Could Luke 3 be Joseph's genealogy? I am considering the possibility that Luke 3 is in fact the genealogy of Joseph and not Mary. Here is why...

Luke mentions the circumcision and the naming of both Jesus and John on the 8th day in Luke 1:59 and Luke 2:21, which would have us think that there is a strong tradition when it comes to naming children and that it is going to be named after names already in the family.
(Luke 1:59-61) "And it came to pass, that on the eighth day they came to circumcise the child; and they called him Zacharias, after the name of his father.  {60} And his mother answered and said, Not so; but he shall be called John.  {61} And they said unto her, There is none of thy kindred that is called by this name."
We know that some of the children of Joseph and Mary were these, (Matthew 13:55) "Is not this the carpenter’s son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas?"
Now let's look at the names in the genealogy in Luke 3.
(Luke 3:23-31) "And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli, {24} Which was the son of Matthat, which was the son of Levi, which was the son of Melchi, which was the son of Janna, which was the son of Joseph, {25} Which was the son of Mattathias, which was the son of Amos, which was the son of Naum, which was the son of Esli, which was the son of Nagge, {26} Which was the son of Maath, which was the son of Mattathias, which was the son of Semei, which was the son of Joseph, which was the son of Juda, {27} Which was the son of Joanna, which was the son of Rhesa, which was the son of Zorobabel, which was the son of Salathiel, which was the son of Neri, {28} Which was the son of Melchi, which was the son of Addi, which was the son of Cosam, which was the son of Elmodam, which was the son of Er, {29} Which was the son of Jose, which was the son of Eliezer, which was the son of Jorim, which was the son of Matthat, which was the son of Levi, {30} Which was the son of Simeon, which was the son of Juda, which was the son of Joseph, which was the son of Jonan, which was the son of Eliakim, {31} Which was the son of Melea, which was the son of Menan, which was the son of Mattatha, which was the son of Nathan, which was the son of David,"

Now in this genealogy we have Joseph named multiple times and Jose, Simeon and Juda which are all names of Jesus's brothers. When we compare this to the Genealogy in Matt which shares no names with Jesus relatives, it is clear to me that Luke 3 is more likely the genealogy of Joseph. It also mentions in Luke 3 that Jesus was as supposed the son of Joseph, but then goes on to say Joseph was the son of Heli, which appears that the genealogy is about Joseph.

It seems that Luke gives Joseph's geneology (Luke 3:23-38):

  And Jesus himself was beginning about the age of thirty years; being (as it was supposed) the son of Joseph, who was of Heli, who was of Mathat, 24 Who was of Levi, who was of Melchi, who was of Janne, who was of Joseph, 25 Who was of Mathathias, who was of Amos, who was of Nahum, who was of Hesli, who was of Nagge, 26 Who was of Mahath, who was of Mathathias, who was of Semei, who was of Joseph, who was of Juda, 27 Who was of Joanna, who was of Reza, who was of Zorobabel, who was of Salathiel, who was of Neri, 28 Who was of Melchi, who was of Addi, who was of Cosan, who was of Helmadan, who was of Her, 29 Who was of Jesus, who was of Eliezer, who was of Jorim, who was of Mathat, who was of Levi, 30 Who was of Simeon, who was of Judas, who was of Joseph, who was of Jona, who was of Eliakim, 31 Who was of Melea, who was of Menna, who was of Mathatha, who was of Nathan, who was of David, 32 Who was of Jesse, who was of Obed, who was of Booz, who was of Salmon, who was of Naasson, 33 Who was of Aminadab, who was of Aram, who was of Esron, who was of Phares, who was of Judas, 34 Who was of Jacob, who was of Isaac, who was of Abraham, who was of Thare, who was of Nachor, 35 Who was of Sarug, who was of Ragau, who was of Phaleg, who was of Heber, who was of Sale, 36 Who was of Cainan, who was of Arphaxad, who was of Sem, who was of Noe, who was of Lamech, 37 Who was of Mathusale, who was of Henoch, who was of Jared, who was of Malaleel, who was of Cainan, 38 Who was of Henos, who was of Seth, who was of Adam, who was of God.

Of course the parenthetical "Jesus .... being (as it was supposed) the son of Joseph" (3:23) means that while Christ was reckoned the son of Joseph by all, he of course contributed nothing to the conception of Christ, but was a foster father, Mary having conceived miraculously without Joseph's participation: "he knew her not before her bringing forth a son" (Matthew 1:25); "How shall this [conception of Jesus] be, seeing as I do not know  man?" (Luke 1:34).

He perhaps ends his genealogy with "God" as the final 'patriarch' in answer to the fact that Joseph was not the true father, but God. It seems to be a frank but subtle recognition that this genealogy of course does not to prove Christ's ancestor via any royal line, but still serves the purpose of conveying the truth that Jesus is in a sense not of this world, but the Son of God.

That he brings Christ's genealogy back as far as Adam is also to show that Christ is the new Adam (1 Corinthians 15:45 etc.), theology Luke perhaps learned from one of its major, or perhaps first, proponents, Paul, of whom he was the amanuensis, or secretary. So thought apostolic fathers like Irenaeus.1

Whereas it seems that Matthew gives Mary's genealogy because of the indispensable requirement for the Messiah to be a son of David (Mary being a daughter of David).

  The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham: 2 Abraham begot Isaac. And Isaac begot Jacob. And Jacob begot Judas and his brethren. 3 And Judas begot Phares and Zara of Thamar. And Phares begot Esron. And Esron begot Aram. 4 And Aram begot Aminadab. And Aminadab begot Naasson. And Naasson begot Salmon. 5 And Salmon begot Booz of Rahab. And Booz begot Obed of Ruth. And Obed begot Jesse. 6 And Jesse begot David the king. And David the king begot Solomon, of her that had been the wife of Urias. 7 And Solomon begot Roboam. And Roboam begot Abia. And Abia begot Asa. 8 And Asa begot Josaphat. And Josaphat begot Joram. And Joram begot Ozias. 9 And Ozias begot Joatham. And Joatham begot Achaz. And Achaz begot Ezechias. 10 And Ezechias begot Manasses. And Manasses begot Amon. And Amon begot Josias. 11 And Josias begot Jechonias and his brethren in the transmigration of Babylon. 12 And after the transmigration of Babylon, Jechonias begot Salathiel. And Salathiel begot Zorobabel. 13 And Zorobabel begot Abiud. And Abiud begot Eliacim. And Eliacim begot Azor. 14 And Azor begot Sadoc. And Sadoc begot Achim. And Achim begot Eliud. 15 And Eliud begot Eleazar. And Eleazar begot Mathan. And Mathan begot Jacob. 16 And Jacob begot Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ. 17 So all the generations, from Abraham to David, are fourteen generations. And from David to the transmigration of Babylon, are fourteen generations: and from the transmigration of Babylon to Christ are fourteen generations.

It seems that Mary is lumped in her along with the other descendants of David, namely Joseph, because it's already obvious and implicit that: a) among the Jewish people, it was known that the Messiah must be a real descendant of David, and so the mother is obviously a descendant of David if the father's David ancestry is irrelevant, as in this case b) it is immediately related after this that Joseph had no part in the conception of Jesus. That is, both Mary and Joseph are descended from David (Luke 1:32; 2:3-5).

This is important because Matthew's Gospel is universally recognized as a very Semitic Gospel, whose intended audience are Jews, who are looking for all the key requirements of the Davidic Messiah to be met in the Christ (note also the arbitrary selection of Abraham, the father of the Jews, as a major patriarch, as opposed to anyone else).  The importance of the Davidic ancestry of the Messiah is perhaps why Matthew begins his Gospel with Jesus' genealogy; a non-descendant of David was not a candidate for the Messiah.

Thus, He gives a Davidic lineage via Mary, his mother: "Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, separated unto the gospel of God, which he had promised before, by his prophets, in the holy scriptures, concerning his Son, who was born of the seed of David [i.e. Mary], according to the flesh" (Romans 1:1-3); "God sent forth His Son, born of a woman" (Galatians 4:4). Also significant perhaps is involving the mother at all in an important genealogy such as this, since the Davidic Kingdom consisted of the King, but also a significant figure, being the mother of the King, who served as Queen or Lady of that Kingdom (cf. Jeremiah 13:18; 1 Kings 2:19; 2 Kings 24:12; etc.). This was doubtless, then, another expectation of the Jewish people concerning the Messiah: 'who would the blessed mother of our Messiah be?' Note therefore the fulfillment of this expectation in the words of Elizabeth, speaking of the mother of the Messiah: "Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb! And why was it granted to me that the mother of my lord [i.e. the Messiah] should come to me?" (Luke 1:43; cf. Psalm 110).

Worthy of consideration is the fact that the Hebrew letters דוד ("David") have the sum numeral value of 14 (ד being 4, ו being 6), which may explain the division into fourteens here as significant of 'perfect Davidicness.' It may be, too, that the apparent redundancy or irrelevance of Joseph's genealogy (Jesus not being descended from him) can be explained as showing simply that Joseph is a fulfillment in the delineated recapitulations of generations in fourteens.

Footnotes

1 "Wherefore Luke points out that the pedigree which traces the generation of our Lord back to Adam contains seventy-two generations, connecting the end with the beginning, and implying that it is He who has summed up in Himself all nations dispersed from Adam downwards, and all languages and generations of men, together with Adam himself. Hence also was Adam himself termed by Paul 'the figure of Him that was to come,'" (Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book III, Chapter 22, 3. Circa A.D. 180.

Is Luke 3 the genealogy of Joseph?
That Matthew's Gospel gives an account of Joseph's genealogy is clear:

And Jacob begot Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus who is called Christ (Matthew 1:16).

Now if both Matthew and Luke give a genealogy through Joseph then there is no evidence presented in Scripture that Jesus was actually a biological descendant of David.
The Old Testament tells us that the Messiah will be a biological descendant of David:

I will set up your seed after you, who will come from your body, and I will establish his kingdom. (2 Samuel 7:12).

