Why many Catholics believe that Mary is co-redemptrix? Where does the belief come from? Why is her intercession believed to be necessary? Please provide Biblical evidence for the belief as well as Traditional sources.

Mary is co-redemptrix just means she has cooperated with Jesus Christ for our salvation. Explanations can be found in Lumen gentium quoted below :

  There is but one Mediator as we know from the words of the apostle, "for there is one God and one mediator of God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself a redemption for all" (1Tm 2,5-6). The maternal duty of Mary toward men in no wise obscures or diminishes this unique mediation of Christ, but rather shows His power.
  Thus Mary, a daughter of Adam, consenting to the divine Word, became the mother of Jesus, the one and only Mediator. Embracing God's salvific will with a full heart and impeded by no sin, she devoted herself totally as a handmaid of the Lord to the person and work of her Son, under Him and with Him, by the grace of almighty God, serving the mystery of redemption. Rightly therefore the holy Fathers see her as used by God not merely in a passive way, but as freely cooperating in the work of human salvation through faith and obedience.
  This union of the Mother with the Son in the work of salvation is made manifest from the time of Christ's virginal conception up to His death it is shown first of all when Mary, arising in haste to go to visit Elizabeth, is greeted by her as blessed because of her belief in the promise of salvation and the precursor leaped with joy in the womb of his mother (cf. Lc 1,41-45). This union is manifest also at the birth of Our Lord, who did not diminish His mother's virginal integrity but sanctified it, (Cf Eph. 1:18) when the Mother of God joyfully showed her firstborn Son to the shepherds and Magi. When she presented Him to the Lord in the temple, making the offering of the poor, she heard Simeon foretelling at the same time that her Son would be a sign of contradiction and that a sword would pierce the mother's soul, that out of many hearts thoughts might be revealed (cf. Lc 2,34-35). When the Child Jesus was lost and they had sought Him sorrowing, His parents found Him in the temple, taken up with the things that were His Father's business; and they did not understand the word of their Son. His Mother indeed kept these things to be pondered over in her heart (cf. Lc 2,41-51).
  In the public life of Jesus, Mary makes significant appearances. This is so even at the very beginning, when at the marriage feast of Cana, moved with pity, she brought about by her intercession the beginning of miracles of Jesus the Messiah (cf. Jn 2,1-11). In the course of her Son's preaching she received the words whereby in extolling a kingdom beyond the calculations and bonds of flesh and blood, He declared blessed (cf. Mc 3,35 par. and Lc 11,27-28) those who heard and kept the word of God, as she was faithfully doing (cf. Lc 2,19 2,51). After this manner the Blessed Virgin advanced in her pilgrimage of faith, and faithfully persevered in her union with her Son unto the cross, where she stood, in keeping with the divine plan, (Cf. Jn. 19:25) grieving exceedingly with her only begotten Son, uniting herself with a maternal heart with His sacrifice, and lovingly consenting to the immolation of this Victim which she herself had brought forth. Finally, she was given by the same Christ Jesus dying on the cross as a mother to His disciple with these words: "Woman, behold thy son" (cf. Jn 19,26-27).

Why many Catholics believe that Mary is co-redemptrix? (New Question)
The short answer is, because Mary Co-Redemptrix was part of the Church Tradition since the time of St.Irenaeus in 200AD, and since he is a Church Father he is close to the Apostolic Traditions and understood the teachings of the Apostles about the role of Mary.
But the most important thing is the word of Jesus who acknowledged Mary's role as Co-Redemptrix being the source of His Redeeming Sacrifice who gave Her body as "Co-Redemptrix" and was reflected upon by this article link saying;

Saint John Damascene says that the Lord Himself gave Her last communion to Her saying, “Receive, my Lady and Mother, from my own hands the Body which You gave Me and which was formed in Your precious womb.”
https://www.homeofthemother.org/en/resources/virgin-mary/meditations-on-mary/8304-mary-s-death

IMPORTANT NOTE: The word "Co-redemptrix" may not appear in scriptures but like the word "Trinity" both did not appear but it doesn't mean that the scriptures does not teaches it, it takes pondering to discover & understand fully God given role to Mary.
What is the basis for the Catholic belief that Mary is co-redemptrix?(Old Question)
The following link provides important doctrines why the title of Mary as Co-redemptrix is rightfully fitting title for Our Lady citing St. John Paul II prayers, homilies and public addressed:

POPE JOHN PAUL II'S ORDINARY MAGISTERIUM ON MARIAN COREDEMPTION:
CONSISTENT TEACHING AND MORE RECENT PERSPECTIVES by Monsignor Arthur Burton Calkins

But in a more simple approach, St. Pius X in 1906 provided a very clear biblical foundation in the gospel and concluded by a well known early Church Father St.Irenaeus.

Jesus is the Redeemer because He is the High Priest that offer a pleasing sacrifice to God in atonement for all the sins of mankind. What did Jesus offered? Jesus offered His sinless "body & blood".

Is Mary a Co-redeemer or Co-redemptrix? Yes, how?

Mary like Jesus is also a Priest like Jesus. In 1906, St. Pius X approved the prayer devotion to Mary as Virgin Priest and granting a 300 days indulgences to all the faithful who implore Mary's intercession by invoking the prayer "Mary Virgin Priest, pray for us."
If Mary was acknowledged by the Church as a Virgin Priest, did She offered a pleasing "sacrifice" too like Jesus the High Priest? Yes, how?
Jesus in the Last Supper had teach the Apostles how to offer a "sacramental mass" by saying this words "this is my body, this is my blood". The consecration prayer was pronounced and then the Holy Spirit come down to sanctifies the "bread & wine" and form Jesus Christ. How about Mary, the Virgin Priest, did She pronounce a "sacramental offering" like the Apostles? No!
The Mystery of Annunciation was acknowledged by the theologians in the 17th century (see link below) as Mary's "ordination" into a royal priesthood and St. Pius X proclaimed Mary as Virgin Priest. The words "Hail, Full of Grace, the Lord is with you." is not just a mere greetings or salutation but a formula for ordination into priesthood like what a Bishop or Prophets do in ordaining Priest or Bishops, this is a profound mystery.
In the Mystery of Incarnation, Mary said Her Fiat, this is the First Holy Mass of the Blessed Virgin Mary as Priest, by saying the in effect "this is my body, this is my blood" and *"Let it be done to me according to your Word". After Mary's Fiat or consecration prayer offering Her "sinless body & blood", the Holy Spirit came down and fecundated Her pure womb and formed Jesus Christ, like what Priest is doing making Jesus present in the Holy Eucharist. Mary's Fiat transformed Her sinless "body & blood" like a Living Host, the Tabernacle of God and the New Ark of the Covenant. Since, Mary transformed into a Living Host the Holy Spirit must "overshadowed" Her like the Ark of the Covenant or the Church Tabernacle must be veiled upon.
Mary is Co-redemptrix because She is a Virgin Priest that offered Her "sinless body & blood" to God as a pleasing sacrifice to God for the Redeemer Jesus Christ to use for the atonement of the sins of mankind.

St. Ireneaus had said "Mary is the cause of our salvation", because without Mary's Fiat or Her consecration prayer offering Her sinless body & blood, Jesus the Redeemer has no way to redeem mankind, because the Logos is a Spirit needed the cooperation of the chosen Woman in eternity destined to be the Theotokos.

In closing, Mary is Co-Redemptrix is the Will of God written in His Holy Decree after the fall of Adam & Eve.

