According to Catholic exorcists, does the Devil hate Catholic Church prayers said in Latin? According to Catholic exorcists, does the Devil really hate Catholic Church prayers said in Latin?

I just attended a talk by the exorcist for diocese of San Jose, Fr Gary Thomas. He is the subject of a book and a film called The Rite, starring Anthony Hopkins. (The talk was organized by a group called Catholics at Work.)
First, he was a great speaker. He described how almost by accident, and after 20 years as a parish priest, he found himself sent to Rome to learn how to perform the Rite of Exorcism. He was very clear in saying that, in his opinion, the recent rise in interest in New Age paganism has opened the door to adherence to the occult for greater numbers of people than before, which in turn opens the way to diabolical possession. He has always been inundated with requests, even before the publicity.
The fact that he described these things pretty much in the same straightforward, matter-of-fact way that one might describe what goes on in a marriage or baptism in a parish RCIA class only served to reinforce the truth of it all for me. And I would say that if anything is to increase your faith, it is listening to accounts of how the Church overcomes the effects of possession by the devil and demons, and the suffering of those poor people who are affected by them.
I wanted to pass on one little comment that he made almost in passing. I do not know where he stands liturgically in regard to the Mass - there was nothing in what he said that led me to believe that he celebrates the Latin Mass, for example. However, he did explain that the Rite of Exorcism is only said in Latin. One reason is practical - there is no approved translation in English as yet. He gave another reason why he was so strongly in favor of the use of Latin in the Rite of Exorcism: “The Devil hates Latin, it is the universal language of the Church.” I asked him about this afterwards, and he repeated it, saying that his personal experiences as an exorcist who has performed many, many exorcisms have convinced him of this. He told me he had heard from exorcists who did exorcisms in Italian, Spanish and Portuguese (the only approved vernaculars for this Rite) that Latin was the most effective language. - Does the Devil hate Catholic Church prayers said Latin?

What I'm looking for?
Is there any biblical references to support this or have any traditions put a truth in these assertions... perhaps there are some personal encounters or testimonies that may support this and acknowledge the validity of this assertions.

There are no biblical references as to why Catholic exorcists say that Latin is hated by the Devil. Many Catholic priests who are exorcists have made this claim (statement). But I imagine that exorcists in the Eastern Rite Churches (Catholic or otherwise), have the Devil saying the same about their traditional liturgical languages also.

Here is what one article has to say on this subject:

  I wanted to pass on one little comment that he made almost in passing. I do not know where he stands liturgically in regard to the Mass - there was nothing in what he said that led me to believe that he celebrates the Latin Mass, for example. However, he did explain that the Rite of Exorcism is only said in Latin. One reason is practical - there is no approved translation in English as yet. He gave another reason why he was so strongly in favor of the use of Latin in the Rite of Exorcism: “The Devil hates Latin, it is the universal language of the Church.” I asked him about this afterwards, and he repeated it, saying that his personal experiences as an exorcist who has performed many, many exorcisms have convinced him of this. He told me he had heard from exorcists who did exorcisms in Italian, Spanish and Portuguese (the only approved vernaculars for this Rite) that Latin was the most effective language. - The Devil Hates Latin, Says Exorcist

Until very recently (2014), an English translation of the rite of exorcism had not been approved by the Church. While the Vatican has approved translations of the rite in multiple languages, Latin seems to be the most effective during the course of exorcism. Thus Satan's hatred of Latin language.

Catholic exorcists are guarded in what they reveal about their exorcisms because as we all know that Satan is a liar from the beginning. Even in exorcisms, the priest will not readily believe the adversary and must not divulge too freely what was said in order to protect the identity of the victim.

  And it came to pass, when the evil spirit from God was upon Saul, that David took an harp, and played with his hand: so Saul was refreshed, and was well, and the evil spirit departed from him. - 1 Samuel 16:23

The famous exorcist for the diocese of Rome, Fr. Gabriele Amorth, stated in one of his books that as David liberated the soul of Saul from the Evil Spirit of Melancholy, so to the power of Gregorian Chant has a great help in liberating the demon from persons and homes.

As Satan hates Latin, so too he hates the Sacred Music of the Roman Rite. Gregorian Chant is sung uniquely in the language of the Church: Latin.

  Suffice to say, there is no sacred music in Hell.

  This is why the devil hates sacred music so much. It reaches the depths of our soul and raises us up to the Heaven. It should be no surprise to us when a parish’s sacred music program is single-handedly dismantled. He will do all he can to prevent us from hearing the Divine Voice of God. - Why the Devil Hates Sacred Music

Although there is no biblical references for to support this claim (in question), there have been some cases where the Devil has made like statements during the course of an exorcism to a Catholic priest (exorcist). But we must always remember the Devil is a liar. I have heard this from several exorcists. Thus it is more than just an old notion


How can repentance for our everyday sins lead to forgiveness? Repentance is not an 'easy way out' like a get-out-of-jail-free card. And doing bad things and planning to repent afterwards doesn't work, because that means you thought the things you were doing weren't really bad after all.
— @djclayworth earlier today (here)

We all do sins daily.
Lie, swear, watch pornography, use drugs, hurt people etc.
These sins are a part of many Christian's life.
Like the quote says, forgiveness does not work if you're planning to sin and then ask for forgiveness.
It would be hard to live without committing everyday sins, as we all do.
So does that mean no one can be forgiven?

Repentance = Changing

Repentance (μετανοεο 3340, a la Acts 2:38) involves a change of mind and heart. There's an implicit sincerity of heart when you do it. One cannot "plan on repenting later" because that's not what repentance is. It involves a rejection of the old way because you know it's wrong.

It doesn't mean that one never commits a sin that has been repented of, but it does mean that it cannot be committed again without incurring real and greater internal guilt.

If I told my friend that I had repented of hitting him and he forgave me, would I be free to hit him later when I got mad? What would he think? Could I punch him and not feel the pangs of guilt because I'm doing something that I know to be wrong and I'm betraying my own word to someone I love.

Jesus' Forgiveness is Continual

  1 John 1:7 (NASB)
  if we walk in the Light as He Himself is in the Light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus His Son cleanses us from all sin.

We have some assurance that Jesus will continually forgive us, but it requires something on our part in which we cannot in good conscience repeatedly commit the same sin and repent over and over.

God is Merciful ≠ We Have License to Sin

Just because God is merciful and is willing to forgive us when we confess and repent, that doesn't mean that a Christian can, in good conscience, continue sinning in the same fashion over and over.

  Romans 6:1 (NASB)
  Are we to continue in sin so that grace may increase? May it never be!

We are called to leave our sins behind.

In theory, I would say that tomorrow's sins ought to be different than today's. If we truly have repented of something, we cannot again do it without the damage to ourselves being greater. If I continue to do the same thing over and over again, I assert that I have not truly repented of it.


To what are the scriptures referring when they speak of the books of the "chronicles of the kings"? In the books of 1 and 2 Kings, there are quite a few places where the author refers to "the Book of the Chronicles of the Kings of Judah" or "the Book of the Chronicles of the Kings of Israel".

"Now the rest of the acts of Jeroboam, how he made war and how he reigned, behold, they are written in the Book of the Chronicles of the Kings of Israel.  1 Kings 14:19 NASB
Now the rest of the acts of Rehoboam and all that he did, are they not written in the Book of the Chronicles of the Kings of Judah? 1 Kings 14:29 NASB

Immediately following the books of 1 and 2 Kings are two books referred to as 1 and 2 Chronicles.  Are these the books to which 1 and 2 Kings refer or are they referring to other books that are not in the Bible and/or maybe lost to us?

The following books are referenced in the King James Version of the bible but are not found in that text.(source)

book of the Wars of the Lord (Num. 21:14);
book of Jasher (Josh. 10:13; 2 Sam. 1:18);
book of the acts of Solomon (1 Kgs. 11:41);
book of Samuel the seer (1 Chr. 29:29);
book of Gad the seer (1 Chr. 29:29);
book of Nathan the prophet (1 Chr. 29:29; 2 Chr. 9:29);
prophecy of Ahijah (2 Chr. 9:29);
visions of Iddo the seer (2 Chr. 9:29; 12:15; 13:22);
book of Shemaiah (2 Chr. 12:15);
book of Jehu (2 Chr. 20:34);
sayings of the seers (2 Chr. 33:19);
an epistle of Paul to the Corinthians, earlier than our present 1
Corinthians (1 Cor. 5:9);
possibly an earlier epistle to the Ephesians (Eph. 3:3);
an epistle to the Church at Laodicea (Col. 4:16);
and some prophecies of Enoch, known to Jude (Jude 1:14).

(Though you can of course look up each scripture to verify for yourself as a link has been provided for each.)

The Book of the Chronicles of the Kings of Judah is believed to be a record kept by the kings of Israel but it is not considered to be the books we know as 1 and 2 Chronicles.

Interestingly enough, this is pretty conclusive that our bible today isn't quite what it used to be, and that there are prophets (like Nathan and Shemaiah) that recorded the word of God, but that word has since been lost to us.


How did Cain and Abel know to offer sacrifices before the Law of Moses? Genesis 4 has always bothered me. The story of God accepting Abel's sacrifice and not Cain's has led me to wonder: How did they even know to sacrifice? Was this practice started by Adam? Or did God establish more of a law than just 'Don't eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil'? If God did establish further law then what was it and when did He establish it?

That's a very good question.  Clearly there are a lot of details missing from the earliest parts of the narrative.  Remember that Genesis is traditionally attributed to Moses, who led the Israelites out of Egypt and gave them the Law of Moses.  Storytellers tend to explain unfamiliar concepts and not waste time explaining familiar ones, so it's reasonable to infer that Adam and his family were under a commandment from God to offer sacrifices in a similar, if not identical, manner to the rules about sacrifices in the Law of Moses.  Beyond that, the Bible is unfortunately silent.


Could Jesus’ appearing before Pilate, Herod, and scourging happen in 3 hours? The time line is answered as seen in this answered question:

Can John's Passion chronology be reconciled with that of the Synoptics?

It seems most reasonable to me. Yet I am still left with the question how could Jesus appear before Pilate twice and also Herod and also be scourged and also carry His cross between 6 am   and 9 am?

Could Jesus’ appearing before Pilate, Herod, and scourging happen in 3 hours?

Historically speaking, it could be possible, but it is doubted by many.

The crucifixion of Jesus occurred in 1st-century Judea, most likely April 7, 30 AD or April 3, 33 AD. Jesus' crucifixion is described in the four canonical gospels, referred to in the New Testament epistles, attested to by other ancient sources, and is established as a historical event confirmed by non-Christian sources. There is no consensus among historians on the exact details.

