What is the "head-band" Judith gives to Anna in the Protoevangelium of James? In the second paragraph of the Protoevangelium of James, Anna is mourning her barrenness when her maid-servant approaches her and offers her a "head-band:"

  I shall bewail my widowhood; I shall bewail my childlessness. And the great day of the Lord was at hand; and Judith her maid-servant said: How long do you humiliate your soul? Behold, the great day of the Lord is at hand, and it is unlawful for you to mourn. But take this head-band, which the woman that made it gave to me; for it is not proper that I should wear it, because I am a maid-servant, and it has a royal appearance.

In response to this strange action, Anna gives an even more confusing response:

  And Anna said: Depart from me; for I have not done such things, and the Lord has brought me very low. I fear that some wicked person has given it to you, and you have come to make me a sharer in your sin. And Judith said: Why should I curse you, seeing that the Lord has shut your womb, so as not to give you fruit in Israel?

Can someone explain to me what all of this means? What is the "head-band" they are talking about? What is its significance? Who is the woman that gave it to Judith, and why does the creator matter? What sin would Anna be participating in by accepting the head-band? Why would she want it in the first place? What are things that Anna is denying she has done ("Depart from me; for I have not done such things")?

Quick Google searches don't seem to explain this passage. Thank you for the help!

First of all, let's remember that the early church considered the "Infancy Gospel of James" (a.k.a. Protoevangelium of James) an apocryphal gospel and was excluded from the canon".  See 2018 journal article The Protoevangelium of James and Its Reception in the Caucasus: Status Quaestionis.  We can read the work here, translated by Roberts-Donaldson.

The story background for the headband passage

The story began with Joachim, a righteous man who was rebuffed for being the first to offer sacrifice for the day of the Lord
because he was childless.  After confirming in the register that he was the only righteous man not having a child,
he grieved why God didn't grant him a child so he withdrew to the desert to fast 40 days without telling his wife Anna.

Anna, thinking that her absent husband had died, then began mourning.  She was rebuked by her servant girl Judith who said it was not fitting for her to be mournful at the day of the Lord.  Judith then offered her headband, which had some royal marking, for Anna to wear to the day of the Lord.  Anna refused, fearing that there was some evil attached to the headband.
Judith responded why would she would curse Anna (by giving / loaning the headband) since it was obvious that the
Lord Himself had ALREADY "cursed" her to be childless.  Being reminded of her childlessness she was grieved even further.
But even though Anna rejected the headband she accepted Judith's suggestion to quit mourning
and turned her attention to beseech God to bless her womb to conceive a child.

Thus the first two paragraphs demonstrated how Joachim and Anna were both righteous, pious, grieving, and
produced the appropriate response by crying out to the Lord.

Assistance for interpretation of the headband

I found 2 theses which can assist us interpret the confusing passages.

First, a 2010 Ph D. dissertation Accessing the Virgin: Gender and Purity in the Protevangelium of James by Lily Vuong at McMaster University (Ontario, Canada).  Quotes (emphasis mine):

  At the same time, Joachim's sojourn in the wilderness is depicted as a symbolic
  death, given that Anna's response to her husband's mysterious absence is to act as if he
  has died and put on mourning clothes (Prot. Jas. 2:1; 2:7). In fact, Anna's reaction and
  her laments over her widowhood and childlessness (Prot. Jas. 2:1 ) form our
  introduction to her, confirming at the outset, as with Joachim, her righteousness.

  Given the dramatic irony established by the text's omniscient, third-person
  narrative voice, readers simultaneously anticipate the revelation of the truth and observe
  crucial evidence of Anna's righteousness as she reacts to the false information. Namely,
  the narrator is able to depict Anna as a pious wife who, upon thinking that her husband
  has died, acts accordingly. Likewise, the author implies that she too, like Joachim, has
  misread her childlessness as an occasion for mourning rather than the portent of a
  miraculous birth.

  Symbolically, the author demonstrates Anna's righteousness by creating meaning
  through the gap between what the reader knows and what the characters know. Upon
  seeing her mistress weep and lament over the loss of her husband and over the state of her
  childlessness, Anna's maidservant Euthine reminds her that the great day of the Lord is
  not a time to mourn and offers her a headband ([Greek word omitted]), which Euthine herself
  cannot wear because, as she reports, she is a "slave and it has a mark of royalty" (Prot.
  Jas. 2:4). The precise meaning of the term [Greek word omitted] is obscure. From the narrative,
  however, it is clear that the object may carry some form of sin or involves some form of
  trickery or curse. The headband's symbolic nature, however, clearly propels the narrative
  when Anna immediately rejects it (lit. Away from me!) ([Greek text omitted]; Prot. Jas.
  2: 5) and accuses Euthine of attempting "to make [her] share in [her] sin"
  ([Greek text omitted]; Prot. Jas. 2:5). Anna's strong reaction to
  the headband connects her with Joachim's brand of righteousness in that she, too, will not
  accept any help to alleviate her barren state in any manner that might not be in accordance
  with God's will.

  Regardless of the precise nature of the headband, what is made abundantly clear is
  that Anna will not accept anything about which she is not certain. This characteristic
  speaks to her faith in God: Anna desperately wants to conceive a child, but she will not seek to do so at the risk of any possible sins against God or any possible association with any demon.

  Euthine' s subsequent reproach of Anna parallels and recalls Reubel' s earlier
  reproach of Joachim. Euthine links Anna's barrenness to divine disfavour: "The Lord
  God has shut up your womb to give you no fruit in Israel" ([Greek text omitted]; Prot. Jas. 2:6). Ironically,
  while Euthine errs in claiming that Anna will produce "no fruit in Israel," she is correct in
  her assertion that childbirth lies in the hands of God, who alone has the power to give
  birth to the barren or to close the wombs of the fertile-as the rest of the narrative will
  show. Like Reubel, however, Euthine misreads Anna's childlessness as a sign of sin. In
  her capacity as foil, then, Euthine increases the reader's sympathy for Anna by offering
  continued misinterpretations of her situation. By introducing both Anna and Joachim
  through their interactions with unskilled foil characters, the author carefully guides his
  readers to the proper method of assessing righteous behaviour: Joachim is generous,
  offers more than the necessary sacrifices, and prays and fasts, while Anna prays, resists
  any form of "magic," and adopts the proper mourning practices when she thinks her
  husband is dead (Prot. Jas. 2:1 ).

  After the discussion with Euthine, Anna removes her mourning clothes and dons
  her wedding dress, presumably in preparation for "the great day of the Lord"
  ([Greek text omitted]; Prot. Jas. 2:2). This change of clothing serves as a symbolic
  marker of Anna's shift from barrenness to fertility, accompanied by the realization that
  God controls all. That this turn of events in the narrative is initiated by the fast
  approaching and very significant "great day of the Lord" requires further consideration.
  Namely, what is precisely the "great day of the Lord," to which the narrator refers?

  In his study on the impact of Yom Kippur on early Christianity, Daniel Stökl Ben
  Ezra notes that there are three principal name forms used to refer to Yom Kippur based on
  the description of its purpose (i.e., atonement), its common practice (i.e., fasting), and its
  solemnity. The third purpose may hint towards the Protevangelium of James' allusion to
  this significant holiday. Stökl Ben Ezra notes that one of the biblical uses for the term
  Yom Kippur in Lev 16:31 is [Hebrew text omitted], which the Septuagint translates as "the Sabbath of
  Sabbaths." To underscore the importance of the holiday, Philo also refers to Yom Kippur
  as [Greek text omitted] (highest holiday). Likewise, the Protevangelium of James'
  triple reference to "the great day of the Lord" (Prot. Jas. 1:4, 2:2, 2:3) may refer to Yom
  Kippur given the text's clear emphasis on the solemnity of the festival. In my view, the
  identification of the "great day of the Lord" with Yom Kippur also makes sense in light of
  the multiple references to Joachim's sacrifices for atonement in Prot. Jas. 1:2, 5:1.

Second, a 2009 Master of Theology thesis Creating Narratives and Creating Feasts: The Entry of the Theotokos from the Protoevangelion of James to a Great Feast by Sarah A. Wagner-Wassen said the following about the headband (Note: in some translation the maid servant's name is Euthine instead of Judith, as in the translation used in this thesis) (emphasis mine):

  The narrative dependency of the early chapters of the Prot. Jas. upon the Scriptural story of the birth and dedication of Samuel (1 Sam 1-2) is clear. However, the points of similarity also seem to be a bit distorted if one superficially compares them to the basic Masoretic text. A comparison with the Greek translations, and other Second Temple and later literature, shows that there is quite a bit of literary similarity between the two narratives. Both Hannah and Anna are described as having their wombs shut by God himself and therefore are very despondent. In 1 Sam 1:6 Hannah is sad because Peninnah would tease her on account of her barrenness and in Pseudo-Philo’s Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum (L.A.B.) Peninnah tells Hannah, “A wife is not beloved even if her husband loves her or her beauty. Let Hannah not glory in her appearance; but she who glories, let her glory when she sees her offspring before her. When for a woman there will not thus be present the fruit of her womb, love will be in vain.”