Genesis 3:15 Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition (DRA)
15 I will put enmities between thee and the woman, and thy seed and her seed: she shall crush thy head, and thou shalt lie in wait for her heel.

Simple analogy over the role of Redeemer vs. Co-Redemptrix;
St.Paul teaches in the his letter to the Romans;

A Living Sacrifice
12 Therefore, I urge you, brothers and sisters, in view of God’s mercy, to offer your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and pleasing to God—this is your true and proper worship. 2 Do not conform to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God’s will is—his good, pleasing and perfect will.
Romans 12 New International Version (NIV)

Jesus the High Priest offered his "sinless body & blood" as a pleasing sacrifice to God in atonement for the sins of mankind and become the Redeemer of Mankind.

Mary is a Virgin Priest who offered Her "sinless body & blood" thru Her Fiat as a pleasing sacrifice to God for all mankind to be save by Jesus Christ the Redeemer and became the Co-redemptrix.

How about, the Apostles, Church Fathers, Saints, Martyrs, Bishops, Priest and ordinary laity? Are we "co-redeemers" too? Yes, even the ordinary laity upon baptism was ordained into common priesthood and can offer their bodies as a living sacrifice as St.Paul described in Romans12:1 and explain in Collosians1:4

"Now I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake, and in my flesh I do my share on behalf of His body, which is the church, in filling up what is lacking in Christ's afflictions.(Collosians1:24)
"As you come to him, the living Stone—rejected by humans but chosen by God and precious to him— 5 you also, like living stones, are being built into a spiritual house[a] to be a holy priesthood, offering spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ." (1Peter2:4-5)

St.Irenaeus on Mary's role as Co-Redemptrix

As early as the year 200, the Church Father Irenaeus referred to Mary as the cause of our salvation (Latin: causa salutis) given her fiat ("let it be").[3] Theologians distinguish between "remote cooperation", by which she consents to the Incarnation and gives birth to the Son of God, and "immediate cooperation", in which she willingly unites herself to her Son's Passion and offers him back to the Father. Philosophers also draw a distinction between merit de condigno (Christ's merit), which is based on justice, and merit proprie de congruo (Mary's merit), founded on the friendship of charity.[ Garrigou-Lagrange, O. P., Reginald. Reality—A Synthesis Of Thomistic Thought, CH37: "Mariology" - Co-Redemptrix


What is the difference between a Bible College and a Seminary? I see some Christian education institutions refer to themselves as "Bible College" and some as "Seminary" and some as "Bible College and Seminary". What is the difference between those, if any?

In the US, a Bible college is typically a 2 year or 4 year school that specializes in Christian undergraduate education. (typically with programs like Biblical Studies, youth ministry, things like that, rather than traditional math/science/teaching programs you'd find at say a Christian liberal arts school)

A seminary is typically a graduate school that specializes in training people for the ministry (pastorate, counseling etc).

A school that advertised as both may offer a double degree or cater to people seeking either a four year degree in something bible related, or people heading into the ministry. Doing both is good synergy and they may be able to save a pastor some time (get under grad and seminary done in 5 years instead of 6 or something).

The dictionary states that seminary is "a college that prepares students to be priests, ministers, or rabbis." In addition to this, Wikipedia gives some of the same definitions regarding seminary... I wondered about this some years ago before going to a university, that had a bible college that I attended. I received my four year degree in Practical Theology and will be going back for my MDiv. I also asked some of my religion professors this question as well. All in all, if a person is attending a bible college for a ministry degree that prepares them for ministry (pastors, ministers, priests, etc.) they are in seminary. Doesn't matter if its a bachelor's, master's, or doctorate's degree.
Hopefully this response helps. Please excuse typos...


Is Levi from Luke 5:27 and Mark 2:14 referring to the apostle Matthew Both Luke 5:27 and Mark 2:14 mention a tax collector named Levi:

  27 After this, Jesus went out and saw a tax collector by the name
  of Levi sitting at his tax booth. "Follow me," Jesus said to him,
  28 and Levi got up, left everything and followed him.

  14 As he walked along, he saw Levi son of Alphaeus sitting at the
  tax collector's booth. "Follow me," Jesus told him, and Levi got up
  and followed him.

It sounds like these could be referring to Matthew and I've seen some footnotes that offer that as a possibility (or even as likely) but are there any good reasons to believe that this is or is not referring to Matthew?

It is almost certain that this person is Matthew. In the parallel account of this narrative in the Gospel of Matthew, we see that Levi appears to be "renamed" Matthew.

Matthew 9:9 (NIV)

  9As Jesus went on from there, he saw a man named Matthew sitting at the tax collector’s booth. “Follow me,” he told him, and Matthew got up and followed him.

It is unknown why Levi is called Matthew in this gospel. Like all the gospels, Matthew is actually an anonymous document, and our attribution of it to Matthew is based on the consensus of Church Fathers in the 2nd century. However, it appears that whoever wrote the gospel (hereafter called the evangelist) wants to show that Levi is the Matthew listed in the Twelve (cf Matthew 10:3).

This could be "...because the writer believed that Levi was or should have been one of the twelve, or is it perhaps because in writing of himself he preferred the name Matthew to his own pre-conversion name, Levi?" [Hagner, Introduction, lxxvi].

Though there are theories that claim the evangelist is playing with names, it must be said that it is very unlikely that he would get away with substituting the name Levi for Matthew if they were not the same person. It is not unusual for individuals in 1st century Israel to have more than one name. For example, it seems that another member of the twelve is known by two names: Jude, was also known by the name Thaddeus. (See Mark 3:16-19 vs Luke 6:14-16)

Suffice it to say, that the vast majority of scholars suggest that the "Levi" of Mark 2 and Luke 5 is indeed the Matthew of Matthew 9. Why the evangelist sought to enlighten his readers to this is speculative.

Sources:

Hagner, D. A., Word Biblical Commentary - Matthew 1-13, Nelson, 1993.

Cole, A., Mark, IVP, 2008

Nolland, J., Word Biblical Commentary - Luke 1-9:20, Nelson, 1989

Mark, the first New Testament gospel to be written, mentions both Levi and Matthew separately, referring to Levi, son of Alphaeus, as a tax collector whom Jesus called to follow him (Mark 2:14). So, we can identify Levi from two facts, that his father was called Alphaeus and that he was a tax collector (publican). As in Mark 2:14, Luke 5:27 also says Levi rose and followed Jesus, but he is never again mentioned in either gospel. The two gospels introduce the twelve disciples (Mark 3:14-19; Luke 6:14-16), including Matthew, Thaddaeus, and James, son of Alphaeus, but there is no mention of Levi.   These lists do have a son of Alphaeus, although this disciple's name is James, but they do not have a tax collector (publican).

Matthew first appears in both gospels in the full list of disciples (Mark 3:18; Luke 6:15), but neither gospel says he was a tax collector, or that he was the son of Alphaeus and therefore brother of James, son of Alphaeus.  Mark sets a precedent by describing another James and John as brothers, and Luke follows suit also mentioning Simon and Andrew as brothers in the same list, making the failure to mention that Matthew and (the second) James were brothers a puzzling omission if that were the case. The conclusion to be drawn at this stage is that Matthew was not the son of Alphaeus, although we know Levi was, so one possibility is that he changed his mind after first following Jesus.