According to Mark's Gospel, he endured the torment of crucifixion from the third hour, (between approximately 9 am and 3 pm).

  The Crucifixion of Jesus

  21 A certain man from Cyrene, Simon, the father of Alexander and Rufus, was passing by on his way in from the country, and they forced him to carry the cross. 22 They brought Jesus to the place called Golgotha (which means “the place of the skull”). 23 Then they offered him wine mixed with myrrh, but he did not take it. 24 And they crucified him. Dividing up his clothes, they cast lots to see what each would get.

  25 It was nine in the morning when they crucified him. 26 The written notice of the charge against him read: the king of the jews.

  27 They crucified two rebels with him, one on his right and one on his left. [28] [a] 29 Those who passed by hurled insults at him, shaking their heads and saying, “So! You who are going to destroy the temple and build it in three days, 30 come down from the cross and save yourself!” 31 In the same way the chief priests and the teachers of the law mocked him among themselves. “He saved others,” they said, “but he can’t save himself! 32 Let this Messiah, this king of Israel, come down now from the cross, that we may see and believe.” Those crucified with him also heaped insults on him.

  The Death of Jesus

  33 At noon, darkness came over the whole land until three in the afternoon. 34 And at three in the afternoon Jesus cried out in a loud voice, “Eloi, Eloi, lema sabachthani?” (which means “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?”). -
  Mark 15: 21-33

There are several details that are only mentioned in a single gospel account. For instance, only Matthew's gospel mentions an earthquake, resurrected saints who went to the city and that Roman soldiers were assigned to guard the tomb, while Mark is the only one to state the time of the crucifixion (the third hour, or 9 am - although it was probably as late as noon) and the centurion's report of Jesus' death. The Gospel of Luke's unique contributions to the narrative include Jesus' words to the women who were mourning, one criminal's rebuke of the other, the reaction of the multitudes who left "beating their breasts", and the women preparing spices and ointments before resting on the Sabbath. John is also the only one to refer to the request that the legs be broken and the soldier's subsequent piercing of Jesus' side (as fulfillment of Old Testament prophecy), as well as that Nicodemus assisted Joseph with burial.

Of all the Apostles of Our Lord, only St. John witnessed Jesus’ actual Crucifixion, thus his time frame may possibly be the most accurate. According to the Apostle St. John, Jesus was crucified at about noon.

  13 When Pilate therefore heard that saying, he brought Jesus forth, and sat down in the judgment seat in a place that is called the Pavement, but in the Hebrew, Gabbatha.

  14 And it was the preparation of the passover, and about the sixth hour: and he saith unto the Jews, Behold your King!

  15 But they cried out, Away with him, away with him, crucify him. Pilate saith unto them, Shall I crucify your King? The chief priests answered, We have no king but Caesar.

  16 Then delivered he him therefore unto them to be crucified. And they took Jesus, and led him away.

  17 And he bearing his cross went forth into a place called the place of a skull, which is called in the Hebrew Golgotha:

  18 Where they crucified him, and two other with him, on either side one, and Jesus in the midst.

  19 And Pilate wrote a title, and put it on the cross. And the writing was Jesus Of Nazareth The King Of The Jews.

  20 This title then read many of the Jews: for the place where Jesus was crucified was nigh to the city: and it was written in Hebrew, and Greek, and Latin. - John 19: 13-20

In any case, a nine AM time frame for the Crucifixion of Jesus is still physically possible.

  Jerusalem was 500 metres east to west, 1200 north to south.

  Annas and Caiaphas either occupied separate apartments in one building or had separate houses that shared one courtyard. (Compare John 18:12-27; Mark 14:53-72; Luke 22:54-71) Assuming this was near the Temple it was about 500 metres or five minutes walk from Gethsemene.

  Luke mentions 1 hour at the Annas/Caiaphas location (22:59) as only part of the time spent there. The Sanhedrin gathered at Caiaphas' house (Mark 14:53) and met formally to try Jesus "when day came" (Luke 22:66) "early in the morning" (Mark 15:1).

  Governor Pontius Pilate lived at Caesarea on the coast but went to Jerusalem during major festivals. The Antonia Fortress stood next to the Temple. But Pilate probably did not stay there but rather in the palace of Herod Antipas. (John 18:28) Herod was ruler of Galilee and had a palace in Jerusalem and was there at the time.

  Herod's palace was about 400 metres or 4 minutes walk from the Temple.

  The questioning of Jesus by Pilate could fit into half an hour, and by Herod less. Time is saved if messengers went ahead to announce Jesus was being brought.

  Whipping and mocking Jesus would require only minutes, perhaps 20. The cross or "tree" would have been ready-made rather than require felling while everyone waited.

  Jesus was crucified outside the city walls, probably outside the northern wall – several hundred metres from the Temple and perhaps 600 metres from Herod’s palace.

  The total distance from Gethsemane to the Crucifixion was about 1½ kilometres. - No Time or Distance Problem

Jerusalem at the Time of Jesus, 33 AD


How is the command to "Take it to the Church" interpreted in light of Protestant Ecclesiology? Matthew 18:15-18 (DRB) But if thy brother shall offend against thee, go, and rebuke him between thee and him alone. If he shall hear thee, thou shalt gain thy brother. And if he will not hear thee, take with thee one or two more: that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may stand. And if he will not hear them: tell the church. And if he will not hear the church, let him be to thee as the heathen and publican. Amen I say to you, whatsoever you shall bind upon earth, shall be bound also in heaven; and whatsoever you shall loose upon earth, shall be loosed also in heaven.

According to the understanding of ecclesiology among those Protestants who don't admit of any kind of 'Magisterium' with excommunicatory power or authority over a persons's belonging in the Body, how does 'two or three witnesses' from the church in fact differ from 'the church?'

As a baptist we refer to this as the Authonomy of the local church. We don't believe as the catholic in a hierarchical universal church, but we see the church as an assembly of saved and baptized bible believing based on the pattern of the family. We believe that the purpose of every local church is to evangelize (Acts 2:47), teach (Tit. 2:1-5), pray (Acts 2:42), ministry (Eph. 4:11-16; 5:19-21; Tit. 3:8, 14), worship (Acts 2:47), baptize (Acts 2:41) and disciple members (Matt. 18:15-20; 1 Cor. 5; 2 Cor. 2:5-11).

Every Local church is independent following the teaching in 1Pet 5:1-3 and  Acts 14:23 In which it is suggested that the pastor should look out for his flock.

In conclusion we don't believe in a higher up institution that will apply discipline but we believe that every local church apply discipline to its own members. As a family: You would not discipline the sons and daughter of your neighboor would you?


Complete list of versification differences in the Tanakh As already said in a question Jews and Gentiles versify the Tanakh (i.e., assign its chapters and verses) quite a bit different. I have been trying to find an exhaustive list of the verses that differ between the Jewish translations and the KJV.

Could somebody give the list or at least a link where the differing verses/chapters are exhaustively enumerated?
Thanks, I have been looking for it for a while.

Note: To avoid confusion. I am not asking for the difference in the books' order, but the differences in verse/chapter in the same books.

I have been working on some software which converts between different versification systems. As part of that, I have a file listing the various differences: transformations.data. There is no single "Jewish" translation, but I currently have included the NJPS. The JPS or Masoretic text probably have some differences elsewhere.

There is also a long JSON file detailing all the versification differences I'm aware of. I believe that "he_wlc" is the Leningrad codex, the source text of the standard BHS edition.

See also my page on Versification systems resources.


What is the origin of the "in sæcula sæculorum" of the «Gloria Patri» being translated as "world without end"? The Gloria Patri or "Minor Doxology" is, in Latin:

  Gloria Patri, et Filio, et Spiritui Sancto, sicut erat in principio, et nunc, et semper, et in sæcula sæculorum. Amen.

Who was the first to translate "in sæcula sæculorum" as "world without end"?

"Sæculum" can mean "generation, age, world, worldliness," so a more literal translation would be "into the ages of ages" or "generation after generation." To say "into worlds of words" makes little sense in this context. "World without end" makes even less sense. We Christians do not believe in an eternal world; the world will have an end.

The Vulgate Psalm 83:5 has saecula saeculorum, so I suppose a useful starting point would be an Anglo-Saxon psalter, as these did exist whereas vernacular Bibles didn't; but I can't find one online.

Wycliffe (around 1390) translated Ps 84:5† into Late Middle English as "into the worlds of worlds", which is a fairly literal rendering of the Latin.

Tyndale (1494–1536) didn't complete the Old Testament, but he translated Rev 1:6 (where the Vulgate again has saecula saeculorum) into Early Modern English as "for evermore".

The earliest readily-available English psalter after Tyndale is Myles Coverdale's (1537) who translates Ps 84:5 as "alway".

The Gloria Patri itself comes from the Hours of the Divine Office and would not have appeared in any English book before an English prayer book was mandated by the 1549 Act of Uniformity. The probable culprit for "world without end" is Cranmer, who prepared the Prayer Book of 1549.

† The different numbering comes from the Septuagint. This may indicate that the translation is closer to the Hebrew than the Latin.


Why is Ruth's child in the line of Boaz and not Mahlon? It seems to me that according to this law the first-born child of Boaz and Ruth should have been recorded in the line of Mahlon:

  If brethren dwell together, and one of them die, and have no child, the wife of the dead shall not marry without unto a stranger: her husband's brother shall go in unto her, and take her to him to wife, and perform the duty of an husband's brother unto her. And it shall be, that the firstborn which she beareth shall succeed in the name of his brother which is dead, that his name be not put out of Israel. Deuteronomy 25:6 KJV

Boaz clearly mentions this when he purchased the land:

  Then said Boaz, What day thou buyest the field of the hand of Naomi, thou must buy it also of Ruth the Moabitess, the wife of the dead, to raise up the name of the dead upon his inheritance. Ruth 4:5 KJV

mar mine own inheritance - is why the other relative was unwilling to redeem the property.

Yet, Jesus, David, Solomon were all recorded as belonging to the lineage of Boaz, not Mahlon.

Questions:

Why was it recorded like that?
Is this the norm or the exception?
Is there any other recorded incident in the Scriptures where this was done and the lineage was accorded to the deceased person?

tl;dr>
Why was it recorded like that?

because the story is making a theological point, not a legal one

Is this the norm or the exception?

the exact particulars of Boaz are exception, but it is based on a normal practice

Is there any other recorded incident in the Scriptures where this was done and the lineage was accorded to the deceased person?

