From a non-Trinitarian perspective, how is love explained as an attribute of God? The Scriptures seem to assert that love is an attribute of God--that it is part of His essence that has existed from all eternity, even before there were any other creatures.

Anyone who does not love does not know God, because God is love.  1 John 4:8 ESV

From a Trinitarian perspective, in eternity past, the Father loved the Son, the Son loved the Father, and so on.  This is recorded in part in the Scriptures as well.

Father, I desire that they also, whom you have given me, may be with me where I am, to see my glory that you have given me because you loved me before the foundation of the world.  John 17:24 ESV
But I do as the Father has commanded me, so that the world may know that I love the Father. Rise, let us go from here.  John 14:31 ESV

However, from a non-trinitarian perspective, how is it understood that God was love as a single entity with no one to love?

Sinfulness and righteousness are not determined merely by actions.  They are also determined by our thoughts and intents.  Prov. 12:5 provides an excellent example of this:

  The thoughts of the righteous are just,
  But the counsels of the wicked are deceitful.

Jesus also taught about this in his Sermon on the Mount, such as in Matt. 5:21-22:

  You have heard that the ancients were told, "You shall not commit murder" and "Whoever commits murder shall be "liable to the court."  But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother shall be guilty before the court.

In Romans 14:141, when discussing whether or not Christians must follow the Mosaic Law, Paul says that if you believe something is unclean, then it is unclean for you:

  I know and am convinced in the Lord Jesus that nothing is unclean in itself; but to him who thinks anything to be unclean, to him it is unclean.

Eating something which is unclean is a sin.  In other words, Paul is saying that if you believe that eating a particular food is sinful, and you do it anyway, then, for you, it is sinful.  God does not judge us only by our actions, but also by our thoughts, emotions, and intentions.

Just as sin involves both intentions and deeds, love also involves more than just deeds.  Love is also a state of mind.  If you intend and desire to love others, even when you do not currently have the opportunity to do so, you are still following the law, as repeated by Christ, in Matt. 22:37:

  You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind.

Notice that the law was not to "love God in all that you do", but rather to love Him in your heart, soul, and mind.  God is concerned with the matters of the heart.  God wants people to love him with their thoughts and intentions, not just with their outward actions.  To love, only by your actions, is to be a hypocrite (Paul warned against loving hypocritically in Rom. 12:9).  That is why God was more interested in the circumcision of the heart than He was in the outward physical circumcision.  For instance, in Deut 30:6 the the Bible says:

  Moreover the Lord your God will circumcise your heart, and the heart of your descendants, to love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul, so that you may live.

In Romans 5:5 Paul describes how, as Christians our hearts have been changed:

  ...the love of God has been poured out within our hearts through the Holy Spirit who was given to us...

In 2 Tim. 1:7, Paul also talks about a "spirit" of love:

  For God has not given us a spirit of timidity, but of power and love and discipline.

Having a spirit of love, that was given to you, does not require that an object for that love was present at the moment the spirit was given.  A heart filled with love does not cease to be filled with love when the Christian leaves the company of others.  A circumcised heart will not regrow its metaphorical foreskin when it is lonely.  If it were not possible to remain loving towards others in spirit, even when others are not around, how could God judge our hearts and our minds?

When John stated that "God is Love", he was not referring to any specific actions.  He was not describing the love that God has for any individuals in particular.  He was describing God's unchangeable nature.  As the verses above demonstrate, it is possible to have a nature of love without having any object to receive your loving acts.

From a purely logical basis, since sin is not eternal, the same could be asked of God's mercy and long-suffering.  How can you explain that an unchanging God was merciful before sin existed?  I would argue that mercy and love are part of God's unchanging nature and someone's nature doesn't change depending on their circumstances.

For Trinitarians, God's love compliments their theology perfectly, as you described.  For Unitarians, however, God's love does not contradict their theology.  God's nature doesn't prove that the Godhead necessarily includes multiple persons.  On the contrary, it actually provides an explanation for why God may have created us.  If His nature is love, it follows that He would create us so that He would have someone else with whom He could share His great love.  That is not to say that God needed us, in any way, but rather that the venture would appeal to Him, if you will.

Another, slightly less convincing, argument is that time, itself, is part of the creation.  Following that line of thinking, from God's perspective, there is no such thing as "before" or "after" creation because "before" and "after" are part of creation.  Saying that there was a "time" when God was alone is nonsensical when you consider that He is outside of time entirely.


What was the point of the laws written to the Gentile believers in Antioch, Syria, and Cilicia? In Acts 15, a letter was written to the beliving Gentiles. I can understand why they have to abstain from sexual immorality. However, I was wondering

What's the point of the law which state that they must not eat the meat or blood of strangled animals, nor should they eat food offered to idols?

Is it a sin to eat the meat or blood of strangled animals, or to eat food offered to idols?

Does the law (not to eat the meat or blood of strangled animals / not to eat food offered to idols) still apply to us today?

Acts 15:23-29 (NLT)
23 This is the letter they took with them: “This letter is from the apostles and elders, your brothers in Jerusalem. It is written to the Gentile believers in Antioch, Syria, and Cilicia. Greetings!
24 “We understand that some men from here have troubled you and upset you with their teaching, but we did not send them! 25 So we decided, having come to complete agreement, to send you official representatives, along with our beloved Barnabas and Paul, 26 who have risked their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. 27 We are sending Judas and Silas to confirm what we have decided concerning your question.
28 “For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay no greater burden on you than these few requirements: 29 You must abstain from eating food offered to idols, from consuming blood or the meat of strangled animals, and from sexual immorality. If you do this, you will do well. Farewell.”

Let us try to see the whole passage in context. (All scripture quotation in NLT)

  Acts 15: 20-21 - Instead, we should write and tell them to abstain
  from eating food offered to idols, from sexual immorality, from eating
  the meat of strangled animals, and from consuming blood. 21 For these
  laws of Moses have been preached in Jewish synagogues in every city on
  every Sabbath for many generations.”

Verse 21 says the reason for the some of them/or all of the restrictions was

  "laws of Moses have been preached in Jewish synagogues in every city
  on every Sabbath for many generations"

. Also from verse 7,  we can see this happened after "At the meeting, after a long discussion", so it is clear that this was a topic of intense debate. Other biblical evidences point to that the leadership wanted a consensus which will respect those who seek more freedom (like Paul and even Peter at Jerusalem) and those who felt much more strongly about some of Jewish Traditions (James). So it is clear that last two was added considering there are large number of Jews  and Jewish Christians around in those cities and church needed to be sensitive to their strong reservations.

There are more biblical evidences says to "abstain from eating food offered to idols and from sexual immorality". So Epistles and other part of new testament re-inforces them. But I believe the other two requirements to abstain "from consuming blood or the meat of strangled animals" is applicable to the situation ONLY at the time of Acts 15, not binding now.

This line of argument  can be illustrated further from Galatians.

Galatians 2:12 explains the struggle the church had in those days.

  "When he first arrived, he ate with the Gentile Christians, who were
  not circumcised. But afterward, when some friends of James came, Peter
  wouldn’t eat with the Gentiles anymore. He was afraid of criticism
  from these people who insisted on the necessity of circumcision."

So correct interpretation of what laws applicable to us is given next to that.

Galatians 2:15-16

  “You and I are Jews by birth, not ‘sinners’ like the Gentiles. 16 Yet
  we know that a person is made right with God by faith in Jesus Christ,
  not by obeying the law. And we have believed in Christ Jesus, so that
  we might be made right with God because of our faith in Christ, not
  because we have obeyed the law. For no one will ever be made right
  with God by obeying the law.”


Does Paul in 2 Corinthians 6:14 contradict Jesus in Mark 2:17? When Paul says:
"Don’t become partners with those who do not believe. For what partnership is there between righteousness and lawlessness? Or what fellowship does light have with darkness?  What agreement does Christ have with Belial? Or what does a believer have in common with an unbeliever? And what agreement does the temple of God have with idols? For we are the temple of the living God, as God said:  I will dwell   and walk among them,  and I will be their God,   and they will be my people.     Therefore, come out from among them  and be separate, says the Lord;  do not touch any unclean thing,  and I will welcome you.
2 Corinthians 6:14-17 CSB"

Does it mean to not be friends with unbelievers? If yes, doesn't it contradict Jesus in Mark 2 when He was eating and drinking with sinners?

Paul means do not be in a relationship with unbelievers such as marriage, business, or other situations where there would be pressure to compromise.  That is different from being friends with unbelievers with a view to win them to Christ.  Jesus himself quoted the Pharisees saying in Matthew 11:19 "The Son of Man came eating and drinking, and they say, ‘Look at him! A glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and sinners."


How do Protestants respond to the JW interpretation of John 14:28? According to What Does the Bible Really Teach?, a Watchtower publication, pp.41–42:

The only-begotton Son never even considered trying to be equal to his Father. The Bible clearly teaches that the Father is greater than the Son. (John 14:28).

John 14:28 says:

“You heard me say, ‘I am going away and I am coming back to you.’ If you loved me, you would be glad that I am going to the Father, for the Father is greater than I."

Which, on the surface, appears to agree with the JW claim that Jesus himself says he is "not equal" to his Father.
What is the Protestant response to this, in the context of the divinity of Jesus.  How can Jesus be divine, and also "lesser" than the Father?

Good question, it is written

  "Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus,  who, being
  in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with
  God, but made Himself of no reputation, taking the form of a
  bondservant, and coming in the likeness of men." (Philippians 2:5-7)

Herein it says Jesus is equal with God (the Father), thus contradicting the watchtower quote you provided.

  "And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was
  manifested in the flesh" (1 Timothy 3:16 NKJV)

In John 14:28 Jesus is saying he is subordinate to the Father, but Philippians 2:5-7 says he is equal.  So Jesus is subordinate but equal.  To be subordinate does not mean one is not equal, for example the Bible admonishes wives to be subordinate to their husbands in the Lord (Ephesians 5:22), yet they are 100% equal in value in God's sight.  More info on Jesus divinity from Scripture found here - The Trinity.