Disciples are not meant to change their minds when called by Jesus, an issue that the author of Matthew recognises and then creates a solution. The anonymous author resolves Levi's unexplained absence among the disciples simply by not mentioning Levi at all, and by having Matthew as the disciple who was a tax collector, in the parallel account at Matthew 9:9, then including him as "Matthew the publican" in the list of disciples at Matthew 10:3. What Matthew fails to do is portray Matthew as the son of Alphaeus, or the brother of James the son of Alphaeus. The only possible reason for Matthew's portrayal of Matthew as a tax collector is one of apologetics, to resolve the continuing absence of Levi, but I believe this is unconvincing. Either Matthew was the son of Alphaeus and brother of James or he was not, and Matthew's author does not suggest that when you could expect him to have done so. Almost two thousand years of tradition have followed Matthew in holding that Levi and Matthew must be the same person, but this happens only in Matthew's Gospel, not in either Luke or Mark.


Is the present-day Roman Catholic Church the same church on which it was founded? Is the present-day Roman Catholic Church the same church on which it was founded? The Roman Catholic Church holds that the first pope was St. Peter, and his burial became the St. Peter's Basilica. If I remember correctly, National Geographic Inside the Vatican seems to support the idea that the first pope was St. Peter. Anyway, is the present-day version of the church the same church on which it was founded? In what ways has the church changed or modified to deal with the times?

The obvious:

Different popes
Different worldly events
Different cultures

Doctrinally, how is the present-day Roman Catholic Church the same or different from the one led by the first Pope in Rome?

Is the present-day Roman Catholic Church the same church on which it
  was founded?

The shortest and simplest answer is: yes.

The longer and significantly more complex answer would fill many volumes of an encyclopedia.

But, to very briefly scratch the surface...

The Church maintains that, although her fundamental doctrine hasn't changed, it has developed over the centuries.

Catholic apologists compare the Catholic Church's growth and development to that of an acorn. An acorn, in its smallest and simplest form, is genetically the same as a 200 year old Oak tree. An acorn looks nothing like an Oak, even though it fundamentally has everything it needs to grow and develope into a giant 200 year old tree.

In the same way the early primitive Church and her depositum fidei was planted by Christ through Holy Spirit. Of course the Church had to grow and develope in order to preach the Gospel to all nations.

  The tradition which comes from the apostles develops in the Church with the help of the Holy Spirit. For there is a growth in the understanding of
  the realities and the words which have been handed down. This happens through the contemplation and study made by believers, who treasure
  these things in their hearts, through a penetrating understanding of the
  spiritual realities which they experience, and through the preaching of
  those who have received through episcopal succession the sure gift of
  truth. For, as the centuries succeed one another, the Church constantly
  moves forward toward the fullness of divine truth until the words of God reach their complete fulfillment in her.  (Dei Verbum 8)

Over time the Church has developed various doctrines and dogmas that aren't explicitly displayed in Sacred Scripture. Some examples are the doctrines of the Trinity, the Incarnation, and the Hypostatic Union. These doctrines are fundamental to the Faith, yet haven't always been as clearly defined as they are now.

Most of the Church's development of doctrine has been brought on by the assaults of heresies such as Arianism and Monothelistism. Various councils and synods have been called to develope these crucial doctrines in order to protect her fundamental truths.

See: DENZINGER

Finally, its important to distinguish between the true teachings of the Church and the abuse of the teachings of the Church. Many Christians have been scandalized by false representations of the truths of what the Church teaches.

Martin Luther posted his 95 theses primarily because the Church's indulgences were being fraudulently abused.  The true purpose of the granting of indulgences is simply to help Catholics grow in holiness, but millions of people have been scandalized because the abuses of men like Johann Tetzel.

The same goes for marriage. Marriage is, by definition, a holy and righteous sacrament institiuted by Christ.  Millions of people are scandalized everyday because marriage is abused.

  The abuse of a good does not diminish the good of a good.
  (Matthew Kelly, Rediscovering Catholicism)

No it wasn't. The church had undergone many reformations. Read more: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counter-Reformation. Essentially, it became less power centered over the centuries, as well as more about unity.


Where in the Bible does Jesus refute that He is just a prophet? Unlike Christianity, other Abrahamic religions say that Jesus was only a great Prophet. Christians belief, however, is deeply rooted in Bible, where there are many references supporting the Divinity of Jesus and there are already many answers on this site quoting these verses from Bible about Jesus’ Divinity.

I am not particularly interested in the verses concerning Jesus' Divinity. I am more interested in the verses where Jesus refutes the claim that He is just a prophet.  Where in the Bible does Jesus refute that He is just a prophet?

Many places Bible tells us contrastingly that Jesus is not just a prophet.

Matt. 11:9-11

  What did you go out to see? A prophet? Yes, I tell you, and more than a prophet. This is the one about whom it is written: ‘Look, I am sending my messenger ahead of you, who will prepare your way before you.’ “I tell you the truth, among those born of women, no one has arisen greater than John the Baptist. Yet the one who is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he is.

Here we find Jesus giving the highest honour to John the Baptist and that John is more than a prophet. This would mean that Jesus makes Himself smaller than John, which cannot be. Since John was someone who was more than a prophet, it only shows that Jesus was not just a prophet or someone more than that BUT someone much greater than that.

Then again in Matt. 13.17 Jesus says:

Matt. 13:17

  For I tell you the truth, many prophets and righteous people longed to see what you see but did not see it, and to hear what you hear but did not hear it.

Here Jesus shows that He is greater than all the prophets and righteous man, who longed to see His day.

Another place Jesus seeks to know what His disciples' view of Himself and in the process acknowledges that  He is not just a prophet by giving His affirmation to what Peter says.

Matt. 16:13-17

  When Jesus came to the area of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, “Who do people say that the Son of Man is?” They answered, “Some say John the Baptist, others Elijah, and others Jeremiah or one of the prophets.” He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?” Simon Peter answered, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.”  And Jesus answered him, “You are blessed, Simon son of Jonah, because flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but my Father in heaven!

As per writings of all the previous prophets, no prophets was prophesised to come from Galilee

John: 7:52

  They replied, “You aren’t from Galilee too, are you? Investigate carefully and you will see that no prophet comes from Galilee!”

In His conversation with Judeans, Jesus declares who He is:

John 8:53-58

  You aren’t greater than our father Abraham who died, are you? And the prophets died too! Who do you claim to be?” Jesus replied, “If I glorify myself, my glory is worthless. The one who glorifies me is my Father, about whom you people say, ‘He is our God.’ Yet you do not know him, but I know him. If I were to say that I do not know him, I would be a liar like you. But I do know him, and I obey his teaching. Your father Abraham was overjoyed to see my day, and he saw it and was glad.” Then the Judeans replied, “You are not yet fifty years old! Have you seen Abraham?” Jesus said to them, “I tell you the solemn truth, before Abraham came into existence, I am!”

Gospel of John, Chapter 16, Verses 12-14:

Jesus says:
I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now. Howbeit, when He the Spirit of Truth shall come, He shall guide you unto All the Truth. He shall not speak of Himself, but whatsoever He hears that shall He speak. He shall declare unto you the things to come. He shall glorify me. (KJV)

'Spirit' is a synonymous term for 'Prophet'. Jesus is telling us that there is going to come another prophet who will guide us unto all the truth. If Jesus was more than a prophet, there would be no need for another prophet to come to continue preaching the message of God.


What views are there about the necessity of Jesus' murder? In a former question, I was told me that different denominations of Christianity hold many views about if/why it was necessary for Jesus to be murdered instead of dying of old age.