  It is tempting to see the role of Peninnah being refashioned in the Prot. Jas. in the character of Euthine, Anna’s servant girl who tells her that God has shut her womb and given her no fruit in Israel, causing Anna grief. However, this makes the episode in Prot. Jas. 2.2 where Euthine tries to give Anna a royal headband quite puzzling. In light of the interpretation in L.A.B., it may be easier to read Euthine as being in the role of prophetess. When Euthine tries to give Anna the headband Anna refuses it because she can not have a glorious appearance while she is childless. Nonetheless, the headband belongs to Anna, both because Anna is about to conceive Mary and because it has a royal mark, referring to the fact referenced later that Mary is a part of the royal tribe of David. The fact that the headband signified an impending conception may explain the severity of Anna’s response to Euthine’s offer; Anna believes that her barrenness is from God, and hence sees any possibility of conception to be a circumvention of God’s will and therefore the result of pagan magic. Euthine affirms Anna’s belief that God has shut her womb, but still chides Anna for not listening to her. After this Anna apparently has a change of heart because she puts on her “bridal garments” and goes to the garden to pray to God to bless her womb as he blessed the womb of Sarah, yet she is still reminded of her infertility. In the retelling of the narrative of 1 Samuel by Josephus, Hannah does not weep when Peninnah taunts her. Instead, she weeps when she sees “the other wife’s children sitting round about their mother.” Anna likewise mourns her own infertility when she sees a nest of sparrows in a laurel tree. This sylvan setting has led some scholars to read into the Prot. Jas. a connection with the sacred gardens at Antioch.  However, by comparing this text to Josephus’ interpretation it may be more likely that the author created this scene in order to recreate the fertility image of children gathered around their mother.

Attempting to answer the questions

Let's use the two interpretations to try answering the questions:

  What is the "head-band" they are talking about?  What is its significance?

We don't know for sure what the significance is, other than showing Anna's great concern for purity and righteousness.
The 2nd thesis speculated that the headband may have some magical properties to influence her fertility.  As a righteous woman she assumed that her barrenness was due to God's not opening her womb (like Hannah or Sarah).
Circumventing God's timing with magic would made it worse.  She would instead beseech God to grant her a child,
again in the manner of Hannah.

  Who is the woman that gave it to Judith, and why does the creator matter?
  What sin would Anna be participating in by accepting the head-band?

The story didn't tell us who the creator of the headband was, and there was no indication that Judith meant harm.
But because the headband would be worn to the Temple of God and ceremonial purity is of great importance,
without knowing the headband's provenance it would be very dangerous to use, inviting God's wrath that would
make her situation worse.

  Why would she want it in the first place?

The story didn't say that Anna wanted the headband in the first place.

  What are things that Anna is denying she has done ("Depart from me; for I have not done such things")?

"Not done such things" must refer to not having sinned that caused God to punish her with barrenness or with the (presumed) death of her husband.  In this way she was similar to Job who was accused by his "friends" of having sinned greatly to deserve his great misfortune.


Are JWs restricted from expressing things in their own words? I've been wondering if there is any official doctrine held by Jehovahs Witnesses that would restrict them from talking about their faith in their own words?

I have noticed in my interactions with them (through everything from talking to door to door missionaries to hanging out with the families of some of my friends to reading their postings on this site) that instead it is very typical for them to use the exact phrases and constructs found in officially sanctioned publications, often preferring to quote these sources (Watchtower, etc.) wholesale rather than writing or otherwise articulating their views in their own words.

As a Reformed Protestant, I believe there is great value in using words and constructs whose meanings have become well defined and have been tested through time. In particular, I will even direct people to re-frame their own questions in the words Scripture uses for given topics rather than their own because I think this will help bring clarity to the issues they face. At the same time I see great value in meeting people where they are at -- in speaking the same language -- and articulating eternal truths in ways that people relate to and that specifically match the important issues. However much some Theologian may have said something better than I and I might quote them, still I do share the Gospel and articulate my faith to people using my own words.

This seems fundamentally different from the interactions I see from JWs. When you ask them a question, they will seem reticent to stray from a specific track and try to find the closest matching stock answer from their repertoire. Or so it seems. My question is, is that an official stance?

Is there a specific teaching or doctrine that binds them to operate this way? Or perhaps a more general doctrine that leads people to that conclusion even if it isn't a requirement?

Q. Are JWs restricted from expressing things in their own words?

A. No.

We who are members of the worldwide unified Christian congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses both can and do express ourselves / our Bible based beliefs in our own words, however, we would much rather and prefer to express ourselves / our Bible based beliefs in the way in which our Leader, King and Exemplar (Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of Jehovah God) expressed himself / his Bible based beliefs... and I quote King Christ:

"Jesus, in turn, answered them and said: “What I teach is not mine, but belongs to him that sent me. 17 If anyone desires to do His will, he will know concerning the teaching whether it is from God or I speak of my own originality. 18 He that speaks of his own originality is seeking his own glory; but he that seeks the glory of him that sent him, this one is true, and there is no unrighteousness in him. "
~ John 7:16-17

"because I have not spoken out of my own impulse, but the Father himself who sent me has given me a commandment as to what to tell and what to speak. 50 Also, I know that his commandment means everlasting life. Therefore the things I speak, just as the Father has told me [them], so I speak [them].”"
~ John 12:49, 50

Again, Christ is our PERFECT example whom we strive to the very best of our imperfect ability to imitate (1 Peter 2:21). Was Jesus Christ restricted from expressing things in his own words? We pattern our way of life and the way we teach on him.

~ NOTE: I am a dedicated and baptized member of the worldwide unified Christian Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses.


Is there any denomination that fully embraces Dispensational Premillennialism? I'm not a fan of dispensational premillennialism, but I don't know of any denominations that specifically hold to it. I'm just fairly curious. I've met individual people that believe it, but never an entire denomination that supports it. Do any such denominations exist?

Dispensationalism tends to be most prevalent in baptist, charismatic, and non-denominational churches.  However, the largest baptist and charismatic denominations (like the Southern Baptist Convention and the Assemblies of God) do not take a firm stance on a pre-tribulation, pre-millennial rapture.  Still, there are sizable denominations and associations of churches that specifically hold to this doctrine.

A full list is beyond the scope of this site, but one major charismatic denomination holding to this is the International Pentecostal Holiness Church (3.5 million members).  Its statement of faith reads:

  The second coming of Christ will occur in two stages; the first for the purpose of catching away His saints who are prepared for the Rapture before the Great Tribulation period; and the second at the end of the Great Tribulation, when He shall come back with His saints to destroy the armies of the Antichrist, to judge the nations of the world, and to inaugurate the millennial reign. (source)

Another group, perhaps not meeting your definition of "denomination," is Calvary Chapel, an association of churches with about 25 million members in total.  It, too, clearly describes dispensational eschatology in its statement of faith:

  We believe in the Pre-Tribulation Rapture of the Church through which all believers will be caught up to meet the Lord in the air, and be taken out of the world prior to the Tribulation that will then come upon the earth. (source)

So yes, not all denominations influenced by dispensationalism avoid clearly stating dispensational doctrine in their statements of faith: there are significant denominations and associations that specifically hold to the doctrine of a pre-tribulation, pre-millennial rapture.


How did attitues to the deutero-canonical books in the Western Churches change during the second millenium? What was the pre-Reformation understanding and how did that change during and after the Reformation Era for Protestants and for Catholics? What is the current position?

Current Position of the Roman Catholic Church

The current position of the Roman Catholic Church is given in Articles 135 and 138 of the Catechism.

  The Sacred Scriptures contain the Word of God and, because they are inspired, they are truly the Word of God.

and

  138 The Church accepts and venerates as inspired the 46 books of the Old Testament and the 27 books of the New.

So the Roman Catholic Church teaches that all 73 books contain the Word of God, and are the Word of God.

Pre-Reformation Position

The attitude of the Church to the 7 books, known as the Deutero-Canon, was that they weren't necessarily equal to the other 66. The Catholic Encyclopaedia has this to say:

  In the Latin Church, all through the Middle Ages we find evidence of hesitation about the character of the deuterocanonicals. There is a current friendly to them, another one distinctly unfavourable to their authority and sacredness, while wavering between the two are a number of writers whose veneration for these books is tempered by some perplexity as to their exact standing, and among those we note St. Thomas Aquinas. Few are found to unequivocally acknowledge their canonicity.

They were certainly part of the Bible, but their status was somewhat doubtful in comparison to the rest. The Encyclopaedia goes on to say one reason was the prominence of Jerome's opinions in the Ordinary Gloss, the widely used  medieval commentary.  Richard Field , former Dean of Gloucester, wrotegiving a translation of part of the preface to this:

  Many ... suppose that all those books bound up in the Bible are to be in like sort honoured and esteemed, not knowing how to put a difference between books canonical and not canonical.

There is a

  great difference as there is between that which is certain and that which is doubtful.

and

  they that are not canonical are very good and profitable but their authority is not reputed sufficient to prove the  things that are questionable.

This is the point of view which educated persons in the middle ages  read.

Reformation Era

During this period people ceased to regard the 7 books as of doubtful authority. They made their minds up.  Protestants decided quite definitely that they are not authoritative, and Catholics (Council of Trent) decided quite definitely that they are.  (Of course, each claimed to be merely reasserting  ancient understandings.)

After the Reformation both Protestants and Catholics agreed that there were 73 books in the Bible. The difference was that Catholics held all alike and Protestants did not.

Luther, Calvin and King James etc. did not remove the books from the Bible. Luther collected them together in a separate section of the German Bible, a practice followed by the translators for King James (the First and Sixth). This was to assist readers in identifying inspired and uninspired parts of the Bible.

Subsequent to the Reformation

Many Protestants did as described in the first B> in the question. They decided rather than have a 73-book volume containing 66 books regarded as the inspired Word of God, and 7 books which were not the inspired word of God; that it would be better to have a volume consisting solely of the inspired Word of God.  They started printing copies of the Bible which contained only the 66 inspired books. Almost all modern printings of the King James Bible, and most modern Protestant translations, leave out the 7 books altogether.

Summary, in the form of the  Question

Pre=Reformation: We have 73 books but we're not all  100% sure about 7 of them.

Reformation Protestants: Actually, we are sure, the 7 definitely aren't inspired.

Counter-Reformation Catholics: Well, we're sure they definitely are.

Some Post-Reformation Protestants: Hey, wouldn't it be nice to have a book that just had the inspired Word of God.

Other Post-Reformation Protestants: good idea, yes,  lets  leave  the 7 out.

Needless to say, like all history, it was much more complicated than this, but I hope this gives a general overview.


