How does a lamb take a scroll and break its seals? (Revelation 5) Revelation 5 describes a vision of a lamb with seven eyes and seven horns, appearing to stand as if slain. It takes the scroll, and then goes on in chapter 6 to start breaking the seals of the scroll.

When one tries to picture this in their minds eye, how does one literally picture this? Traditionally how do people understand what John saw?

Are we imagining a human (Jesus) that is described symbolically as a lamb? Or perhaps we are imagining a lamb with seven eyes that has human like features? Or perhaps a lamb that transforms to the appearance of a man?

NB: It's worth pointing out before someone else tries to, that how a Christian pictures this in their minds eyes is likely unrelated to a Christian's theological understanding of the passage. Hence this question is not about how we understand the passage theologically, but how we envisage the vision described to us through the ancient greek language.

In the bible, dreams, prophecies and visions are almost always symbolic. The only way they can be understood is if the meaning of the symbols is explained.

For example, when Pharaoh had his dream of the sheaves of wheat and the cows, he could not understand it until the interpretation was revealed to Joseph. Likewise King Nebuchadnezzar could not understand his dreams until God revealed the meaning to Daniel.

However, some prophecies employ symbolism that has been used in other parts of the Bible, allowing the diligent to understand at least partially what is meant. Also, the prophet delivering the message sometimes explains part of the symbolism when they deliver the message. Thus in Daniel, beasts represent kingdoms. When we get to Revelation, beasts once again represent kingdoms, not bizarre monsters.

When we get to the lamb that was slain, we look back to other places in the Bible where something has been likened to a lamb. Since John the Baptist called Jesus the lamb that takes away the sins of the world, we have support for the idea that Jesus is the lamb that was slain. Many other parallels - like Jesus' crucifixion and other points of correlation with the Jewish sacrificial system - make this fairly certain.

The eyes and horns also have symbolic meaning. Thankfully the prophet tells us that they are the seven spirits sent out into the world. What the purpose and identity of those spirits is is not immediately disclosed, but it is clear that they are not actual eyes or horns.

It seems to me that these images are mnemonics given to help us to remember the message. Once the believer understands what the symbol stands for, the bizarre and unforgettable image remains as a way to hold onto the meaning. Also, the use of parallel symbolism is a tactic that forces us to revisit other parts of scripture to understand the meaning. It reminds us of what was said before and ties the whole together. To me, what I "see" is the interconnectedness of all God's revelations and the uniformity of his purpose and will across the centuries.

As for breaking the seals, maybe a rams' horn would come in handy...


Efforts and motivation on sanctification Does sanctification require effort on part of the believer, God, or both combined? If on part of the believer, then who provides motivation for sanctification, God or self?

Sanctification is a word that has multiple meanings within Christianity.  To answer your question we need to examine the definitions, and the teachings of the various groups.

One definition (the more "ordinary" one) of Sanctify is "to set apart".  A person or object can be sanctified (set apart) for a particular purpose.

From http://www.theopedia.com/Sanctification

  Sanctification, or in its verbal form, sanctify, literally means "to
  set apart" for special use or purpose, that is, to make holy or
  sacred. Therefore, sanctification refers to the state or process of
  being set apart, i.e. made holy. In systematic theology, the term
  often carries a technical meaning that differs from the biblical word
  group

In this sense, a person is sanctified by God without effort on the part of the believer.  God chooses whom He sets apart.It is solely the work of God.

The above definition often leads people to get confused, which leads them to mistake Justification to Sanctification.  Justification is, in Protestant denominations, the instant where we are saved by Grace, and are "made right" by God.  It is instant and also solely the work of God.

The next, commonly held Protestant definition of Sanctification makes the distinction more clear.  It's a more precise theological definition.  If I'm reading your question correctly, I believe that this is the sense of the word you are asking about, and the answer you're looking for is found at http://carm.org/justification-and-sanctification

  Sanctification is the process of being set apart for God's work and
  being conformed to the image of Christ.  This conforming to Christ
  involves the work of the person.  But it is still God working in the
  believer to produce more of a godly character and life in the person
  who has already been justified (Phil. 2:13).  Sanctification is not
  instantaneous because it is not the work of God alone. The justified
  person is actively involved in submitting to God's will, resisting
  sin, seeking holiness, and working to be more godly (Gal. 5:22-23).
  Significantly, sanctification has no bearing on justification.  That
  is, even if we don't live a perfect life, we are still justified.

Finally, there is the Catholic teaching on Sanctification, which is a bit long to summarize in this answer, but you can review an article from the Catholic Encyclopedia article here: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06701a.htm


What is the biblical basis for the belief that destroying a grave or body is an act of desecration? I was reading an old article published in Christian Today on July 17, 2014, in which Brownie Marie reported that ISIS desecrated the tomb of Jonah, and were burning churches. The only thing I could find in the Bible related to desecrating a tomb or a body is Amos 2:1, which reads:

  Thus says the Lord:
      "For three transgressions of Moab, and for four,
      I will not turn away its punishment,
      Because he burned the bones of the King of Edom to lime.  [NKJV]

Is this the only example, Amos 2:1? What additional biblical basis is there for not desecrating a grave or a body?

No, this is not the only example.  The prophecy of 1 Kings 13 must also be taken into account, and especially its fulfillment.

  2 Kings 23:20 is its fulfillment: "And he slew all the priests of the
  high places that were there upon the altars, and burned men's bones
  upon them, and returned to Jerusalem."

It's also paralleled in 2 Chronicles 34:5

The reason why I am citing this as an example is because this was pronounced as a judgement much like Amos 2:1 which was referenced.  So then if these false prophets were the recipients of an unusual pronouncement from a prophet of G-d, and they were singled out for punishment then the opposite is proven as the rule.

Should that not be enough, commandments such as

  Deuteronomy 21:22,23 "If a man has committed a sin worthy of death and
  he is put to death, and you hang him on a tree, 23 his corpse shall
  not hang all night on the tree, but you shall surely bury him on the
  same day (for he who is hanged is accursed of God), so that you do not
  defile your land which the LORD your God gives you as an inheritance."

Despite the focus being on avoiding the polluting of the land it is clear that the action is barred for additional reasons, such as keeping the "humanity" of the corpse in mind and that some kind of burial is necessitated.

  Joshua 7:26 "And they raised over him a great heap of stones unto this
  day. So the Lord turned from the fierceness of his anger. Wherefore
  the name of that place was called, The valley of Achor, unto this
  day."

And

  Joshua 8:29 "And the king of Ai he hanged on a tree until eventide:
  and as soon as the sun was down, Joshua commanded that they should
  take his carcase down from the tree, and cast it at the entering of
  the gate of the city, and raise thereon a great heap of stones, that
  remaineth unto this day."


What do Jehovah's Witnesses believe about evolution? From Do Jehovah’s Witnesses Believe in Creationism? on jw.org:

No. Jehovah’s Witnesses do believe that God created everything. But we do not agree with creationism. Why not? Because a number of creationist ideas actually conflict with the Bible. Consider the following two examples:

Length of the six days of creation...the word “day” in the Bible can refer to a considerable length of time...
Age of the earth...Jehovah’s Witnesses have no objection to credible scientific research that indicates the earth may be billions of years old.

Although Jehovah’s Witnesses believe in creation, we are not antiscience. We believe that true science and the Bible are compatible.

Any mention of evolution is absent (which IMO is a bit surprising, considering the FAQ being answered).
Similar to Earth's age, would Jehovah's Witnesses also have no objection to "credible scientific research that indicates" life, including humans, evolved from simpler forms?
Or do they have a different belief?

I'll try to summarize some of the infos we can find in the JW.org site (wol.jw.org)

First, have a look at their Awake! 9/06 magazine, pages 9-10, the article titled "Did God Use Evolution to Create Life?"

As a summary, it says that the Bible’s account of the creation of the first man, Adam, is to be taken literally. It also says that Jesus (and his disciples) took it as a true story.

Also this other article from their 1/1 2008 Watchtower magazine, titled "Is evolution compatible with the Bible ?", should interest you.


Should the words to prayers said in private be changed to fit the company? Why do we pray "Our Father who art in Heaven" and "Pray for us sinners now and at the hour of our death".

Should we instead pray My Father and "Pray for me, a sinner now and at the hour of my death"?  Or is there a reason to always use the same words in those prayers?

I know there is some conflict in the Nicene creed where both I believe and We believe is used, but specifically in prayers, and not creeds, what is the reason for using the plural pronoun when you're the only person in the room, does this have something to do with the communion of saints or is it just convention?

Don't get hung up on words; prayer should come from the heart.

I believe that prayer needs to originate from the heart.  Because of that, we shouldn't get hung up on words.  I believe that rote prayers and repeated prayers can be just as effective and just as "heard by God" as prayers that are unscripted.  It's about the state of your heart whether God hears you.

Because of that, I don't think that words in and of themselves should be the primary concern of prayer.  Clearly, you need the words to communicate what's in your heart ("Out of the overflow of the heart, the mouth speaks" and all that), but it's more about the state of your heart than the singularity/plurality of the words.

My advice is this:

If the prayer feels awkward to you, change it.  Use the words that are most comfortable to you.  The worst thing you can do is to use words that distract you from the prayer of your heart.


How do you defend the first clause of the Kalam Cosmological Argument? I have a question pertaining to the first premise of the Kalam Cosmological Argument (KCA).

If someone says that just because everything in the universe needs a cause that doesn't mean that the universe does. How would we further defend the first premise?

And second if they say "It is possible a time-space manifold has existed eternally" how would I respond?

It frankly doesn't matter how well you defend the Kalam argument with a modern illogical atheist. I should qualify. I have met the occasional reasonable atheist and I like discussions with them very much indeed although I've never persuaded one of them nor have they moved me from my position. But if you're having a discussion with the typical thoughtless modern atheist, you'd be far better off to spend your time with God. I mean that.