I would now like an overview of what different denominations teach about the subject. (That is, what are the main distinctive opinions?)

Although not from specific denominations, here are some different views on the necessity of Jesus' death:

1) The prophecy:

Jesus often foresaw and talked about his impending betrayal and death. For example, at Caesurea Phillipi, the watershed moment of Mark's Gosepl, it is said:

  He then began to teach them that the Son of Man must suffer many things and be rejected by the elders, the chief priests and the teachers of the law, and that he must be killed and after three days rise again. -Mark 8:31

Some could argue that this was divinely given, and no matter what happened, this had to be fulfilled. This is often the basis of Judas Iscariot's innocence, as there had to be a fulfiller of this definitive deed, it was just unfortunate that Judas was the one who had to do it.

The reasons why this prophecy existed is all down to atonement. Jesus' mission is to take upon himself all of man's sins. He undergoes flogging, mockery, corruption, betrayal, isolation and death. Maybe it is not so much the death that is important, but the overall passion narrative, where he endures out of love for us. You could also argue that without the crucification, the resurrection would not happen (or at least not in the same light if it were to happen at old age). The importance of triumphing over the sins of man would not be possible without the resurrection, and therefore crucifixion.

2) Riot

The Sanhedrin were the puppets of the Roman empire, as well as people of religion and therefore the law. In the gospels, they are the questioners and accusers of Jesus.

Their main role was to prevent civil unrest. Jesus, who could easily be seen as an extremist, with his radical views as well as his associations with groups such as Zealots, would therefore provoced them, as he did with the turning over of the tables at the temple. In Mark 14: 1-2, the Sanhedrin plot against him.

  He then began to teach them that the Son of Man must suffer many things and be rejected by the elders, the chief priests and the teachers of the law, and that he must be killed and after three days rise again.

This is at the time of Passover, which celebrates the freedom of the Jews from the oppressive Egyptian state. Likewise, Jesus poses the same threat against the Romans. His death is therefore required to suppress revolt before Passover by turning against him and removing him, by killing him.


Did Moses see the face of God? Exodus 24:9-11

  9 Moses and Aaron, Nadab and Abihu, and the seventy elders of Israel
  went up
  10 and saw the God of Israel. Under his feet was something
  like a pavement made of lapis lazuli, as bright blue as the sky.
  11 But God did not raise his hand against these leaders of the
  Israelites; they saw God, and they ate and drank.

Here we see that Moses and others saw God with their own eyes.

But later, Moses was not allowed to see God's face.

Exodus 33:18-23

  18 Then Moses said, “Now show me your glory.”

  19 And the Lord said, “I will cause all my goodness to pass in front
  of you, and I will proclaim my name, the Lord, in your presence. I
  will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion
  on whom I will have compassion. 20 But,” he said, “you cannot see my
  face, for no one may see me and live.”

  21 Then the Lord said, “There is a place near me where you may stand
  on a rock. 22 When my glory passes by, I will put you in a cleft in
  the rock and cover you with my hand until I have passed by. 23 Then I
  will remove my hand and you will see my back; but my face must not be
  seen.”

If Moses already saw the face of God, then who's face was he not allowed to see?

Who was covering Moses and preventing him from seeing God?

Were there two people?. Or Maybe three?

The use of the word 'face' is different in these two contexts.
In the first use God is said to speak to Moses 'face to face' that is not from some distant position as in a dream, or vision but speaking audibly to him while under some visible form.  In other words, God spoke to Moses like a person does who is having a conversation.  God spoke out of a burning bush, out of a pillar of cloud, ect. and he spoke as in conversation between friends.  That is Moses could ask questions, God would answer, the conversation would continue, ect.  Speaking face to face was not the normal mode which God communicated with men, or later prophets.
Regarding the specific 'form' that God presented to the elders representing the people of Israel, it was actually a 'formless' representation of glorious fire wrapped in a cloud that made the place at which it joined the glorious upper heavens to the spot on earth which they stood, a shining clear blue. The blue a reflection of the sky of heaven. The elders saw the same thing that the people in general saw, only closer. The word 'foot' does not mean that there was some secret form, like for example the more Christlike appearance of Ezekiel 1:26 where the 'appearance of a man' was seen. The foot is meant to be understood as not a human foot but as a base. God's glory in heaven landed on earth making a covenant with his people, that was the base. Certainly if they saw a human form they would have make and idol, something which was forbidden as they had not seen any real form:

And you came near and stood at the foot of the mountain, while the mountain burned with fire to the heart of heaven, wrapped in darkness, cloud, and gloom. Then the LORD spoke to you out of the midst of the fire. You heard the sound of words, but saw no form; there was only a voice.(Duet 4:11-12)
“Therefore watch yourselves very carefully. Since you saw no form on the day that the LORD spoke to you at Horeb out of the midst of the fire, beware lest you act corruptly by making a carved image for yourselves, in the form of any figure, the likeness of male or female. (Duet 4:15-16)

The second use of the phase pertains to the manifestation of God's glory. When you look into the face of someone you can see into their eye's, along with the expression on their face, their essential personality or being.  If you only saw the back of their head, you might not even know who you were looking at.  The idea in Moses not being able to see God's face is that he could not witness the essential glory of God.  No man while veiled in sinful flesh can see God's essential unmasked glory and live:

As our bodily eye is dazzled, and its power of vision destroyed, by looking directly at the brightness of the sun, so would our whole nature be destroyed by an unveiled sight of the brilliancy of the glory of God. (Commentary of the Old Testament, Keil & Delitzsch, 1.476)

Therefore although Moses wanted to penetrate deep into the glory of God he had to accept a limitation and only see the back of God.  God is using human terms to express a limited reflection of his glory.  The glory that must have appeared to him was a deep revelation of the meaning of the very words which were spoken as his 'glory passed by':

And he passed in front of Moses, proclaiming, “The Lord, the Lord, the compassionate and gracious God, slow to anger, abounding in love and faithfulness, maintaining love to thousands, and forgiving wickedness, rebellion and sin. Yet he does not leave the guilty unpunished; he punishes the children and their children for the sin of the parents to the third and fourth generation.” (Exodus 34:6-7, NIV)

It seems that part of this deeper revelation of Jehovah, the I AM that I AM, or the eternal powerful one, is by putting love and grace before wrath. However putting love first was not meant to imply that his infinite justice and wrath for sin would ever be compromised, rather his glory is simply more wrapped up in his grace and love than in his other aspects of his back-parts. Moses must have seen God's love in an extraordinary matter. Infact it made his face shine, but as the Law did not really centre in God's grace but was in a large part a revelation of his holiness, justice and wrath for sin, this glory faded and was veiled until the full manifestation of grace was revealed in the face of God's own Son. (2 Cor 3:7)
Did Moses see God face to face, i.e. see his essential glory? No, not while on this earth. However after he died, like every believer he would have immedietly become awakened into the full glory of God under the bright rays of heaven.