Hope that helps!


Where did the "humans become angels" tradition come from? I'm clear that according to scripture, humans don't become angels. I read through the question on the topic (What Bible verses suggest that humans can become angels?) and didn't find an answer to my question:

Can anyone provide references to the reason that people began to believe that loved ones become angels? I'm trying to understand how this well-established tradition evolved in Western culture.

this might not truly answer your question. but it does shed some light about "us" becoming "like" angels.

Luke 12:25
For when they shall rise from the dead, they neither marry, nor are given in marriage--"neither can they die any more" ( Luke 20:36 ). Marriage is ordained to perpetuate the human family; but as there will be no breaches by death in the future state, this ordinance will cease.
but are as the angels which are in heaven--In Luke ( Luke 20:36 ) it is "equal unto the angels." But as the subject is death and resurrection, we are not warranted to extend the equality here taught beyond the one point--the immortality of their nature. A beautiful clause is added in Luke ( Luke 20:36 )--"and are the children of God"--not in respect of character, which is not here spoken of, but of nature--"being the children of the resurrection," as rising to an undecaying existence ( Romans 8:21 Romans 8:23 ), and so being the children of their Father's immortality ( 1 Timothy 6:16 ).

Bible Study Tools
I imagine that somewhere along the way that people saw this as they would become angels when they went to heaven.  this doesn't say that at all. it really means equal unto the angels
this may be where we started thinking that we too could become Angels. but we really shouldn't want that.  We as saved individuals will become physical/spiritual beings after the resurrection, the Angels are only spiritual beings.
I could not find much more information on the subject, I am at work so I am rather limited in my research time.


Why do Young-Earth Creationists make such a big deal about the YEC view For anyone who's unfamiliar with what the Young-Earth view, here's a starting point.

I want to start out by saying that this question is not about whether or not the YEC view it true.  It's not about whether there is scientific evidence for and/or against, or even neutral.  This is in no way, shape, or form, a question about the validity of the YEC view, or any opposing view.

Specifically, I'm asking why the Kent Hovinds, Ken Hams, and other prominent YEC creationists, and so many Fundamental conservative Christians so married to the YEC view, and so vocal about it.

Most of the people that self-identify as Christians could care less about the issue.  The idea of creation/evolution is a non-issue.  Debating whether the Genesis account of creation and the flood has no bearing on doctrines they care about, from their perspective.  As a matter of fact, many of them consider Creationists to be an embarrassment, and the idea of speaking out on the topic as counter-productive at best, and some think it's downright dangerous.

They open themselves, and as a result, all of Christianity to ridicule because they "refuse to believe science" and stick to ancient stories.

For the record (for the one or two people that don't already know it)  I am one of those people.  I'm a Young-Earth Creationist, so even though the above may sound like I'm attacking the YEC view, that's not why put all that in there.

What I'm looking for is an answer as to why the "Creation Science Evangelists" - the Kent Hovinds, Ken Hams, the ICR, creationtoday.org, and others are willing to go around preaching something that gets them laughed at, ridiculed, and even other Christians wish they'd just knock it off.  Why is it so important to them?  Is there a doctrinal reason, or are they just that stuck in their ways that they're unwilling to change?

Again...  This is not about the validity of the YEC view.  The point of this is not to reveal "Truth", the point is to accurately explain the doctrinal significance of the view, from the perspective of those who believe the view, so that we have it on record on site.

The answer is quite simple, actually, and laid out very well on the Answers in Genesis website.  The short version is that in the minds of Young Earth Creationists, the issue is not whether the earth is young or old.  It's not whether or not we evolved.  Those are distractions from the real question, which is "Can we trust Scripture?", and extending it further, "Was Jesus Himself a liar?"

remember - just explaining the position/doctrinal view, not debating the validity.

Every one of the Young Earth Creationists listed, and those of us that follow are among those that believe that the Bible is the divinely inspired, inerrant, infallible Word of God as described here,  here, and in the AIG article I linked to above.  Since the original manuscripts were given by God, it is impossible for them to be erroneous in any way.  And since we have such overwhelming manuscript evidence, we have every reason to believe that the Bible we have today is reliable.
All of them subscribe to a historical-grammatical method of interpretation, which provides guidelines for determining what content is to be taken literally, and where a non-literal interpretation is warranted.  Of course, there is variance in how this is applied, the view held by Young Earth Creationists is that a simple reading of the Genesis account without any external, non-Biblical evidence clearly gives six literal days of creation, one day of rest, a bit of history, and then a global flood. The age of the earth is based strictly on adding up the genealogies (when so and so was x years old, he begat y) and so on.

Since the method of interpretation includes the following:

  Extra-Biblical resources, such as language helps, commentaries, the
  writings of the so-called church fathers, and archaeological and
  scientific evidences, can be useful resources in correctly
  interpreting Scripture. But since they are the words and works of
  fallible men they are not authoritative.

when determining what a passage says, we can't refer to things like common knowledge, radiometric dating, currently accepted geology, paleontology, or any other branch of science.  When determining what Scripture says, only the context given within Scripture can be used. In other words, no "knowledge" of fallible man can possibly equal the revealed Truth given by God in Scripture.

Therefore, the only measurement we have to glean the age of the earth is the genealogies.  Without modern scientific knowledge, there would be no need for a gap theory, or a day-age theory.  That's why they refer to these as "compromise" theories - because they are attempting to use external evidence - man's fallible evidence and make it fit into God's word.

In Kent Hovind's words, "if you gave someone a Bible, with no idea about the controversy, and said 'read this - tell me what this says', not one of them would say 'Oh, there were millions of years between those days.' or gap theory, or anything of the sort.  They'd say 7 days".  Dr. Hovind goes on to re-state that you can't use fallible man's ideas to re-interpret Scripture.

So, for Young-Earth Creationists, the reason they view the Day-Age theory, or the Gap Theory, or anything else that tries to tie billions of years into the Creation account as invalid is pretty straightforward.

But how about the idea that the Genesis account is an allegory?  Plenty of Christians believe that.

Again, back to the "rules" of interpretation:

Scripture is intelligible. God meant for us to understand it.
Because it is infallible, the Bible is internally consistent. it can't contradict itself.
Because God meant to communicate truth, and because Scripture is internally consistent, the words of Scripture have only one meaning in context. There may be multiple legitimate applications of a passage of Scripture, but a passage has only one meaning in context. This is what it means to interpret Scripture according to its literal, or normal, sense.

None of that rules out an allegorical Genesis account, but how did Jesus treat the Genesis account?  Did He speak of it as if it were real, or did He speak of it as if it were an allegory?

Borrowing from the Answers in Genesis article:

  Another way that Jesus revealed His complete trust in the Scriptures
  was by treating as historical fact the accounts in the Old Testament
  which most contemporary people think are unbelievable mythology. These
  historical accounts include Adam and Eve as the first married couple
  (Matt. 19:3-6, Mark 10:3-9), Abel as the first prophet who was
  martyred (Luke 11:50-51), Noah and the Flood (Matt. 24:38-39), Moses
  and the serpent (John 3:14), Moses and the manna (John 6:32-33, 49),
  the experiences of Lot and his wife (Luke 17:28-32), the judgment of
  Sodom and Gomorrah (Matt. 10:15), the miracles of Elijah (Luke
  4:25-27), and Jonah and the big fish (Matt. 12:40-41). As Wenham has
  compellingly argued,7 Jesus did not allegorize these accounts but took
  them as straightforward history, describing events that actually
  happened just as the Old Testament describes. Jesus used these
  accounts to teach His disciples that the events of His death,
  resurrection and second coming would likewise certainly happen in
  time-space reality.

So, in summary, for the Young-Earth Creationist, because of the doctrines of an inspired, infallible, inerrant Word of God, combined with the approach they use toward interpreting Scripture, there is no breathing room left.

Jesus didn't seem to treat the Genesis account as allegorical.  He presented it as actual historical fact.

by extension, if it were not actual, historical fact, then Jesus was either wrong, or a liar.  Both options end up with Christianity being untrue.

The rules of interpretation of the Genesis account provide no reason not to take the creation period as six literal days, with one day of rest.  And there is nothing in Scripture, anywhere else, that provides even a hint that the account is to be taken as allegory.  The only evidence to that effect is external, non-Biblical evidence.  Therefore, per the rules of the historical-grammatical method of interpretation, we must accept that the account is a literal one, not allegorical.

Again, this leaves us with two options:  The Bible is wrong, or the historical-grammatical method of interpretation is wrong.

If the Bible is wrong, then we have no reliable record of history, and nothing upon which to base our faith, other than man's fallible teachings, which means Christianity is no more or less valid that Buddhism, or the worship of trees.

If the historical-grammatical method of interpretation is wrong, then we lack a framework for correctly divining the meaning of Scripture, and again, nothing solid upon which to place our faith.

So for the Young-Earth Creationist, all of these doctrines combine to force us into a corner where our only option is to believe in a young-earth view.  Any other view would render the book of Genesis as unreliable. Since Jesus referred to Genesis as real history several times, it would make Jesus unreliable.  Since many of Scripture's doctrines can be traced back to Genesis (original sin, marriage, and others), if Genesis falls, the rest of Scripture falls, Jesus is fallible, and therefore not God, so all of Christianity is a sham.

Again, one last time.  This is not about the validity of the YEC view.  The point of this is not to reveal "truth", the point is to accurately explain the view, so that we have it on record on site.  I am fully aware that not all of Christianity holds these views.  I am fully aware that you don't have to be a YEC believer to be a Christian.  I'm not stating that any other view is wrong.  I am merely presenting the thought process, and doctrinal importance of the Young-Earth Creationist view to those of us that hold this view.


Why was Thomas More canonized? Thomas More was canonized in 1935 by the Catholic Church. During his chancellorship between 1525-1529 in the campaign against the reformation people were killed and tortured in his name, for example, for the crime of owning an English Bible, something that is quite normal nowadays.

For what reasons do the Catholic Church justify his canonization?