So, caveat given... The Kalam argument runs like this (in its usual form)

Whatever begins to exist must have a cause.
The universe began to exist.
Therefore the universe has a cause.

The thing atheists like to do is to push this back farther and farther into the mists of time until it seems to disappear. 'The universe has a cause, and the cause is a quantum universe generator. The quantum universe generator was randomly generated by a quantum universe generator generator, and so on.

This is the problem with this argument. An infinite regress of EVENTS is impossible. Why? Well, first because it's ludicrous. There would be too many events, too many things. The universe or the universe of universes or all the things on the other side of that black hole (where it is a white hole) would be infinite in number to the power of infinity. And the same for every black hole. It's impossible.

God on the other hand is simple (not made up of parts), unchanging, infinite and eternal. God, in other words, is the ONE who CAN be eternal, steady state, unchanging. Nothing else can qualify in that role.

Second, the universe cannot be eternal (nor can any of the possible ACTIVE factors that may have generated the universe). Our universe clearly had a beginning. Many Christians feel that the Big Bang is an enemy. It is not. It means that our universe began to exist. Anyone who says otherwise is not honoring the known facts. I've heard it said that if our universe were steady state, that also would not be a problem for apologetics. Maybe that's correct, but I don't understand that argument. I DO understand THIS argument, and since our universe did have a beginning, this is the argument I need to understand:

An infinite regress of events is also impossible because at some point, you must reach the place where everything is perfectly organized at the first end, and perfectly homogeneous at the last. Beyond that point in the past, it is impossible to go. At this point, our universe is not completely organized, nor is it completely random/homogeneous.

It's like an unbound book set in a room with a fan. The book is perfectly organized from the title page to page 2,191 which perhaps says, "the end." Turn on the fan and it starts to blow those pages lying at the top of the book. Pretty soon you come into the room and the pages are scattered everywhere. Your unbound book is in a state of complete disorder, so you start to collect the pages and place them carefully, perfectly in order. Once the book is as it was, you are done. You can go back no further. You have reached the beginning.

That's the second reason you cannot have an infinite regress. Events always move from order to disorder; they never, ever go the other way. Once you get to the place of perfect order, there's nowhere else to go. You will, looking back, reach this point in any system that involves change.

God does not change. God is eternal and unchanging. In fact, God IS eternity. God IS infinity. God is simple. Every molecule of God (If God had molecules, which God does not) is God. God is not composed of parts. Things do not happen to God to change Him. God IS. God is not a being in the universe or outside of it. God IS being. God has no beginning and therefore God is not capable of having been caused.

So there is your Kalam argument. There are perhaps meaningful things that could be said against it, but by and large the modern day atheist does not know what they are, nor even what they might be. He will not even read your carefully worded reasoning because he is an ideologue. He believes what he wishes to believe. If he reads what you have to say, he will answer with a question something like, "Well what about suffering? Why is there suffering?" It's not that he wants an answer. He simply needs to change the subject because he will have absolutely no idea what you just said--because he does not know how to think that hard.

Sad, but true in most cases.


Why isn't Lent observed across all traditions? I had always (apparently in error) assumed that the observace of Lent was a Catholic practice, but according to Wikipedia, Lent is:

  observed by Catholics, Lutherans, Methodists, Presbyterians, Anglicans, as well as some Baptists and Mennonites.

While the practice seems to bridge traditions, I also know of Christians who don't practice it at all. What gives? If it is actually as universal as the Wikipedia description makes out, what would be the reason for not observing Lent?

The practice of Lent is hardly unique to the Catholic church. It pre-dates the major church schisms. The practice today involves somewhat different implementations in different traditions. Some are much more developed than others, but the general idea is the same.
It is impossible to draw up a list of traditions which do or do not participate, because individual church adherence varies widely inside traditions. A good example I know of off hand is Presbyterian churches -- some of which practice it with as much pomp and detail as some of their Catholic counter parts, others let the season go by entirely unmarked.
I think a more useful question to answer is not the who but the why of non-participation. In my experience I see two main reasons for not participating.

Some level of ignorance or indifference.
Many churches simply don't believe the seasons is mandated in Scripture in such a way that it should be made into a big deal in the life of the church. Others might play along because they don't see any harm, but also don't take it very seriously. Some quite honestly might have just assumed that the practice belonged to some tradition other than their own and never bothered to learn anything about it.

Reasoned objection.
Some churches do not participate on the basis that the practice isn't well rooted in the early church and only became an organized practice several hundred years in. A common direction for this argument to take is argue that the practice originated from a pagan set of rituals (possibly ancient Babylonian), elements of which got folded into Christianity during the time when the Roman empire officially made Christianity the state religion. While some traditions don't have an issue per se with re-purposed rituals, others feel strongly that these are pollutants on "pure" Christian practice.

As a general trend, I think it's safe to say the practice of Lent is roughly parallel to the degree to which churches emphasis liturgy and a liturgical calendar. On the other hand, cults (particularly restorationist ones who believe that not just one or more branches but the entire Christian religion lost it's way after Jesus) tend to be the most emphatic non-practitioners of Lent. In-between you have a vast array of half baked practice and objection.


Is the book "The Supernatural Occurrences of John Wesley" a legitimate collection of Wesley's journal entries? The Supernatural Occurrences of John Wesley, written by Daniel R. Jennings, claims to be a compilation of John Wesley's supernatural experiences. The book claims to be compiling these stories from Wesley's journal.

Is John Wesley's journal available? How authentic is this book by Daniel Jennings?

Yes, it appears to be a legitimate compilation from the writings of John Wesley.  I haven't confirmed all of the many stories in Jennings' book, but I selected several and found them corroborated in other editions of Wesley's journals (which are indeed available online).

Page 5, "The Woodseats' Demoniac":

Source 1
Source 2

Page 37, "The Michaelmas-Day Demon":

Source 1
Source 2

Page 87, "Whole House Overtaken By The Holy Spirit's Power"

Source 1
Source 2

You can use Google books to search for the exact wording of any particular story to confirm its origin and find it in an official print edition.  An abridgment of Wesley's journals is also available online.


Had Jesus formally been given authority to preach in the synagogue? At Luke 4:16-17 we read:

" When he came to Nazareth, where he had been brought up, he went to the synagogue on the sabbath day, as was his custom. He stood up to read, and the scroll of the prophet Isaiah was given to him...."

I would like to know what the relevance of a synagogue in day-to-day life of an average Jew was;  and whether Jesus had  formally been given authority to preach in the synagogue. What does the Catholic  tell us on the subject ?

From the commentary on St. Luke 4:16 by Conelius à Lapide, S.J.:

  And stood up for to read. It was (and still is) the custom among the Jews that each one should read the Hebrew books of Holy Scripture in the synagogue on the Sabbath-day, both that he might learn the law of God from it, and also that he might be stirred up to the worship, love, and service of God. Moreover, it was the part of the Rabbin and the teachers, such as Jesus was, to read the Holy Scripture publicly, to interpret it, to preach, and to teach.

St. Ambrose commentates (recorded in St. Thomas Aquinas's Catena Aurea on Luke 4):

  The Lord in every thing so humbled Himself to obedience, that He did not despise even the office of a reader, as it follows, And he rose up to read, and there was delivered to him the book, &c.

Quite amazing! As Origen says:

  He opens not the book by chance, and finds a chapter containing a prophecy of Himself, but by the providence of God.


What was Paul referring to by the "thorn in the flesh"? In 2 Corinthians 12:7, Paul references a thorn was given to him in the flesh:

  So to keep me from becoming conceited because of the surpassing greatness of the revelations, a thorn was given me in the flesh, a messenger of Satan to harass me, to keep me from becoming conceited.

Does anyone have any insight on what this might be? Also, I am unsure as to why he was given this?

There are many theories, including:

a demon, since Paul says it was a "messenger of Satan"
a physical affliction: "incessant temptation, dogged opponents, chronic maladies (such as eye problems, malaria, migraine headaches, and epilepsy), to a speech disability"
false teachers

(My personal theory is that it was his eyesight; but the majority of experts do not agree!)

We simply don't know for sure.

As for why, that's in the verse you quoted, to keep Paul "from becoming conceited".

We're all subject to pride and Paul, as a great leader in a new movement and chosen by Jesus Himself had reason (in man's eyes) to be conceited (he even said so himself). This "thorn" was apparently to prevent that, so that his work could continue without anyone being able to find fault with him.


Why did the reformers include the book of Hebrews in the canon? Related: Why was Hebrews included in the canon?

It's widely known that Hebrews has been in the canon of most of Christendom for a long time, originally on the basis of Pauline authorship (see the linked answer above for more).  Despite some divergence of opinion (cf. Martin Luther), most of the reformers considered it canonical as well.  Here, I'd like to understand their reasons – that is:

Why did significant reformers (e.g., John Calvin, John Knox, Ulrich Zwingli) generally include Hebrews in the canon?

Did they still believe that Paul wrote the book, and thus include it on the basis of apostolic authorship?
Or did they accept it based on other factors, like the testimony of the early church, perhaps because Pauline authorship had already begun to be doubted?

As far as Calvin was concerned, his views on the canonicity of Hebrews can be found in his introductory comments to his commentary on Hebrews (here at pp. 16–17). He includes it "without hesitation" as part of the New Testament Canon. The factors in reaching that conclusion were:

Its acceptance by the early church. This is why he feels the need to
point out (and then explain away) that the Latin churches were slow
to accept it. Calvin states that they were concerned Hebrews might
support the Novatian heresy (the refusal to allow forgiveness to
those who had once abandoned the faith in the persecution of the
emperor Decius). He then undertakes to explain in the commentary why
such fears were groundless.