Is the biblical idea of being "born again" compatible with eastern religious ideas of reincarnation? Just a simple question: is the biblical idea of being born again compatible with eastern religious ideas of reincarnation?

Being "Born again" and being reincarnated are completely different concepts.

The concept of being born again comes from this Bible passage below.  I know it's long but the theological and doctrinal implications found in this passage are profound and critical to understanding what it means to be "born again" and what salvation requires.

  John 3:3-21 (NIV)
  3 Jesus replied, “Very truly I tell you, no one can see the kingdom of God unless they are born again.”

  4 “How can someone be born when they are old?” Nicodemus asked. “Surely they cannot enter a second time into their mother’s womb to be born!”

  5 Jesus answered, “Very truly I tell you, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless they are born of water and the Spirit. 6 Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit. 7 You should not be surprised at my saying, ‘You must be born again.’ 8 The wind blows wherever it pleases. You hear its sound, but you cannot tell where it comes from or where it is going. So it is with everyone born of the Spirit.”

  9 “How can this be?” Nicodemus asked.

  10 “You are Israel’s teacher,” said Jesus, “and do you not understand these things? 11 Very truly I tell you, we speak of what we know, and we testify to what we have seen, but still you people do not accept our testimony. 12 I have spoken to you of earthly things and you do not believe; how then will you believe if I speak of heavenly things? 13 No one has ever gone into heaven except the one who came from heaven—the Son of Man. 14 Just as Moses lifted up the snake in the wilderness, so the Son of Man must be lifted up, 15 that everyone who believes may have eternal life in him.”

  16 For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. 17 For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. 18 Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because they have not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son. 19 This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but people loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil. 20 Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that their deeds will be exposed. 21 But whoever lives by the truth comes into the light, so that it may be seen plainly that what they have done has been done in the sight of God.

TL;DR
If you balked at reading all of that, it basically says this:

You must be born again, which means born of water (from your mother) and born of the Spirit (from God)
In order to be born of the Spirit, you must believe in Jesus
You must live your life according to Jesus and follow him in order to truly believe in him.

That's the essence of being "born again".


What does Jesus mean by "this generation" and "all these things" in Mark 13:30 In Mark 13, Jesus tells about the last days and the tribulation. In this context, he says in verse 30 (KJV):

  Verily I say unto you, that this generation shall not pass, till all these things be done.

Assuming Jesus was not wrong, what did he mean then?

This is the matter of some debate, and there are at least three theories about it that I'm familiar with. I actually found a study online that explains all of them here.

Some relevant sections (copied and pasted since the author explains it better than I would):

The one that is popular in my denomination:

  One explanation that is popular among conservative evangelical or
  fundamentalist Christians might be termed the Futurist interpretation.
  In this interpretation, Jesus is said to have been talking about the
  generation alive at the very time of the end, not the generation alive
  in the middle of the first century A.D. Thus, the generation that sees
  the beginning of the fulfillment of end-time prophecies would live to
  see the Second Coming as well.

  However, as Gleason Archer has explained,

  "This interpretation . . . suffers from the disadvantage of predicting what would normally be expected to happen anyway. Whether
  the Tribulation will last for seven years or for a mere three and a
  half years, it would not be unusual for most people to survive that
  long. Seven years is not a very long time to live through, even in the
  face of bloody persecution.''

Another that also has difficulties:

  Another explanation is called the Preterist ("past'') interpretation,
  which asserts that the Olivet prophecies were all fulfilled in the
  first century A.D. This interpretation is more popular among mainline
  Protestant scholars, and is also championed by a handful of Catholic
  scholars as well.

The explanation that, IMO has the fewest difficulties:

  Since there are unsolvable difficulties with both the Futurist and
  Preterist approaches to this conundrum, we shall have to seek a
  solution in a third approach. What if when Jesus used the word
  "generation'' (Greek genea), He didn't mean the same thing that we
  mean? What if He wasn't using "generation'' to refer to a group of
  people all living at the same period of history?

  According to Archer, sometimes genea ("generation'') was used as a
  synonym of genos ("race,'' "stock,'' "nation,'' "people''). Archer
  writes,
  ...
  Thus, Jesus' words might be rendered, "This people shall not pass away
  until all these things are fulfilled.'' In that rendering, He could
  have been referring to the Jewish people (which is the most likely
  given the context) or to the Church - for both Israel and the Church
  are given divine promises that they would remain in existence until
  the end of time (Jeremiah 31:35-37; Matthew 16:18).

The last one seems the most likely to me for several reasons:

It's the most simple.  It allows the text to be understood without chronological distortions, and it lets the phrase "All these things" really mean "All these things" - all of the end-time events He had been discussing.
It also makes sense because many of the misunderstandings and disagreements in Scripture seem to come from our tendency to use the current English version without understanding the nuances of the original Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic.  Quite a few of the Bible "discrepancies" can be cleared up by studying the original language.  This appears to me to be one of them.


Modern revelation. Is there Biblical evidence against it? Many people I talk to claim that there cannot be a living prophet. They cite Revelation 22:18-19 claiming that the words there speak for the entire Bible.  Certainly it wasn't compiled until after the Revelation was written (sometime around the Council of Carthage).  Also, a similar verse is found Deut. 4:2.

In the history of the Bible, there are plenty of times where there was no prophet on the earth and then a new one was called. For example:

Joseph of Egypt (about 1800 BC) and Moses (about 1550 BC)
Malachi (433 BC) - John the Baptist/Christ (30 AD)

Also, Amos 3:7 says that God will do nothing unless he tells his prophets.

This gives evidence that God calls prophets, but does not necessarily prove anything.

Are there any passages in the Bible that say a prophet couldn't/won't be chosen by God today?

Some sects believe that God calls prophets today (Restorationist):

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints
Iglesia ni Cristo
Catholicism (the Pope, kinda)

As I mentioned elsewhere, the concept of a closed canon of scripture, which goes hand-in-hand with the notion that "we already have all the revelation we need and therefore God will not have to send any new prophets to teach us" has always historically been connected with apostate groups.  It seems a bit inconsistent to think that something that has always been completely wrong with regards to the nature of God and the way He interacts with us would now be right, especially with as many times as we're told that God does not change.  (Psalms 102:27, Malachi 3:6, Hebrews 13:8, for example.)

Also, not all revelation is what we typically think of as "prophecy," a prediction of events in the distant future. It was quite common for prophets to talk about current affairs with divine guidance, such as helping out kings in warfare, or even Jesus telling Peter where to go fishing that he could find an unexpected yield in various different cases.

Even if the great, sweeping events of the future have already been predicted and recorded, without revelation to guide us in current events we're at a severe disadvantage.  God's revelations to earlier patriarchs did not teach Noah to build the ark, nor did His words to Noah teach Moses how to lead Israel out of captivity and through the wilderness, and so on.

So no, I'm not aware of any scriptural evidence for the end of revelations and prophetic guidance, at least not before the end of the world, and we have a pretty clear pattern that contradicts the notion as well.


What is the meaning of Holy Spirit in Mark 3:28-29? Mark 3:28-29
28 : Truly I tell you, people can be forgiven all their sins and every
slander they utter,
29 : but whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit
will never be forgiven; they are guilty of an eternal sin.

As here mentioned, what does the Holy spirit is referred to as:

is that refers to the Holy Spirit or the man who get Holy Spirit (general)?

If that refers to the Holy Spirit, how we can sin against Holy Spirit or blaspheme them?

The Holy Spirit is the Holy Ghost, the third member of the Godhead (Father, Son, Holy Ghost)

Book of Mormon, Alma 39:6 gives us further insight on this scripture:

  6  For behold, if ye deny the Holy Ghost when it once has had place in you, and ye know that ye deny it, behold, this is a sin which is unpardonable; yea, and whosoever murdereth against the light and knowledge of God, it is not easy for him to obtain forgiveness; yea, I say unto you, my son, that it is not easy for him to obtain a forgiveness.

What does it mean to deny the Holy Ghost?

Moroni 8:28

  28 Pray for them, my son, that repentance may come unto them. But behold, I fear lest the Spirit hath ceased striving with them; and in this part of the land they are also seeking to put down all power and authority which cometh from God; and they are denying the Holy Ghost.


What did Jesus mean by "not peace but division"? I'm having difficulty understanding the following passage from Luke 12:51-53:

  Do you think I came to bring peace on earth? No, I tell you, but division. From now on there will be five in one family divided against each other, three against two and two against three. They will be divided, father against son and son against father, mother against daughter and daughter against mother, mother-in-law against daughter-in-law and daughter-in-law against mother-in-law.

My Question:

Should this passage be ignored or deleted?
If not, then what does it mean?

Following Christ in many countries carries a significant price to pay in many places of the world.  In fact, the decision to become a Christian often results in being ostracized from one's family and even worse.

Even within some Christian traditions, the decision to leave the tradition of one's family to join another tradition is met with exclusion from the family.

Jesus told His disciples before His death that the world will, in fact, hate them:

  “If the world hates you, you know that it has hated Me before it hated you. 19 If you were of the world, the world would love its own; but because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, because of this the world hates you. 20 Remember the word that I said to you, ‘A slave is not greater than his master.’ If they persecuted Me, they will also persecute you; if they kept My word, they will keep yours also. 21 But all these things they will do to you for My name’s sake, because they do not know the One who sent Me.  John 15:18-21

So, there is division and that decision does arise out of one's decision to follow Christ, but the prophecy was that the world would hate Christians--not that Christians would hate the world (the people of the world).

So, no, the passage should not be deleted.  There are millions of Christians who have experienced the hatred of one's own family upon their decision to follow Christ.  These verses predicted that.