No he did not. He was not washed in the blood of Jesus yet. Remission is not redemption the law would only being remission. Christ brought redemption, you are born into sin not that you were born a sinner. That is what your crown is sin. That is why you must be born again Moses did not have that option he was only born through water onto the earth Jesus brought a new birth, one of spirit watch give you access to the presence of God. The old man is washed away that is the child of sin. Moses was still in that nature of the sinful man. If sin looked upon God it dies God did not want Moses dead. So he told Moses hang out here behind this rock and when my shadow passes by you'll know. Cause my word is so powerful it will wash the sin right out of you but sense you are sin there will be nothing left of you it will wash you away. That is why you need to be born again so the word will wash the sin out and leave the body to hold the word without dying in the process. Again remembering this sow wisely understanding what you are Mark-4


According to the Orthodox church, what is the purpose of the Bible? I was raised with the view that the Bible is the book which contains everything we need to know, enumerates everything which is good and everything which is evil, is the manual for how to live a human life, and is the ultimate authority regarding all matters pertaining to Christianity (maybe even everything else as well).

I have even heard people suggest that Jesus is mysteriously united to the Bible in some way because they are both the 'Word of God'.

I do not think the Orthodox believe these things. What do they believe is the Bible's purpose?

The Bible's Purpose
Archimandrite Justin Popovich lays out the reasons for reading the Bible in "How to Read the Bible and Why":

All that is necessary for this world and the people in it--the Lord has stated in the Bible. In it He has given the answers to all questions. There is no question which can torment the human soul, and not find its answer, either directly or indirectly in the Bible.
...
In the Bible God make known:

what the world is; where came from; why it exists; what it is heading for; how it will end;

what man is; where he comes from; where he is going; what he is made of; what his purpose is; how he will end;

what animals and plants are; what their purpose is; what they are used for;

what good is; where it comes from; what it leads to; what its purpose is; how it is attained;

what evil is; where it comes from; how it came to exist; why it exists -how it will come to an end;

what the righteous are and what sinners are; how a sinner becomes righteous and how an arrogant righteous man becomes a sinner; how a man serves God and how he serves satan; the whole path from good to evil, from God to satan;

everything - from the beginning to the end; man is entire path from the body to God, from his conception in the womb to his resurrection from the dead;

what the history of the world is, the history of heaven and earth, the history of mankind; what their path, purpose, and end are.

Rev. Dr. Eugen J. Pentiuc expresses similar thoughts in "The Untamed Textbook and Its House-Trained Handouts":

Scripture is an open textbook, an endless reservoir of wisdom in the making. But above all, Scripture is a living and ever-refreshing means of communication with God, its primus auctor. ... Scripture is not, nor does it claim to be, a complete "recording" of God's mind. Rather, it is a means through which God re-creates us each time when we approach the Scripture, as he did on the sixth day when he breathed his breathing of life on the dust and the dust became a "living breath" of God (Gen 2:7). The Lord re-creates each reader of Scripture as a partner in dialogue with him, the source of life.

The Bible's Authority
In an episode of the Ancient Faith Today podcast called "The Eastern Orthodox Approach to the Bible," Presbytera Jeannie Constantinou says this about the nature of the Bible's authority:

First of all, the Church does not rely on the Bible for its doctrine. We don't rely on the Bible, because the Church came first. ... The Church knew what it believed about Christ before the books of the New Testament were written.
...
There is no question that the Bible is authority, so if I gave the impression that the Bible is not authority in the Church, that's certainly not true. It is authority, but it's not over the Church, it's not under the Church, it's part of the Church. It does stand as part of the Tradition, part of apostolic Tradition. It's just the written form of apostolic Tradition. To that extent, it's not exclusive authority.
...
For us we have this consistency through the centuries, because we read the early Church Fathers who comment on these, who use these verses, because we have them in our hymns and in our prayers, we understood what is meant by them, so they are less susceptible to being distorted by the individual opinions of people. We have a consensus of meaning within the Church, and we do not exceed that boundary. We don't substitute our own personal opinion.

The Bible and the "Word"
Constantinou elsewhere in the episode explains the relationship between Jesus, the Bible, and the term "Word of God":

The Bible is the Word of God because the message is from God, but the ultimate Word of God is Jesus Christ, because he is the ultimate revelation of God. As we said, human language has its limitations to describe or explain God, but Christ was unlimited. The apostles experienced God in the Person of Jesus. What they experienced went beyond human language.

Holy Scripture In The Orthodox Church
"The Bible"
Compiled by Father Demetrios Serfes
Boise, Idaho, USA
August 20 2000

The Bible is the book of the Church. We therefore read Holy Scripture, not as isolated individuals, but as members of the Church. In order to keep Holy Scripture in the mind of the Church, we observe how Scripture is used in worship, and how it is interpreted by the Holy Fathers. Our approach then to the Bible is both Liturgical and Patristic.
The Eastern Orthodox Church belief about Holy Scripture that is the Bible of the Old Testament and the New Testament we must be fully aware from within Holy Tradition. Tradition, is a life, a personal encounter with Christ our Lord in the Holy Spirit. Tradition then not only is kept by the Church - it lives in the Church, it is the life of the Holy Spirit in the Church. The Bible is then the supreme expression of God's revelation to man.

This answer is pretty much the common one among all Catholics regardless of their relationship to one another.  The Church is the Pillar and foundation of Truth, and the Bible is a compilation of Christian writings deemed valuable for use during the Celebration of the Mass.  They are not the only writings, just those selected for that purpose, encompassing all teachings necessary for the celebration of the Eucharist and the edification of the Christian Community AKA The Mystical Body of Christ.  The books compiled by the Church were never intended to be used without its guidance and understanding. To do so is dangerous and, as history has shown, results in many horrible realities the worst being a separation from the Sacraments.


How is the Shema of Deuteronomy reconciled with the doctrine of the Trinity? The "Shema" (שְׁמַע), found in Deuteronomy 6:4, states that "YHVH (יהוה) is one."  This verse can be interpreted to contradict the doctrine of the Trinity, yet this doctrine is quite prominent in Christendom.  How, then, is the doctrine of the Trinity reconciled with this verse?  How can this verse be understood to be in harmony with the doctrine of the Trinity?

Hear, O' Israel! YHVH is our God, YHVH is one!
שְׁמַע יִשְׂרָאֵל יְהוָה אֱלֹהֵינוּ יְהוָה אֶחָד

YHVH is not one person.
An Examination of Zechariah 2:8-11
In Zech. 2:8, it is written,

For thus said YHVH of hosts, "After glory He sent me to the nations who spoiled you, for he who touches you touches the apple of His eye.
כִּי כֹה אָמַר יְהוָה צְבָאוֹת אַחַר כָּבֹוד שְׁלָחַנִי אֶל־הַגּוֹיִם הַשֹּׁלְלִים אֶתְכֶם כִּי הַנֹּגֵעַ בָּכֶם נֹגֵעַ בְּבָבַת עֵינוֹ

Notice that YHVH of hosts is speaking, and YHVH of hosts states that "He sent me" (שְׁלָחַנִי). Who can send YHVH of hosts, the Almighty God? Surely no creature has the authority to send YHVH of hosts!
In Zech. 2:9, it is written,

For, behold, I shall shake my hand upon them, and they shall be a spoil to their servants, and you shall know that YHVH of hosts sent me.
כִּי הִנְנִי מֵנִיף אֶת־יָדִי עֲלֵיהֶם וְהָיוּ שָׁלָל לְעַבְדֵיהֶם וִידַעְתֶּם כִּי־יְהוָה צְבָאֹות שְׁלָחָנִי

YHVH of hosts is still speaking in Zech. 2:9. He states that "YHVH of hosts sent me."
To reiterate, YHVH of hosts is speaking in Zech. 2:8. He states, "He sent me." We ask, "Who sends YHVH of hosts?" In Zech. 2:9, this is answered when YHVH of hosts, who is still speaking, states, "YHVH of hosts sent me."
This is further confirmed in the following verse.
In Zech. 2:11, it is written,

