What was it about the death of Jesus that allows God to forgive us? I've heard many people state that it was the punishment inflicted by the Romans that allows God to forgive us. This just doesn't make any sense to me.

How can a man suffer for a short while here on earth in order that a divine being have the right to forgive sin?

What is the framework of substitutionary atonement that makes Christ's death effective?

Let's start with your question title. For the sake of argument let's turn it around and ask "Why would God not be allowed for forgive us?" The problem lies in God's idea of justice. We could spend a lot of time one this one, but let's keep it it simple:

  Isaiah 61:8 (ESV)
  For I the Lord love justice; I hate robbery and wrong [...]

In order for Him to actually be just, he has to administer justice. In order for justice to be adminstered the proper recompense has to be made for any wrong-doing. We know that the only way to pay for sin is death:

  Romans 6:23 (ESV)
  For the wages of sin is death [...]

So we have to die. Or somebody has to die for us. The only person qualified to do that is Christ. The why is a subject for another question. Let's skip to what Christ did. When he was on the Cross he took upon himself the full wrath of God against all our sins.

  Isaiah 53:4-5 (ESV)
  Surely he has borne our griefs and carried our sorrows; yet we esteemed him stricken, smitten by God, and afflicted. But he was pierced for our transgressions; he was crushed for our iniquities; upon him was the chastisement that brought us peace, and with his wounds we are healed.

God chose to crush Him. The pain inflicted by the Romans was nothing compared to the weight of that wrath. Even humans can endure the torture of crucifixion for the amount of time Christ did ... longer in fact. The difference was that while the physical act was in progress he also bore an infinite amount of punishment from His own Father. How does that work out for those who believe in Him?

  Romans 5:9 (ESV)
  Since, therefore, we have now been justified by his blood, much more shall we be saved by him from the wrath of God.

To round this out I would point out that from a Reformed Protestant perspective, the notion that anything the hands of men could inflict upon Christ, no matter how brutal the Romans were could do anything to change God's ability to do or not do something is considered heretical. What Christ endured at the hands of the Romans an in crucifixion is both symbolic of a spiritual reality that was going on behinds the scenes, but also real in that that it put the rulers and authorities of this world to open shame while at the same time setting the stage for his physical resurrection to demonstrate his victory over death.

  Colossians 2:14-15 (ESV)
  [God] by canceling the record of debt that stood against us with its legal demands. This he set aside, nailing it to the cross. He disarmed the rulers and authorities and put them to open shame, by triumphing over them in him.

ANF01 - Clement 1st. ltr. to Corinth) Though your sins
reach from earth to heaven, I and though they be redder than scarlet, and blacker than sackcloth, yet if ye turn to Me with your whole heart, and say, Father! I will listen to you, as to a holy people.” 40 Comp. Isa. i. 18.
BLXX Isaiah 1:18

come, let us reason together, saith the Lord: and though your sins be as purple, I will make them white as snow; and though they be as scarlet, I will make them white as wool.”

Before God was manifested on Earth through Jesus, the Hebrews received forgiveness of sin from God. After the crucifixion people still receive forgiveness of sin from God. The Redemption paid by Jesus through the incarnation, the passion, and the crucifixion, washed all mankind of original sin, which had stained man since Cain and Able were born. We are all now washed in the blood of Christ. But when we sin, we must still ask God for forgiveness, and must believe we have received it.

Jesus had His own explanation of the consequences of keeping the laws.

Jesus said:Mt. 5: 17* ¶ Think not that I am come to destroy the law (Torah), or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill. 18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. 19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20 For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.

And: He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me: and he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and will manifest myself to him.

There are some 70 commandments given by Jesus in the NT.

(Matthew 28:19-20 KJV)  Go ye therefore, and teach all nations
(Matthew 22:37-38 KJV)      Thou shalt love the Lord thy God
(Matthew 22:39-40 KJV)  Thou shalt love thy neighbour
EXODUS 20:1-17 (KJV)    THE TEN COMMANDMENTS
(Matthew 7:12 KJV)      whatsoever ye would that men should do to               you
(Matthew 6:12 KJV)      we forgive our debtors.
(Mark 11:25-26 KJV)     forgive, if ye have ought against any
(John 3:7 KJV)      Ye must be born again.
(John 15:4 KJV)     Abide in me,
(Matthew 5:16 KJV; see  Let your light so shine before men
also Matthew 5:15)
(Matthew 5:23-25 KJV)   first be reconciled to thy brother,
(Matthew 5:29-30 KJV)   cut it off, and cast it from thee
(Matthew 5:34-37 KJV)   Swear not at all;  let your communication be,Yea; Nay,
(Matthew 5:38-39 KJV)   resist not evil:
(Matthew 5:40-42 KJV)   Give to him that asketh thee
(Matthew 5:43-45 KJV)   Love your enemies, ... be the children of your Father
(Matthew 6:1 KJV)       do not your alms before men
 (Matthew 6:5-7 KJV)     pray to thy Father which is in secret; use                     not vain repetitions
(Matthew 6:9-15 KJV)    After this manner therefore pray ye:
(Matthew 6:16)      when ye fast, be not, as the hypocrites, of a               sad countenance:
(Matthew 6:19-21)   Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon earth lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven
(Matthew 6:25-26 KJV)   Behold the fowls of the air ... reap not,                   gather not
(Matthew 6:34 KJV)      Take therefore no thought for the morrow
(Matthew 6:33 KJV)      seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his                   righteousness
(Matthew 7:1-2 KJV)     For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall                   be judged
(Matthew 7:6 KJV)       Give not that which is holy unto the dogs
(Matthew 7:7 KJV)       Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye                shall find
(Matthew 25:34-36 KJV) -2   ye gave me meat; ye took me in: ye clothed              me: ye visited me:  ye came unto me.
(Matthew 7:13-14 KJV)   Enter ye in at the strait gate
                and few there be that find it
(Matthew 7:15 KJV)      Beware of false prophets
(Matthew 10:1 KJV)      to heal all manner of sickness and all                  manner of disease.
Matthew 10:8 KJV)       Heal the sick, cleanse the lepers, raise the                dead, cast out devils:
(Matthew 18:10 KJV) despise not one of these little ones
(Matthew 23:8-12 KJV) - 5   be not ye called Rabbi:
                call no man your father upon the earth
                Neither be ye called masters:
                But he that is greatest among you shall be                  your servant. whosoever shall exalt himself shall be                    abased;
                he that shall humble himself shall be                   exalted
(Matthew 18:15-17 KJV) - 3  go and tell him his fault between thee and              him alone:
                take with thee one or two more,
                tell it unto the church:
(Mark 11:22-24 KJV) - 2 Have faith in God.
                shall not doubt in his heart, but shall                     believe
                when ye pray, believe that ye receive them
(John 15:12 KJV)        love one another, as I have loved you.
(Luke 22:19-20 KJV)         do this in remembrance of me.
(John 13:14 KJV)        ye also ought to wash one another's feet.
(Luke 6:35b KJV)        Be ye therefore merciful
(Matthew 28:19-20 KJV)  Go ye therefore, and teach all nations,                     baptizing them
(John 14:15 KJV)        keep my commandments.
(Luke 12:40 KJV)        Be ye therefore ready also


Why should a sinner suffer forever in hell fire? In my little knowledge I believe any form of punishment is a way of curbing crimes or wrong doings and for others to learn not to do wrong. When this life ends some would be in heaven and the rest in hell fire as punishment for their wrong doings.

My question is why should there be punishment forever since there is no one to learn from these people any more and they cannot even repent? Why not just annihilate them and be remembered no more?

What am I missing? Is my understanding of punishment different? How does Christian doctrine approach the issue of the duration of hell? What purpose do they see it serving that makes it an eternal necessity? What basis do they cite for their understanding?

I immediately thought of C.S. Lewis' "The Great Divorce" upon reading this question. In the book, he puts forth the idea that separation from God is what sinners desire, and God gives them what they desire. I did some digging and found this blog (written by Bird) on the topic:

"The idea of Hell being something of a choice for the damned fits hand-in-glove with the idea represented by C. S. Lewis who said that the damned souls are in some sense successful rebels to the end, and, as Lewis' character George MacDonald says in The Great Divorce,

  "There are two types of people in the world. Those who say to God,
  'Thy will be done,' and those to whom God says, in the end, 'Thy will
  be done.'"

I'll end with another Keller quotation from...(The Reason For God):

  "All God does in the end with people is give them what they most want,
  including freedom from himself. What could be more fair than that?"

Source: "Hope all things about your brethren"

Why should a sinner suffer forever in hell fire? Short answer, They Don't.

Punishment is indeed a way of curbing crimes or wrong doings and for others to learn not to do wrong. The idea that when this life ends some would be in heaven and the rest in hell fire as punishment for their wrong doings, is a misunderstanding.

Why should there be punishment forever since there is no one to learn from these people any more and they cannot even repent?
The point is to learn from the death of others, therefore the ones to learn the lessons are the ones left alive. And since the purpose of repentance is to stop sinning and to do what God says. Death is the last form of repentance. No Life, no Sin, and "Must do as God says".

Why not just annihilate them and be remembered no more? For some this might be what happens.

What am I missing? You are missing the true definition of Hell.

Is my understanding of punishment different? Your understanding of punishment is right on.

How does Christian doctrine approach the issue of the duration of hell? You are there until you are called back to life.

What purpose do they see it serving that makes it an eternal necessity? God in the end has it his way. We have been given opportunity to do it his way while alive. If we refuse, then we receive death.

What basis do they cite for their understanding? It is formed by a melting of concepts. Soon I hope that you will see.

The Old Testament was written in Hebrew. And the Hebrew word for Grave is "Sheol". When someone died, it was custom to bury the dead, therefore placing the body in Sheol, or in English terms "Placing the body into a grave."

