Should we pray for someone's salvation? Today a Pastor on a local TV (in India) was preaching that we need not pray for someone's salvation. Salvation is something that belongs to God and His Plans. He also said that nowhere in the New testament are believers requested to pray for sinners or to ask God for a non-believer's salvation.

He said the plan of salvation by God is already fulfilled, and we only preach the Gospel and live a model life for unsaved people to come to our Lord.

Revealtion 19:1 says,

  19 After these things I heard a loud voice of a great multitude in heaven, saying, “Alleluia! Salvation and glory and honor and power belong to the Lord.

If salvation belongs to the Lord, praying for someone's salvation would become absurd, correct?

PS: I found another question  Praying for someone's salvation. Is there a point? but that was asked in a bit different approach. If this question still seems irrelevant, kindly close it or merge it. Thanks.

To make an assertion that Christians should not do something, one must appeal to an authoritative source, most likely the Bible.  Nowhere in the Bible are we commanded not to pray for the salvation of unbelievers, and that is quite problematic to the argument.  Indeed, if we are not supposed to do something, would God not have mentioned it somewhere instead of leaving it up to us to figure out based on obscure logic?

In reality, the apostle Paul gives us an example for us to pray that others may be saved.  He specifically prays for Jewish unbelievers, and his prayer is specifically for their salvation.  While he does not specifically request others to do so, it would be quite a stretch to assert that this was only something Paul did that no one else was supposed to do.

  Brothers, my heart's desire and prayer to God for them is that they
  may be saved.  Romans 10:1 ESV

Indeed, if God answers prayer, it would be difficult to find something to pray for in which He is more glorified than in someone responding to Jesus in faith.

Salvation does, indeed, come from God.  It is He who does the saving, so it's His salvation in that it comes from Him.  Yet, it is our salvation in that we are the ones saved by it.


What is LDS policy/teaching on not taking God's name in vain in languages where it is extremely common? Latter-day Saints, like many Christians, are encouraged to not use phrases like "Oh my God!" because they are seen as violations of the commandment to not take the name of God "in vain." However, in some languages (e.g. Arabic), God's name appears frequently in common phrases and is not considered offensive by most. Has an LDS leader ever commented on the application of this commandment in other cultural contexts? Has an exception ever been made for cultures, like Arab culture, where it is so common?

(I am asking this in an LDS context specifically, although I understand this issue is applicable more broadly as well.)

It may be helpful first to understand exactly what is mean by the word "vain."  The NOAD defines vain as "producing no result, useless" and "having no meaning or likelihood of fulfillment."  The use of God's name is usually reserved for prayer.  Calling upon God is meant to have some kind of effect, but only if the caller is penitent and sincere.  If the use of God's name is not intended to produce such an effect, then it is used in vain.

George Q. Cannon, a former Counselor in the First Presidency of the Church, stated the following:

  “Do angels take the Lord’s name in vain? The idea is so ridiculous
  that we scarcely like to ask the question. … How dare we do that which
  angels dare not do? Is it possible for us to argue that that which is
  forbidden in heaven is praiseworthy on earth? …

  “Though we are sure no boy can tell us any advantage that can arise
  from the abuse of God’s holy name, yet we can tell him many evils that
  arise therefrom. To begin, it is unnecessary
  and consequently foolish; it lessens our respect for holy things and
  leads us into the society of the wicked; it brings upon us the
  disrespect of the good who avoid us; it leads us to other sins, for he
  who is willing to abuse his Creator is not ashamed to defraud his
  fellow creature; and also by so doing we directly and knowingly break
  one of the most direct of God’s commandments”

The instructions from the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve apply to the Church in the entire world, regardless of culture.  In no culture is it acceptable to use the name of God lightly.

It should be clear that while invoking God's name without real intent is not acceptable, it is acceptable to respectfully reference God by name in a conversation.

Additional information may be found in this talk by former President Gordon B. Hinckley of the Church.


What is the Calvinist view of God's sovereignty? I have many Calvinist friends, and when we discuss matters of theology or doctrine, almost inevitably, the conversation turns to them saying something like "That's because of God's sovereignty," or "That undermines God's sovereignty."

In fact, most (if not all) of the 5 points of 5-point Calvinism hinge on the sovereignty of God as their cornerstone, either directly, or as they build on the other points.

I have my own idea of what God's sovereignty means, but it must be quite different than what Calvinists mean by this phrase, because when they throw that phrase at me to support their views, I usually see my concept of God's sovereignty contradicting their view.

So... what is the Calvinist view of God's sovereignty, and where is it based in scripture?

As a Calvinist, I believe God's Sovereignty to mean God has actively decreed all that will come to pass, and has done so for His glory in all things. God knows all that will come to pass because He has determined it, however not in the passive sense like I determine the temperature of water by touching it. Rather, God has actively determined all that will come to pass, and nothing occurs outside of God's decree.
Further, God's decree does not strive against man's will, in that man is forced into doing all that God decrees man will do, but instead man's will is determined by the decree. We willingly do that which God has decreed we will do (yet not necessarily that which God has prescribed).
With regards to Salvation, our view is that man is depraved and incapable of doing anything that pleases the LORD. In this state of depravity man will always despise the things of God, and will never seek them. It is only when God, in an act of grace, replaces the sinners heart of stone with a heart of flesh that the sinner will then will to do the things of God, and will come to God in obedience and belief.
So it's not God's choice vs man's choice. God doesn't coerce man into becoming saved. Rather, God's power radically changes man's heart so that man will willingly seek the LORD.
There are many very clear passages regarding this, however one very popular text is John 6 where we can read the following statements from Jesus:

"All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out." - John 6:37 KJV

Calvinists read here that anybody the Father gives to the Son will indeed come to the Son.

"And this is the Father's will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day." - John 6:39 KJV

Here we read further that Christ came to do the Fathe'rs will, and that will is that all of those whom the Father gave to the Son, the Son will lose none of them, but will raise them up.

"No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day." - John 6:44 KJV
"And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father." - John 6:65 KJV

So no man has the ability or desire to come to Christ outside of the affectionate drawing by the Father.
This is by no means exhaustive. If I might suggest a book on the topic, I would suggest The Potter's Freedom, by Dr. James White.


How does Protestantism explain Matthew 18:20 in this technology age? Is Christ Jesus talking about a literal physical gathering of two or more?

How does the Church explain Matthew 18:20 (NET) in this technology age?

  For where two or three gather in my name, there am I with them.

I'm not asking about a feel good answer. Rather,

What does the Bible say?

In short, yes, Jesus is talking about a physical gathering of two or three people (or in one instance, two or three individuals, one united congregation, and one sinner). In our technological age, NOTHING can fully replace face-to-face meetings between people, especially the Lord's people at the grass roots level of a healthy local church, or an assembly of God's people.

What precedes Matthew 18:20

In context, Matthew 18:20 is preceded by Jesus' teaching on three things: 1) the inevitable occurrence of sin among God's children, and the responsibility of God's children to resist sin;  2) God's outgoing love for one of His children who goes astray (the one lost sheep from a flock of 100); and 3) Jesus' teaching on church discipline, the kind of which is rendered necessary by a sin of one member against another.

Then comes Matthew 18:20

This verse is really a conclusion of the passage on church discipline, a topic addressed in three ways:

  1) the protocol of church discipline

  2) the assurances that what is either bound or loosed on earth will be bound or loosed in heaven, and whatever two believers agree upon in prayer on earth will be done for them by their heavenly Father

  3) the promise of Christ's presence in a gathering of as few as two or three believers who meet in Jesus' name

What follows Matthew 18:20

Jesus' teaching on forgiveness, which comprises an answer to Peter's question about how many times he is to forgive a brother who sins against him. Jesus' teaching includes the famous locution, "seventy times seven." Notice, too, that Peter's question is certainly relevant in light of verse 15, which begins with the words

  "'If your brother sins against you . . ..'"

Contextualizing Matthew 18:20

In summary fashion, this verse simply continues the notion of "two or three" which begins in verse 15, proceeds through verse 18, and then continues in verses 21 and following.

In other words, the repetition of "two or three," whether in the context of church discipline (viz., one-on-one; two or three on one; one singular--the sinned against person--and one plural--the entire congregation--on one--the sinner), or in the context of binding, loosing, agreeing in prayer, and finally, meeting together in Jesus' name, all those repetitions are simply, in context, a continuation of what came before and what comes after. In discursive fashion, then, we have the following themes:

  the inevitability of both sin and sin's punishment, as well as the importance of a radical resistance to sin, whether it comes from without (i.e., an external-to-us stumbling block) or from within (an internal-to-us cause of stumbling, symbolized by our own hand, foot, or eye).
  the Father's heart of love for the one sheep in a flock of 100 who goes astray or is led astray by sin or a sinner
  an instance of sin within a local assembly of believers, and the protocol for dealing with that sin through a three-step process
  the assurance that whatever decision the church makes, whether to bind the accused sinner or to loose the accused sinner, it will also be either bound or loosed in heaven
  the assurance that an agreement by two believers in prayer on earth will result in their request being granted by their Father in heaven
  the assurance that even if church discipline does not reach the "court of final appeals" (viz., the church), Jesus' presence is guaranteed where just two or three are  gathered together in His name in sincerity and simplicity
  the necessity of forgiving others who sin against us, and to do so in the light of the great debt of which we ourselves have been forgiven (basically an application of the part of the Lord's prayer which says, "and forgive us our debts as we forgive our debtors"), even if after repenting, they sin against us again

In conclusion, as good as our technological tools are today for communicating around the world at the speed of light, nothing can replace the face-to-face interactions of God's people (whether for church discipline, prayer, or simply fellowship) who desire to

  "walk worthy of the vocation wherewith [they] are called, with all lowliness and meekness, with longsuffering, forbearing one another in love; endeavouring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace" (Ephesians 4:1b-3).