  Not only various opinions were formerly entertained as to the author of this Epistle, but it was only at a late period that it was received by the Latin Churches. They suspected that it favored Novatus in denying pardon to the fallen; but that this was a groundless opinion will be shown by various passages.

Its content, which has value and is consistent with the themes of
the rest of the gospel.

  There is, indeed, no book in the Holy Scriptures which speaks so clearly of the priesthood of Christ, so highly exalts the virtue and dignity of that only true sacrifice which he offered by his death, so abundantly treats of the use of ceremonies as well as of their abrogation, and, in a word, so fully explains that Christ is the end of the Law. Let us not therefore suffer the Church of God nor ourselves to be deprived of so great a benefit, but firmly defend the possession of it.

Its authorship. For Calvin this is a secondary basis. ("We need not
be very solicitous.") Calvin discusses the historical views on this
but himself rejects Paul on grounds of both content and style.

The full text of Calvin's opening comments reads as follows:

  Not only various opinions were formerly entertained as to the author of this Epistle, but it was only at a late period that it was received by the Latin Churches. They suspected that it favored Novatus in denying pardon to the fallen; but that this was a groundless opinion will be shown by various passages. I, indeed, without hesitation, class it among apostolical writings; nor do I doubt but that it has been through the craft of Satan that any have been led to dispute its authority. There is, indeed, no book in the Holy Scriptures which speaks so clearly of the priesthood of Christ, so highly exalts the virtue and dignity of that only true sacrifice which he offered by his death, so abundantly treats of the use of ceremonies as well as of their abrogation, and, in a word, so fully explains that Christ is the end of the Law. Let us not therefore suffer the Church of God nor ourselves to be deprived of so great a benefit, but firmly defend the possession of it.

  Moreover, as to its author, we need not be very solicitous. Some think the author to have been Paul, others Luke, others Barnabas, and others Clement, as Jerome relates; yet Eusebius, in his sixth book of his Church History, mentions only Luke and Clement. I well know that in the time of Chrysostom it was everywhere classed by the Greeks among the Pauline Epistles; but the Latins thought otherwise, even those who were nearest to the times of the Apostles.

  I indeed, can adduce no reason to show that Paul was its author; for they who say that he designedly suppressed his name because it was hateful to the Jews, bring nothing to the purpose; for why, then, did he mention the name of Timothy as by this he betrayed himself. But the manner it of teaching, and the style, sufficiently show that Paul was not the author; and the writer himself confesses in the second chapter that he was one of the disciples of the Apostles, which is wholly different from the way in which Paul spoke of himself. Besides, what is said of the practice of catechizing in the sixth chapter, does not well suit the time or age of Paul. There are other things which we shall notice in their proper places.

  What excuse is usually made as to the style I well know that is, that no opinion can be hence formed, because the Greek is a translation made from the Hebrew by Luke or someone else. But this conjecture can be easily refuted: to pass by other places quoted from Scripture, on the supposition that the Epistle was written in Hebrew, there would have been no allusion to the word Testament, on which the writer so much dwells; what he says of a Testament, in the ninth chapter, could not have been drawn from any other fountain than from the Greek word; for διαθήκη has two meanings in Greek, while |berit| in Hebrew means only a covenant. This reason alone is enough to convince men of sound judgment that the epistle was written in the Greek languages. Now, what is objected on the other hand, that it is more probable that the Apostle wrote to the Jews in their own language, has no weight in it; for how few then understood their ancient language? Each had learned the language of the country where he dwelt. Besides, the Greek was then more widely known than all other languages.


Looking for a passage about God forbidding that a census be taken Years ago, reading the Bible, I came across a passage where God forbade that a census be taken.  I don't remember where that was, but would like to find it again.
Looking at an online concordance, I found plenty of references where God commanded a census be taken, mostly for compiling a list of military age males (who could then be called upon to form an army).  But none forbidding a census.

I think this answers you question as far as why you're not finding a passage:

[2 Samuel 24:1] 1. A.M. 2987. B.C. 1017. An. Ex. Is. 474. And. ƒ107, Ge +10:5. again. 2 S 21:1, etc. he. That is, Satan, 1 Ch[ronicles] 21:1. ƒ63A1, Ge +14:20. This verse, when read without reference to any other part of the word of God is very difficult to understand, and has been used by those who desire to undermine the justice of God to show that he sought occasion to punish—that he incited David to sin; and when he had so incited him, gave the dreadful alternative of choosing one of three scourges by which his people were to be cut off. On the face of the passage these thoughts naturally arise, because “the Lord” is the antecedent to the pronoun “he,”—he moved David. But to those who “search the Scriptures,” this exceedingly difficult passage receives a wonderful elucidation. By referring to 1 Ch 21:1, the reader will there find that Satan was the mover, and that the Lord most righteously punished David for the display of pride he had manifested. Oh, that Christians, who sometimes have their minds harassed with doubts, would remember the promise, that what they know not now they shall know hereafter (Jn 13:7); and if no other instance of elucidation than this passage occurred to them to remove their doubts, let this be a means of stirring them up to dig deeper than ever into the inexhaustible mines of the Inspired Word. --
Smith, J. H. (1992). The new treasury of scripture knowledge: The most complete listing of cross references available anywhere- every verse, every theme, every important word (p. 360). Nashville TN: Thomas Nelson.

The Law of Moses gave the stipulations for conducting a census.  Maybe David wasn't following this.

11 The LORD said to Moses, 12 “When you take the census of the people of Israel, then each shall give a ransom for his life to the LORD when you number them, that there be no plague among them when you number them. 13 Each one who is numbered in the census shall give this: half a shekel according to the shekel of the sanctuary (the shekel is twenty gerahs), half a shekel as an offering to the LORD. 14 Everyone who is numbered in the census, from twenty years old and upward, shall give the LORD’s offering. 15 The rich shall not give more, and the poor shall not give less, than the half shekel, when you give the LORD’s offering to make atonement for your lives. 16 You shall take the atonement money from the people of Israel and shall give it for the service of the tent of meeting, that it may bring the people of Israel to remembrance before the LORD, so as to make atonement for your lives.”
(Ex. 30:11–16, ESV)


What was the pre-Babel language and what can be said about the mechanism used to confuse the languages? The Tower of Babel episode in human history is known to many. This can be found in Genesis 11. As we know, it resulted in the languages of mankind becoming confused.

Question: Are there opinions, speculations, conjectures, or a consensus anywhere on what the pre-Babel language was? Are there linguistic clues in modern languages spoken today that can shed light on this topic? We do not really know the exact mechanism used by God to confuse the languages. Is it possible that the mechanism is something amenable to investigation from the fields of neuroscience/computer science?

It is held by some to be the Adamic language, properly named, though Midrash and Talmud say it was Hebrew. See wikipedia on the Confusion of Tongues.


What is the nature of the 7 demons in Mary of Magdalene that Jesus cast out? Luke 8:2 and Mark 16:9 mention that Mary Magdalene had seven demons, which Jesus exorcised.
In spiritual warfare literature, it's common to distinguish different types of demonic influence; example in the article The Extraordinary Actions of the Devil.  Another tries to give the following definitions:

Demonic Possession - It's when a demon takes over a person's body without their consent. It's what you see in most movies. It involves speaking in tongues, sudden personality changes, sudden violence, even superhuman strength.
Physical Pain - This is a sickness or an injury due to a demon being inside a person. It doesn't impact the soul, just the body.
Diabolic Oppression - This is when a demon torments a person, causing tragic events in their lives the loss of a loved one, the loss of a job, a home. Basically, the story of Job.
Diabolical Infestation - It's when demonic entities take over a house, an object, even an animal.
Diabolical Subjugation - It's when the possessed invites the demon into their lives. They do this through game play or pledging their soul to the devil. It's real in that if a human wants power, they can trade away their future for that power.
Diabolical Obsession - It's when a person has constant, overwhelming and irrational thoughts, making them act in perverse ways. It's hard to detect because it's the most highly functional of all the possessions. But it can lead to suicidal ideation and murder.

But today, especially in Western countries, people tend to "psychologize" those demonic influence into chronic depression, etc, such as how this article tries to contemporize Mary Magdalene's seven demons.
Rather than speculating from modern / Western lens or use Western categories (like the above), my complete question is: using the best studies of demonology in Jesus's time, what is the nature of the 7 demons oppressing Mary Magdalene in terms of how the Gospel writers would have conceptualized it?  In other words, what did the gospel writers have in mind when choosing the words to narrate what Jesus did?  Is it always a spiritual entity perceived to be gone out like in the Exorcist movie?  Or on the other extreme, is it an idiomatic expression for what today we call mental or physical illness?  Or is it something in between?
The significance of this question is to enable a more faithful interpretation of the many Gospel passages on Jesus and the Apostles casting out demons, which today's Christian groups (esp. those with Freedom ministries) use as the basis of their practice.  Some groups even take Mark 16:16-18 literally as the sign of a true believer ("... in my name they will cast out demons...") and exhorting them to practice Jesus-given authority to regularly perceive demonic influence in yourself / others and exorcise them.
Preliminary research

A 2009 PhD Dissertation Jesus, A Jewish Galilean Exorcist: A Socio-Political and Anthropological Investigation by Amanda Witmer, McMaster University
Book Article Exorcism or Healing?: A Korean Preacher’s Re-Reading of Mark 5:1-20 by Sejong Chun (Vanderbilt University), reviewed here, part of the 2010 book Mark: Texts @ Contexts.  This paper contains 5 plausible hermeneutical understanding of the Mark 5:1-20 story, demonstrating the horizon of interpretation we are looking for in this question.
Demons and Politics: A Consideration of Jesus' Exorcisms in Mark a by Bible scholar Andrew Perry, pdf available here at his Academia site, commenting on three 20th century social study theories of exorcism discussed by Paul W. Hollenbach in his well-cited Journal of the American Religion 1981 article Jesus, Demoniacs, and Public Authorities: A Socio-Historical Study
2007 Master's Thesis The Representation and Role of Demon Possession in Mark by McGill Religious Studies student Eliza Rosenberg, which includes 15-page (!) list of works cited plus a 4-page list of modern exorcism accounts, mostly from news articles from 1995 to 2007.

