the Teshuva. Baptism in ancient Judaism had both to do with ritual cleanness, but also to do with agreement. In obtaining water baptism you agreed to the laws, statutes, and beliefs of the institute or theology presented by the temple or prophet providing the means of baptism. In effect, it is symbolic of dying to your old way of thinking, and being reborn in unity with the beliefs of your baptizer. John the Baptist, for example, was readying hearts for Christ's arrival by preaching repentance, or the realization of one being a sinner needing forgiveness. One cannot fix a problem if one is in denial of it existing, after all. Then, upon Christ showing up, Jesus provided the answer to this revelation of sin in man. Water baptisms, to this effect, helped others in the Christian church publicly identify with John the Baptist's idea of needed repentance, that those who got baptized, were publicly proclaiming their agreement with their baptizers that Christ was the one who would solve their issues of sin.


Does John's Gospel explicitly state that it was written by the disciple John? Despite the traditional ascriptions all four are anonymous, and none were written by eyewitnesses. [Wikipedia]

Doesn't John's gospel explicitly state that it was written by the disciple John?

No, the book of John does not explicitly state that it was written by the disciple John. However, there is a worthy discussion to be had about the combination of external and internal evidence that make this a reasonable conclusion. The internal evidence alone does tell you that it was written by an eyewitness and, when combined with Mark, an apostle. I will be following D.A. Carson's discussion of authorship on John in his Introduction to the New Testament. I have scanned the relevant section from his book and put it in dropbox for your viewing, which can be accessed here. This is not an amazing scan, and it contains my underlinings and scribbles, but I did convert it to a (mostly) searchable pdf so a good portion can be copy and pasted.

  The fourth gospel does not explicitly assert its author’s name: like the Synoptics, it is formally anonymous. As far as we can prove, the title “According to John was attached to it as soon as the four canonical gospels began to circulate together as “the fourfold gospel.” In part, no doubt, this was to distinguish it from the rest of the collection; but it may have served as the title from the beginning (see chapter 3 on Matthew). (p. 229)

F. F. Bruce observes:

  “It is noteworthy that, while the four canonical gospels could afford to be published anonymously, the apocryphal gospels which began to appear from the mid-second century onwards claimed (falsely) to be written by apostles or other persons associated with the Lord.” (The Gospel of John, cited in Carson).

The book of John does, however, claim to be written by an eyewitness:

  John 21:24 “This is the disciple who is bearing witness about these things, and who has written these things, and we know that his testimony is true.”

Read John 21:20-23 to find out who “this” is. It is the disciple that was rumored to not die.

That being said, what evidence is there that this book was, in fact, written by the apostle John?

External Evidence

Explicit

First unambiguous quotation and attribution of the book of John to the apostle John was Theophilus of Antioch (c. AD 181)
Irenaeus (disciple of Polycarp who was a disciple of John) specifically claims John wrote the Gospel. “John the disciple of the Lord, who leaned back on his breast, published the gospel while he was resident at Ephesus in Asia” (Adv. Haer. 3.1.1).

The disciple who leaned back on Jesus’ breast is equated to the disciple whom Jesus loved in John 13:23-25. )

Eusebius reports that Clement wrote, “But that John, last of all, conscious that the outward facts had been set forth in the Gospels, was urged on by his disciples, and, divinely moved by the Spirit, composed a spiritual Gospel.” (H.E. 6.14.7)

Implicit

Quotations from John as an authoritative source:

Tatian (a student of Justin Martyr)
Claudius Apollinaris (bishop of Hierapolis)
Athenagoras

Irenaeus reports Polycarp discussing his conversations “with John and with others who had seen the Lord…and how Polycarp had received them from the eyewitnesses of the word of life…”
Polycarp was “entrusted with the oversight of the Church in Smyrna by those who were eye-witnesses and ministers of the Lord” reports Irenaeus (H.E. 3.36). He is typically referred to as a disciple of John.

Complications

An important consideration in discussion early church testimony surrounding authorship of John's Gospel, 1-3 John, and Revelation is the issue of there being two potentially different or potentially identical Johns in discussion, John the elder or John the apostle. To summarize, there is some confusion about which John is in reference between Papias and Eusebius’ writings, whether it is John the elder (see 2 John 1, 3 John 1) or John the apostle, or whether or not those are two different people. Some of Papias’ words (such as those on Matthew’s Gospel) have caused lots of confusion, even over just the translation. I won’t go into that here.

Internal Evidence

The book claims to be written from an eyewitness (John 21:24)
The beloved disciple = the one who reclines next to Jesus/leaned back on his breast at the Last Supper (John 13:23)

This gets combined with the external evidence to that this was John.

The beloved disciple was likely an apostle, since the twelve apostles were at the Last Supper (Mark 14:17) (though not necessarily exclusively the Twelve)
The beloved disciple talked with Jesus on the cross (19:26-27)
The beloved disciple raced with Peter to the tomb after hearing the report from the women that the tomb was empty (John 20:1-4)

There is more evidence and complications that I don’t have time to enumerate because I’m studying for finals. I encourage you to read the linked document to look at these.
The disciple whom Jesus loved is used 6 times John 13:23, 19:26, 20:2, 21:7, 21:20. Wikipedia has some discussion on who this disciple is. Further discussion can show that this disciple was a son of Zebedee.

The full discussion in Carson's Introduction (my scanned version) can again be found here. This introduction has by far the most thorough evaluation of authorship on the NT documents (especially the Gospels) that I have seen, and it defends traditional authorship.