Why do the Catholics and Orthodox keep relics and bone fragments? Isn't this disrespect for the body? In Orthodoxy, cremation after death is not permitted. It is not preferred in Catholicism. This is because of the strong respect for the integrity of the body. Both traditions are also strongly pro-life/anti-abortion.
Yet all churches in these traditions must be consecrated with the relics of a saint. So is someone out there...cutting up saints' bodies?! How do these traditions understand the dignity of a body, even to the point of not destroying a dead one, but yet we disseminate these holy relics?
(Please note I am not asking why we venerate relics, I am asking how their creation squares with other teachings on bodies.)

Why do the Catholics and Orthodox keep relics and bone fragments? Isn't this disrespect for the body?
The the Catholic and Orthodox Churches this is a theological way of honouring the saints.
There will always be be those who will object to this practice either on an intellectual level or a lesser level that seems to imply that the act of distribution of saintly body parts is simply something macabre.
Before starting into the answer properly speaking (which I am sure will not be the best explained one), allow me to point out the every consecrated altar within the Catholic Church must contain the relics of a saint (preferably of a martyr). Sometimes a church is fortunate enough to possess what we call a major relic under the altar. A major relic is to be understood as a notable portion of a saints body either an arm, a leg or even occasionally the entire body.
With so many altars around the world, the vast majority of relic are taken in the form of simply being a very small piece of bone and this fragment thus being deposited directly into the altar or what we call an altar stone.

Altar stones are usually made of Carrara marble. The relic is cemented into a cavity along the bottom edge.

Example of a testimonium or consecration document which is often attached directly to the back the stone. This altar stone was consecrated in 1937 and contains relics from the bones of St. Concordia and St. Clarus, martyrs:
Testimonium Consecrationis Tabulae Altaris. Haec tabula complectit reliquias de ossibus Ste. Concordiae M. et Sti. Clari M.; consecrata est Toronto die 18 mensis augusti A.D. 1937 per Rt. Rev. E. M. Brennan. Jacobus Carolus McGuigan, Archiepiscopus Torontinus de mandato. Excmi ac Revmi. Archiepiscopi Torontini [signed] E. M. Brennan Vicar Generalis per M. J. Nelson.

To truly understand how this idea of how the tradition of having relics associated with our altars, we must go back in tome to the years of the Early Church.
For the first three centuries the Eucharist was celebrated in the houses and homes of Christians. In times of persecution these celebrations would have been in secret, in catacombs, beside or over the body of a Early Church martyr if possible, or some other hidden spots. At other times Christians gathered together openly in each others’ homes or in ‘house churches’ for the Eucharist though Mass was not celebrated publicly as it is in our own time.
Another small point to bring up here is the fact the in the first few centuries of the Church, only martyrs were considered saints, as having witnessed their faith by the supreme sacrifice of shedding their blood for the faith. Thus they imitated their Saviour in death.
This seems like a small point to bring up for such an important question, but I desire to express an historical perspective towards the reverence of honouring the saints and their relics.
The first title of a feast in honour of the Virgin Mary in the West (Rome) was known as Sancta Maria ad Martyres (St. Mary of the Martyrs). Now what is interesting here is the fact that Our Lady carried the title ”ad Martyres” and this Feast was originally celebrated on May 13.

Where All Saints' Day came from
While now observed in November, All Saints' Day was originally celebrated on May 13, although the origin cannot be traced with certainty, according to Encyclopedia Brittanica. Pope Boniface IV formally started what would later be known as All Saints Day on May 13 in 609 AD when he dedicated the Pantheon in Rome as a church in honor of the Virgin Mary and all martyrs.

In the Year of Our Lord 609, Pope Boniface IV order the remains of the martyrs that were hidden in the Roman Catacombs to be gathered into the Roman Pantheon which had be recently dedicated to St. Mary of the Martyrs. He wanted the Martyrs to be brought forth from the catacombs in order to be more gloriously honoured for dieting for their faith in Jesus Christ. This act has be seen as the starting point of distribution of the sacred relics of the saints.

For three centuries the catacombs were the resting-place of our Lord’s athletes, when they were borne from the arena. These valiant warriors deserved the honours of a triumph far better than did the great victors of old. In 312, however, Rome disarmed but not yet changed in heart, was not at all disposed to applaud the men who had conquered the gods of Olympus and of the Capitol. While the Cross surmounted her ramparts, the white-robed army still lay entrenched in the subterranean crypts that surrounded the city like so many outworks. Three centuries more were granted to Rome, that she might make satisfaction to God’s justice, and take full cognizance of the salvation reserved for her by his mercy. In 609 the patient work of grace was completed; the Sovereign Pontiff Boniface IV. uttered the word for the sacred crypts to yield up their treasures. It was a solemn moment, a fore-runner of that wherein the Angel’s trumpet-call shall sound over the sepulchres of the world. (Sequence Dies ire) The successor of St. Peter, in all his apostolic majesty, and surrounded by an immense crowd, presented himself at the entrance of the catacombs. He was attended by eighteen chariots magnificently adorned for the conveyance of the martyrs. The ancient triumphal way opened before the Saints; the sons of the Quirites sang in their honour: “You shall come with joy and proceed with gladness; for behold, the mountains and the hills exult, awaiting you with joy. Arise, ye Saints of God, come forth from your hiding-places; enter into Rome, which is now the holy city; bless the Roman people following you to the temple of the false gods, which is now dedicated as your own church, there to adore together with you the majesty of the Lord.” (Pontificate Rom. Ant. in Eccl. dedicatione)
Thus, after six centuries of persecution and destruction, the martyrs had the last word; and it was a word of blessing, a signal of grace for the great city hitherto drunk with the blood of Christians. More than rehabilitated by the reception she was giving to the witnesses of Christ, she was now not merely Rome, but the new Sion, the privileged city of the Lord. She now burned before the Saints the incense they had refused to offer to her idols ; their blood had flowed before the very altar, on which she now invited them to rest, since the usurpers had been hurled back into the abyss. It was a happy inspiration that induced her, when she dedicated to the holy martyrs the temple built by Marcus Agrippa and restored by Severus Augustus, to leave upon its pediment the names of its primitive constructors and the title they had given it; for then only did the famous monument truly merit its name, when Christian Rome could apply to the new inhabitants of the Pantheon those words of the Psalm: “I have said, you are gods” (Psalm 81:6) The thirteenth of May was the day of their triumphant installation.
Every dedication on earth reminds the Church, as she herself tells us, of the assembly of the Saints, the living stones of the eternal dwelling which God is building for himself in heaven. (Collecta in die Dedications Altaris; Postcomm. Anniv. Ded. Eccl.) It is not astonishing, then, that the dedication of Agrippa’s Pantheon, under the above-mentioned circumstances, should have originated the feast of to-day. (Martyrolog. ad hanc diem.) Its anniversary, recalling the memory of the martyrs collectively, satisfied the Church’s desire of honouring year by year all her blessed sons who had died for the Lord; for, at an early date it became impossible to celebrate each of them on the day of his glorious death. In the age of peace there was added to the cultus of the martyrs that of the other just, who daily sanctified themselves in all the paths of heroism opened out to Christian courage. The thought of uniting these with the former in one common solemnity, which would supply for the unavoidable omission of many of them, followed naturally upon the initiative given by Boniface IV. - November 1 – Feast of All Saints ~ Dom Prosper Gueranger

Not all relics in churches are small pieces of bone placed within the burial chamber of our church altars. For example the not-quite incorrupt body of St. Bernadette Soubirous of Lourdes at Nevers, France.

St. Bernadette's incorrupt body

THE UNDENIABLY BEAUTIFUL 130-YEAR-OLD BODY of Bernadette Soubirous is displayed in a purpose-built crystal coffin, housed in a chapel at the abbey where she served as a nun. Her uncannily lifelike visage, clad in nun’s robes, is one of the most commonly used illustrations of incorruptible saints whose bodies never decay. After her death, she was exhumed no less than three times and found to be perfectly intact at each, which makes it seem strange that the lovely face and hands that are so famous are actually made of wax.

So why do the Catholics and Orthodox keep relics and bone fragments? Isn't this disrespect for the body?
As the old phrase goes they have elevated to the  glory of the altars!
For Catholics and Orthodox, the apex of our faith is in the Eucharist which is celebrated each day upon our sacred altars. Thus an ancient reminder and tradition of celebrating mass in the catacombs either above their graves or just beside them. The Church Militant is united to the Church Glorious!
Kissing the relics of saints is a way of honoring the saint and how God has worked through their lives. While honoring a piece of bone might seem strange, you have to remember that every person is both body and soul. When someone dies their soul and body separate, however this separation is only temporary. When Christ comes at the end of time, all of the saints in heaven will be reunited with their bodies.
God likes to work though physical things, because we are physical creatures – body and soul!

And some that were burying a man, saw the rovers, and cast the body into the sepulchre of Eliseus. And when it had touched the bones of Eliseus, the man came to life, and stood upon his feet. - 2 KINGS 13:21

During World War II, military chaplain were granted the indult of saying Mass on an Eastern Rite antimensions in lieu of portable altar stones as is customarily used the West.