Yes, Judah and Tamar, the lineage was based on the person who acted as the dad, not the specific rules of Deuteronomy.

My points:
1. Levirate Marriage appears elsewhere in Scripture, with similar result
The concept you are referring to is levirate marriage and appears in other interesting stories in scripture. In the situation of Tamar, we have the same genealogical "problem." Here we have a woman who was destitute and desperate after the death of not one but two husbands, and the withholding of a third. The child that was the offspring of ultimately Judah and Tamar should have also been ascribed to Er - although the fact that Judah, the father, was fulfilling the job that either Er or Shelah, the brothers, should have done may be a complicating factor. Nonetheless, when Jesus' genealogy is recorded, both the women and the men are called out.
2. Levirate Marriage was about property moreso than a "name"
As moderns, our first look is probably at the "honor" being preserved in the idea "that his name be not put out of Israel," but in ancient times, there was a more practical reason as well - money.
Note that levirate marriage had a property purpose that may be obscured by the phrase "that his name be not put out of Israel."  Women in Ancient Israel had no property rights, and absent a child, were destined for a life of destitution. Anna, for example outlived her husband by as much as 80 years, and was basically a homeless woman living in the Temple as a result.
That this was a property thing is attested to in the Lexham Bible Dictionary. Under Levirate Marriage, it says:

Levirate marriage was a cultural expectation designed to preserve some aspect of a deceased’s man’s life. Such marriages could preserve familial inheritance and patrilineal descent, as well as provide support for a widow. The impetus for such marriages could range from moral obligation to legislated responsibility.
Many ancient Near Eastern societies practiced levirate marriage, including Babylon, Assyria, the Hittites, Nuzi, and Ugarit. The custom was also present in parts of modern Africa and Asia (Falusi, “African Levirate,” 300–08). In much of the ancient Near East, the goal of such a practice was to preserve a family’s inheritance. While provisions existed allowing women to inherit property, and though polygamy and adoption offered increased chances of progeny, varying circumstances created problems to which levirate marriage offered a solution (Davies, “Rights,” 138–41).

It should also be understood that levirate marriage was as much a "tradition" as it was a law. As such, the concept will necessarily lean on the "spirit of the law," moreso than the letter. The Word Biblical Commentary states:

Campbell observes that we must not be misled by such terms as “law-code” and “legislation” into thinking that collections of ancient case law functioned as codes of law do in modern Western countries. We must not regard the OT codes of law as comprehensive and all inclusive, intended to regulate the legal needs of life by a system of courts, lawyers, judges, and police. On the contrary, legal decisions were made by the town elders on the basis of local legal precedents, preserved primarily orally.

With oral preservation and a focus on the story rather than the "law" the fact that Boaz is simply way more important than Mahlon, the practical answer becomes obvious.
3. There is a theological point being made, not a legal one
The question then becomes, why would the biblical record gloss over the property implications?  Here, I posit a theological answer, because the theology behind the genealogy is the more "important" lesson for posterity.
In Jesus' "line" four women are noted. None of them have a great reputation:

Tamar - well, we;ve already mentioned the incest and deception
Rahab was a prostitute. Period. Says so.
Ruth was at very least, quite forward, as https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/1391/did-ruth-uncover-boaz-feet-or-something-else points out
Mary was an unwed teenage mother.  Yes, she was given a child by the Holy Spirit, and I belive in the Virgin Birth, but the only people who actually knew that were Mary and Joseph.

In each of these instances, a story is being told about the moms and dads - and they belong more in the "adult" section than as children stories. But therein lies the point. Jews and Christians don't whitewash their history. Doing the official "so that the name isn't blotted out" is a little bit of a whitewash.  By recording the "true" stories of the true fathers, the genealogical story retains its significance and the property support that levirate marriage was supposed to attain is also fulfilled.
Furthermore, by "adopting" different fathers into the line, a point about the doctrine of adoption is made for later Christian readers subscribing to a Pauline interpretation.
4. At least some commentators don't think Boaz was actually doing a levirate marriage, but if he was, his role is correctly reported.
Excursis. The Word Biblical COmmentary has some additional insights:

(1) Ruth 4:5, 10 show that Boaz’s marriage to Ruth was a levirate type of marriage, similar at least to that prescribed in Deut 25:5–10. Even though Boaz was not a levir (Heb. יבם), a “brother-in-law,” this was a levirate marriage because 4:5, 10 specify that the purpose of the marriage to Ruth was “to raise up the name of the deceased on his inheritance so that the name of the deceased shall not be cut off from his brethren” (4:10), which is similar to the purpose given for levirate marriage (cf. Deut 25:6). (2) In 3:9 Ruth bases her request that Boaz accept the levirate marriage responsibility on the fact that he is a גאל, “redeemer.” Therefore, one of the legal responsibilities of the “redeemer” was to perform the levirate marriage, even though the passages in the OT legal corpora dealing with redemption never touch upon the levirate obligation; nor do the passages dealing with the levirate ever call the one responsible for this obligation a “redeemer.” (3) In chap. 4 land that belonged to Elimelech suddenly surfaces in the story, and Boaz calls upon the redeemer more closely related than he to act upon his rights and duties as redeemer and buy back (or preempt the sale of) this land. Further, the standard interpretation argues, Boaz uses the implications of the redeemer’s double responsibilities of “levirate” marriage to Ruth and of redemption of the land of Elimelech to induce the unnamed גאל, who has prior rights, to cede those rights and responsibilities to him. Boaz then redeems the land and marries Ruth. For representative treatments, see the discussion of Campbell, 132–37; Thompson and Thompson, VT 18 (1968) 79–99, and for a full treatment, see Leggett, The Levirate.
Recently a number of studies have sought to solve the many difficulties that arise in applying the postulates outlined above to the exegesis and interpretation of chaps. 3 and 4 of Ruth by denying that the marriage between Ruth and Boaz is connected in any way with levirate marriage. See in particular Beattie, VT 21 (1971) 490–94; VT 24 (1974) 251–67; JSOT 5 (1978) 39–48; JSOT 5 (1978) 65–68; Gordis, “Love, Marriage, and Business,” 241–64; Sasson, JSOT 5 (1978) 49–64;Ruth, 125–29, 143–46.

And this is an interesting problem, mentioned in

PROBLEM: Deuteronomy 25:5–10 delineates what is known as the law of the levirate marriage. If a man dies and leaves his wife childless, the man’s brother was morally obligated to take his brother’s wife and raise up children in the name of his deceased brother. This practice insured that the brother’s name would not die out. However, Boaz was not the brother of Ruth’s dead husband. Wasn’t this marriage arrangement contrary to the law of the levirate marriage?
SOLUTION: Although it was a more complicated incident, the arrangement between Boaz, Naomi, and Ruth was certainly not contrary to the law of the levirate marriage. The primary concern of the levirate marriage was to perpetuate the family line of the deceased. Certain factors indicate that by the time of Boaz and Ruth, some additional provisions had become customary. First, if there was no surviving brother in the immediate family, then the obligation of the levirate marriage became the responsibility of the nearest surviving male relative. In this case, there was one individual who was nearer to Naomi’s family than Boaz. However, when he declined the invitation, Boaz became the nearest male relative and the next in line to legally fulfill this moral obligation.
Second, along with the responsibility to raise up children in the name of the deceased, there came the responsibility to redeem any property that belonged to the deceased and that had been sold or forfeited (Lev. 25:25). Because the nearest kinsman was not financially able to assume this responsibility (Ruth 4:6), he relinquished his right and responsibility to redeem Naomi and marry Ruth and passed that obligation on to Boaz. There is nothing in the account of the redemption of Naomi and the marriage of Boaz and Ruth that is contrary to the law of levirate marriage.


Is this a mistake in The Book of Mormon? From Alma 24:19:

  ... and thus we see that they buried their weapons of peace, or they
  buried the weapons of war, for peace.

Apparently the author meant "weapons of war" but wrote "weapons of peace" instead.

If the author made this mistake, why not simply overwrite it instead of using this phraseology? Or if a translator/scribe made this mistake, still: why not overwrite it to correct it? After all, the Book of Mormon is written; it's not like it's a transcript of a speech with words that can't be taken back.

For bonus points: does similar phraseology appear in the Bible?

That phrase does appear to be an "imperfection" (as it is called) which existed in the original text. And in fact, it was quite difficult to take back words that were already written—so difficult, perhaps, that they decided to re-state the entire idea correctly.

According to LDS Church history, The Book of Mormon has unique origins as a volume of scripture. Like the Bible, its words were inspired by God. Unlike the Bible, its words were translated/copied only once, directly from the original document, which, in the case of The Book of Mormon, was a codex of golden plates. Instead of being written on papyrus or a typical form of "paper," these plates were metal, and so it was difficult to engrave writings on them.

So why write on metal plates? Because it was a commandment, and because the properties of metal ensure longevity.

Even though it was difficult to engrave writings on them...

  1 Now behold, it came to pass that I, Jacob, having ministered much unto my people in word, (and I cannot write but a little of my words, because of the difficulty of engraving our words upon plates) and we know that the things which we write upon plates must remain;

... it was important to them that the plates were metal and could be preserved for generations:

  4 For it were not possible that our father, Lehi, could have remembered all these things, to have taught them to his children, except it were for the help of these plates; for he having been taught in the language of the Egyptians therefore he could read these engravings, and teach them to his children, that thereby they could teach them to their children, and so fulfilling the commandments of God, even down to this present time.

Moroni was the last steward of The Book of Mormon. His father Mormon abridged most of the text. Moroni explains their difficulty in Mormon 9:

  30 Behold, I speak unto you as though I spake from the dead; for I
  know that ye shall have my words.

  31 Condemn me not because of mine imperfection, neither my father,
  because of his imperfection, neither them who have written before him;
  but rather give thanks unto God that he hath made manifest unto you
  our imperfections, that ye may learn to be more wise than we have
  been.

  32 And now, behold, we have written this record according to our
  knowledge, in the characters which are called among us the reformed
  Egyptian, being handed down and altered by us, according to our manner
  of speech.

  33 And if our plates had been sufficiently large we should have
  written in Hebrew; but the Hebrew hath been altered by us also; and if
  we could have written in Hebrew, behold, ye would have had no
  imperfection in our record.

  34 But the Lord knoweth the things which we have written, and also
  that none other people knoweth our language; and because that none
  other people knoweth our language, therefore he hath prepared means
  for the interpretation thereof.