And many nations shall be joined to YHVH in that day, and they shall be my people, and I will dwell in your midst, and you shall know that YHVH of hosts sent me to you.
וְנִלְווּ גֹויִם רַבִּים אֶל־יְהוָה בַּיֹּום הַהוּא וְהָיוּ לִי לְעָם וְשָׁכַנְתִּי בְתֹוכֵךְ וְיָדַעַתְּ כִּי־יְהוָה צְבָאֹות שְׁלָחַנִי אֵלָיִךְ

Again, YHVH is speaking. He states that "many nations shall be joined to YHVH in that day," instead of saying that "many nations shall be joined to me in that day." By the speaker, who is YHVH, referring to YHVH in the third person, there appears to be a distinction between YHVH who is speaking and another YHVH to whom the nations shall be joined in that day. Now, it's not unheard of for YHVH to speak about Himself in the third person. However, the last clause confirms that there is more than one YHVH being mentioned in this verse. YHVH, who is speaking, states, "...and you shall know that YHVH of hosts sent me to you."
The Hebrew verb שְׁלָחַנִי ("he sent me") is reiterated in three verses:

Zechariah 2:8

For thus said YHVH of hosts, "After glory He sent me (שְׁלָחַנִי) to the nations who spoiled you, for he who touches you touches the apple of His eye.

Zechariah 2:9

For, behold, I shall shake my hand upon them, and they shall be a spoil to their servants, and you shall know that YHVH of hosts sent me (שְׁלָחַנִי).

Zechariah 2:11

And many nations shall be joined to YHVH in that day, and they shall be my people, and I will dwell in your midst, and you shall know that YHVH of hosts sent me (שְׁלָחַנִי) to you.

In addition, in Zech. 2:10, it is written,

Sing and rejoice, O' daughter of Tzion, for, lo, I come, and I shall dwell in your midst," said YHVH.
רָנִּי וְשִׂמְחִי בַּת־צִיֹּון כִּי הִנְנִי־בָא וְשָׁכַנְתִּי בְתֹוכֵךְ נְאֻם־יְהוָה

YHVH states that He will come and dwell in the midst of Israel.
Again, in Zech. 2:11, it is written,

And many nations shall be joined to YHVH in that day, and they shall be my people, and I shall dwell in your midst, and you shall know that YHVH of hosts sent me to you.
וְנִלְווּ גֹויִם רַבִּים אֶל־יְהוָה בַּיֹּום הַהוּא וְהָיוּ לִי לְעָם וְשָׁכַנְתִּי בְתֹוכֵךְ וְיָדַעַתְּ כִּי־יְהוָה צְבָאֹות שְׁלָחַנִי אֵלָיִךְ

"And I shall dwell" (וְשָׁכַנְתִּי) is repeated in both verses. YHVH is the subject of the verb in both verses. Notice v. 11. YHVH states, "...and I shall dwell in your midst," and then the same YHVH states, "...and you shall know that YHVH of hosts sent me to you."
In conclusion, we have explicit confirmation in the Tanakh that Israel believed there was more than one person named "YHVH" (יהוה). This is later confirmed in the New Testament when the Son is revealed to Israel and dwells in their midst.

Exegesis of Deuteronomy 6:4 in Consideration of Zechariah 2:8-11
If there exist more than one person named YHVH, i.e. the Father and the Son (and the Holy Spirit), what does it mean when Deut. 6:4 states that "YHVH is one" (יְהוָה אֶחָד)? It is not enough to say "YHVH is one," but we must know, YHVH is one what? Certainly YHVH is not one "person," for that would contradict the doctrine of the Trinity, and of course, Zech. 2:8-11.
Upon much consideration of the Shema in its immediate context, I believe it should be translated as,

"Hear O' Israel! YHVH is our God, YHVH is the only one!"

Moshe is exhorting Israel to understand that:

YHVH is their God
YHVH is the only one (i.e., the only true God, and Israel's only God)

The Shema is thus an affirmation of the monotheistic faith of Israel. This is in contradistinction to the polytheism that Israel witnessed in Egypt by the Egyptians, as well as the nations surrounding Israel (cp. Deut. 6:14).
Can the Hebrew word אֶחָד (echad), which literally means the numeral one, be understood in this sense? I believe there is a basis for it. Wilhelm Gesenius indeed states that אֶחָד can mean "one only of its kind" (A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament, p. 32). Gesenius cites a few examples, such as Job 23:13, Eze. 7:5, and Song of Songs 6:8.
In Song of Songs 6:8, in which it is written,

אַחַת הִיא, יוֹנָתִי תַמָּתִי--אַחַת הִיא לְאִמָּהּ, בָּרָה הִיא לְיוֹלַדְתָּהּ; רָאוּהָ בָנוֹת וַיְאַשְּׁרוּהָ, מְלָכוֹת וּפִילַגְשִׁים וַיְהַלְלוּהָ.

The Jewish Publication Society (JPS, 1917) translates this as,

My dove, my undefiled, is but one; she is the only one of her mother; she is the choice one of her that bore her. The daughters saw her, and called her happy; yea, the queens and the concubines, and they praised her.

אַחַת is the simply the feminine declension of אֶחָד. Obviously, the dove is not "the one of her mother," but rather, "the only one of her mother." Here we see that אֶחָד can be translated as "only one" with the actual noun being implied from the preceding context. In Song of Songs 6:8, it is the mother's only dove. In Deuteronomy 6:4, YHVH is Israel's only God.

Summary
In conclusion, since the Father and the Son are one in essence, and both the Father and the Son are God (John 1:1), then the Shema is consistent with the doctrine of the Trinity which states that there are three persons who are essentially God. Since the name of God is YHVH, then the name of each person of the Trinity is YHVH. The Son, YHVH, is Israel's God, just as the Father, YHVH, is Israel's God, and the Holy Spirit, YHVH, is Israel's God. Each person of the Trinity is co-equal and co-eternal in nature, so there is no distinction of essence, but rather, only of persons.

I think you have to differentiate a statement from God (which is necessarily the truth,) from   Catholic Dogma determined by  Bishops of the Empire at Nicea in 325.

The Trinity in Unity is an idea of some of the Bishops in the Empire and was voted upon by 300 Bishops in 325 at Nicea (near Constantinople and the Emperor.) It was not accepted by all Bishops, six rejected it. Some 500 other Bishops did not even attend. The statement of Trinity was not regarded as the truth about God. It was "the best they could come up with," at that time to hold the various factions of the Church together. Bishops had to agree to it or lose their Diocese and pension. The Trinitarian statement  was revised several times to correct ambiguities, and the changes caused a split in the catholic church, which is only now being healed (partially.)

The Trinitarian understanding is different between various Trinitarian churches, (the wording is also different - but that's not a major problem.) It is not possible to determine the truth from these statements, as God is truth alone.

So, you must accept what God has stated in His own words.

To be a Roman Catholic you must agree to accept the Trinity in Unity statement.
To be an Anglican Catholic you must agree to the Apostle's creed which is slightly different.
To be an Episcopalian you must agree to the Nicene-Constantinople creed, which is a variation of the Nicene Creed.
The Orthodox Greek have a slightly different understanding ("and the son" is missing.)
The Latter Day Saints use the Trinitarian phrase: Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, but rather than consider them to be personalities (or personages) as do the catholics, they consider them to be persons.

