Why do translations use words like "servants" to mean "slaves"? Luke 12:45-48 uses the word "servants". What kind of servants get beaten up by their master?

That looks a lot like slaves to me. We have an English word for that thing. It's called slaves. So why use servants? Servants are employees that got paid. Slaves are properties that got beaten up.

Does the Bible translator bowdlerize the Bible to keep it politically correct?

Translation philosophy

The translator's job is to pick the best word(s) to fit their translation philosophy.  This could mean the most "literal" (i.e. technically accurate, ignoring connotations) term, or it could mean trying to most accurately capture the intent of the original author, even if that means changing the words.  The first option is called "formal equivalence", while the later is called "functional equivalence".   Most translators opt for a middle-ground approach where the words can be "changed", but only if there is a strong reason to do so.  (This ignores that 1-to-1 correspondence is very rare.  In reality, all translators must make such choices, regardless of philosophy.)

Slavery in Ancient Rome

It is true that δούλος most closely corresponds to "slave" from a technical standpoint.  The problem is that slavery is typically inseparable from racism in the modern readers mind, at least in most of the English-speaking world (due to American slavery being the most familiar form).  This would be a concept totally alien to the original New Testament writers.  An estimated 95% of slaves in Italy were Italian born, for example.  There is good reason to believe the concept of "race" didn't exist at all in Roman society.

While it is certainly true that conquered people by the Romans were sometimes sold into slavery, people could also sell themselves to pay a debt, and parents could sell their children into slavery.

Additionally, the modern reader associates slavery with forced, hard physical labor.  This kind of slavery existed in Roman society too (e.g. mine workers), but it was not the only or even main kind of slavery.  Almost any type of job you can think of, including cooks, doctors/nurses, housecleaners, private tutors, accountants, and so on, was a possible profession for a slave.  (At least 55 distinct slave jobs are known.)  Slaves with such skills were highly valued; cooks in particular enjoyed a high social status because of their value in entertaining guests of wealthy patrons.

Roman slaves were allowed to earn a wage (page 147) and could, in principle, buy their own freedom (although it was very hard to do).  Significant social mobility was not unheard of for skilled slaves.  Slaves that were freed by their masters choice often chose to keep the same job.  Thus, there was little practical difference between a technically free servant and a slave.  The Latin word servus (from which we get servant) could refer to either.  (The word sclavus, from which we get slave, was not invented until very late in Latin history, well after the Biblical period.)

Implication for translation

What this all means is the that the first century conception of "slave" and the twenty-first conception are very different.  A translator is thus left with a difficult choice - he can either translate as "slave" and possibly add racist and/or violent overtones to a text where there was none originally, or he can translate as "servant" and lose the lack of freedom vibe.

The normal practice in Latin texts (where servus can mean either slave or servant) is to translate the word as servant in most situations, except when the immediate context only fits a "slave" translation.  (E.g. when talking about the activities of the cook, the cook is a servant; when talking about the rules regarding buying and selling cooks, the cook is a slave.)  This is done for reasons of accuracy, not "political correctness",  and applies to texts of all types, including those that have zero to do with Christianity.

Even though Greek does have a separate word for servant, it is still a legitimate translation practice to translate δούλος as "servant" when the context does not demand a "slave" reading.  (Only a hyper-literal translation philosophy would demand otherwise.) This is not done to "hide" anything from the reader, but rather is done because the idea of a "slave" in the culture of the writer more closely matches the idea of a "servant" in the mind of the modern reader in those passages.

Luke 12:45-48

Turning to the passage that prompted the question, it is seems likely that the δούλος described in this passage are household slaves.  (That is, that they do jobs that a modern reader would associate with servants.)  I say this because a master leaving the household for an extended period is a more natural occurrence than a master leaving mine workers, for example, unattended for an extended period.  Additionally the description of the δούλος eating and drinking excessively implies he may be in charge of such provisions.

Thus, the "servant" of the NIV (also ESV) is justifiable under a more functional equivalence based approach.  "Slave", which is used by NRSV and NASB, is also justifiable, under a more formal equivalence based approach.  The meaning of this passage does not in any way change based on the translation of δούλος, so any suggestion that the translation choice is made for theological reasons is off-base.

Addendum

After writing this answer, it came to my attention that the ESV actually explicitly states how they translate δούλος:

  Third, a particular difficulty is presented when words in biblical Hebrew and Greek refer to ancient practices and institutions that do not correspond directly to those in the modern world. Such is the case in the translation of ‘ebed (Hebrew) and doulos (Greek), terms which are often rendered “slave.” These terms, however, actually cover a range of relationships that require a range of renderings—either “slave,” “bondservant,”
  or “servant”—depending on the context. Further, the word “slave” currently carries associations with the often brutal and dehumanizing institution of slavery in nineteenth-century America. For this reason, the ESV translation of the words ‘ebed and doulos has been undertaken with particular attention to their meaning in each specific context... In New Testament times, a doulos is often best described as a “bondservant”—that is, as someone bound to serve his master for a specific (usually lengthy) period of time, but also as someone who might nevertheless own property, achieve social advancement, and even be released or purchase his freedom... Where absolute ownership by a master is in view (as in Romans 6), “slave” is used; where a more limited form of servitude is in view, “bondservant” is used (as in 1 Corinthians 7:21–24); where the context indicates a wide range of freedom (as in John 4:51), “servant” is preferred.

A few thoughts on the King James

The above answer only applies to recent translations.  The 1611 King James Version obvious did not make its decisions based on the later American slavery.  Ultimately, it speculation to define their motives for mostly avoiding "slave" (then spelled "slaue"), but I see several possibilities:

They did so for "politically correct" reasons.  This seems unlikely to me since slavery was legal and probably "socially acceptable" in 1611.
They did so for reasons of personal conviction against slavery.
They were influenced by the use of servus in the Latin Vulgate.
"Slave" was a relatively rare word, and as such was avoided. I think this unlikely - see Google N-grams.
"Slave" could be confused with other uses of the term in contemporary English.  In support of this hypothesis, see the following Oxford English Dictionary definitions that are now archaic, but were in use in 1611:

Used as a term of contempt:

  Where is that Slaue Which told me they had beate you to your Trenches? (Shakespeare, Coriolanus, I. vii. 39)

In less serious use: Rascal; fellow.

  Oh Slaues, I can tell you Newes, News you Rascals. (Shakespeare, Coriolanus, IV. v. 175)

I'll leave it to the reader to draw their own conclusions about the KJV.


Is there a Biblical precedent for the Petrine privilege? Is there a Biblical precedent for the Petrine privilege?

The Petrine privilege per the Code of Canon Law being

  Code of Canon Law Can.  1142 For a just cause, the Roman
  Pontiff can dissolve a non-consummated marriage between baptized
  persons or between a baptized party and a non-baptized party at the
  request of both parties or of one of them, even if the other party is
  unwilling.

No.

Petrine privilege and all the customs around it grew out of the practical administration of the sacraments over time.  There is nothing in the scripture recognized as the canonized New Testament that speaks directly to any of this.  If anything all of this can be said to have grown out of Jesus admonition not to divorce - Matthew 19:1-12.


Why is the Bible said to be twisted like a wax nose? The unusual image of a "wax nose" has been used in a few different ways,
to describe some sort of "twisting" of the meaning of Scripture. It appears
to have been used by both Protestants and Catholics, with different intent.
For example, John Calvin attributes the phrase to (unnamed) Catholics
apparently describing their own method of exegesis,

  Against opposing arguments they will set up this brazen wall: Who are you to question the interpretation of the Church? This, no doubt, is what they mean by a saying common among them, in that Scripture is a nose of wax, because it can be formed into all shapes. 1

Was this really a common saying? What did they mean by it - and is it the
same as what Calvin wants them to mean?

1. John Calvin. Acta synodi Tridentinae cum antidoto (Geneva, 1547). Antidote to the fourth session.
"Adversus contrarios rationes hic oppositus erit muris aheneus: Tu quis es, qui ecclesiae
interpretationi obstrepis? Hoc scilicet est, quod vulgari proverbio inter se praedicant:
Scripturam esse nasum caereum; quia converti possit in omnes formas." English translation
by Henry Beveridge (Edinburgh: Calvin Translation Society, 1851).

This was a common image from at least the eleventh century onwards, but it did not always
mean the same thing. In particular, Calvin is taking the least favourable possible
meaning, out of all those ever used by his opponents. I will now explain everything in tediously footnoted detail.

The root image of the wax nose comes from the use of wax to make prostheses.
Wax is cheap, malleable, and is not too different from the typical range of European skin colours.
This had been common since the classical era, and Petrarch (1303-1374) includes wax noses among the common
prosthetic devices of his time1.

In connection to the earliest usages of the
wax nose simile, it can be noted that a wax nose is a pretty low-class sort of prosthesis.
Although skin diseases were abundant in all strata of society, rich people might make
use of precious metals (as with the golden nose of Justinian II,
the original having been amputated after his deposition in 695). Even the less wealthy might
have noses of leather or wood. Loss of the nose might also be the result of
punishment for crime, including adultery. All of these factors suggest that
the possessor of the proverbial wax nose is likely to be of low status2.

We may distinguish two cases of wax-nose-twisting language:

Your wax nose is tweaked by somebody else - invariably a bad thing.
You twist your own nose however you want - which may be good or bad.

The earliest sense is the former, where the nose is meant to represent the law.
Our oldest citation is from the Chronica Boemorum by
Cosmas of Prague (c.1045-1125),
which describes how Henry III
(1017-1056) in the year 1040
tried to collect more tax from the Bohemians than the law seemed to permit;
when they protested, he apparently said:

  He who rules the laws is not ruled by them: for the law, as the common people say,
  has a nose of wax, while the king has an iron hand and a long one, so that he can twist
  it however he likes3.