During the Second World War, the Holy See granted to military chaplains the privilege of using for the celebration of Mass, instead of the Latin-rite portable altar stone, "a veil which had enclosed, and well fastened, authentic relics." This was later extended to peacetime military activities. Since it was not always possible to obtain a veil with authentic relics, the use of an Eastern-rite antimension was considered an acceptable alternative. - Use of Ann Antimension in the Latin Church


What are the claims of authenticity of these two sites of Jesus' burial, the Garden Tomb and the Church of the Holy Sepulchre? There's been a lot of news recently about the renovation of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre and the opening of the tomb for the first time in a long time (200 years I believe).  Growing up though I had always been shown pictures of the Garden Tomb as the likely site of Jesus' burial and resurrection.

I am curious to know what claims of authenticity each site have, as well as other major purported sites of Jesus' burial and resurrection (looking around online it seems there are more than just the two named here).

I ask all this with the realization that it is probably impossible for us to know the exact location of Jesus' tomb from archaeology and tradition alone.  I'm not asking for an answer as to which location is the most likely location, just what claims of authenticity each site have.

The Church of the Holy Sepulchre is located at the spot where in the fourth century Helena, Emperor Constantine's mother, identified  the very place where Jesus had been buried on Mount Golgotha. The location was upon the site of a Jewish burial chamber and beneath a Temple of Aphrodite.

Michael Grant, in The Emperor Constantine, pages 202, says that Eusebius tells us, in Life, that Helena was shown the correct location in a vision.  Constantine himself ordered Bishop Macarius of Jerusalem to build on the site “a basilica more beautiful than any on earth”, without sparing money, craftsmen, labourers or materials.

Wikipedia explains that Constantine's church was built as two connected churches over the two different holy sites, including a great basilica, an enclosed colonnaded atrium (the Triportico) with the traditional site of Golgotha in one corner, and a rotunda, called the Anastasis, which contained the remains of a rock-cut room that Helena and Bishop Macarius identified as the burial site of Jesus.

Possible reasons to doubt the authenticity of Helena's claim include that building the basilica required the destruction of an important pagan temple, and the unlikelihood that Joseph of Arimathea, a wealthy and influential Jew, would choose to have the tomb intended for his own burial so close to where the Romans executed common criminals (although John 19:41 places them in proximity). Helena had been phenomenally successful in Palestine, and Grant reports the words of a scholar that her thrilling discoveries were made “with miraculous aid seldom now vouchsafed to archaeologists”.

During the post-Reformation era there was an increase in doubts regarding the traditional holy places and various other locations began to be put forward. In Aramaic, Golgotha actually means 'skull', and one of the proposed locations was 'skull hill', a small hill that resembles a skull in appearance. This contains a few natural cavities as well as a man-made cave, which Christians call Jeremiah’s Grotto and which biblical scholar Otto Thenius suggested was the tomb of Christ.

General Gordon accepted that skull hill must be Golgotha, but proposed that Jesus was actually buried in one of a number of tombs found nearby. This particular tomb also has a stone groove running along the ground outside it, which Gordon argued to be a slot that once housed a stone, corresponding to the biblical account of a stone being rolled over the tomb entrance to close it. An ancient wine press and cistern have been cited as evidence that the area had once been a garden, and the somewhat isolated tomb adjacent to the cistern has become identified as the Garden Tomb of Jesus.

John McRay (Archaeology and the New Testament, page 212,) says that two tomb inscriptions found nearby in 1885 and 1889 were used improperly, if not fraudulently, as supporting evidence for this as the site of Jesus' tomb. On its own, the 1889 inscription simply marked the site of "Deacon Nonnus Onesimus of the the Holy Resurrection of Christ and of this monastery."  Jerome Murphy-O'Connor (The Holy Land, page 161) says that on this evidence, the Anglican Church committed to the identification of the Garden Tomb but subsequently removed its formal support.

The site of the Garden Tomb has really been built on speculation: that 'skull hill' really was Golgotha, that the Garden Tomb's Golgotha is north of Mount Zion and that the wine press and cistern were sure signs of the area once having been a garden.

As with the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, there are good reasons to doubt the authenticity of the Garden Tomb. Christian and pre-Christian Temple Judaism traditionally maintained the name of Golgotha as the final burial site of Adam's skull and bones, and 'skull hill' played no historic part in Jewish or Christian tradition regarding Golgotha's location. The groove could not have held a rolling stone and it has since been identified as a watering trough for horses. The cistern, which was built as part of the same stable complex as the groove, must date to the time of the Crusaders.  The hill now known as Mount Zion has only had that name since the Middle Ages, before which Mount Zion referred to the Temple Mount, due east of the traditional site, but south south east of the Garden Tomb.


Did Jesus actually ever say "if you don't believe in me you will go to hell"? I just finished a five-part series on the History Channel: "The Bible". They did a fantastic job with it. However,  I noticed that Jesus did not appear to condemn those who did not believe in Him, and I had never really thought about that before.

Did Jesus ever actually say, "If you don't believe in me you will go to hell"?

I understand that when His disciples asked, "What is the way?" He said, "No one comes to the Father but through Me" (John 14:6). However, there is context here. It does not appear to be a blanket statement. For example, He obviously didn't mean it for some kid living in Ireland at that same exact night of the Last Supper.

Jesus did say, "Blessed are those who believe in me" (John 20:29), but He did not say there that you are damned to hell if you don't. So did the TV series leave something out? Or where did fallen man come up with this?

Did Jesus actually ever say if you don't believe in me you go to Hell?

Yes, He did say this directly, without mincing words.  Bolded in the passage below.

  John, Chapter 3 (KJV)

  16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son,
  that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have
  everlasting life.

  17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but
  that the world through him might be saved.

  18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth
  not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of
  the only begotten Son of God.

  19 And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world,
  and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were
  evil.

  20 For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to
  the light, lest his deeds should be reproved.

  21 But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God.

Note that it doesn't say "the punishment for not believing in me is an eternity in Hell.".  It says that everyone is condemned already, and that only through faith in Him can we escape. It's a subtle, but doctrinally important difference.


Isaiah 34:11 translation of animal names In the NASB translation of Isaiah 34:11, Isaiah prophesies of Edom saying "But pelican and hedgehog will possess it, and owl and raven will dwell in it."

At first I thought it odd that they mentioned both pelicans and hedgehogs, but when I tried to do research on the significance of these animals, I found that the translations varied widely. Instead of pelican and hedgehog, I found all of these

Amplified: "pelican and porcupine"

Complete Jewish Bible: "horned owl and hawk"

King James: "cormorant and bittern"

NIV: "desert owl and screech owl"

and more. It seems so odd that you could mix up a pelican, hawk, and an owl, or even a porcupine. My question is whether the discrepancy is due to lack of knowledge of how to translate the original Hebrew manuscripts, or whether different manuscripts contain different animal names, and the translators of each version decided on a different set of names.

Animal names are not very frequently used words.  They may appear only one time in the Bible, and as a result, their exact identification is not easy.  Not many classical Hebrew texts exist.  The Bible is basically it.  So if a word only occurs once in the Bible, it can be hard to pin down its meaning.  Older translations would go off of the traditional Christian translations (Septuagint, Latin Vulgate) as well as traditional Jewish understanding.

But some more modern ones have started using Ugaritic cognates to try and define these words.  Ugaritic is a Caananite dialect named after the city of Ugarit where some texts were discovered in it in 1929, and it was assumed that it would be close to Hebrew and similar sounding words would be cognate, and so many definitions are different to modern translators than they were to previous translators due to this redefinition based on a possibly faulty assumption (i.e. that the words are cognates).  There are, after all, such things as false cognates. For example, in Spanish the word embarazada does not mean embarrassed, but rather means pregnant.

So you can trust modern scholarship with its assumptions about Ugaritic cognates, or you can trust the more traditional translations.  But in the end, unless you're trying to keep Kosher, the exact identification of these animals doesn't matter much anyway.


What is the basis of the teaching that souls in purgatory can intercede for the living? Point 6 in the Our Sunday Visitor Article "9 truths about purgatory" is that souls in purgatory can intercede for us:

The souls in purgatory can’t do anything for themselves, but the Church has long believed that they can do something for us: They can pray for us, helping obtain for us the graces we need to follow Christ more perfectly.

Two other questions related to their consciousness while in purgatory, given their status as disembodied souls:

Whether they can hear our petition for them to intercede for us, or whether the initiative to intercede for us can only come from them?
Whether they retain the memory of their loved ones on earth so they can intercede for us?

What is the Catholic teaching on this: from Scripture, Magisterium, and/or respected saints & theologians?

What is the basis of the teaching that souls in purgatory can intercede for the living?
First of all, we must remember that there are three divisions that make up the Communion of Saints: the Church Triumphant (those in heaven), the Church Suffering (those in purgatory) and the Church Militant (those among the living on earth).
The Church ultimately has not ruled definitively on this matter. The faithful are allowed to have differing opinions one way or the other. St. Thomas Aquinas believed that, although the souls in purgatory “are above us on account of their impeccability”, they nonetheless “are not in a condition to pray” for those on earth. Other theologians and Doctors of the Church have disagreed with St. Thomas’ assessment. In the first place, St. Robert Bellarmine sees the souls in purgatory as being more than capable of praying for us, as they have greater love for God than we possibly can on this earth, given their close proximity to heaven, not to mention that they are ensured that they will enter heaven eventually. However, he denies that the Church Suffering are aware of our condition and circumstances on earth as the Church Triumphant are (De Purgatorio, Book 2, Chapter 15).
The Church refers to the souls in purgatory as the Holy Souls in Purgatory, since their salvation has been assured., although their souls must be purified from the remaining residue  of sin committed while on earth! Thus, in the mind of the Church the Holy Souls in Purgatory are saints and the Church has gone to such depths in this idea as to attribute a feast in their honour known as All Soul’s Day (November 2nd), following the
Feast of All Saint’s Day (November 1st). In Roman Catholicism, the Feast of All Souls if a feast of 2nd order and is a day of solemnity in some areas and Religious Orders.
The Church equally teaches that the Holy Souls in Purgatory cannot pray for themselves. While in purgatory, Divine Justice purifies souls, the burning pain of waiting can be extinguished by suffrages, that is, by the prayers and sacrifices of the living still on earth.
However, the Souls in purgatory are considered Holy Souls (Saints), their intercession on our behalf is considered possible because they still form part of the communion of saints and all biblical support that refers to the communion of saints applies to them.