I would not use these differences in understanding between the various religious groups to suggest that one is the truth and the other wrong. Their understandings is particular to their rite of admission to the Church. It was never meant as a description of God.

Go by what God has said of God.


What is the Calvinist perspective on regeneration? When do Calvinists consider an elect person to be regenerate?

If it is at birth, then is it odd that someone who is "regenerate" is living in sin, up until the point of faith in Christ?

And if it is at a later time, such as at faith in Christ, then how is that faith in Christ prompted in an unregenerate person?

I may not fully understand the definition of "regenerate" (and particularly its distinction from "salvation"), so answerers would be kind to also explain that definition from a Calvinist perspective.

Note: This question arose out of comments made in this answer.

It largely depends on which Calvinist you ask :)

The author of one of the more famous Systematic Theology works (can't remember if it was Shedd, Berkhof, or Hodge... I remember reading it in a defense of Classical Arminianism by Picirilli) said that predestination is not unto faith. This indicates that predestination is unto regeneration.

So what is required is a definition of Calvinistic regeneration. Here is Berkhof's take on regeneration (too long to post, please read. Also read the discussion. It's highly interesting.). Essentially, regeneration is a change in a man's condition, from being spiritually dead to being spiritually alive. Once a man is spiritually alive, he has the ability to see his rebellious condition. Because of this, he has an irresistible urge to be saved and have faith in Christ, and he does. Regeneration and salvation are not something that are considered to happen in a chronological order whereby one happens then the other. That regeneration precedes faith and therefore salvation is only a logical ordering. In actuality, the chronological ordering is simultaneous. An important note, though. In Romans, we see that faith comes by hearing, and hearing by preaching. We also see in Ephesians that faith is a gift of God. So, simply put, the faith is given to the believer by God, and the believer comes upon this faith by hearing the Gospel.

There is a second question, how sin affects a regenerate's life. The first point is that regeneration occurs at a point in time. An elect man is born into original sin and rebellion toward God, and regenerated at a later point. He does not necessarily emerge from the womb in a regenerate state.

However, even if this was the case, a regenerated man will still sin! This does not mean that this is accepted by God, but rather that through the man's faith in Christ, he has access to the forgiveness brought through Christ.

Edit:
It has been asked, "Is faith a gift of God? Does the verse from Ephesians necessitate this interpretation?"

First, whether or not an individual believes faith to be a gift from God is not the question at hand. We're talking about a Reformed interpretation of the doctrine, so for point of this answer, faith is a gift from God.

More importantly though, is it good to consider faith as a gift from God?

A cursory glance at the verse in Ephesians says no.

  For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast.
  (Ephesians 2:8-9 ESV)

I'm not a Bible languages scholar, but the commentaries I've read all say that "It's" antecedent is "grace," not "faith" because the gender of the words in question. So, we can make the argument from language that "it" refers to "grace," not "faith." However, we have not established that faith is not a gift in this verse, only that the antecedent of the gift is "grace." If we're going to use this information to determine that faith is not a gift, we're going to need to say that grace is a gift from God, but the channel through which grace is applied is not a gift from God and is instead resident within the believer. This is shaky ground for Arminians and Calvinists alike (and Lutherans, etc.).

The Calvinist position is that the mechanism whereby God applies His grace is also a gift, or at least the ability to act on that mechanism. If the believer had present within himself the channel through which Grace is applied, in addition to the ability to employ the channel, and chose to employ this channel when another did not, this would give the believer a right to boast over the non-believer that "I was wise enough to act upon something within me, whereas you were not." The Reformed interpretation of this verse completely blows this argument out of the water: none of salvation is by works, it is all of grace. A common answer to this is that "faith is not a work," but if it is something that the believer does and something an unbeliever does not, then why should we not consider one's faith a work? Without considering faith as a gift of God, we are relegated to consider faith a work and are no better off than demons

In other places too, we see faith as being something God can administer. In Romans, we see that God assigns a measure of faith.

  For by the grace given to me I say to everyone among you not to think of himself more highly than he ought to think, but to think with sober judgment, each according to the measure of faith that God has assigned.
  (Romans 12:3 ESV)

In Mark, we see that Christ does not rebuke the man who begs his Lord to "help with his unbelief," and rather the Lord blesses the man through the healing in the passage.

  And Jesus said to him, “‘If you can’! All things are possible for one who believes.” Immediately the father of the child cried out and said, “I believe; help my unbelief!” And when Jesus saw that a crowd came running together, he rebuked the unclean spirit, saying to it, “You mute and deaf spirit, I command you, come out of him and never enter him again.” And after crying out and convulsing him terribly, it came out, and the boy was like a corpse, so that most of them said, “He is dead.” But Jesus took him by the hand and lifted him up, and he arose. And when he had entered the house, his disciples asked him privately, “Why could we not cast it out?” And he said to them, “This kind cannot be driven out by anything but prayer.”

(Mark 9:23-29 ESV)

I think there is a genuine cause for confusion. Here are the claims made in Calvinist theology

The unsaved man is dead spiritually and totally incapable of
understanding Spiritual things or accepting the gospel. He needs to
be made alive by the holy Spirit through the process of regeneration
to believe the Gospel. So the Chronology has to be something like
this - Regeneration followed by understanding the Gospel followed by
faith and confession (I write understanding the Gospel because the
person can hear the gospel before or as he is being regenerated, but
he cannot understand it without regeneration).
Regeneration precedes faith only logically and not necessarily
chronologically.  Both Faith and Regeneration happen more or less at the same moment. (This statement is made to avoid the problem of
having people who are born again but not Christians yet).

The above two ideas are totally contradictory to each other and leave people confused. On the one hand there is the clear idea that people cannot believe without understanding, and that they cannot understand without regeneration.  On the other hand is the claim that regeneration only logically precedes Faith.

I think this confusion is caused because the Bible does not teach that regeneration precedes faith in an explicit manner. But there is a good case that it teaches the opposite with verses such as John1:12; Acts 2:38,39 etc.

The major problem with this doctrine in my opinion is that it causes a person to be in spiritual union with Jesus before having saving faith as regeneration grafts us into the vine that is Christ.


To the YEC, did God make a single male/female pair of each kind of animal? Genesis 1:21-22

  So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living thing
  with which the water teems and that moves about in it, according to
  their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw
  that it was good

  God blessed them and said, "Be fruitful and increase in number and
  fill the water in the seas, and let the birds increase on the earth."

Genesis 1:24

  And God said, "Let the land produce living creatures according to
  their kinds: the livestock, the creatures that move along the ground,
  and the wild animals, each according to its kind." And it was so.

For example :
A. God create a bunch of elephants, cows, doves, eagles, penguins, dolphins, dogs, ants, snakes, etc etc ... here and there across the earth - male and female.

B. God create 2 elephants, 2 cows, 2 doves, 2 eagles, 2 penguins, 2 dolphins, 2 ants, 2 snakes, etc etc ... male and female for each type and they are all in one place ---> Something like when on the 6th day we go to a zoo or to an African Safari, many types of animal are there - but there are only two for each type, male and female.

C. Almost like B, but the two elephants on the most North of the earth, the two doves somewhere on other part of the earth, the two penguins on the most South of the earth, the two snakes exactly in the Eden Garden, etc etc. In other words, the size of the "African Safari" is as big as the earth size :).

So, according to the YEC - is it A or B or C ?

Thank you.