In later Germanic usage, the wax nose of the law was a common image5.
An example is a Middle High German poem by
Oswald von Wolkenstein (1376-1445),
comparing the law to a wax nose that may be twisted about just as freely as a hound
runs to and fro7. But the most famous and influential occurrence was
in the Ship of Fools
(Das Narrenschiff or Stultifera Navis)
of Sebastian Brandt (1457-1521),
a political-religious satire; the law is compared to a wax nose in chapter 71 8.
We will shortly return to the
commentary by Johann Geiler von Keysersberg
(1445-1510),
which develops the theme and was an influence on Martin Luther and other key figures of the
Reformation and Counter-Reformation.

The second sense above - you get to reshape your own nose - is first attested in the
philosophical writing of Alain of Lille (1116-1202).
His De Fide Catholica includes two defenses of the immortality of the soul, the first of which
draws from the authority of Greek philosophers. In the linking passage, he asserts that
such authority has a nose of wax, and can be made to mean whatever we want, it must be strengthened
by the use of reason 9. It is possible that the wax, for him, is meant to be
analogous to the Platonic primordial matter of the Timaeus,
called ἐκμαγεῖον (a substance that can receive an image)
and μαλακῶν (a soft material) in 50c2, 50e8 respectively10.
The idea that wax can take any image is analogous to the way that anything can be written on paper;
these images were combined in a poem of Bruno von Schönebeck (fl. 1275).
The poem explicitly references Scripture, comparing it to a wax nose
because of the whitish-yellow colour of paper, and the fact that either one can take on any
image ("etslich bilde") one cares to impose11.
Boccaccio (1313-1375) also compares the
many possible sense of Scripture to the proverbial wax nose, in his commentary on the many senses of
Dante's Divine Comedy 12.
There are many other contemporary uses of the proverb, across Europe13, 14.

The usage of Boccaccio is an example of the "good" kind of twisting your own nose. The
so-called "four senses" of Scripture (literal, allegorical, moral, anagogical)
were greatly in vogue in popular preaching, and the Bible was presented as a sort of miraculous
treasure chest. A related metaphor is the egg, which may be cooked in many ways; or the
sheath which can contain any sword15. There is some suspicion about whether theologians
are justified in their wax-twisting, for example from
Erasmus (1466-1536) 16.
Geiler's commentary on the Ship of Fools contains a defense of his preaching against the
charge that he can twist too many meanings out of a single passage, as if he were twisting
a wax nose to suit himself 17. In another sermon, he endorses the "four senses"
to which Scripture may be turned, like a wax nose, whereas other writings are less fruitful 18.
But some of Geiler's sermons use the metaphor in a different way, to emphasize the danger of
private interpretation, absent the authority of the Church. This is the provocative
usage for the Reformers.

In the Reformation era, we see just about everyone, on all sides, using the wax nose
metaphor against their opponents. The Catholic usage follows that of Geiler (and indeed
Alain of Lille) in asserting Church authority to extract the correct meanings from the Bible - anyone
else can only read their own meaning into the text. Protestants were furious at
this apparent disrespect to Scripture, drawing on the original Germanic tradition
where the nose-twisting is due to unjust exercise of personal power over the law (sense 1 above, rather than the intended sense 2).
So Martin Luther writes,

  So we see how neatly the Romanists deal with the Scripture, making of it just what they want,
  as if it were a wax nose, that one can pull this way and that. 19

just as Calvin repeated in sermon after sermon20. On the other hand,
when Willem van der Lindt (1525-1588)
uses the wax nose metaphor, he accepts it as "true" that Scripture is malleable,
but blames Luther, Calvin, Bugenhagen et al. for their incorrect twisting21.

But in fact, there were comparatively few on the Catholic side who endorsed
Scripture as lacking any fixed structure at all.
Indeed, there is really just one person who was continually quoted,
Albertus Pighius (1490-1542).
For example,
John Jewel (1522-1571)
in his Apology of the Church of England rails against those who say
that Scripture is a dead letter, malleable, uncertain, useless, and worst of
all, a wax nose; and it's Pighius who is cited for these opinions22 -
specifically, his tract on ecclesiastical hierarchy23, though other
writings repeat the assertion in broadly the same terms.
This is the position against which Calvin was arguing, in the original question
which by now is long forgotten. The rhetorical culture of the controversialists of the time
allowed the nasal metaphor to be greatly exaggerated. In effect, even "harmless"
occurrences of the wax nose metaphor were tainted by its use in more extreme writings.

To summarize: not everyone who describes Scripture as a wax nose is being disrespectful. They may only mean that many true ideas can be drawn from it. They do not necessarily mean to endorse the tyrannical reinterpretation of the Bible, but only to warn against inexpert eisegesis, abandonment of traditional wisdom, or of the Church itself (outside of which they believed there to be no guarantee of wisdom). That doesn't mean that the Church gets to do whatever it likes, with impunity. Equally, the Protestant assertion isn't that every believer can legitimately twist the Bible to suit themselves - it's that the ability to draw correct conclusions from the Bible isn't limited to those who are endorsed by the ecclesiastical establishment.

1. In De remediis utriusque fortunae,
Petrarch writes in section 2.93, De tristitia et miseria:
"Denique modis sese omnibus adiuvat, attollitque, quin amissis artubus, pedes ligneos,
manus ferreas, nasos caereos, fabricari didicit, et fortunas casibus obstare."
2. Giorgio Sperati. Amputation of the nose throughout history. Acta Otorhinolaryngologica
Italica 29(1):44-50, February 2009.
3. Chronica Boemorum, book 2, chapter 8; p94, lines 11-14
of Monumenta Germaniae Historica,
Scriptores (Nova Series), vol. 2 (Berlin, 1923).
My translation of: "Nam qui regunt leges, non reguntur legibus, quia lex, ut aiunt vulgo,
cereum habet nasum et rex ferream manum et longam, ut eam flectere queat, quo sibi placet."
See also references 4-6 below.
4. J. H. Burns. The Cambridge History of Medieval Political Thought, c.350 - c.1450 (Cambridge University Press, 1988). Wax nose on p251.
5. Peter Dronke. A History of Twelfth-Century Western Philosophy (Cambridge University Press, 1988).
Wax nose on pages 7-8 and 442, further citing Shippey (6, below) and many of the other sources
I have listed.
6. Tom Shippey. London Review of Books, 27 October 1988, p16. Indicates the use by Cosmas of Prague.
7. Oswald von Wolkenstein. Mich frâgt ain Ritter ân gever. Lines 122-125 of the poem read:
"Das recht hat gar ain wãxe nas / Es lât sich piegen als der has, / sô in der hund pringt in den wangk / nur hin und her stêt sein gedanck." No. 26 of the "Historische Gedichte" in Beda Weber,
Die Gedichte Oswalds von Wolkenstein (Innsbruck, 1847) = No. 118 in Josef Schatz,
Die Gedichte Oswalds von Wolkenstein (Göttingen, 1904).
8. Sebastian Brandt. Das Narrenschiff (Basel, 1494).
The text in Johann Scheible's Das Kloster, weltlich und geistlich (Stuttgart, 1845), volume 1,
reads: "Verlossend sich, das sie das recht / Wol bugen, das es nit blib schlecht, / Als ob es wer eyn wachsin naß".
9. Alain of Lille. De Fide Catholica Contra Haereticos. Book 4, chapter 30. In Migne, Patrologia Latina
vol. 201, 305C-322A at 333C. "Sed quia auctoritas cereum habet nasum, id est diversum potest flecti
sensum, rationibus roborandum est."
10. Nikolaus Häring. Commentaries on Boethius by Thierry of Chartres and his school (Pontifical
Institute of Mediaeval Studies, 1966), p76ff, quoting
Thierry's comparison of Plato's ylem to wax,
"for what exists in potentiality can be bent to this and to that".
11. Bruno von Schönebeck. Das Hohe Lied. Lines 960-967 (or 1063-1070 in the alternative numbering)
read: "von der schrift ist noch me gelesen: / di schrift hat eine wechsene nesen. /
daz wachs ist gel var und ouch wiz, / als daz wachs behende is mit vliz / zu nemen an sich etslich bilde, /
iz si ru zam adir wilde, / also nimpt di schrift an sich / itslich bilde daz sage ich".
12. Giovanni Boccaccio. Espozioni sopra la Commedia di Dante (1373). The commentary on Inferno 7,
in 2.172, says "Ora si suole interno a queste esposizioni spesse volte dire per i laici,
La Scrittura avere il naso di cera."
13. Thesaurus proverbiorum medii aevi (de Gruyter, 1999). Volume 8, p414ff.
14. Jakob and Wilhelm Grimm. Deutsches Wörterbuch. Citations under "Wachs".
15. For example, Francis Coster (1532-1619) in his
Enchiridion controversiarum praecipuarum nostri temporis de Religione (Cologne, 1585),
chapter 1, compares Scripture to a sheath that can contain swords of many possible materials, but
only the Church knows which one is the true sword.  "Illa vero cum scripta sit Spiritu Dei vivi,
in cordibus vivis Ecclesiae, truncari & torquerise non sinit, sed sui per omnia similis perseverat.
Proinde hoc est instar vaginae, quae quemlibet gladium admittit, non modo chalybeum, sed etiam
plumbeum, ligneum, aereum: patitur enim sequavis interpretatione trahi. Illa autem retinet in vagina
verum gladium, nimirum genuinum sensum scripturae in cortice literae, quia non in solis
characteribus, sed in sensu cernitur Dei verbum."
16. Erasmus of Rotterdam. Μωρίας Εγκώμιον / Laus stultitiae (1511).
"Iam illud quantae felicitatis esse putatis,
dum arcanas litteras, perinde quasi cereae sint, pro libidine formant ac reformant."
17. Commentary reproduced in Scheible (see reference 8). On Brandt's chapter 11, Geiler writes:
"Als da sein etlich, die sprechen,
lieber, was sagst mir vil von der Heiligen geschrifft, sie ist
gleich als ein wächsene naß, man mag sie auff alle ding
leiten unnd formieren, dann auff disen, dann auff jenen,
sie nennt doch niemandt mit dem nammen: was sagst vil,
die Pfaffen haben gut sagen daruon, sie haben alles was
sie wöllen von der Heiligen geschrift, es wirdt ihnen dardurch kisten und keller gefült."
18. Johann Geiler von Keysersberg. Predigt von den drei Marien. "Einer spricht, die heilige
geschrifft ist wie ein wechseni nas, man bügt es war man wil. Du sagst war, sie ist also
fruchtbar das vier sententz in ir erlüchten, das in andern geschrifften nit ist." See C. Schmidt,
Histoire littéraire de l'Alsace à la fin du XVe et au commencement du XVIe siècle
(1879), vol. 1, p423.
19. Martin Luther. Werke 1.343.28 (1520).
"Also sehen wir wie fein die Romanisten mit der schrifft handeln,
machen drauß was sie nur wollen, als were sie ein wechsern nasen,
die man hyn und her zihen mocht." My translation.
20. See many examples in Richard Stauffer, Dieu, la création et la Providence dans la
prédication de Calvin (Peter Lang, 1978). Vol. 33 of Basler und Berner Studien
zur historischen und systematischen Theologie.
21. William Damasus Lindanus (Willem van der Lindt). Panoplia evangelica (Cologne, 1560).
"Scripturae testimoniae (quae, ut vulgo videre est, ob facilem ipsius in varias sententiarum
formas flexum, recte naso fui aßilimata cereo)".
22. John Jewel. Apologia Ecclesiae Anglicanae (1562).
"Itaque sacrosanctas scripturas, quas Servator nostra Jesus Christus non
tantum in omni sermone usurpavit, sed etiam ad extremum sanguine suo
consignavit, quo populum ab illis, tanquam a re periculosa et noxia, minore
negotio abigant, solent literam frigidam, incertam, inutilem, mutam, occiden-
tem, mortuam appellare; quod nobis quidem perinde videtur esse ac si cas
omnino nullas esse dicerent. Sed addunt etiam simile quoddam non aptis-
simum; eas esse quodammodo nasum cereum, posse fingi flectique in omnes
modos, et omnium instituto inservire. An pontifex ista a suis dici nescit? aut
tales se habere patronos non intelligit?"
23. Albertus Pighius. Hierarchica Ecclesiastica (1538), 3.3.
"Sunt enim illae ut non minus vere quam festive dixit quidam,
velut nasus cereus, qui se horsum, illorsum, et in quam volueris partem trahi,
retrahi, fingique facile permittit, et tanquam plumbea quaedam Lesbiae aedificationis regula,
quam non sit difficile accommodare ad quidvis volueris."