Can the Holy Souls help us?
The Church's most respected authorities have explained that, although the Souls in Purgatory cannot pray for themselves, they can intercede for the living. Saint Alphonsus stated:
They are unable to pray or merit anything for themselves, yet, when they pray for others, they are heard by God.
Saint John Vianney, the Cure d'Ars, wrote:
If one knew what we may obtain from God by the intercession of the Poor Souls, they would not be so much abandoned. Let us pray a great deal for them; they will pray for us.
The Church teaches:
"We believe that the multitude of those gathered around Jesus and Mary in Paradise forms the Church of heaven, where in eternal blessedness they see God as he is and where they are also, to various degrees, associated with the holy angels in the divine governance exercised by Christ in glory, by interceding for us and helping our weakness by their fraternal concern" (Paul VI, CPG § 29).

The souls in purgatory are part of the Communion of saints:

The communion of saints is the spiritual solidarity which binds together the faithful on earth, the souls in purgatory, and the saints in heaven in the organic unity of the same mystical body under Christ its head, and in a constant interchange of supernatural offices. The participants in that solidarity are called saints by reason of their destination and of their partaking of the fruits of the Redemption (1 Corinthians 1:2 — Greek Text). - The Communion of Saints

The Church is the family united in prayer! The saints pray for us and we pray for them, whether in Heaven or Purgatory. In return they pray for us!
Let us remember that St. John states that the four living creatures and the twenty-four elders presented the prayers of the faithful to God.

8 And when he had taken it, the four living creatures and the twenty-four elders fell down before the the Lamb. Each one had a harp and they were holding golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of God’s people. - Revelation 5: 8

The people of God includes both the living and the dead!

3 Another angel, who had a golden censer, came and stood at the altar. He was given much incense to offer, with the prayers of all God’s people, on the golden altar in front of the throne. 4 The smoke of the incense, together with the prayers of God’s people, went up before God from the angel’s hand. - Revelation 8:3-4

Elisha the Prophet is considered a Saint in the Catholic Church and yet his body was the biblical story of a resurrection! Thus the saint obtain miracles through their intercession with God’s permission.

20And Elisha died and was buried. Now the Moabite raiders used to come into the land every spring. 21Once, as the Israelites were burying a man, suddenly they saw a band of raiders, so they threw the man's body into Elisha’s tomb. And when he touched the bones of Elisha, the man was revived and stood up on his feet. 22And Hazael king of Aram oppressed Israel throughout the reign of Jehoahaz.… -
2 Kings 13:21

On both sides of the coin, the Church has a position on each each side of it. We pray for the Holy Souls in purgatory and they pray for us.

Our Lady, the Liberator

Our Lady Liberator of Purgatory Souls Medal
Yet they pray for us!

Holy Souls in Purgatory Medal


Do the Roman catacombs confirm the early Church believed in the doctrine of the communion of saints? Do the Roman catacombs confirm the early church believed in the doctrine of the communion of saints, which includes prayer for the dead, intercession of the saints, invocation of the saints, and the threefold nature of the Church, in particular, the Church triumphant and Church penitent? If so, what are some of the archaeological evidence in the catacombs that confirms the early Church held such beliefs?

What is the communion of saints?

The ninth article of the Apostles' Creed  is, 'the Holy Catholic Church, the communion of saints'.

The unity and cooperation of the members of the Church on earth, in Purgatory, in Heaven is also called the Communion of Saints.

And the Church teaches:

  Fully conscious of this communion of the whole Mystical Body of Jesus
  Christ, the pilgrim Church from the very first ages of the
  Christian religion has cultivated with great piety the memory of the
  dead, and "because it is a holy and wholesome thought to pray for
  the dead that they may be loosed from their sins", also offers
  suffrages for them. The Church has always believed that the apostles
  and Christ's martyrs who had given the supreme witness of faith and
  charity by the shedding of their blood, are closely joined with us in
  Christ, and she has always venerated them with special devotion,
  together with the Blessed Virgin Mary and the holy angels. The Church
  has piously implored the aid of their intercession. To these were soon
  added also those who had more closely imitated Christ's virginity and
  poverty, and finally others whom the outstanding practice of the
  Christian virtues and the divine charisms recommended to the pious
  devotion and imitation of the faithful. [...] - Dogmatic Constitution
  on the Church, Lumen gentium, 50.

Answering

To find out whether the Roman catacombs bear out this communion of saints, one would need to examine their inscriptions and paintings. This New advent article Roman Catacombs gives some examples of the inscriptions:

  "gave up his soul to God"

and

  "Sweet Simplicius, live in eternity"

and in the Catacomb of Domitilla, third century there is:

  . . . . SPIRITVS
  TVVS IN REFRIGERIO

  The beginning of the inscription, containing the name, has
  disappeared. "May thy spirit be in refreshment". The very ancient
  prayer in the Canon of the Mass entreats for the dead locum
  refrigerii, lucis et pacis (a place of refreshment, light, and
  peace).1

The article then continues to say the paintings of the catacombs conveyed pictorially the same ideas as the inscriptions.

I see these as demonstrating the communion of the saints, with the latter two praying for the departed.

Chapter V of the book Epitaphs of the Catacombs: Or, Christian Inscriptions in Rome During the First Four Centuries by Rev J. Spencer Northcote D.D entitled The Teaching of Christian Epitaph about Death and the Dead has the following introductory summary:

Contrast between Pagan and Christian epitaphs — Christian epigraphy perfected by degrees, but its general character shown from the first ; simple, hopeful, and joyous ; less religious in the fourth and later centuries —
Life and love characteristics of the most ancient epitaphs — Some exceptions, chiefly of later date — An episcopal instruction on death in the third century — Language of epitaphs denotes belief in future resurrection — Acclamations for the dead ; of life in God, peace, refreshment — These phrases and some others explained — The same prayers found in the Liturgies, ancient and modern — Prayers addressed to the dead by surviving friends and relatives — Religious character of these prayers and their orthodoxy.

The chapter then gives examples:

  [...]

  In eternal sleep. Aurelius Gemellus, who lived ... years and 8  months and 18 days. His mother made this for her dearest well-
  deserving son. In peace. I commend [to thee], Bassilla, the
  innocence  of Gemellus.
  Lady Bassilla [= Saint Bassilla], we, Crescentinus and Micina,  commend to thee our daughter Crescen[tina], who lived 10 months  and
  ... days.
  Matronata Matrona, who lived a year and 52 days. Pray for thy  parents.

  [...]

  Amerimnus to his dearest well-deserving wife, Rufina. May God  refresh thy spirit
  Sweet Faustina, mayest thou live in God.
  Refresh, O God, the soul of
  Bolosa, may God refresh thee, who lived 31 years ; died on the 19th  of September. In Christ.

Conclusion

Thus the living were commending the recently dead to a saint already
dead; the dead were being petitioned to pray for the living; and God is petitioned to refresh the souls of the departed, all clearly manifesting the communion of saints.

The Commemoration for the dead.

Meménto étiam, Dómine, famulórum famularúmque tuárum N. et N. qui nos præcessérunt cum signo fídei, et dórmiunt in somno pacis.

Be mindful, O Lord, of thy servants and handmaids N. and N., who are gone before us, with the sign of faith, and sleep in the sleep of peace.

He joins his hands, prays a little while for those dead whom he means to pray for, then with his hands stretched out, continues:

Ipsis, Dómine, et ómnibus in Christo quiescéntibus, locum refrigérii, lucis et pacis, ut indúlgeas, deprecámur.

To these, O Lord, and to all that rest in Christ, we beseech thee, grant a place of refreshment, light, and peace.

Information for the Visit to the Catacombs.


According to Catholic doctrine, what effect does the Last Judgment have on those who are already in heaven? Catholics believe we are judged immediately after we die (Particular Judgement). Some of us will go to heaven. Then there is still the Last Judgement (or Final Judgement). What effect does the Last Judgement have on those who are already in heaven? Will anything about their existence change? The only thing I could find in the article I linked to says that their sins will be made known. Is that all that happens?

Two important things will happen to us at the last judgment that were not already done at our particular judgment. First, although our souls will already have gone to heaven (possibly via purgatory) or to hell, at the last judgment our bodies will be reunited with our souls, to join in their joy or suffering.  Second, the last judgment will be public, seen and understood by the whole world, whereas our particular judgment was private, just between God and ourselves.  At the last judgment, everyone will see how each of us has cooperated or failed to cooperate with the graces God has given us. Both God's mercy and His justice will be visible to all, and even those who, in this life, worry about how a good God can condemn anyone to hell forever will see that those condemnations are entirely appropriate.


Catholic Marriage to an Infertile spouse As I understand it, the Catholic Church teaches that there are 3 purposes to a marriage: (According to http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=5822)

Procreation and education of children
Mutual help and support of the spouses
The remedy for concupiscence (lust)

According to this doctrine, would it be considered a flawed marriage if one spouse was infertile and therefore unable to procreate or educate natural children? Or if one spouse was physically unable to make love?

Roman Catholic Canon Law explicitly covers this.