The New Testament was written in Greek. And the Greek word for Sheol is Hades [a]. Now in the days of the Roman Empire they cremated the bodies. For Jerusalem the would have the bodies cremated in a valley name Gehenna. Now all these words Sheol, Hades, and Gehenna where translated into a default Old English word "Hell".

In another piece of literature that was common in those days named "The Book of Enoch". There is a story about how angels defied God and later where tortured for a duration of darkness. In 2 Peter, an example of this story was used to teach something, the Greek Word that Peter used was Tartaroo [b] (meaning "throw to Tartarus"). This word unfortunately also was translated as Hell.

So what do we get when we mix all these concepts together? Death, Fire, Eternity of Pain, Darkness, and Punishment. So this might make you feel better. If you choose not to believe in God. You will die and stay dead, your body will either be put into a grave, or your body will be cremated. Unless, God decides to raise you from the dead anyways, just for kicks.

References:
[a] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hades
[b] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tartarus


Are there theological differences between the Greek Orthodox church and the Coptic (Egyptian) Orthodox church? Is there a theological difference between the Greek Orthodox church and the Coptic (Egyptian) Orthodox church?

The basic between the two is over the Christological definition accepted at the Council of Chalcedon in 451, where Christ was recognized as being worshiped both 'in' two natures that exist 'inconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, inseparably'. The Copts and other miaphysites believed that this definition was ambiguous and could be understood in a Nestorian manner. They preferred to speak of Christ being worshiped in one human-divine nature 'out of' two natures. Much of the difficulty here arises from the ambiguity of the term 'nature'-- is it a particular, in the manner the Nestorians used it (equivalent to hypostasis) or a universal (equivalent to 'ousia', essence)? If it is the former, then the story of the Incarnation is the story of the Word of God uniting to a particular human being named Jesus at the moment of his conception, which is in fact how Nestorius and his followers understood the incarnation. If 'nature' is a universal, however, then the Incarnation is the story of the Word of God uniting with human nature and becoming Jesus. That is, in this theology, the person of Jesus is identical to the person of the Word of God who has taken on humanity, not a person who is somehow united to the Word. In any case, the Second Council of Constantinople of 553 affirms the latter narrative as the understanding of the Incarnation accepted by the Greeks as well.

So, at this point, the differences between Coptic and Greek theology become a very subtle game of parsing technical language. However, the Copts do not officially accept any of the ecumenical councils accepted by the Greeks, from Chalcedon on. This leads to the often-overlooked theological difference of Copts speaking of one will in Christ while Greeks, following the Third Council of Council of Constantinople of 680-681, speak of two wills in Christ, human and divine in perfect harmony.

"The Chalcedonians' understanding is that Christ is in two natures, full humanity and full divinity. Just as humans are of their mothers and fathers and not in their mothers and fathers, so too is the nature of Christ according to Oriental Orthodoxy. If Christ is in full humanity and in full divinity, then He is separate in two persons as the Nestorians teach.[8] This is the doctrinal perception that makes the apparent difference which separated the Oriental Orthodox from the Eastern Orthodox."

This wiki explanation is difficult to follow because of the grammar violations and also the narrative flow violation.

Written one way, the Coptic thinking is merely about a 'misunderstanding'.  Written another way, it is a heresy in contradiction to the Holy Spirit inspired 'Greek' understanding. I think it matters that The Judaic Texts were translated into Greek in a miraculous manner, as a sign that this translation is the one that Our Lord wanted the world to follow as accurately conveying the message of God and the history of God and his people.

Christ Himself called Himself the Son of God, and chastises Philip -(to paraphrase)  "have you been with me so long and don't realise that I the Son am in God -the Trinity seen as a singular unit- and God the Father is in Me (all Three of Us are Always in Unity and Undivisble, even though I have put on the flesh of my most prized servant ...in other words We Three-The Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit- are of one Essence, One Mind and One Nature....whereas as the God-Man, Christ is of two natures in one Person.) We don't have a fourth person in the Trinity. Christ-Incarnate means simply that, the Son of God hath put on Flesh with all its properties bodily, soul and spirit, different than the Divine Properties, but akin to them;  to effect the Great Salvific Ekonomia of His People ie to save them from their sins.

This is the difference, very simply put, and using simple grammatical language.  Furthermore the Coptic and Nestorian understanding lends itself to the Avatar notion of trans-positioning (i don't know the precise term) wherein they could say God the Son attached Himself to "Jesus" a unique person, separate from the Essential Unique Son of the Trinity as was  explained above. This fusion of mis conceptions and grammatical error will prove useful to confusing people into being led to understand the Hypostatic God as a mere man....a very prominent freemasonic, muslim and buddhist notion and, furthermore,  new age.   I remember that when I was a buddhist, the gurus told us that Christ (yes, Christ-God) was meditating somewhere in France.  I remember in my deluded state being so pleased with hearing that, and i even Thanked Jesus for allowing me to be a buddhist. I remember even being encouraged to work harder in my meditation. That is how far the delusion can go and ofcourse Christ couldn't allow me to go on in that state, but that is another story.

So I wish the Coptics and Nestorians would get it together and admit their error...and reform at least for the sake of the souls of the people who they are entrusted to pastor.

I know we have to be kind and such, but the truth is the Coptics are just being stubborn. Plain and simple...and they in this regard need to realise the danger they are leading their peoples in.

Im sorry if some feel i am preaching or being judgmental. Jugmental (in secular context) means condemning. I am not condemning, nor am i  preaching. I am being very frank.  I have not condemn anyone to hell, I am just stating facts.

Im not going to deny my experience or historical experience either.  Here is the quote in its entirety.  I think my personal experience highlights the danger that people will enter into when we are exposed to wrong thinkings about Christ as the God-Man, one of the three persons of the Trinity, Singular and yet Three Distinct Persons.

Below is the source of the above quote: 14 John 1-11.

14 Let not your heart be troubled: ye believe in God, believe also in me.

2 In my Father's house are many mansions: if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you.

3 And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again, and receive you unto myself; that where I am, there ye may be also.

4 And whither I go ye know, and the way ye know.

5 Thomas saith unto him, Lord, we know not whither thou goest; and how can we know the way?

6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

7 If ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also: and from henceforth ye know him, and have seen him.

8 Philip saith unto him, Lord, show us the Father, and it sufficeth us.

9 Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Show us the Father?

10 Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? the words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works.

11 Believe me that I am in the Father, and the Father in me: or else believe me for the very works' sake.


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

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

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

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

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

Only thing I'd add is that it's also based on meeting attendance.  A witness that attends meetins regularly but doesn't really preach can still be considered active.  "Inactive" is usually people who stop attending for a while (but haven't "disassociated themselves" per the article above.


What does the The Episcopal Church mean when it says it allows everyone to participate in Holy Communion? What does the The Episcopal Church mean when it says it allows everyone to participate in Holy Communion? What is meant by "everyone"? Is it "all Christians", "all observant Christians", or "all human beings regardless of baptism"?

Canon 1, section 17 of the Canon law of the Episcopal Church states,

  No unbaptized person shall be eligible to receive Holy Communion in this Church.

This restricts reception of Holy Communion to Christians only. Actual practices differ some between Episcopal parishes, with respect to further restrictions on who can receive. I know of parishes where the custom is to allow any baptized Christian to receive, and others which restrict reception to those delay Communion until a later time, for example, until after a course of instruction, which means that some baptized Christians might be excluded, for example those younger than a particular age. Every parishes at which I have attended communion make it public either by posting the information in a prominent place, or by means of an announcement just prior to the Communion part of the Service the particular custom of the parish as far as who can receive communion.

The canons, and the US Book of Common Prayer further restrict who can receive communion. According to the US Book Of Common Prayer, (P. 409) Baptized persons who are living a "notoriously evil life", "those who have done wrong to their neighbors and are a scandal to other members of the congregation", when "there is hatred between members of the congregation", and where there has been hatred, and one side is sincerely repentant, but "those on the other side refuse to forgive"are to be informed privately that they may not "come to the Holy Table until he (or she) has given clear proof of repentance and amendment of life",

In those parishes of which I have personal knowledge, the general custom is that a visitor is welcome to present himself or herself for Holy Communion if that person is eligible to present himself or herself for Holy Communion the parish he or she customarily attends.

Persons who are not eligible to receive Holy Communion, are in some parishes, still welcome to present themselves at the communion rail, in order to receive a Pastoral Blessing.

I think it means if you think you're right with God, confessed your sins, received forgiveness and want to take Communion, do it.


Do Paul and Jesus disagree on homosexuality? Romans 1:26-27:

  [26] For this reason God gave them over to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged the natural sexual relations for unnatural ones, [27] and likewise the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed in their passions for one another. Men committed shameless acts with men and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.

Jesus said nothing about homosexuality (from what we know) yet Paul teaches strongly against it (continuing in other verses). How do Christians who believe homosexuality is wrong justify the potential discrepancy here?

You are correct in stating that there are no recorded teachings of Jesus on homosexuality.  However, to suggest that this means there is disagreement between Paul and Jesus is unreasonable, since it is comparing something to nothing. It is certainly wrong to assume that Jesus disagreed with Paul on that just because He never explicitly indicates His agreement -- with Paul and the Law of Moses.

Indeed, if Jesus had disagreed with Moses on this, we should expect to hear about it in His teaching. If, however, He agreed with Moses, then why go to great pains to point that out?

It should be noted that Jesus was Jewish and lived among Jewish people in a Jewish culture.  This whole culture was based on Mosaic teachings that held that homosexuality was wrong and had a very stiff penalty spelled out for it, much like adultery. People caught in adultery still suffered the possibility of death (see John 8:1-11). It is quite likely that this was simply not practiced in this culture.