What exactly did Jesus mean when He said "I am coming soon" and similar phrases? From Jesus:

  Luke 17:37 (NLT)

   37 “Where will this happen, Lord?” the disciples asked.
     Jesus replied, “Just as the gathering of vultures shows there is a carcass nearby, so these signs indicate that the end is near.”

  Matthew 24:28 (NLT)

  28 Just as the gathering of vultures shows there is a carcass nearby, so these signs indicate that the end is near.

  Revelation 3:11 (NLT)

  11 I am coming soon. Hold on to what you have, so that no one will take away your crown.

  Revelation 22:7 (NLT)

   7 “Look, I am coming soon! Blessed are those who obey the words of prophecy written in this book.”

  Revelation 22:12 (NLT)

   12 “Look, I am coming soon, bringing my reward with me to repay all people according to their deeds.

  Revelation 22:20 (NLT)

   20 He who is the faithful witness to all these things says, “Yes, I am coming soon!”
     Amen! Come, Lord Jesus!

From others:

  Philippians 4:5 (NLT)

  5 Let everyone see that you are considerate in all you do. Remember, the Lord is coming soon.

  1 Peter 4:7 (NLT)

   7 The end of the world is coming soon. Therefore, be earnest and disciplined in your prayers.

[Emphasis all mine.]

Well, looking at the calendar, I see it's at least 1,800 years after these scriptures were written. Clearly, this is not "soon" in any modern sense of the word. Thus, I'm asking:

What does "soon" mean in these verses?

Some translation details

The passages from Revelation you refer to (3:11, 22:7, 22:12, 22:20) all contain the same Greek phrase:

ἔρχομαι ταχύ

The phrase is translated "I come quickly" or "I am coming soon" in most English translations.

Strong's Concordance has the following definition for ταχύ:

  Neuter singular of G5036 (as adverb); shortly, i.e. Without delay, soon, or (by surprise) suddenly, or (by implication, of ease) readily -- lightly, quickly.

Some claim the correct translation would rather be suddenly. This would be in line with the following three passages, at least:

  2 Peter 3:8-10 (ESV)
   8 But do not overlook this one fact, beloved, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. 9  The Lord is not slow to fulfill his promise as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance. 10 But the day of the Lord will come like a thief, and then the heavens will pass away with a roar, and the heavenly bodies will be burned up and dissolved, and the earth and the works that are done on it will be exposed.

  Matthew 24:44 (ESV)
   Therefore you also must be ready, for the Son of Man is coming at an hour you do not expect.

  1 Thessalonians 5:2 (ESV)
   For you yourselves are fully aware that the day of the Lord will come like a thief in the night.

As for the other passages, I cannot answer. I suspect the all-encompassing answer isn't just a bunch of translation notes but will require some theology, too.


The Biblical God and the Kalam Cosmological Argument The Kalam Cosmological Argument comprises of the following three premises:

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

If we assume this argument is valid, all it proves is that the Universe had a supernatural first cause.

With that in mind, can the omnipresence, omnibenevolence, omniscience, and the divine being of God be proved using the cosmological argument?

That version of the Cosmological Argument simply points to the universe having a cause.  The Christian response would be that the cause is God.  Science confirms that the universe must have had a beginning.  The Christian view is that something that does not need to be given existence must exist to give everything else existence.  That something is God.  God does not need to be given existence because God is the cause who exists to give everything else existence.

I found this version of the Cosmological Argument (36 Arguments for the Existence of God by Rebecca Goldstein, published in 2010 by Pantheon Books, a division of Random House Inc.) which defines it this way:

1 – Everything that exists must have a cause

2 – The universe must have a cause (from 1)

3 – Nothing can be the cause of itself

4 – The universe cannot be the cause of itself (from 3)

5 – Something outside the universe must have caused the universe (from 2 and 4)

6 – God is the only thing that is outside of the universe

7 – God caused the universe (from 5 and 6)

8 – God exists

Not only did the universe have to have a first cause to get started, it needs something to give it existence right now. The only thing that would not have to be given existence is a thing that exists as its very nature. It is existence. This something would always exist, have no cause, have no beginning, have no limit, be outside of time, and be infinite. That something is God!

This article explains it far better than I ever could: What is the Cosmological argument for the existence of God?


Where is the dust of the earth? Daniel the prophet wrote:

  “And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake,
  some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt”

(Dan. 12:2).

Where in the universe is the dust of the earth?

You're asking the wrong question. This isn't a place; it is a state.

"Sleep" is used hundreds of times throughout the Old and New Testaments as a euphemism or metaphor for death. Likewise, the theme of being created from the dust of the earth and then returning to it when we die is seen in several places. This is a reference to those that have died, not to any particular physical location.

This point isn't really a matter of opinion either. All major branches of Christianity, all Bible translators, commentators, and theologians agree on this general interpretation of the "dust" and "sleep" references in Scripture. The specific context in some cases might involve other interpretive difficulties, but the basic point that this and many similar references are to death is pretty much undisputed.


From where did the Book of Abraham come and how did it become part of LDS Scripture? According to the answers to this question, the Pearl of Great Price contains a work of antiquity called the Book of Abraham.  Where exactly did the Book of Abraham come from and how did it become recognized as Scripture by the LDS Church?

Sigh... the reference manuals and official sources say it so much better than do I... So here's some quotes and links.

From the Introductory Note of the Pearl of Great Price:

  The Book of Abraham. A translation from some Egyptian papyri that came
  into the hands of Joseph Smith in 1835, containing writings of the
  patriarch Abraham. The translation was published serially in the Times
  and Seasons beginning 1 March 1842, at Nauvoo, Illinois. (See History
  of the Church, 4:519–34.)

An institute student manual has more to say on the subject:

  How Did the Church Obtain the Book of Abraham?

  On 3 July 1835 a man named Michael Chandler brought four Egyptian
  mummies and several papyrus scrolls of ancient Egyptian writings to
  Kirtland, Ohio. The mummies and papyri had been discovered in Egypt
  several years earlier by Antonio Lebolo. Kirtland was one of many
  stops in the eastern United States for Chandler’s mummy exhibition.
  Chandler was offering the mummies and rolls of papyrus for sale and,
  at the urging of the Prophet Joseph Smith, several members of the
  Church donated money to purchase them. In a statement dated 5 July
  1835, Joseph Smith, declaring the importance of these ancient Egyptian
  writings, recorded: “I commenced the translation of some of the
  characters or hieroglyphics, and much to our joy found that one of the
  rolls contained the writings of Abraham. . . . Truly we can say, the
  Lord is beginning to reveal the abundance of peace and truth” (
  History of the Church, 2:236).