... and in the previous chapter:

  12 And whoso receiveth this record, and shall not condemn it because
  of the imperfections which are in it, the same shall know of greater
  things than these. Behold, I am Moroni; and were it possible, I would
  make all things known unto you. ...

  17 And if there be faults they be the faults of a man. But behold, we
  know no fault; nevertheless God knoweth all things; therefore, he that
  condemneth, let him be aware lest he shall be in danger of hell fire.

...and on the title page:

  And now, if there are faults they are the mistakes of men; wherefore,
  condemn not the things of God, that ye may be found spotless at the
  judgment-seat of Christ.

Basically, the authors knew they had faults, and it was easier to re-state the idea correctly than it was to hammer out the engraving to overwrite it. It also seems, from all the passages about their weakness in writing (I haven't shown all of them here) that it was necessary for there to be some minor flaws in the text. (Discovering the purpose for that is left as an exercise for the reader.)

I don't know of similar passages in the Bible, for whatever reason (if anyone can find some, I'd be interested to see). The Book of Mormon actually indicates that the first several books of the Bible were written on metal/brass plates which Lehi took with them across the sea, but the earliest Biblical manuscripts we have aren't engraved on metal (that I know, at least), so it may not have been difficult to overwrite and change the text.


What are the 'Scriptures' mentioned in 1 Corinthians 15? What are the 'Scriptures' mentioned in 1 Corinthians 15: 3 - 4?

. . . Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures.
. . . He rose again the third day according to the Scriptures.

If Paul called something 'scriptures' I would like to know what it was and take his opinion seriously.
Did the Corinthians have the same Bible we have?
Did they have access to 'Scriptures' other than the modern Bible?
Did Paul teach from the same 'Scriptures' they had?

As a "Pharisee amongst Pharisees," Paul would have seen the Scriptures as the Scriptures of the Jews - the Torah, the Ketu'vim, and the Nevi'im, or as we say in English, the Law, the Writings, and the Prophets. When Jesus was on the transfiguration mount, he prefigured this. These Scriptures are the Old Testament to modern Christians, or "the Hebrew Bible" as some scholars like to say.

Dead for three days, in the OT Scriptures

When Paul was speaking of Jesus, rising again after three days, for example, he was probably remembering what the eyewitnesses had said, and which Matthew later wrote as follows:

  38 Then some of the scribes and Pharisees answered him, saying, “Teacher, we wish to see a sign from you.” 39 But he answered them, “An evil and adulterous generation seeks for a sign, but no sign will be given to it except the sign of the prophet Jonah. 40 For just as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the great fish, so will the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth  (Matthew 12:40)

Here, Jesus explicitly called out Jonah (an Old Testament prophet) as being prophetically foretelling that the Son of Man would also be dead for three days. Paul admits to having been taught by Peter, and Peter would have been privy to this teaching from Jesus himself.
Dying for our sins in the OT Scriptures

Likewise, Paul may very well have read into Isaiah 53 for inspiration about Jesus death paying for our sins, when the prophet writes:

  But he was pierced for our transgressions;
  he was crushed for our iniquities;
  upon him was the chastisement that brought us peace,
  and with his wounds we are healed.
  6 All we like sheep have gone astray;
  we have turned—every one—to his own way;
  and the Lord has laid on him
  the iniquity of us all. ... 10 his soul makes an offering for guilt,

While scholars may disagree on the nature of substitutionary atonement as the "Gospel" that Paul preached, this prophecy could at least be seen to be in harmony with Paul's understanding.
Jesus calling himself the OT Scriptures

While the specific passages may or may not "clearly" be the exact references in question, the overall point is explicit - that Jesus was the fufillment of what the Jews had long believed. Jesus says as much to the Pharisees in John 5:39:

  You study the Scriptures diligently because you think that in them you have eternal life. These are the very Scriptures that testify about me.

Herein the obvious implication is that the Scriptures are those Scriptures that the Pharisees and the religious folk of the day had been searching for centuries. Presented with the Christ who literally was the Word (John 1), it all began to make sense.

The New Testament, by definition, came after the Hebrew Scriptures and to the Hebrews for whom those Scriptures were written. By definition, the "Scriptures" should mean to those authors what "Scripture" meant to the contemporaries of those authors.  When Paul was writing his letters, there were no "Gospels", only eyewitness accounts, so he couldn't have been referring to anything more.

Corinth itself, as a port city in Greece, was home to a substantial Jewish population, so there is no reason to assume the word would have meant anything different than what you'd expect a Jew to think it - namely those books we now call the Old Testament.


Is it easy to live a Christian life? Today in church I mentioned that I think living according to the gospel makes life easy. Immediately someone kindly disagreed with me. Then I remembered that I used to think living a Christian life was hard, and I bet many other people feel it is hard also.
If living a Christian life is hard, then how can we explain the following scriptures that seem to be saying it is easy?

Matthew 11:28-30 (KJV)
28 Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.
29 Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls.
30 For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light.
1 John 5:3 (KJV)
For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments: and his commandments are not grievous.

These people are likely thinking of verses like these:

  John 15:18-20 (NIV)

      18 “If the world hates you, keep in mind that it hated me first. 19 If you belonged to the world, it would love you as its own. As it is, you do not belong to the world, but I have chosen you out of the world. That is why the world hates you. 20 Remember what I told you: ‘A servant is not greater than his master.’ If they persecuted me, they will persecute you also. If they obeyed my teaching, they will obey yours also.

  Matthew 5:10 (NIV)

  10 Blessed are those who are persecuted because of righteousness,
     for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

Rightousness and persecution are linked together in these two. However, there is a verse that makes the link explicit:

  2 Timothy 3:12 (NIV)

  12 In fact, everyone who wants to live a godly life in Christ Jesus will be persecuted,

The verses you referenced talk about interaction between God and Christians, but if you say something like "following Christ's Gospel (being righteous) makes life easy", then people will assume you mean the interaction between Christians and the world, which is indeed not an easy life.


Can people speak in tongues today? The Bible refers to people speaking in tongues--most notably at Pentecost. Is this something that legitimately happens today?

I've been in church services where speaking in tongues has happened, but it always seems weird and creepy, and those doing it seem like kooks. How can I know if this is legitimate, or if I'm right in thinking it's strange?

Random babbling isn't "speaking in tongues" as the Apostles did on the Day of Pentecost.  The Apostles preached, and everyone present heard the message in their native language.  This is the purpose of speaking in tongues: to facilitate communication.  In 1 Corinthians 14 Paul warns very strongly about speaking in tongues simply for its own sake, since it doesn't accomplish any useful purpose.

As for modern occurrences, I've heard plenty of stories of missionaries and other preachers in situations where they did not possess sufficient language skills in the language of the people being taught gaining the temporary ability to express themselves clearly when it was necessary.  I don't have any references to cite right at the moment, but yes, it does still happen today.


According to soul sleep adherents, if unclean spirits can be conscious without bodies, why can't human spirits also be conscious without bodies? Most soul sleep adherents find no issue in accepting that demonic/unclean spirits are conscious beings despite the fact that they lack physical bodies. The scriptural evidence for this is quite undeniable:
Matthew 12:43-45 (ESV):

43 “When the unclean spirit has gone out of a person, it passes through waterless places seeking rest, but finds none. 44 Then it says, ‘I will return to my house from which I came.’ And when it comes, it finds the house empty, swept, and put in order. 45 Then it goes and brings with it seven other spirits more evil than itself, and they enter and dwell there, and the last state of that person is worse than the first. So also will it be with this evil generation.”

Mark 5:1-13 (ESV):

They came to the other side of the sea, to the country of the Gerasenes. 2 And when Jesus had stepped out of the boat, immediately there met him out of the tombs a man with an unclean spirit. 3 He lived among the tombs. And no one could bind him anymore, not even with a chain, 4 for he had often been bound with shackles and chains, but he wrenched the chains apart, and he broke the shackles in pieces. No one had the strength to subdue him. 5 Night and day among the tombs and on the mountains he was always crying out and cutting himself with stones. 6 And when he saw Jesus from afar, he ran and fell down before him. 7 And crying out with a loud voice, he said, “What have you to do with me, Jesus, Son of the Most High God? I adjure you by God, do not torment me.” 8 For he was saying to him, “Come out of the man, you unclean spirit!” 9 And Jesus asked him, “What is your name?” He replied, “My name is Legion, for we are many.” 10 And he begged him earnestly not to send them out of the country. 11 Now a great herd of pigs was feeding there on the hillside, 12 and they begged him, saying, “Send us to the pigs; let us enter them.” 13 So he gave them permission. And the unclean spirits came out and entered the pigs; and the herd, numbering about two thousand, rushed down the steep bank into the sea and drowned in the sea.

Luke 24:36-39 (ESV):

36 As they were talking about these things, Jesus himself stood among them, and said to them, “Peace to you!” 37 But they were startled and frightened and thought they saw a spirit. 38 And he said to them, “Why are you troubled, and why do doubts arise in your hearts? 39 See my hands and my feet, that it is I myself. Touch me, and see. For a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see that I have.”

But, if unclean spirits can be conscious without physical bodies, why can't human spirits also be conscious without physical bodies? Are unclean spirits and human spirits fundamentally different? Aren't they all just spirits? If God is spirit, does not have a body and is conscious, if unclean spirits do not have bodies and are conscious, why can't human spirits also be conscious in the absence of a physical body?
I'm interested in what soul sleep adherents have to say about these questions.

For Christian Mortalists, the human soul and/or spirit is mortal and dies at physical death. The soul and/or spirit is not independent of the body like on Platonic conceptions of the soul.
For advocates of Soul Sleep in particular (where the soul and/or spirit is alive but in an unconscious state), it's just the way God made humans as opposed to other incorporeal creatures. There isn't anything logically impossible with human souls and/or spirits being conscious apart from the body, but that isn't how God created human souls and/or spirits. Though God is spirit, it doesn't mean all spirits share in the eternal, uncreated spirit of God. Their spirits are created and qualitatively different from God's. Those of angels and demons are conscious when incorporeal, those of humans are unconscious when incorporeal.


According to Acts 20:7, which day was the first day of the week? According to Acts 20:7,

And upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them, ready to depart on the morrow; and continued his speech until midnight. (KJV)
Ἐν δὲ τῇ μιᾷ τῶν σαββάτων συνηγμένων τῶν μαθητῶν τοῦ κλάσαι ἄρτον ὁ Παῦλος διελέγετο αὐτοῖς μέλλων ἐξιέναι τῇ ἐπαύριον παρέτεινέν τε τὸν λόγον μέχρι μεσονυκτίου

early Christians used to assemble on the first day of the week. But, was this assembly on Saturday night, since Hebrew calendrical days were reckoned from sunset to sunset? Or could the Gregorian calendar have impacted the way this verse was translated since it was the standard calendrical system when the King James Version was published?