How do Christians reconcile this passage? The old testament is God given
Yet Christians no longer follow it, for example they eat pork and changed the sabbath day from Saturday to Sunday
The reason for this is that Jesus told them the Old Testament has been replaced and no longer needs to be followed
It says in Deuteronomy (13) If a prophet, or one who foretells by dreams, appears among you and announces to you a sign or wonder, 2 and if the sign or wonder spoken of takes place, and the prophet says, “Let us follow other gods” (gods you have not known) “and let us worship them,” 3 you must not listen to the words of that prophet or dreamer. The LORD your God is testing you to find out whether you love him with all your heart and with all your soul.

(Follow other Gods includes following scriptures that disavow even a single word of the old testament)

Christians have addressed this in various ways:

Some (a very small minority), such as Marcion challenged premise 1. - they didn't believe in the Old Testament. Most Christians have rejected this approach to the extent of labelling those who adopt it as being heretical.

A slightly bigger group (comprising the likes of Seventh Day Adventists and Messianic Jews) would take serious issue with your premise 2. - they take the Old Testament law seriously and do seek to follow whatever part of it that can still be followed (considering that the destruction of the temple has practically put paid to all the laws related to temple worship, Orthodox Jews are in the much the same boat here).

The vast majority of Christians would challenge your premise 3. as being a completely false characterization of what Jesus did and taught:

  17 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18 For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. 19 Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20 For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven. - Matthew 5:17-20 NIV

Additionally, many would make the point that although God is Lord over all, the Mosaic law wasn't given to humanity in general, but to the children of Israel in particular, and the vast majority of Christians are not descendants of Israel, but gentiles - they are, by default, excluded from the Mosaic Covenant therefore they are not bound by it's provisions. Of more relevance are the commands given to Noah from whom all are believed to be descended and these provisions were actually reiterated by the early Christian Church at her first general council.

Your point 4. is completely moot - the Old Testament has not (except by Marcion and his ilk) been disavowed and there is therefore no direction to follow "other Gods".


What does it mean that someone managed to live beyond 120 years? God Himself limited a human's lifespan to 120 years, as told in the following verse:

  Genesis 6:3 (NLT)
  3 Then the LORD said, “My Spirit will not put up with humans for such a long time, for they are only mortal flesh. In the future, their normal lifespan will be no more than 120 years.”

Yet, Jeanne Calment managed to live for 122 years and 164 days, significantly more than 120 years. Does this mean that God's decree was somehow part of an old order of things that has since passed away or been overwritten, much like what Jesus did with the Law?

While marc-gravell mentions that the 120 years until the flood interpretation is "hotly contested" I would say that is definitely the best interpretation. Even the link provided by Marc really talks more about the timeline for building the ark rather than contesting the "120 years to the flood" interpretation. The author of that article concludes that this is the best interpretation of Genesis 6:3.

If we take 120 years to as some average lifespan then the Bible completely misses this mark. Immediately following the flood the lifespans are still measured in the hundreds of years and by the end of the patriarchal period the lifespans drop well below a 120 year average. The main issue with interpreting this number as the years until the flood only occurs with the length of time it took Noah to build the ark. When we realize that the text doesn't require that Noah started building at the same year as the statement in 6:3 then the interpretation works rather well.

The problem stems from the poor translation of the NLT text. In attempting to make the text more "readable" they have inferred meaning that isn't required by the original text. Most (all?) scholarly translations do not force this meaning into the text of Genesis 6:3.


What is the difference between the Ebionites and Nazarenes? The Ebionites and Nazarenes were Jewish–Christian sects during the Second Temple era. We know that the Ebionites believed Yeshu was born of a natural generation between Joseph and Mary; while some Nazarenes believed in a virgin birth. How were the two different from orthodox (Pharisee) Judaism? For example, did both sects pray "Our Father" in Aramaic or in Hebrew?

According to some notes provided by Eastern Orthodox monk Seraphim Rose to the English translation of Protopresbyter Michael Pomazanski's Orthodox Dogmatic Theology, the Ebionites and Nazarites were both groups of heretical Judaizers.

The Ebionites, he wrote, "considered Jesus Christ to be a prophet like Moses; they demanded of all Christians the strict fulfillment of the law of Moses; they looked on the Christian teaching as a supplement to the law of Moses."

The Nazarites "believed in the Divinity of Jesus Christ, but insisted on the fulfillment of the law of Moses by Christians who were Jews, without demanding this of the non-Jewish Christians (moderate Ebionites)."

[I noticed that you use the term "Nazarene".  I assume "Nazarite" refers to the same group.]

In addition, there was another group of Ebionites that Fr. Seraphim refers to as "Ebionite-Gnostics", whose teaching was composed of the teaching of the Jewish sect of the Essenes, who lived on the Dead Sea (Qumran excavations, the “Dead Sea Scrolls”), joined to the elements of Christianity and Gnosticism."  "The Essenes," he further wrote,

  considered themselves the preservers of the pure religion revealed to
  Adam but later obscured in Judaism. The Ebionite-Gnostics recognized
  the restoration of this religion by Christ, as the bearer of the
  Divine Spirit; the Gnostic element was expressed in their view on
  matter as being an evil principle, and in the preaching of severe
  asceticism.

Irenaeus of Lyon wrote of the Ebionites in the 2nd century:

  Those who are called Ebionites agree that the world was made by God;
  but their opinions with respect to the Lord are similar to those of
  Cerinthus and Carpocrates. They use the Gospel according to Matthew
  only, and repudiate the Apostle Paul, maintaining that he was an
  apostate from the law. As to the prophetical writings, they endeavour
  to expound them in a somewhat singular manner: they practise
  circumcision, persevere in the observance of those customs which are
  enjoined by the law, and are so Judaic in their style of life, that
  they even adore Jerusalem as if it were the house of God (Against Heresies, I.XXVI.2)

Eusebius of Caesarea also wrote of the Ebionites and the Nazarenes in his 4th century Church History:

  The evil demon, however, being unable to tear certain others from
  their allegiance to the Christ of God, yet found them susceptible in a
  different direction, and so brought them over to his own purposes. The
  ancients quite properly called these men Ebionites, because they held
  poor and mean opinions concerning Christ.  For they considered
  him a plain and common man, who was justified only because of his
  superior virtue, and who was the fruit of the intercourse of a man
  with Mary. In their opinion the observance of the ceremonial law was
  altogether necessary, on the ground that they could not be saved by
  faith in Christ alone and by a corresponding life.  There were
  others, however, besides them, that were of the same name, but avoided
  the strange and absurd beliefs of the former, and did not deny that
  the Lord was born of a virgin and of the Holy Spirit. But
  nevertheless, inasmuch as they also refused to acknowledge that he
  pre-existed, being God, Word, and Wisdom, they turned aside into the
  impiety of the former, especially when they, like them, endeavored to
  observe strictly the bodily worship of the law [Eusebius seems to be
  referring to the Nazarenes here].  These men, moreover,
  thought that it was necessary to reject all the epistles of the
  apostle, whom they called an apostate from the law; and they used only
  the so-called Gospel according to the Hebrews and made small account
  of the rest [Scholars disagree whether Eusebius is referring here to
  the Gospel according to Matthew, as did Irenaeus, or some other
  spurious Gospel].  The Sabbath and the rest of the discipline
  of the Jews they observed just like them, but at the same time, like
  us, they celebrated the Lord’s days as a memorial of the resurrection
  of the Saviour.  Wherefore, in consequence of such a course
  they received the name of Ebionites, which signified the poverty of
  their understanding. For this is the name by which a poor man is
  called among the Hebrews.


What is the family tree diagram explaining how Sarah was Abraham's half sister? What is the family tree diagram explaining how Sarah was Abraham's half sister (same father different mothers)?

She is indeed my sister, the daughter of my father, but not the daughter of my mother; and so she became my wife. - Gen 20:12

I tried googling it and I found this link which had the following diagram:

But that doesn't work as sister, because she's Terach's grandaughter. Abraham's niece.

The article by a Jesuit scholar Felix Just, S.J., PhD The Family of Abraham contains the family tree you are looking for, demonstrating how Sarai is indeed Abram's half sister from another (un-named) wife of his father, Terah:


What was the most likely method of crucifixion that was used on Jesus? I'm writing a novel that is meant to be as historically accurate as possible. I haven't gotten that far yet, but I know that Jesus' crucifixion will eventually occur and since the novel revolves around his disciples' perspectives of Jesus and his death, what would be the most likely method of crucifixion that the Romans used on Jesus?

I read an article from Biblical Archaeology on the subject, and it seems to indicate that many crucifixions were performed with bound hands tied backward to the transverse cross-bar, and the feet nailed to the upright with one long nail.

Paul and Peter both referred to a tree that Jesus was crucified on, although I have read that the 'tree' refers to the wood and not an actual tree. Could it be possible that a crossbar was attached to a tree, and the feet were nailed to the tree itself?

The Jehovah's witnesses believe that Jesus was hung with his hands above his head on a 'torture stake.' Is there any validity to such a statement?

Then there is the conventionally thought-of method of hanging the criminal to it by their feet and hands via tying or nailing.

That Christ's hands were nailed to the cross is firmly established by Scripture. Following the Resurrection, the Apostle Thomas doubted that Christ was alive:

  So he [Thomas] said to them, "Unless I see in His hands the print of the nails, and put my finger into the print of the nails, and put my hand into His side, I will not believe." (John 20:25, NKJV)

When Christ appeared to Thomas, he instructed

  Reach your finger here, and look at My hands; and reach your hand here, and put it into My side. Do not be unbelieving, but believing. (John 20:27, NKJV)

While this does not rule out that His arms were also bound, it does require that they were nailed.