Jesus never taught that eating pork was wrong either, because everyone in that culture agreed with that and no one ate pork. The idea of "preaching to the choir" about getting involved in the church comes to mind.

During Jesus' life, Israel was still under the Old Covenant, so the prohibition against eating pork was still in effect. Paul's writings occur in the New Testament, but reaffirm the prohibition of Moses against homosexuality.

So, there's absolutely no "discrepancy", and any intimation that Jesus supported homosexuality is not reasonable.

Jesus "did not come to abolish the Law, but to fulfill it" [Matthew 5:17].

Please read this with an open mind, this explanation must necessarily be very long—I am trying to debunk centuries of human error after all!—Mind you, all humans are full of error, except of course for one person crucified some 2,000 years ago. Don't think that I am trying to attack anyone, I am merely stating my faith, since none of us are perfect we are going to have disagreements.

I would actually say that Jesus was not silent on the issue of homosexuality. It should be mentioned that the whole idea of sexual orientation, and the term homosexuality, is quite new. "Homosexual" was not in the english language until it was coined in the late 19th century. Thus, any inclusion of the word in the Bible was added by contemporary translators to make certain passages more clear for modern readers. However, I am quite confident that a certain quote from Jesus is specifically referring to the natural nature of homosexuality, and this has not been changed to the modern word "homosexual" because of the inherent sin of humans—that is to say, the human translators refuse to include the term if its inclusion is at odds with their hatred and judgements—essentially slandering Jesus to suite their own sinful and human desires; we are all sinners and imperfect.

The quote comes from Matthew 19. The Pharisees (the most conservative. scripture-affirming sect of Jews) asked Jesus if a man could divorce his wife for any reason, which is allowed under Mosaic law in the old testament (Deut 24:1). Jesus then tells them that a man and woman become one in the eyes of god, and that you shouldn't thus split that which is one in the eyes of god. It should be noted that Jesus is explicitly disagreeing with scripture, which he does in other places, thus disproving the rather new concept of "Biblical inerrancy". It is hard for modern readers to see this, but Jesus is actually saying in his response in Matt 19:8 that "I, god, like some of the things in your scripture, but you're mostly full of s**t, listen to what I have to say". Some use Jesus's statement of "he made them man and woman" to justify their hatred against homosexuals, or that this is the only sexual orientation, but this is taken out of context: he was asked a question about husband and wife, so he gave an answer regarding husband and wife, he was not condemning homosexuals. After he says that you shouldn't divorce your wife (notwithstanding adultery), his disciples say to him that it is better not to marry. Jesus then says that not all can accept their statement: some are born eunuchs (more on this later), some are made eunuchs by others (obvious that this refers to castration), and others make themselves eunuchs for the sake of god (meaning they remain celibate, the answer his disciples have come up with), and that only people whom "god helps" can be a "religious eunuch" or someone that remains celibate for god; clearly not everybody who is saved falls into this third category. What could Jesus have possibly meant when he said that "some are born eunuchs in their mothers' wombs"? Unless he is talking about some poor toddler that suffers from erectile disfunction, or some poor fetus whose mother stuck an exact-o knife up her hoo-ha to castrate him, Jesus is clearly talking about homosexuals, and he is saying that they are born that way. Under Roman law (which provided legal definitions for all under its rule, including the jews), there were two types of eunuchs: the castrated variety, and the natural, un-castrated variety who had no interest in women (which we would now call homosexuals, what Jesus was talking about). If you don't believe me, read the Roman Legal document Lex Julia et Papia. Thus, at the very least, one has to accept that Jesus said homosexuals are born that way.

Furthermore, Jesus specifically did decry certain behaviors. For instance, Jesus says that it is not our place to judge others ( like condemning others for their sexual orientation) for we are not the judge, and that we may see the problems in others' lives but not the greater faults in our own (Matt 7, Luke 6, to name a couple places). So, even if Jesus thinks homosexuality is a sin, though I don't believe that he does, it is not our place to be the judge. In simple terms: It does nothing to serve god or his interests to judge and hate others and prevent gay people from marrying, nor does gay marriage harm straight marriage, society, or the faith and salvation of others, while there is a strong possibility one will be judged on par with their own judgment. People should question who they are serving when they don't allow gay people to live their lives in a natural way, god or their own sinful, hating nature (we all sin and hate from time to time, I am not trying to be pious or judgmental).

We know that one's sexual orientation is not a choice, but rather a complicated process of genetic and environmental causes. Talk to any gay Christian that has struggled with the issue for most of their lives, look at the overwhelming psychological and genetic evidence (the penetrance rate of homosexuality and its location on the X chromosome). Unless you are of the minority christian view that says science is wrong you must accept this (science and faith do not need to be in conflict, Jesus himself did not take old testament scripture as literal inerrant truth as evidenced by some arguments I have made, and if science is wrong then God is a liar and has gone to inconceivable lengths to obscure the truth from us). To think that people make the choice to be gay in a gay-hating society is kind of like covering your ears, closing your eyes, and going "lalalala".

On the issue of Paul, he is probably wrong. Many people say the bible (and Paul's writings in it) is the 100% inherent word of god, but this view is demonstrably incorrect. This did not become the defining, integral nature of certain Christian movements until the Niagara Creed of 1878, and the Bible is not necessary for Christianity (how else did it grow from nothing in the 3 centuries that it existed before the orthodox biblical cannon was created?). Each of the Gospels give different and sometimes contradictory accounts, and there are contradictions throughout both testaments (such as the salvation through faith alone view of Paul vs. the faith and good works view of Peter, also read Mark 2:26 and 1 Samuel 1-6 see if you can find the error). Furthermore, unless Jesus wrote something (he didn't, we only have what other people said he said), I don't care how divinely inspired you are, you are only an imperfect human and you are not capable of writing the inerrant word of god. If humans are capable of such perfect divine revelation, I question the necessity of Jesus' existence in the first place, or all of the disagreements we humans have. Paul, while divorcing Christianity from a lot of the incorrect teachings of Judaism, was an imperfect human and made some mistakes by keeping certain traditional jewish views (like ordering women to cover their head during prayer in 1 Corinthians, or the 3 statements he made from a Jewish perspective on homosexuality).

Finally, we have to ask whether homosexual marriage is a fundamentally legal or religious issue in 21st century America. Since we do not live in a Christian Theocracy, since Marriage is a legal term that influences benefits and taxation, since we are even having a discussion about the legality of gay marriage, we are talking about a fundamentally legal issue. This legal issue certainly has religious connotations within church's, but church's are allowed to limit their views on marriage in their own church, not in the country as an entirety (gay marriage would not force church's to accept and practice it, and marriages independent of any religion already exist). I hope that I have substantially made the case for Jesus's message: love, not judgment. I know most people who actually read this far will disagree with me, and that is fine—I am merely a human, I am not perfect, it is possible I have made a mistake, but it is equally as possible every other human has made a mistake as well. Have a blessed day, and praise god.


What is the Roman Catholic Church doctrinal justification of its perceived opposition or support of the independence of Catalonia? According to the New York Daily News,

  Vida Nueva (New Life) internet publication said the pope told Spain's new ambassador to the Vatican, Gerardo Bugallo, that the Holy See is against all self-determination moves that are outside decolonization processes.

(I have to say that although this is circulating in the news I don't know if there is an official statement from the Vatican).

In Spain though, some 400 priests openly support Catalonian independence.

I'm confused as to what business the Catholic Church would have in supporting or opposing an independence movement, unless it is related to its doctrine or the Bible.

the Holy See is against all self-determination moves that are outside decolonization processes.

The Catholic reason for this is fairly simple. The people don't have a right to overthrow or revolt against legitimate rulers. The reason that decolonization processes are good is that they take away a nation's unjust claim to another sovereign peoples. IE, the colonized land was gained via unjust military action. Those are illegitimate rulers.

The syllabus of errors, a papal encyclical listing statements to be condemned, contains this statement:

  It is lawful to refuse obedience to legitimate princes, and even to rebel against them.

That is, the above statement is condemned by the Catholic Church as false.


What prophets came from Galilee? This question talks about how in John 7:52, the Pharisees claimed that "no prophet comes out of Galilee." The accepted answer discusses how commentators often point out the Pharisees' mistake, and N.T. Wright points out that "both the prophets Jonah and Hosea came from Galilee." In addition, I found this link, which says that 5 prophets came from Galilee:  Jonah, Nahum, Hosea, Elijah, and Elisha. BibleStudyTools.org has an article with a discussion about how Micah, Elijah, and Jonah being from Galilee, and how Nahum and Hosea could possibly have come from Galilee.

Which prophets are from Galilee, and how do we know? An associated question, what is the source of the uncertainty surrounding this question? Perhaps I could word the question, what is the (Biblical and archeological) basis for saying that these 5 prophets are from Galilee?

Jonah from Gath-hepher

  2 Kings 14:25 "He was the one who restored the boundaries of Israel from Lebo Hamath to the Dead Sea, in accordance with the word of the Lord, the God of Israel, spoken through his servant Jonah son of Amittai, the prophet from Gath Hepher."

Wikipedia on Gath-hepher says it is in modern-day Galilee (maybe that's what it is saying?). Joshua 29:13 describes more where this place is.

Micah from Moresheth

  Micah 1:1 The word of the Lord that came to Micah of Moresheth during the reigns of Jotham, Ahaz and Hezekiah, kings of Judah—the vision he saw concerning Samaria and Jerusalem.

BibleAtlas.org doesn't mention Galilee at all in the article on Moresheth, nor does Wikipedia in their article on Moresheth-Gath. Wikipedia says Moresheth = Moresheth-Gath.