What was Mary's infirmity
From a hermeneutics standpoint, the text really doesn't specify among the options listed in the OP.  The Greek word used in both places, δαιμόνια, is a pretty generic word for demons. (see here).
Perhaps the most detailed interpretation that could be read into the text comes from the preceding words in the same verse, Luke 8:2.  The verse in its entirety reads:

2 And certain women, which had been healed of evil spirits and
infirmities, Mary called Magdalene, out of whom went seven devils,

This suggests that Mary is one of the women who had been healed of "evil spirits and infirmities", which could be just about anything.
Mental illness
It is not uncommon, as the OP noted, for mental illness to be postulated as an explanation for what the ancients were trying to describe in these circumstances (or at least in some of them).  What vocabulary would they have used to describe psychological infirmities?
For my own take on what the scriptures have to say about mental illness, see here.
For a more in-depth theological discussion of mental illness, SE-Christianity is probably more appropriate.
I will go ever-so-slightly beyond the scope of this site to draw a connection between Luke 4:40:

40 Now when the sun was setting, all they that had any sick with
divers diseases brought them unto him; and he laid his hands on every
one of them, and healed them.

& John 13:15:

For I have given you an example

When Jesus encountered those who were infirm in body or mind He responded with compassion.  Society today often stigmatizes mental illness and would benefit from following Jesus' example.


How can we practice Matthew 18:15 in a public forum? Over at Judaism.SE, there's a question: How should we respond to objectionable content in a public forum?  It got me thinking, how should we apply Jesus' teaching on reconciliation:

  “If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother.”—Matthew 18:15 (ESV)

Sometimes, we are in a public forum with someone who is our brother or sister in Christ, and they say or do something that hurts us or is a sin against us.  When in person or when a private communication channel is provided (e.g., Facebook, email, and many internet forums), it's easy enough to take them aside.  But what should we do where there is no way to initiate a private conversation with a fellow Christian?

Obviously, this very site is an example of where this might come up.  But I'm not making it a meta-question since it's really a question about how Christians should behave in any public forum.  And of course, it must be an ecumenical position since, unless the forum happens to be specific to a particular branch of Christianity, the other person might come from any faith tradition (or none at all).  How do we love those who sin against us in strictly public places?

Whether a person hurts our feelings is a different matter than whether that person has sinned against us.  For example, my doctor might tell me I am overweight.  In that case, my doctor would be acting lovingly toward me.  If my feelings are hurt, then I am the one with the hard heart in that example.

Therefore my counsel is to be especially careful in asking for repentence from someone who has hurt your feelings.

Otherwise, my thought is that there is always a way to ask for private communication.  It may be the case that private communication cannot be accomplished immediately, so you may have to employ patience.  Suppose, for example that you are in a huge auditorium and a public speaker bears false witness against you (that being a sin from Exodus 20-23, the Ten Commandments and their sentencing rules).

I don't think you should stand up in that public forum and proclaim, "I would like to speak with you privately!"  Entertaining the thought of that action leads one to think it might be inappropriate per the instructions from Matthew 18:15.  If you agree,  you might instead contact the public speaker by postal mail, waiting many days to receive any reply.  You won't get the pleasure of an immediate retraction, and you may therefore have to suffer embarrassment during your period of patiently reaching out to the public speaker.  That seems OK.

On this SE, you could ask a person to contact you using the comment system, with a message along the lines of, "Brother, I would like to email with you privately concerning something you've written here.  Would you please email me at xxx -at- yyy.zzz?"

I would suggest that you then exchange phone numbers and not use email to settle your difference.


Why does childbirth still hurt? I am wondering the following: In Genesis, 3.16, it is quite clear that God multiplies the pain of childbirth, in order to punish Eve (and all women) for eating the forbidden fruit.

So, yes, this explains that childbirth is a punishment for this sin Eve committed.

But then, Jesus dies for all sins of mankind, that is, all sins are forgiven.
He revoked a bunch of other stuff in the old testament (thou shall not eat shrimp).

However, if all sins are forgiven, why does childbirth still cause a lot of pain? Did Jesus forget this detail. Or is there another explanation?

A common Evangelical answer to your question would be that even though Christ's work on the cross was* to redeem mankind from the effects of the fall, there is a now-and-not-yet-ness in regard to the complete outworking of the victory won at Calvary (*ie 'was' is really 'was'/'is'/'will be') . In particular, the physical creation in general and our mortal bodies in particular will be amongst the last to experience full redemption from the effects of the fall, and will do so only upon Christ's return in glory:

Present Suffering and Future Glory
18 I consider that our present sufferings are not worth comparing with the glory that will be revealed in us. 19 For the creation waits in eager expectation for the children of God to be revealed. 20 For the creation was subjected to frustration, not by its own choice, but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope 21 that the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the freedom and glory of the children of God.
22 We know that the whole creation has been groaning as in the pains of childbirth right up to the present time. 23 Not only so, but we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for our adoption to sonship, the redemption of our bodies. 24 For in this hope we were saved. But hope that is seen is no hope at all. Who hopes for what they already have? 25 But if we hope for what we do not yet have, we wait for it patiently. - Romans 8:18-25 NIV

Paul seems to be saying here that because mankind fell and suffered the consequences of sin as a curse, the rest of creation (which had been committed to the stewardship of mankind) was subjected to 'frustration' in order that it's 'groans' could testify to the need for the redemption and glorification of it's fallen race of stewards - this is a theological rationale for the current imperfections in nature.
Compare also 1 Corinthians 15:51-55 which speaks of the Resurrection to come as an overcoming not just of death, but also of the 'perishable' or 'corruptible' nature of our bodies - new resurrected bodies will be imperishable and incorruptible; and further, in the New Jerusalem:

‘He will wipe every tear from their eyes. There will be no more death’ or mourning or crying or pain, for the old order of things has passed away. - Revelation 21:4 NIV

So a complete deliverance from pain awaits the passing away of the old order.
An alternative (currently minority) perspective, is that the benefits of Christ's work can largely be appropriated by faith in this present age as:

Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us, for it is written: “Cursed is everyone who is hung on a pole.” - Galatians 3:13 NIV
“He himself bore our sins” in his body on the cross, so that we might die to sins and live for righteousness; “by his wounds you have been healed.” - 1 Peter 2:24 NIV

Note that 'redeemed' and 'healed' are past tense, establishing a basis for belief that Christ's words on the cross of 'It is finished' can legitimately be given a broad application that would cover deliverance from all aspects of the curse, including the pains of childbirth. Under this framework, the Saints of God no longer 'die', but merely go 'to sleep' to awaken at the last trumpet.
Further, although it is part of a difficult passage to interpret, women are given hope that:

But she will be delivered through childbearing, if she continues in faith and love and holiness with self-control. 1 Timothy 2:15 NET

Could well include deliverance not just from death, but also the pain of the curse. If some regard that as a fanciful application of this particular scripture, perhaps they will be more reticent to deny that:

Everything is possible for one who believes. - Mark 9:23b NIV

Can be a legitimate basis for such a belief. In any event, there are many that have dared to believe such a thing and have subsequently testified to encountering God's deliverance in this manner.
PS Your talk of the Old Testament and shrimps is a bit of a red herring with regard to the substance of this question, but the point should be made that Jesus explicitly did not 'revoke' a 'bunch of other stuff in the Old Testament' - He came to fulfill the law perfectly. That laws expressly given to mark Israel, and subsequently the Jews, apart as the Covenant people the Messiah would come through were not mandated holus-bolus on Gentile converts does not constitute a 'revocation' and each law in the Old Testament should be understood in it's proper context and evaluated for utility as a guiding principle (not moral obligation that brings condemnation and judgment by it's transgression) in the life of a New Covenant believer. If Gentile converts had by and large followed the Jewish dietary laws (as a guiding principle for healthy living), particularly with regard to eating pork and shellfish, no doubt countless thousands of them would have experienced consequent benefit in extended and overall more healthy lives.


Are there one or two covenants in Exodus? Clarifying the role of the first set of laws compared to the second set Im a little confused by some commentaries as to how they describe the laws given to Moses.

We see a first set of commands listed in Exodus 20:1-17 and 20:22-23:33. These are then agreed upon by Israel in a ceremony of sorts in 24:3–8
In response to incident of the Golden Cow and the breaking of the first set of tablets, we see two things in chapter 34. 1. a replacement set of tablets and 2. some new regulations in 34:10-27, verse 10 and verse 27 naming these a covenant.

So the question is are there two separate covenants? Perhaps the second set "wraps" the first set? Or perhaps the second set amends the first?

I assume you are talking about the tablets of the Ten Commandments which Moses broke in Exodus 32:19, then the second set of tablets made in Exodus 34:4. You are wondering if God wrote something different on the second set.

Exodus 34:1 gives us the answer to your question: "Cut two tablets of stone like the first ones, and I will write on these tablets the words that were on the first tablets which you broke."

So the second set of laws was the same as the first set.