The Sabbath is the Lord's day, set apart each week for rest and worship. In Old Testament times, God's covenant people observed the Sabbath on the seventh day of the week because God rested on the seventh day when He had created the earth. After the Resurrection of Jesus Christ, which occurred on the first day of the week, the Lord's disciples began observing the Sabbath on the first day of the week, Sunday (see Acts 20:7).

  original link to this info with more scriptural references to the sabbath day in christianity particularly in the LDS tradition [found on lds.org]

this is what I was taught and as someone who has been both Jewish and Christian this makes the most sense to me as an argument that holds water. Hope that helps!


According to Jehovah’s Witnesses who are the two messengers at Malachi 3:1? According to Jehovah’s Witnesses who are these two messengers in Malachi 3:1?

  Behold, I am going to send My messenger, and he will clear the way before Me. And the Lord, whom you seek, will suddenly come to His temple; and the messenger of the covenant, in whom you delight, behold, He is coming," says the Lord of hosts." - Malachi 3:1

The NWT of Malachi 3:1 says,

  Look! I am sending my messenger, and he must clear up a way before me. And suddenly there will come to His temple the [true] Lord, whom you people are seeking, and the messenger of the covenant in whom you are delighting. Look! He will certainly come, Jehovah of armies has said."

It is clear that the first messenger is John the Baptist who will clear the way of the Lord God (that's who the "Me" is in the verse) and Mark 1:1-4 confirms who the messenger is. "Behold, I send My messenger before your face, Who will prepare Your way; verse 3, The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Make read the way of the Lord, Make His paths straight."

I would like to know if the "true" Lord (which the NWT states) that comes to His temple and is identified as the Lord God Almighty the same being as the messenger of the covenant?

Well you have asked two different questions here.

Who are the two messengers?

Is the True Lord and the messenger of the covenant the same entity?

The verse in Malachi 3:1 mentions 3 different beings.
There is the 1st messenger who clears up the way which in the first century. This was John the Baptizer who prepared the Jewish people for the coming of the Christ.
Then we have two more entities,namely, the  True Lord and the Messenger of the covenant.
These two are not the same individual according to our understanding.
“The true Lord” is Jehovah God, while the “messenger of the covenant” is Jesus Christ.
As you no doubt well  know the word angel means messenger. As you are also aware we teach that in his prehuman existence and post resurrection heavenly existence God’s Son is known by the name Michael.  More info
The term Archangel means chief angel or messenger. Thus it is fitting that the messenger of the covenant would be none other than God’s Son.
The temple belongs to Jehovah as the verse makes clear:

suddenly there will come to His temple the [true] Lord,

That is person (1)in the sentence.
Then the verse goes on:

and the messenger of the covenant in whom you are delighting.

This is person 2 in the sentence.
The messenger is the one sent forth to cleanse the temple and as John 13:16 says:

I tell you the truth, slaves are not greater than their master. Nor is the messenger more important than the one who sends the message.

And who sends the message?
Malachi 3:1 concludes:

Jehovah of armies has said.

The initial fulfillment of the prophecy took place when Jesus cleansed the temple. (Mark 11:15-17)
Here is where our doctrine conflicts with the premise of your question.
In the view of those who believe that Jesus is God Almighty the verse is held out as proof that Jesus as the messenger of the covenant and the true Lord who comes to his temple are the same entity since it was Jesus who cleansed the temple, driving out the money changers etc...
However the true Lord (YHWH) himself said that no one could see him and yet live.
Jesus was seen by many as he cleansed the temple of the riffraff.
These people did not die.
Still it was the will of the true Lord YHWH that was carried out on that day.
Jehovah came to His temple  representatively or by proxy. Jesus (the messenger) came on YHWH’s behalf.
So question 1) the two messengers are John the Baptist and Jesus Christ.
Question 2) the Messenger of the covenant and The True Lord are not the same being.
An official source provides further details.


What is the Catholic Church's official position on the Spanish Inquisition? The Spanish Inquisition seems to have had plenty of support from the Universal Inquisition at the time, but what is the present Vatican's view? Has the Church repudiated the Inquisition?

Yes. The Catholic Church has repudiated the Spanish Inquisition. In fact the late Pope John Paul II has apologized for the atrocities committed during the Spanish inquisition.

In the Apostolic letter "TERTIO MILLENNIO ADVENIENTE" he made this apology:

  Hence it is appropriate that as the second millennium of Christianity draws to a close the Church should become ever more fully conscious of the sinfulness of her children, recalling all those times in history when they departed from the spirit of Christ and His Gospel and, instead of offering to the world the witness of a life inspired by the values of her faith, indulged in ways of thinking and acting which were truly forms of counter-witness and scandal. Although she is holy because of her incorporation into Christ, the Church does not tire of doing penance. Before God and man, she always acknowledges as her own her sinful sons and daughters.

He also reiterated his apology in his letter to Cardinal Roger Etchegaray on the occasion of the release of the "Report of the International Symposium on the Inquisition".


Do orthodox Christians fast on Monday to exceed the righteousness of the pharisees and scribes? This question regards Matthew 5:20:

  "For I say to you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, you shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven."

and the orthodox interpretation of it. I found this site that basically says that the fasting on Monday is done by monks, but also observed by pious orthodox believer that ye may exceed the righteousness  of scribes and Pharisees.

Is that why orthodox fast on Monday?

I don't mean to be rude, but I find much of orthodox theology concerning Theosis to be pelagian, as trying to earn heaven by merit, and while I know that the Orthodox Church does not teach that one can enter heaven by it's own power. It still feels like some strive from the bottom of their being to be more pious and righteousness that others, as it were a race, where Christ stands passive and the end of the ladder, while sinners try desperately to climb the ladder, always climbing never reaching the end. Always admiring the  saints, never daring to feel worthy. And even know never daring to feel worthy, still, always fearing and questing, am I good enough, will I be received.

Being told that the saints themselves where not sure if they are saved, then, much more shall the laity fear their fate.

Monks fast on Mondays because Monday in the daily liturgical rite is dedicated to Angels and monks conduct "angelic life". Current Orthodox liturgical rite originates from VI century.

The link that you provided is definitely wrong with the aim of fasting, it is not to overcome someone in merits (as Pharisee thought in the parable about Pharisee and Publican) which is obvious pride but to repent of sins.

This site (Russian only) has a collection of interpretations of Matthew 5:20 from 14 Orthodox Holy Fathers and modern theologians, none of them mention fasting.

If some lay person with the blessing of his spiritual father takes the feat of fasting on Mondays - that is not delusion if he keeps the mentioned repentant disposition of the soul and does not think that he does something special. St. Nikodemos writes about fasting on Mondays that "those among the lay people who want to fast this day are praised before the Lord and will get appropriate retribution" (link).

In the Patericon of Volokolamsk (Russian), there is a story when two brothers, noble men, were captured by Tatars and one of them was fasting on Mondays even in captivity. Once an Angel appeared in front of him in the form of a man. The Angel took him and walked with him through the Tatars without them noticing anything. When Tatars found out that he disappeared, they killed another brother. When the man was saved, he asked Angel: "Who are you?" - "I am the Angel of Monday". The man later became a monk.


What are the different names of God in the Bible and what do they mean? I see that our current-day Bibles only refer to God as LORD.  Can you explain to me what the different names of God are and what they mean?

Elohim
Genesis 1:1 (ESV)

1
In the beginning, God [Elohim] created the heavens and the earth.

Pslam 19:1 (ESV)

1 The heavens declare the glory of God, [Elohim]
   and the sky above proclaims his handiwork.

The name "Elohim" means "God" and is a reference to God's power and might.
Adonai
Malachi  1:6 (ESV)

… And if I am a master, where is my fear? says the LORD of hosts [Adonai] to you, O priests…

Adonai means "Lord" and refers to the Lordship of God.
Jehovah/Yahweh
Genesis 2:4 (ESV)

4  These are the generations of the heavens and the earth when they were created,in the day that the LORD God [Jehovah-Yahweh] made the earth and the heavens.

Translated as I am, I am who am, or I am who I am, and indicates God's personal, eternal, non-contingent nature. It is given to Moses by God when prompted for His name.
Jehovah-Maccaddeshem
Exodus 31:13

13"You are to speak to the people of Israel and say, 'Above all you shall keep my Sabbaths, for this is a sign between me and you throughout your generations, that you may know that I, the LORD, [Jehovah-Maccaddeshem] sanctify you.'"

Means "The Lord thy sanctifier"
Jehovah-Rohi
Psalm 23:1 (ESV)

1The LORD [Jehovah-Rohi] is my shepherd; I shall not want.

Jehovah-Shammah
Ezekiel 48:35 (ESV)

35The circumference of the city shall be 18,000 cubits. And the name of the city from that time on shall be, The LORD Is There. [Jehovah-Shammah]"

Means "The Lord who is present"
Jehovah-Rapha
Exodus 15:26 (ESV)

"…I will put none of the diseases on you that I put on the Egyptians, for I am the LORD, your healer. [Jehovah-Rapha]"

Means "The Lord our healer"
Jehovah-Tsidkenu
Jeremiah 23:6 (ESV)

6In his days Judah will be saved, and Israel will dwell securely. And this is the name by which he will be called: 'The LORD is our righteousness.'

Means "The Lord our righteousness"
Jehovah-Jireh
Genesis 22:14 (ESV)

14So Abraham called the name of that place, "The LORD will provide"; as it is said to this day, "On the mount of the LORD it shall be provided."

Means "The Lord will provide"
Jehovah-Nissi
Exodus 17:15 (ESV)

15And Moses built an altar and called the name of it, The LORD Is My Banner,

Means the "The Lord is my banner"
Jehovah-Shalom
Judges 6:24 (ESV)

24Then Gideon built an altar there to the LORD [Jehovah-Shalom] and called it, The LORD Is Peace. To this day it still stands at Ophrah, which belongs to the Abiezrites.

Means "The Lord is peace"
Jehovah-Sabbaoth
Isaiah 6:1-3 (ESV)

3And one called to another and said:

       "Holy, holy, holy is the LORD of hosts; the whole earth is full of his glory!"