Twice in one verse it is asserted the Messiah will be literally a descendant of David.
For other Scriptures see Psalm 132.11, Luke 18.38, Acts 2.30, Romans 1.3, Revelation 5.5.
In the Gospel of Luke, then, it must be the genealogy of Mary.  Only through Mary can there be a literal fulfilment of 2 Samuel 7:12.
It would seriously damage Christ's claim to be the Messiah of the seed of David, if this could not be proven; so Luke gives the proof.
If Jesus is only related to David through his adoptive father then Mary's magnificat statement in Luke 1:32, "... shall give unto him the throne of his father David", has little meaning (see also Luke 1:69).
Some claim that Mary cannot be of the tribe of Judah, and hence a descendant of David, because she has a relative of the tribe of Levi (Luke 1:36 & 1:5).  But she could easily have been of the tribe of Judah.  The priesthood were only required to marry a virgin woman of their own people (Levitcus 21:13,14), a fellow Israelite.
An ancestor or relative of Elizabeth of the tribe of Levi could have married into the tribe of Judah.
Matthew's Gospel establishes Jesus as the King of Israel in the earthly sense. When Joseph died Jesus became King according to Davidic descent, being the eldest son of Joseph.
So the chief verse in Luke's Gospel is Luke 3.23

And Jesus began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was of Heli,  (Luke 3:23).

It is likely Luke and Matthew both went to Jerusalem and examined the genealogy of Jesus from the public records office.  Public records were kept in many towns in ancient times.  The public records in Jerusalem are mentioned by Josephus when he gives his own genealogy.  (From Josephus account it is fairly clear these public records were not destroyed in the first Jewish-Roman War, 66-70 AD). (And have you ever wondered how Paul could prove his Roman citizenship?  The legal proof would have been stored at the public records in Tarsus.)
It was convention of the Jews that the mothers were not recorded in these public records.  The records partly existed for the purposes of inheritance, and for the Levites they existed for the purpose of determining if a man had the right to serve in the Temple.
It is important further to remember that Luke writes his genealogy thus:
"which was of Heli, which was of Matthat, which was of Levi," etc.  Luke does not specify the relationship between Heli and Mattat and Levi.. they could be son to father or son to grandfather or great grandfather, etc.
Luke 3:23 is telling us then that Jesus's grandfather was Heli who was the nearest to an actual human father of Jesus, being the father of Mary.
William Hendriksen in his Commentary re-words verses 23 and 24 to give:-

Now Jesus himself, supposedly Joseph's son, was about thirty years of age when he began (his ministry), being a son of Heli, son of Matthat, son of Levi, son of Melchi, son of Jannai, ... (Luke 3:23-24)

It is not saying that Joseph was the son of Heli but rather that Jesus was the son (or grandson) of Heli.  And Heli was Mary's father, the nearest equivalent to a human father for our Lord Jesus Christ.
Matthew Henry in his Commentary published around 1721 writes:

but Luke, designing to show that Christ was the seed of the woman, that should break the serpent's head, traces his pedigree upward as high as Adam, and begins it with Eli, or Heli, who was the father, not of Joseph, but of the virgin Mary.
Matthew draws the pedigree from Solomon, whose natural line ending in Jechonias, the legal right was transferred to Salathiel, who was of the house of Nathan, another son of David, which line Luke here pursues, and so leaves out all the kings of Judah.
The evangelists are not supposed to have written these genealogies either of their own knowledge or by divine inspiration, but to have copied them out of the authentic records of the genealogies among the Jews, the heralds' books, which therefore they were obliged to follow; and in them they found the pedigree of Jacob, the father of Joseph, to be as set down in Matthew; and the pedigree of Heli, the father of Mary, to be as set down here in Luke.  And this is the meaning of the words "as it was supposed": they do not refer only to Joseph, but they refer to what is written into the books, as we find it upon the record.  [In other words, it was written in the records that Joseph was the father of Jesus because that was "supposed" by the recorders of those records.]
And so it is that on both his father and his mother's side, that Jesus was the Son of David according to their own records, which anyone might at that time have liberty to examine and compare with the original, and any further the evangelists did not need to go.  Had the evangelists varied from the original records they would have not gained their point.  The fact that the genealogies in both Matthew and Luke were not contradicted at that time is satisfaction enough to us now that these are true copies, and it is further worthy of observation, that, when those records of the Jewish genealogies had continued thirty or forty years after these extracts out of them, long enough to justify the evangelists therein, they were all lost and destroyed with the Jewish state and nation; for now there was no more occasion for them.

It is a wonderful fact that these public records no longer exist.  Presumably they were destroyed in the second Jewish-Roman War about 130 AD. [I believe the genealogical records existed in Jerusalem until about 130 AD, and were not destroyed in the first Jewish Rebellin 66-70 AD because Josephus said anyone could check the records for his own genealogy, and certainly he was writing after 70 AD.]  So it is no longer possible for anyone to claim to be a descendant of King David... in fact it is impossible today for anyone to legally prove they are Jewish at all.  The Messiah who fulfills the prophecy of 2 Samuel 7:12 must have been born before these records were destroyed, before about 130 AD.
Finally, I can't see the significance of the names of the boys being James, Joses, Simon and Judas, taken from the genealogy of Luke's Gospel.  What difference does it really make to any argument about whose genealogy Luke is recording? Besides this, the names of all the boys were extremely common in the New Testament period, and all they really tell us is that the one choosing the names was very conventional in the choice.  I take this data from Richard Bauckham's "Jesus and the Eyewitnesses - The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony", Table 6 on page 85:-
The 99 Most Popular Male Names among Palestinian Jews, 330 BCE to 200 CE.

Simon/Simeon

Joseph/Joses

Lazarus

Judas

John

Jesus

Ananias

Jonathan

Matthew/Matthias

Manean

James (Jacob)

Many of these names were popular because they were names of the Maccabee/Hasmonean dynasty... the last time the Jews were an independant nation, and were a sign of the Jewish nationalist longing for a return to independance.
So the Hasmonean family names were Hashmon, Mattathias, Simon (called Mathes), Judas (Maccabees), Jonathan (called Apphus), Eleazar (from which derives Lazarus, called Auran), John (Gaddis) and John Hyrcanus.  Also in the same family or marrying into the family were the women Salome Alexandra, who married Alexander Janneus, and Mariamme, granddaughter of Hyrcanus II.  For the same reason the three most popular female names in the same period were Salome, Mary (Mariam) and Shelamzion (the longer form of Salome) (Bauckham, page 74).


Why has God punished every human for one person's sin? God expelled Adam and Eve from the garden of Eden because Eve ate the fruit that God told her not to. And this let evil into the world. If God loves everyone, so much so that he let his son die for us, then why has every subsequent human and animal had to live and deal with the result of evil?

How does the Bible explain this, given that it says God is just?

There is an assumption in this question that is actually the very problem that the question addresses.

This question assumes that in the exact same situation you would act differently than Adam and Eve would. However, why would you? Would a loving God not have placed the people in the garden that gave humanity the best chance at continuing at sinless existence? Adam and Eve were representatives of all of humanity. Do you think that if a better representative existed God would not have chosen them?

Yes Adam and Eve sinned, but the basic reason is that any human being placed in that situation would have done exactly the same thing. The temptation was very strong and they fell.

This was God's plan. He intended for Adam and Eve to sin so that he could work out his plan and glorify himself all the more. The story of Adam and Eve points to Christ.

Romans 5:17

  17 For if, by the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man, how much more will those who receive God’s abundant provision of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ!

If sin entered through one man so salvation has also entered by way of one man. If we cannot acknowledge sin came through Adam then we cannot acknowledge the the sacrifice of Christ was sufficient.

God is love.  God is also justice.

His Word never fails (Joshua 21:45).  His promise was that "on the day you eat of it, you shall die." (Gen. 2:17)  They ate.  Their doom was sealed.  Satan rejoiced.

If God forgave Adam & Eve, Satan could use that as precedent to insist on the same forgiveness.  What God did was postpone the judgment. That's what MERCY is.  Justice postponed.  In the meantime, they could have kids. The clock ran out for Adam & Eve just before 1,000 years (Psalm 90:4).

But the kids were part of Adam & Eve, so they were under the same judgment and mercy.  The clock was still ticking on the whole race of Adam & Eve.

God surprised Satan with this Messiah concept.  Since Jesus was full human and full God, only humans could become one with Jesus' death, resurrection and ascension to heaven - not demons.  Satan is furious and wishes to kill, corrupt and debase the humans while he has time left.  Then he will take his time to torment the humans that join him in hell.


Why do some traditions *not* celebrate Christmas or Easter in any official fashion? Following-up to these previous questions, why do some traditions not celebrate the birth and death (or, more accurately, His resurrection) of Christ as "official" church "events"?

I understand that celebrating the Communion Table is a celebration of Jesus death - but why not celebrate His birth and resurrection, too, in a "special" way (ie beyond just celebrating His resurrection every Sunday by that being the the church comes together for worship)?

Jehovah's Witnesses don't celebrate Christmas because of the pagan origins of many of our current customs.  They cover this in several articles on their site.  A search of their site returns many. They also reject several other holidays, citing similar reasons.

Several other denominations have similar beliefs, and even within denominations that largely celebrate holidays, there are those with personal convictions about various aspects of holidays and refuse to celebrate to one degree or another.  It's not always a traditional boundary, since most denominations agree that Christianity isn't about rules and regulations, but rather about a relationship with Christ, and His saving grace.

Using a couple of personal examples, I come from a Baptist Church, and most of us celebrate Christmas, have Christmas trees, etc.  However, there are some in my own Church that refuse to have the trees.  I personally don't like telling the kids about Santa Claus because I don't want them questioning whether they can trust me to tell the truth.

Note, that last paragraph was included as an example of personal convictions, not an endorsement or indictment of any person's choice to celebrate in whatever way they see fit.

Christams is a pagan holiday it has nothing to do with the birth of Jesus infact it has nothing to do with Jesus period. So the question is if it's not Jesus birthday then who's birthday is it and why are so many still celebrating it. The order of the illuminatti is behind most of this deception it's actually the pagan god Tammuz the son of Nimrod who was born on December 25th. No where in the bible does it speak of an actual date for Jesus birth so it saddens me to think that we have somehow allowed this occult pagan god to be glorified and celebrated in the place of our true lord and savior Jesus Christ. The paganization of christianity must be stopped inorder for God to truly bless his elected people.