The Romans used a variety of different shaped crosses to execute criminals. For example, Seneca the Younger, a contemporary of Christ, wrote

  I see before me crosses not all alike, but differently made by different peoples: some hang a man head downwards, some force a stick upwards through his groin, some stretch out his arms on a forked gibbet. (Moral Essays 6.20)

Josephus, who lived just after Christ, records

  the soldiers, out of the wrath and hatred they bore the Jews, nailed those they caught, one after one way, and another after another, to the crosses (The Wars of the Jews 5.11.1)

So it seems that they had a variety of choice and applied them as they saw fit. The typical crosses were |-shaped, T-shaped, +-shaped, and X-shaped. Scripture does not clearly state which shape was used, but Christian writings in the first few centuries of the Church already favored either T or + shaped. The Epistle of Barnabas (c AD 90-125) records

  For [the Scripture] saith, “And Abraham circumcised ten, and eight, and three hundred men of his household.” What, then, was the knowledge given to him in this? Learn the eighteen first, and then the three hundred. The ten and the eight are thus denoted—Ten by Ι, and Eight by Η. You have [the initials of the, name of] Jesus. And because the cross was to express the grace [of our redemption] by the letter Τ, he says also, "Three Hundred." He signifies, therefore, Jesus by two letters, and the cross by one. (Barnabas 9:7)

In Greek numerals, 300 is written with a tau, resembling the Latin T. The author of Barnabas clearly thought the cross was shaped like the Greek letter tau, T. In Greek, Jesus is IHSOYS -- I and H being the initial letters.

A bit further in the epistle, he writes

  Here again you have an intimation concerning the cross, and Him who should be crucified. Yet again He speaks of this in Moses, when Israel was attacked by strangers. And that He might remind them, when assailed, that it was on account of their sins they were delivered to death, the Spirit speaks to the heart of Moses, that he should make a figure of the cross, and of Him about to suffer thereon; for unless they put their trust in Him, they shall be overcome for ever. Moses therefore placed one weapon above another in the midst of the hill, and standing upon it, so as to be higher than all the people, he stretched forth his hands, and thus again Israel acquired the mastery. (Barnabas 12:2)

Thus Moses, with his arms outstretched is described as a type of Christ on the cross. This suggests a T- or +-shaped cross.

A little later (c AD 150), Justin Martyr wrote

  God does not permit the lamb of the passover to be sacrificed in any other place than where His name was named; knowing that the days will come, after the suffering of Christ, when even the place in Jerusalem shall be given over to your enemies, and all the offerings, in short, shall cease; and that lamb which was commanded to be wholly roasted was a symbol of the suffering of the cross which Christ would undergo. For the lamb, which is roasted, is roasted and dressed up in the form of the cross. For one spit is transfixed right through from the lower parts up to the head, and one across the back, to which are attached the legs of the lamb.  (Dialogue with Trypho, Chapter XL)

This seems to match with a +-shaped cross.

So it seems that the earliest Christians believed Christ was nailed to a T- or +-shaped cross rather than a |- or X-shaped cross.

If we consider what Matthew recorded,

  And they put up over His head the accusation written against Him: THIS IS JESUS THE KING OF THE JEWS. (Matthew 27:37, NKJV)

which seems to rule out a T-shaped cross, the balance of the evidence favors the traditional Christian shape of the cross.


What is the significance of a church being "consecrated"? Related to this question. I've split it into two questions because I didn't want to ask too much in one go.

My local parish church has a sign out the front which says "Australia's oldest consecrated church". That got me wondering, "what's consecration all about?"

If a church is consecrated, does that mean that it has been sanctified? ie has it become a holy site? Does it mean that God dwells inside the church in some special sense (Aside from the Eucharistic presence in the tabernacle)? Perhaps it is invalid or illicit to celebrate mass in a church that has not been consecrated, and therefore the consecration is essential? Perhaps the consecration is optional and is more like a "good luck blessing" which is just a nice-to-have. Does anything about the building actually change (on a spiritual level or otherwise)?

My main question: What is the purpose and significance of consecrating a Catholic church?

Consecration establishes a valid place of Catholic divine worship as confirmed by the local ordinary (Bishop)

  Can.  1214 By the term church is understood a sacred building
  designated for divine worship to which the faithful have the right of
  entry for the exercise, especially the public exercise, of divine
  worship.

  Can.  1215 §1. No church is to be built without the express written
  consent of the diocesan bishop.

From the Catholic Encyclopedia

  Consecration, in general, is an act by which a thing is separated from
  a common and profane to a sacred use, or by which a person or thing is
  dedicated to the service and worship of God by prayers, rites, and
  ceremonies.

Definitions

  CONSECRATED GROUND Any place or space that has been liturgically
  blessed, or where some sacred object such as a church is built or
  has stood. {snipped burial grounds explanation}.

Significance (truth in advertising)

The laws, rites, and processes that go into consecration1 of a place of divine worship ensure that when you arrive, for example, at a place called St Paul's Catholic Church, you are in a place that conforms to the standards for valid divine worship, to include the sacraments.

The Code of Canon Law 1214 through 1222 addresses the requirements.

  Can.  1217 §1. After construction has been completed properly, a new
  church is to be dedicated or at least blessed as soon as possible; the
  laws of the sacred liturgy are to be observed.

  §2. Churches, especially cathedrals and parish churches, are to be
  dedicated by the solemn rite.

The Roman Ritual (Sancta Missa, 1964) describes in detail the rite.  (See section 2 at the link, there is a detailed liturgical rite in establishing a church).  See also the dedication of a church and altar.

Addressing further elements of your question.

If a church is consecrated, does that mean that it has been sanctified?  (i.e. has it become a holy site?)

If you were using a generic definition for sanctification, yes.

  The generic meaning of sanctification is "the state of proper functioning." To sanctify someone or something is to set that person or thing apart for the use intended by its designer.  Key Concepts.  God's usual modus operandi is to sanctify common things for his redemptive purposes, rather than to employ perfect heavenly things

Using a Catholic definition, sanctification normally applies to people, so it applies to the Church in the sense that the faithful are the mystical body of Christ.

  From the Catholic Encyclopedia entry on sanctity
   The object of the Passion was the redemption and sanctification of the
  Church:

  "Christ also loved the church, and delivered Himself up for
  it: that he might sanctify it, cleansing it by the laver of water in
  the word of life" (Ephesians 5:25, 26).

  Again the Church is the body of Christ. He is the head of the mystical body: and supernatural life — the life of Christ Himself — is communicated through the
  sacraments to all His members.

For another Catholic definition ...

  SANCTIFICATION
  Being made holy. The first sanctification takes place at baptism, by
  which the love of God is infused by the Holy Spirit (Romans 5:5).
  Newly baptized persons are holy because the Holy Trinity begins to
  dwell in their souls and they are pleasing to God. The second
  sanctification is a lifelong process in which a person alredy in the
  state of grace grows in the possession of grace and in likeness to God
  by faithfully corresponding with divine inspirations. The third
  sanctification takes place when a person enters heaven and becomes
  totally and irrevocably united with God in the beatific vision. (Etym.
  Latin sanctificare, to make holy.)

I'd recommend against using the term "sanctification" as a synonym for consecration in this case.  The setting aside for the special purpose of divine worship and administering the sacraments is the purpose of the blessings, etc.   It is worth noting that of the 38 times that the term sanctification comes up in the Catechism, in all 38 it applies to people not things.
Does it mean that God dwells inside the church in some special sense
(Aside from the Eucharistic presence in the tabernacle)?

Catholic churches are not a "put God in a box" places.  They are places where people (as the Catholic Church sees it, God's people, DE POPULO DEI) come for divine worship of God and to receive the sacraments.  The tabernacle in a Catholic church is a special place to store the consecrated host.
Perhaps it is invalid or illicit to celebrate mass in a church that
has not been consecrated, and therefore the consecration is essential?

Per the Code of Canon Law cited above, it would be illicit to assert that one is at "St Paul's Catholic Church" unless the process described above had been properly completed.

  Perhaps the consecration is optional and is more like a "good luck blessing" which is just a nice-to-have.

No. See all of the above.  It is not "just nice to have," it's Canon Law, and a liturgical blessing is not "a good luck blessing."
Does anything about the building actually change (on a spiritual
level or otherwise)?

It becomes an officially sanctioned place where Catholic divine worship and liturgy are done, which includes administration of the sacraments.

1 The current Code of Canon law uses the term dedication, but the process takes on the character of consecration -- equivalent terms.


What is the Catholic practice to find God's will for lay Catholics? In the evangelical circles, finding God's will for one's life is a very common topic, with a "recipe" that looks like this Christianity.com article: How Do We Know God’s Will for Our Lives?.  The motivation why one is "compelled" to find it is: by walking in the "zone" that God has set for you: 1) you will have peace that God is with you, 2) you will be successful because God will provide everything you need for His will to be accomplished, and 3) you live a Godly pattern exemplified by Jesus and the apostles who themselves have dedicated their lives to execute God's specific will for them.
I realize that for Catholics entering vocations (joining a religious order / priesthood), there is an established practice for discernment.
But how about for lay Catholics?  What I heard is a general Thomistic guidance of aligning our intellect and will toward true happiness in God by being aware of how our numerous daily choices can potentially sidetrack us toward anything less than God such as honor, riches, power, etc. instead of striving toward the true final end of human nature of beatific vision by living with true love toward those within our circle while working together with the Holy Spirit toward eliminating one's vices and increasing one's virtues.
While that guidance is in some way more specific than the evangelical advice linked above, there are still many choices that a typical 18 year old Catholic can be bewildered, such as: what major to study at the university, who to marry, career path, etc.  Is there a practice similar to discerning vocation but for lay Catholics?
A related sub-question: does the answer come in the form of special graces given to lay Catholics toward some particular calling (example: talents for music for those called to be musicians), similar to special graces infused by God for the religious (example: for fulfilling their vows of chastity)?

I have found the Ignatian way of spiritual discernment to be helpful. It may not be immediately helpful as, like anything else of value, it takes time to learn. Basically, this practice involves meditation on Christ's life as a means to center and ground your own life in Christ. It also involves becoming more aware of your own affections and dispositions so you can evaluate them and change them as necessary with the goal of following Christ more nearly.
As you engage in this process, you come to see more clearly a path for your life. If there is a Jesuit retreat house near you, you could start there. Or you might explore this online resource: Making Good Decisions.