Elijah from Gilead

  1 Kings 17:1 "Now Elijah the Tishbite, from Tishbe in Gilead, said to Ahab, 'As the Lord, the God of Israel, lives, whom I serve, there will be neither dew nor rain in the next few years except at my word.'"

2 Kings 15:29 actually seems to differentiate between Gilead and Galilee, which suggests that Gilead is not contained within Galilee.

Wikipedia on Gilead makes no mention of Galilee, and the Bible Atlas also seems to differentiate Gilead from Galilee by saying that in Gilead there is "the white chalk of the desert plateau, the same as that found in Samaria and Lower Galilee."

Elisha

(I don't know the basis).

Hosea

(I don't know the basis).

I would like to see the basis for 4 and 5 (Elisha and Hosea) being from Galilee, and I would like to see how we can know 1-3 are actually from Galilee. I would also be interested if there are any other claims that additional prophets are from Galilee. My questions stems from the fact that none the verses say explicitly from Galilee, and I have seen almost nothing supporting the connection between the city mentioned and Galilee. Pardon my lack of knowledge in biblical geography. Perhaps it is obvious that these cities are contained in the region that is Galilee. There may also be a notable difference between the geographical boundaries in Galilee between the Old and New Testament timeframes or even within the Old Testament timeframe, which contains several thousand years of history on its own.

I don't see how any denominational restriction will affect the answers, so I don't propose any.

The passage demonstrates how disputes arise from ignorance. Some identfied Jesus as the Prophet (v41, spoken of by Moses). Some asserted that Christ must arise from Bethlehem (v42, spoken of by Micah). And there was a division as to whether Jesus was the Messiah.

The truth is that Jesus was born Bethlehem even though he lived in Galilee.

The wonderful thing about honest and open seeking into the truth, greater truths are revealed.

The Pharisees mishandled the truth by making and maintaining mistaken assumptions.

Is anything much different today?


What is the significance of Ehud being left-handed? In Judges 3 we find an interesting story about Israel's left-handed assassin and his hit on Moab's obese king, Eglon.

  Judges 3:15-22 ESV Then the people of Israel cried out to the Lord, and the Lord raised up for them a deliverer, Ehud, the son of Gera, the Benjaminite, a left-handed man. The people of Israel sent tribute by him to Eglon the king of Moab. And Ehud made for himself a sword with two edges, a cubit in length, and he bound it on his right thigh under his clothes. And he presented the tribute to Eglon king of Moab. Now Eglon was a very fat man. And when Ehud had finished presenting the tribute, he sent away the people who carried the tribute. But he himself turned back at the idols near Gilgal and said, “I have a secret message for you, O king.” And he commanded, “Silence.” And all his attendants went out from his presence. And Ehud came to him as he was sitting alone in his cool roof chamber. And Ehud said, “I have a message from God for you.” And he arose from his seat. And Ehud reached with his left hand, took the sword from his right thigh, and thrust it into his belly. And the hilt also went in after the blade, and the fat closed over the blade, for he did not pull the sword out of his belly; and the dung came out.

Is there a historical/cultural/spiritual/sensible reason we're explicitly told he was left-handed? It doesn't seem to make a bit of difference to the outcome.

Ehud was a Benjamite and the phrase translated "left handed man" is a very interesting Hebrew idiom. It literally reads "a man bound/restricted in his right hand." The same phrase is used in Judges 20:16 to describe 700 slingers (also of the tribe of Benjamin). These two verses are the only places where this idiom is used.

  Judges 20:16 Among all this people there were seven hundred chosen men bound in the right hand; every one could sling stones at an hair breadth, and not miss. [KJV with the left handed idiom shown more literally]

There is another phrase used much more frequently to describe being left handed or turning to the left. It appears 54 times in the Old Testament (e.g. Gen 13:9; 14:15).

Noting that both instances of this idiom refer to Benjamites, the translators' notes on the NET state:

  Perhaps the Benjaminites purposely trained several of their young men to be left-handed warriors by restricting the use of the right hand from an early age so the left hand would become dominant. Left-handed men would have a distinct military advantage, especially when attacking city gates. See B. Halpern, “The Assassination of Eglon: The First Locked-Room Murder Mystery,” BRev 4 (1988): 35.

1 Chronicles 12:2 also mentions a squad of ambidextrous soldiers who were also Benjamites. David's general Joab is also shown to be either left handed or ambidextrous in 2 Samuel 20:8-10. He grabs his opponents beard with his right hand while holding a sword in his left. The opponent takes no heed of the sword in his left and is undefended when Joab strikes. (See also the Iliad, 21.161-68, where Asteropaios, being ambidextrous, throws two spears at once at Achilles.)

When Ehud approached the room to see Eglon, he would have been inspected by the guards. As being right handed was more common then (just as it is now), they would have searched his left side for a concealed weapon more carefully than the right. A right handed person draws a long blade from the left side. Apparently, upon seeing the left side was clear, they didn't search the right for hidden weapons. After all, it was unlikely that he could draw and use a blade from that side.

Aside

The military advantage to being left handed are such as the enemy expects to be fighting a right handed man. The lefty has the element of surprise which even for a few seconds can determine the outcome. This holds only for individual combat. Units fighting together would want all to be using the same hand. Then, if you have a whole unit of lefties against a unit of righties, you have the left advantages again. They are trained to fight righties (and are attacking the unshielded side), while the righties have to rethink and mirror every offensive move they make while trying to stay alive.

In the Lincoln Cathedral, the spiral staircases are wrong handed and were defended by men from a Scottish clan almost exclusively left handed. The reversed direction caused invaders to be holding their weapons and shields on the wrongs sides as they tried to climb, but the defenders would fight unhindered.

Relevance theory suggests that something is mentioned overtly because it is unusual and needs to be noted.  Ehud was left-handed, or at least trained himself to use his left hand, and made his own weapon, probably in defiance of Moabite attempts to disarm Israel.  I would consider this brave, and gutsy, not cowardly deception.  The text claims God raised up Ehud to deliver Israel, endowing him with a plan, and the gutsiness to carry it out.


What churches identify themselves as being Modalist? There are a number of denominations that are labeled as being Modalist, such as the United Pentecostals, and others associated with Oneness Pentecostalism whom subscribe to the nontrinitarian theological doctrine of Oneness. However, although some Oneness theologians indicate that the doctrine of Oneness and Modalistic Monarchianism are essentially the same, and that Sabellius–from whom the concept of modalism originates–was basically correct, I've yet to discover any churches that identify themselves as being Modalist by definition.

Are there any churches that identify themselves as being Modalist? Or is it a term used only by Trinitarians to label Oneness denominations as heretical?

The label modalist has been so strongly stigmatised over the millennia that we shouldn't expect to find anyone who calls themselves one now. Regardless of whether it is in reality a correct or incorrect understand of God, in our language it is basically defined as a heresy. And no one wants to be known as a heretic.

Sometimes people have reclaimed stigmatised labels (such as the LGBT community reclaiming queer), but those who believe in modalism have instead come up with new synonymous terms, one of which is the Oneness of God. A church which proclaimed that they taught modalism would scare away any potential visitors, but a church which proclaims the Oneness of God? That sounds more enticing.

David K. Bernard is the general superintendent of the United Pentecostal Church International. In his book The Oneness of God he plainly and openly teaches modalism, and declares that Oneness is a new synonym for it (emphasis added):

  We also explore the relationships and distinctions
  among the three terms of Father, Son and Holy
  Ghost. Do these terms identify three different persons
  or personalities in the Godhead? Or do they
  indicate three different roles, modes, functions, or
  offices through which the one God operates and reveals
  Himself? (p125)

  In a similar way, the Holy Ghost or Holy Spirit
  is not a separate person from the Father any more
  than a man and his spirit are separate persons. Holy
  Spirit just describes what God is. First John 5:7 says
  that three bear record in heaven; that is, God has
  recorded Himself in three modes of activity or has
  revealed Himself in three ways. He has at least three
  heavenly roles: Father, Word (not Son), and Holy Ghost.
  Furthermore, these three roles describe one God: “these
  three are one.” (p141)

  The Bible speaks of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost
  as different manifestations, roles, modes, titles, attributes,
  relationships to man, or functions of the one
  God, but it does not refer to Father, Son, and Holy
  Ghost as three persons, personalities, wills, minds, or
  Gods. (p144)

  The modalist doctrine is usually explained simply
  as the belief that the Father, Son, and Holy
  Ghost are only manifestations, or modes, of the one
  God (the monarchia), and not three distinct persons
  (hypostases). (p248)

  Basically, modalism is the same as the modern doctrine of Oneness. (p318)

  Thus Oneness is a modern term basically
  equivalent to modalism or modalistic monarchianism. (p321)

  Sabellianism. ... The doctrine is basically equivalent to modern
  Oneness. (p324)

The UPCI website says that one of their doctrinal distinctives is the Oneness of God. It also has a tract arguing for the doctrine. The words 'modalism' and 'modes' aren't used, but clear synonyms are (emphasis added):

  1. Is the word trinity in the Bible? No.

  2. Does the Bible say that there are three persons in the Godhead? No.

  3. Does the Bible speak of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost? Yes.

  4. Do these titles as used in Matthew 28:19 mean that there are three separate and distinct persons in the Godhead? No, they refer to three offices, roles, or relationship to humanity.

  13. Who is the Father? The Father is the one God, particularly as revealed in parental relationship to humanity. Deuteronomy 32:6; Malachi 2:10.

  14. Where was God the Father while Jesus was on earth? The Father was in Christ. John 14:10; II Corinthians 5:19. He was also in heaven, for God is omnipresent.