The closest I can find to an answer to this question is in the final paragraph of this article, which says:

  More was beatified by Pope Leo XIII in 1886, along with other English martyrs, and canonized in 1935.  Had he never met death for the faith he still would have been a candidate for canonization as a confessor.  From first to last his life was singularly pure, lived in the spirit of his own prayer:  "Give me, good Lord, a longing to be with Thee; not for the avoiding of the calamities of this wicked world, nor so much for the avoiding the pains of purgatory, nor the pains of Hell neither, nor so much for the attaining of the joys of Heaven in respect of mine own commodity, as even for a very love of Thee."

(Emphasis mine.)

The implication here is that he was canonized because of his martyrdom, but that even if he had not been a martyr, he may still have been canonized.

This source also supports the theory that he was canonized for his martyrdom:

  St. Thomas More ... [was] canonized for his unfailing devotion.


When was the formal title of Pope first officially bestowed on the Bishops of Rome? I’ve read conflicting claims about who the first Pope was. I read this question in a newspaper - "Was Boniface the first true Pope?" Boniface I (418-22) was spoken of as a pope, but so were his predecessors, Zosimus (417-418) and Innocent I (401-17). Was it not Damasus (366-384) who made the theory about Peter an essential part of papal doctrine? He was the first pope to refer consistently to the church of Rome as the 'apostolic see' and to address bishops of other churches as 'sons; rather than as 'brothers'.

The answer given by Dr. Ahmes L. Pahor, Birmingham, to that newspaper question was, "While Siricius (384-399) is thought to have been the first Bishop of Rome to style himself Pope, he is not the first to have used the title. This appears to have originated in the East, in Alexandria, one of the main four seats of patriarchs at the time. Heraclas, Bishop of Alexandria (231-247), appointed 22 bishops to oversee Egypt, apart from Alexandria, his own diocese. He needed to take this action as the Egyptians turned to Christianity in great numbers and there was a need to have other bishops to help Heraclas administer the ever-growing Coptic Church. The Alexandrians saw Heraclas as 'father of the fathers' or 'papa', and thus the title 'pope' was bestowed on him by his congregation in the first half of the third century (about 150 years before Siricius)."

However, I read elsewhere that Pope Damasus took the title "Supreme Pontiff" in 380, for the first time. Yet I understand Catholics say that St. Miltiades was named Pope on 2 July 311, and Marcellinus (who died 304) was also called Pope. I’m just so confused as to when the title of Pope was bestowed, but not retrospectively.

Please note, I’m NOT asking about the title of Bishop of Rome.

Is there any recorded evidence as to when the title of Pope (papa) was bestowed upon, and publicly acknowledged by, the Bishops of Rome?  I’ve searched high and low on Catholic web sites, but although all the Bishops of Rome are referred to as Pope, I want to know when this became a distinctive title of the Bishops of Rome.  A complete list of all 266 Popes can be found here: The List of Popes.

Here is the short answer to your question:

Titles: The most noteworthy of the titles are Papa, Summus Pontifex, Pontifex Maximus, Servus servorum Dei. The title pope (papa) was, as has been stated, at one time employed with far more latitude. In the East it has always been used to designate simple priests. In the Western Church, however, it seems from the beginning to have been restricted to bishops (Tertullian, On Modesty 13). It was apparently in the fourth century that it began to become a distinctive title of the Roman Pontiff. Pope Siricius (d. 398) seems so to use it (Ep. vi in P.L., XIII, 1164), and Ennodius of Pavia (d. 473) employs it still more clearly in this sense in a letter to Pope Symmachus (P.L., LXIII, 69). Yet as late as the seventh century St. Gall (d. 640) addresses Desiderius of Cahors as papa (P.L., LXXXVII, 265). Gregory VII finally prescribed that it should be confined to the successors of Peter (1073-85).  Source: The Pope (Catholic Encyclopedia).

Below are quotes from the New Advent web site on the titles Bishop of Rome and Pope:

It is no longer denied by any writer of weight that St. Peter visited Rome and suffered martyrdom there (Harnack, "Chronol.", I, 244, n. 2). Some, however, of those who admit that he taught and suffered in Rome, deny that he was ever bishop of the city (e.g. Lightfoot, "Clement of Rome", II, 501; Harnack, op. cit., I, 703). It is not, however, difficult to show that the fact of his bishopric is so well attested as to be historically certain.
The first witness is St. Clement, a disciple of the Apostles, who, after Linus and Anacletus, succeeded St. Peter as the fourth in the list of popes. In his "Epistle to the Corinthians", written in 95 or 96, he bids them receive back the bishops whom a turbulent faction among them had expelled... The tone of authority which inspires the latter appears so clearly that Lightfoot did not hesitate to speak of it as "the first step towards papal domination" (Clement 1:70). Thus, at the very commencement of church history, before the last survivor of the Apostles had passed away, we find a Bishop of Rome, himself a disciple of St. Peter, intervening in the affairs of another Church and claiming to settle the matter by a decision spoken under the influence of the Holy Spirit. Such a fact admits of one explanation alone. It is that in the days when the Apostolic teaching was yet fresh in men's minds the universal Church recognized in the Bishop of Rome the office of supreme head.
The [second] century gives us the witness of St. Irenaeus — a man who stands in the closest connection with the age of the Apostles, since he was a disciple of St. Polycarp, who had been appointed Bishop of Smyrna by St. John. In his work "Adversus Haereses" (III:3:2) he brings against the Gnostic sects of his day the argument that their doctrines have no support in the Apostolic tradition faithfully preserved by the Churches, which could trace the succession of their bishops back to the Twelve.   He proceeds to enumerate the Roman succession from Linus to Eleutherius, the twelfth after the Apostles, who then occupied the see.
In the second century we cannot look for much evidence. With the exception of Ignatius, Polycarp, and Clement of Alexandria, all the writers whose works we possess are apologists against either Jews or pagans. In works of such a character there was no reason to refer to such a matter as Peter's Roman episcopate.  Irenaeus, however, supplies us with a cogent argument. In two passages (Against Heresies I.27.1 and III.4.3) he speaks of Hyginus as ninth Bishop of Rome, thus employing an enumeration which involves the inclusion of Peter as first bishop.  Irenaeus we know visited Rome in 177.
In the first quarter of the third century (about 220) Tertullian (On Modesty 21) mentions Callistus's claim that Peter's power to forgive sins had descended in a special manner to him. Had the Roman Church been merely founded by Peter and not reckoned him as its first bishop, there could have been no ground for such a contention. Tertullian, like Firmilian, had every motive to deny the claim. Moreover, he had himself resided at Rome, and would have been well aware if the idea of a Roman episcopate of Peter had been, as is contended by its opponents, a novelty dating from the first years of the third century, supplanting the older tradition according to which Peter and Paul were co-founders, and Linus first bishop.

Source: The Pope (Catholic Encyclopedia).
Conclusion: It appears that the official use of the title of Pope (as given to Bishops of Rome) and confined to the successors of Peter, did not come into effect till the reign of Pope Gregory VII (1073-85).


What date to place the patronal feast day of St. Mary’s Church? According to Catholicism, what are the norms or rubrics that explain what is the patronal feast day of St. Mary’s Catholic Church, when no particular mystery or other title has been indicated?

In my diocese alone there are many churches dedicated to the Virgin Mary with no other indication as to know when we should celebrate the parish feast day!

I am interested in the norms and rubrics for both the Ordinary and Extraordinary Rites of the Mass, whether they are different or the same.

Your hunch "that it is the Feast of the Assumption" appears correct, at least according to

Rev. W. J. Wiseman, “The Titular Feast,” The Pastor 3, no. 5 (March 1885): 129–36.

In the § "Practical Directions" (p. 131), he writes:

  Blessed Virgin is a general title. […](a) If the titulus is simply B. M. V., the titular feast is to be celebrated on the feast of the Assumption, where everything remains as now in the Ordo.

That's interesting it's the Assumption and not the Immaculate Conception (whose dogma Pius IX defined 31 years prior to this article, in Ineffabilis Deus). Of course the feast of the Assumption was celebrated even before Pius XII defined the dogma in Munificentissimus Deus in 1950, too. They're both great (1st class) feasts.


What denominations use gender-inclusive hymnology? Recently, I was asked to substitute "souls" for "men" in the hymn, "Good Christian Men, Rejoice," in order to be more gender-inclusive. In this same congregation, I caused quite a stir by suggesting we sing "Onward Christian Soldiers," for much the same reason.

I was reading through "The Faith We Sing" (a Methodist hymnal) and seem to remember seeing several substitutions like this.

This seems to be more of a left-wing / right-wing thing, but I'm wondering if there are denomination stances. Specifically, what do Catholics, Presbyterians, and Lutherans do in this regard.

I'm also curious whether or not this type of hymnody exists in Mormon and JW churches, and how widespread the practice is there.

I have seen Congregationalists and Episcopals do this most frequently (I've also seen Episcopals do the opposite). The modern Catholic abominations hymnals will often do things like that, but that can vary from parish to parish. When I was a singer in a PCUSA church the practice was to manually update, even though the hymnal didn't include it. I have seen similar updates in Lutheran and Baptist hymnals...

I think that my answer has to be, "most denominations do this to some extent." I hadn't originally started to say that, but I don't think I have an option.

Not to politicize this, but this happens to be a practice particularly common in the denominations and parishes to the left of center. I know a couple of Catholic parishes which use the right old words. I know that the Orthodox Pres. Church sticks with the old ones, as does the LCMS (very conservative Lutherans). Anglican Catholics use the old words as well (the most conservatives among the Episcopals generally fall in that category).


How do Jehovah's Witnesses define "active" membership? On several occations I have seen terms used for active vs inactive Jehovah's Witness church members. I have also seen inactive ones referred to as passive or even with both monikers together as inactive passive. Based on other experiences with JW's, I imagine these terms have fairly specific definitions. I just don't know what they are.