According to the Catholic Church, can having ideations to sin ever be mortally sinful? In the Catholic Church, is having ideations to sin a mortal sin? In other words, would a faithful Catholic have to repent during Confession for having ideations to sin or having attempted, but failed, to act on such ideations?

"Ideations" in the question "Can having 'ideations' to sin ever be mortally sinful?" could mean "passions of the soul," which are causes of sin.

Now, can a sin committed through passion ever be mortal? St. Thomas Aquinas explains (Summa Theologica I-II q. 77 a. 8 c.):

  Mortal sin, as stated above (q. 72, a. 5), consists in turning away from our last end which is God, which aversion pertains to the deliberating reason, whose function it is also to direct towards the end. Therefore that which is contrary to the last end can happen not to be a mortal sin, only when the deliberating reason is unable to come to the rescue, which is the case in sudden movements. Now when anyone proceeds from passion to a sinful act, or to a deliberate consent, this does not happen suddenly: and so the deliberating reason can come to the rescue here, since it can drive the passion away, or at least prevent it from having its effect, as stated above: wherefore if it does not come to the rescue, there is a mortal sin; and it is thus, as we see, that many murders and adulteries are committed through passion.

So, if your reason tells you committing a mortal sin is bad, yet you consent to it or actually commit it anyways, this itself is a mortal sin.


According to a ‘forgiveness in Christ alone’ framework how did ‘sin offerings’ make atonement for sin under the Mosaic Law? How did the old ceremonial sacrifices made atonement? What was really going on externally and internally to the person who brought the ‘sin offering’ to God? What did it mean that their ‘sins were atoned for’? Did it make a difference if the sacrifice was made by faith or not?

Note: I am specifically looking for an answer under a ‘protestant framework’ that assumes all real forgiveness must be by ‘faith in Christ alone’.

How did the old ceremonial sacrifices made atonement?

They didn't. Old Testament sacrifice was only able to atone for someone who followed the Mosaic law perfectly... a feat which is beyond any of us, especially as most of us are not Jews, and even if we were the Altar and priests are gone. The whole point of Jesus' sacrifice is that the former sacrificial system was inadequate. Sin offerings succeeded only until "just the right time", when Christ made one sacrifice for all.


Spiritual gifts tests What do you think, based on the Scriptures, about spiritual gifts tests that try to determine what your gifts are?  To me, they seem mostly bogus.  One of my main reasons for this is a lot of the questions seem to ask questions that deal with your personality.  That is, a nonchristian could answer a large portion of the questions and the test would come up with a list of their spiritual gifts, even though they don't have the Spirit.  So, it's not possible that these are spiritual gifts.  And, even for a Christian, the results may be very similar to if they had taken the test before becoming a Christian.

And, why is it so important to "know" your spiritual gifts?  Isn't it important to know what God wants you to do and then do it, trusting in God?  That is, shouldn't we trust that if God asks us to do something that He will give us whatever we need to accomplish it?

Moses said he wasn't a good speaker and God should send someone else.  God said that He made the mouth and He would speak through Moses.  God gave Moses even more help by saying Aaron could go with him and speak, but if you read the rest of the story, it is Moses speaking.  So, that is God's Spirit moving Moses to be able to do something he was NOT inclined to do.  If Moses filled out some spiritual gifts test, wouldn't it tell him he is not gifted in that way, and then wouldn't that give him even more doubt in his head about his ability to go?

And, related to that, do we even always have the same spiritual gifts?

Any thoughts on this?  Thanks

I tend to agree with your diagnosis: they are mostly bogus. Besides the problems you listed, they also don't tend to be particularly faithful to the Biblical definitions of the "gifts" in question. That being said they enjoy rather wide circulation in various parts of Christianity, with more charismatic traditions tending to hit them up a lot more frequently.

To play devil's advocate for a minute, I can think of two points in their defense:

All gifts/talents are from God whether the recipient is a believer and acknowledges that or not. Even those in most adamant rebellion against God were still made in his image and have certain characteristics as a result. Likewise, during our present age on earth some of God's graces are rained down upon the just (not that any humans are more just than others, this is a references to those who have been justified by faith) and the unjust (those who haven't been).
Christians often need to be reminded that they do have attributes that they are supposed to use to build up the body and minister to the world. Whether such "tests" are the best way to do that -- I would argue strongly that the answer is no -- is debatable but whether through the best most Biblical means possible or through messy cultural trends, there is some gem of value in reminding the faithful that they have been given gifts on loan from God and need to employ them in His service.

From a reformed protestant perspective, I would argue that the needed function is much more faithfully accomplished by diligent teaching of the Word, walking believers through what it teaches on these subjects challenging them to apply it to their life. Sitting them down with some contrived checklist that resembles a personality test isn't a method we find prescribed in Scripture.

To comment briefly on the gifts themselves, we do find some very specific roles described that God might have called some to and others not that have very specific qualifications, but the tests in question usually have more to do with the other gifts. The lists we have in Scripture of these gifts are pretty mix and match, and I think a case could be made that nobody has quite the same mixture of gifts nor is it a requirement to pigeon-hole a gift into a certain label in order to make use of it for the God's Kingdom. In other words those who serve as teaching elders should be qualified for the task exactly as prescribed, but those called to use their gifts of "giving" or "encouraging" or whatever should do so in whatever and as many varied ways as they can!


Is Luke's label for Christianity - "the Way" - used in later Christian writings? Christianity is referred to several times in the book of Acts as "the Way" (hē hodos), initially at 9:2:

  [Saul] asked [the high priest] for letters to the synagogues at Damascus, so that if he found any belonging to the Way (hē hodos), men or women, he might bring them bound to Jerusalem. (ESV)

See also Acts 19:9, 23; 22:4; and 24:14, 22. To my knowledge this usage is not found elsewhere in the New Testament.* I have learned from commentaries that there is an equivalent phrase (Heb. hadderek) used as self identification by the Essene Community in the Qumran literature (i.e. the non-Biblical documents from among the "Dead Sea Scrolls") that may be the origin of hē hodos. For the purposes of this question, though,  I'm interested in the other side (temporally):

Was this term used to describe the Christian movement in early (post-Biblical) church writings?
Did any of the Fathers† opine about the origin of the label or its meaning within the community?  (I'd be especially interested if they were aware of the [postulated] connection with Qumran, but that seems unlikely.)

* John 14:6 may be related, but that has some deeper Christological significance rather than the more  concrete reference to a sect as it is used in Acts.

† The Greek fathers would be most relevant, although the absolute use of "the Way" is distinctive enough that it would probably be recognizable in Latin as well.  ("Absolute", i.e., without further specification such as "the way of the LORD" [Is 40:3, cf. Acts 18:25].)

I looked into Lampe (ed.)"A Patristic Greek Lexicon", Oxford University Press, 1961.

It makes four mentions for the use of hodos in this sense:

Eusebius of Caesarea, Ecclesiastical History, Book 5, Chapter 1,48. (Migne 20.428A)
Chrysostom, Homily 19 on the Acts of the Apostoles (Migne 60.152)
Ammonius of Alexandria, On the Acts of the Apostoles 14:14 (Migne 85.1592C)
Theodoret of Cyrus, On Romans 9:33 (Migne 82.163)

According to what we see in Chrysostom, it would seem that this title hasn't been used since. He explains that those of the way was what "the believers were called, probably because of their taking the direct way that leads to heaven" (Migne 60.152).

[I know that there are very good patristic concordances that would help you out, but I don't have access to them at this time. Haven't had time to look very well into the references but I did make sure they correspond.
Hope this helps out a little.]


Does liturgical abuse make a mass invalid? This question is strictly referring to the Novus Ordo.

If there is a change of the wording of the mass, abuse of sign of peace (talking out loud and laughing, waving at others during mass), congregations in Orans posture for Our Father and holding hands, secular bands playing modern hymns, the faithful in immodest dress, etc...does this render the particular said mass invalid?  Thanks, I am struggling with this.  Having attended the Tridentine rite for many years, I am going to new parish that offers Novus Ordo.  I can't seem to resign to the fact that it is the same mass spiritually!  Please help!

Does liturgical abuse make a mass invalid?

The short answer is: It will depend on the situation.

I can feel your anguish in your present situation. However the only thing that could possibly make the Mass invalid of the abuses that you mentioned would be if the priest changed the words of the consecration at Mass. Depending on what is changed could invalidate the Mass.

  What is the Effect of the Priest Changing the Words of the Mass? Is There Anything We Can Do?

  Question:

  Our pastor does not read from the Sacramentary and does not say all the words of the Eucharistic Prayer (omitting the word “Father” and changing “mankind” to “humankind” are just two examples). He does not say all the words of the consecration. He says “Take this all of you and eat” instead of “Take this all of you and eat it”. Does this omission affect the consecration of bread into the Body of Christ?

  The Holy See’s 2004 disciplinary document, Redemptionis Sacramentum, states very emphatically:

  The reprobated practice by which priests, deacons or the faithful here and there alter or vary at will the texts of the Sacred Liturgy that they are charged to pronounce, must cease. For in doing thus, they render the celebration of the Sacred Liturgy unstable, and not infrequently distort the authentic meaning of the Liturgy.

  The General Instruction of the Roman Missal (2002) also says:

  Nevertheless, the priest must remember that he is the servant of the Sacred Liturgy and that he himself is not permitted, on his own initiative, to add, to remove, or to change anything in the celebration of Mass. [GIRM§ 24]

  The GIRM is here quoting the Vatican II Constitution on the Liturgy, Sacrosanctum Concilium, 22.3:

  Therefore no other person, even if he be a priest, may add, remove, or change anything in the Liturgy on his own authority.

The essentials words of the consecration must not be altered.

  Generally, if the priest fails to say the essential words of consecration, the Mass is invalid and the Eucharist is not consecrated. - What if the priest messes up the words of consecration?