  46. If God and the Holy Ghost are two separate persons, which was the Father of Christ? Matthew 1:20 says that the Holy Ghost was the Father, while Romans 15:6, II Corinthians 11:31, and Ephesians 1:3 say that God was the Father. There is no contradiction when we realize that God the Father and the Holy Ghost are one and the same Spirit. Matthew 10:20; Ephesians 4:4; I Corinthians 3:16.

  56. Can Trinitarians show that three divine persons were present when Jesus was baptized by John? Absolutely not. The one, omnipresent God used three simultaneous manifestations. Only one divine person was present--Jesus Christ the Lord.

Aside from Trinitarians, people who hold other Christological views tend to explain their views rather than just label them with a term, so you won't find a denomination saying on its website "We're Arian" or "We're Modalist" or "We're Samosatosians" or "We're Patrispassians." Its not going to happen, because how do these groups come to these conclusions?  From Scripture, not from following any man, so they think of their view as merely being the scriptural view.

Modalism is saying "God is one person; but he's called the Father sometimes, called the Son sometimes, called the Spirit sometimes," and further they will usually also say "God is one person: Jesus Christ."  So if anyone says that (i.e. "God is one person: Jesus Christ") then they are a modalist for sure.

But some Oneness may not be modalists, as some of the Sabellians and other monarchians such as Ebionites, Marcellians, and followers of Paul of Samosata, etc. also weren't modalists but rather were patripassians.  What they believed was that God is only the Father, the Spirit is a vehicle or energy by which the Father dwells among men, and Jesus is a man in whom God dwelt (from the baptism forward) in all his fulness but as something above and beyond his full manhood (i.e. he didn't replace his soul or intellectual faculty, so that Jesus was not God but just a man with God tagging alone inside him).   Because these say Jesus was not God, but only a man with God dwelling in him (but not controlling his body, Jesus' human soul still having full control) and since the spirit is hardly viewed as a person but rather as some sort of apparatus for God's dwelling in Jesus, this is certainly not modalism. Yet it is monarchianism, and I've seen at least one Oneness Pentecostal hold to a view like this.  [Some may have also seen God as taking over Jesus' will.  There's a bit of a range in belief that's possible with this stuff.]

Of course, all of these were labelled as heretical by the Catholic church...but I don't see why Protestants who do not derive directly from the "magisterial reformation" should even care about that.  The magisterial side of the Reformation (Luther, Calvin, Zwingli) continued some Catholic traditions like infant baptism and continued to give the Catholic councils some doctrinal authority.  But why should Baptists, Pentecostals, etc. who derive more from the Anabaptist side of the Reformation even pretend to care what any Catholic council had to say on anything?  To do so would be pure hypocrisy.


How Can I Appropriately Live Life Accordingly to God's Will? I have been struggling for the past five years. My civil rights were violated about three to four times and all being investigated by the Federal Bureau of Investigation. I am currently unemployed. I have had no luck in trying to get my portfolio of fantasy novels published either. It is still a professional hobby of mine where I have not earned any money. I am looking for an agent and publisher to no avail. Is this all part of God's will for my life? How do I know if I am living a life according to God's will?

God's will for a specific human life has less to do with what the circumstances of the life are and more to do with how that life responds to the circumstances.  Insofar as God orchestrates or allows the particular circumstances of a life He does so for two main reasons:

In order to give birth to faith,

  The God who made the world and everything in it, being Lord of heaven and earth, does not live in temples made by man, nor is he served by human hands, as though he needed anything, since he himself gives to all mankind life and breath and everything.  And he made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined allotted periods and the boundaries of their dwelling place,  that they should seek God, and perhaps feel their way toward him and find him. Yet he is actually not far from each one of us, - Acts 17:24-27

or to refine faith,

  Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ! According to his great mercy, he has caused us to be born again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead,  to an inheritance that is imperishable, undefiled, and unfading, kept in heaven for you,  who by God's power are being guarded through faith for a salvation ready to be revealed in the last time.  In this you rejoice, though now for a little while, if necessary, you have been grieved by various trials,  so that the tested genuineness of your faith—more precious than gold that perishes though it is tested by fire—may be found to result in praise and glory and honor at the revelation of Jesus Christ.  Though you have not seen him, you love him. Though you do not now see him, you believe in him and rejoice with joy that is inexpressible and filled with glory,  obtaining the outcome of your faith, the salvation of your souls.

If you have not yet abandoned your own efforts to shape your own life into a life that pleases God then I encourage you to lay everything down at the foot of the cross.  Jesus Christ, the Son of God has lived THE life that pleases God and you are invited to rest from your own efforts and take part in His life:

  because if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.  For with the heart one believes and is justified, and with the mouth one confesses and is saved. - Romans 10:9-10

If you are already born again by the grace of God through faith in Jesus, having appealed to God in Christ, trust that God's promise in Christ is to send His Holy Spirit to be in you to guide you into all truth, to testify to you of Jesus (reminding you of everything he said) and to undertake the process of sanctification (which is part of God's will for you).  This sanctification process often takes place in the fires of trial where we learn to subordinate our desires to the desires of God and it is ultimately for our eternal good.

  I appeal to you therefore, brothers, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God, which is your spiritual worship. Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that by testing you may discern what is the will of God, what is good and acceptable and perfect. - Romans 12:1-2

I do not know if God's will for you is to publish fantasy novels or do any other particular thing and you may not currently know either.  Remember that Abraham was called to go to a land that God would show him.  Abraham was the father of Faith precisely because God did not show him first but, rather, called him to walk by faith rather than by sight.  Abraham did and was called God's friend.

This is most often very difficult...no one enjoys discipline at the time (I know that I never have).  God is working to shape us into that which we cannot imagine but that He can clearly see.  Relax into the Potter's hands, struggle to give thanks in all circumstances, and trust in the Name of the Lord Jesus Christ.  He will never leave you nor forsake you.

Psalms 37:4-5 "Delight thyself also in the Lord; and he shall give thee the desires of thine heart. 5 Commit thy way unto the Lord; trust also in him; and he shall bring it to pass."

I have found doing the few things that God wants us to do is His will. Study the scriptures to gain insight into who God is. 2 Timothy 2:15. Pray for His will to be done and desire to do it. Last, and most important, is to share the gospel with whoever you can. Matthew 28:19-20. Once you commit yourself to these things He will give you what He wants you to desire. We often think God will give us what our own will wants. Rather God will give us His will. If you commit yourself to this then eventually it will come to pass.

If God wants you to be a successful writer then it will happen, He doesn't have that in mind for you are you willing to do something else? Maybe you cannot make a living off your writing but you can be a blessing to someone with that talent.


According to Catholicism, what is the difference between forgiveness and release from punishment? The first thing to note is that forgiveness of a sin is separate from punishment for the sin. Through sacramental confession we obtain forgiveness, but we aren't let off the hook as far as punishment goes.

That's a quote from Catholic Online's article on indulgences. I've never heard forgiveness spoken about in this way. Even the site's tag wiki for forgiveness specifically includes release from punishment. I know this question is similar, but its answers don't cover a Catholic view. The only well-sourced answer explains a Lutheran stance.

If God's forgiveness does not spare one from punishment, then what is it? Does this mean that the sacrament of confession alone does not spare you from punishment? Where does the Catholic Church get this distinction? Is there a biblical basis? Is it part of sacred tradition? Did a council decide it?

On another note, I learned while researching for this question that anyone who has completed the three prerequisites for an indulgence may gain one by participating on Christianity.SE:

  Christian Doctrine. Partial indulgence to those who take part in teaching or learning Christian doctrine.

According to Catholic theologians I have listened to, there is a difference between sins that are forgiven and the release of punishment due to sin.

1) Admitting a sin and asking for and receiving forgiveness.

2) Then, reparation for the damage caused by the sin.  The term "punishment" for sin is not usually used because it makes God sound kind of vengeful.

The example usually given by these theologians on EWTN radio, etc. is: Johnny breaks a window and is sorry for his mistake and asks for forgiveness from his father who then forgives him. However, he still needs to fix the broken window which is the reparation.

I personally find this type of official explanation of part 2) rather weak because many, many sins cannot be repaired in a normal sense.  For one thing, the person that was hurt may have died. Or, Johnny may not have any glass and glazing skills and dad will have to fix the window. Actually, this is the rationale of the Catholic church for purgatory.  Purgatory allows a period (non-time specific) of reparation for your sins if they were not adequately repaired while alive.  I am of the Catholic Church, but I question several dogmas/doctrines/beliefs.

I hope this information contributes—this is my first answer given.


What is the biblical support for the Nicene creed's statement of the Son being "eternally begotten"? What is the biblical support for the Nicene Creed's statement of the Son being "eternally begotten"?

Lee Irons addresses this question in his paper, "The Eternal Generation of the Son."  In response to the question of exegetical basis for the doctrine, he writes:

  Traditionally, the doctrine of the eternal generation of the Son was supported by an appeal to the five Johannine texts in which Christ is identified as monogenes (Jn 1:14, 18; 3:16, 18; I Jn 4:9). As early as Jerome's Vulgate, this word was understood in the sense of "only begotten" (unigenitus), and the tradition was continued by the Authorized Version.

Irons admits that modern scholars often reject this understanding of monogenes, but he contends that the traditional understanding is preferable. Following a textual variant, he renders John 1:18 as follows:

  No one has ever seen God, but the only begotten God, who is in the Father's bosom, has made him known

Now we must ask, in what sense is Jesus begotten?  Our experience with "begottenness" is always temporal – a baby does not exist, and then it is begotten and comes into existence.  The fathers at Nicaea, responding to Arianism, wanted to defend the eternity of the Son, so they said "eternally begotten" in their creed.  Though perhaps Schaff's translation of the phrase is more accurate:

  begotten of the Father before all worlds

Such language is reminiscent of several biblical passages, like John 17:5:

  And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.