1084 §1. Antecedent and perpetual impotence to have intercourse, whether on the part of the man or the woman, whether absolute or relative, nullifies marriage by its very nature.
§2. If the impediment of impotence is doubtful, whether by a doubt about the law or a doubt about a fact, a marriage must not be impeded nor, while the doubt remains, declared null.
§3. Sterility neither prohibits nor nullifies marriage, without prejudice to the prescript of can. 1098.
1098 A person contracts invalidly who enters into a marriage deceived by malice, perpetrated to obtain consent, concerning some quality of the other partner which by its very nature can gravely disturb the partnership of conjugal life.

Thus sterility does not invalidate a marriage, although impotence does. If one partner deceives the other into believing that children are possible when they are not, the marriage is invalid on the grounds of the deception, not the sterility.
Canon 1084 | Canon 1098


How and when do I take God's word literally? Every time I talk to a non-believer, they reference several things that they think make their argument stronger.

When I talk about what God says for us not and not to do, they bring up things like "God tells us not to shave our heads," to which I say that God was speaking to people like Moses and the principal of faith comes in; if you follow God, no matter what he says, then great things will happen. (The passages referenced are found in Corinthians, around chapter 11)

How do I explain that God is often meteorically talented (if and only if I'm right here), and that sometimes we don't need to take EVERYTHING he says literally?

How do I tell if he is telling something that should be taken word for word?

Basically if you are talking to a non-believer that is not a Jew - He is not under the Law of Moses before of after Christ Jesus. He could turn xtian and start to LITERALLY uphold the Law of Moses but that would curse him. Xtians are not under the Law of Moses.

Romans 3 and Galatians 3 explains that xtians are not under the law of Moses anymore:
1) everyone sinned under the Law of Moses
2) there is not even ONE righteous person

Usually God would count on that one righteous person to save mankind and avoid God's wrath. Thus Christ Jesus, to save mankind AND show how to UPHOLD the Law of Moses thru faith.

Romans 3:30 NET

  Since God is one, he will justify the circumcised by faith and the
  uncircumcised through faith

This is where your denomination or nondenominational of choice comes in: To show you how to UPHOLD the Law of Moses through FAITH IN CHRIST JESUS.

Titus 3:4 NET

  But “when the kindness of God our Savior and his love for mankind
  appeared, he saved us not by works of righteousness that we have done
  but on the basis of his mercy

thanks for reading


Variations in the Hail Holy Queen (Salve Regina) prayer In praying the "Hail Holy Queen" at the end of the Rosary with my Parish, there is a bit strangeness in the terms used.

For one, some people say

  Mourning and weeping in this vale of tears

and some people say

  Mourning and weeping in this valley of tears

then some people say

  turn then, most gracious advocate

and some people say

  turn then, most gracious, advocate

but when they pronounce advocate they pronounce it 'advo-kate', which seems to mean they're addressing Mary as 'most gracious' and asking her to 'advocate' on their behalf (not that that makes sense with the continuation of the next line, but oh well I've got my theories)

Anyway, does any good Christian soul know the right way to pray the Salve Regina in English, has anyone overheard the Pope praying the Rosary in English perhaps?

I would call the vale/valley question inconsequential -- they both mean the same thing in English and are both accurate renditions of the Latin valle. But I suppose there's an official translation of the Salve in the Liturgy of the Hours, since it's the standard post-Compline anthem for most of the year. So that could settle the question, in a sense.

On the other hand, using 'advocate' as a verb would be fairly inconsistent with the Latin:

  Eia ergo, advocata nostra, illos tuos misericordes oculos ad nos converte

advocata nostra ("our advocate") is a noun phrase in the vocative case -- it's the person being addressed. The verb in the sentence is converte, which is usually rendered "turn".

That said, even in "the Latin" there are variants. Carthusians, for example, open the prayer thus (IIRC):

  Salve Regina misericordiae vitae dulcedo et spes nostra

I.e., "Hail Queen of mercy, life's sweetness and our hope" -- where the standard Roman edition has:

  Salve Regina mater misericordiae vita dulcedo et spes nostra

I.e., "Hail Queen, mother of mercy, our life, sweetness, and hope".

So it seems like organic variations that don't do violence to the prayer are well-warranted in the tradition.


Why did Jesus get baptized? I have always been taught that Jesus got baptized as an example for us. If people were getting baptized before Jesus did, then why did he need to make that an example if people were already being baptized?

Since you did not ask for a particular denomination's viewpoint, please allow me to give a Catholic perspective to this question.

The Baptism of Jesus marked the beginning of His public ministry and the wanted the faithful to not only to have an example, but He also wish to share to all our humanity at the same time and show us the way to salvation. God also used this occasion to anoint Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit and power.

What does the Gospel tell us about this event:

  Then Jesus came from Galilee to John at the Jordan, to be baptized by him. John would have prevented him, saying, "I need to be baptized by you, and do you come to me?" But Jesus answered him, "Let it be so now; for it is proper for us in this way to fulfill all righteousness." Then he consented. And when Jesus had been baptized, just as he came up from the water, suddenly the heavens were opened to him and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and alighting on him. And a voice from heaven said, "This is my Son, the Beloved, with whom I am well pleased." - Matthew 3:13-17

Now let us see what St. Thomas has to say on thi subject.

  St. Thomas Aquinas, in the Summa Theologica (see ST 3, 39, 1-8), listed a number of objections, including, “It would seem that it was not fitting for Christ to be baptized. For to be baptized is to be washed. But it was not fitting for Christ to be washed, since there was no uncleanness in Him. Therefore it seems unfitting for Christ to be baptized.” His answer draws upon both Scripture and the Church Fathers: “I answer that, It was fitting for Christ to be baptized. First, because, as Ambrose says on Luke 3:21: ‘Our Lord was baptized because He wished, not to be cleansed, but to cleanse the waters, that, being purified by the flesh of Christ that knew no sin, they might have the virtue of baptism’.”

  He also quoted St. Gregory Nazianzen, who had written, “Christ was baptized that He might plunge the old Adam entirely in the water.” He further noted that Jesus, in being baptized, was setting an example for everyone who would follow him and take up the cross of discipleship. After all, if the sinless Son of God would willingly enter the waters of baptism, how much more urgent is it that we sinners are washed in the waters of regeneration?

  There are other reasons given, including one implicit in the sermon of St. Peter to the first Gentile convert, Cornelius, heard in today’s reading from the Acts of the Apostles: “You know the word that [God] sent to the Israelites as he proclaimed peace through Jesus Christ, who is Lord of all, what has happened all over Judea, beginning in Galilee after the baptism that John preached, how God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit and power.”

  Here the emphasis is on the anointing; the Greek word is echrisen (ἔχρισεν) and the root word is chrió, from which comes the word “Christ”. And the title “Christ” is itself the Greek translation of the Hebrew word, “Messiah”, which means “anointed”. The Catechism explains that this is “the name proper to Jesus only because he accomplished perfectly the divine mission that ‘Christ’ signifies. In effect, in Israel those consecrated to God for a mission that he gave were anointed in his name. This was the case for kings, for priests and, in rare instances, for prophets. This had to be the case all the more so for the Messiah whom God would send to inaugurate his kingdom definitively” (par. 436). Jesus was anointed by the Holy Spirit and presented as uniquely fulfilling the threefold office of prophet, priest, and king. - Was it fitting and necessary for Jesus to be baptized?


According to the Catholicism, what exactly is the meaning of “overshadowed” by the power of the most High in Luke 1:35? According to the Catholic Church, what exactly is the meaning of “overshadowed” by the power of the most High in Luke 1:35?

And the angel answering, said to her: The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the most High shall overshadow thee. And therefore also the Holy which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God. - Luke 1:35

What interpretations does Catholicism give on this particular verse of Scripture.

St. Thomas Aquinas quotes these Fathers in his Catena Aurea on Luke 1:35:

GREG. By the term overshadowing, both natures of the Incarnate God are signified. For shadow is formed by light and matter. But the Lord by His Divine nature is light. Because then immaterial light was to be embodied in the Virgin’s womb, it is well said to her, The power of the Highest shall overshadow you, that is, the human body in you shall receive an immaterial light of divinity. For this is said to Mary for the heavenly refreshing of her soul.
GREG. NYSS. Or he says, overshadow you, because as a shadow takes its shape from the character of those bodies which go before it, so the signs of the Son’s Deity will appear from the power of the Father. For as in us a certain life-giving power is seen in the material substance, by which man is formed; so in the Virgin, has the power of the Highest in like manner, by the life-giving Spirit, taken from the Virgin’s body a fleshly substance inherent in the body to form a new man. Hence it follows, Therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of you.

Cornelius à Lapide, S.J.'s commentary on St. Luke's Gospel:

Shall overshadow thee. S. Gregory (33 Moral. c. 2) explains thus, “The Word of God in thee will assume a body, which will be as it were a shadow of Deity, for it will as a shadow veil and conceal It.” And again he says (18 Moral. 12), “The human body in thee shall receive the incorporeal light of Divinity.” Origen says also, that the Body of Christ is called a shadow, because in the Passion it was humiliated and obscured after the manner of a shadow.
S. Ambrose (on Psalm 119) understands by the shadow this present and mortal life which the Spirit gave to Christ, for this is, as it were, a shadow of the true life and of eternity.
S. Augustine (Quœst. V. et N. T. c. 15) says, The power of the Highest shall overshadow thee, i.e. shall attemper itself to thee, as a shadow adjusts itself to a body, for thy human weakness could not contain the fulness of its force and power.
But more simply, the meaning is, It will cover thee as with a veil, i.e., will secretly work a mighty operation in thee; for it will be such and so great a one that no man or angel can penetrate into or comprehend it. For, first, it will form in thee the perfect humanity of Christ; and, secondly, it will unite the same in a certain ineffable manner to the Person of the Word.
Again, to overshadow may be taken as answering to the Hebrew word ענן, to cover with a cloud, and so to rain upon, for a cloud pours forth rain, and hence by the shadow and the cloud is signified rain, which is poured forth from the cloud and renders the earth fruitful. An allusion seems to be made to Psalm 72:6, He shall come down like the rain into a fleece of wool.