What is the origin of the interpretation of the Song of Solomon as a picture for Christ and the Church? For today's average Christian, it is commonplace to read Song of Solomon as a prophetic picture of Christ, as the Bridegroom, and the Church, as the Bride.
But where did this view have its beginning? Who was the first early writer to interpret the book Song of Solomon as a prophetic picture of the relationship between Christ and the Church, and not only between God the Father and Israel?
I've heard that Origen wrote something on that matter, but I couldn't find any reliable source.
Edit
I've checked out Ann Matter's The Voice of My Beloved: The Song of Songs in Western Medieval Christianity and R. A. Norris's The Song of Songs: Interpreted by Early Christian and Medieval Commentators and found that Gregory of Elvira and John Cassian were maybe the first ones to systematize this view to the whole book of Songs, while earlier writters had this insight into one verse or another.
But I had a hard time finding a further reference to their writings.

Related question: What is the basis for the idea that the Song of Solomon is about the relationship between God and the church?

Origen indeed suggested this connection, in his Commentary on the Song of Songs (~AD 245):

  This book seems to me an epithalamium, that is, a wedding song, written by Solomon in the form of a play, which he recited in the character of a bride who was being married and who burned with a heavenly love for her bridegroom, who is the Word of God. And deeply indeed did she love Him, whether we take her as the soul made in His image, or as the Church. (Prologue)

However, Tertullian is probably earlier (~AD 210), as he quotes Song of Solomon 4:8 in connection with Christ and the Church in Against Marcion:

  This spouse Christ invites home to Himself also by Solomon from the call of the Gentiles, because you read: "Come with me from Lebanon, my spouse." [...] it was from idolatry that He betrothed Himself the church. (Book IV)

But the big winner is Ignatius (d. ~AD 100), as he quotes Song of Solomon 1:3–4 in the Epistle to the Ephesians:

  For this end did the Lord suffer the ointment to be poured upon His head, that His Church might breathe forth immortality. For saith [the Scripture], “Thy name is as ointment poured forth; therefore have the virgins loved Thee; they have drawn Thee; at the odour of Thine ointments we will run after Thee.” (Chapter XVII)


Is there any place in the Bible that Jesus Himself claims that all believers are members of His Body? Is there any place in the Bible where Jesus Himself claims that all believers are members of His Body? Or is it something that we only know from His apostles?

I mean we can infer this thought from such words of Jesus like "I am the vine and you are the branches" or "if the grain of wheat dies, it will bring a of of fruit, however, Jesus also spoke about His body at the last supper, so He might have said something about His believers being members of His Body even prior to His crucifixion.

Unless you do not consider Paul's testimony of his conversion as Jesus's direct claim, then no, as the disciples are not ready yet to receive such revelation.

When Saul was persecuting the church, on his way to Damascus, the Lord Jesus asked him, "Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting Me?" (Acts 9:4). The Lord’s word was quite strange. He did not say, "Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting My disciples," but "Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting Me?" He did not say, "Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting My church,” but “Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting Me?"

This showed and impressed Paul that the church and Christ are one. Christ is saying "When you [Paul] persecuted My followers, you persecuted My Body. To persecute My Body is to persecute Me." Therefore, the "Me" in 9:4 is corporate, comprising the Lord Jesus and all His believers.

Saul's experience of the corporate Me, Christ and the Body, must have made a deep impression on him and affected his future ministry regarding Christ and the church. That experience laid the foundation for his ministry.

EDIT: WE can and should infer from John 15 and 12:24 that there is a perichoretic union between Christ and the believers. Which is similar to the reality of Christ's relationship with His member of His Body.

George E. Ladd comments:

  The idiom of abiding is usually called mysticism, but it is difficult
  to define. There is a mutual abiding of the believer in Christ (16:56;
  14:20, 21; 15:5; 17:21) and Christ in the believer (6:56; 14:20, 23;
  15:5; 17:23, 26). This is analogous to the Son abiding in the Father
  (10:38, 14:10, 11, 20, 21; 17:21) and the Father abiding in the Son
  (10:38, 14:10, 11, 21; 17:21, 23). Once it is said that believers are in both
  the Father and the Son (17:21); and once it is said that both Father
  and Son will come to make their abode in believers (Theology of the New Testament)

G.B. Verify boldly says the meaning of "abide" is "coninherence", the synonyms for "perichoresis" (Life in Christ).


Is a moral society more open to the gospel than an immoral one? One of the answers to Why do many Christians object to same-sex civil marriage? got me thinking.  If we work to make the common morals of our society more in line with Biblical morality does that make the members of our society more open to the gospel?

There's no doubt that an immoral society is more likely to be antagonistic or even hostile to the gospel.

We could argue that a moral society is more likely to be tolerant of the gospel, but then again that could turn into a real argument.  The Jewish society of Jesus's day was very moral, but it was the religious leaders (presumably with strong morals) that had Him killed.

As Christians, wouldn't our lives present a greater contrast to an immoral society? Wouldn't we stand out more in that setting and thereby attract more attention to the gospel as a real alternative to the status quo?

Members of a society with basically Christian morals won't see much difference between themselves and Christians.  Does that lack of contrast make them more or less likely to accept the gospel?

Note that by "accept the gospel", I'm thinking in evangelical terms of accepting by faith and being a "new creature" as Paul describes in 2 Corinthians 5:17:

  Therefore if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creature; the old things passed away; behold, new things have come.

The Jews of Jesus's time were not particularly moral; they were particularly moralistic.  They went to great lengths to put on outward appearances of piety, which repeatedly earned them the condemnatory epithet of "hypocrites!" from the Savior.  We get a pretty good sense of what they were like from the Gospels.  For example, using legalistic tricks to get out of caring for their parents by instead being able to (very visibly) donate the money to the temple, "and many such like things":

  Mark 7:8-13

  8 For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do.

  9 And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.

  10 For Moses said, Honour thy father and thy mother; and, Whoso curseth father or mother, let him die the death:

  11 But ye say, If a man shall say to his father or mother, It is Corban, that is to say, a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; he shall be free.

  12 And ye suffer him no more to do ought for his father or his mother;

  13 Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.

Remember that by the end of Jesus's life, he'd become such an annoyance to the political rule of the various factions of Rabbis that they paid off a traitor to help apprehend him, explicitly sought for false witnesses to find a way to charge him, convicted him of blasphemy in a trial in which practically every point of procedure was illegal under Jewish law. Once he had been convicted of blasphemy, they wanted to put him to death, but only the Romans could enforce capital punishment, and as polytheists they didn't really have much of a concept of "blasphemy," so they had no compunction against hauling him before Roman authorities and changing his charge to the highest crime that Rome accepted: treason.  When he was interviewed by the Roman authority (Pilate) and found not guilty, they pressured him and even threatened to have him charged with treason by higher Roman authorities if he wouldn't play along.  (And historians suggest they'd have had a good chance of making the charges stick, so he had to give in to save his own hide.)

These were the people in charge of the "moral society" of Jews ~30 AD, making the rules and setting the example for the common people to follow.  Not a particularly good example of moral people, in my opinion.

As for standing out as an alternative to the status quo, yes, that's true, but the other side of that is that Christianity requires repentance, which involves changing one's ways.  It's one thing to say "wow, those Christians are really cool, I wish I could be like them," and another to actually sincerely try to give up all your sins, especially when it impacts your relationship with your friends and family.

  Matthew 19:29

  29 And every one that hath forsaken houses, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my name’s sake, shall receive an hundredfold, and shall inherit everlasting life.

Jesus didn't say this just to sound cool; he said it because it was a very real possibility of what might be required in order to truly live the Gospel.


Are Paul's letters to be taken as God's word? Sometimes, as I read the bible or listen to a speaker in church, I can't help but feel that while Paul's letters are full of well-grounded Christian wisdom and advice, they can also contain what seems to me like Paul's human opinions, as opposed to God's own word. I do believe Paul is a true apostle, spoken to by Jesus on the road to Damascus, and an important figure, but he's also just a human man, right?

For me, as a Christian, I would never question or disagree with the words spoken by Jesus in the Bible, no matter how challenging they are, or unpopular they can be in mainstream society. Really, I 100% accept them as the direct word of God, as part of His New Covenant.

But Jesus did not talk about every topic. While answers to the questions that really matter can be found in Jesus' words, the answers to every possible question cannot. And so, I often see an individual, or a church, or a whole denomination establish doctrines and views on certain topics solely by studying the words written by Paul (or other New Testament authors). But how can they be certain in these views, if it's Paul's word they are reading and not God's? How is it any different to reading the words of any other human being, past or present, and using them to form their doctrines?

I've come across the view that Paul's letters are God's word because in 2 Peter 3:14-16, they are referred to as Scripture. But that just begs the same question - who gave Peter the authority to define such a thing? He's human too.

I've also come across the view that Paul's experience on the road to Damascus was an act of validation by God of Paul's authority, and so Paul's letters can be seen a validated by God, and so practically God's own words. But surely that's an opinion - a supposition, not an unequivocal fact.

Some also say that Paul's letters were validated as God's word by the Council of Trent in the 16th century. But again, those guys were humans.

Some just have the faith that God must have intervened in the process of compiling The Bible over the centuries, and so we should assume everything in it is validated as God's own word. But again, Jesus never stated this, it's not a Commandment - it's a human supposition.

When I read Jesus' words in the Gospels, I believe I am reading the unquestionable Word of God.
When I read a Christian book by a modern author, I do so appreciating and learning from the wisdom and advice contained within, but I feel entitled to disagree (or at least not entirely agree) with any of the content.

So my question (and struggle) really is: when I read Paul's letters, should I treat them as (1) or (2) above?

The Apostle Peter certainly treated Paul's letters as God's word, elevating them to the status of written scripture:

  He [Paul] writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.