This article by Dr. Andrew Skinner of Brigham Young University goes into more detail (formatting lost in the copy operation):

  In the year 1799, an intensified interest in ancient Egypt was kindled
  in the Western world when the Rosetta Stone was discovered near
  Alexandria, Egypt. Made of black basalt, the stone was found by an
  officer of Napoleon’s engineering corps. It bore inscriptions in three
  ancient languages—Egyptian hieroglyphics, demotic (a simplified script
  that succeeded hieroglyphics), and Greek. Among the European linguists
  who began to work on deciphering these inscriptions was the young
  French scholar Jean Francois Champollion. Hieroglyphics, the written
  language of ancient Egypt, had been a riddle to scholars for many
  centuries. Working from clues found in the last inscription on the
  Rosetta Stone, written in Greek, Champollion was finally able to
  decipher the other two inscriptions. In 1822 he published the results
  of his work and the science of Egyptology was born, allowing scholars
  to begin to read the most ancient texts of Egypt. 3

  These developments involving the Rosetta Stone and Champollion
  contributed to the coming forth of the book of Abraham in a
  significant way. As one writer put it, during the early 19th century
  “worldwide interest in Egyptian antiquities fanned itself to a searing
  blaze. Egypt was soon overrun with scientific expeditions,
  adventurers, soldiers of fortune, and robbers of catacombs and ancient
  burial sites.” 4 Into this atmosphere entered Antonio Lebolo, an
  Italian excavator of Egyptian antiquities.

  According to Oliver Cowdery’s account written in 1835, Lebolo and his
  work crew had discovered several mummies in one of the catacombs near
  the place where once stood the renowned Egyptian city of Thebes. 5
  After Lebolo’s death, these mummies and two papyrus rolls and some
  papyrus fragments that had been placed in some of the sarcophagi
  eventually found their way to New York City and then into the hands of
  Michael Chandler. 6 He was told that no one could translate the
  papyri’s inscriptions. He learned, however, that a man named Joseph
  Smith Jr. claimed some kind of special power that allowed him to
  decipher ancient writings. The Prophet’s name continued to come up,
  mostly in derision, at the various places where Chandler stopped to
  display his traveling mummy show. 7 In 1835 Chandler finally made
  contact with the Prophet Joseph Smith in Kirtland, Ohio. An entry in
  the Prophet’s history dated 3 July 1835 reads:

  “On the 3rd of July, Michael H. Chandler came to Kirtland to exhibit
  some Egyptian mummies. There were four human figures, together with
  some two or more rolls of papyrus covered with hieroglyphic figures
  and devices. As Mr. Chandler had been told I could translate them, he
  brought me some of the characters, and I gave him the interpretation.”
  8

  The Prophet Joseph Smith was then inspired to raise money to purchase
  Chandler’s mummies and the accompanying papyri even though he did not
  know exactly what the writings would disclose. Kirtland Saints
  contributed the funds for the purchase. The price was $2,400—not an
  inconsequential sum considering that the temple was under
  construction, but the faith of members who knew the Prophet and his
  works led them to help. 9

  After the purchase, the Prophet Joseph began to translate some of the
  papyri with the assistance of scribes W. W. Phelps and Oliver Cowdery.
  (Warren Parish was later called and employed as scribe.) This is what
  the Prophet recorded in his personal history: “With W. W. Phelps and
  Oliver Cowdery as scribes, I commenced the translation of some of the
  characters or hieroglyphics, and much to our joy found that one of the
  rolls contained the writings of Abraham, another the writings of
  Joseph of Egypt, etc.,—a more full account of which will appear in its
  place, as I proceed to examine or unfold them. Truly we can say, the
  Lord is beginning to reveal the abundance of peace and truth.” 10

  There is no doubt that the Prophet Joseph Smith regarded the manner in
  which these writings came to him as the result of divine intercession.
  The testimony of W. W. Phelps is no less certain: “God has so ordered
  it that these mummies and writings have been brought in the Church.”
  11 This happened only after the Lord had prepared his Church and the
  world to receive the book of Abraham. The rekindled spirit of
  excitement about ancient Egyptian writings in the 19th century, owing
  to the discovery of the Rosetta Stone and Champollion’s work, was one
  step in that preparation. Speaking of the way the Lord has guided
  discoveries and achievements of the human family to further his
  purposes, President Joseph Fielding Smith said:

  “There has never been a step taken from that day [ancient times] to
  this, in discovery or invention, where the Spirit of the Lord … was
  not the prevailing force, resting upon the individual, which caused
  him to make the discovery or the invention. … Nor did the Lord always
  use those who have faith, nor does he always do so today. He uses such
  minds as are pliable and can be turned in certain directions to
  accomplish his work, whether they believe in him or not. …

  “Now, do you think that these discoveries and inventions … have come
  just because these men have been sitting down and concentrating their
  minds upon these matters and have discovered them though their thought
  or accidentally? Not in the least, but the Spirit of the Lord, the
  Light of Christ, has been back of it. … We are ready for these
  discoveries, these inventions, and they all have a bearing upon the
  restoration of the gospel and preparation for the time which is yet
  future, but which is shortly to come, when Christ shall reign on the
  earth, and for a thousand years peace shall be established.” 12

  Hence, this remarkable book of Abraham was brought forth in a
  remarkable way to help prepare us for the Second Coming of the Savior.

I recommend following the cited cross-references (History of the Church, and other linked documents and articles) because the information in them is fascinating history and they go into much more detail.


Why is the date of the 2016 Passover a month late when compared to Easter? Jesus was put to death on Passover eve Nisan 14.

This was the first full moon following the vernal equinox.this year the vernal equinox is March 20.2016
The first full moon after March 20 is March 23 2016.

This is the day that Jehovah's  Witnesses will have their annual memorial of Christs death event.

That is why those who celebrate Easter  will be doing so on March 27 2016. The first Sunday following the paschal full moon.

All seems to be in order until I check the date for Passover this year and it is April 22 2016.

Can someone explain why there is almost a full month lag for Passover this year?

Jehovah's Witnesses time their Memorial  based on the current apparent movements of the actual physical moon and sun, as observable from Jerusalem. This, they say, is what happened in first century Judaism.  The rule is not exactly the first full moon following the equinox, but the result is very close to this.
Jews and Christians base Passover and Easter, respectively, on mathematical models of how the moon and sun move. These idealised models were calculated in the 4th century AD. They are somewhat out of step with the real moon and sun, used by JWs.
The result is that the assumed date of the Vernal Equinox has drifted later than the actual date. The earliest date  Passover can now fall is March 26th. The Full Moon on March 23rd, 2016 is too early for this, and so Passover is based on the following Full Moon, in April. This drift is continuing, but very slowly. Passover was on March 26th in 2013, and will again be on March 26th in 2089, and then never again. After that March 27th is the earliest. The last ever March Passover, based on current arrangements, will be March 31st 3248. In 3411, Passover will fall in May for the first time.
In Christianity the situation is complicated by the fact that Western Christians have made adjustments to correct the drift of sun and moon dates, so that the idealised sun and moon correspond more accurately to the real ones. Eastern Orthodox Christians have not. The drift is such that the earliest the Paschal Full Moon can fall, according to the Eastern Church, is April 3rd. Just as for Jews, the March 23rd full moon this year is too early to be counted, and so it is the April Full Moon is regarded as the Paschal one.
Western Christians have made adjustments so that the earliest date the Paschal Full Moon can fall is March 21st, close to the real vernal equinox. Therefore the March 23rd Full Moon does count and so Easter Day is the following Sunday, March 27th.
Apart from the month, the actual  assumed dates of full moons can vary by a day or two from the real ones for both  Jews and Western  Christians.  For Eastern Christians the ideal  full moon occurs 4 or 5 days later than for Western Christians.
So for 2016 there are full moons on March 23rd and April 22nd. The Jehovah's Witnesses Memorial is on March 23rd. Western Easter is the following Sunday, March 27th. Passover is the following full moon, April 22. The Eastern Orthodox model full moon is four days later than this, April 26th, and so Orthodox Easter is the Sunday after this, May 1st.
Fort the whole of this century if we divide the year AD by 19, and the remainder is 2, 10 or 13, then Passover will be about a month later than Western Easter.   If the remainder is 2, 7, 10, 13 or 18 then the Eastern Easter will be 4 or 5 weeks later than the Western one. In other years, if the Full Moon is early in the week, Eastern and Western Easters coincide, but if later in the week the Eastern Easter is one week after the Western, as the 4 or 5 day discrepancy pushes the assumed full moon into the following week.


According to Mormonism, are there immortals on the Earth? I was reading Wikipedia about exaltation, and found a reference to people who are physically immortal but who do not advance to heaven. Where do they live? Are they on the Earth?

If you're talking about what I think you're talking about (without seeing the citation I can't be sure)...

Update / preface: I must clarify use of the term "immortal" -- in this answer, I mean it to be living beyond the natural age of life, or in other words, living for very many extended years, and not tasting of death.  Upon further research, I see that Jesus says that John, and for that matter, the three Nephites spoken of below, will be changed from mortality to immortality in the twinkling of an eye and will not taste of death, though that process is, in fact, the death of their technically mortal bodies. Immortality in that sense means the state of being resurrected.

There are, that I know of, four immortal physical beings which have not yet advanced to "heaven" (more specifically, to their exaltation) according to Mormon doctrine.

There's John the Beloved who is an immortal being, still walking the earth (See here in Doctrine and Covenants for where the Biblical uncertainty on the topic is remedied; cf. John 21:20-23).

Mormons also have record, from the Book of Mormon, of three Nephites who were granted the same blessing as John from Christ as He visited the Americas, to walk the earth as physical immortals and minister.

3 Nephi 28:7

  Therefore, more blessed are ye, for ye shall never taste of death;
  but ye shall live to behold all the doings of the Father unto the
  children of men, even until all things shall be fulfilled according to
  the will of the Father, when I shall come in my glory with the powers
  of heaven.