The Greek verb is ἐπισκιάω.


How did the disciples of John the Baptist pray? Luke 11:1 (NIV) One day Jesus was praying in a certain place. When he
  finished, one of his disciples said to him, “Lord, teach us to pray,
  just as John taught his disciples.”

Since John the Baptist was the forerunner of Jesus who prepares the way for Jesus, there are many similarities between their ministries. John taught his disciples how to pray. Jesus also taught his disciples how to pray. But there is less information on the pattern of the prayer taught by John. If  Jesus taught "May your kingdom come", then John might have taught "Prepare us for your coming kingdom" or something like that.

Is there any source outside the Bible or some traditions?

This is an excellent question.  However, we are given nothing in the Bible that gives us any information about how John taught his disciples to pray, only that he did teach them to pray.  As far as I am aware, there are no surviving documents that give any information either.


Where were the two 'thieves' that were crucified at the same time as Jesus, laid to rest? Where were the two 'thieves' that were crucified at the same time as Jesus, laid to rest? as Jesus was in the tomb, where were their bodies put? Thank you

The following is about Gehenna from the New World Encyclopedia.

  Originally it referred to a garbage dump in a deep narrow valley right outside the walls of Jerusalem where fires were kept burning to consume the refuse and keep down the stench. It is also the location where bodies of executed criminals, or individuals denied a proper burial, would be dumped.

Gehenna or the Valley of the Sons of Hinnom was a literal place outside the city. It served as a garbage dump for the city and a disposal for bodies of individuals considered unworthy for proper burial. These would include criminals of various sorts. Fire was kept going in Gehenna to incinerate the trash and bodies thrown there.

Most likely, the criminals killed next to Jesus were unceremoniously dumped into Gehenna.


Gifts of the Holy Spirit according to Seventh Day Adventists Can you please explain or give commentary about the understanding and uses of the gifts of the Holy Spirit in the Seventh Day Adventists church.

For example, I would appreciate a format of (if they are relevant)

The Word of Knowledge
The Word of Wisdom
The Gift of Prophecy
The Gift of Faith
The Gift of Healing
The Working of Miracles
The Discerning of Spirits
Different Kinds of Tongues
The Interpretation of Tongues

With a short (or long if necessary) description that addresses these points:

Are still used in the church (if not, why not)
When are they used
For what purpose
By whom (can anyone, or only specific people)
For whom
What, if any, conditions are there for using the gifts

Seventh-day Adventists rely on the Bible heavily. So if asked what is our understanding and use of the gifts of the Spirit, then a verse such as 1 Corinthians 12:7-10 sums it well.

    1 Corinthians 12:7-11: But the manifestation of the Spirit is given to every man to profit withal.  For to one is given by the Spirit the word of wisdom; to another the word of knowledge by the same Spirit; To another faith by the same Spirit; to another the gifts of healing by the same Spirit; To another the working of miracles; to another prophecy; to another discerning of spirits; to another divers kinds of tongues; to another the interpretation of tongues: But all these worketh that one and the selfsame Spirit, dividing to every man severally as he will.

The gifts of the Spirit can include wisdom, knowledge, faith, healing, miracles, prophecy, discerning of spirits, tongues and interruption of tongues. Basically any talent that is good, because it is from above, by grace. These gifts however amount to nothing if it is not tempered by love (1 Corinthians 13:13), the greatest gift of all. For we know that "knowledge puffs up, but love edifies" (1 Corinthians 8:1).

  1 Corinthians 13:13 And now abideth faith, hope, charity, these three; but the greatest of these is charity.

Unlike the early church, however, God's church today displays a lessor degree the gifts manifested by early Christians. This in part is because we are living in a different period where faith without sight is expected, but also because we have grown soft, having no persecution, and lack the faith of those early Christians. However, this does not mean that these gifts are no longer accessible by the church body today. On contrary, the Bible says

  "And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams" (Acts 2:17).

One unique element about the Seventh-day Adventist church is our belief in the existence of the gift of prophecy today, this is what we often refer to as the spirit of prophecy. In Revelation, it is explained that "the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy" (Revelation 19:10). It is also shown that it is God's people "who keep the commandments of God and have the testimony of Jesus" (Revelation 12:17). Therefore the spirit of prophecy is very much alive and is a distinguishing feature. Adventists are one of the few denominations that claim to have a clear and systematic understanding of Daniel and Revelation based on history and Biblical supporting texts. Indeed these were once closed books, but it is also written, "many shall run to and fro and knowledge shall increase" (Daniel 12:4). We also believe that Ellen White had the spirit of prophecy and that the visions she claimed to have received from God were authentic. For when we test the contents of her testimony we find that it upholds the Bible, points clearly and only to Jesus, and encourages the reader to pursue a deeper relationship with God and understanding of His word. For those not familiar with her works I recommend the Desire of Ages, it is an excellent rendition of Jesus' life, enjoyed by Adventists and non-adventist Christians alike. Her descriptions of Jesus' infinite sacrifice and love is a testimony of her understanding and humble personal relationship with God.

Updated section for revised scope in the question

Spiritual gifts are available to any sincere follower of God, all who are partakers of divine nature by grace through the Holy Spirit. The only condition according to Jesus is: "If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross daily, and follow me." (Luke 9:23). Spiritual gifts are for the benefit of both the person in possession of the gift and those who bear witness.

Spiritual gifts still exist in the Church but are less miraculous in nature today, for God has called us to walk in faith rather than sight.  In the last days, it is Satan who will be permitted to perform great miracles and lying wonders (2 Thess 2:9, Rev 13:14), even bring "fire from the sky" (Rev 13:13). Instead, the Holy Spirit and faith are required to discern those in possession of true spiritual gifts. The spirit of prophecy, knowledge, wisdom, faith, healing, spiritual discernment, and love will be in existence on the earth until the very last day. In addition, it will be aided further by the "latter rain" (Joel 2:23, James 5:7), a powerful outpouring of the Holy Spirit before the time of trouble and the last plagues.


According to Jehovah's witnesses, why does an active force have a name? Matthew 28:19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: (KJV)

From my understanding of Jehovah's witness theology, the father's name is Jehovah, and the son's name is Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost is God's active force. What is the name of the Holy Ghost? If there is none, what is the explanation for this verse? And why would an active force have a name?

I made some research on their site : wol.jw.org. Based on this verse, here is an article from their 03/15/2010 Watchtower, titled "Baptized in the Name of Whom and What?".

The part under "In the Name of the Holy Spirit" should interest you. Here is the most relevant part :

  What does it mean to be baptized in the name of the holy spirit? As
  noted earlier, those hearing Peter on the day of Pentecost were aware
  of the holy spirit. In fact, they could see proof right before their
  eyes that God continued to use the holy spirit. Peter was one of those
  who had been “filled with holy spirit and [who had] started to speak
  with different tongues.” (Acts 2:4, 8) The expression “in the name of”
  need not imply the name of a person. Today, many things are done “in
  the name of the government,” which is not a person. They are done by
  the authority of the government. Similarly, one who is baptized in the
  name of the holy spirit recognizes that the holy spirit is, not a
  person, but Jehovah’s active force. And such baptism means that one
  acknowledges the role the holy spirit plays in God’s purpose.

Hope this helps


What place does Lilith have in Christianity? There was a show on the History channel stating that some scholars believe Adam and Eve were alive with a third human, Lilith. Lilith disobeyed Adam and Eve, so God sent her to live on earth as a demon.

Is this just Jewish mythology or should it be considered part of the religion?

What place does Lilith have in Christianity? Is she part of the devil, an evil angel, is she relevant today?

How should a Christian view her? For example, Adam and Eve directly effect each of our lives right now, since eating from the tree of knowledge...is there something analogous to this with Lilith?

http://www.bitterwaters.com/Lilith_in_Bible.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lilith#In_the_Bible

Thank You.

Christianity is based on the Bible.  One of the tenets of Protestantism is "sola scriptura" (Scripture alone).  Lilith is not mentioned in the Bible, and thus has no relevance to Christianity.

Some parts of Christianity also consider tradition as well as the Bible, but that doesn't sound like Christian tradition either.

Christians can view non-biblical ideas as myths, history, or whatever, as seems appropriate.


Is prayer to Jesus required for salvation? According to the Bible, will those who have heard about Jesus (and, perhaps, even believed that Jesus existed or that he had a special role) and yet have never prayed directly to Him (i.e. never addressed Him in prayer by using the name "Jesus") go to hell?

There's an old saying (more or less) in Christianity that it's not a religion, but a relationship.  There is biblical support for this coming from this verse:

  Matthew 7:21-23 (NIV)
   “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name and in your name drive out demons and in your name perform many miracles?’ Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!’

Very simply, it's not just what about is in our hearts; nor is it about what we do; it's about having the relationship with Jesus.

Without prayer, there is no relationship (and can be no relationship).  Without prayer, we cannot make ourselves known to God.

  Phillipians 4:6 (NIV)
  Do not be anxious about anything, but in every situation, by prayer and petition, with thanksgiving, present your requests to God.

Phillipians shows that if we do not pray, our requests won't be presented to God and so he will (as stated in Matthew) not know us.