And Colossians 1:15–17:

  Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature [...] 17 And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.

Irons concludes:

  The framers of the [Nicene] creed interpreted the Johannine monogenes in the traditional sense [...] The fathers of Nicea seem to have believed that the biblical teaching regarding the generation of the Son (as indicated by the term monogenes) was powerful evidence that he is homoousios with the Father!

While Paul's epistles and all four gospels inform us that Jesus is the Son of God, it is not until John's Gospel that we are told that Jesus was begotten from the beginning of time; the synoptic gospels appear to allow that Jesus was begotten in human time. John 1:1 tells us that the Word was with God in the beginning, John 1:14 identifies the Word with Jesus, begotten of the Father and in John 1:34, John the Baptist bears record that Jesus is the Son of God. In combination, these passages provide biblical support for the Nicene Creed's statement of the Son being "eternally begotten":

  John 1:1: In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
  John 1:14: And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.
  John 1:34: And I saw, and bare record that this is the Son of God.

While the Bible may be considered by some to be ambiguous on this, the Nicene Fathers did not consider the incarnation (John 1:14, "the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us") to be the moment when Jesus was begotten. This is apparent in the Nicene Creed of 325, where Jesus is begotten as being of one substance with the Father:

  And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, begotten of the Father [the only-begotten; that is, of the essence of the Father, God of God,] Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father;

That the Nicene Fathers and their immediate successors considered Jesus as begotten before the incarnation is made even clearer in the revision that came out of the First Council of Constantinople (381):

  And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds (æons) [eternally], Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father;


Why is the Song of Solomon in bible? Can someone explain what the song is all about? I read it and found out that the characters are not husband and wife. I want to understand the context in which the poem is written and a gist of the same.

I am indebted to Dr. Peter Leithart for his writings and lectures on the Song of Songs. For further reading, you can visit his website. These thoughts might help in approaching the book.

Wisdom literature

It is helpful to consider the book’s position in the canon as part of the wisdom literature. In Proverbs, the king exhorts his son to seek wisdom and throughout the book, wisdom is personified as a great and righteous lady. She is contrasted with the harlot Folly, the strange or foreign woman who tempts the simple to turn aside to their ruin. “In the final chapter, we find that the prince has chosen well: He has made Lady Wisdom his bride.  As King Lemuel’s mother urged, he has renounced the women who destroy kings (31:3) and embraces the woman who enables him to rule well.(Leithart)"

Ecclesiastes follows on this theme and shows the limit of wisdom. Wisdom is rightly prized and sought, but it is not ultimate. This life, this creation, is good and is meant to be enjoyed, but, to borrow a phrase from Doug Wilson, that joy is on a tether.

The Song of Songs displays the King’s desire for his Bride, the one in whom he delights. It is a love poem, to be sure, but it reaches beyond individual human relationships. It is the height of wisdom literature and the height of poetry. It is the Song of Songs - a verbal construction that parallels the Holy of Holies - the Most Songy Song, the Greatest Song Ever Written. As such, it is elusive, difficult to get a solid hold on. It is also allusive - it reaches out and pulls in imagery and ideas from all over the rest of scripture.

Land Imagery

The beauty of the Bride is often expressed in geographic or agricultural terms. Her body is like a rolling landscape, her breasts like spiced mountains, her hair like goats leaping down the slopes of Gilead (4:1). Her neck is like the Tower of David, set with warriors’ shields (4:4). She is beautiful as Tirzah, lovely as Jerusalem (6:4). Her eyes are pools in Heshbon, her nose like the tower of Lebanon, her head crowns her like Mount Carmel (7:4-5). This is the love of the King for his country, his people.

  Who is this who looks down like the dawn,
  beautiful as the moon, bright as the sun,
  awesome as an army with banners?

This alludes to the gathered host of Israel encamped under the tribal banners around the tabernacle (Num 2). The people surround the King as the Bridal City, the New Jerusalem, which is decked out in royal splendor and surrounds Christ, the Husband, and which outshines the sun and moon with the reflected glory of God (Rev 21).

Edenic Imagery

“The Song is full of the imagery of Eden.  Solomon uses the word “garden” eight times (4:12, 15, 16 [2x], 5:1; 6:2 [2x]; 8:13), and the poem frequently refers to trees, fruits, flowers, springs.(Leithart)” The lovers are a sort of idyllic, unfallen Adam and Eve, maturing in their passion and love for one another. He describes her as a tree which he climbs to gather and eat her fruit (7:8), reminiscent of the fruit trees in the garden.

Four times Solomon calls her “my sister, my bride” which brings to mind Adam’s statement of Eve, “This at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man." ‘Bone of my bone and flesh of my flesh’ is a statement of kinship. It is nearly the same greeting Laban gives Jacob (Gen 29:14) and different groups claim kinship in similar terms (cf. Jud 9:2, 2 Sam 5:1, 19:12, 13). The Hebrew behind the ‘Woman’ and ‘Man’ is Ishah and Ish. Up until this point the man has been called adam because he was formed from the dust of the ground, adamah. The word Ish is almost exactly the same word as Esh, fire. So, the dirt-man becomes fire-man in union with his bride. He is transformed and glorified. This is the same thing Paul says in 1 Corinthians 11:7, “For a man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God, but woman is the glory of man.” The woman lights up and glorifies her husband, making him better than he would be on his own.

Temple Imagery

“Eden’s garden was Adam’s original sanctuary, and the imagery of the garden in the Song shades over into imagery of the sanctuary.  The house where the lovers meet is made from temple materials – cedar and cypress (1:17), and like the temple the garden of love is a place of feasting (2:4; 5:1).  Solomon frequently mentions the fragrances that waft from the garden, reminding us of the pacifying smoke from Israel’s sacrifices.(Leithart)”

Both the Bride and the Beloved are described in terms of temple imagery. She is pictured as a lily, with cheeks like halves of pomegranates, like the lily-topped and pomegranate-encircled pillars in the temple court (1 Kg 7:21ff). Again, she herself is like a pillar that the Beloved climbs, a palm tree like the palm groves carved into the walls of the temple (1 Kg 6:29). Her aroma is that of frankincense, myrrh, cinnamon and spices, like the perfumed anointing oil used in the sanctuary (Ex 30:23ff).

He is described like a statue of a man with a head like gold - the Holy of Holies; eyes like doves - the seven branched lampstand*; cheeks of spices - the altar of incense; lips of lilies - again, the lily-topped pillars; body of ivory, legs of alabaster and gold, appearance like cedar - the foundation and structure of the temple.

“The interweaving of imagery in the Song hints at the double reference of the poem: It is a poem of ideal human love, the lovers like unfallen Adam and Eve, but it is also a poem about Yahweh’s trysts with Israel in the love-garden of the temple.(Leithart)”

Sexual Imagery

As a love poem, it expresses in very passionate terms the desire of the Bride for the Beloved, and that of the Beloved for his Bride. In Ephesians 5, Paul points out that the fundamental meaning of the sexual relationship between a husband and wife is that it is an image, a type, of the relationship of Christ and the Church. “‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.’ This mystery is profound, and I am saying that it refers to Christ and the church.”

Scripture, especially in the prophets, frequently refers to Yahweh as Husband and Israel as Wife (cf. Is 54:5, Jer 3:20, 31:32, Hsa 2) Ezekiel 16 is a retelling of the history of Israel in Husband/Wife imagery:

  When I passed by you again and saw you, behold, you were at the age for love, and I spread the corner of my garment over you and covered your nakedness; I made my vow to you and entered into a covenant with you, declares the Lord GOD, and you became mine. Then I bathed you with water and washed off your blood from you and anointed you with oil. I clothed you also with embroidered cloth and shod you with fine leather. I wrapped you in fine linen and covered you with silk. And I adorned you with ornaments and put bracelets on your wrists and a chain on your neck. And I put a ring on your nose and earrings in your ears and a beautiful crown on your head. Thus you were adorned with gold and silver, and your clothing was of fine linen and silk and embroidered cloth. You ate fine flour and honey and oil. You grew exceedingly beautiful and advanced to royalty.

Yahweh brought His people out of wallowing in the blood of Egypt to bring them to His mountain and establish His covenant with them. He washed them by baptism in the Red Sea (1Cr 10:2) and by the sprinkling of blood at Sinai (Ex 24:8). He anointed Aaron and the whole tabernacle with oil, setting them apart for holy use. He adorned them with the glory of the tabernacle: gold, silver, embroidered cloth and leather - plunder from the Egyptians. The rendering of the story in Ezekiel highlights the covenant of Sinai as His marriage covenant with His people. But despite all this, Israel turned away and whored after other lovers, other gods, and lusted after the gods of Egypt, Assyria, Babylon, or anyone else who happened to pass by.

The Song shows desire set over against lust. The desire of the two lovers for one another is full, passionate, mature. Each is fully longing for and seeking after the other and will not turn aside to any other. “As a lily among brambles, so is my love among the young women.” He is captivated by her beauty. “You have captivated my heart, my sister, my bride; you have captivated my heart with one glance of your eyes... Turn away your eyes from me, for they overwhelm me.” By the end of the Song, the Bride has taken on the name of the Beloved. She is the Shulamite, a feminine form of Solomon’s name. She has become  the radiant, glorious, spotless Bride - a Bride fit for the King.

If what Paul says is true, that marriage is a picture of God with His people, Christ with the Church, then here we see the complete devotion and passionate desire of Christ for His Bride and of the Church for Christ. This has implications for how the Church should be viewed. How often was Israel led astray? How often is today’s Church led astray by lovers less wild than Jesus? The Song shows an idyllic relationship, one that has not been born out in the Church (at least with our limited perspective on history), but Paul says it will and that Christ will “present the church to Himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish.”