Means the "Lord of hosts"
Jehovah-Gmolah
Jeremiah 51:6 (ESV)

6
…Be not cut off in her punishment,
              for this is the time of the LORD’s [Jehovah-Gmolah] vengeance,
               the repayment he is rendering her.

Means "The God of Recompense"
El-Elyon
Genesis 14:17-20 (ESV)

19And he blessed him and said,

       "Blessed be Abram by God Most High,
       Possessor[a] of heaven and earth;
20and blessed be God Most High,
      who has delivered your enemies into your hand!"

Isaiah 14:14 (ESV)

14I will ascend above the heights of the clouds;
    I will make myself like the Most High.'

Means "The most high God"
El-Roi
Genesis 16:13 (ESV)

13 So she called the name of the LORD [El-Roi] who spoke to her, "You are a God of seeing," for she said, "Truly here I have seen him who looks after me."

Means "The strong one who sees"
El-Shaddai
Genesis 17:1 (ESV)

1
When Abram was ninety-nine years old the LORD appeared to Abram and said to him, "I am God Almighty [El Shaddai]; walk before me, and be blameless,

Psalm 91:1

1 He who dwells in the shelter of the Most High [El-Shaddai]
   will abide in the shadow of the Almighty.

Means "The God of the mountains" or "God Almighty"
El-Olam
Isaiah 40:31 (ESV)

31but they who wait for the LORD shall renew their strength;
     they shall mount up with wings like eagles;
they shall run and not be weary;
     they shall walk and not faint.

Means "The everlasting God"
I am not sure if this is what you are looking for, but here are some other names of God:
•   ABBA.............................Romans 8:15
•   ADVOCATE.........................I John 2:1 (kjv)
•   ALMIGHTY.........................Genesis 17:1
•   ALPHA............................Revelation 22:13
•   AMEN.............................Revelation 3:14
•   ANCIENT OF DAYS..................Daniel 7:9
•   ANOINTED ONE.....................Psalm 2:2
•   APOSTLE..........................Hebrews 3:1
•   ARM OF THE LORD..................Isaiah 53:1
•   AUTHOR OF LIFE...................Acts 3:15
•   AUTHOR OF OUR FAITH..............Hebrews 12:2

•   BEGINNING.........................Revelation 21:6
•   BLESSED & HOLY RULER..............1 Timothy 6:15
•   BRANCH............................Jeremiah 33:15
•   BREAD OF GOD......................John 6:33
•   BREAD OF LIFE.....................John 6:35
•   BRIDEGROOM........................Isaiah 62:56
•   BRIGHT MORNING STAR...............Revelation 22:16

•   CHIEF SHEPHERD.....................1 Peter 5:4
•   CHOSEN ONE.........................Isaiah 42:1
•   CHRIST.............................Matthew 22:42
•   CHRIST OF GOD......................Luke 9:20
•   CHRIST THE LORD....................Luke 2:11
•   CHRIST, SON OF LIVING GOD..........Matthew 16:16
•   COMFORTER..........................John 14:26(kjv)
•   COMMANDER..........................Isaiah 55:4
•   CONSOLATION OF ISRAEL...............Luke 2:25
•   CONSUMING FIRE......................Deut. 4:24, Heb. 12:29
•   CORNERSTONE.........................Isaiah 28:16
•   COUNSELOR...........................Isaiah 9:6
•   CREATOR.............................1 Peter 4:19

•   DELIVERER..............................Romans 11:26
•   DESIRED OF ALL NATIONS.................Haggai 2:7
•   DOOR...................................John 10:7(kjv)

•   END....................................Revelation 21:6
•   ETERNAL GOD............................Deut. 33:27
•   EVERLASTING FATHER.....................Isaiah 9:6

•   FAITHFUL & TRUE........................Revelation 19:11
•   FAITHFUL WITNESS.......................Revelation 1:5
•   FATHER.................................Matthew 6:9
•   FIRSTBORN (3)........................................Rom.8:29,Rev.1:5,Col.1:15
•   FIRSTFRUITS............................1 Cor.15:20-23
•   FOUNDATION.............................1 Cor. 3:11
•   FRIEND OF TAX COLLECTORS & SINNERS.....Matthew 11:19

•   GENTLE WHISPER.........................1 Kings 19:12
•   GIFT OF GOD............................John 4:10
•   GLORY OF THE LORD......................Isaiah 40:5
•   GOD....................................Genesis 1:1
•   GOD ALMIGHTY...........................Genesis 17:1
•   GOD OVER ALL...........................Romans 9:5
•   GOD WHO SEES ME........................Genesis 16:13
•   GOOD SHEPHERD..........................John 10:11
•   GREAT HIGH PRIEST......................Hebrews 4:14
•   GREAT SHEPHERD.........................Hebrews 13:20
•   GUIDE..................................Psalm 48:14

•   HEAD OF THE BODY.......................Colossians 1:18
•   HEAD OF THE CHURCH.....................Ephesians 5:23
•   HEIR OF ALL THINGS.....................Hebrews 1:2
•   HIGH PRIEST............................Hebrews 3:1
•   HIGH PRIEST FOREVER....................Hebrews 6:20
•   HOLY ONE...............................Acts 2:27
•   HOLY ONE OF ISRAEL.....................Isaiah 49:7
•   HOLY SPIRIT............................John 15:26
•   HOPE...................................Titus 2:13
•   HORN OF SALVATION......................Luke 1:69

•   I AM....................................Exodus 3:14, John 8:58
•   IMAGE OF GOD............................2 Cor. 4:4
•   IMAGE OF HIS PERSON.....................Hebrews 1:3 (kjv)
•   IMMANUEL................................Isaiah 7:14

•   JEALOUS..............................Exodus 34:14 (kjv)
•   JEHOVAH..............................Psalm 83:18 (kjv)
•   JESUS................................Matthew 1:21
•   JESUS CHRIST OUR LORD................Romans 6:23
•   JUDGE................................Isaiah 33:22, Acts 10:42

•   KING.................................Zechariah 9:9
•   KING ETERNAL.........................1 Timothy 1:17
•   KING OF KINGS........................1 Timothy 6:15
•   KING OF THE AGES.....................Revelation 15:3

•   LAMB OF GOD...........................John 1:29
•   LAST ADAM.............................1 Cor. 15:45
•   LAWGIVER..............................Isaiah 33:22
•   LEADER................................Isaiah 55:4
•   LIFE..................................John 14:6
•   LIGHT OF THE WORLD....................John 8:12
•   LIKE AN EAGLE.........................Deut. 32:11
•   LILY OF THE VALLEYS...................Song 2:1
•   LION OF THE TRIBE OF JUDAH............Revelation 5:5
•   LIVING STONE..........................1 Peter 2:4
•   LIVING WATER..........................John 4:10
•   LORD..................................John 13:13
•   LORD GOD ALMIGHTY.....................Revelation 15:3
•   LORD JESUS CHRIST.....................1 Cor. 15:57
•   LORD OF ALL...........................Acts 10:36
•   LORD OF GLORY ........................1 Cor. 2:8
•   LORD OF HOSTS.........................Haggai 1:5
•   LORD OF LORDS.........................1 Tim. 6:15
•   LORD OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS..............Jeremiah 23:6
•   LOVE.................................1 John 4:8

•   MAN OF SORROWS.........................Isaiah 53:3
•   MASTER..................................Luke 5:5
•   MEDIATOR................................1 Timothy 2:5
•   MERCIFUL GOD............................Jeremiah 3:12
•   MESSENGER OF THE COVENANT................Malachi 3:1
•   MESSIAH................................. John 4:25
•   MIGHTY GOD...............................Isaiah 9:6
•   MIGHTY ONE...............................Isaiah 60:16

•   NAZARENE.................................Matthew 2:23

•   OFFSPRING OF DAVID.......................Revelation 22:16
•   OMEGA....................................Revelation 22:13
•   ONLY BEGOTTEN SON........................John 1:18(kjv)
•   OUR PASSOVER LAMB........................1 Cor. 5:7
•   OUR PEACE................................Ephesians 2:14

•   POTTER...................................Isaiah 64:8
•   POWER OF GOD.............................1 Cor. 1:24
•   PRINCE OF PEACE..........................Isaiah 9:6
•   PROPHET..................................Acts 3:22
•   PURIFIER.................................Malachi 3:3

•   RABBONI (TEACHER)........................John 20:16
•   RADIANCE OF GOD'S GLORY..................Heb.1:3
•   REDEEMER.................................Job 19:25
•   REFINER'S FIRE...........................Malachi 3:2
•   RESURRECTION.............................John 11:25
•   RIGHTEOUS ONE............................1 John 2:1
•   ROCK.....................................1 Cor.10:4
•   ROOT OF DAVID............................Rev. 22:16
•   ROSE OF SHARON...........................Song 2:1
•   RULER OF GOD'S CREATION..................Rev. 3:14
•   RULER OVER KINGS OF EARTH................Rev 1:5
•   RULER OVER ISRAEL........................Micah 5:2

•   SAVIOR...................................Luke 2:11
•   SCEPTER OUT OF ISRAEL....................Numbers 24:17
•   SEED.....................................Genesis 3:15
•   SERVANT..................................Isaiah 42:1
•   SHEPHERD OF OUR SOULS....................1Peter 2:25
•   SHIELD...................................Genesis 15:1
•   SON OF DAVID.............................Matthew 1:1
•   SON OF GOD...............................Matthew 27:54
•   SON OF MAN...............................Matthew 8:20
•   SON OF THE MOST HIGH.....................Luke 1:32
•   SOURCE...................................Hebrews 5:9
•   SPIRIT OF GOD............................Genesis 1:2
•   STAR OUT OF JACOB........................Numbers 24:17
•   STONE....................................1 Peter 2:8
•   SUN OF RIGHTEOUSNESS.....................Malachi 4:2

•   TEACHER...................................John 13:13
•   TRUE LIGHT................................John 1:9
•   TRUE WITNESS..............................Revelation 3:14
•   TRUTH.....................................John 14:6

•   VINE......................................John 15:5

•   WAY........................................John 14:6
•   WISDOM OF GOD..............................1 Cor. 1:24
•   WITNESS....................................Isaiah 55:4
•   WONDERFUL..................................Isaiah 9:6
•   WORD.......................................John 1:1
•   WORD OF GOD................................Revelation 19:13


In Western communion services, when was the origin of the practice of consistently offering only the bread to the laity? The practice of "communion in both kinds" by the laity, that is, both the eating of the bread and drinking of the cup, seems to have been the typical practice in the early church.  1 Corinthians 11:28 reads:

  Let a person examine himself, then, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. (ESV)

And the Didache implies the taking of both kinds by baptized Christians in 9.5:

  And let none eat or drink of your Eucharist but such as have been baptized into the name of the Lord

But at some point along the way, it became normal for the laity to receive only the bread; so much so that the 15th-century Council of Constance "banned" the offering of the cup to the laity (so says Wikipedia).