2 Peter 3:16, with my emphasis.


How does C.S Lewis come to the conclusion that Jesus is God? NO REASON TO CLOSE THIS QUESTION
The reason why this question is not opinion based, is because I am asking how C.S Lewis himself arrived to the conclusion of his dilemma. Because as it reads from this excerpt, his conclusion is arbitrary. Now, that's not to say that his decision truly is arbitrary, maybe there is something to be said about his decision from citations from his other works. But the question remains the same, I am asking it to be point outed how C.S Lewis himself came to this conclusion, there is no matter of opinion involved.
Now to the question itself:
Reading Mere Christianity by C.S Lewis, Lewis tries to go point by point from merely observing reality and our nature to arriving at the Christian God, so cutting to the chase -- he basically says that by observing ourselves we come to conclude that we are under an inescapable Moral Law of good and evil. He eventually goes on to say that this is evidence of a higher power, and eventually God, and evidently that this is a God that takes sides and espouses good, and so he narrows it down to Judaism, Christianity and Islam which are centered around a God that espouses moral laws of good and evil. This is where I start to really disagree with him, he narrows it down to say that it is Christianity to be chosen but he doesn't address why Judaism and Islam fitting his standards were unfitting candidates.
In any case, he goes on to say the following:

I am trying here to
prevent anyone saying the really fool-ish  thing  that  people  often
say  about  Him:  ‘I’m  ready  to  accept  Jesus  as  a  great  moral
teacher,  but  I  don’t  accept  His  claim  to  be  God.’  That  is
the  one  thing  we  must  not  say.  A  man who was merely a man and
said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher.
He would either be a lunatic—on  a  level  with  the  man  who  says
he  is  a  poached  egg—or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You
must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God: or
else a madman or something worse. You can shut Him up for a fool, you
can spit at Him and kill Him as a demon; or you can fall at His feet
and call Him Lord and God. But let us not come with any patronising
nonsense about His being a great human  teacher.  He  has  not  left
that  open  to  us.  He  did  not  intend to.
We are faced, then, with a frightening alternative. This man we are
talking about either was (and is) just what He said or else a lunatic,
or something worse. Now it seems to me obvious that He was neither a
lunatic nor a fiend: and consequently, how-ever  strange  or
terrifying  or  unlikely  it  may  seem,  I  have  to  accept the view
that He was and is God. God has landed on this enemy-occupied world in
human form.

C.S Lewis then goes on to his next point explaining the basics of Christian doctrine and theology, treating the matter established -- yet he has not. He gives us a dilemma, that Jesus is either a lunatic, truly God, or something worse, then says "how-ever strange or terrifying or unlikely it may seem, I have to accept the view that He was and is God" then treats it as a closed cased, but hold on, why do we come to say that he is God simply like that if he could also be a lunatic or something worse? He made this huge leap in his argument without giving any valid reasons, yet he simultaneously acknowledges that it is strange, terrifying, and unlikely.
So why does C.S Lewis conclude that Jesus is God?

why do we come to say that he is God simply like that if he could also be a lunatic or something worse?

Lewis, at this point in the book, is arguing against a specific view of Jesus - namely that he was a wise man, a good man, a great teacher - but not God! It's a widely held view among people who haven't looked closely at the Gospels, and it's a convenient one for people who want to acknowledge Jesus as an ideal, but either don't want to accept the supernatural or acknowledge Jesus as their Lord . So Lewis isn't looking to refute the "lunatic" or "fiend" viewpoints in that section. Neither is he looking to produce a "mathematical" proof.
So the point of the section of the book is that only three views of Jesus are reasonable. Which one you choose is left to other parts of the book, and the reader's own investigations.
As he says:

It seems to me obvious that he is neither a lunatic or a fiend.

He has read up about Jesus, both the stories of his life and what others have thought of him, and come to the conclusion that "lunatic" and "devil" are both off the table. Most people, even those who don't believe Jesus is God, would probably agree.


According to Catholicism, is it wrong to joke about holy things? Is it okay to joke around about Jesus, Holy Scriptures, and other holy things? Is it okay to perform plays where Jesus is portrayed in funny ways in order to get others interested in the Catholic Faith?

My opinion is that it is obviously something bad, but I am interested in the explanation of why it is wrong? Also, it seems to me that to prove such conduct is bad, it will be necessary to use the definition of what a joke is, and show that when some holy thing is involved in it, that such a moral action is bad. Also, I am interested in examples of saints that denounce such action.

I am interested in the Catholic viewpoint.

Is it wrong to joke about holy things?
The short answer is no, as long as the Sacred is maintained and no blasphemy is committed.
Telling jokes about about the Scriptures, Jesus, Mary, the sacraments and so on, may possibly be permitted in Catholicism. But in all things the sacred must be maintained and blasphemy must be avoided.
The basis for this attitude can be found in the Scriptures. For example, God clearly commands us to respect Him in the Ten Commandments:

You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain, for the Lord will not hold him guiltless who takes his name in vain. - Ex. 20:70
You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain, for the LORD will not hold him guiltless who takes his name in vain. - Deut. 5:11

More specifically, as regards the Holy Eucharist, St. Paul admonishes the faithful in his first letter to the Corinthians:

Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty concerning the body and blood of the Lord. Let a person examine himself, then, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment on himself. - 1 Cor. 11:27-29

The sacredness, even in jokes has not to be seen as being disrespected. In fact, disrespecting the Sacred could be considered a kind of blasphemy. The Catechism explains:

Blasphemy is directly opposed to the second commandment. [In the usual Catholic numbering, which follows St. Augustine, that is the Commandment against using the Lord’s name in vain.] It consists in uttering against God—inwardly or outwardly—words of hatred, reproach, or defiance; in speaking ill of God; in failing in respect toward him in one’s speech; in misusing God’s name. … The prohibition of blasphemy extends to language against Christ’s Church, the saints, and sacred things. … Blasphemy is contrary to the respect due God and his holy name. It is in itself a grave sin (No. 2148).

To joke about Jesus, Sacred Scripture and other holy subjects may be permitted, as long as the sacredness of the subject is maintained and no blasphemy is committed. This also goes for story telling and making puns.
My favourite story of Mgr Roncalli, who went on to become Pope John XIII (known also as the Good Pope) although not the best in this situation, does show where I am going.

Msgr. Angelo Roncalli once found himself seated at a banquet next to a woman who was dressed with little regard for the virtue of modesty. Others observed him, wondering how he would deal with his predicament, given his moral convictions and his reputation for diplomacy.
After the dinner, Msgr. Roncalli took an apple and offered it to the woman in question. She declined his offer. Nonetheless, he persisted in his offer, to the point that the woman asked why he was so interested in having her eat the fruit. He responded with a twinkle in his eye, “Because when Eve ate an apple, she realized she was naked.”
Msgr. Roncalli went on to become Pope John XXIII — now Blessed John XXIII. It’s not known what happened to the woman. - The Secret of Modesty

Here is a joke.

What is the favourite baseball team?
The Cardinals?
No, it is the Angels. He has more confidence in them!


How is modern day Christian morality reconciled with the morality of the Bible? Morality changes over time
Morality is not a constant; what a group of people finds to be morally acceptable or morally unacceptable evolves over time, generally because of an increased understanding or awareness, and generally this occurs (we like to think) in a more progressive, positive direction. Note: it is irrelevant whether our moral views have or have not progressed in positive direction; all that matters is that it has changed.
For example, 100 years ago (and still to some extent today), many white people (Christians included) believed that blacks were an "inferior race". Before that, slavery was considered acceptable in many parts of the world. Before that, the mistreatment and subjugation of women was acceptable. Today, there are still people who think it's wrong to be homosexual, and I'm sure as with the others those views will fall more a more out of favor.
The Bible doesn't change
But as you know, the Bible is static; it's words don't change and it is never updated. The lessons it gives are supposed to be independent of the time or age you are born in. But it is quite clear from reading the Bible that some of passages espouse a morality that is no longer accepted today. How is this reconciled with today's views?
For example, imagine a father reading portions of the Bible to his son back in 1610. He comes to Leviticus 27:3-7:

Set the value of a male between the ages of twenty and sixty at fifty
shekels of silver, according to the sanctuary shekel; 4 for a
female, set her value at thirty shekels; 5 for a person between the
ages of five and twenty, set the value of a male at twenty shekels
and of a female at ten shekels; 6 for a person between one month
and five years, set the value of a male at five shekels of silver
and that of a female at three shekels of silver; 7 for a person
sixty years old or more, set the value of a male at fifteen shekels
and of a female at ten shekels.

This father would have just told his son that women are worth less than men. Back in 1610, that might have been an acceptable moral view, so he thinks nothing of it. But zoom forward to 2012: a father reads the same passage to his son. Surely he must say something about that passage, lest he wants his so to think women inferior.
Should you choose to personally re-interpret this passage as being morally acceptable, that's fine, but there are numerous other passages in the Bible which suitably demonstrate my point just as well. For example, it's generally understood in the modern world that beating our children with a rod (Proverbs 13:24, 20:30, 23:13-14) is a little... "Old Testament", to say the least. Even if you still think beating your children is okay, I doubt you think it's okay to kill them if they talk back (Leviticus 20:9, Deuteronomy 21:18-21, Mark 7:9-13, Matthew 15:4-7, Exodus 21:17). I doubt most of you still support slavery, which is supported in both the Old and the New Testaments (Matthew 10:24/24:45-46, Ephesians 6:5, 1 Timothy 6:1-4), or find it okay to give your daughter as a slave ("maidservant" in some of the prettier editions). Let's be real here, there are passages in the Bible which contain morally questionable messages; this isn't a bold claim.
Since most Christians seem to be normal, decent people, what's going on here?
I honestly just don't know because my own parents—while religious—never even tried to explain the Bible to me. In fact, my parents for the most part completely dismissed the Bible, and engaged in Christianity in a more organic, "everyday positive lessons" manner. But for those who actually take the time to sit down and read the Bible, whether in Church or at home, what do you do when you come across passages such as these? Do you simply pass them off as historical relics of a long-expired moral past, or do you try to justify it as some sort of metaphor that accords with our beliefs today?