St. Thomas Aquinas' contingency proof and LDS cosmology The argument from contingency summarized by St. Thomas illustrates that in order for existence to be a reality there must be an "Uncaused Cause" that possesses existence in and of Himself.  Everything else that exist does so by way of created contingency.
See CONTINGENCY

According to Mormon theology, God the Father is a physical being of
"flesh and bones."  Mormons identify him as the Biblical god Elohim.
Latter-day Saint leaders have also taught that God the Father was once a
mortal man who has completed the process of becoming an exalted
being. According to Joseph Smith, God "once was a man like one of us
and…once dwelled on an earth the same as Jesus Christ himself did in the
flesh and like us."
According to Mormon scripture, "the elements are eternal". This
means, according to Smith, that the elements are co-existent with God,
and "they may be organized and reorganized, but not destroyed. They
had not beginning, and can have no end." This was elaborated by
Brigham Young, who said, "God never made something out of nothing; it
is not in the economy or law of which the worlds were, are, or will exist."
Thus, Mormons deny ex nihilo creation and instead believe that God
created or "organized" the universe out of pre-existing elements.

See MORMON COSMOLOGY
How does LDS cosmology address or reason with St. Thomas' contingency proof? In other words, according to the LDS, who or what causes existence to exist?

The comments are quite right about an LDS viewpoint being that it hasn't been revealed yet as doctrine.

However your question is asking how God exists or when the beginning of everything was.

The problem is you are asking an infinite question with only the capability of a finite mind. Joseph Smith attempted to help our finite minds understand that of eternal or infinite aspects.

  "I take my ring from my finger and liken it unto the mind of man-the
  immortal part, because it has no beginning. Suppose you cut it in two;
  then it has a beginning and an end; but join it again, and it
  continues one eternal round. So with the spirit of man." - Joseph
  Smith, Teachings of Joseph Smith.

Another way to think of it is that there are levels of science that we don't understand, elements of physics yet to be discovered that is above our physical capabilities in this current state. I know that doesn't give you a concrete answer but hopefully it helps.


According to reformed theology, who or what will the saints reign over in eternity? Revelation 22:5 states:

  Night will be no more, and they will not need the light of a lamp or
  the light of the sun, because the Lord God will shine on them, and
  they will reign forever and ever. (NET)

Reigning without subjects (animate subjects, not just planet earth) seems nonsensical.

According to reformed theology, who or what will the saints reign over in eternity?

Reformed thinkers commonly say that Christians will rule with God, particularly Christ, over all the new creation.  Wayne Grudem references this passage and simply says:

  We shall also have positions of rule over God's entire creation.

Anthony A. Hoekema draws parallels to the early chapters of Genesis, in which Adam and Eve are given dominion over creation, and to the promise of the inheritance of land given to Abraham, arguing that the New Earth will be the ultimate fulfillment of these promises for God's people.  He concludes:

  This will be a reigning over the new creation.  Man will now be able to fulfill in a perfect way the mandate to have dominion over the earth which he could only fulfill imperfectly on the present earth.  In the life to come, in other words, man will for the first time since the fall rule the earth properly.

John Frame argues similarly, and specifically mentions several ways Christians will exercise authority:

  We are to reign with Christ.  That includes judging angels (1 Cor. 6:3), judging Israel (Matt. 19:28; Luke 22:30), ruling cities (Luke 19:11–27).  God gave to Adam and Eve authority to have dominion over the earth.  Now the saints of Christ receive the authority that Adam forfeited by his sin.

Frame also suggests that the parable of the minas (Luke 19:11–27) may indicate varying degrees of authority among the saints in heaven, though such inequality, he argues, would not lead to unhappiness or jealousy.

Frame, Systematic Theology, 1081
Grudem, Systematic Theology, 1163–64
Hoekema, The Bible and the Future, 283


Purpose of giving up a prisoner on the Passover Why did they give over a prisoner during the Passover? What was the reason for that

Like many judicial systems, the Roman legal system had provisions for pardoning of crime. It is likely the appointed time for pardon appeals coincided with the passover because that was the time many of the Jews in the region came to the city. In other words, it was politically expedient for the governing officials to grant a request before the largest audience of each the year.

(Not unlike how politicians today use "phtot-ops" at events with large public appeal, but then sign lesser received legislation on Fridays right after all the press goes home for the weekend...)


What do non-Catholic Christians do with the power of binding and loosing? In Catholicism, we believe that the Bishops in Communion with the Pope (as Vicar of Christ) have authority over Church doctrine.  The authority comes straight from the mouth of our Savior.

  Matthew 18:18 (NAB)
  18 Amen, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

So, for non-Catholics and for other Christians who stake their claim to apostolic succession yet hold that the Bible is the only authority, can anything really be bound or loosed by the apostles or their successors?  What does this passage mean outside of my interpretation?

Well, Lutherans hold this to be the basis of what is called "The Office of the Keys".
Also referred to in John 20:22-23:

22 And with that he breathed on them and said, “Receive the Holy
Spirit.
23 If you forgive anyone’s sins, their sins are forgiven; if you
do not forgive them, they are not forgiven.”

From Luther's Small Catechism:

What do you believe according to these words?
I believe that when the called ministers of Christ deal with us by His divine command, in
particular when they exclude openly unrepentant sinners from the
Christian congregation and absolve those who repent of their sins and
want to do better, this is just as valid and certain, even in heaven,
as if Christ our dear Lord dealt with us himself.