This makes me wonder exactly how membership is defined and what makes the difference between an active an a inactive member? What officially defines a person as one or the other, and what is the process and result of an official status change?

The definition of an inactive JW is that they are not active in their primary commission, which is of course the preaching of the good news of God's Kingdom. [Note: This refers specifically to preaching to non-Witnesses, whether in door-to-door "field service" or by some other method. This activity is structured, and time spent is recorded, reported, and compiled.] To my knowledge, this is the case if a Witness does not engage in preaching for a whole calendar month, but extenuating circumstances can be taken into account with the elderly and infirm being able to report much smaller intervals of activity. If a person is inactive they remain classified as this for three months following until they show that they are once again active in the service. Having said this inactivity is can also be accompanied by non attendance of meetings etc, but the primary definition is due to not being involved in preaching which in itself is a condition of "membership".

The difference between an active and inactive member can involve the duties that they are able to perform in the congregation as only those in good standing may be involved in some teaching assignments in the congregation (what would be the point of someone telling others to preach when they themselves do not?). Also persons that become inactive will be given extra attention to try and find the reason for inactivity and help them to return to service.

The count of members published per country every year includes only "active" members.


In John 8, were the scribes and pharisees guilty of the sin of Fornication / Adultery? The Lord Jesus said, "He that is without sin may throw the first stone." Since all of the accusers went away beginning with the oldest, does that imply that the scribes and pharisees (accusers) guilty of the specific sin of Adultery / fornication?

  If there be any of you who is without sin, without sin of this nature, that has not some time or other been guilty of fornication or adultery, let him cast the first stone at her.

Or, does Jesus mean in that instance that only he who has no sin at all, may throw the first stone?

The phrase "he that is without sin" is a translation of a single Greek word, anamartetos, which means sinless or faultless or without flaw.

It does not refer only to fornication, Jesus is effectively saying let the perfect one among you throw the first stone.

What happened next is that the scribes and pharisees went away. It is not clear whether they ever had any intention of stoning the woman in the first place. The reason they brought her to Jesus was to test Him, to see what reply He would give. If He said she should not be stoned they could accuse Him of going against the law, but if He said she should be stoned He would lose His reputation for gentleness. St Augustine, in Tractate 33 on St John's gospel said

  if he shall approve her being stoned, he will not show his gentleness; if he consent to let her go, he will not keep righteousness. But, say they, that he may not lose the reputation of gentleness, for which he has become an object of love to the people, without doubt he will say that she must be let go. Hence we find an opportunity of accusing him, and we charge him as being a transgressor of the law: saying to him, You are an enemy to the law; you answer against Moses, nay, against Him who gave the law through Moses;

So Jesus in allowing he who is without sin to cast the first stone meant he who was perfect, not simply anyone who has never committed adultery or fornication. In going away the scribes and pharisees were not making a public admission of adultery - if  that had been Christ's meaning the result could have been different.


What is the meaning of the word Devils in the King James version of the Bible? The word Devils appears in the King James version of the Bible 55 times, and appears to refer to different entities in different places. This is apparently someone or something different from The Devil or Satan which I understand to refer to the fallen Angel Lucifer.

In Deuteronomy 32:17

  They sacrificed unto devils, not to God; to gods whom they knew not, to new gods that came newly up, whom your fathers feared not.

and Revelation 9:20

  And the rest of the men which were not killed by these plagues yet repented not of the works of their hands, that they should not worship devils, and idols of gold, and silver, and brass, and stone, and of wood: which neither can see, nor hear, nor walk:

the apparent reference is to false gods.

In Matthew 8:16

  When the even was come, they brought unto him many that were possessed with devils: and he cast out the spirits with his word, and healed all that were sick:

and in Revelation 18:2

  And he cried mightily with a strong voice, saying, Babylon the great is fallen, is fallen, and is become the habitation of devils, and the hold of every foul spirit, and a cage of every unclean and hateful bird.

it appears to  just some kind of Spirits.

and in Revelation 16:14

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

It seems to refer to some being which has a Spirit.

The King James Version (and perhaps others) confounds the English translation in this respect.

Using Blue Letter Bible, I performed a word search for "devil" in the King James Version, and it "occurs 61 times in 57 verses in the KJV." According to its lexicon search, three nouns are translated as "devil" in the King James Version:

G1140 δαιμόνιον (daimonion)

5 occurrences

devil(s): 5/5

G1228 διάβολος (diabolos)

38 occurrences

devil(s): 35/38
false accuser(s): 2/38
slanderer(s): 1/38

G1142 δαίμων (daimōn)

60 occurrences

devil(s): 59/60
god(s): 1/60

Regarding the verses you cited, you simply need to use a site like Blue Letter Bible and identify the underlying Greek word. Then, read my analysis below.

The English Word "Devil"

The English word "devil" is basically a loose transliteration of the Greek word διάβολος. But, an actual translation (thereby capturing the meaning of the Greek word) would be "slanderer" or "accuser," since διάβολος is a noun derived from the verb διαβάλλω, meaning "to slander, accuse, defame." In any case, as long as one understands the meaning of διάβολος' etymological origin (i.e., the verb διαβάλλω), it's okay to translate it into English as "devil," just like we write "Messiah" and understand by it, "anointed one," although the word "Messiah" is also a loose transliteration, not a translation. In conclusion, the English noun "devil" is a loose transliteration of the Greek noun διάβολος, which may be translated into English as "slanderer, accuser."

In the Greek New Testament, the Greek word διάβολος is most often used in reference to one particular heavenly being who led a rebellion against God and was cast out of heaven along with his fellow apostate angels (cp. Rev. 12:9). However, it may also be used in reference to humans who slander (cp. 1 Tim. 3:11).

The English Word "Demon"

You may have already guessed that the English word "demon" is also a loose transliteration of the Greek words δαίμων and δαιμόνιον. But, very few know what a demon is. This confusion is compounded by the fact that the King James Version almost always translates both δαίμων and δαιμόνιον as "devil" and not "demon." So, if someone did not bother to examine the Greek, they would never know a distinction exists. In fact, I did a word search on "demon" in the King James Version, and it never occurs. This is rather unfortunate.

There are various theories on what a demon is, and unfortunately, I don't have the time to critique them all.

Luke 4:33 seems to place πνεῦμα ("spirit") in apposition to δαιμονίου ἀκαθάρτου ("unclean demon"), thereby suggesting that a demon is a spirit. Heinrich Meyer notes, "The genitive is a genitive of apposition or of nearer definition...and δαιμόνιον, which, according to Greek usage, is in itself applicable to either good or evil spirits, being used by Luke for the first time in this passage, is qualified by ἀκαθάρτου."1 Elsewhere, in the Book of Tobit, we find Asmodeus referred to as an "evil demon" (τὸ πονηρὸν δαιμόνιον).2 The same author also mentions a "demon or evil spirit" (δαιμόνιον ἢ πνεῦμα πονηρόν),3 again suggesting that "demon" is equated to "evil spirit."

However, the word "spirit" can refer to a few things, including the immaterial and incorporal essence within man, sometimes referred to as his rational soul (cp. Heb. 4:12; 1 Thes. 5:23).2 Or, it can refer to angels (Heb. 1:7 cp. Psa. 104:4). So, is a demon, being identified as a "spirit," the former or the latter?

Josephus also mentioned demons.5 But he apparently believed they were the disembodied spirits of wicked humans who died. He wrote,6

  ἔστι δὲ μετὰ τοσούτων κινδύνων διὰ μίαν ἰσχὺν περισπούδαστος: τὰ γὰρ καλούμενα δαιμόνια, ταῦτα δὲ πονηρῶν ἐστιν ἀνθρώπων πνεύματα τοῖς ζῶσιν εἰσδυόμενα καὶ κτείνοντα τοὺς βοηθείας μὴ τυγχάνοντας, αὕτη ταχέως ἐξελαύνει, κἂν προσενεχθῇ μόνον τοῖς νοσοῦσι.

  Yet, after so many dangers, it is greatly desired because of one power: for, it quickly expels those called "demons" (now, these are spirits of wicked men which enter those who are alive and kill those who do not obtain help), and only if it is brought to the sick people.

It is up to the reader to further investigate this matter in order to determine the exact nature of demons, but one thing is certain, there is a difference between (1) διάβολος and (2) δαίμων/ δαιμόνιον.

Footnotes

1 Commentary on Luke 4:33

2 Tobit 3:8, 3:17

3 Tobit 6:8

4 Compare Philo, Who is the Heir of Divine Things, §132: «τὴν μὲν ψυχὴν εἰς λογικὸν καὶ ἄλογον»

5 Jewish Antiquities, 6.8.2, 6.11.2, 8.2.5

6 Wars of the Jews, 7.6.3

References

Meyer, Heinrich. Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament.


What does it mean to say "Jesus died for our sins"? When Christians say "Jesus died for our sins", what do they mean?

      I went to Catholic school for 5 years and all I heard was "Jesus died for our sins", "Jesus sacrificed himself for us!!", and "Jesus was the Messiah!". What do you mean by this?
As far as I'm concerned, everyone still "sins" all the time.

      Which brings me to my next point...

      Why call Jesus a messiah? Was it impossible to be a good person before he "sacrificed himself for us"?

      This isn't meant to be a hostile question... I really want to know what you mean when you say this kind of stuff.

Jesus died for our sins

What we (and the Bible) mean by the phrase "Jesus died for our sins" is that all sins have a penalty.  We see the same thing in the justice systems of nations--for every crime, there is a penalty.  When the penalty is paid, we say that justice has been served, and that's a good thing.

Our sins are really rebellion against God, and they carry a weighty penalty.  The penalty is death--not just physical, but spiritual as well.  In physical death, our bodies are separated from our souls and spirits.  In spiritual death, we are separated from God.

Jesus died for our sins in that He paid the penalty for our sins.  As you point out, this does not mean we stop sinning.  What it does mean is that the penalty incurred by our sins is satisfied by the payment made by Jesus Himself.