That Wikipedia article associates the practice with the Middle Ages, and suggests that the transition may have begun in order to accommodate the celebration of the Eucharist away from the normal gathering place, such as in the home of a bedridden church member.

Here though I'm interested in when this became the normal, week-to-week practice in the local church.  What is the first evidence that a church in Western Christendom was consistently offering only the bread to the laity?

In Western communion services, when was the origin of the practice of consistently offering only the bread to the laity?

The answer is not so clear cut as one would imagine. One can not say that at this date in time, communion was uniquely offered to the laity under the form of bread only. In fact the practice of receiving communion under the form of bread (Body of Christ) came about little by little over several centuries.

  From the earliest times: The faithful received Communion under both species, standing. The Host was distributed in de hand but women were reguired to have a cloth over their hands to receive.

  ca.590: Practice of Communion on the tongue appears but not common.

  Xth-XIth Century: Communion in the hand decreases and is abolished for fear of profanation.

  XIth-XVIth Century: Practice of kneeling to receive Communion becomes primary practice.

  1414: After a long decrease in reception from the chalice, practice abolished to combat Hussite heresy.

  1963-1970: Communion under both species restored in most cases along with option to recieve in the hand and standing.

  1968: Permission granted for laity to distribute Communion in extraordinary circumstances for the fist time in the history of the Church. - Source

Although communion under both kinds was the general practice in the Early Church and it lasted thus for many centuries. It took to the twelfth century for the Church to tried to suppress this practice. The Council of Lambeth (1281) stated that wine is to be received by the priest alone. The practice took time to be imposed and it is impossible to say exactly when the new custom became universal or when, by the Church's approval, it acquired the force of law. It seems the communion with the chalice may never have true vanish completely or truly universally as the Catholic Encyclopedia more or less points out.

  From the first to the twelfth century

  It may be stated as a general fact, that down to the twelfth century, in the West as well as in the East, public Communion in the churches was ordinarily administered and received under both kinds. That such was the practice in Apostolic times is implied in 1 Corinthians 11:28 (see above), nor does the abbreviated reference to the "breaking of bread" in the Acts of the Apostles (ii, 46) prove anything to the contrary. The witness to the same effect for the sub-Apostolic and subsequent ages are too numerous, and the fact itself too clearly beyond dispute, to require that the evidence should be cited here. But side by side with the regular liturgical usage of Communion sub utraque, there existed from the earlist times the custom of communicating in certain cases under one kind alone. This custom is exemplified (1) in the not infrequent practice of private domestic Communion, portion of the Eucharistic bread being brought by the faithful to their homes and there reserved for this purpose; (2) in the Communion of the sick, which was usually administered under the species of bread alone; (3) in the Communion of children which was usually given, even in the churches, under the species of wine alone, but sometimes under the species of bread alone; (4) in the Communion under the species of bread alone at the Mass of the Presanctified, and as an optional practice, in some churches on ordinary occasions. To these examples may be added (5) the practice of the intinctio panis, i.e. the dipping of the consecrated bread in the Precious Blood and its administration per modum cibi. We will notice briefly the history of each of these divergent practices.

  Since the twelfth century

  The final suppression of intinctio was followed in the thirteenth century by the gradual abolition for the laity of Communion under the species of wine. The desuetude of the chalice was not yet universal in St. Thomas' time (d. 1274): "provide in quibusdam ecclesiis observatur", he says "ut populo sanguis sumendus non detur, sed solum a sacerdote sumatur" (Summa, III, Q. lxxx, a. 12). The Council of Lambeth (1281) directs that wine is to be received by the priest alone, and non-consecrated wine is to be received by the faithful (Mansi, XXIV, 405). It is impossible to say exactly when the new custom became universal or when, by the Church's approval, it acquired the force of law. But such was already the case long the outbreak of the Hussite disturbances, as is clear from the decree of the Council of Constance (see I above). The Council of Basle granted (1433) the use of the chalice to the Calixtines of Bohemia under certain conditions, the chief of which was acknowledgment of Christ's integral presence under either kind. This concession, which had never been approved by any pope, was positively revoked in 1462 by the Nuncio Fantini on the order of Pius II. The Council of Trent while defining the points already mentioned, referred to the pope the decision of the question whether the urgent petition of the German emperor to have the use of the chalice allowed in his dominions be granted; and in 1564 Pius IV authorized some German bishops to permit it in their dioceses, provided certain conditions were fulfilled. But, owing to the inconveniences that were found to result, this concession was withdrawn in the following year. Benedict XIV states (De Missae Sacrif. II, xxii. n. 32) that in his time the kings of France had the privilege of communicating sub utraque at their coronation and on their death-bed. In the eighteenth century the deacon and subdeacon officiating at High Mass in the Church of Saint-Denis, Paris, on Sundays and solemn feasts, and at Cluny on all feasts of obligation, were allowed to receive sub utraque (Benedict XIV, loc. cit.) The only surviving example of this privilege is in the case of the deacon and subdeacon officiating in the solemn Mass of the pope.


Why are certain non-harmful behaviors considered sins? I would like to hear your response on this. In general, there exist a set of behaviors that Christians consider sinful, though these behaviors may not be observed to harm anybody (even the person doing the behavior.)

Why might this be?

I am assuming that God is not simply making rules for the heck of it, but that there must be some consequence of some kind by which we may understand why such a behavior might be considered wrong or sinful.

The reason that something may be considered a sin primarily because it hurts your relationship with God. When God has ordered the world in a certain way, or decrees that certain things are not to His will, then going against it is a sin. A sin isn't something that is bad for others. It's bad for ourselves. So to judge something as sinful because it hurts others isn't going to get the full picture (though it certainly is one aspect of a sin, as we are also called to love others, by God).

However, there were certain laws that the Jews were told to keep in the Old Testament. As you mentioned Kosher dietary restrictions, I'll use that as an example. The Jewish people at the time were very much in danger of being annihilated by the various nations in the time. They were constantly at war, and they were nomadic, living simply off the land. God desired for them to flourish and prosper, and so certain laws were decreed that ultimately had the result of encouraging good health and hygiene. Kosher laws at the time were very useful in preventing food-born disease and healthy eating habits. Other things, like purification rituals, have a direct correlation to the modern guidance by our parents to wash our hands before we eat. You can imagine that at that time, it was even more important.

There are different kinds of decrees in the Bible. There are things considered outright sins, but also laws and regulations. Many of these (that aren't actually sins) were for certain peoples at certain times, but ultimately a sin is when we go against the will of God, through our own free will.

A good read here: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14004b.htm


What's the reasoning behind sacramental architecture? What is the basis for catholic sacred architecture, or sacramental architecture as I've heard it said and what are it's main components? Is this a doctrine rooted in scripture somewhere? When was sacramental architecture adopted?

From the little that I've been able to find on Google regarding it, it seems like it's just the catholic standard for its buildings--an effort to exude holiness through material things, or something like that. But I haven't been able to find more info, like when it started and why.

It can be argued that the interior of many Christian Churches, especially Catholic, Orthodox, Anglican, and Lutheran, lies in the architecture specified for the Tabernacle (The tent constructed during the Exodus) and the Temple in the old textament, where there were three area set aside for specific purposes. The area where the Altar is located in the churches I named above, especially older buildings, corresponds to the area of the Temple where the Ark of the Covenant resided, and which only the Priests of Israel entered. The main part of the church corresponds to the larger part of the Tabernacle, and the Temple, where the faithful gathered, and the foyer corresponds to the outer court, which was open to a larger number of people.

In a Christian church, the other elements of the architecture provide focal points to call the attention of the faithful to the sacraments, hence the presence of the Baptistry, or baptismal font, and location at which the Mass or communion is celebrated. In a Roman Catholic church, the location in which the Body of Christ is housed is supposed to be front and center, and in the churches I named above, a Cross or Crucifix are always present to call to the viewer's mind the salvific acts of God. Roman Catholic, Orthodox, and to a somewhat lesser extent, some Anglican and Lutheran buildings will contain representations intended to call to the viewer's mind members of the community of the faithful departed by icons, stained glass windows, or statues, including Mary, the Mother of God, the Apostles,  the Mighty Acts of God, including creation, perhaps the Flood, or the other sacraments or rites. One thing all of the churches have in common (and most other protestant ones as well) is a pulpit or lectern in a prominent place, from which the word of God can be proclaimed.

These elements have been interpreted in different ways by different architects, and by different theological emphases of various Christian groups, at different times, and in different places, taking to account local materials and customs.


Is Jehovah Jesus Christ? I have heard people state that the LDS doctrine that Jesus Christ is Jehovah is incorrect. I have been studying the titles of Jehovah in Isaiah 40-48 and I have found that they are similar and in many cases the same as in the new testament relating to Jesus Christ, for example, Redeemer, Savior, King of Israel, Creator, First and the Last. Do Non-LDS Christians believe Jehovah is Jesus Christ? Or does that name belong to God the Father? Or both?

My question is, from a trinitarian perspective, who is Jehovah? Is it God the Father, or Jesus Christ?

Traditionally, the divine name (YHWH aka "Jehovah") is associated with God the Father - the God of the Old Testament.  Jesus is associated with God the Son, the incarnation of the Godhead.

Traditionally, the LDS answer is very straight-forward: God the Father is one distinct person, Jesus is another.  From a non-Trinitarian perspective this is very easy to understand. The problem is, it would seem to violate the notion that "Behold, the Lord your God is One" to Trinitarians. Understand, the Trinity is itself a paradox, but it is the best formulation we have.

In the classic formulation of the Trinity, God the Father ("YHWH") and God the Son (Jesus) are one essence but different persons. As the Athansian Creed puts it:

  ... we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity; Neither confounding the Persons; nor dividing the Essence. For there is one Person of the Father; another of the Son; and another of the Holy Ghost.

The idea is that God is One Essence so throughly in agreement that it is impossible to distinguish their "Godness" from one another. That said, to deny that they have distinct personhood violates scripture that indicates the Godhead is composed of distinctly willed individuals.  The Person of God the Father was the Person who gave his divine Jehovah name "I am that I am." The Person of Jesus, who was the incarnation of God the Son is a different person, but indistinguishable in essence from him.