John and the three Nephites will all receive their full exaltation after their mission is complete at return of Jesus.

(Note: the newly-linked-to article on Wikipedia in the question references others, but Enoch, for example, and his family and city were taken from the earth, and we know very little about Moses, Elijah, and Alma and their commissions.)


What is the earliest record of using icons to worship God in the Catholic or Orthodox traditions? The question is as simple as the title. I am simply wondering, ‘When is the earliest recorded date of this tradition?’

According to Gibbons:

  the public religion of the Catholics was uniformly simple and spiritual; and the first notice of the use of pictures is in the censure of the council of Illiberis, three hundred years after the Christian aera. Under the successors of Constantine, in the peace and luxury of the triumphant church, the more prudent bishops condescended to indulge a visible superstition, for the benefit of the multitude; and, after the ruin of Paganism, they were no longer restrained by the apprehension of an odious parallel.

It appears that the creeping in of images was long before the schism that brought about the RC and EO traditions -- so though your question apparently concerns post-schism timeline, I hope this answer is relevant.

See also the Catholic Encyclopedia on the Council of Elvira/Elliberis/Illiberis for arguments on dates.


What is the Catholic Church's position on the drug DMT? Does the Roman Catholic Church teach that using the drug N,N-Dimethyltryptamine (DMT or N,N-DMT) is sinful and contrary to Christian beliefs? What is the stance of the RCC on this drug?

I have heard that this drug is not addictive, has no side effects, and is basically safer than alcohol or cigarettes. Many people using it have experienced effects similar to near-death experiences, and find that it has life-changing positive affects on them and on their spiritual life.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church has this to say on drugs:

The use of drugs inflicts very grave damage on human health and life. Their use, except on strictly therapeutic grounds, is a grave offense. Clandestine production of and trafficking in drugs are scandalous practices. They constitute direct co-operation in evil, since they encourage people to practices gravely contrary to the moral law.

(paragraph 2291)
However, the Church doesn't necessarily have a position on whether any particular substance is or is not a drug. In 2001, the Pontifical Council for Health Pastoral Care produced a document titled Church: Drugs and Drug Addiction, the preface and table of contents of which are available on the Vatican website. According to the table of contents, the section titled "The Products" covers glue and other solvents, cannabis, cocaine, ecstasy, and heroin. Clearly, these are not the only available substances that might be classified as "drugs"; but at the time the Council obviously considered them the most important to deal with directly. Since this is a pastoral document, it's obviously not intended to give a comprehensive list of how to deal with all drugs, but how to deal with the most important, or most commonly encountered, or most harmful ones.
How then might the Church approach the question of whether a given substance constitutes a "drug"? One consideration is whether the civil authorities consider it to be a drug:

Those subject to authority should regard those in authority as representatives of God, who has made them stewards of his gifts: "Be subject for the Lord’s sake to every human institution.... Live as free men, yet without using your freedom as a pretext for evil; but live as servants of God." [1 Peter 2:13, 16]

(Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraph 2238)
The civil authorities are to be obeyed unless "they are contrary to the demands of the moral order, to the fundamental rights of persons or the teachings of the Gospel." It is not clear that classifying a particular substance as a drug, or a non-drug, meets this criterion.
Further, one can look again at the Catechism's paragraph 2291 cited above. This is placed in the Catechism's discussion of the fifth commandment: You shall not kill. From this commandment, we can deduce the importance not only of human life but of health which supports life; it is for this reason that the use of drugs in a non-therapeutic manner is a grave evil. And this, finally, may be a reason for considering it a drug: there appear to be no non-therapeutic uses for it.
With respect to its supposed positive spiritual effects, the Church is very clear that the way to approach spiritual life—to come closer to God—is through prayer.

Christian prayer is a covenant relationship between God and man in Christ. It is the action of God and of man, springing forth from both the Holy Spirit and ourselves, wholly directed to the Father, in union with the human will of the Son of God made man.
In the New Covenant, prayer is the living relationship of the children of God with their Father who is good beyond measure, with his Son Jesus Christ and with the Holy Spirit.

(paragraph 2564–65)
For this reason, it would not be surprising if the Church were to formally condemn the use of DMT and similar psychedelic drugs, independent of civil authority; however, it appears that no such statement is forthcoming, nor likely to be.


Do Lutherans believe that the sacraments are necessary for salvation (similar to Catholics), and if so, how do they reconcile this with Sola Fide? During my internet adventures browsing theological articles and blogs, I somehow picked up the idea that in a similar way to Catholics, Lutherans believe in baptismal regeneration and that baptism is, therefore, necessary for salvation.

I also picked up the idea that Lutherans have a robust "high" sacramental theology, similar to Catholics. However, perusing the Wikipedia article on "Lutheran Sacraments" reveals that Lutherans only believe in 3 sacraments, not 7.

I'm wondering, does Lutheranism believe that their sacraments are necessary for salvation (Baptism, Eucharist, Penance)? And if so, how do they reconcile that with the classic Protestant "Salvation by Faith alone" doctrine?

First, a Lutheran is not likely to recognize the phrase "salvation by faith". The usual construct Lutherans use is "justification by faith". For Lutherans, there is a distinction between the two. Salvation was assured by Jesus' death and resurrection. Justification assures believers that they are made worthy of the salvation secured for them by Jesus salvific act. The essential vehicle for communicating that assurance, for Lutherans, is the means of grace, the Word and the sacraments. So Lutherans do see the sacraments as essential, though not for salvation in the sense that the poster of the question seems to think.


Testimonies of the existence of Mary and Joseph There are 30+ historical accounts of Jesus's existence. A subset of these would also seem to be evidence for the existence of Mary and Joseph.

What is the historical evidence (besides what is recorded in Holy Scriptures) of the existence of Mary and Joseph?

Though Joseph and Mary are not mentioned directly, Josephus writes about 93 CE an account of James, brother of Jesus.

  Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the sanhedrim of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others, [or, some of his companions]; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned:
  https://www.ccel.org/ccel/josephus/complete.ii.xxi.ix.html

In addition, Clement of Alexandria circa 200 CE wrote about Joseph and Mary, though this reference is only found in Eusebius.

  Then James, whom the ancients surnamed the Just on account of the excellence of his virtue, is recorded to have been the first to be made bishop of the church of Jerusalem. This James was called the brother of the Lord because he was known as a son of Joseph, and Joseph was supposed to be the father of Christ, because the Virgin, being betrothed to him, “was found with child by the Holy Ghost before they came together,” as the account of the holy Gospels shows.
  https://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf201.iii.vii.ii.html


Did Jesus die on the cross crucified or was he hung to death from a tree? Why do you think that some books in the Bible say that Jesus died at The place of a skull which Is called In the Hebrew Golgotha the sight of the crucifixion.

Matthew 27:33 (KJV)

33 And when they were come unto a place called Golgotha, that is to say, a place of a skull,

Mark 15:22  (KJV)

22 And they bring him unto the place Golgotha, which is, being interpreted, The place of a skull.

John 19:17   (KJV)

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

Now in these scriptures they tell a different story. They say Jesus was killed from hanging on a tree.

Acts 5:30   (KJV)

30 The God of our fathers raised up Jesus, whom ye slew and hanged on a tree.

Acts 10:39.   (KJV)

39 And we are witnesses of all things which he did both in the land of the Jews, and in Jerusalem; whom they slew and hanged on a tree.

Acts 13:29.   (KJV)

29 And when they had fulfilled all that was written of him, they took him down from the tree, and laid him in a sepulchre.

Galatians 3:13.  (KJV)

13 Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree.

Any thoughts?????

The Greek word translated as "cross" is σταυρός (Strong's G4716 - stauros). It is used exclusively (17 times) in the Gospels to refer to the method by which Jesus was killed, and in almost all other instances, except:

  The God of our fathers raised up Jesus, whom ye slew and hanged on a tree.
  -- Acts 5:30 (KJV)

  And we are witnesses of all things which he did both in the land of the Jews, and in Jerusalem; whom they slew and hanged on a tree:
  -- Acts 10:39 (KJV)

Both record Peter's words. The first, when he testified concerning Jesus before the Jewish leaders, "whom YE slew"; and the second just before the Holy Spirit fell upon all the Gentile believers. On the second occasion, Peter says, "whom THEY slew", but it is a generic "they" because there is nothing in his speech that identifies who the "they" are. However, his audience knew.

It is clear from this that Peter wanted to advertise the fact that those responsible for precipitating Jesus' death, had done a despicable thing.
The "despicable thing" Peter was referring to is explained by Paul, when he says:

  Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree:
  -- Galatians 3:13 (KJV)

Paul joins Peter in alluding to the same despicable method of dying, by pointing out that the manner of Jesus' death made him accursed -- "despised and rejected" as it was given by the prophet (Isaiah 53
:3).
In 1 Peter 2:24, Peter again uses this expression:

  Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree, that we, being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness: by whose stripes ye were healed.

  27 For they that dwell at Jerusalem, and their rulers, because they knew him not, nor yet the voices of the prophets which are read every sabbath day, they have fulfilled them in condemning him. ...
  29And when they had fulfilled all that was written of him, they took him down from the tree, and laid him in a sepulchre.
  -- Acts 13:27,29 (KJV)

Like Peter, Paul is drawing attention to the despicable nature of what the perpetrators, "they that dwell at Jerusalem, and their rulers", had done.

If this were the only record of Paul concerning how Jesus was killed, then there might be some doubt, but since he uses cross σταυρός on all but one occasion throughout his epistles (10 times), from his testimony the matter is clearly settled -- Jesus was killed on a cross.