By way of illustration, if you committed a crime and the penalty for that crime was $1,000,000, you could not pay it.  However, if you happen to be the son of Warren Buffet, he could pay the penalty on your behalf.  The penalty is still paid.  The victim is still restored.  The cost is still real.  Yet because of the generosity and sacrifice of your father, you are not bound to pay the penalty.

So, Jesus died for our sins and paid the penalty for them out of His love and generosity, allowing us to avoid paying the penalty ourselves if we accept that.

Jesus, the Messiah

Jesus is not merely a Messiah--He is the Messiah.  He is not merely one of many good people who made sacrifices for others.  That is not what the word "Messiah" means.  Indeed, many people have done good things and made sacrifices for others, from Mother Theresa to many others.  Yet, while people may make notable sacrifices, no one but Jesus could die for the sins of another.

All other people are only human and have their own sins to deal with.  Only Jesus, the eternal Son of God who existed before the world and time began, has the authority to die to pay the penalty for the sins of anyone else.

So, Jesus is the Messiah--the only one who could pay the penalty for the sins of the world.


God and Satan in the book of Job: how did they know about this conversation? Job chapter 1 vers 6 - 12 talks about God and Satan having a conversation.  Where does that story come from?

Job does not know what is going on and I have never heard anyone talk about it. Is it a revelation or is it a tradition that helps us understand what was said in this conversation?  Who knew and who was told that this conversation was going on?

(If there is not another Bible verse that can explain this question maybe the RCC or the Orthodox church have a tradition that can explain such a question).

The author is not as important; how did the author know is the important part.

Great Question, I was actually wondering the same thing for a while until I did some reading.
The entire bible was written with the Inspiration of God, as found in

  2 Timothy 3:16 NKJV
  16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness,

So basically God told the author what happened and what to write.For instance no one was there for the creation, God had to tell the author.


According to Catholicism, is marrying a woman who had children out of wedlock a sin? I am assuming here that marrying a divorced woman is a sin, according to the Sermon on the Mount.

If that is the case, what about a woman who had a child but never married?

Is the child’s father still considered the woman’s “master”? I mean, sex was one of the ways of acquiring a wife back in the day. And their flesh was joined together. So let no man separate that?

What is the view of Catholicism on this?

Traditional Catholic here.

To answer your main question, no, it is not a sin to marry someone who had children previously out of wedlock. The husband would be taking on the duties of fathering them by making her his wife. And perhaps the woman had not even sinned either: she might have been raped.

The fact of impregnating a woman does not make her a man's wife, much less merely having sexual intercourse with her.  The Scripture is "Let no man separate what God has joined together." God does not "join together" apart from marriage.

The Church has never taught that a man becomes a woman's "master" by having sex with her.  This is grotesque. (The husband is, of course, the head of the family, but that's a different matter.)

Marrying a divorced woman is a sin given that she was actually already married. For example, if she was a baptised Catholic, she had to have been married in the Church. (Details in The Code of Canon Law under Matrimony)  If not, her previous "marriage" was never valid (but it still has to be annuled). For anyone (since the Church also recognizes marriages of non-Catholics) there has to be mutual consent, the intention to have children, and the belief that divorce is never an option, et al.  Indeed, according to the Church, many people are not actually married today, neither sacramentally nor naturally.

Update: Korvin edited the last sentence above to include "(in the sacramental sense)." I politely re-edit this because it is not only that most people are not receiving the sacrament of Matrimony, but in fact many are not marrying even in the natural sense (called "natural marriage"). As I wrote, for anyone entering into marriage, natural or sacramental, there are certain conditions, as they pertain to the very definition of marriage. For example, the primary purpose of marriage is to have children. Therefore, if a couple gets "married" but expressly decides beforehand to not have children, they do not contract a valid marriage, according to the Church. The Catechism of Trent distinguishes between the two types of marriage but retains the same basic definition for both: "For as marriage, as a natural union, was instituted from the beginning to propagate the human race..." (http://www.catholicapologetics.info/thechurch/catechism/Holy7Sacraments-Matrimony.shtml)

Most of these teachings can be found in the Catechism, articles 1601 through 1666.  The above is a summary of orthodox Catholic teaching, which you can confirm for yourself using serious sources.


How is the Solemnity of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary celebrated within the domestic church, that is, within the Catholic family? I've heard that in Columbia there is a rich tradition around celebrating the Solemnity of the Assumption of Mary.  It's a very important feast in the Catholic Church, but it's usually not observed within the domestic church: that is, observed by the family considered as a specifically Catholic community.

So, what is it that spurred certain Catholic groups into having traditions around the feast and how do Catholic families celebrate it as a feast unique from other Marian feasts?

Both the Catholic and Orthodox Churches have many traditions and customs surrounding the Feast of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary, body and soul into heaven. The domestic church, that is to say the family, like the Holy Family of Jesus, Mary and Joseph practices its Christian faith in such ways as to continuously deepen their belief in their holy religion. As a family there are many traditions at their disposal, if they so desire to follow them. Obviously the recitation of the rosary as a family would be a wholesome start. Years ago, we would pray the rosary along with the Pope John Paul II via a cassette tape. Then there would be the saying of a novena in preparation of this feast.

The Catholic Church has always professed her belief that Mary was assumed body and soul into heaven by a unique privilege from God. In 1950, Pope Pius XII defined the dogma of the Assumption of Mary into heaven, without touching the question as to whether Mary actually died or not. This ecclesiastical event, provoked a new Mass to be written up in the Roman Rite (Signum Magmum) for the feast. In the Ambroisan Rite of Milan the traditional liturgical color of black for this feast was changed to white (or gold).

Today there are over 30 countries in which hold this feast (August 15) as a public holiday. Mother's day is observed on this day in Costa Rica and Belgium. The Armenian Church blesses grapes on this feast. In the Roman Ritual, there is a blessing for fruits and herbs which is reserved explicitly for the Feast of the Assumption. In many localities of Europe, families bring fruit to their local parishes to be blessed by the pastor. Others celebrate this day by joining into various procession held in Mary's honor.

In Austria and France priests still preform the "Blessing of the Alps", Not only are the mountains blessed, but also meadows and farms. In some places, the "Blessing of the Sea" is done today, such as in some ports in Italy and Portugal. Finally, there are several traditional food stuffs that are served in families on this day around the world. See Wikipedia's article on the Assumption of Mary.

As I have already mentioned above, Pope Pius XII introduced a new Mass of the Assumption when it was proclaimed a doctrine of the Catholic Church. The domestic church as a family listen to the Propers of the Mass Signum Magnum on YouTube on the glorious Feast of Mary's Assumption: Assumption 15th August (Fontgombault Abbey)

  Armenians, the faithful bring the first grapes from their vineyards to church on Assumption Day to have them solemnly blessed by the priest. Before breakfast the father distributes them to his family. No one would dream of tasting the new harvest before consuming the first blessed grapes on Our Lady's Day.

  In Sicily people keep a partial or total abstinence from fruit during the first two weeks of August (La Quindicina) in honor of the Blessed Virgin. On the feast day itself they have all kinds of fruit blessed in church and serve them at dinner. They also present each other with baskets of fruit on Assumption Day.

  From early centuries the Feast of the Assumption was a day of great religious processions. This popular custom seems to have started with the ancient Roman practice, which Pope Sergius I (701) inaugurated, of having liturgical prayer-processions (litaniae) on the major feasts of Mary. In many places of central Europe, also in Spain, France, Italy, and South America, such processions are held. In Austria the faithful, led by the priest, walk through the fields and meadows imploring God's blessing upon the harvest with prayer and hymns. - Catholic Activity: Assumption Day


Was the book of Enoch once part of the holy scriptures? Jude 1:14
And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of these, saying, Behold, the
Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints ...

This seems to indicate that the apostle not only read the book of Enoch but also that the apostle viewed it as actually written by Enoch. I have been wondering, was the book of Enoch respected by the apostles?

Its very likely that it was. Our modern version is questionable though.

The modern version of Enoch that we have came from Ethiopia. In translation it may be a copy of a copy, although the Ethiopian church says the whole thing actually originated in the Ethiopian language:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Enoch

  The traditional belief of the Ethiopic Orthodox Church, which sees 1
  Enoch as an inspired document, is that the Ethiopic text is the
  original one, written by Enoch himself. They believe that the
  following opening sentence of Enoch is the first and oldest sentence
  written in any human language, since Enoch was the first to write
  letters:

  "ቃለ፡ በረከት፡ ዘሄኖክ፡ ዘከመ፡ ባረከ፡ ኅሩያነ፡ ወጻድቃነ፡ እለ፡ ሀለዉ፡ ይኩኑ"
  "በዕለተ፡ ምንዳቤ፡ ለአሰስሎ፡ ኵሉ፡ እኩያን፡ ወረሲዓን።"
  "Qāla barakat za-Hēnōk za-kama bāraka ḫərūyāna wa-ṣādəqāna 'əlla hallawu yəkūnū ba-ʿəlata məndābē la-'asassəlō kʷəllū 'əkūyān
  wa-rasīʿān"

  "Word of blessing of Henok, wherewith he blessed the chosen and righteous  who would be alive in the day of tribulation for the removal
  of all wrongdoers and backsliders."

Doctrinally its hard to match to the scriptures, but again this could be the result of translating a work from one language that was translated from yet another language.

There is also the question of insertions. For instance the book flows fairly well, but then a deviation is made to a strange story about Noah which differs in both delivery and believability. There are a few like this.

Enoch is a very advanced book, far beyond Revelation, layers deep in prophesy. Its quite hard to approach without questioning modern understanding of scripture, so it must be approached carefully.


What biblical evidence is there that our spirit only began in this life? LDS believe that our spirit was in existence before we are born here on earth. What biblical evidences are there that that is not the case?

  Genesis 2:4 These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens, 5 And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the Lord God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground. (KJV)

This implies that plants and herbs were in exhistance before they were placed on the earth. There also seems to be a double creation with Adam.

  Genesis 1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
  Genesis 2:7 And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

This implies that Adam was created spiritually, like plants and herbs, then created from the dust.