Biblical Christianity has not changed in its definition of morality and will never change, since it is based on the Bible, which, as you pointed out, does not change.

However, there is an  important distinction between Gentile believers and the Old Testament Jewish Law.  The Law was a specific covenant with a specific people for a specific time, but it was a shadow of things to come.

While the New Testament did not usher in a differing morality, the ceremonial law was no longer in effect, and it was never applicable to Gentiles.

According to Biblical Christianity, adultery, theft, lying, deceit, slander, gossip, malice, lust, profanity, pride and homosexuality have always been immoral and will always be immoral.

The passage regarding women, as X-Zero pointed out, has to do with the value that each gender could contribute in an agrarian society.  Having grown up on a farm myself and being 6'4" 250+ lbs., I have no problem stating today that men still are much more suited to hard physical labor and are, consequently, more productive.  In fact, my perspective is that I as a man should perform very laborious tasks (and very dirty task as well), so that women don't have to.  Equality does not mean equivalence.  Man != Woman.  So, this is not an antiquated passage.  The principle still holds today.  If you could hire me or a typical 5'6" 1xx lb. woman to work in your fields, you would likely offer me more money, since my capacity and production in your fields would be much greater.  Yet, if you could hire me or a woman for a job that is not labor-intensive, then you might offer the woman more if she is more qualified, more experienced, or just does a better job.   So, this example is really a moot point.


What was John Wesley's view on Original Sin? John Wesley was a supporter of free will and in opposition to Calvinism which taught predestination... What was his view on Original sin since by logic the baby is predestined to sin by just being born, no free will?

For Wesley and other Arminians, original sin is not a matter of predestination but of human nature.

In his sermon Original Sin, Wesley states:

  The Scripture avers, that "by one man's disobedience all men were constituted sinners;" that "in Adam all died," spiritually died, lost the life and the image of God; that fallen, sinful Adam then "begat a son in his own likeness;" -- nor was it possible he should beget him in any other; for "who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean?" -- that consequently we, as well as other men, were by nature "dead in trespasses and sins," "without hope, without God in the world," and therefore "children of wrath;" that every man may say, "I was shapen in wickedness, and in sin did my mother conceive me;" that "there is no difference," in that "all have sinned and come short of the glory of God," of that glorious image of God wherein man was originally created.

According to Wesley, our free will (which he calls "self-will") is inherently sinful. We have a choice of following God's will or our own. When we choose to exercise our own will, we turn our back on the will of God.

  Satan has stamped his own image on our heart in self-will also. "I will," said he, before he was cast out of heaven, "I will sit upon the sides of the north;" I will do my own will and pleasure, independently on that of my Creator. The same does every man born into the world say, and that in a thousand instances; nay, and avow it too, without ever blushing upon the account, without either fear or shame. Ask the man, "Why did you do this?" He answers, "Because I had a mind to it." What is this but, "Because it was my will;" that is, in effect, because the devil and I agreed; because Satan and I govern our actions by one and the same principle. The will of God, mean time, is not in his thoughts, is not considered in the least degree.


What kind of Elijah did the Jews expect? In Malachi 4:5 we find:

  See, I will send you the prophet Elijah before that great and dreadful day of the LORD comes.

From this verse and possibly also because Elijah had been, like Enoch, resurrected into heaven without dying, the Jews clearly expected him to come before Messiah.  What sort of Elijah were they expecting?

I am specifically looking for a Jewish perspective as viewed under an Evangelical view to help understand and provide background to passages in the gospels that mention the fulfillment.

In other words how does the actual appearance of Elijah differ from what they expected?

Some Jewish history explains that neither Enoch nor Elijah had sinned, and accordingly they did not die. The traditional expectation and view of Elijah were different from John the Baptist.

First, Elijah was someone who was always working for the church.

According to one Jewish historian “from the time of his appearance in the days of Ahab to that of his return as the forerunner of the Messiah” Elijah’s relationship to Israel is represented “as continuous, and that he is almost constantly introduced on the scene, either as in converse with some Rabbi, or else as busy about Israel’s welfare, and connected with it.” ('The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah', by Alfred Edersheim)

With respect to his final ‘coming’ he was supposed to come very closely before the Messiah. However Elijah was not supposed to come in ‘spirit and power’ but in person, in his flesh. He was to have a similar but lesser role to that of Messiah. For example, just as with the Messiah (see this post for what they expected of Messiah) Elijah was “to appear, then to disappear and to appear again in the wars of Gog and Magog” (Seder Olam Rabbah.7.). But after Elijah would discharge his peculiar functions along side of the Messiah, everything else fell under the work of the Messiah only.

Regarding Elijah’s close relationship with Messiah he was to appear suddenly, not on a Sabbath or feast-day, possibly “three days before the Messiah” (Yalkut, vol. 2)

This verse leads to an interesting expectation:

  How beautiful on the mountains are the feet of those who bring good news, who proclaim peace, who bring good tidings, who proclaim salvation, who say to Zion, "Your God reigns!" (Isaiah 52:7)

On the first of those three days, “Elijah would stand on the mountains of Israel, lamenting the desolateness of the land, his voice being heard from one end of the world to the other, after which he would proclaim: ‘Peace’ cometh to the world; ‘peace’ cometh to the world! Similarly on the second day he would proclaim, ‘Good’ cometh to the world; ‘good’ cometh to the world! Lastly, on the third day, he would, in the same manner as the two previous days, make proclamation: ‘Jeshuah6423 (salvation) cometh to the world; Jeshuah (salvation) cometh to the world,’” ('The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah', by Alfred Edersheim)

Conclusion: Although the differences are substantial, it further conforms that prophecy was never meant to be absolutely understood, but did provide a certain level of expectation that would be satisfied and more fully explained, when the event actually took place.

For understanding the conflicting ambiguity and uncertainty of prophecy my recent addition to this post.


Vatican approved miracles? Does Vatican (or Holy See) publish the miracles it has approved? I'm seeking a list of currently approved miracles (any kind, really, including apparitions, eucharistic miracles and so on). I was, however, unable to find an official source.
This is all I've come up with: Marian Apparitions.
This is not enough:

firstly because it's hard to tell which are Catholic Church approved (and, under Vatican approved tab there are only 15 of them listed [which seems a bit low to me])
secondly, because under different tabs, there's an occasional duplication
thirdly, it's not an official source

Edit:
I am looking for that kind of miracles, that are marked as worthy of belief ("Constat de supernaturalitate") see here.

There is not a complete list or database of approved Vatican miracles, because miracles (or presumed miracles) are checked and approved for specific reasons. For example, if you search "miracles approved for John Paul II beatification" you'll find some result, or "miracles from Lourdes".
Miracles are generally announced when a miracle has been accepted by the Holy Father. Many of them at that time are published, but not all. There is no requirement for this in Canon Law.
The bishop of my diocese was member of Congregatio de Causis Sanctorum, and he studied a lot of presumed miraculous healings. Some time ago, I asked him about it. He told me that the "approving-miracle-procedure" is very long and complicated, but it follows 7 rules written by Pope Benedict XIV:

The disease must be serious (not a flu, or a cold, or a simple fever)
The diagnosis must be certified (there must be no doubt that the disease exists)
It must be "organic" (I'm not sure of what it means... I should ask more)
No known therapy can explain the healing
The healing must be instant and unexpected
The healing must be complete
The healing must be definitive

To satisfy that points, the Congragatio asks medical experts who don't know that they are searching for a miracle. See this BBC article for more information.
Since there is no database of Vatican approved miracles, one has to read about the specific miracle approved for each case of beatification and/or canonization. In rare cases the miracle that is approved for a specific case is not published, usually at the request of the recipient, who wish not to be publicly known.


What is God's definition of forgiveness? I have wrestled with this topic for years and have come to all sorts of conclusions along the way. Please, I'm searching for what others perceive is God's definition of forgiveness.

If we are wronged terribly by someone, is it "ok" if there is always a bit of us that is guarded when it comes to talking/thinking/interacting with that person?

We may not feel anger or wish them any harm, but as a human being it sometimes feels almost impossible to forget the hurt that has been caused by someone else.

Jesus said to be "as wise as serpents, but as gentle as lambs.". Being a Christian does not mean checking our brains at the door when it comes to interacting with the world. Indeed, we are often called to be "discerning."

My interpretation of that word is this - forgiveness doesn't mean forgetfulness.

We can still be guarded when dealing with others, and if they are looking like they are truly changing, give them more trust. When John Mark left Paul, for example, Paul initially said not to trust him. It wasn't until the end of his ministry that Paul changed his mind, mostly on the evidence of a track record.

Forgiveness would imply giving people a chance to make amends - to be different - but it doesn't imply an open invitation for somebody to demand trust that is not warranted by their behavior.


When did Jesus send the Holy Spirit? I've always assumed that the Holy Spirit did not make his presence known amongst men until Pentecost.  Famously, in Acts 2, the Spirit descends upon the first believers, gives them power of speech, and adds tremendously to their power.

Jesus clearly foretells the coming of the Holy Spirit in Acts 1 - just before he ascends into heaven - saying:

  But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes on you; and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth.” After he said this, he was taken up before their very eyes, and a cloud hid him from their sight.

That Jesus must go away before the Holy Spirit comes is attested to in John 16:7

  But very truly I tell you, it is for your good that I am going away. Unless I go away, the Advocate will not come to you; but if I go, I will send him to you.

All of this fit my narrative neatly, thinking, okay - Jesus takes center stage until He returns to the Father, at which point the Holy Spirit comes onto the scene with tongues of fire and such.  Sure, he may have "descended on Jesus like a dove" at Jesus' baptism, but he was pretty much quiet in the affairs of men. And indeed, as an eternal pre-existent being much like Jesus, I assume he was around, just not so much involved in the day to day affairs of men.