Conclusion

Jesus was killed on a cross -- a cross is not a tree, but is made from a tree -- and for the purpose of opening the eyes of the perpetrators, to the despicable nature of what they had done to a man "who went about doing good, and healing all that were oppressed of the devil; for God was with him", Peter, and Paul (twice from twelve references) have depicted it as being hung "on a tree", which all who were familiar with the Torah would have understood as an accursed way to be put to death (Deuteronomy 21:23).


Was the feast of unleavened bread celebrated for 8 days (opposed to 7) as it is outside Israel today in Jesus' time? I am wondering if two Seder meals were eaten during Jesus' time the way it is today outside Israel. If so that might help explain why the gospel of John mentiones eating the passover the night he was crucified and yet other gospels say the last supper was when the evening of the day the lambs were sacrificed. This link answers the question regarding today but how was it during Jesus' time?
TO EDIT:
These are the references to the so-called contradiction.  In the Synoptics, Jesus is eating Passover before He suffers.  John portrays the Passover yet to come after He suffers.

Luke 22:15 And he said unto them, With desire I have desired to eat this passover with you before I suffer:
John 18:28 Then led they Jesus from Caiaphas unto the hall of judgment: and it was early; and they themselves went not into the judgment hall, lest they should be defiled; but that they might eat the passover.

This fairly well-known "contradiction" has been explained in a number of ways ranging from the idea John was written centuries later, for religious purposes, to a different type feast (Passover or other), and to the 7 or 8 day view of which this post is about.
Is Passover 7 or 8 Days?

There is no 'contradiction' between the the evangelists once all factors are properly taken into consideration.

The following synchronisation of all four gospel accounts in relation to the sabbath and the passover (at the time of crucifixion) is given by an extensive document available from Academia, written by James Bejon, who occasionally submits articles to SE-Bible Hermeneutics :

A Chronology of Jesus Ministry

  Matt. 27.62, Mark 15.42, Luke 23.54, John 19.31, 19.42. ‘The day of Preparation’ (paraskeu¯e) is the
  day when people prepare for the Sabbath (Fri.n/Sat.d), as is clear from paraskeu¯e’s employment in extra-
  Biblical sources (Ant. 16.6.2, Did. 8.1, etc.) as well as eqvt. expressions in Aram. (Torrey 1931:234-237).

  In fact, the word paraskeu¯e still designates a Friday in modern Greek today. Some scholars (after Zeitlin
  1932:263) take the ‘day of preparation’ to denote ‘the day when people prepared for the Passover meal’,
  i.e., 14th Nis., which allows them to assign the crucifixion to a day other than a Friday. But, while
  such claims are linguistically possible (cf. BDAG paraskeu¯e), they are doubtful given how standardly the
  term ho paraskeu¯e is employed to denote a Thu.n/Fri.d in ancient literature (Bacchiocchi 2001:23-24).

  Besides, they do not fit the context of the passion narratives.

  Consider, for instance, John’s explanation
  of why Jesus’ legs would have been broken: “because it was the day of Preparation” and “[because] the
  Jewish leaders did not want [Jesus’ body] left on the cross on the Sabbath, since that Sabbath was a high
  day (lit. ‘the day of that Sabbath was great’)” (John 19.31). John’s point is as follows: Jesus’ body was
  taken down because the Sabbath (Fri.n/Sat.d) after Jesus’ death coincided with the start of the feast of
  Unleavened Bread (Lev. 23.6-7), which made that Sabbath a day of rest for two reasons, and hence an
  especially significant one (cf. John 7.37, where the last day of the feast of Tabernacles [Lev. 23.34-36]
  is likewise referred to as a ‘great [day]’). No other interpretation of John 19.31 really adds up.

  Some
  commentators think John refers to the day after Jesus’ death as a Sabbath because it was the 1st day
  of Unleavened Bread. But, aside from Yom Kippur, no ‘rest day’ other than a Fri.n/Sat.d is referred to
  as a ‘Sabbath’ (Gr. sabbaton) in Scripture. (In general, the OT refers to a high day as a šabb¯atôn [LXX
  anapausis], while it refers to the 1st day of Unleavened Bread in particular as a miqr¯a c q¯odeš [LXX kl¯etos
  hagios].) And, even if the 1st day of Unleavened Bread could be referred to as a Sabbath, it would still not
  explain John’s statement; indeed, it would reduce it to a mere tautology (‘the feast day happened to be
  a feast day’), akin to a statement like ‘Christmas day happened to coincide with a festive holiday’.

  (John
  need merely have said, ‘Since it was the day of Preparation, and since the bodies should not remain on
  the cross on a high day...’.) The order of events set out in the synoptic Gospels underlines the point.
  Jesus dies on the “preparation day”, which is explicitly stated to be “the day before the Sabbath” (Mark
  15.42, etc.), and, once “the Sabbath [is] over” (a reference, one would assume, to the same Sabbath
  mentioned six verses beforehand), the women come to anoint Jesus’ body with spices on “the 1st day of
  the week” (16.1-2 cf. Luke 24.1, etc.). That the Synoptics would refer (without a word of explanation)
  to the 1st day of Unleavened Bread simply as “the Sabbath” is hard (though not impossible) to imagine.

  Besides, the Gospels only mention the passage of a single ‘Sabbath day’ between the crucifixion and the
  1st day of the week. The sequence of events is clear: Jesus dies on the preparation day; the next day is
  the Sabbath; and the day after it is the 1st day of the week as well as “the 3rd day” since the crucifixion
  (Matt. 16.21, Luke 9.22, 24.21, 24.46, Acts 10.40, 27.19, 1 Cor. 15.4, Bacchiocchi 2001:22-28).


Is the Eternal imperative? I just had an interesting conversation at Ask The Atheist: http://asktheatheist.com/?p=1860

Essentially, I asked: Do atheists believe that everything came from nothingness or do they believe that something has always been?

The conclusion of the conversation was that there is an eternal imperative and that the eternal imperative is likely extra-dimensional.

This line of reason I am told is an old argument, is this in fact so and in light of new Scientific evidence that supports a divine creator; is this line of thought being advanced within Christianity today?

The idea you are referencing - that God started everything from nothing - is called creation ex nihilo.  It is by far the most common Christian understanding of how the world came to be.

In Genesis, the first words we have say that:

  In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters. 3 And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light.

This presupposes that there was nothing, then God acted, and then there was something.  This is not altogether unlike the Big Bang, in which there was {nothing | nothing that bears any resemblance to our world}, and then something happened, and there was the universe.

The term eternal imperative is not one with which I am familiar, but Aquinas' cosmological argument and more specifically the argument from contingency may be what you are referring to.

While rarely the first argument we turn to, it hasn't necessarily been rejected. The very simplistic idea is that because things exist, there had to be a thing that caused them to exist, necessarily proving God.  The "First Cause" argument is still relatively popular.

You will note, however, that the argument itself is not contingent on science - it is derived theologically, using methods of logic which originally came from theology and philosophy - a set of techniques that "science" later incorporated into the scientific method.


Are there any traditions or schools of thought that track Jesus' movements? I'm trying to put together a timeline of Jesus' ministry and it would be really cool to be able to say with some confidence where Jesus was when he spoke this or that given verse. Hoping some tradition has already worked it out, but I can't find anything. Googling "jesus movement", "find jesus", and similar phrases gives me humorous but unhelpful results.

If being more specific will help, here's a specific question: where was Jesus between Matthew 12:46 ("these are my mother and brothers") and Matthew 13:54 (coming to his hometown)? I thought I had read somewhere that the "mother and brothers" thing happened in Capernaum, but now I can't find any biblical support for it, and in Matthew 13:54, coming into his hometown, that's Capernaum (I think?), so I don't see how he could have been in Capernaum already.

I just joined SE today, so I'll jump right in - in 2008 I was researching this very subject for a book I wrote on Jesus life. I apologize for this if it seems like I'm trying to plug my book (so I won't give you the name of it), but I spent years meticulously going through the gospels and Acts, placing the events of Jesus' life in chronological order. So you might want to Google the chronological order of Jesus' life events. Also, as to Jesus' hometown, that was Nazareth, not Capernaum.

You also might find this site Bible Geocoding a wonderful tool for your studies.1

My book is called Come to Me and it is a novel about the life of Christ through the eyes of His mother. I used this website http://www.lifeofchrist.com/life/harmony/ for my research to get a starting point. I then read through each Gospel account cross-checking both Hebrew/Greek words with Strong's Concordance before I even agreed with the website I just listed. My book is a novel though, so while I tried to keep myself within the confines of Scripture and what I perceived to be the proper timeline, I did use my imagination in some parts - for example, conversations Jesus might have had with his parents, events in his childhood not mentioned in Scripture, etc. While that is a writer's privilege I did not stray from Scripture in regards to the important things. In fact I included Scripture throughout the novel where necessary so the reader could see "truth from fiction." The book is available on my website www.laurajdavis.com or through Amazon.

As to your question - where was Jesus between Matthew 12:46 ("these are my mother and brothers") and Matthew 13:54 (coming to his hometown)? My research led me to believe that Jesus "home-base" was Peter's house in Capernaum. When his mother and brothers came to see him in Matthew 12:46 he was there. In Matthew 13:54 he was in his hometown which was Nazareth.


Why do priests wear a white collar? Is there a scriptural and/or historical reason why priests wear those white collars? When did that start and why?

When Jesus speaks to the Church at Sardis through John (in Rev. 3), he says:

  Yet you have still a few names in Sardis, people who have not soiled their garments, and they will walk with me in white, for they are worthy. 5 The one who conquers will be clothed thus in white garments, and I will never blot his name out of the book of life

White is typically a sign of purity, such as when Isaiah says:

  Come now, let us settle the matter," says the LORD. "Though your sins are like scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they are red as crimson, they shall be like wool.

Having a white collar is like having a yoke of purity around your neck. It is a symbol of the obligation that priests have to model God, and the literal stranglehold (yes, they suck!) God has around us, when it comes to modelling purity.