Why do Christians seek to convert everyone? This may touch a nerve, but why do Christians seek to convert everyone, especially people who have no interest in being converted? It always comes off like a drug dealer saying, "Try it, you'll like it - trust me. Would I lie to you?" If the point is to make the world a better place, wouldn't a less aggressive approach be more effective?

This answer presupposes that the claims of Christianity are true.  Since Christians believe this, and this site is meant to give a "Christian" view of things, that's the presupposition required to properly answer this.  I realize that many people don't believe the claims of Christianity, but the Truth of the claims isn't what's being asked or what's relevant here.  Why Christians act as they do is, and the presupposition is what drives us to act as we do.

This also is geared toward answering from the perspective of the strongly evangelistic among us. Not all denominations, and not all Christians are aggressively evangelistic.  From the question, I am assuming that you are looking for what drives that type, since that type is the ones that are "out to convert everyone".  The motivation of those that aren't aggressively evangelistic are going to be absent from my answer because it wouldn't apply to the question asked.  But for those of us who are, this is the reason:

That's simple. The idea of anyone in Hell terrifies us.  We believe that we've all fallen short of the standard God uses to judge us, and are all guilty, and therefore doomed to Hell.

http://bible.cc/romans/3-23.htm

  John 14:6 New International Version

  for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,

Since Christ claimed to be the only way to avoid that fate, naturally, we want everyone to turn to Christ and avoid that fate.

  John 14:6 New International Version

  Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes
  to the Father except through me.

Many Christians feel uncomfortable with aggressive evangelism, stating that they're afraid to scare people away. Ray Comfort replied to this with "where are you going to scare them to, Hell #2?"

The non-believer may not agree that Christ is the only way, but belief isn't what determines truth, and if Christ is who He said He is, the only way to prevent someone from an eternity of torture is to tell them.

Put another way, if someone were standing in the road, and you saw a vehicle rushing toward them, how would you react? By saying, "Please move out of the road!  Try it, you'll like it!" Or would you tell them of the danger, and if they ignored it, try to aggressively push them out of the way, and to safety?

Put simply, the point is not to make the world a better place. This world and our present lives are, if Christianity is true, only temporary. The point is to save those around us from eternal suffering.


How do Christians who believe in evolution understand Original Sin? As I understand, many Christians nowadays accept evolution. There are such Christians in most major denominations and inside these denominations exist different traditions and groups of believers, so I understand that there may be different theories in those traditions for how to combine evolution with Christianity. Those theories may broadly be called Theistic Evolution. There may also be individual ideas which are not part of the teaching of a specific denomination, but are plausible theories in which some of the Christians believe, which I am also ready to explore.
Do those who are Christians and accept evolution at the same time, think that there was no Adam and Eve? If so, does this mean that there was no original sin?
What are the main modern theories how to understand Original Sin (The idea that the humankind changed after the first sin and that people as children of Adam and Eve bear the consequences of this first sin) when believing in evolution at the same time?

How do Christians who believe in evolution understand Original Sin?
Before getting into the crux of this question, it should simply be noted that not all Christian denominations believe in Original Sin or evolution for that matter.
If we as Christians are to believe in evolution and original sin, there has to be a logical and theological manner to join these two thoughts within a philosophical logical thought.
If the creationist holds to a literal interpretation of creation and with it, the belief that Adam was responsible for our original sin; then those who hold to the theory of evolution and Original Sin must hold that our first parents of the human race also committed the original sin.
In order that original sin and evolution be reconciled, it would be necessary that at a certain time in evolution, God infused into a certain natural creature an immortal soul and the gift of intelligence and knowledge of God. This being would be our first parent: Adam. This is what evolutionists accept in order to make original sin understood within a Christian belief system.
For example, Pope Pius XII's teaching in Catholicism can be summarized as follows:

The question of the origin of man's body from pre-existing and living matter is a legitimate matter of inquiry for natural science. Catholics are free to form their own opinions, but they should do so cautiously; they should not confuse fact with conjecture, and they should respect the Church's right to define matters touching on Revelation.

Catholics must believe, however, that humans have souls created immediately by God. Since the soul is a spiritual substance it is not brought into being through transformation of matter, but directly by God, whence the special uniqueness of each person.

All men have descended from an individual, Adam, who has transmitted original sin to all mankind. Catholics may not, therefore, believe in "polygenism", the scientific hypothesis that mankind descended from a group of original humans (that there were many Adams and Eves). - Evolution and the Catholic Church

St. Paul’s words can not be altered and will always remain a strong testimony of Divine truth:

11Not only that, but we also rejoice in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received reconciliation. 12Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, so also death was passed on to all men, because all sinned. 13For sin was in the world before the law was given; but sin is not taken into account when there is no law. - Romans 5:11-13

Evolution contradicts a literalistic interpretation of Genesis; however, according to Catholicism and most contemporary Protestant denominations, biblical literalism in the creation account is not mandatory. Christians have considered allegorical interpretations of Genesis since long before the development of Darwin's theory of evolution, or Hutton's principle of uniformitarianism. A notable example is St. Augustine (4th century), who, on theological grounds, argued that everything in the universe was created by God in the same instant, and not in six days as a plain reading of Genesis would require.
Modern Catholicism points to a unique special creation applies to humans and not other species:

The position of the Roman Catholic Church on the theory of evolution has changed over the last two centuries from a large period of no official mention, to a statement of neutrality in the early-1950s, to limited guarded acceptance in recent years, rejecting the materialistic and reductionist philosophies behind it, and insisting that the human soul was immediately infused by God, and the reality of a single human ancestor (commonly called monogenism) for all of mankind. The Church does not argue with scientists on matters such as the age of the earth and the authenticity of the fossil record, seeing such matters as outside its area of expertise. Papal pronouncements, along with commentaries by cardinals, indicate that the Church is aware of the general findings of scientists on the gradual appearance of life. Indeed, Belgian priest Georges Lemaître, astronomer and physics professor at the Catholic University of Louvain, was the first to propose the theory of expansion of the universe, often incorrectly credited to Edwin Hubble. In the 1950 encyclical Humani generis, Pope Pius XII confirmed that there is no intrinsic conflict between Christianity and the theory of evolution, provided that Christians believe that the individual soul is a direct creation by God and not the product of purely material forces. Today, many members of the Church support theistic evolution, also known as evolutionary creation. Under Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, the International Theological Commission published a paper accepting the big bang of 15 billion years ago and the evolution of all life including humans from the microorganisms that formed approximately 4 billion years ago. The Vatican has no official teaching on this matter except for the special creation of the human soul. The Pontifical Biblical Commission issued a decree ratified by Pope Pius X on June 30, 1909, stating that special creation applies to humans and not other species. - Acceptance of evolution by religious groups

Without the sin of Adam, our first parent there is no
original sin.


How do people who believe in immediate heaven for believers at death explain Tabitha? In Acts 9:36-41 is the story of Tabitha (a.k.a. Dorcas) who died and was raised to life through the prayer of Peter.

That would seem to conflict with a commonly held view among theologically conservative Protestants that once a believer dies, that person is in heaven and never returns to this life.

My question asks how that theological view is harmonized with the Tabitha story.  (Is Tabitha the exception that proves the rule?  Is heaven as a one-way ticket only true after the period of the apostolic age, with its miracles?  And wouldn't she have been mighty upset to be called back to earth?)

Please note: I am aware of (and not seeking) alternative explanations as to what really happened when Tabitha died; only want to know know how "immediately-in-heaven" partisans square that view with her experience.

Conservative Protestants typically use the phrase "intermediate state" when talking theologically about the "immediately-in-heaven" view.  Wayne Grudem is a conservative Protestant representative of this view.  In his book, Bible Doctrine, on page 352, Grudem writes,

"The souls of believers go immediately into God's presence.  Death is a temporary cessation of bodily life and a separation of the soul from the body.  Once a believer has died, though his physical body remains on earth and is buried, at the moment of death his soul (or spirit) goes immediately into the presence of God with rejoicing."

Grudem mentions 2 Corinthians 5:8, Philippians 1:23, and Luke 23:43 in support of this view.  However, he offers no suggestion of exactly what is happening in the case of a miracle when a person is raised from the dead.

From the theologically conservative Protestant position, Tabitha and others like her pose no problem, because the view does not necessarily state that once a believer dies, that person... never returns to life again.  Rather, that is the normal occurrence for both believers and non-believers.  But, God may choose according to His pleasure and mercy, to allow the miraculous to intrude into the ordinary and raise/resuscitate a dead person, again whether believer or non-believer.  That's what makes it a miracle, whether the human agent is Peter praying or a doctor reviving the one who is clinically dead.  Note that this is not merely relying on a miracle to get out of a theological issue.  Rather, the question assumes that miracles do occur.

For the person so raised, what has been his or her experience?  Alas, the Bible is silent on that question.  We do know that the unmerciful rich man suffered apparently as soon as he died (Luke 16:19-31) and returning was denied him.  The Apostle Paul may have actually died in Acts 14:19 and some have speculated that may have been the experience he refers to in 2 Corinthians 12:1-4. Admittedly, that connection is speculative, but if so then Paul experienced the intermediate state and returned.

When reading of an after-death-return-to-life experience, it's best not to put too much stock in it, but whether believer or unbeliever, there is nothing about the intermediate state that prevents a miraculous return to life after dying.


The Luke 2 census - did everyone travel? We know from Luke 2 that each person (or, certainly, adult male) was required to register to his own town. We also know that Joseph travelled (with Mary) from Nazareth to Bethlehem so that they could be registered there:

  3 And all the people were going to be registered, each to his own city or town.
  4 And Joseph also went up from Galilee from the town of Nazareth to Judea, to the town of David, which is called Bethlehem, because he was of the house and family of David

--Luke 2:3-4 (AMP), emphasis mine

The common assumption is that everyone had to be at their ancestral home for the census, however the passage doesn't exactly say that. It states that people would be registered to their own city or town - presumably, the city or town they happened to be in at the time of the registration - and that Joseph went to Bethlehem because he was of David's line.