The Christian Duck Test? If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck.

There is arguably little difference between the lifestyle of the Stoic and the lifestyle of the Christian. Both eschew effeminacy in pursuit of virtue. Both find it best for man to worry about things he can control and to not worry about the things he cannot (Epictetus wrote of this. Christians call this "trusting the plan"; there is also the Christian serenity prayer which expresses this). Both believe in the cardinal virtues of Prudence, Justice, Fortitude, and Temperance (Christians certainly ought to believe these, and I'd bet most Stoics do believe them as well). I would argue that their way of life is in essence, the same.
The question is this: if a Christian and a Stoic both live the same exact life, and the only difference in their essence is that the Christian believes in the gospel, then why does the Christian go to heaven while the unbelieving Stoic does not? More generally, the question is about the "mechanics" of Christian salvation: when one comes to believe in Christ (esp. when converting from stoicism) what is it that actually changes in the person's essence/soul/existence that makes him fit for the Kingdom of God? In other words, what is it about the intellectual position of being Christian that impacts the state of someone's soul?

If we assume that the Christian worldview is accurate, then a true Christian has something that a Stoic doesn't: the Holy Spirit.
Acts 1:8 (ESV):

8 But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you, and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the end of the earth.”

The Holy Spirit empowers the Christian to be able to overcome the desires of the flesh and produce the fruit of the Spirit:

16 But I say, walk by the Spirit, and you will not gratify the desires of the flesh. 17 For the desires of the flesh are against the Spirit, and the desires of the Spirit are against the flesh, for these are opposed to each other, to keep you from doing the things you want to do. 18 But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the law. 19 Now the works of the flesh are evident: sexual immorality, impurity, sensuality, 20 idolatry, sorcery, enmity, strife, jealousy, fits of anger, rivalries, dissensions, divisions, 21 envy, drunkenness, orgies, and things like these. I warn you, as I warned you before, that those who do such things will not inherit the kingdom of God. 22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, 23 gentleness, self-control; against such things there is no law. 24 And those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires. [Galatians 5:16-24, ESV]

The Holy Spirit also distributes supernatural gifts among Christians as He sees fit:

4 Now there are varieties of gifts, but the same Spirit; 5 and there are varieties of service, but the same Lord; 6 and there are varieties of activities, but it is the same God who empowers them all in everyone. 7 To each is given the manifestation of the Spirit for the common good. 8 For to one is given through the Spirit the utterance of wisdom, and to another the utterance of knowledge according to the same Spirit, 9 to another faith by the same Spirit, to another gifts of healing by the one Spirit, 10 to another the working of miracles, to another prophecy, to another the ability to distinguish between spirits, to another various kinds of tongues, to another the interpretation of tongues. 11 All these are empowered by one and the same Spirit, who apportions to each one individually as he wills. [1 Corinthians 12:4-11, ESV]

In light of this, when you say "if a Christian and a Stoic both live the same exact life, and the only difference in their essence is that the Christian believes in the gospel [...]", I say: the condition of your question is ill-defined from the Christian viewpoint, since a Stoic, who lacks the gift of the Holy Spirit, by definition, cannot be living the same exact life as a Spirit-filled Christian. The latter enjoys the supernatural empowerment and assistance of the Spirit of God that the former lacks.
I will close with a pertinent quote from Romans, chapter 8 (ESV):

9 You, however, are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if in fact the Spirit of God dwells in you. Anyone who does not have the Spirit of Christ does not belong to him. 10 But if Christ is in you, although the body is dead because of sin, the Spirit is life because of righteousness. 11 If the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, he who raised Christ Jesus from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through his Spirit who dwells in you.
12 So then, brothers, we are debtors, not to the flesh, to live according to the flesh. 13 For if you live according to the flesh you will die, but if by the Spirit you put to death the deeds of the body, you will live. 14 For all who are led by the Spirit of God are sons of God. 15 For you did not receive the spirit of slavery to fall back into fear, but you have received the Spirit of adoption as sons, by whom we cry, “Abba! Father!” 16 The Spirit himself bears witness with our spirit that we are children of God, 17 and if children, then heirs—heirs of God and fellow heirs with Christ, provided we suffer with him in order that we may also be glorified with him.

Answering concerns raised in the comments:
(1) Is the spirit something you can feel within you, and recognize in others? Also, regarding faith, do you "know" when you have faith in Christ? Is it a change in category or a change in degree?
I think these questions can be answered both scripturally and by appealing to the first-hand experience of many believers.
Scripturally, the Bible has lots of examples where believers were filled with the Spirit and had extraordinary experiences. The book of Acts is a good example. That said, a more common --and perhaps less extraordinary-- experience is the "inner witness of the Holy Spirit", which is described very well by Romans 8:15-17 (already quoted above):

15 For you did not receive the spirit of slavery to fall back into fear, but you have received the Spirit of adoption as sons, by whom we cry, “Abba! Father!” 16 The Spirit himself bears witness with our spirit that we are children of God, 17 and if children, then heirs—heirs of God and fellow heirs with Christ, provided we suffer with him in order that we may also be glorified with him.

Experientially, throughout history many believers have reported personal encounters and extraordinary experiences with the Spirit of God. I have asked questions about this in the past, feel free to take a look: 1, 2, 3.
(2) This answer is self contradictory, since at least some of the fruits of the Holy Spirit listed therein coincide with Stoic virtues, yet the answer goes on to subsequently deny that the Stoics are, at least partially, indwelled by God's Spirit.
Without the Holy Spirit, a Stoic would not be able to achieve 100% of what they otherwise would be able to with the power of the Holy Spirit. But that doesn't mean that they will achieve 0%. It's still theoretically possible for a pagan to develop some moral virtues that would place them somewhere in between the two extremes. Claiming that it's either 0% or 100% would be a false dichotomy, and I never intended to claim such a thing in my answer.
Regarding the salvation status of virtuous pagans, this question might be of interest: What is an overview of Christian viewpoints on the eternal destiny of individuals who die never hearing the Gospel?

Simply because a Christian should understand that there is no salvation by 'works'. All are guilty and deserving of death no matter how much they think they have 'atoned' for their sin.
Only by Christ can a man be saved and receive eternal 'heavenly' life. And his sacrifice covers all men - all will have ample opportunity to accept his payment on their behalf - thus removing the penalty of sin - death.
Some think it's faith plus works. No, works are a result of faith and a necessary result of a living faith, but these works do not 'add' to the salvation already provided. They may well contribute to a 'reward' but that is another matter entirely.
The relationship between God and man has been fundamentally damaged and beyond restoration from our side. God's deepest desire is to restore man to His life and eternal existence. He has provided the means and in time all will be made aware of that provision. For those who know Him now and have a desire to honour and worship Him, they understand that it is God who provides that desire and ability to worship and obey.

For it is God who works in you to will and to act on behalf of His good purpose. Phil 2:13

So God places a measure of His spirit in us to accommodate this new way of living. It does not come naturally as we were at war with Him, being under the lordship of the devil until God changes something in each believers life.
It is His spirit that brings about a change of heart and mind that is not of our doing, but of our acquiescence. Just as Jesus submitted to God's will, so must we in exactly the same fashion.
Intellect has nothing to do with it.

Jesus said, "I praise you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and learned, and revealed them to little children. Matt 11:25


Of what nature is Satan? Recently, a good friend of mine posed the question:

  What (or who) is Satan and how do we know?

I answered him, saying that Satan is an evil angel because this is what I've been taught since I was a child. However, after further investigation (meaning looking through relevant portions of the Bible) I could not justify my claim. In fact, the only form that Satan is described as having, in my investigation, is the form of a dragon. So, that's my question:

What is the form of Satan? Is he/it a dragon, human, angel, something else, or is his/its form indeterminate? Please use scripture to support your answer, and thank you.

2 Corinthians 11:14 says that Satan masquerades as "an angel of Light." From that we can deduce that Satan is, in fact, and angel, Albeit not an angel of light. Still, you are right that there is very little in the Bible about him.

We know that he is "the Accuser of the Brethern" (from Job), and in fact, "Ha-Satan" is Hebrew for "Accuser."

We also know that he is a snake (Gen 3), a lion waiting to devour (Gen 4), and that he is the Prince of the Power of the Air (Ephesian 2:2).

In Revelation 12, he often associated with "the Beast, that evil dragon," but it is wise to remember that Revelation has all sorts of wild imagery that seems intended as metaphor as much as description.

Finally, in Isaiah 14, Christian tradition has said that he is Lucifer, the Morning Star, who was brought down by pride. Ezekiel 28 is another text often applied to him.

Beyond that, most everything else we know about Satan is historical tradition.  Paradise Lost, in particular, has shaped many people's beliefs about "the Fall from Heaven."

Quote from Religionfaq.org article

Quote
Many Jews believe that "the adversary" is simply a personification of our inclinations to evil. Judaism teaches us a path through Torah precept how to overcome the evil incliation. Judaism teaches us how to be accountable for our behaviors, accept responsibility when we do wrong, make amends and choose to do better in our walk with God through Tikkun Olam. ( working as partners with God and fellow humans to repiar and restore the world to righteousness, justice, mercy and harmony) HaSatan can be thought of as the outward projection and manifestation of the impulse to think for self alone and above all else with immediate gratification

Its helpful in most cases to observe continuity with Judaism and its views. I say, in most cases, because, sometimes, Judaism hasn't developed a view on certain issues. So it wouldn't be profitable to look for views on the topic of the afterlife, for instance. There isn't one.
On Satan, however, Judaism describes HaSatan, the adversary both as a drive, the yetzer hara within man, as well as an entity, one that enters Heaven and accuses men, God's men.
That's because Judaism has no problems personifying emotions, traits, properties and characteristics of God and men.
One thing is clear though. Satan may be the accuser, but he works for God. He serves a purpose in God's scheme of things.