There are also other scriptures that support that man exhisted before this life. For instace Job 38:7, Eccl. 12:7, Jer. 1:5, John 9:2, Romans 8:29.

What evidences are there in the bible that our spirits were not in existence until this life?

I don't know if there are any particular verses in the Bible that specify souls do not pre-exist.  As Dick said, you are trying to prove a negative, which is difficult.
However, I did find a verse in the Orthodox Deutero-canonical text (referred to by others as the Apocrypha) that says there is no reincarnation:

A man indeed killeth through his malice: and the spirit, when it is gone forth, returneth not; neither the soul received up cometh again.
Wisdom of Solomon 16:14

It would stand to reason that if reincarnation is not true because a soul being in the place it goes to after life on earth does not come back to earth, then it follows that a soul simply does not come from there to here - it is a one way trip from here to there.


Is this distinction of biblical "love" terminology compatible with scripture? I very frequently hear repeated that there are three Greek words (or word-groups, more precisely) that are translated into the same English word "love"; the words being ἀγάπη, φιλíα, and ἔρως. ἔρως is said to refer to sexual love, φιλíα to a non-sexual "brotherly love" that is not specific to Christians and ἀγάπη to the highest form of love that only a Christian can know.

However, I've never heard any backing for this claim and have a sneaking suspicion that this is one of those things that gets passed around pastoral circles without getting checked out.

The problem lies, of course, when one imports the distinction into his/her exegesis and extracts a meaning that may not be present. For example, if φιλíα is used rather than ἀγάπη in a particular passage, one might conclude that less is being required.

So, my question is, are the semantic ranges of these words as rigid as is claimed, and are the definitions consistent with what is intended in scripture?

The commonly held understanding is partially correct, but overstated.  In reality, the semantic range of the words is broader.

Agape

It is true that the words ἀγαπάω (agapaó) and ἀγάπη (agapé) came to mean something like "the highest form of love," but this was primarily due later Christian usage of the term.  At the time of the New Testament's writing, the word had a broad semantic range, not all that different than the modern English word love.  A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament (BDAG), lists the following meanings (italics are suggested glosses; definitions [numbers] are direct quotes; usages [letters] are summaries):

  ἀγαπάω (verb)

  to have warm regard for and interest in another, cherish, have affection for, love

  a. by humans - toward other humans (in a variety of fashions) or toward God/Jesus as an act of special devotion

  b. by transcendent beings - toward ordinary humans or toward other transcendent beings
  to have high esteem for or satisfaction with something, take pleasure in
  to practice/express love, prove one's love

  ἀγάπη (noun)

  the quality of warm regard for and interest in another, esteem, affection, regard, love

  a. of human love - without an object (i.e. an abstract trait), toward an impersonal object, toward human beings, toward God/Jesus

  b. of God/Jesus - toward humans, referring to the relationship between God and Christ
  a common meal eat by early Christians in connection with their worship, for the purpose of fostering and expressing mutual affection and concern, fellowship meal, a love-feast

From these definitions, it should be clear that it is not a technical term reserved exclusively for "Christian love."  This can also be seen plainly by its use in Luke 6:32:

  If you love (ἀγαπᾶτε) those who love (ἀγαπῶντας) you, what benefit is that to you? For even sinners love (ἀγαπῶσιν) those who love (ἀγαπῶντας) them. (ESV)

If "sinners" are capable of this love, it cannot be something reserved to true believers.

Additionally, BDAG lists various non-Biblical usages of the verb to describe, for instance, love for fellow humans.  The noun form is rare outside of the Bible, although sufficient examples exist to show it did not generally have a special religious significance.  The reason it is rare is that it had a "colloquial flavor," which written works generally seek to avoid.

Philos

The words φιλέω (phileó) and φίλος (philos) have a similar semantic range.  Indeed, φιλέω was the normal verb for many kinds of love in ancient times, but gradually lost ground to ἀγαπάω in most contexts.  It does not, however, normally refer to romantic love. BDAG lists the following meanings:

  φιλέω (verb)

  to have a special interest in someone or something, frequently with focus on close association, have affection for, like, consider someone a friend

  a. in regards to people - usually literal relatives extra-Biblically; to describe the relationship between believers in the Bible; occasionally, God's relationship to believers

  b. in regards to things

  c. informally to mean "like/love to do something"
  to kiss as a special indication of affection, kiss

φίλος (noun)

  pertaining to having a special interest in someone, beloved, dear, and actively loving, kindly disposed, devoted
  substantively, one who is on intimate terms or in close association with another,

  a. friend - literally or "in a special sense" (for example, fulfilling a specific role - see John 3:29)

  b. woman friend (similar to the way a contemporary woman might use "girlfriends")

Eros and Storge

Ancient Greek has two other word sets sometimes associated the word English word love: ἐράω (eraō) / ἔρως (érōs) and στέργω (stérgō) / στοργή (storgḗ).  Neither occurs in the New Testament, so the BDAG entries are short.  (The words do appear in the Septuagint, however.) The entries in A Greek-English Lexicon (LSJ) list the following meanings:

  ἐράω (verb)

  love, property of the sexual passion; to be in love with
  without sexual reference, love warmly
  love or desire passionately

  ἔρως (noun)

  a. love, mostly of the sexual passion; love for one; generally, love of a thing; desires

  b. object of love or desire

  c. passionate joy
  the god of love
  at Nicaea, a funeral wreath
  name of the κλῆρος Ἀφροδίτης

  στέργω (verb)

  a. love, feel affection, freq. of the mutual love of parents and children; also used in similar authority-subject relationships such as ruler-people or master-dog

  b. less freq. of the love of husband and wife; also other near equal relationships such as siblings or friends

  c. seldom of sexual love
  generally, to be fond of, show affection for
  to be content or satisfied, acquiesce
  desire, entreat

  στοργή (noun)

  love, affection, esp. of parents and children
  rarely sexual love

As the above entries show, these words too have broad semantic ranges.

Summary

Typically the four words are described in Christian popular literature something along the lines of:

agape = Christian love
philia = brotherly love or friendship
eros = romantic or sexual love
storage = family love

These definitions are not incorrect per se, but greatly oversimplify the semantic range of all four words.  Essentially, they equate a word with its most common meaning (in Christian literature), which is not proper - neither English or Greek words can be so narrowly defined.  For example, agape does indeed typically refer to Christ-like love in the New Testament.  However, it does so not because of the lexical specificity of the word, but rather only because the New Testament authors typically use it that way.

To directly address the heart of the question - no, one cannot draw exegetical conclusions from word choice alone.  It provides a clue, of course, but context is far word important in determining what the author meant in a specific Bible verse than word choice.  The dictionary definition of use of ἀγαπάω/ἀγάπη and φιλέω/φίλος have considerable overlap.

The Greeks did not have four words to describe four different kinds of love.  They had four words for one set of complex human emotion with different connotations, just like English has many (overlapping) words that describe aspects of "love".


Did Jesus tell us that we should give a tenth to The Church and then give of the excess to the poor? Matthew 23:23  KJV  Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye pay tithe of mint and anise and
cummin, and have omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith: these ought ye
to have done, and not to leave the other undone.

I was intrigued by Jesus saying that they were fastidious in their tithes, but omitting judgment, mercy, and
faith. So I looked up the meaning of both tithe, and alms in Webster's dictionary.
TITHE  The tenth part of any thing; but appropriately, the tenth part of the
increase annually arising from the profits of land and stock, allotted to the
clergy for their support. Tithes are personal, predial, or mixed; personal, when
accruing from labor, art, trade and navigation; predial, when issuing from the
earth, as hay, wood and fruit; and mixed, when accruing from beasts, which are
fed from the ground.

ALMS  Any thing given gratuitously to relieve the poor, as money, food, or clothing,
otherwise called charity.

I also ran across the following verses:

Luke 6:38  KJV  Give, and it shall be given unto you; good measure, pressed down, and shaken together, and running over, shall men give into your bosom. For with the same measure that ye mete withal it shall be measured to you again.
Luke 12:34  KJV  For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also.

I have taken those to say that Christians have  a bigger obligation, than just giving a tenth to the Church.
I have checked for similar questions on the site, but found that none specifically answer my question.

TL;DR

We're not commanded to give to The Church. Giving to the poor is giving to God. Giving is about demonstrating our thanks to God for providing for us in the past and our trust in God to provide for us in the future.

In what way are we commanded (or even urged) to give?

I don't see a command in the NT mandating details (quantity, timing, etc.) of giving. Some attributes of the method are given, but certainly not anything regarding quantity. The object of our giving isn't necessarily prescribed either. I certainly don't see a precedent for saying that we ought to give our money to The Church.

The closest example I see of giving as it's typically done in American churches is found in 1 Corinthians 16.

  1 Corinthians 16:2a (NASB) On the first day of every week each one of you is to put aside and save, as he may prosper,

This instance is speaking about a specific need that the saints in Jerusalem had. I don't think this is the same as "giving to the Church." The local assembly of believers was giving the money to help starving people in Jerusalem. You could perhaps argue that Jerusalem is where the Church leadership was centered, but I don't read the text as emphasizing any special use the leaders had for the gift. It seems more likely that they would just immediately hand the money to one of the deacons (i.e. "servants"; Acts 6:2b (NASB), "It is not desirable for us to neglect the word of God in order to serve tables.") and not use it for any special "Church work" or administration.

Paul was the recipient of some gifts, and said that supporting apostles (maybe even evangelists?) was acceptable.

  Philippians 4:16 (NASB) ...for even in Thessalonica you sent a gift more than once for my needs.

Again, I don't see this (and perhaps I'm predisposed to think so) as supporting the Church as a whole, but a specific individual or a specific need.

Neither is tithing a command under the new covenant. At least, it is not said to be so by Jesus or the NT authors.

How should we give?

Secretly—or Not Ostentatiously

Our motives should not be for selfish glory.