But then, I listened closely to the lectionary this week. I heard something in John 20:22 that I was not expecting.  After Jesus appeared to his disciples, after the resurrection, he said:

  And with that he breathed on them and said, “Receive the Holy Spirit."

This seemingly contrasts with a non-involved Holy Spirit.  I thought that Pentecost was the "firstfruits of the spirit," the first time the Holy Spirit deigned to dwell amongst men.  Am I off my rocker, or am I missing something?

In others - was

a. Pentecost supposed to be the first appearance of the Holy Spirit, or
b. am I just making up the idea that Pentecost was supposed to be the first outpouring of the Spirit?

If (a), how is John 20:22 reconciled?  If (b) how could the Holy Spirit come in light of John 16:7?

In other words, when did Jesus send the Spirit, and how does it fit with the external witness?

The meaning of John 20:22 is clear in its context:

19 On the evening of that first day of the week, when the disciples were together, with the doors locked for fear of the Jewish leaders, Jesus came and stood among them and said, “Peace be with you!” 20 After he said this, he showed them his hands and side. The disciples were overjoyed when they saw the Lord.
21 Again Jesus said, “Peace be with you! As the Father has sent me, I am sending you.” 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.” John 20:19-23 (Bold added)

The disciples were alone with each other. Not only that they were hiding from the public and those that would kill them. Jesus appears before them then address them, specifically. Jesus sent the holy spirit on them only.
Again in John 16:7 Jesus is addressing the disciples only. He goes on further to say that the disciples will not be able to be effective without the Spirit because the disciples alone do not know the Truth of which Jesus was speaking.

13 But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all the truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come. John 16:13

The disciples were incapable of building up the church without the Holy Spirit. Peter was incapable of delivering likely the most convincing testimony ever in Acts two without the Holy Spirit. They were "pierced to the heart." The exact dwelling of the Holy Spirit. It was at that moment that the Holy Spirit was "outpoured" on the people. It was freely given from that moment forward. The times before this moment it was necessary to be given to some so that hearts may be pierced and the whole world might believe.

So in specific answer to your questions:
A: No, Pentecost was not the first "appearance" of the Holy Spirit. That is clearly shown in the Scripture. It was, however, the first outpouring. Pentecost marks the day that the Holy Spirit was freely given to any who might believe.
B: It seems so. There is much evidence that the Holy Spirit was quite active and always has been, but only for certain persons. As Luke Ritchie has already said, this study shows that well, from the Spirit giving life in Genesis to It guiding the prophets. One thing to note is that The Spirit only does what is commanded by the Father and subsequently Jesus, too.

14 [The Holy Spirit] will glorify me because it is from me that he will receive what he will make known to you. 15 All that belongs to the Father is mine. That is why I said the Spirit will receive from me what he will make known to you. John 16:14-15

With this, one might interpret that God and Jesus almost always act through the Holy Spirit. A notable exception would be Moses.


Who is Mammon whom Jesus warned of in Sermon of the Mount? In the beautiful sermon of the mount Jesus said (Matthew 6)" None is able to serve two lords, for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will hold to the one, and despise the other; ye are not able to serve God and Mammon".

Who is really Mammon?

From Wikipedia

  Scholars do not agree about its etymology, but it is theorized that Mammon derives from Late Latin mammon, from Greek "μαμμωνάς", Syriac mámóna ("riches"), Aramaic mamon ("riches, money"), a loanword from Mishnaic Hebrew 'ממון (mmôn) meaning money, wealth, or possessions;[8] although it may also have meant "that in which one trusts".

And Gregory of Nyssa calls Mammon the evil one:

  My Brethren, what is the force of these words? It seems to me that the Lord names the evil one in many varying and differing ways according to his evil operations [lit. energies]. Thus, He calls him the "devil" (diabolos-false accuser), "Beelzebub," Mammon," "prince of this world," "man killer," "evil one," "father of lies," and other similar names. Perhaps, then, another name for him is also "temptation" (Gr. peirasmos).


How does Jesus' death and resurrection save humanity? Time and again we hear that Christ died for our sins, or that Christ died so that we could be saved. But I've never understood how exactly the two are connected? In what way does the death of Christ benefit us, or lead to our salvation?

Update

This may be asking too much, but what I'm really looking for is the rationalization (essentially, God's reasoning) behind it. @Mawia and @Malachi have both offered very good and very thorough answers, but neither really addresses what I'm really looking for (most likely because I haven't explained that well enough).

The answers have provided great references to scripture to show that sinless blood is consistently required to atone for sins, and that man is in a perpetual state of sin, therefore atonement is required. But I get stuck on the first part: why does someone without sin need to be punished in order to atone for another person's sins? I understand Christ sacrificed Himself, He chose to pay for our sins, and that's important because it shows His love for all of us. But it doesn't explain why sacrificing something that is sinless is even acceptable, let alone a suitable payment for sins.

Just to answer @PeterTurner's point: I'm open to any answer from a learned Christian perspective: the important thing to me is that it explains some reasoning behind it, even if that reasoning is not universal among Christians.

The atonement theology is a complicated one to explain. To the believers, it is a simple acceptance of one's imperfection and the sacrifice of Jesus Christ the perfect one to render us perfect in the eyes of God. To the unbelievers, it is foolishness that God would become human to die for their sins.

  For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are
  perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. (1
  Corinthians 1:18, NIV)

Some facts from the Bible,

The wages of sin is death (Romans 6:23)
All have sinned (Romans 3:23)
All must die because all have sinned (Romans 5:12)

"Sin entered the world through one man"
Sin is like a deadly disease which infected the first man Adam and the effect continued down to all generations. There was no death before the fall of man in the garden of Eden. When Adam and Eve disobeyed God and ate the fruit from the tree in the middle of the garden, sin entered the world and death along with it, for the wages of sin is death. Man is now sinful and cannot be with God.

  Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death
  through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all
  sinned. (Romans 5:12, NIV)

"The blood of Christ is the remedy for sins"
Man cannot create a cure from sin. Man cannot do anything to stop sinning. Only God can cure us from our sickness. The medicine to cure sin and death is the Blood of Jesus Christ the Son of God. Only the blood of Christ can cleanse us from all sins.

  But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship
  with one another, and the blood of Jesus, his Son, purifies us from
  all sin. (1 John 1:7, NIV)

"Christ died for us" Jesus Christ not only poured out His blood but also gave His life. The death penalty of sin was also paid by Jesus by dying on the cross.

  But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still
  sinners, Christ died for us. (Romans 5:8, NIV)

"Christ defeated death" After receiving the death penalty, Jesus again rose from the death to declare victory over death. The resurrection of Christ enables us to share in His resurrection.

  And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is
  your faith. (1 Corinthians 15:14, NIV)

  For if we have been united with him in a death like his, we will
  certainly also be united with him in a resurrection like his. (Romans
  6:5, NIV)

"We will be resurrected like Christ" The main purpose of the death and resurrection of Christ is that, one day we will be resurrected like Christ to live forever with God and there will be no more death. God will cleanse us from all our sins by the blood of Christ and we will be transformed to immortality.

  Listen, I tell you a mystery: We will not all sleep, but we will
  all be changed— in a flash, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last
  trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, the dead will be raised
  imperishable, and we will be changed. For the perishable must
  clothe itself with the imperishable, and the mortal with immortality.
  When the perishable has been clothed with the imperishable, and the
  mortal with immortality, then the saying that is written will come
  true: “Death has been swallowed up in victory.”
   “Where, O death, is your victory?
      Where, O death, is your sting?” (1 Corinthians 15:51-55, NIV)

"Why does someone without sin need to be punished in order to atone for another person's sins?" It's not only the punishment that plays the main role here.

It's the blood of Christ which can wash away our sins and make us perfect like Jesus Christ.
It's the resurrection of Christ which gives us victory over death.
It's the wounds of Christ which give us healing.
It's the punishments received by Christ which liberates us from the eternal punishment of Hell.

The whole idea is,

"You cannot save yourself from sin and death, you need God to do that for you".


Does Scripture mention whether it rained before the flood? I've often heard it said that the flood of Noah was the first time that the earth experienced rain. This is the passage people use:

  Genesis 2:5-6 ESV When no bush of the field was yet in the land and no small plant of the field had yet sprung up—for the Lord God had not caused it to rain on the land, and there was no man to work the ground, and a mist was going up from the land and was watering the whole face of the ground

Is this saying that it didn't rain at all until Noah's time, or just in the creation week? The flood didn't happen for over 1000 years after creation--that's a lot of time to not have any rain. Is there more scripture that adds credence to the argument that there was no rain before the flood? Is there scripture that says otherwise?

In support of the idea that it did not rain is the very next verse:

Genesis 2:6

  But a mist went up from the earth and watered the whole face of the
  ground.

No further mention is made of rain until the Flood account. Anything beyond this is conjecture on our part.


Who was the Christian missionary who helped reform English Missions? I recall reading a biography of a Christian missionary who(after some difficulty, to be sure) arrived in the country he was preparing to serve. Upon arrival, however, he was appalled by the missionaries already there. they lived in a fenced and gated community and basically played the days away, remaining quite English and even owning slaves, I think I recall. The missionary in question rebuked them and left their gated community. He was one of the first missionaries to dress like the people and preach in their language. He lived like them and was a good missionary.

Who was this reforming missionary?
I do not know the exact country, but I'm fairly sure a sea-bordering country in Asia, such as Burma, or Thailand, etc.

Hudson Taylor for sure.

Have a read of this very short biography in Christianity Today

http://www.christianitytoday.com/ch/131christians/missionaries/htaylor.html