*the Spirit who descends as a dove at the baptism of Christ and as flames of fire on Pentecost is the same ‘seven Spirits (or seven-fold Spirit) of God’ in Revelation 4:5, and the seven flaming eyes of Christ in Revelation 5:6.

It's my personal favorite book of the Bible, because I view this book as to how Christ wins over the individual believer into relationship with him and shows his unfailing love.  Solomon is Christ in this depiction, he never fails here (I'm talking about this individual book), never faulters, he is a rediculously rich shephard-king who can bound over mountains like it's nothing.  And represented in the individual sense is the Shulamite, yet there are brides to be who watch from a distance so to speak.  So we have a book here about individual love and corporate love of the shephard king Solomon who dashes us with his unfailing love.  There are no words spoken of condemnation even when the Shulamite fails in chapter 2, only exquisite words of love spoken to each other and it's the story of us growing as believers to where we finally reach the point to go anywhere with our amazing king.  The book is absolutely filled with symbolic imagery that you have to use the rest of the Bible to make any sense out of.  Trees, myrrh, mountains, lilies, roses, gardens, wine, vineyard, banners, 60 mighty men with swords on their thighs, throne room, gold, silver, fruit, sun, weeds....  the list goes on and on...  The imagery in this book is very very often linked to something far more than just the literal interpretation.  You can't understand this book if all you take is the literal meaning, it's almost completely symbolic.  Look at how she describes Solomon if you don't believe me!  Lol still my all time favorite book of the Bible (I'm a dude btw..)  and it will really strengthen your love for Jesus if you read it this way.

His banner over me was Love...  I mean come on, it doesn't get better than that.  My last thought here is this book gets written off so often but according to the Bible, this is the greatest Song, the Song of Songs.  We have the book of Psalms and the Bible still says that this Song is better than any one of the Psalms...  That's a pretty bold claim and makes this book at least worth a check out.


What are the key differences between the Western and Eastern Christianity? I'm currently reading about Eastern Christianity as a part of my study.

Those are the churches that have existed since early times, such as the Nestorians, the Jacobites, the Coptics, and others. But not the Melkite/Orthodox Christianity (I don't include them as Eastern Christianity as in Keith Ward's categorization, he seems to separate them to another major branch besides Catholic and Protestantism).

The major differences between them and Western Christianity seem to be their agreement regarding the Council of Chalcedon, regarding the incarnation of Jesus. However besides of that, are there any other major differences? For example, what about the church hierarchy? Or do they have different political cultures?

Before I can answer, I must clarify several terms that you are using incorrectly/ambiguously and define how I will approach this question. I also must begin with the disclaimer that I will be answering from an Eastern Orthodox perspective.

Eastern Orthodox vs. Oriental 'Orthodox' vs. Nestorianism

Nestorianism was condemned at the third and fourth ecumenical councils (Ephesus I & Chalcedon I), so calling them 'Orthodox' is incorrect. While some Eastern Orthodox Christians do lump Nestorians and Oriental Orthodox Christians together as monophysite churches, Oriental Orthodox Christians reject this label and distinguish themselves from Nestorians as miaphysite churches.

Concerning Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox Christians, the difference is that the latter accept only the first three ecumenical councils (Nicaea I, Constantinople I, & Ephesus I), while the former accept seven ecumenical councils. There are some Eastern Orthodox Christians who consider the controversy between Oriental Orthodox and themselves to be primarily semantic (and some dialogue has been made in the 20th century to reunite the churches, but full communion has not yet been restored), but officially they are not considered to be 'Orthodox' (despite their use of the title) as they were condemned as heretical for rejecting the fourth ecumenical council (Chalcedon).

In summary, Eastern Orthodox Christians believe that they are the only Church that can rightly be called 'Orthodox,' and thus Nestorians and Oriental Orthodox Christians are actually heterodox. With that said, I will focus exclusively on defining some key differences between Eastern Orthodox Christians and Western Christians.

Painting Western Christianity With Broad Brush Strokes

Comparing Western Christians only to other Western Christians would be too broad to address in an answer on this site. Similarly, comparing Eastern and Western Christians will necessarily have to be even broader. For this reason, I must make a caricature of Western Christianity that will not fit all Western Christians at all times and in all places. My apologies are extended to those of whom this caricature is not representative. It is also difficult since Western Christianity is extremely divided. For the sake of simplicity, I am lumping Roman Catholicism and Protestantism together (I am aware that many Protestants actually reject this label and consider themselves a separate division altogether, perhaps rightly so in the case of Anglicans - however in this response I will only recognize the two divisions as stated yet treat all of Western Christianity as one group).

Here are some of the primary characteristics of Western Christianity (that stand in sharp distinction from Eastern Orthodox Christian views) that I will use to define it:

Western Christianity has assimilated much of Hellenistic philosophy/thought. Oddly enough, the opposite charge is often made. However, close study of philosophy and history will reveal that Eastern Christians almost immediately began challenging Hellenistic philosophy and created a distinctly Christian philosophy, while due to historical and linguistic circumstances, much of Hellenistic thought and knowledge of the Greek language was lost in the West for some time and only rediscovered later, and was adopted uncritically by many theologians (cf. Scholasticism). For more information on this, please read Jaroslav Pelikan's outstanding work published through Yale University Press entitled Christianity and Classical Culture: The Metamorphosis of Natural Theology in the Christian Encounter with Hellenism. The implications of this point affect every other point of difference.
Western Christians believe that mankind has inherited some form of original sin from Adam and Eve that includes an inheritance of guilt. There is a wide spectrum within Western Christianity concerning this issue, but generally it is held that man is depraved to some extent and will go to hell because of 'original sin' if one is not 'saved.' Death is thus viewed as a form of punishment inflicted on mankind because of sin, and 'hell' is a place of intentional, conscience punishment by God (or complete separation from him, which is intended as a punishment).
Western Christians believe in a juridicial atonement, that is, God's wrath had to be propitiated by a perfect sacrifice: Jesus Christ. Western Christians generally believe that someone has to be punished in order to satisfy divine justice. In other words, mankind deserves to be punished but Jesus gets punished for us.
Western Christians discuss (forensic) soteriology as an isolated issue within theology (as distinct but related to anthropology, Christology and the theology of the Godhead), and focus on the ordo salutis (which often defines the primary contentions between various Western Christian groups).

I could go on but this will have to suffice (again, this is a broad question).

The Key Differences Between Eastern and Western Christianity

With the above definitions and considerations in mind, I offer the following key differences. This is certainly not an exhaustive list, and they are all interrelated:

Historically, culturally, and linguistically, the two churches have grown apart. The churches grew apart for lots of historical reasons, and the Great Schism was precipitated by numerous factors and made permanent by unfortunate conflicts (namely the Roman Catholic Church's decision to sack Constantinople, the seat of Eastern Orthodox Christianity, during the fourth Crusade). The East continued to mainly speak Greek until the 15th century, while the West soon forgot Greek and spoke mostly Latin and a mixture of other languages (but Latin remained the ecclesiastical language through the Reformation - and it still is within Roman Catholicism).
As previously stated, Western Christianity has assimilated much of Hellenistic philosophy/thought (largely uncritically). Conversely, Eastern Christians went through a long phase of assimilating, challenging, condemning, and modifying Hellenistic thought until a distinctly Christian philosophy emerged (largely attributed to the Cappadocian Fathers). Fr. Alexandre Kalomiros explains this in his speech The River of Fire:

  Paganism is ignorance of the true God, an erroneous belief that His
  creation is divine, really a god. This god, however, who is Nature, is
  impersonal, a blind force, above all personal gods, and is called
  Necessity (Ἀνάγκη).... The pagan gods are parts of the world,
  and they are immortal because of the immortality of nature which is
  their essence. In this pagan mentality, man is also god like the
  others, because for the pagans the real man is only his soul, and they
  believe that man's soul is immortal in itself, since it is part of the
  essence of the universe, which is considered immortal in itself and
  self-existent. So man also is god and a measure of all things....

  It is this pagan way of thought that was mixed with the Christian
  teaching by the various heresies. This is what happened in the West,
  too. They began to distinguish not between God and His creation, but
  between spirit and matter. They began to think of the soul of man as
  of something eternal in itself, and began to consider the condition of
  man after death not as a sleep in the hands of God, but as the real
  life of man, to which the resurrection of the dead had nothing to add
  and even the need of the resurrection was doubtful....

  ...they began to feel that God was subject to Necessity, to this
  rationalistic Necessity which was nothing else but human logic. They
  declared Him incapable of coming into contact with inferior beings
  like men, because their rationalistic, philosophical conceptions did
  not permit it, and it was this belief which was the foundation of the
  hesychast disputes; it had already begun with Augustine who
  taught that it was not God Who spoke to Moses but an angel instead.

  It is in this context of Necessity, which even gods obey, that we must
  understand the Western juridical conception of God's justice. It was
  necessary for God to punish man's disobedience. It was impossible for
  Him to pardon; a superior Necessity demanded vengeance. Even if God
  was in reality good and loving, He was not able to act lovingly. He
  was obliged to act contrary to His love; the only thing He could do,
  in order to save humanity, was to punish His Son in the place of men,
  and by this means was Necessity satisfied....

  This is the triumph of Hellenistic thought in Christianity. As a
  Hellenist, Origen had arrived at the same conclusions. God was a
  judge by necessity. He was obliged to punish, to avenge, to send
  people to hell. Hell was God's creation. It was a punishment demanded
  by justice. This demand of justice was a necessity. God was obliged to
  submit to it. He was not permitted to forgive. There was a superior
  force, a Necessity which did not permit Him to love unconditionally.