How often do missionaries report encounters with demonic activity while deployed to countries belonging to the 10/40 Window? According to Wikipedia:

The 10/40 Window is a term coined by Christian missionary strategist and Partners International CEO Luis Bush in 1990 to refer to those regions of the eastern hemisphere, plus the European and African part of the western hemisphere, located between 10 and 40 degrees north of the equator, a general area that was purported to have the highest level of socioeconomic challenges and least access to the Christian message and Christian resources on the planet.

Recently someone told me about the prevalence of the belief in demons and ghosts in countries pertaining to this troublesome region. I did a quick search and indeed was able to find several anecdotal reports suggesting that this appears to be the case. Two examples below:
1) Defining Missions – A Tibetan Testimony (Illustrating the 10/40 Window):

[...] By the string of Hollywood movies in recent decades focusing on Tibetan culture one would get the impression that they have much wisdom and light to offer the West in terms of spirituality. This is a satanically inspired fabrication, and couldn’t be further from the truth. Tibet is a dark place filled with demon possession, witchcraft, poverty, brutality and fearful superstition. Over every mountain pass you will find prayer flags waving in the wind. With each gust of wind it is believed that one more prayer has ascended to the demonic forces of fear that control their lives. And with every prayer it is hoped, more than believed, that somehow the brutal spirits ruling their land will be, to some small degree, appeased with this fruitless tradition.

2) 4 Reasons to Evangelize the 10/40 Window Before Anywhere Else:

In the 10/40 Window, most people live in deep fear of evil spirits (a
few atheistic nations excepted). They offer daily sacrifices to
appease their ancestors, avoiding retribution, and seeking blessing.
Statues of demons and spirits adorn almost every street. Reports of
ghost encounters abound. Many cultures regularly seek out witch
doctors, psychics, spiritists, blessings, spells, and potions, and
fear curses and omens.
The 10/40 Window’s demonic fears aren’t baseless. Inhabitants of the
10/40 Window fear evil spirits because they’ve lived under evil’s
vicious taunt. Demonic forces work out in the open there, spreading
torment, confusion, rage, and addiction. Our partners regularly tell
us stories of the most shocking demonic attacks.
I’ll only give one example.
A 19-year old Burmese man lived under severe demonization since age
15. Demonic illness, madness, and rage constantly plagued him and often drove him running into the jungle. He soon became so violent
that his teachers had to remove him from school, and his own parents
locked him in his room and chained him to his bed. They sought every
cure possible, but neither medicine nor monks nor mysticism could turn
the tide. Soon, the parents met our partner, Pastor J, and asked him
to pray for their son.
What happened next should blow us away. Our partner prayed for the
young man in the name of Jesus, and the tormenting spirit left
immediately. In a matter of seconds, Jesus had delivered the young man
from insanity which four years of Asia’s best cures could not heal!
Can you imagine the joy and relief His family experienced? He soon
received Christ, and today he would rather die than reject Jesus. Who
could blame him?
Our partners tell us similar testimonies regularly. Jesus is setting
the 10/40 Window free, person by person, soul by soul. He longs to
liberate every unreached captive, for He is “not willing that any
should perish but that all should come to repentance” (2 Peter 3:9
NKJV). What keeps this great deliverance from the pages of history?
“The harvest truly is great, but the laborers are few” (Luke 10:2
NKJV).

Question: Can someone more knowledgeable on the topic confirm whether this is true? Does demonic activity abound in many of the countries belonging to the 10/40 Window and how often do Christian missionaries encounter demonic activity while on duty in these countries?

How often do missionaries report encounters with demonic activity while deployed to countries belonging to the 10/40 Window?
Here follows a map displaying the nations in the 10/40 Window:

I rather doubt there is sufficient data to make an accurate response to establish how often do missionaries report encounters with demonic activity while deployed to countries belonging to the 10/40 Window? Some missionaries simply do not report such things. In general, I believe that such occurrences are not uncommon in this region. I have read enough missionary lives to believe it to be true.
This region of the world was previously known to Christians as the "resistant belt", By missionaries trying to make headway into these countries.
As I have already stated not all missionaries report publicly their encounters with the demonic. Many a catholic missionary will inform their superiors and/or bishop, while others are quite at ease about talking about it publicly. I imagine this is somewhat true in other denominations as well.
Certainly some countries are more affected by the demonic then others. Once again data is lacking in this domain.
The lives of missionary life that I have read about or have had personal contact indicate that among the countries more affected are Tibet (China), Nigeria, Bhutan and Burkina Faso.
Brazil, Peru and Haiti are technically not part of the nations in the 10/40 Window, but have greater levels of demonic activity then most countries.
The amount of native religions that invoke evil through their pagan beliefs and witchcraft are an open recipe for possible demonic possession.
Father Giovanni Salerno, the founder of The Servants of the Poor In Peru freely recounts how the Devil often hindered his missionary activities, especially in the higher and more remote villages.

On Mission with God in the Andes - The Servants of the Poor of the Third World

Tibet has a phenomenal intense historical reputation for missionaries encounter the forces of evil amongst the native populations. The lives of the the German missionary Fr. Biet and his successor the Swiss Fr. Maurice Tornay bare this out.
Blessed Maurice Tornay was eventually martyr  by four armed lamas that burst from the bush in the Tothong forest which prompted the priest to speak with them: "Don't shoot! Let's talk!" but two shots rang out and Doci was shot dead. More shots killed the priest on 11 August 1949. His remains were buried though transferred in 1985. He was beatified on 16 May 1993, after Pope John Paul II confirmed that the late priest had been killed "in odium fidei" ('in hatred of the faith').
Often Fr. Biet would instruct catechumens for the reception for the grace of baptism. Many became possessed by the Devil just prior to baptism. But once the saving waters of baptism touched the individual, the Devil left for good.
Fr. Évariste Régis Huc, C.M. and Fr. Joseph Gabet, C. M. Made the historic voyage through Mongolia and Tibet from 1844-1846. Fr. Huc accounts of this were recorded in his book Remembrances of a Journey in Tartary, Tibet, and China during the Years 1844, 1845, and 1846. It is an eye opener to how both good and evil exists in Tibet. Possession was not rare.

Vajrayana and Tibetan Buddhism
Vajrayana Buddhism is a smaller sect and is practiced in Nepal, Bhutan, Mongolia, Tibet, and Inner Mongolia. It focuses more on the demonic realm and occult-like texts, called tantras.
You may have heard of Tibetan Buddhism, which incorporates elements of the Vajrayana and Mahayana sects. Prayer habits in these sects can be more ritualistic and robust.
In Vajrayana Buddhism, some worshipers meditate on tantras or on mandalas—spiritual, circular, and geometric patterns—that they believe will lead to out-of-body experiences.

I could go on about other countries, but these suffice to get my point across.


What is the fewest number of cardinal electors are needed to validly elect a pope? What is the fewest number of cardinal electors are needed to validly elect a pope?

Pope St. John Paul II, in his Apostolic Constitution Universi Dominici Gregis on the vacancy of the Apostolic See and the election  of the Roman Pontiff has this to say on the electors of a papal election, but does not provide us with the minimum number of cardinal electors needed to validly choose a pope:

  The right to elect the Roman Pontiff belongs exclusively to the Cardinals of Holy Roman Church, with the exception of those who have reached their eightieth birthday before the day of the Roman Pontiff's death or the day when the Apostolic See becomes vacant. The maximum number of Cardinal electors must not exceed one hundred and twenty. The right of active election by any other ecclesiastical dignitary or the intervention of any lay power of whatsoever grade or order is absolutely excluded.

What happens if the conclave is to be held during a time of war or some other event and the possible number of cardinal elector at Rome dwindles to 1, 2, 3 or 4. Is there a minimum number of cardinals needed to produce a sovereign pontiff?

We know that conclave of 1277 had the fewest number of cardinals in a papal election:

  The papal election of 1277 (May 30 – November 25), convened in Viterbo after the death of Pope John XXI, was the smallest papal election since the expansion of suffrage to cardinal-priests and cardinal-deacons, with only seven cardinal electors (following the deaths of three popes who had not created cardinals).3 Because John XXI had revoked Ubi periculum, the papal bull of Pope Gregory X establishing the papal conclave, with his own bull Licet felicis recordationis, the cardinal electors were able to take their time. After six months of deliberation, the cardinals eventually elected their most senior member Giovanni Gaetano Orsini as Pope Nicholas III. From the end of the election until Nicholas III's first consistory on March 12, 1278, the number of living cardinals—seven—was the lowest in the history of the Roman Catholic Church. - Papal election, 1277

I have heard about the possibility that 4 cardinal electors would be allowed, but I can not find any documents to support such a number.

There is no minimum number of cardinals set in the apostolic constitution Universi Dominici Gregis, written in 1996 by Pope St. John Paul II. This document is the current norm for papal elections. It prescribes such things as the length of the dead pope's funeral, the procedure for managing Vatican City and the Diocese of Rome while the See is vacant, and the procedure and timetable for setting up the conclave to elect the next pope.
There are groups, or at least one rotating group, of cardinals, called the "Particular Congregations", which oversee day-to-day operations of the Vatican:

The Particular Congregation is made up of the Cardinal Camerlengo of [the] Holy Roman Church and three Cardinals, one from each order [that is, a Cardinal Deacon, Cardinal Priest, and Cardinal Bishop]. ... The office of these Cardinals, called Assistance, ceases at the conclusion of the third full day, and their place is taken by others.
The Particular Congregations are to deal only with questions of lesser importance which arise on a daily basis or from time to time.
(Universi Dominici Gregis, sections 7–8)

Perhaps this is where your "four cardinals" idea comes from.
The apostolic constitution specifies that all the cardinals who are not "legitimately impeded" (section 7) must come to the conclave as soon as they are informed of the pontiff's death. No further mention is made specifically of any number required in order to cast a valid vote for the pope. Presumably this is to allow an election regardless of how many cardinals are able to make it to Rome.