  Matthew 6:1-4 (NASB) Beware of practicing your righteousness before men to be noticed by them; otherwise you have no reward with your Father who is in heaven. So when you give to the poor, do not sound a trumpet before you, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, so that they may be honored by men. Truly I say to you, they have their reward in full. But when you give to the poor, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, 4 so that your giving will be in secret; and your Father who sees what is done in secret will reward you.

Also confer: Acts 5.

Cheerfully

  2 Corinthians 9:7 (NASB) Each one must do just as he has purposed in his heart, not grudgingly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver.

Generously

  2 Corinthians 9:6 (NASB) Now this I say, he who sows sparingly will also reap sparingly, and he who sows bountifully will also reap bountifully.

There's no limit on how much (or little) we're supposed to give.

  Luke 21:1-4 (NASB) And He looked up and saw the rich putting their gifts into the treasury. And He saw a poor widow putting in two small copper coins. And He said, "Truly I say to you, this poor widow put in more than all of them; for they all out of their surplus put into the offering ; but she out of her poverty put in all that she had to live on."

In fact, the greatest value in giving is in the quality of the sacrifice on our parts.

  Philippians 4:17 (NASB) Not that I seek the gift itself, but I seek for the profit which increases to your account.

This harmonizes with what Jesus said about the widow who gave a small amount of money.

Conclusion

Jesus says:

  Acts 20:35 (NASB) "It is more blessed to give than to receive."

Like nearly every other requirement of Christianity, giving is about our hearts. Do we give freely out of generosity (without selfish motives)? Do we give out of love for God or someone else? These are the essentials of Christian giving.

God doesn't need our money. He doesn't seem to care about balancing his bank account. In terms of what he can do, there's always "more where that came from," no matter how much he has already given.

I don't see the Biblical authors prescribing the object of our charity, nor do I see that we have any sort of minimum standard of giving to maintain.

It's very simple (though difficult): Everything I have is God's to do with as he wishes. When I know of a need, I ought to do something about it.


Does the Catholic church consider Mark 16:9-20 to be biblical canon? Many (but not all) scholars assert that Mark 16:9-20 was not present in the earliest manuscripts, and that instead it was added by later copyists. Does the Catholic Church consider these verses to be biblical canon?

Furthermore, is this a closed issue? If we happened to somehow find the very first copy of the gospel of Mark, and it either included or excluded these verses, would the Catholic Church be open to changing their stance?

At the Council of Trent, the Church officially declared as dogma the canon of Holy Scripture. This included "the four Gospels, according to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John." The council did not explicitly say whether the Longer Ending of the Gospel is canonical. However, it does declare that

if any one receive not, as sacred and canonical, the said books entire with all their parts, as they have been used to be read in the Catholic Church, and as they are contained in the old Latin vulgate edition; and knowingly and deliberately contemn the traditions aforesaid; let him be anathema.
(emphasis added)

The Longer Ending is in fact included in the Vulgate as well as in the New Vulgate. Further, in the declaration of the canon of Holy Scripture, the Council recalled that

our Lord Jesus Christ... commanded [the Gospels] to be preached by His Apostles to every creature,

a clear reference to Mark 16:15.
It thus appears that yes, the Church does consider the Longer Ending canon.


Do JWs have vestments, clothing, or "sacred" or symbolic objects that are used for any particular occasion or position? Different denominations have different sacred items and garbs available for priests, bishops, and the like.

For example, this Wikipedia article on vestments mentions that such liturgical garments are used by "Eastern Orthodox, Catholics (Latin Church and others), Anglicans, and Lutherans". And this article shows some other garments worn by clergy in some denominations.

And then Mormons have the temple garments (a form of underwear) discussed in this article.

This other question led me to check the YouTube videos of Jehovah's Witnesses meetings but I did not see any specific clothing or other items present in those.

Do Jehovah's Witnesses have any specific garments (e.g. underwear) or sacred/symbolic objects used for any particular occasion or church position?

No, Jehovah's Witnesses don't have any special garments, nor is there a clergy class.
They do try to dress up for their ministry and Kingdom Hall meetings, according to the principle at 1 Timothy 2:9, 10. Different cultures will have different expectations for what constitutes "appropriate" and "modest" dress and grooming, so there are no specific rules.

1 Timothy 2:9, 10 (NWT)
9 Likewise, the women should adorn themselves in appropriate dress, with modesty and soundness of mind, not with styles of hair braiding and gold or pearls or very expensive clothing, 10 but in the way that is proper for women professing devotion to God, namely, through good works.

You can observe what JWs look like around the world in the side-scrolling images on jw.org.

In terms of symbolic objects, Jehovah's Witnesses use unleavened bread and red wine as symbols during the Memorial of Jesus' Death once each year.


How do creationists explain the geologic column? The geologic column and fossil record contained within has been used to support the theory of evolution. How do creationists explain it instead?

The long-age view of the geologic column is uniformitarian, in which the rock layers represent time, and burial order of fossils represents the order of evolution.  In contrast, the young-earth creationist explanation is catastrophic, where the rock layers represent a big watery catastrophe (Noah's flood) and the burial order of fossils shows where creatures were carried to and rapidly buried in the flood.

The mainstream geologic column is divided into different epochs and eras in time which the layers are supposed to represent.  The creationist geologic column is divided in the same kind of way, but the timescale is very different.

And overview of a creationist geologic column can be seen here http://biblicalgeology.net/Model/Biblical-Geology.html

More detailed classification and subdivisions can be seen here http://biblicalgeology.net/Model/Detail.html

This is of course just one model, which may be helpful for creationists to understand and interpret the rocks.


Original sin and its consequences Possible Duplicate:
  How could a loving, just, merciful God have created such an unfair test for humans?

It's said that death came into the world due to the primary sin of Adam and Eve.
But if you take a look around you notice that everything dies. From the little ants
to the immense universe we live in. Then is it fair to say that the little ants and
the planets, galaxies, the whole universe, all die because one guy ate a forbidden apple?

It's funny. This question made me realize something I never noticed before.  It's true.  For almost nothing (a 'mere apple'), Adam knowingly threw away life, heaven, paradise, and eternal happiness - for the whole universe. This makes Adam's sin possibly the greatest ever committed. A million Hitlers could not sin in all their lives as much as Adam did in this one crime.

One sin, no matter how small is the closest thing man will approach the infinite for it shows disrespect to the only being who is infinite in goodness and glory. Therefore, the smallest sin can't be repaid in a thousand deaths of the universe. Even if all mankind, animals, forests, planets, etc., were to burn a thousand Hells, the penalty could never approach the infinitude of the crime because a crime is proportional to the object it offends. To cut off the leg of a centipede when angry is not as offensive as cutting off the leg of the American President's new born child in anger. Similarly, to disrespect God is greater than all crimes against all humans, for all of time.

Now to add to the infinitude of the smallest sin, the fact that Adam actually did not have a sinful compulsion and yet threw all of life away for just a stupid apple, who can comprehend or express the wickedness of it? We would be less foolish and evil to kill a whole nation with a nuclear bomb for the temptation of a jelly-bean.


What is the origin of the story of the angel Raphael and the boy Tobias? In Arthur Miller's play The Crucible, Puritan John Proctor says the following:

  Now remember what the angel Raphael said to the boy Tobias […] “Do that which is good, and no harm will come to thee.”

To my knowledge, an encounter between an angel named Raphael and a boy named Tobias is not in the Bible. Does it have its origin in some other Christian literature? And if so, does this phrase appear?

This is a quote from the Book of Tobit, which is recognized as part of the deuterocanon by the Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and Oriental Orthodox churches. The book tells of a father, Tobit, and his son, Tobias or Tobiah. Tobias is led by the angel Raphael to find a wife, and returns with medicine to cure his father's blindness. As Raphael prepares to go, he reveals that he is an angel, but before he does so, he gives them advice, including this sentence:

Do good, and evil will not overtake you.
Tobit 12:7b (New American Bible, Revised Edition)

Arthur Miller was Jewish, and the Book of Tobit may have been familiar to him, though it is not in the current Jewish canon. Puritans may also have been familiar with the book, though they follow the common 66-book Old Testament canon used by most Protestants.


What were the Laodicean church members supposed to do? In light of this exhortation, neglecting not the gathering together to meet and assemble

“not neglecting to meet together, as is the habit of some, but encouraging one another, and all the more as you see the Day drawing near.”
Hebrews 10:25

What was a Laodicean church member who attended supposed to do in a church that perceived itself as fine but was said to be lacking

“For you say, I am rich, I have prospered, and I need nothing, not realizing that you are wretched, pitiable, poor, blind, and naked.”
Revelation 3:17

If the church was judged collectively, what was the individual to do if the rest (majority) of the church refused to be zealous and repent?
Was he to remain a member there and suffer the fate of that church/city? Lacking spiritual growth and godliness?
What would be the expectation from Jesus for the individual who did repent and was zealous, despite the rest of the church being in disobedience?

Should they continue to attend that church
Are they expected to move to another city
Something else

This is part of a wider question about what believers should do when the find themselves belonging to a church which has gone astray. There are no easy answers and much will depend on the actual context.
In the specific instance of Laodicea, if hypothetically the church did not repent, then I think their lampstand being removed would equate to them not being a church any more. If there were faithful members within the church who did obey, then I think 2 Corinthians 6:17 would be applicable. If you believe that the church has gone astray to the point of not being Christian any more, then the only option left is to separate.
I would hope there would be a number of faithful believers left in Laodicea who would be able to meet together and form a church. If not, then perhaps moving would be an option. I hope that God would give clear guidance in that situation.
In the 21st century there are analogous situations, e.g. what happens when churches break off from mainline denominations such as ACNA breaking off from the Episcopal Church in America.