What Place was Jesus going to prepare In John 14 Jesus tells the disciples that he was going to prepare a place for them. Isn't it that heaven was already founded from creation?  So, what place was he referring to? Was this just a figure of speech?

Technically, I don't know of any place in the Bible that says that the saved go to Heaven when they die. It says they go to "paradise", that they go to be "with Jesus", etc, but I don't know any verse that says this is Heaven. Exactly what the place where the saved go is called is not entirely clear.

Perhaps the place that Jesus went to prepare is the New Jerusalem of Revelation.

Or if it is the same Heaven mentioned throughout the Bible, this would not really cause a problem with this verse. To "prepare" a place does not necessarily mean that you are creating it from nothing. He might have meant that he was preparing Heaven to receive the saved. Like someone might say, "Oh, I have to get home to prepare the house for the party tonight." They don't mean that they're building a new house, but that they are going to decorate their existing house, arrange furniture, put out clean towels, etc.

My conclusions are that Jesus referred to a new spiritual function within the souls of the apostles,and eventually within all those souls who live a holy life, from Pentecost onwards,and their soul was and is, the new place Jesus prepared and took to himself, and in the same time the apostles,and all those who live a holy life,were,and would also be with Jesus,AS ONE!

THis is even emphatically more clear further down in

John 14:18:I will not leave you orphans, I will come to you.

and in:

14:23 Jesus answered, and said to him: If any one love me, he will keep my word,

The above is a clear reference to Jesus' presence within humans as "THE WORD" to all those who live a holy life.

and my Father will love him, and we will come to him,

The above is a reference to the presence of the Paraclete, the Holy Spirit within a human soul when a person lives a holy life continually.

and will make our abode with him.

The above is a reference to Jesus Christ our Lord God,  in the glory of the Father, within the human soul, once a person has achieved union with God WHILE ON EARTH!

Jesus made sure that he would be understood, in John17:20 when while praying he asserted this and said:

20 And not for them only do I pray, but for them also who through their word shall believe in me;

21That they all may be one, as thou, Father, in me, and I in thee; that they also may be one in us;

that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.

AS CLEAR AS CRYSTAL:

ALL THE ABOVE COULD AND WOULD BE ACHEIVED ON EARTH BY HUMANS ONCE THEY LIVE A HOLY LIFE IN THE TRUTH! and those who experience this would be aware that

JESUS WAS SENT BY THE FATHER

I hope I am clear enough!


How is the ‘Resurrection of the Holy Ones’ in Mt.27:51-53 understood by those who consider it a literal, historical event? This question is very similar to a question I just asked, but it's not a duplicate (just hear me out). Since there are many ways to read the Bible, I wanted to understand multiple points of view, that being: 1) those who understand this as a non-literal, non-historical event (modern, liberal scholars, perhaps) -- the previous question; 2) those who interpret the events as literal, specifically the pericope of the Resurrection of the Holy Ones as cited in Matthew's Passion narrative specifically  -- this question. Of course, the main body of the question will be similar, but I wanted to direct the question towards a different audience and provide a venue for that. There are also a variety of other questions geared for those who interpret it as literal.

The scripture of focus is:

  And, behold, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to
  the bottom; and the earth did quake, and the rocks rent; And the
  graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose,
  And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the
  holy city, and appeared unto many. Now when the centurion, and they
  that were with him, watching Jesus, saw the earthquake, and those
  things that were done, they feared greatly, saying, Truly this was the
  Son of God. (Matthew 27:51-54. KJV)

With phenomenal events such as an earthquake so mighty it opens a number of graves and then the righteous dead arise and interact with the community, one would expect Matthew to explicate these miracles beyond the pithy lines in his text; or, at least, expect the other evangelists to also document these incidences in their narratives. The Markan narrative denotes the temple’s rented veil and the centurion’s response, but does not make any mention of an earthquake or the resurrection of saints. Similarly, Luke and John do not make even the slightest reference to these events.

Additionally, during Peter’s pontifical address during Pentecost, not even a nebulous reference to a powerful earthquake or the resurrection of these saints is conveyed. Pentecost occurred fifty days following Christ’s resurrection and the supposed Holy Ones’ appearance to “many.” Therefore, the omission of these events in Peter’s address, especially to an audience that were likely witnesses to these events, is a curious oversight.

Why didn't the other Gospel writers write about these? Why aren't there other extra-biblical sources for these events? It seems like more than Christ's followers would have witnessed these events.... And it certainly seems like something people would continue to talk about for ages thereafter... Are there other sources that may imply the opening of tombs and rising of the deceased?

Or were only the righteous ones able to "see" these?

Or is it that there weren't that many "righteous" individuals in the scheme of things -- that it was hardly noticed?

Or that the resurrected beings, looked just like everyone else?

Or did the High Priest somehow cover-up this story? (For instance, we read that they tried telling people that Christ's body was stolen).

Or did they just destroy all the records they could get their hands on? (and the general witness to these events were illiterate)?

Or we simply have not unearthed these records yet? After all, an absence of evidence is not evidence for something, right?

Just confused why no one else mentions it. (Please correct me if I'm wrong!)

Also, do we have any archaeological records of tombs breaking open?

And does the geological record correspond to an earthquake happening in this region?

***If you are interested as to a non-literal, modern interpretation, please see my other question for the answer provided there.

There is geological evidence of two Earthquakes in the middle east between A.D. 26 and 32:

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/47555983/ns/technology_and_science-science/t/quake-reveals-day-jesus-crucifixion-researchers-believe/#.WA9zTJOAOko

One of these may have occurred at the time of Jesus' crucifixion.

The writer of the Gospel of John declares that he was selective in the material he presents. John 21:25:

  Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written
  down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the
  books that would be written.

What he states openly, we may assume that the others practiced implicitly. That is, any event may be found in one gospel but absent in another, should that event not be relevant to the point the gospel writer was trying to emphasize.

So what was Matthew's emphasis? He wrote to Jews, about their laws, prophecies, and hopes, their kings and their messiah. But at the end of the gospel, the curtain of the temple is torn in two, removing the separation between priest and laity. The tombs are split open, removing the separation between living and dead. And when the centurion feels the earthquake and sees the other events, he declares that Jesus is the Son of God- the separation between Jew and Gentile is gone.

In Revelation, John mentions five earthquakes. Preterists and partial preterists would say that some of the events of Revelation have already occurred. One of those earthquakes may be an allusion to the earthquake at the time of the crucifixion.

This may be challenging to answer within the bounds of this site but I will begin by pointing out that the description of these events are stated plainly and without ambiguity.

Your point that there seems to be no Biblical or extra Biblical reinforcement of this is understood but, sadly, the temple guards were not, at that time required to wear body cams.  Yes, a little tongue in cheek there but, in all your writing and in all your questions you seem to miss the point.

What is the point?, you ask.

It has nothing to do with earthquakes, veils torn in two, saints being resurrected or even the commentary of a Roman soldier.  This was all "side show".  The MOST SIGNIFICANT EVENT OF ALL TIME was taking place and these were "collateral effects" of such a cataclysmic event.  That the side show receives only a passing mention should not be a surprise.

People choose "literal" or "non-literal" interpretations according to which reinforces their belief on a particular topic.   (I may be guilty of this myself but I try to follow established principles when considering such things).

As for extra-biblical references, if I were in charge of writing history, and history made me look bad, I might be tempted to adjust it and, without the Holy Spirit to guide me, I would probably yield.


Is there a need for Christians to believe in Christianity at all, if they don't believe in Resurrection and Salvation through Christ alone? My question is directed to professing Christians who don't believe in any of the key doctrines held by evangelical churches, such as the Virgin Birth, the Resurrection, and Jesus Christ as the only path to salvation. If you believe in the evangelical doctrine of salvation, this question isn't for you.

I come from an evangelical background, which taught me to believe in the Virgin Birth, the Resurrection, and that Jesus is the only path to salvation. I understand that there are some Christians who don't believe in these things, which I think are the pillars and the cornerstone of Christianity, without which Christianity has no reason to exist. These Christians are commonly identified as "liberal Christians." You can read more about the view of this group of Christians here, and read a conservative theologian's response to their views here.

Back to my main question:

If one doesn't believe that Jesus is the only path to salvation, what is the "selling point" of Christianity? Why should people bother to become Christians at all? It would be equally okay to be an atheist, agnostic, or Buddhist who believes in Jesus as a great teacher and religion leader, but nothing more.

By the same token, as I see it, if liberal Christians think that Bible is just another book, written and compiled by mere humans with human errors in it, then it is no longer infallible, and there is no reason to pay attention to Biblical teachings on any subject. So what is the difference between liberal Christians and non-Christians? Non-Christians can draw inspiration from the Bible in the same way as these Christians do. They believe in exactly the same thing!

I am curious: On what basis do liberal Christians identify themselves as Christians?

This is going to be a rather vague answer, mainly because even within the 'extreme liberal Christians' that you describe there is a huge range of belief. This answer is going to do no more than skim the surface of them.

In the UK, one of the best-known 'liberal Christians' is David Jenkins, former Bishop of Durham. Jenkins famously gave an interview, just before his consecration, in which he said that God would not have arranged a virgin birth, and that the resurrection was not a literal, physical event. This got him a lot of flak from traditional Christians, who believed he had abandoned the Christian faith. However in subsequent interviews it became clear that Jenkins was much closer to orthodoxy than first appeared. He did not deny the resurrection - he simply believed it was a spiritual event, rather than physical, and not any less real for that. He did not deny the existence of God, or that Jesus was his Son, or even the possibility of miracles. Jenkins has always described himself as Christian, and while his theology may be different from many, he certainly follows what he believes to be Christian truth. He is far from alone in these views.