Should Christians be against the death penalty? Christians go to great lengths to get the government to outlaw abortion--something that I personally would support. Though I see support from Christianity against abortion almost as unwavering, the support of death row inmates right to live seems to be a more contentious issue.

So my question is if Christianity holds human life to have intrinsic human value should this not apply to the death row inmate as well as the unborn baby?

While many Christians are against the death penalty, there is also biblical sanction for it. Genesis 9:6 commands the killing of those who commit murder-

  He who sheds a man's blood, by man shall shall his blood be shed.

For many fundamentalists, such a clear case for the death penalty means that the death penalty should thus be supported.

The key question, however, is whether this is to Noah or for all time.

The Catholic Church in particular has done a great job of cultivating a "culture of life" within the church, and has thus found this scripture to be primarily about the sanctity of the life taken. Stances against abortion and euthanasia are harmonized with the death penalty, reflecting what Catholics declare us the nature of God- the creator and sustainer of life.  Governments are thus authorized, but not compelled to take action. (And, in any case, the death penalty is usually restricted to certain kinds if murder now)


How was the gift of the word of knowledge defined by the pioneers of the pentecostal healing revival I will ask a series of questions concerning individual spiritual gifts (pneumatika/charismata), or manifestations of the Spirit in 1 Cor 12.

This second one is also about the gift of the word (logos) of knowledge (gnosis) (1 Cor 12:8), and it is closely related to the first one.

How did the pioneers of the healing revival (Branham/Coe/Roberts/etc) speak about this specific gift, e.g in the Magazine The Voice of Healing or in their sermons or testimonies?

W. V. Grant wrote in THE VOICE OF HEALING October 1953 Page 24 about the word of knowledge.

  WHAT IT IS

  The Spiritual gift of the word of knowledge is certain
  facts in the mind of God, which He sees fit to reveal to a servant
  supernaturally by His Spirit. It is only a “word,” or a portion of
  God's great storehouse of knowledge. God speaks in divers manners,
  such as dreams, visions, revelation, or in audible voice. It is always
  conveyed supernaturally as any other gift. This gift can tell the
  whereabouts, conditions, nature, or thoughts of a person, animal,
  place, or thing even when it is impossible to learn it in the natural.

  It is different from the Spiritual gift of faith in that it lets you
  know things even when you did not pray for them. The Spiritual gift of
  faith deals with things “not yet come to pass,” else it would not be
  faith. It is not a vocal gift, as it makes you to know and not to
  speak. It is not discerning of spirits, as it has nothing to do with a
  supernatural spirit. It helps one, to look into the heart, mind, or
  nature of a man and to know his secrets and intentions. It has helped
  people find lost articles, but its main purpose is to find lost souls.

  BIBLE EXAMPLES

  While Peter was lying flat on his back on the house
  top, the Spirit of God told him three men were seeking him (Acts
  10:19). Had Peter gone to school one hundred years he could not have
  gained such knowledge, The all-knowing God gave part of His knowledge
  to Peter by the Spirit.

  The Spirit of God told Samuel that Saul's
  asses had already been found, and let him know all that was in Saul's
  heart (1 Sam. 9.19-20). A voice from God told Elijah that God had
  seven thousand who had not bowed their knees to Baal (1 Kings 19:18).
  A spiritual revelation!

And before that he wrote, in direct contrast to pentecostal pioneer Donald Gee:

  This gift has no mixture with the natural.

Now I only need to know if this view was shared by the other leaders during the same era.


Were the sins of the Israelites forgiven with the animal sacrifices or simply held in abeyance until Jesus death on the cross? While studying Matthew; I came to:

Mat 27:52  And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose,

So that began a search for more definitive scriptures and only came up with these:

Deu_31:16  And the LORD said unto Moses, Behold, thou shalt sleep with thy fathers; and this people will rise up, and go a whoring after the gods of the strangers of the land, whither they go to be among them, and will forsake me, and break my covenant which I have made with them.

2Sa_7:12  And when thy days be fulfilled, and thou shalt sleep with thy fathers, I will set up thy seed after thee, which shall proceed out of thy bowels, and I will establish his kingdom.

1Ki_1:21  Otherwise it shall come to pass, when my lord the king shall sleep with his fathers, that I and my son Solomon shall be counted offenders.

Job_14:12  So man lieth down, and riseth not: till the heavens be no more, they shall not awake, nor be raised out of their sleep.

Dan_12:2  And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt.

Joh_11:11  These things said he: and after that he saith unto them, Our friend Lazarus sleepeth; but I go, that I may awake him out of sleep.

Joh_11:13  Howbeit Jesus spake of his death: but they thought that he had spoken of taking of rest in sleep.

Act_13:36  For David, after he had served his own generation by the will of God, fell on sleep, and was laid unto his fathers, and saw corruption:

Can anyone shed more light on the subject?

The sacrificial system was a mere shadow of the true sacrifice, Jesus Christ. This is why the animals used must have no blemish or spot, because they represented Christ. As John the Baptist said,

  The next day John saw Jesus coming toward him, and said, “Behold! The
  Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world!"

  John 1:29

Jesus takes away the sin of the world. The sins of those that were before Jesus were forgiven in credit, and they were to look forward towards the Messiah who would come and truly pay for their sins. Many forgot this and simply made it a routine.

We look back at the one who paid our sins and look to sin no more as we know what it cost.

Those who have trusted Jesus to take their sins, and have walked as He walked, will be raised in the last day, to everlasting life. This is why many of the texts you provided speak about the last day and why Jesus and Martha have this conversation:

  Jesus saith unto her, Thy brother shall rise again.

  Martha saith unto him, I know that he shall rise again in the
  resurrection at the last day.

  Jesus said unto her, I am the resurrection, and the life: he that
  believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live:

  And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die.
  Believest thou this?

  She saith unto him, Yea, Lord: I believe that thou art the Christ, the
  Son of God, which should come into the world.

  John 11:23-27

Mary, Martha, and Lazarus were very close friends of Jesus. He visited them often. He taught them many things, and it was obvious that this is one of the things He taught them. This is also what He taught others.

  “When the Son of Man comes in His glory, and all the holy angels with
  Him, then He will sit on the throne of His glory. All the nations will
  be gathered before Him, and He will separate them one from another, as
  a shepherd divides his sheep from the goats. And He will set the sheep
  on His right hand, but the goats on the left. Then the King will say
  to those on His right hand, ‘Come, you blessed of My Father, inherit
  the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world...'"

  Matthew 25:31-34

Whether they lived before Jesus, or after Jesus, those who believe on Him, repent of their sins, and then walk according to the will of the Father, when they die, they sleep until the coming of Jesus where they will be resurrected unto everlasting life.

EDIT: After reading the comments, I realize i should be more precise. According to the Bible, only a very few number of people are alive in heaven right now. These are Elijah (2 Kings 2) and Enoch (Genesis 5:24) who did not die, but were taken by God; Moses (Jude 1:9), who died but was resurrected by God and taken to heaven; and probably the people who resurrected with Jesus (Matthew 27:52-23) as witnesses.

Everyone else, like David, is "sleeping" awaiting the Second Coming.

  "Men and brethren, let me freely speak unto you of the patriarch
  David, that he is both dead and buried, and his sepulchre is with us
  unto this day... For David is NOT ascended into the heavens: but he
  saith himself, The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right
  hand..."

  Acts 2:29,34


What is a Pacifist interpretation of the Cleansing of the Temple? 13 When it was almost time for the Jewish Passover, Jesus went up to Jerusalem. 14 In the temple courts he found people selling cattle, sheep and doves, and others sitting at tables exchanging money. 15 So he made a whip out of cords, and drove all from the temple courts, both sheep and cattle; he scattered the coins of the money changers and overturned their tables. 16 To those who sold doves he said, “Get these out of here! Stop turning my Father’s house into a market!” 17 His disciples remembered that it is written: “Zeal for your house will consume me.” - John 2:13-17 NIV

This passage can easily be read to be a "violent" reaction from Jesus.  Leaving aside Niebuhr and pontifical statements against Christian Pacifism, how do Christian Pacifists interpret and apply this passage of scripture?

Christian Pacifism does not imply that one does not get angry.  It doesn't even mean that one doesn't stand up against oppression. It only suggests that one eschews violence and use the least force required to achieve justice.

When the Pacifist Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King marched or conducted sit-ins, sometimes there were altercations.  People on both sides could get hurt - but comparatively speaking, the movement attempted to avoid killing and death.
Quaker Pacifists would object to fighting in a war with guns, but they would often serve humanitarian causes supporting the side of right. Sometimes, this could even mean fisticuffs.
Winston Churchill, speaking of Chamberlin's capitulation to the Nazis is reported to have said: "One can always appease the lion by allowing oneself to be consumed."  Nonviolent pacifism seeks justice - not appeasement.

Other biblical justifications can be found here and here for example. Ted Grimsted, following  Yoder (probably the best person to consult in re: Christian Pacifism) admits that the definition is hard to pin down, but ultimately writes:

  “Pacifism” is the in-principled unwillingness to engage in lethal violence, including most obviously the unwillingness to participate in warfare.

Non-violent protest does not mean the absence of harm - it means the least amount of harm to effect justice.

In Jesus' case, his father's house had become a den of thieves, a place in which people were abusing other people who had come to worship. Jesus used the least amount of violence needed to relieve suffering of others. There is no suggestion that anybody was killed or irreparably injured. Jesus just meted out the physical whoopin' that these money-changers had metaphorically been dishing out themselves.