Since genealogy was so important to that culture, could it be that Joseph travelled to Bethlehem of his own volition to emphasise his ancestry on his official registration, as opposed to being required to go there by the authorities? Is there any evidence that people were required to travel to their ancestral homes as opposed to many Jews choosing to do so?

(By "evidence" I don't mean original documentation as that's obviously going to be pretty hard to come by; I'm really wondering if this has been discussed by subject matter experts and what conclusions, if any, have been drawn.)

It is possible that Joseph's home was in Bethlehem and he had only temporarily moved to Nazareth because he was working on a construction project. I don't know of any case where an ancient government required the majority of people to travel a long distance for a census.

If we read Matthew's account of Jesus' birth, we find that Joseph and Mary intended to make Bethlehem their home upon returning from Egypt, but were persuaded that Jesus' life would be endangered if they settled in Archelaus' realm. Nazareth is not mentioned in Matthew until the family "turned aside" to go there in Mat 2:22-23.

Joseph's trade is specified as 'tekton', which has traditionally been translated as 'carpenter', but is a fairly general term for 'builder'. He may have been a construction worker at the time, moving around from place to place to find work. If so, he might have met Mary while he was working on a building project near her home town, Nazareth[1].

Here's a sermon, United Methodist but probably typical of Protestants who study the story closely:

http://www.dodgevilleumc.org/sermons/2011/joseph-of-bethlehem/

"if we do a careful study of these two Gospel accounts, we’ll find that Nazareth was Mary’s hometown … and I’m pretty sure Bethlehem was Joseph’s hometown"

Once Joseph had decided to accept Mary as his wife even though she was pregnant, the most natural thing for him to do would be to take her to Bethlehem, his home town. Doubtless the census encouraged the timing of the trip, as Bethlehem would be the ideal place for Joseph to register, if it was his permanent home. It may or may not have been mandatory for him to go there.

Joseph may indeed have been motivated by desire to register in the town of his ancestors, whether or not it was he thought of it as his hometown at the time. If Joseph's home was in Bethlehem, it may have simplified the registration process also. But even without the census, Joseph had reason to bring his new bride to Bethlehem, and perhaps find work that did not require as much travel.

[1]: Work opportunities


Why is wine associated with St John the Apostle? In the Rituale Romanum of the Catholic Church one can find a blessing for wine which is reserved for the Feast of St John the Apostle (December 27).

Why does the Catholic Church associate this tradition with St John?

Occasionally artists show a snake or a dragon coming out of a chalice with St. John the Apostle.

El Greco: St. John the Evangelist, 1595-1604

The reason is:

  The Church provided a special blessing of wine in honor of the Saint.
  According to legend St. John drank a glass of poisoned wine without
  suffering harm because he had blessed it before he drank. The wine is
  also a symbol of the great love of Christ that filled St. John's heart
  with loyalty, courage and enthusiasm for his Master; he alone of all
  the apostles was not afraid to stay close to Our Lord during the
  Passion and Crucifixion.

This is the source

So tradition say:

  St. John’s wine, blessed by a priest or sprinkled with holy water by
  the father of the family, is served with the main meal. In Europe,
  even the children receive a little sip of it after the main course of
  the dinner. The wine is then poured into glasses and passed around to
  the family and guests. As each glass is given, the leader says:  “I
  drink thee the love of St. John.”

  The response to this is:  “I thank thee for the love of St. John.”

This is the source


Are there circumstances where to "love your neighbor as yourself" also means you put him ahead of you? Do any scriptures help to determine if when asked for financial assistance you should give them money if you know they have more money than you, a better car, nicer house, spend more money eating out, etc.

Also if someone at work asks you to help them. You have your career to worry about as well as theirs, but what if they ask you to assist them then that person doesn't give you credit and they later earn a promotion not you?

I am asking from a Protestant upbringing where I was taught you help others but don't ask for help yourself.

I am responding out of my own Protestant upbringing :

John the Baptist came preaching and said :

  Bring forth therefore fruits worthy of repentance ... Luke 3:8 KJV.

In answer to the question 'What shall we do then ? he explained :

  He that hath two coats, let him impart to him that hath none; and he that hath meat, let him do likewise.

John does not say that he who hath a coat give it away to him that hath none (and shiver himself). Nor the same with regard to food.

But it is also true what Jesus says :

  Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends. John 15:13 KJV.

Which, of course, Jesus did.


Are people possessed by demons today? What is the modern Christian perspective? In the three gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke, Jesus repeatedly casts out demons, speaks to them, etc. He tells his disciples to do the same. There are so many references it would be difficult to put them all here.

This is not a topic that is very frequently mentioned (if at all) in my experience in the modern church (here in the USA at least). But reading the New Testament it cannot be easily glossed over.

What is the church's view on demonic possession today, especially in light of modern psychology and drug therapy? Where people possessed by demons in ancient times but not today? Are people with certain types of psychological disorders (or in certain times/cases) actually possessed?

Yes, people can be possessed by demons today. There is no particular Scripture to indicate that anything changed form the time that Jesus pronounced certain people as possessed to now.

It's very important to remember that Jesus is always trump. The disciples were amazed to find that even the spirit world (however that manifest itself) was subject to the the authority of Christ and his teachings1, not just when he gave them but when they went out to proclaim them2.

Also, it's not something focus on or draw our attention from the main message of the Gospel3. It's sort of an incidental problem that we overcome just like any other problem in this world. Undue focus on the realms of evil, spirit or physical, is unhealthy. In fact many things are often mistaken for spirit world problems that are just the fruits of our flesh. Sorcery is one example4.

Lastly, Christians cannot be possessed. The enemy has no authority over the temple of the Holy Spirit. Christians have been raised into life with Christ and are temples of the Holy Spirit. Those temples are are off limits to the enemy because the victory has already been won5 and we have been transferred from the kingdom of darkness to that of light6.

Mark 1:27 (ESV)
And they were all amazed, so that they questioned among themselves, saying, “What is this? A new teaching with authority! He commands even the unclean spirits, and they obey him.”
Luke 10:17-19 (ESV)
The seventy-two returned with joy, saying, “Lord, even the demons are subject to us in your name!” And he said to them, “I saw Satan fall like lightning from heaven. Behold, I have given you authority to tread on serpents and scorpions, and over all the power of the enemy, and nothing shall hurt you.
Luke 10:17-20 (ESV)
Nevertheless, do not rejoice in this, that the spirits are subject to you, but rejoice that your names are written in heaven.”
Galatians 5:19-21 (ESV)
Now the works of the flesh are evident: sexual immorality, impurity, sensuality, idolatry, sorcery, enmity, strife, jealousy, fits of anger, rivalries, dissensions, divisions, envy, drunkenness, orgies, and things like these. I warn you, as I warned you before, that those who do such things will not inherit the kingdom of God.
Colossians 2:15 (ESV)
He disarmed the rulers and authorities and put them to open shame, by triumphing over them in him.
Colossians 1:13 (ESV)
He has delivered us from the domain of darkness and transferred us to the kingdom of his beloved Son


What are modern Christian views of the soul? The soul, the immaterial “breath of life”, was originally thought (I believe) to be where most of our thoughts, feelings, and personality originate. However, a lot of the functions of the brain, like cognitive thoughts, aggressiveness, generosity, attribution of your actions as being self initiated, and happiness have been shown to either have a biological basis or correlates. A lot of these functions overlap with what I would have attributed with being the immaterial soul.

For example, I would have thought that trust would be something that would originate in the soul, however, oxytocin can make someone more trusting. It also seems to play an important part of maternal love and long-term relationships. Morality is also attributed to the soul, but alcohol can inhibit moral actions. I don’t see how alcohol can make it more difficult to be moral, unless there is some biological component of being moral. Perhaps, only the conscience is a part of the soul, but acting on the conscience is either a function of the physical brain or a close collaboration between the soul and the physical brain? Also, attributing an action (such as your hand moving) as being self-initiated versus involuntarily initiated (such as uncontrolled shaking of the hand) seems to rely on subcortical areas and people with schizophrenia (presumably a biological disorder) are unable to correctly attribute their actions to themselves. I would have thought that the soul be able to distinguish actions that it initiated? Or does the soul even responsible for initiating conscious actions?

Are there Christian scholars who propose ideas of the different roles that our biological brain and souls play and how do they interact?

Note 1: This question may challenge your preconceived notions of the soul, but it does not challenge the idea that there might be an immaterial soul. I’m just curious about details of such conjectures; detailed to the extent that they might form testable hypotheses. Some of which will inevitably be wrong, there is nothing wrong with this.

Note 2: While the soul may be immaterial, if it affects the biological brain, then it is at least theoretically possible to study it with science. For example, gravity still remains a black box to us. There are hypotheses (such as the graviton), but we don’t really know. But this has not prevented us from studying the effects of gravity and learning a lot from it. Likewise, behaviorists treated organisms as a black box, but that didn’t prevent them from making a lot of discoveries about learning.

EDIT FROM THE COMMENT BELOW

Reading trough systematic theology books, I found that Christians hold that the human has two are three parts. The two parts view says that the human is body (material) and soul(immaterial), the three parts folks hold the position that human are body(material), soul(feeling), conscience(image of God, moral center).

Here are two links to books chapters on Google :

Lecture in Systematic Theology by Henry C. Thiessen

Systematic Theology by Wayne Grundem