At another point on the spectrum is Don Cupitt, who famously held the post of Dean of Emmanuel College Cambridge while denying the existence of God. ('Dean' is a religious post at Cambridge collleges, requiring one to be a priest of the Church of England). Cupitt's position is that modern knowledge has disproved the objective existence of God, and that Christian teaching is simply a recipe for a better way of living. He has stated that belief in God is good (even though God does not exist) because it leads to Christian practices. As Wikipedia puts it:

  Cupitt sometimes describes himself as Christian non-realist, by which he means that he follows certain spiritual practices and attempts to live by ethical standards traditionally associated with Christianity but without believing in the actual existence of the underlying metaphysical entities (such as "Christ" and "God")

In the US the best-known of the liberal wing is John Shelby Spong. Spong appears to fall into a similar camp as David Jenkins. While appearing to deny the literal physicality of the resurrection, he nonetheless affirms - extremely vehemently - the reality of it. He would deny the Bible's infallibility, but would affirm that through it you can discover the truth of a God of Love and a resurrected Jesus.

If there is a common thread here, it is that the people described here hold to what they believes is the underlying truth about God, Jesus and Christianity and for the most part are following the Jesus they believe in.

I'm not entirely sure whether or not my denomination, the Holy Roman Catholic Church, counts as 'extremely Liberal' according to your definitions.  However, together with the (also possibly 'extremely liberal') Holy Orthodox Churches, we teach that there is a lot more to religion than just salvation, and these teachings are certainly possibly held by people holding all of the 'liberal' tags you describe.
Christianity is, for us, a way of life.  We live it perhaps at first out of fear of God's wrath or desire for God's gift of salvation, but ultimately we teach that the greatest Christians serve God out of love for Him.
Example prayer showing doctrine in practice:

Prayer of Love for the Crucified Lord
O Jesus, it is not the heavenly reward You have promised which impels me to love You; neither is it the threat of hell that keep me from offending You. It is You, O Lord, it is the sight of You affixed to the Cross and suffering insults; it is the sight of Your broken body, as well as Your pains and Your death. There is nothing You can give me to make me love You. For even if there were no heaven and no hell I would still love You as I do.
Amen.

Christianity is right.  God is all-good, and deserving of all of our love.  God asks us to be Christian.  Does it really matter why?  To reject God is wrong, indeed it is the most wrong it is possible to be.  As Kierkegaard correctly proposes, it is right to have faith in God no matter what.  That means even without salvation, the resurrection, logical consistency, or anything else.
In the story of Isaac and Abraham, it is precisely because what God asks of Abraham Abraham would ordinarily believe to be morally wrong that Abraham's obedience is indicative of great faith-- Abraham trusted God's righteousness over his own understanding of morality-- over reason, knowing that God would never ask him to do something that was truly unethical.  In teleologically suspending the ethical, Abraham shows his great faith to God, who then prevents the sacrifice from occurring (probably since it would, in fact, have been evil).  Such faith is laudable, and the resurrection-- just like God's sparing of Isaac-- is only incidentally related to it.
Just because you don't believe in the resurrection does NOT make it "equally OK to be a(n) atheist/agnostic/Buddhist who believes in Jesus as a great teacher and religion leader but not more", at least from a moral standpoint.  God didn't have to save you.  He doesn't deserve your love because He died for you.  He deserves your love and obedience because He is God.
How much more, then, ought we who know the truth of the resurrection to be infinitely grateful!  We who already owed unto God everything owe unto Him His very life-- except that it has been given freely.


In Galatians 4:19, what is the meaning of "Christ formed in you"? When Paul is speaking of Christ being in the Galatians, what is the true meaning of that phrase, "Christ formed in you"?  Does it relate directly to salvation?
In the context of the letter, he speaks of the woman Hagar who represents condemnation under the law and the free woman Sarah whom by Faith receives the blessing of God.  Paul writes that when the Galatians place themselves under the law they are condemned and not in Christ.  So, is the meaning of this condemnation purely earthly or is it also spiritual (hell vs heaven)?
I want to clarify what this means before taking the next step of, "does this scripture mean we can lose our salvation?"

(KJV)  My little children, of whom I travail in birth again until Christ be
formed in you,
(ESV) my little children, for whom I am again in the anguish of childbirth until Christ is formed in you!

(emphasis added)

This may seem simplistic but you have already read the complex.  The meaning is simple.  Christ formed in us is exactly what it says.  First of all we initiate the salvation experience by surrendering to Christ and inviting Him into our heart to live and He is formed in us.  Additionally, as we grow in understanding, we become examples of Christianity and, essentially, Christ is formed in us once again.

This section focuses specifically on Paul's relationship with the Galatians and how he feels like he has to lay the foundation again for their faith. He uses that tried and true metaphor of childbirth. "Until Christ is formed in you" could mean that he thinks they are all pagans, but it also might simply be that he desires for them to live in the freedom gained by Christ. I would caution you against pinning the entirety of a doctrine of the assurance  of salvation (whatever you believe about it) on this one phrase. Pinning down one particular phrase can be tricky, so it is always best to have the clear places of scripture help us understand the unclear.


In Presbyterianism, what is the basis for a parallel between the office of deacon and Christ's priestly office? In Presbyterianism, there are three "titles" that can be given to officers of a church:

Teaching elder (e.g., pastors)
Ruling elder
Deacon

Last weekend I heard something rather novel, at least to me1—that these three titles parallel the three offices of Christ (prophet, priest, and king):

Teaching elder – Prophet – proclaims God's word
Ruling elder – King – rules and directs the church; responsible for church discipline
Deacon – Priest – ????

The parallels are obviously not perfect even in the first two cases, since ruling elders also proclaim God's word (at least in small groups and classes, if not preaching from the pulpit), and teaching elders also participate in ruling and directing the church.  Still, I can see the connection.

However, I do not see the connection between the office of deacons and Christ's priestly office.  So that's my question:

Given a Reformed and Presbyterian polity and christology, what is the basis for making a parallel between the office of deacon and Christ's priestly office?

There's likely to be some biblical basis for this, but I'm most interested in the biblical arguments made by those who hold to Reformed, Presbyterian beliefs.  Those who do not share this framework, if they make a connection between these two offices, might do so for different reasons.

This view is held by "some Reformed textbooks," according to G. I. Williamson, so it's not just the view of the person I heard it from.  Unfortunately Williamson doesn't mention which texts argue for this.

Sorry Nathaniel, I'm not able to comment yet, I'm new to this site :).
It's basically a model of Jesus's ministry and the actions of the early church. He chose several disciples/apostles, trained them in helping the poor, healing the sick, and leading the Church, and eventually set them out on their own.  See Acts 6:

Brothers and sisters, choose seven men from among you who are known to be full of the Spirit and wisdom. We will turn this responsibility over to them 4 and will give our attention to prayer and the ministry of the word.”
5 This proposal pleased the whole group. They chose Stephen, a man full of faith and of the Holy Spirit; also Philip, Procorus, Nicanor, Timon, Parmenas, and Nicolas from Antioch, a convert to Judaism. 6 They presented these men to the apostles, who prayed and laid their hands on them.
7 So the word of God spread. The number of disciples in Jerusalem increased rapidly, and a large number of priests became obedient to the faith.

Indeed, this is true in many modern Presbyterian churches. In my own, the elders typically have more longevity and lead the church intellectually and spiritually, while we've had many deacons who have been trained by our elders and pastors, given responsibilities in caring for our church members, and eventually set out as missionaries or church planters.
Hope this helps some; sorry I can't substantiate my claims more, I'm not as read-up on these topics as I used to be and as I wish I was.. In short, I believe it's a model based upon Jesus's example.


What does the Bible verse saying "don't boil a goat in its mother's milk" mean? Does it mean don't use the word of God (milk meat and honey) condemning the little ones just learning the word of Christ to the point. The child rejects even hearing about God?

One of several Jewish interpretations of this verse may be found here: http://thetorah.com/meat-and-milk-origins-in-the-text/

The one that appeals to me is that it was misinterpreted and originally meant that you should not wait until a young goat has been weaned before bringing it for sacrifice of first fruits.

Another idea with no evidential support is that it is forbidding a pagan practice common at that time.

It means that we should avoid, or minimizing, eating milk that has continuously been boiled, because when it is being boiled for a long time, which it is when meat is being cooked in it, it becomes concentrated due to water evaporation.

Milk contains a relatively big percentage of saturated fat, which is unhealthy to drink/eat too much of. Skim milk, and small quantities of semi skimmed milk is a lot healthier than creamy full-fat milk, etc.

The Bible warns against eating animal fat.

  Lev 7:23 (NIV) “Say to the Israelites: ‘Do not eat any of the fat of cattle, sheep or goats"


Why the difference in depiction of the cross between Catholics and Protestants? As I understand it, Roman Catholic crosses have Jesus hanging on them, but Protestant crosses do not. I understood that Protestant crosses do not because they want to focus on the Resurrection, not the death of Jesus.

Is that correct? Why the difference?

There is a pretty clear distinction between Catholics and Protestants in that regard, though there may be Protestant denominations that do use the crucifix rather than the cross.

It seems that the main issue that Protestants today have with the crucifix is that it is specifically an image of Jesus, the Son of God.  Such an image is believed to be strictly forbidden in Scripture.

  You shall not make for yourself a carved image, or any likeness of
  anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or
  that is in the water under the earth.  Exodus 20:4 ESV

Throughout the Old Testament, the Israelites were distinguished from other nations by the fact that they had no idols to represent God.  God gives the reason for this commandment in Isaiah, where He indicates that He is righteously jealous for His own glory and will not share it with an idol.

  I am the LORD; that is my name; my glory I give to no other, nor my
  praise to carved idols.  Isaiah 42:8 ESV

So, Protestant churches are most often decorated with only an empty Cross that is not an object of worship, but merely a symbol of remembrance.  No Protestant I know of ever prays to a cross or cares whether or not there is a cross in front of them when they pray or worship.  It is wholly decorative.

In contrast, Catholic churches do often have crucifixes, which have an image of Jesus, the Son of God.  Additionally, there is often an image of Mary as well.  These may or may not be objects of worship, but for most Protestants, these are unacceptable due to the aforementioned commandments.

Orthodox churches are often quite replete with images of Jesus, Mary, and many of the saints.  Again, I'm not sure these are used as objects of worship or not, but Protestants generally reject the use of these as they are viewed as idols--or at least could be confused as such.