Who first understood the "authorities" in Romans 13 as spiritual, not secular, authorities? In his forthcoming book, Freedom's Progress, libertarian Gerard Casey describes several different ways of interpreting and applying Romans 13:1–7.  One approach in particular I had never encountered before:

that the "authorities" (ἐξουσίαις) of verse 1, often rendered "governing authorities," should be understood as spiritual or ecclesiastical authorities
that the "sword" (μάχαιραν) of verse 4, usually understood to be a physical sword, actually should be understood spiritually, as in the "sword of the spirit" (cf. Ephesians 6:17)

Here I'm not focused on the relative merits of this interpretation, but on its origin.  While not all in the early church were particularly pro-government, I haven't found anyone interpreting Romans 13:1–7 in the way Casey describes here.  I've also checked The Politics of Jesus by Anabaptist John Howard Yoder, and his treatment of Romans 13 doesn't match this either.

Who then first interpreted Romans 13:1–7 in this way, seeing the "authorities" and "sword" as spiritual in nature?

C.E.B. Cranfield, in his Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans (vol. 2), attributes the first modern reference to this interpretation to Martin Dibelius (approximately 1909), but notes that it tends to be associated with Oscar Cullmann. He goes on to summarize the other supporters of this approach:

  It is, of course, clear and agreed that the civil authorities are referred to. What has been the subject of a considerable amount of dispute is whether there is in ἐξουσίαις a double reference—to the civil authorities and also to angelic powers thought of as standing behind, and acting through, the civil authorities. The suggestion of the double reference goes back (as far as modern times are concerned) to M. Dibelius, Die Geisterwelt im Glauben des Paulus, Göttingen, 1909. Though Dibelius later abandoned it,1 it was taken up by K. L. Schmidt,2 G. Dehn,3 K. Barth,4 O. Cullmann,5 and a number of other scholars.6 It has come to be specially closely associated with Cullmann, and it is he who has borne the brunt of the attacks upon it, in some of which a mood of impatience and irritation has sometimes been noticeable. Such adjectives as ‘grotesque’, ‘eccentric’ and ‘fantastic’ have been used of it, and it has often been very summarily dismissed....

  A useful account of the negative reaction to this interpretation has been given by [Clinton D.] Morrison.7

  [Citation for entire quote]8

The Hermeneia commentators on Romans point to a later proponent of this interpretation as the first reference to translating ἐξουσίαις ὑπερεχούσαις as a reference to angelic powers (or more specifically, the angelic powers behind the earthly rulers), Karl Ludwig Schmidt (1937), also noting some of the same scholars listed by Cranfield:

  According to Lutz Pohle, Römer 13, 89, the first elaborations of the angelic interpretation were developed by Karl Ludwig Schmidt, “Das Gegenüber von Kirche und Staat in der Gemeinde des Neuen Testaments,” Theologische Blätter 16 (1937) 1–16, and Günther Dehn, “Engel und Obrigkeit: Ein Beitrag zum Verständnis von Römer 13, 1–7, ” in E. Wolf, ed., Theologische Aufsätze, Karl Barth, zum 50. Geburtstag (Munich: Kaiser, 1936) 100–109. See also Dehn’s later study, Vom christlichen Leben. Auslegung des 12. und 13. Kapitels des Briefes an die Römer, Biblische Studien (Neukirchen) 6–7 (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1954); the most influential advocate of this interpretation was Oscar Cullmann, The State in the New Testament (New York: Scribner’s, 1956; London: SCM, 1957, 1961) 95–114, followed by Clinton D. Morrison, The Powers That Be: Earthly Rulers and Demonic Powers in Romans 13:1–7, Studies in Biblical Theology 29 (London: SCM; Naperville: Allenson, 1960), and others.9

James D.G. Dunn indicates10 that an analysis of the meaning of ἐξουσία in patristic literature has been conducted by Karl Hermann Schelkle.11

Footnotes

1 ‘Rom und die Christen im ersten Jahrhundert’, in Sitzungsberichte der Heidelberger Akademie der Wtissenschaften, philosophische-historische Klasse (Heidelberg) 1941–42, Abhandlung 2 (1942), p. 7, n. 2.

2 ‘Zum theologischen Briefwechsel zwischen Karl Barth und Gerhard Kittel’, in Theologische Blätter (Leipzig) 13 (1934), cols. 328–34, and ‘Das Gegenüber von Kirche und Staat in der Gemeinde des Neuen Testaments’, in Theologische Blätter 16 (1937), cols. 1–16.

3 ‘Engel und Obrigkeit’, in E. Wolf (ed.), Theologische Aufsätze Karl Barth zum 50. Geburtstag, Munich, 1936, pp. 90–109.

4 Church and State.

5 Christ and Time, London, 1951; The State in the New Testament.

6 For names see C.D. Morrison, The Powers that Be: earthly rulers and demonic powers in Romans 13:1–7, London, 1960, p. 25, n. 2; W. Affeldt, Die weltliche Gewalt in der Paulus-Exegese: Röm 13:1–7 in den Römerbriefkommentaren der lateinischen Kirche bis zum Ende des 13. Jahrhunderts, Göttingen, 1969, p. 30.

7 Morrison, op. cit., pp. 40-54.

8 C. E. B. Cranfield, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, International Critical Commentary (London; New York: T&T Clark International, 2004), 656–660.

9 Robert Jewett and Roy David Kotansky, Romans: A Commentary, ed. Eldon Jay Epp, Hermeneia—a Critical and Historical Commentary on the Bible (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2006), fn. 57 on p. 787.

10 James D. G. Dunn, Romans 9–16, vol. 38B, Word Biblical Commentary (Dallas: Word, Incorporated, 1998), 757, 760.

11 Schelkle, K. H. "Staat und Kirche in der patristischen Auslegung von Röm 13:1–7." Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft 44 (1952–53), 223–36.


Does a classic Trinitarian formulation consider God to be his own "Family"? According to the classic Nicene Christianity rendering of the Trinity, was not Jesus' self identification as the "Son of God" an instance of Partialism in that he turned the Godhead into a multi-member family? At least our human versions of "father" and "son" are of separate but related members of a family.

Among Trinatarian traditions are there any specific doctrines that identify the "family" aspect of the Trinity, and if so, do they see our own early understanding of "family" actually being part of our being created in God's image?

Scope: This post offers an answer for the first part of the question, as I understand it: whether or not Jesus' identification of himself as the Son of God makes the Trinity an instance of Partialism.

The Short Answer

No, it doesn't. The fact that there is no earthly analogue for the Trinity makes it difficult to accurately describe in human language, so a certain amount of "lexical flexibility" is necessary, and theological terminology is necessary if one wants to describe the Trinity with any precision. History has affirmed this necessity. Let me try to explain...

The More Detailed Answer

The First Ecumenical Council

The doctrine of the Trinity began to acquire some of the distinctions by which it is known today at the First Ecumenical Council, or Council of Nicea, in 325 CE, though it did exist prior to the fourth century. At the Council, it was established as the orthodox teaching that the Son and the Father were 'of the same substance' (Gk. homoousios), contra the Arian teaching that the Son was created by the Father.

Athanasius of Alexandria

Athanasius was present at the First Ecumenical Council as a young man, and went on to dedicate much of his life to leading the battle against the Arian heresy. In so doing, he contributed much of what we today recognize as the doctrine of the Trinity. Church historian Justo Gonzalez offers the following summary of the doctrinal position at which Athanasius' arrived after many years of study and debate:1

  Finally, in a synod gathered in Alexandria in 362 CE, Athanasius and his followers declared that it was acceptable to refer to the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as "of one substance" as long as this was not understood as obliterating the distinction among the three, and that it was also legitimate to speak of "three substances" as long as this was not understood as if there were three gods.

The Second Ecumenical Council

Several years later, in 381 CE, the Second Ecumenical Council was held, this time in the city of Constantinople. Its findings were significantly influenced by the work of the Cappadocian Fathers: Basil the Great, Gregory of Nyssa, and Gregory of Nazianzus. The Council affirmed the Nicene faith as orthodox under Emperor Theodosius, and equality of the Holy Spirit was incorporated in the teaching on the Trinity. The council also further clarified the nature of the Trinity. To again quote Gonzalez:2

  [The Cappadocian Fathers'] main contribution was in clarifying the difference between ousia ("essence") and hypostasis -- a word that literally means "substance" but which the Cappadocians defined as the translation of the Latin persona. Thus, the Latin West and the Greek East came to agree on a common formula: one essense -- or ousia -- in three persons -- or hypostases.

Conclusion

So, it seems like those are a few important events in Church history that elaborate on some of the complexities involved in attempting to accurately describe the nature of the co-existence of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. If the historic teachings are accurate understandings of the Biblical text, then it should be entirely acceptable to understand the Trinity as consisting of multiple "persons" -- so long as we also understand that they are of one "essence" or "substance."

I also think it's worth noting that, while composing a response to another recently asked question about Partialism (at the risk of self-promotion, the question can be found here), I was unable to locate any historic references to the heresy under the particular name, "Partialism." After checking several of my usual primary sources, I went through the first half-dozen or so results pages on a few different Google searches looking for some historical background for the term, all to no avail. As far as I can tell, the source of most of the Google-indexed references to Partialism can be traced to one of two web pages: a Monergism list of Trinitarian heresies, and a comical YouTube video that attempts to explain the Trinity through a cartoon of St. Patrick. Neither one lists any sources or offers historical background (though I've not viewed the entire YouTube video). The next step is to visit a fairly heavy duty seminary library that I thankfully have access to here in town.

Sources:

1: The Story of Christianity, Revised Edition, by Justo Gonzalez. Chapter 19, "Athanasius of Alexandria."

2: The Story of Christianity, Revised Edition, by Justo Gonzalez. Chapter 20, "The Great Cappadocians."

Edit: Further searching has not revealed any historic theological references to the idea of the Trinity as a family. While the two following articles are no exception in that respect, and are from popular, rather than academic sources, you may find them to be of some use, if for no other reason than that they could point the way for continued research.

Note: I'm not familiar with the work of these authors, and can't vouch for the reliability of either source.

* The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit: The Trinity as Theological Foundation for Family Ministry, by Bruce A. Ware. Blog of The Center for Christian Family Ministry at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. Link.

* The Most Holy Trinity: Supreme Model for Family And Marriage, by F. K. Bartels. Article at Catholic.com. Link.