Clear as mud right?

Traditionally, the answer is that the title adheres to God the Father, but in essence, you wouldn't really be able to distinguish them.


How to discover mistakes in faith? There are many possibilities how to twist the faith.

For example: assumptions, prejudices, misinterpretation, unintentional deception, projecting wishes... These things can twist the spiritual way,

How do I find out if someone's faith was twisted?

This is a very valid concern. Here are some suggestions that come to mind.

Study the word regularly. Pray that God would teach it to you and approach it as something that will shape you, not something you need to find support for your cause in. Systematic reading really aides this rather than following along with whatever verses somebody else quotes for whatever cause.
Keep your eye on other traditions. This doesn't mean church hop and float between belief systems, but it does mean keeping up on some reading, listening to some preachers you don't agree with just to make sure the ones you do are really saying something, studying different bible translations to help you get a full grasp of the word.
Stay in fellowship with other believers. Find a community that is both well grounded and diverse. The discussions, interactions and iron sharpening iron is what will keep you on the right track. A community where questioning something and examining the basis for things is not welcomed is not a safe place to be. Likewise a community that does not value truth or place any guards on itself at all is also a dangerous place to be. Use lots of discretion.
Don't be stubborn willed when you learn you're wrong about some little thing. Keep an attitude of humility and and pray regularly about what areas you need to learn and grow in. If God is trying to show you something through any of the things you need to be ready to hear it. Don't be blown around by every wave of teaching that comes along but do keep.

Lastly and most importantly, don't stop looking to Jesus, the founder and perfecter of our faith.


Liturgical prayer in Aramaic Which Aramaic speaking Christian Church(es) uses a dialect of Aramaic in their liturgy that is the closest to the dialect that Jesus of Nazareth spoke in Palestine some 2000 years ago?

Jesus spoke with a Galilean dialect of Aramaic.

The following is not meant to be an answer specific to the question, but may help in some research on the subject:

The Syro Malabar and Syro Malankara rites of the  Catholic Church in Kerala, India, which attribute their origin to St Thomas the Apostle,  used to have their liturgy in Syrian language upto the 1950s after which the liturgy adopted the native language Malayalam as its medium. In fact you will find many short prayers still said in Syrian languae  as a part of the liturgy. Besides the Catholic groups, the Catholic Orthodox Churches of Kerala also extensively use Syrian prayers during the liturgical celebrations.  How close the phraseology of those prayers are to the dialect used by Jesus, can be commented on by Syrian scholars only.


Why do God and Jesus seem so different? God destroyed the world with a flood, destroyed all the people in Sodom and Gomorrah, gruesome sacrifices, laws for stoning people, Jericho, requesting the sacrifice of Abraham's son, the sacrifice of God's own son Jesus'. Jesus seems so different to me because instead of making life or taking life he gave his own, he preached forgiveness and grace and seemed to defy the laws made in Leviticus. I'm a christian but I am having a hard time understanding this, especially if one believes the Trinity doctrine.

If you look at the role of Jesus especially at the very end of time and the beginning of eternity (eternity for us, that is to say) he does not seem that different after all. When Jesus returns, he will not return as the contemporary hippie Jesus. That image is a product of modern humanistic culture and not the Jesus of scriptures. He will return as the King of kings, terrifying in his righteous wrath. That will be a day of devastation for anybody who does not want anything to do with him.

One striking difference between Noah and the flood vs Abraham and Sodom/Gomorrah is that Abraham was the one who thought that perhaps there was still hope for the two cities. Noah did not. Abraham pleaded with God and God agreed upon a minimum number of righteous people who, if present, would be grounds for not carrying out the punishment. A similar incident happened during the early exodus, when God, appalled at the golden calf the Israelites had made, offered Moses to destroy them all and make him the new god's people. Moses turned the offer down.

It is almost as if God tries to provoke a reaction. If Moses' reaction had been "yes, let's do away with them wrongdoers" God most certainly would have carried out his threat, as his righteousness demands. God never bluffs. At the same time He would have been disappointed in the hard-heartedness of Moses.

I believe this type of thinking can be applied to the mosaic law. It gives a human being an apparent right to stone another, but it does not take away the possibility to show compassion. The problem is that the israelites rarely did that. It tells more about man than it tells about God. The tendency to point fingers at each other and not see our own error is a product of the god-syndrome mankind fell victim of in the garden of Eden. That is something Jesus pointed out, and that is just what he did; he did not introduce a new hippie religion or change, defy, or undo the law, but pointed out how the law should have been applied in the first place. He explained what the law really is and is supposed to be; a dilemma.

I hope this answer helps and manages to touch all the different issues in your question.


How much realization of one's own sinfulness is needed for a person to be saved? I have met some Christians who seemed to put a lot of emphasis on their realization of how sinful they were. Others, however, didn't seem to be stressing this point that much.

Honestly, in my personal experience, the joy of knowing the Lord, the joy of the very first prayer to Christ, and the joy of having fellowship with Christians came first. The first true realization of how sinful I am came much later. In fact, this realization is still progressing.

By looking briefly through the New Testament I can think of some examples of individuals' coming to the Lord with a considerable level of contriteness over their sinfulness, for example, the robber on the cross asking Jesus to remember him in His kingdom. On the other hand, there are also some examples of people coming to the Lord for the first time, in which this contriteness is not clearly stated, for example, the eunuch of Ethiopia in Acts 8.

So, my question is how much realization of one's own sinfulness is needed for a person to be saved?

All the realization of sin in the world can't save someone, they may go and meditate, take up some philanthropic work to make them feel better, kill themselves or find some other way to get away from that realization of the sinfulness of their heart; to try and numb that realization.

Think of Judas betraying Christ and Peter denying Christ. Judas said "I have betrayed the innocent" (Matthew 27.4) and then you know what he did to himself even though he realized his sin in this circumstance. We know that he was lost (The Lord said before his Crucifixion that he would loose non except Judas - John 17:12) Peter was not lost though! The Lord called him back. Realization of sinfulness doesn't lead us in and of itself to Christ in whom we can be  saved, it is God that does that:

  John 6.44 - No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him (call): and I will raise him up at the last day.

I therefore don't think the question is of all that value to think upon in this sense. Maybe a more instructive question would be not "how much" but "whether" realization of sin is a necessary part of the Lord's call and drawing of a person to salvation in the Lord Jesus Christ.


Life of Jesus from the age of 12 to 30? There is no scripture that tells about Jesus' life from 12 to 30 years. Is there evidence of Jesus' during this time?

The custom during the time was that men would prepare and study to become a rabbi. Throughout the New Testament Jesus is referred to as "rabbi" and "teacher" such as in John 3:2

  2The same came to Jesus by night, and said unto him, Rabbi, we know that thou art a teacher come from God: for no man can do these miracles that thou doest, except God be with him.

Jesus was preparing himself to become a rabbi so that he could lead His people to salvation.


Where can one buy a new physical copy of a full (OT & NT) Protestant RSV where its NT is of '71? And are they even being printed nowadays? I have looked around and mostly found Catholic editions and some others, but not a Protestant '71 version.

Is there even one available with cross references?

The New Oxford Annotated Bible contains the 1971 RSV New Testament text (not the RSVCE).  As far as I know it is still in print - and available on Amazon.

It does contain the Deuterocanonical books set off in an appendix and labeled as "Apocrypha".


What would a person need to be able to do to be a saint while he was yet alive? Normally, sainthood isn't formally considered for an individual until 5 years after the death of a person. If one was determined enough, how could they go about achieving becoming saints and perhaps even become recognized as such by the the Pope, after, and moreover, before one’s death?

What would a person need to be able to do to be a saint while he was yet alive?
Formally declared saints are chosen ultimately by the pope, but only after a thorough investigation of the life, writings, and legacy of the saint candidate. No stone is left unturned. Testimony from witnesses and experts, physical evidence, and the entire life of the person is examined with fine detail. Every skeleton in the closet is taken out, and all dirty laundry looked at — if any exists, that is.
The classic requirements for consideration would be as follows:

Evidence of having led an exemplary life of goodness and virtue worthy of imitation, having died a heroic death (martyrdom), or having undergone a major conversion of heart where a previous immoral life is abandoned and replaced by one of outstanding holiness - What Are the Requirements for Sainthood?

Most Roman theologians consider the minimum time of living a saintly life after an immoral lifestyle is abandoned to be five (5) years although exceptions could be made.
On July 11, 2014, Pope Francis slightly somewhat altered these requirements.

Pope Francis has introduced a new pathway to Catholic sainthood, recognizing those who sacrifice their lives for others.
The new category, introduced in a official letter from the pope on Tuesday, is "one of the most significant changes in centuries to the Roman Catholic Church's saint-making procedures," Reuters reports.
Before the change, there were three categories that provided a path to sainthood: being killed for the faith (martyrdom), living a life heroically of Christian virtues and having a strong reputation for religious devotion. The process of becoming a saint begins after an individual's death.
According to the Vatican's official news service, the new category has five main criteria:

The individual must freely and voluntarily offer their life in the face of "a certain and soon-to-come death"

There must be a "close relation" between "the offering of one's life and the premature death of the one who offers it."

The person must show Christian virtues, at least to an ordinary extent, before and after offering their life.

They must have a "reputation for holiness" at least after their death.

They must have performed a miracle. This is a major difference from the "martyrdom" category, which does not require a miracle.

Archbishop Marcello Bartolucci, secretary of the Vatican Congregation for Saints' Causes, said that this is intended "to promote heroic Christian testimony, (that has been) up to now without a specific process, precisely because it did not completely fit within the case of martyrdom or heroic virtues," according to Catholic News Service.
The current categories are insufficient "for interpreting all possible cases," Bartolucci added.
The pope's letter announcing the new category is called "Maiorem hac dilectionem," which is taken from this passage in the Gospel of John: "Greater love than this no man hath, that a man lay down his life for his friends.”
According to The Associated Press, "examples of people who might fall into that category include those who take the place of someone condemned to death or expectant mothers with fatal diseases who suspend treatment so their babies can be born." - Pope Francis Announces New Path To Sainthood

The point that ”they must have a ‘reputation for holiness’ at least after their death,” reminds me of the life of St. Benedict Labre when he died:

Benedict Joseph Labre probably evoked similar feelings in many who encountered him, and yet when he died the cry went up “the saint is dead! the saint is dead!”

Further information may be gleaned from the following article(s):

Pope approves new path to sainthood: heroic act of loving service