As a footnote, the listing of the 10 Commandments is different between Catholic and most Protestant traditions.  In the Catholic listing, idolatry is not present, but is considered as part of the first commandment, and have two commandments that mention covetousness.  Protestants list the prohibition against idolatry as the second commandment and only list one commandment regarding covetousness.

Jesus died for our sins and rose from the dead. Am astounded that someone who is spiritual evolved and very learned, such as Bishop Fulton Sheen, would believe that Jesus is STILL hanging on that cross! (Just listened to a presentation on youtube.com where he said this.) If Jesus is still hanging on that cross, then EASTER never happened!!

Jesus is NOT still hanging on that cross, except in artistic depictions, whose purpose is apparently to REMIND US of the enormous sacrifice that Jesus/God made on our behalf. Jesus went to heaven, where He sitteth at the right hand of God the Father, from whence He shall come to judge the quick and the dead.


Are there exactly 12 resurrections in the Bible? During a sermon I heard the pastor saying that there are 12 resurrections in the Bible.

Are there more than 12, less or exactly 12 resurrections in the Bible?

At the moment I can remember the following ones:

The resurrection of the son of Zarephath's widow
The resurrection of the son of the great Shunammite woman
The man that comes to live touching the Elisha's bones
Lazarus's resurrection
The Jesus's resurrection
The people that came to life when Jesus died.

I am sure that there are other resurrections. Which are them?

Elijah resurrected the son of a widow in Zarephath (1 Kings 17:7-24).
Elisha resurrected the son of the Shunammite woman (2 Kings 4:8-35).
A dead man came back to life when he touches Elisha's bones (2 Kings 13:21).
Jesus resurrected the widow's son at Nain (Luke 7:11-15).
Jesus raised the daughter of Jairus, a Synagogue leader from the dead (Matthew 9:18-25, Mark 5:21-43, Luke 8:40-56).
Jesus raised Lazarus from the dead (John 11:43-44).
Many saints were resurrected at the death of Jesus Christ (Matthew 27:50-53).
The resurrection of Jesus Christ (Matthew 28:5-7).
Peter raised a female disciple named Tabitha from the dead at Joppa (Acts 9:36-42).
Paul raised Eutychus from the dead at Troas (Acts 20:6-12).
Paul was revived from a near death condition. There is some possibility that Paul was actually dead for a short time (Acts 14:19-20).
Abraham received back his one and only son Isaac, who was to be sacrificed on the altar. It is possible that Isaac was already dead in the heart of his father, Abraham. There is a strong connection between this story and the death and resurrection of Jesus.  (Genesis 22).

To add to @Mawia's list, consider Moses. He was seen on the Mount of Transfiguration by Peter and company. We know he died, yet here he is! The passage does not say whether Moses was merely a spirit or had a corporeal body, so this is ambiguous.

It might be asked whether it was really Moses and Elijah who were
present or whether only their spectres were set before the disciples,
just as often the prophets saw visions of absent things. Although
there is much to be said on both sides, as they say, yet it seems more
likely to me that they really were brought to that place. (John Calvin)

(Quoted from this article: https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/themelios/article/the-transfiguration-of-jesus-christ/ )


Reformation objections to lectio divina? It is becoming popular in Protestant circles to embrace traditional Roman Catholic (RC) mysticism, such as the practice of lectio divina. For example, see this page on the website of Timothy Keller's church, and also his recommendation of this book. However, it occurs to me that the original Reformers were probably aware of these forms of mysticism, and had reasons for rejecting them, or they would have been preserved in the Protestant tradition. In light of the current trend, it would behoove those who subscribed to a Protestant and particularly a traditional Reformed position to be aware of and wrestle with these objections.

What did the Reformers (or later Reformed theologians) teach about RC mysticism?

In what works did they critique it?
What were their major objections?
Did they find anything laudable in it?
What alternatives did they offer for spiritual growth?

I am most particularly interested in the practice of lectio divina.

This subject is all about balance. Rationalism and Mysticism are the extremes to avoid. Your question does not seem biased to either extreme.

I do not think you will find reformers making direct attacks upon particular forms of meditation so long as those meditating, mediated on those objective doctrines that they taught! The moment any type of mysticism crept in that would give cause for someone to claim that their 'inner light' had authority over objective doctrine, they were called fanatics. Thomas Muntzer was a German reformer who went that way. Luther mentions his sentiments when discussing the necessity of the public reading of scripture:

  First, attend to the public reading. Do not omit it. It seems to me that there is a miraculous spirit in those fanatics. Thomas [Müntzer] began it. So they hold the Word in contempt. “The testimony in my inner being is enough for me.”
  (Luther's Works 28.329)

However the reformers were not rationalists, they felt until the Spirit opened up the objective doctrine you did not know what you ought:

  Secondly, you should meditate, that is, not only in your heart, but also externally, by actually repeating and comparing oral speech and literal words of the book, reading and rereading them with diligent attention and reflection, so that you may see what the Holy Spirit means by them. And take care that you do not grow weary or think that you have done enough when you have read, heard, and spoken them once or twice, and that you then have complete understanding. You will never be a particularly good theologian if you do that, for you will be like untimely fruit which falls to the ground before it is haft ripe. (Luther's Works 34.386)

However, to reiterate, if one's meditation was not centered on objective truth, and most importantly objective truth of grace, as opposed to works, one's meditation was self-based and idolatry:

  The highest forms of religion and holiness, and the most fervent forms of devotion of those who worship God without the Word and command of God, are idolatry. Thus under the papacy it was regarded as an act of the greatest spirituality when the monks sat in their cells and meditated about God and His works, or when their fervent devotions so inflamed them as they genuflected, prayed, and contemplated heavenly things that they wept for sheer pleasure and joy. There was no thinking here about women or about any other creature, but only about the Creator and His marvelous works. And yet this action, which reason regards as eminently spiritual, is a “work of the flesh” according to Paul. Thus every such form of religion, which worships God without His Word and command, is idolatry. The more spiritual and holy it appears to be, the more dangerous and destructive it is; for it deflects men from faith in Christ and causes them to rely on their own powers, works, and righteousness. (Luther's Works 27.87)

From all the references about prayer or meditation in Luther or Calvin that I have read, which is a fair sum, never will you find an encouragement to practice mysticism, nor is the subject important enough for their attention. So long as people held to the doctrines they preached, meditation styles just did not matter.

It is possible that the Reformers did not know about Lectio Divina. It had fallen out of disuse by the time of the Reformation. It has only been recently that the practice was revitalized.


When was Sunday first called the Sabbath? I am looking for the first extant record of Sunday being referred to specifically as the "Sabbath" or "Christian Sabbath"

I am not asking which day the early church gathered.

I am not asking which day is the Christian Sabbath.

I am not looking for evidence of the transfer of observance or meaning of the Sabbath from Saturday to Sunday, but for evidence of the transfer of title or label of "Sabbath" to Sunday.

I am asking for the first record of Sunday being labeled the Christian equivalent of the Jewish Sabbath.

Context of my question:

It is quite evident to me that in many early church writings that the idea of the Jewish Sabbath is actually rejected. Sunday was certainly a common day of gathering and to the Jewish believers the seventh day would still have possibly been thought of as the Sabbath day. But from Justin Martyr through the Council of Laodicea a Judaizing celebration of any Sabbath is discouraged and the true Sabbath is not any singular day, but as a status in Christ and an attitude of repentance and rest in Him.

I understand many may even disagree with the above statements, but I tell you this so you can understand what kind of statement I am looking for and the question can be answered regardless. At some point in Christian theology someone labeled Sunday not just a day to gather or even a day to rest and enjoy a Sabbath, but someone labeled it as the Christian Sabbath. A true shift of the same Sabbath from the Jewish seventh day to a Christian first day.

Also many may agree with me, even to the point that the idea of Sunday Sabbath seems foreign or wrong. This question remains agnostic on which is right and on what the source may have truly meant.

Finding the earliest record would certainly impact answers to related questions, but all that is outside the bounds of this question.

When is Sunday first recorded as being labeled the Sabbath? Not just a day of rest or gathering or worship.

Contemporary examples

From About Christianity website:

  Today, many Christian traditions believe Sunday is the Christian Sabbath day.

Westminster Confession Chapter 21 Article 7:

  He has particularly appointed one day in seven, for a Sabbath, to be kept holy unto him:[34] which, from the beginning of the world to the resurrection of Christ, was the last day of the week: and, from the resurrection of Christ, was changed into the first day of the week,[35] which, in Scripture, is called the Lord's Day,[36] and is to be continued to the end of the world, as the Christian Sabbath.[37]

A lengthily titled treatise on the Sabbath by John Owen says:

  And for a holy day of rest, ...he determined the observation of the first day of the week;
  ...
  Now, as God’s rest, and his being refreshed in his work, on the seventh day of old, ... so the rest of our Lord Jesus Christ, and his being refreshed in and from his works, on the first day, is a sufficient indication of the precise day of rest to be observed under the dispensation of the new covenant, now confirmed and established (pp. 409-410).

I'm not entirely sure that is how Owen meant it but that is how that part alone could be understood (the treatise is quite long, the above link is a summary with quotations). So perhaps this is a "missing link" of sorts in the direction of the earlier quotes.

The first writer to clearly make this connection appears to be Petrus Alphonsi in the 12th century.  This is argued by 17th century historian Peter Heylyn, who writes:

  The first who ever used [the word Sabbath], to denote the Lords day, (the first that I have met with in all this search) is one Petrus Alfonsus, he lived about the times that Rupertus did; who calls the Lords day by the name of the Christian Sabbath. (The History of the Sabbath, II, 158)

Heylyn is not controverted by more recent authors, such as James Augustus Hessy  (Sunday, 119), nor Kenneth Parker (The English Sabbath, 19).  Heylyn quotes Alfonsi's Latin text, Dialogi contra Iudaeos, which does not seem to be available online in full.  But the key sentence is:

  Dies Dominica, dies, viz. resurrectionis, quae suae salvationis causa exstitit, Christianorum Sabbatum est.

Translated:

  The Lord's day, that is, the day of resurrection, which happened for the sake of their salvation, is the Christians' Sabbath.