  However, Origen was also a Christian and he knew that God was full of
  love. How is it possible to acknowledge a loving God Who keeps people
  in torment eternally? If God is the cause of hell, by necessity then
  there must be an end to it, otherwise we cannot concede that God is
  good and loving. This juridical conception of God as a instrument of a
  superior, impersonal force or deity named Necessity, leads logically
  to apokatastasis, "the restoration of all things and the
  destruction of hell," otherwise we must admit that God is cruel....

  So the loss of God's grace, which is eternal, spiritual death, in
  other words, hell, is in reality an act totally dependent on God. It
  is God Who is punishing these people by depriving them of His grace,
  by not permitting it to shine upon them. So God is the cause of the
  eternal, spiritual death of those who are damned. Damnation is an act
  of God, an act of God's justice, an act of necessity or cruelty.

There is far too much that could be said here, so I will allow the quote to stand. I recommend reading the entire speech. Also, I know that the quote hits on a myriad of differences in worldview (which really must be understood before the differences can be understood, as many of the biases inherent in Western Christianity are part of the Western worldview itself), but this will have to suffice for now.

Also, as it stands, I would expect a large number of Western Christian rebuttals to this point. However, please understand that without first studying the underlying thought, it is impossible to have constructive conversation about this (the East and West don't even use terms like 'faith', 'grace', or 'prayer' in the same way/meaning).

The two churches approach theology differently. The East takes an apophatic approach to theology while the West a cataphatic one (this is somewhat of an unfair caricature as both groups take both approaches, and Eastern Orthodox generally balance both ways of doing theology - but again, these are broad caricatures). This represents a fundamental difference in how God may be approached intellectually. In the East, theology begins with the premise that God is unknowable in his essence, but we can encounter him through his energies. It is thus impossible for finite creatures to make cataphatic statements about their infinite Creator. Thus theology is something that the East does, it is not an abstract field of study. The purity of the nous that has been attained by the theologian is vital in the task of theology. Having advanced degrees and knowledge does not make one a theologian, but rather the one who prays is rightly called a theologian in the East, and his or her journey in theosis is directly proportional to his or her ability to 'understand'/'experience' theology, which is an encounter with God himself (as opposed to merely studying a topic; cf. theoria). The West largely approaches theology cataphatically within a Scholastic framework. It would not be fair to deny that the West has had theologians in the Eastern sense of the word, but the West generally labels these individuals as 'mystics,' while in the East all theology is mystical.
The East views salvation as the process of theosis, and thus the Incarnation is the central event in redemptive history. The West views salvation through a multitude of singular events within the ordo salutis, and the crucifixion is generally seen as the central event (although some Protestants would argue that the resurrection is the central event). In Eastern Orthodoxy (as well as in Roman Catholicism and Arminian Protestantism), salvation is synergistic, while in much of (Calvinist-influenced) Protestantism it is monergistic.
The East believes that the central tenet of Western theology is that Western Christianity considers God to be the real cause of all evil - regardless of whether or not Western theologians acknowledge this position or not (some staunch Calvinists admit this). Obviously many Western Christians would disagree. Eastern Orthodox Christians therefore have no need of justifying God (cf. theodicy). In Eastern Orthodoxy, evil is the estrangement from God who is life. Thus death is evil. However, most Western Christians teach that death is a punishment from God, although some Protestants consider death to be 'natural'. Either way, since God is the Creator of all things, the West necessarily believes that God is the real cause of death. They also apply this to the soul, so that God is also the cause of spiritual death for mankind (by punishing mankind in hell). As Fr. Kalamiros explains,

  The 'God' of the West is an offended and angry God, full of wrath for
  the disobedience of men, who desires in His destructive passion to
  torment all humanity unto eternity for their sins, unless He receives
  an infinite satisfaction for His offended pride. What is the Western
  dogma of salvation? Did not God kill God in order to satisfy His
  pride, which the Westerners euphemistically call justice? And is it
  not by this infinite satisfaction that He deigns to accept the
  salvation of some of us? What is salvation for Western theology? Is it
  not salvation from the wrath of God? Do you see, then, that Western
  theology teaches that our real danger and our real enemy is our
  Creator and God? Salvation, for Westerners, is to be saved from the
  hands of God!

Conclusion

This answer is necessarily incomplete. Asking about how the East and West differ in regards to specific doctrines or positions is a much more attainable goal. However, given the broad question, this is my best attempt at answering it. Also, this is certainly a biased answer as it represents an Eastern Orthodox perspective. Obviously a Western answer will differ considerably.

Also, to avoid the duplication of content and repeating myself, I did not address topics that I've answered on before in any depth. You may also wish to check out these responses of mine:

Universalism in the Orthodox Church?
What is the ecclesiastical 'hierarchy' of the Eastern Orthodox Church?
Is the Eastern Orthodox Church independent from regional governments?
What happens with a soul after one's death according to Eastern Orthodox doctrine?
Who is a Christian according to the Russian Orthodox Church?
How can common believers in the Eastern Orthodox Church be sure that the Church's decisions are correct and not erroneous?
Is there a significant difference between salvation by faith with works and salvation by faith and works?
How do Protestants in general respond to these points concerning them?

For a great book that explains these differences in greater depth to those already well-versed in Western theology, check out James R. Payton's Light from the Christian East: An Introduction to the Orthodox Tradition.

I'm only in my 1st year , so take my info cautiously, I think the separation really started after the reformation , that's when the west put God in a 'box' and separated him from science and the other disciplines , so the westernized version of Christianity focuses on scholarship( like you said ) and the easternized version focuses on the inner spirituality e.g. Stillness,


Who may receive Holy Communion in a Catholic Church? Who in the following groups may receive Holy Communion in a Catholic Church?

Among Catholics. (cf. the current debate on communion for divorced-and-remarried Catholics).
Among non-Catholic Christians.
Among non-Christians (= non-baptized persons).

Please provide the supporting Church teaching, guidelines and reasoning, including any scriptural basis.

Related: As a protestant, may I participate in the Eucharist (Communion) when visiting a Catholic church?

Catholics

The main requirement for a Catholic who has received First Communion is that the person must be in a state of grace (the person has been to confession since committing a mortal sin). As for divorced and remarried persons, non-marital intercourse is a mortal sin and divorces are not recognized by the Catholic Church so...

The person must also believe in the doctrine of transubstantiation. This is one of the major differences in Communion between the Catholic Church and Protestant churches, and the words used in the Communion Rite reflect it (the Eucharistic minister declares "The Body of Christ" as the host is given, and the person receiving it answers with an affirmative "Amen").

The person also must have observed the Eucharistic fast (only water and medicine within an hour before Communion).

Another important requirement that almost goes without saying is that the person must not be under an ecclesiastical censure (e.g. excommunicated). This might also apply to a divorced and remarried person.

Catholic children are admitted to Communion once they have received their First Communion.

Non-Catholic Christians

The person may be allowed to receive Communion depending on the Christian denomination the person belongs to. In the missals at a Catholic Church you will find a message like this one:

  We welcome our fellow Christians to this celebration of the Eucharist as our brothers and sisters. We pray that our common baptism and the action of the Holy Spirit in this Eucharist will draw us closer to one another and begin to dispel the sad divisions which separate us. We pray that these will lessen and finally disappear, in keeping with Christ's prayer for us 'that they may all be one'. Because Catholics believe that the celebration of the Eucharist is a sign of the reality of the oneness of faith, life, and worship, members of those churches with whom we are not yet fully united are ordinarily not admitted to Communion. Eucharistic sharing in exceptional circumstances by other Christians requires permission according to the directives of the diocesan bishop and the provisions of canon law...

If the Christian belongs to a denomination that the Catholic Church is considered "fully united" with then that Christian will be admitted to Communion. Otherwise, the person is generally not admitted, although there are exceptions. The Guidelines for the Reception of Communion from the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) provides a list of the denominations whose members are permitted to receive Communion:

  Members of the Orthodox Churches, the Assyrian Church of the East, and the Polish National Catholic Church are urged to respect the discipline of their own Churches. According to Roman Catholic discipline, the Code of Canon Law does not object to the reception of communion by Christians of these Churches (canon 844 § 3)

Non-Christians

Non-Christians are not admitted to Communion.

The message in the missals from above continues:

  We also welcome to this celebration those who do not share our faith
  in Jesus Christ. While we cannot admit them to Communion, we ask them
  to offer their prayers for the peace and the unity of the human
  family.

Scriptural Basis

The scriptural basis for the Catholic Church's teaching is mainly based on 1 Corinthians 11:27-29:

  So then, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord. Everyone ought to examine themselves before they eat of the bread and drink from the cup. For those who eat and drink without discerning the body of Christ eat and drink judgment on themselves.

Clearly, these verses indicate that Catholics must be in a state of grace when receiving Communion. Also, non-Christians do not acknowledge Christ as Lord and would therefore receive it in an unworthy manner. Similarly, non-Catholic Christians who do not believe in transubstantiation would receive Communion in an unworthy manner according to Catholic teaching.

You can find more details, including exceptions, at Catholic Answers and the USCCB Guidelines for the Reception of Communion. The above missal quotes are derived from the USCCB guidelines.

Pope Pius VIII, Traditi Humilitati (# 4), May 24, 1829:
“Jerome used to say it this way: he who eats the Lamb outside this house will perish as did those during the flood who were not with Noah in the ark.”

Pope Gregory XVI, Commissum divinitus (# 11), May 17, 1835:
“… whoever dares to depart from the unity of Peter might understand that he no longer shares in the divine mystery…‘Whoever eats the Lamb outside of this house is unholy.’”

Pope Pius IX, Amantissimus (# 3), April 8, 1862:
“… whoever eats of the Lamb and is not a member of the Church, has profaned.”