If you think that the abuses are serious enough you can complain to the local ordinary (bishop). If after that and only after you have complained to the local ordinary, you may lodge a complaint to the Apostolic Nuncio of your country. (I did tell the bishop in question I would go through the Apostolic Nuncio if necessary.) I myself have done this once and things do get done quite quickly.

  The Rights of Catholics to Complain about Abuses

  Given that the Supreme Pontiff's authority through the Church is ordinary and immediate, Redemptionis Sacramentum reminds Catholics that they have the right to appeal to the Holy See in any ecclesiastical matter. Good order and charity suggests that complaints in so far as possible be first directed to the local Bishop or to the Religious Superior as appropriate, before being referred to the Holy See. This is consistent with how Our Lord asks us to give fraternal correction (cf. Mt. 18:15-17). Certainly, when such appeals have been shown to be fruitless, direct appeal to the Holy See is justified.

  184 Any Catholic, whether Priest or Deacon or lay member of Christ’s faithful, has the right to lodge a complaint regarding a liturgical abuse to the diocesan Bishop or the competent Ordinary equivalent to him in law, or to the Apostolic See on account of the primacy of the Roman Pontiff.[290] It is fitting, however, insofar as possible, that the report or complaint be submitted first to the diocesan Bishop. This is naturally to be done in truth and charity.

  290 Pope John Paul II, Apostolic Constitution, Pastor bonus 52, CIC  1417 § 1

  Pastor Bonus Art. 52 — The Congregation [for the Doctrine of the Faith] examines offences against the faith and more serious ones both in behaviour or in the celebration of the sacraments which have been reported to it and, if need be, proceeds to the declaration or imposition of canonical sanctions in accordance with the norms of common or proper law.

  Code of Canon Law 1417, 1.  In virtue of the primacy of the Roman Pontiff, anyone of the faithful is free to bring to or introduce before the Holy See a case either contentious or penal in any grade of judgment and at any stage of litigation. - Liturgical Abuses


Who were the the "Prophets of Zwickau"? Who were the "Prophets of Zwickau" and what influence did they have on modern Christianity?

I'm interested in their theology, history, and influence on Christianity in their day, and whether or not their influence continues to today.

The “Zwickau prophets,” i.e., Nicholas Storch, Thomas Drechsel, and Mark Stübner, etc., claimed to be prophets of God and to have received revelations directly from God.  They were leading an anti-Protestant, anti-Catholic, spiritualistic attempt at communism and anarchy based on a view of taking the millennium by force as prophets. Thomas Münzer (1490–1525) was a radical figure in the Reformation who became a leader in the Peasants’ Revolt of 1524–1525. From this man we get a clear window into all of his associates:

  Thomas Muenzer, one of the Zwickau Prophets, and an eloquent demagogue, was the apostle and travelling evangelist of the social revolution, and a forerunner of modern socialism, communism, and anarchism. He presents a remarkable compound of the discordant elements of radicalism and mysticism. (HISTORY OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH, PHILIP SCHAFF (Vol 7, Ch4, P75)

He started by being influenced by doctrines of the reformation but quickly became an extremist who was deposed from his church. He hated Luther even worse then the Pope even though before his ‘fall’ he was actually selected by Luther to become a Lutheran pastor in the city of Zwickau.

  He was at enmity with the whole existing order of society, and imagined himself the divinely inspired prophet of a new dispensation, a sort of communistic millennium, in which there should be no priests, no princes, no nobles, and no private property, but complete democratic equality. He inflamed the people in fiery harangues from the pulpit, and in printed tracts to open rebellion against their spiritual and secular rulers. He signed himself “Muenzer with the hammer,” and “with the sword of Gideon.” He advised the killing of all the ungodly. They had no right to live. Christ brought the sword, not peace upon earth. “Look not,” he said, “on the sorrow of the ungodly; let not your sword grow cold from blood; strike hard upon the anvil of Nimrod [the princes]; cast his tower to the ground, because the day is yours.” (HISTORY OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH, PHILIP SCHAFF (Vol 7, Ch4, P75)

Although it might not seem that these prophets had any influence on the Christian world, Karl Marx did refer to Thomas Münzer in his own writings, so you could say they had an impact on the world's continued opposition to the church. The beliefs of the Zwickau Prophets goes back to a pre-reformation sect in Bohemia who held a, ‘Taborite creed’. Tabor was a city in Bohemia that held control of local gold mines, the citizens joined local peasants to develop a communist-like society.  The key to their quasi-religious communits movement was in their view of the millennial reign of Christ. Taborites lived announced in the millennium there would be no more servants and masters. They promised people would return to a state of pristine innocence.

  Zwickau, however, was near the Bohemian border, and there Müntzer was converted by the weaver and adept Niklas Storch, who had lived in Bohemia, to the old Taborite creed: in particular, continuing personal divine revelation to the prophet of the cult, and the necessity for the Elect to seize power and impose a society of theocratic communism by brutal force of arms. In addition, there was to be communism of women: marriage was to be prohibited, and each man was to be able to have any woman at will.
  Thomas Müntzer now claimed to be the divinely chosen prophet, destined to wage a war of blood and extermination by the Elect against the sinners. Müntzer claimed that the "living Christ" had permanently entered his own soul. Endowed thereby with perfect insight into the divine will, he asserted himself to be uniquely qualified to fulfill the divine mission. He even spoke of himself as "becoming God." Having graduated from the world of learning, Müntzer was now ready for the world of action. (Karl Marx as Religious Eschatologist, Mises Daily: Friday, October 09, 2009 by Murray N. Rothbard)

Although the influence on communism can be traced, there does not seem to be any lasting influence on Christianity. There is a link between the Bohemian movements and a Christian movement called the Hussites under a Czech reformer Jan Hus (c. 1369–1415) and there are some modern churches who think of themselves to be related to those movements, in particular the Moravian Church, Unity of the Brethren, and the refounded Czechoslovak Hussite churches. However these churches do not resemble the ideas of Thomas Müntzer at all so it seems the lasting impact is more related to the communistic side of things only.


What was the Angelic Psalter that Our Lady told St. Dominic to preach? In St. Louis de Montfort's The Secret of the Rosary he quotes the Blessed Virgin Mary talking to St. Dominic:

  "I want you to know that, in this kind of warfare, the battering ram has always been the Angelic Psalter which is the foundation stone of the New Testament. Therefore if you want to reach these hardened souls and win them over to God, preach my Psalter."

At a recent FNE Timberwolf meeting my brother leader, Mang says that the Angelic Psalter is the Rosary prayed 150 times and the other leader Ricki Ticki says "Oh I thought that was the Psalms themselves".  The boys were a bit confused, but we muddled through without intense theological debate.

Now, (not to get all technical and worried about consistencies like I would over Star Wars) if she said that the battering ram has always been the Angelic Psalter, and the Angelic Psalter is the Rosary, then wouldn't the Rosary have had to have pre-existed St. Dominic.  But, if it is actually the book of Psalms that Our Lady was talking about, where did tell St. Dominic explicitly to pray the Rosary?

The Angelic Psalter is the rosary.
See the "6th Rose" section of The Secret of the Rosary, where he contrasts "The Psalter of Jesus and Mary" / "Angelic Psalter" / "Our Lady's Psalter" (i.e., the rosary) with David's Psalter (the Psalms):

Ever since Saint Dominic established the devotion to the Holy Rosary up until the time when Blessed Alan de la Roche re-established it in 1460 it has always been called the Psalter of Jesus and Mary. This is because it has the same number of Angelic Salutations as there are psalms in the Book of the Psalms of David. Since simple and uneducated people are not able to say the Psalms of David the Rosary is held to be just as fruitful for them as David’s Psalter is for others.
But the Rosary can be considered to be even more valuable than the latter for three reasons:

Firstly, because the Angelic Psalter bears a nobler fruit, that of the Word Incarnate, whereas David’s Psalter only prophesies His coming;

Secondly, just as the real thing is more important than its prefiguration and as the body is more than its shadow, in the same way the Psalter of Our Lady is greater than David’s Psalter which did no more than prefigure it;

And thirdly, because Our Lady’s Psalter (or the Rosary made up of the Our Father and Hail Mary) is the direct work of the Most Blessed Trinity and was not made through a human instrument. …


Existence of Catholic Church without hierarchy In case of a global catastrophe (nuclear war or something similar), a big majority of the global population would die, including pope, all bishops, all priests, all deacons. In all churches with apostolic succession (Catholic, Orthodox,...).

However, there will be a small community of lay catholic people in one place. Let's say ten thousands, including theologically educated adults. What would be subsequent life of Catholic church?

Would catholic church exist?

I am not asking on the sacramental life that would be most likely limited to baptism and matrimony only. I am asking whether we would speak about catholic church. Not just believers, but church itself.

Are there any supportive or declining references in the official teaching of the church for "yes" or "no"?

The Church militant will always exist until the end of time. Matthew 16:18:

And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

The papacy, and thus also the Church, will last until the end of the world, as the First Vatican Council said in Pastor Æternus (July 18, 1870), ch. II, "On the Perpetuity of the Primacy of blessed Peter in the Roman Pontiffs":

That which the Prince of Shepherds and great Shepherd of the sheep, Jesus Christ our Lord, established in the person of the blessed Apostle Peter to secure the perpetual welfare and lasting good of the Church, must, by the same institution, necessarily remain unceasingly in the Church; which, being founded upon the Rock, will stand firm to the end of the world.