Technically the translation of the last phrase as "the Christian Sabbath" is not possible; Christianorum is genitive (indicating posession) and not an adjective.  But "the Christians' Sabbath" is so similar that Heylyn considered the phrases essentially equivalent, and we might as well.

Granted, Haylyn is quick to argue that Alfonsi's phrase was meant only analogically, in the sense that Easter is the Christian Passover.  But Kenneth Parker relates several other pre-Reformation authors who connected the Sabbath and Sunday (though not with the phrase "Christian Sabbath"), such as a 6th century homilist (18), the author of Dives and Pauper, and Archbishop Arundal (21).

These last comments serve only to provide a bit of context – the first use of a phrase like that requested comes from the 12th century, in the writings of Petrus Alphonsi.

The idea of Sunday as rest, like Sabbath, traces back to the first centuries of Christianity.

Eusebius, writing circa 330 CE, "joins" the day of Sunday (aka at that time as the Lord's Day) with its rest, as opposed to the Sabbath.

  Accordingly he [Constantine] enjoined on all the subjects of the Roman empire to observe the Lord’s day, as a day of rest, and also to honor the day which precedes the Sabbath; in memory, I suppose, of what the Saviour of mankind is recorded to have achieved on that day.
  http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf201.iv.vi.iv.xviii.html

Synod of Laodicea 29th Canon held in 364 CE determined this also ties the idea of Sabbath rest to Sunday rest.

  Canon XXIX.
  Christians must not judaize by resting on the Sabbath, but must work on that day, rather honouring the Lord’s Day; and, if they can, resting then as Christians.  But if any shall be found to be judaizers, let them be anathema from Christ.

  Notes [to same].
  Ancient Epitome of Canon XXIX.
  A Christian shall not stop work on the Sabbath, but on the Lord’s Day.
  Balsamon.
  Here the Fathers order that no one of the faithful shall stop work on the Sabbath as do the Jews, but that they should honour the Lord’s Day, on account of the Lord’s resurrection, and that on that day they should abstain from manual labour and go to church.  But thus abstaining from work on Sunday they do not lay down as a necessity, but they add, “if they can.”  For if through need or any other necessity any one worked on the Lord’s day this was not reckoned against him.
  http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.viii.vii.iii.xxxiv.html


Were the 12 disciples Jewish? As was brought up in another question; in so using Matthew 10:1-4, which lists the names of the 12. A response from a contributor stated the unavailability of proof in the Scripture to show that any or all(my own addition to shorten) were truely Jewish or Israelites.
The belief I have found, which comes from Jesus's mouth in Matthew 28:19, "make disciples of all nations", leads me to my point. The missing facts that could tell us if the 12 disciples were Jews is irrelevant. It does not matter, that is why it is not found in the Scriptures. We do not need to know, and Jesus already said that He wanted disciples of all nations. Had the information been available stating all to be Jews, then we may find ourselves arguing, as I know I do about things anyway, except this time with Jesus's command, on whether or not a disciple should or should not be either Jewish or of Israelite lineage, or of all nations.

Tradition holds that all 12 were Jewish, but the Bible affirms the Jewish heritage of many of them. Their names are:

Thomas, Simon the Zealot, Philip, Simon Peter, Matthias, Matthew (aka Levi), Jude, Judas Iscariot, John, James (Son of Alpheus), James (Son of Zebedee), Bartholomew (aka Nathaniel), and Andrew.

Nathaniel. Jesus labeled Nathaniel (also called Bartholomew) as Jewish. When Jesus saw Nathanael approaching, he said of him, “Here truly is an Israelite in whom there is no deceit.” (John 1:47)
Simon the Zealot. The Zealots were a fanatical Jewish sect, so his title confirms that he was Jewish.
Matthew. Since Matthew was also called Levi, one of the tribes of Israel, this is evidence that he was Jewish.
Jude and James, son of Alphaeus. The name Jude comes from Judah, the same tribe that King David came from. James was Jude's brother.
Judas Iscariot. Judas also comes from Judah.
Philip, Andrew, Peter. John 1:44 says, "Philip, like Andrew and Peter, was from the town of Bethsaida." Bethsaida was on the shores of the Sea of Galilee. In those days, its residents would have mostly been Jewish. Also, when Peter went to the Temple in Jerusalem, the authorities never punished him for desecrating the Temple for being a non-Jew, but for other reasons.
John and James. They were brothers: Going on from there, he saw two other brothers, James son of Zebedee and his brother John. They were in a boat with their father Zebedee, preparing their nets. (Matthew 4:21) Since John had the same name as Jesus' cousin, John the Baptist, we know that it was a common Jewish name. Also, In Mark 1, they accompany Jesus into a synagogue. They would not likely have been welcome there if they were not Jewish.
As a group. In Acts 1:6, the disciples asked this:

  Then they gathered around him and asked him, “Lord, are you at this
  time going to restore the kingdom to Israel?”

That proves that they still had a Jewish mindset, and were focused on their nation, the nation of Israel, not the world. Jesus responds with this:

  7 He said to them: “It is not for you to know the times or dates the
  Father has set by his own authority. 8 But you will receive power when
  the Holy Spirit comes on you; and you will be my witnesses in
  Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the
  earth.”

Jew and Israelite are not the same thing.  Jews are one of 12 tribes of the Israelites.  The comment above is meant to purposefully convolute the topic.
Judas is Judah in Greek Koine, fyi.


What is unique about Christianity? Inspired by this question: How do Christians explain commonalities between their religion, other major faiths and obscure isolated tribal belief systems?

What is fundamentally unique about Christianity?  Obviously there are different stories, texts, and traditions associated with Christianity than with other religions.  But if we cut away all the fluff from all the world religions...  Is there anything that stands out as unique about the core of Christianity?

To clarify what I'm asking:

Many religions have prophets that claim to speak on behalf of god(s).
Many religions have scriptures, often claimed to be inspired by their god(s).
Many religions report miracles, or other supernatural phenomena.
Many religions claim to be the only "true" religion.
Many religions claim to offer forgiveness of sin.
Many religions claim to be historically based and accurate.
Many religions claim to improve society.

If Christianity just has a "better version" of all of these points, it sounds like Christianity is fundamentally the same as most/all other religions, it's just "more completely evolved."  So what I'm asking for is any characteristics of Christianity that are fundamentally unique and important, and not just improvements on existing ideas.

Many religions are attempts to please a god or "gods" in order to gain their favor.
Many religions focus on becoming more like a god ourselves, elevating man in some way or another
Others deny God or the Supernatural at all (often viewing man as already being the ultimate being)
Many focus on using or harnessing powers of the universe to improve our lives (Wicca, and other new-age religions)

The primary difference between Christianity and other religions that I've either "dabbled in" or studied is this:

Christianity is unique in stating that we cannot possibly hope to please God by being "good enough", and that God reached down and made the ultimate sacrifice for us.  Our good works can do nothing to please Him.  All we can do to please Him is to accept His gift and love Him.

In other words, all of the other religions that I'm aware of are man-centered, focusing on improving or glorifying man, whereas Christianity is about glorifying God alone.  Instead of trying to appease Him in some way or other, which encourages pride, we are grateful to a God that loves us in spite of our own unrighteousness.  Christianity gives all the glory to God, and leaves no room for us to take any credit on our own.

One aspect of Christianity that seems small but important is:

  Luke 6:31 (NIV) Do to others as you would have them do to you.

Other religions (that I know about) say something like:

  Don't do to others what you don't want them to do.

(A nice list of a few teachings shows us this "Inverse Golden Rule" or I remember hearing it called "the Silver rule".) EDIT:- as this seems to be an issue that people are not quite understanding what I initially intended to say I will elaborate: The Christian "Golden Rule" is to do good to others and the inverse of this is not to do harm to others.  If you know of a religious text that is not Christian and states the Golden Rule then please correct me.  With the Golden Rule one would look for opportunities to do good in peoples lives as a proactive approach. The Inverse Golden Rule makes us stop and think "Is this going to harm?".

While this may not seem like a big difference but it ties into the second greatest commandment:

  Matt 22:39 (NIV) Love your neighbour as yourself.

EDIT 2:- At this point the post is -4 so I understand most people won't even look this far down but I still think the distinction needs to be made. The difference from Jesus's teaching compare to others is a permissive (or pro-active) command: "Go do good" is different to the don't do/wish harm on others. In this I Haven't taken in Judaism as a separate religion as Jesus, being a rabbi, would have taught from this point.
Taoism:

  “Regard your neighbor’s gain as your own gain and your neighbor’s loss as your own loss.”

This is not the Pro-active position Jesus taught from, is is a passive one. (Passive as in there is no action here other than to "regard".)

On a broader look of the Bible you see it as the only (Someone correct me if I am wrong) religious text that tells of what God (or whatever deity) did to reconcile man to himself rather than what man needs to do to reconcile himself to his deity. The core of what Christianity is: Jesus died for us, rather than what we have to do to be made right.


To what degree does the Church of England consider the Genesis creation account to be metaphoric? Does the Church of England generally consider the Genesis creation account (first couple of chapters) more metaphor than literal history?

The Church of England has not taken a stand on the simplified 'creation versus evolution' debate. Many people investigating this have reported being unable to find a clear positional statement from the CofE, and there are quotes from church leaders stating that they believe there is no official position. This is an example. The church has made pronouncements stating that a belief in evolution is compatible with Christian faith, but that does not mean that those who believe in a literal creation are excluded from the church.

From personal experience, members of the CofE, both laity and clergy, take a wide variety of positions on the matter. The recent Archbishop of Canterbury has stated his personal acceptance of evolution, but does not see the Genesis creation stories in opposition to that.

So to answer the direct question, the Church of England makes no definitive pronouncement on how much of Genesis is 'metaphorical', but the general position of most of its leaders is that at least the timeline of the first three chapters should not be taken as literal history.

A good friend of mine who belongs to the Church of England (as a minister) explained it to me in the following way:

The Genesis narrative is considered for the most part literal, but the representation of days is metaphorical. This comes from both a Judaic teaching that these days represented ages as well as 2 Peter 3:8:

  But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.

Also Psalm 90:4:

  For a thousand years in thy sight are but as yesterday when it is past, and as a watch in the night.

This teaching is also used to reconcile evolution on a biblical basis. Since with all the ages occurring within an undisclosed amount of time, the evolution of various life forms without instant creation is plausible.

This is also referred to as Day-age creationism.

The days as WE know them are literal, as Moses would have written in a way easy for his people to understand. Using metaphors would not do this, especially when we are given regular days throughout the rest of Moses' books. However, as Psalm 90 and 2 Peter show, God is not bound by our idea of time - so a a thousand or million years work to be done in one day by God is completely logial from a biblical perspective.


Who are "Born again" Christians? "Born again" is a term most often attributed to Christians. Yet what exactly does it mean, and what does the the use of the term encompass?

What is a "born again" Christian?
Are they of a specific denomination?
Where does the term "born again" come from?

The term "born again" comes from a passage in John 3:

Now there was a Pharisee, a man named Nicodemus who was a member of the Jewish ruling council. He came to Jesus at night and said, “Rabbi, we know that you are a teacher who has come from God. For no one could perform the signs you are doing if God were not with him.”
Jesus replied, “Very truly I tell you, no one can see the kingdom of God unless they are born again.”
“How can someone be born when they are old?” Nicodemus asked. “Surely they cannot enter a second time into their mother’s womb to be born!”
Jesus answered, “Very truly I tell you, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless they are born of water and the Spirit. Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit. You should not be surprised at my saying, ‘You must be born again.’ The wind blows wherever it pleases. You hear its sound, but you cannot tell where it comes from or where it is going. So it is with everyone born of the Spirit.”

(Some translations render "born again" as "born from above")
The concept is picked up in other places in the Bible where Christians are referred to as "new creations". (2 Corinthians 5, Galatians 6). The sense is clear that to be a part of the Kingdom of God, you must undergo a radical transformation, akin to being created anew: "starting over again". Like birth, this is something that happens to you, not something you do.
Using this basis, the doctrinal position of almost all Christian denominations is that all Christians are by definition "born again". For many the sacrament of baptism makes you "born again". For others, whatever makes you a Christian also makes you "born again".
The use of the term "born again Christian" really dates from the 1960s, where it originated with the Jesus People and Christian counterculture. Since then it is generally associated with the Evangelical movement, and is often used by them to distinguish themselves from those they see as 'nominal' Christians. It isn't applied to any specific denomination.

It is all about learning from the heart and not the mind. The heart is like a brain. It memorizes. It holds onto the rythms of emotions that become cycles of pain (or at least the defence against pain). Since it is difficult for us to face the initial pain again our defence begins to guard us against everything. By doing so the cycles become like a whole new person. A callous person that no longer see's or hears love as they once did. To become born again is to understand the root of pain and forgive yourself for holding it and forgive those that caused it. Truly fully forgive. When that is done your heart ceases to beat in defence and love enters. The old rythm is the death and the rythm of love (that was always there since birth) re-enters and you are flooded with spiritual wisdom and understanding and feel like you have (for real) died and been reborn. Then new understandings are seen in everything. The blind see and the def hear.


How has the position of the Catholic Church on drugs changed over time? The Catechism of the Catholic Church states:

2211 The political community has a duty to honor the family, to assist it, and to ensure especially [...] the protection of security and health, especially with respect to dangers like drugs, pornography, alcoholism, etc.;
2290 The virtue of temperance disposes us to avoid every kind of excess: the abuse of food, alcohol, tobacco, or medicine. Those incur grave guilt who, by drunkenness or a love of speed, endanger their own and others' safety on the road, at sea, or in the air.
2291 The use of drugs inflicts very grave damage on human health and life. Their use, except on strictly therapeutic grounds, is a grave offense. Clandestine production of and trafficking in drugs are scandalous practices. They constitute direct co-operation in evil, since they encourage people to practices gravely contrary to the moral law.

Unfortunately, the Catechism does not provide a definition for the word drug or a description of what constitutes a distinction between drug and medicine. Paragraph 2290 includes food and does not therefore instruct abstinence but temperance, as it states, even with substances such as alcohol, tobacco, and medicines, which according to most definitions are indeed drugs. In addition, Paragraph 2291 excepts from the prohibition on drugs strictly therapeutic use. This seems to conflate the two terms drug and medicine, even though the use of one is prohibited and the use of the other is condoned with temperance.
In many western cultures, prohibition and control of substances is a relatively new practice, at least in terms of the lifetime of the Church. Is the prohibition of these substances by the church contemporaneous?
How has the position of the Catholic Church changed over time, from the Early Church Fathers until now, in condoning, instructing temperance, or commanding strict abstinence from the use of substances that perish with use, either for medical treatment or purposes other than medical treatment?

Edit to assist answers for bounty: I'm looking for a well sourced answer that gives an overview of the progression of moral and practical teachings concerning drugs, especially citing those traditional sources that mention substances or uses specifically, and considers any such progression alongside drug (or anti-drug) policies of nations like the US and the UK. An excellent answer would demonstrate how the use of some substances that were once permitted with temperance are now prohibited (or vice versa) if that is the case, or demonstrate that the church has always deferred the definition of "illicit drugs" to local churches and their (secular) legal systems, etc.

So I think this answer needs to dichotomize to be useful.

Mood altering drugs

Drugs that alter the mood, could be classed like alcohol, as something to be taken temperately, if it is possible to take them  temperately.  Smoking cigarettes can be done in moderation.  It is quite possible that smoking marijuana cannot.

  Wine was created from the beginning to make men joyful not to make them drunk

  Sir 31:35

Downers

There is no prohibition against self-medication within the Catholic Church. But there is a strict prohibition against complete inebriation (here's where I conflate being stoned with being drunk, YMMV).  There has been since the time of Noah.

The use of depressants to treat mental anguish might be licit.  It might also be contrary to what St. John Paul II called "Salvific Suffering". See: Salvifici Doloris Which is wrapped up in the reason Jesus rejected the drugged wine offered to Him on the cross.

Self-medication may inhibit someone else's ability to be a "Good Samaritan" for us, as St. John Paul II.

Psychedelics

Drugs that produce a near instant sense of euphoria; or that cause inebriation quicker than can be said is temperate are always contrary to virtues of Temperance.  Sloth and Gluttony are their fruits and they're to be avoided because of it.  Any good effects that come of doing evil are also to be avoided.

  A good intention ... does not make behavior that is intrinsically disordered, such as lying and calumny, good or just. The end does not justify the means. CCC 1743

Use of ecstasy or mushrooms to treat depression might be an exception. But that would be a circumstance when ones present state is improved.  (The sick, need the physician, anything else is self-mutilation - which is also to be avoided)

Uppers

Drugs that give "mental clarity" should also be avoided in places where such usage could be considered underhanded cheating.  They're brain stimulants that are as dishonest to use as human growth hormone is to a cyclist. The other reason to avoid them is that they often have the worst side effects and are the most addictive.  Nicotine, Caffeine are ways to use uppers moderately, but even they can be abused.

Drugs to produce a desired effect

Some drugs do not alter mood, but do something else to the body:

Abortion

Drugs to procure abortion would be illicit by virtue of them causing the death of the child in the womb. CCC 2322

Contraception

Any contraception is contrary to the idea of marriage, contraceptive drugs would be too CCC 2370

Suicide

Taking medication meant to induce death is always wrong, according to the Catholic Church 2280 It can even be scandalous.

Sleep

Not inherently evil, but if you abuse sleep aids, you might fall into the sin of Sloth.

Steroids

Taking medication to increase muscle mass is not inherently evil, unless it is for self-mutilation (malice), self-aggrandizement (pride) or to have an unfair advantage over competition.
Since these are the only non-medical reasons a person would have (other than complete flippancy, which is probably sinful too) it would seem that steroids are likewise verboten.

Analgesics

The FDA has a pretty clear system for determining which drugs are OK for over the counter use, which are OK by prescription and which are just not OK to have around (i.e. schedule 1 drugs).  Now, sometimes politics play a role in determining what drugs go where, but our civil society.  But Sirach, at least, makes a pretty good case for listening to doctors.

  Honor the physician for the need thou hast of him: for the most High created him ...
    The most High hath created medicines out of the earth, and a wise man will not abhor them
  Was not bitter water made sweet with wood?
  The virtue of these things is come to the knowledge of men, and the most High hath given knowledge to men, that he may be honored in his wonders
  By these he shall cure and shall allay their pains, and of these the apothecary shall make sweet confections, and shlal make up ointments of health, and of his works there shall be no end.

  Sir 38:1,4-7

In summary, between the times of Sirach and St. Pope John Paul II, the thing that has become the Chuch has consistently erred on the side of the Natural Moral Law when it comes to drugs.  First you consider what a thing is, then you ask what is it for.  If a thing is bad, then using it is bad.  If the thing that you use it for is bad, then using it is bad.

The Church has been opposed to drugs at least since Saints Paul and John.

The Greek word φαρμακεία (pharmakeia) can mean "drugs" or even "abortifacients," so Scripture certainly prohibits drugs, which includes those producing chemical abortions and potentially abortifacient contraceptives. In the following verses, the Rheims-Challoner translation translates φαρμακεία as "witchcrafts" or "sorceries." St. Jerome's Latin Vulgate uses "veneficium."

E.g.:

Ga 5:19-21:

  Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are fornication, uncleanness, immodesty, luxury, idolatry, witchcrafts {φαρμακία}, enmities, contentions, emulations, wraths, quarrels, dissensions, sects, Envies, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like. Of the which I foretell you, as I have foretold to you, that they who do such things shall not obtain the kingdom of God.

Rv 9:21:

  Neither did they penance from their murders, nor from their sorceries {φαρμάκων} [drug usage / dealings], nor from their fornication, nor from their thefts.

Rv 21:8

  But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers {φαρμακοῖς} [drug-dealers], and idolaters, and all liars, they shall have their portion in the pool burning with fire and brimstone, which is the second death.

Rv 22:15

  Without are dogs, and sorcerers {φαρμακοὶ} [drug-dealers], and unchaste, and murderers, and servers of idols, and every one that loveth and maketh a lie.