Even if the vast majority of the hierarchy apostatizes, which happened during the Arian crisis,* the Church will still exist.*(St. Athanasius remaining one of the few Catholics)
St. Vincent of Lerins, in his Commonitorium book 1, chapter 2 (English translation of excerpt), foresaw the possibility of heresy taking over almost the entire Church, in which case there would remain few non-apostate, true members of the Church:

Also in the Catholic Church itself we take great care that we hold that which has been believed everywhere, always, by all. For that is truly and properly Catholic, as the very force and meaning of the word shows, which comprehends everything almost universally. And we shall observe this rule if we follow universality, antiquity, consent. We shall follow universality if we confess that one Faith to be true which the whole Church throughout the world confesses; antiquity if we in no wise depart from those interpretations which it is plain that our ancestors and fathers proclaimed; consent if in antiquity itself we eagerly follow the definitions and beliefs of all, or certainly nearly all, priests and doctors alike.
What, then, will the Catholic Christian do if any part of the Church has cut itself off from the communion of the Universal Faith? What surely but prefer the soundness of the whole body to a pestilent and corrupt member?
What if some novel contagion seek to infect the whole Church, and not merely a small portion of it? Then he will take care to cling to antiquity, which cannot now be led astray by any novel deceit.
What if in antiquity itself error be detected on the part of two or three men, or perhaps of a city, or even of a province? Then he will look to it that he prefer the decrees of an ancient General Council, if such there be, to the rashness and ignorance of a few.
But what if some error spring up concerning which nothing of this kind is to be found? Then he must take pains to find out and compare the opinions of the ancients, provided, of course, that such remained in the communion and faith of the One Catholic Church, although they lived in different times and places, conspicuous and approved teachers; and whatever he shall find to have been held, written and taught, not by one or two only, but by all equally and with one consent, openly, frequently and persistently, that he must understand is to be believed by himself also without the slightest hesitation.


What is the Rule of Prayer? I often hear people thank God about how their prayer being answered such as in competition. But what I'm thinking is, the winner is not absolutely the only one that prayed. I believe everybody in the competition pray and hope to win too. So, in this condition, only one person's prayer will be answered.

So, how does God decide which person's prayer to answer? Is it based on how hard s/he prayed, or how much s/he deserved it? or is it according to His will only?

If none of them pray, will the result be the same?

As a frequent competitor, I understand prayer as such following.

When I pray, I know that in whatever I do during the competition, God will be with me. As such, mishaps or any other unwanted disadvantages that may happen to me are voided. And thus I compete fairly with others with no disadvantages (such as sickness).

However God may not answer my prayer as it may be a lesson for me to learn.

God helps me with that, but as for the rest of the competition, it is up to me to accomplish it. God wouldn't want to intervene in order to help me win, because He wants to see me working hard and winning the competition in His will.

Competitions cannot be win by greed, as greed is sin. I pray to do my best of my abilities for all competitions.


Did God still dwell in the temple while Jesus was on Earth? This is just a question that has intrigued me and I can't think of a definite answer.

I understand that the presence of God dwelt first in the Tabernacle and then in Solomon's temple in Jerusalem. God promised to dwell with His people as long as they were faithful to Him, but Israel rebelled.

God allowed them to be taken captive by the Babylonians who then destroyed the temple as well. Also, Ezekiel talks about God's presence leaving the temple due to Israel's unfaithfulness.

Israel is eventually restored and the priesthood continues, as well as the temple and sacrificial system. God promises countless times about the full restoration of the temple, obviously pointing forward to Jesus.

So my question: Did God's presence ever return to the temple in post-exile Israel?

If so Was God's presence still dwelling in the temple while Jesus was on Earth?

I'm sorry my Scripture references are lacking, I hope this question makes sense.

If I read this passage in the Book of Exodus correctly, the presence of God was not connected to the Temple, but rather to the Mercy seat, which appears to be the top of the Ark of the Covenant.

All Scripture is quoted from the King James translation.

  Exodus 25:10  through 22And they shall make an ark of shittim wood: two cubits and a half shall be the length thereof, and a cubit and a half the breadth thereof, and a cubit and a half the height thereof. And thou shalt overlay it with pure gold, within and without shalt thou overlay it, and shalt make upon it a crown of gold round about. And thou shalt cast four rings of gold for it, and put them in the four corners thereof; and two rings shall be in the one side of it, and two rings in the other side of it. And thou shalt make staves of shittim wood, and overlay them with gold. And thou shalt put the staves into the rings by the sides of the ark, that the ark may be borne with them. The staves shall be in the rings of the ark: they shall not be taken from it. And thou shalt put into the ark the testimony which I shall give thee. And thou shalt make a mercy seat of pure gold: two cubits and a half shall be the length thereof, and a cubit and a half the breadth thereof. And thou shalt make two cherubims of gold, of beaten work shalt thou make them, in the two ends of the mercy seat. And make one cherub on the one end, and the other cherub on the other end: even of the mercy seat shall ye make the cherubims on the two ends thereof. And the cherubims shall stretch forth their wings on high, covering the mercy seat with their wings, and their faces shall look one to another; toward the mercy seat shall the faces of the cherubims be. And thou shalt put the mercy seat above upon the ark; and in the ark thou shalt put the testimony that I shall give thee. And there I will meet with thee, and I will commune with thee from above the mercy seat, from between the two cherubims which are upon the ark of the testimony, of all things which I will give thee in commandment unto the children of Israel.

Also if I am reading this passage correctly:

  1st Kings 8:1 through 10  Then Solomon assembled the elders of Israel, and all the heads of the tribes, the chief of the fathers of the children of Israel, unto king Solomon in Jerusalem, that they might bring up the ark of the covenant of the LORD out of the city of David, which is Zion. And all the men of Israel assembled themselves unto king Solomon at the feast in the month Ethanim, which is the seventh month. And all the elders of Israel came, and the priests took up the ark. And they brought up the ark of the LORD, and the tabernacle of the congregation, and all the holy vessels that were in the tabernacle, even those did the priests and the Levites bring up. And king Solomon, and all the congregation of Israel, that were assembled unto him, were with him before the ark, sacrificing sheep and oxen, that could not be told nor numbered for multitude. And the priests brought in the ark of the covenant of the LORD unto his place, into the oracle of the house, to the most holy place, even under the wings of the cherubims. For the cherubims spread forth their two wings over the place of the ark, and the cherubims covered the ark and the staves thereof above. And they drew out the staves, that the ends of the staves were seen out in the holy place before the oracle, and they were not seen without: and there they are unto this day. There was nothing in the ark save the two tables of stone, which Moses put there at Horeb, when the LORD made a covenant with the children of Israel, when they came out of the land of Egypt. And it came to pass, when the priests were come out of the holy place, that the cloud filled the house of the LORD,

The Lord's presence in Solomon's Temple began with the Mercy seat upon the Ark of the Covenant being placed in its spot in the Temple, and the exit of the Priests.

As to the question about God being in the Temple during Jesus lifetime the answer is not definitive, but Since that presence appears to be firmly attached to the Ark of the Covenant; and the incidents taking place in the Temple of Baal while the Philistines were in possession of the Ark of the Covenant, seem to validate that; the answer would appear to be no.

The basis for that assumption lies in the fact that the whereabouts of the  Ark of the covenant including the Mercy seat, has not been known since the Ravaging of the Temple, when Israel went into exile in Babylon.

At any rate neither the Ark of the covenant nor the Mercy seat were in the Temple when Jesus was alive, and since if the basic idea that Jesus is a part of the triune God held by many Christian denominations is true there would be no need for the voice of God in the Temple since the word of God was living among man in the form of a man. And since Jesus we have the word of God in the form of the Bible.


Was her name really Bathsheba? Her name is BATHsheba and she is famous for her bath on the rooftop...

Is this just some goofy English translation going on, or just a strange coincidence?

The apparent wordplay of Bathsheba bathing in the story of David and Bathsheba in 2 Samuel 11 is purely an artifact of English translation.

In the original Hebrew, the "Bath" in "Bathsheba" has no connection at all with the word translated "bathing" in some translations of 2 Samuel 11:2.

The Hebrew name בַּת־שֶׁבַע (bath-sheba) is a compound word composed of בַּת (bath), "daughter (of)" and שֶׁבַע sheba "seven" or, as often interpreted, שָׁבַע (shabah), "oath." So the name means "daughter of seven" or perhaps more likely, "daughter of an oath."

The Hebrew word for "bathing" or "washing" in 2 Samuel 11:2 is רָחַץ (rachats).

So in the original Hebrew there is no pun or wordplay involved in Bathsheba bathing.

Meanwhile, the English word "bath" comes from Germanic, not Hebrew, roots. It has no connection with the biblical story of Bathsheba. See "bath" at the Online Etymology Dictionary.


Is there a translation of the Bible into Hebrew that is based on the LXX+NT? What I mean by my question is this: Has the Septuagint and the Greek New Testament both been translated into Hebrew and put together in one volume?

These comments pertain only to the Septuagint portion of the question. OP elaborates in comments:

  I was wondering if anyone has attempted to restore the original Hebrew text on which the LXX was based by back-translating the LXX into Hebrew.

The interest, then, is driven by a text-critical question and requests a reconstructed text.* In the modern era, there are two major projects of which I am aware that have attempted this in some measure:

Emauel Tov's Parallel Aligned Database -- most accessibly available via several major Bible software packages. The so-called "column b" contains the reconstructed text of interest to OP. From the author's introduction:

  Column b contains a selection of retroverted readings, presumably
  found in the parent text of the LXX.  At the same time, column b
  contains some remarks on differences between the LXX and MT in matters
  of translation technique.

Much of his technique is explained in an introductory monograph by the author.
Although far from a complete LXX back-translation, The Hebrew Bible: A Critical Edition (formerly known as Oxford Hebrew Bible) deserves mention here for anyone interested in the use of LXX for text criticism of the Hebrew Bible. This aim is a complete eclectic edition of the Hebrew Bible. When the editors deem that the "best" reading is found in a Greek text, this will be reconstructed in Hebrew. The project is explained in the prologue.

*By contrast, the Polyglot Bibles mentioned in another answer reproduce and align several received texts. In all cases of which I am aware, the Hebrew in such books is the Masoretic Text, even when it differs substantially from the LXX.