The Answer is A.  The question is very good, but a lot of people are not familiar with the phrase - YEC [It should be explained ] and it also should be noted that many who hold this view do not use or like this term - Young Earth Creationists, because something that is 6-10 thousand years is ancient - not young. It's better to use the term Biblical Creationists, or "those who believe in the literal creation account".
The creation account in Genesis 1:20-24 doesn't say explicitly, but when we look at other passages, [using solid principles of Bible Interpretation- scripture interprets scripture, and other clear passages inform or shed light on less clear ones] we can see that the answer is A.
It is a common view among those Biblical Creationists- who hold the literal creation position - that the original earth was one giant land mass and split as a result of plate tectonics in the Genesis flood.  We know this from at least 2 separate scriptures, and it's important to the topic.  I Chronicles 1:19 and Genesis 10:25 "In the days of Peleg, the earth was divided."
https://answersingenesis.org/geology/plate-tectonics/did-the-continents-split-apart-in-the-days-of-peleg/.
So in this scenario there were thousands of miles of continuous, connected land mass.  If God had only made 2 otters or 2 racc0ons, or 2 rabbits, or 2 squirrels, they could have been devoured in the first week by a vulture, fox or eagle and poof, 1/3 of the animals are extinct in a year.
But this leads us to the other evidence from scripture. *Remember that we should compare scripture to help shed light on questions like these and other issues.
Ask most of your Christian friends "How many of each kind of animal were on the ark"? and they will immediately say two. But this is a commonly held myth.
It's great for helping 4 year old kids remember the story, and making kids songs rhyme, but it's not true.
Scripture explicitly says that there were 2 of the unclean animals but 7 pairs of the birds and 7 pairs of clean animals. It's no coincidence that the sacrificial animals are also the same animals they could eat.
Genesis 7:1-3 "Then the LORD said to Noah, “Go into the ark, you and all your household, for I have seen that you are righteous before me in this generation. 2 Take with you seven pairs of all clean animals,a the male and his mate, and a pair of the animals that are not clean, the male and his mate, 3 and seven pairs of the birds of the heavens also, male and female, to keep their offspring alive on the face of all the earth.
As soon as Noah and his family left the ark, they made a sacrifice, so if there were 2, then the sheep and goats would immediately be extinct.
It's clear from other scripture that the pure spotless young lamb was to be a perfect picture of his son- the spotless lamb of God, so it wouldn't work for God to have people sacrifice unclean animals - and the other point is that scripture says that it is slothful to kill an animal and not eat it.
God's design of clean animals for sacrifice and for eating also provided a means for the Old Testament priests to eat.

Variant A.
Saint Ephrem the Syrian (306 – 373) writes in "Commentary on Genesis":

After Moses spoke about the lights that came to be in the firmament, he turned to write about the swarming things, the birds and the serpents that were created from the waters on the fifth day, saying, "And God said, 'Let the waters cause living things to swarm, and let the birds fly above the earth.' And God created the great serpents and every living creature with which the waters swarmed according to their kind." (Gen 1:20, 1:21)
When the waters were gathered, which had been ordered on the second day, the rivers were ordered and also springs, lakes, and ponds were revealed. At the word of God, these waters--dispersed throughout creation--brought forth swarming things and fish from within them: the serpents were created within the abysses and the birds soared in flocks out of the waves into the air.
... After Moses spoke about the creation of the swarming things and of the birds and the sea serpents on the fifth day, he turned to write about the creeping things and the animals and the beasts that were created on the sixth day, saying, "And God said, 'Let the earth bring forth living creatures according to their kinds: cattle and reptiles and beasts.'" ( Gen 1:24) Although the entire earth was swarming with swarming things, nevertheless the cattle and the beasts were made on the border of Paradise so that they might dwell at the appointed place of Adam.
Then the entire earth stirred with creeping things as it had been commanded. The earth also brought forth the beasts of the field as companions to the wild beasts, and it brought forth as many beasts as would be useful for the service of that one who, on that very day, was to transgress the commandment of his Lord.


How to verify if a "message from God" came from God? If I doubted on the authenticity of a "message", must I automatically associate it with the enemy's attacks?

Message here refers to any information that might be related to God's Will in our lives.

It is good to remember that God is consistent. He does not change. This works out to our benefit. For example:1

  Malachi 2:6 (ESV)
  For I the Lord do not change; therefore you, O children of Jacob, are not consumed.

One of the ways in which this is good for us is that we are not trying to hit a moving target when it comes to understanding His will. His character, what pleases Him, what He expects from men, and other like topics are fixed, not variable truths.

This knowledge about God also allows us to say that He will not contradict Himself. If He has a message for you, you can easily check whether it's possibly true by checking it against a known corpus of teaching, His Word. He will never tell you anything inconsistent with the teachings he gave us in the Scriptures. This is why it is important to study and know them well so that as we are bombarded with messages from this world we will be able to discern which messages are an echo of His voice and which are crafts of the deceiver.

Most of the book of Jude tucked away at the end of the NT is a scathing warning against false teachers defined as any person or teaching that espoused any idea other than the Gospel as outlined by Christ and the early Apostles. It talks about people who see visions and follow them, reject the authority of the church, and fall into all manner of wrong roads. It ends with this call:

  Jude 1:17-21 (ESV)
  But you must remember, beloved, the predictions of the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ. They said to you, “In the last time there will be scoffers, following their own ungodly passions.” It is these who cause divisions, worldly people, devoid of the Spirit. But you, beloved, building yourselves up in your most holy faith and praying in the Holy Spirit, keep yourselves in the love of God, waiting for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ that leads to eternal life.

There are numerous other NT references to the importance of sticking to the early teachings, many of them clearer than this passage. The long an the short of it is that we are to discern whether any message is from God by comparing it against the rest of the Word.

1 Note that this example is in a different context of God keeping his covenants even when men are faithless, but the principle of God not changing is also found many other places in Scripture so I think it's a valid proof here.

One of my favorite quotes in The Lord of the Rings echos the idea of right and wrong and the basis for the decisions we have to make in our lives not being variable.2 Faramir asks:

  "How shall a man judge what to do in such times?"
  "As he ever has judged,' said Aragorn. 'Good and ill have not changed since yesteryear; nor are they one thing among Elves and Dwarves, and another among Men. It is a man's part to discern them, as much in the Golden Wood as in his own house."

2 This is not a source text!

No you don't have to presume automatically that is of the Enemy.  Because, obviously, if you did so, said Enemy would use it.  "Oh, I can't counter the message directly, but I know how I can make Rek doubt... Muahahahaha!"

As for the rest, I refer you to Mason's answer... oh, and God may confirm his message even of his own will, even w/o you ask him to.  Remember, he is God, he is sovereign in all he does.


What does the Bible say about this question- Why do Jesus and God have two seats in heaven when they are the same God? Please answer! I have been wondering for ages! I have tried google and all sorts, but can't find the answer.

Jesus and the Father are one God, but they are two persons. Two persons deserve two seats.

To expand slightly, according to mainstream (i.e. Trinitarian) Christianity, Jesus and the Father are separate persons. In fact this passage is considered evidence that Jesus is not simply a different manifestation of God the Father. I recommend consulting a detailed explanation of the Trinity for more information.

Mike gives an excellent answer describing the imagary, by the way.

When asked who he claimed to be, Christ said, "before Moses, I Am." Supposedly he was saying that he is the God of the Old Testament. The God of the Old Testament told Jeremiah that He knew Jeremiah before He formed Jeremiah in his mother's "belly." If we can assume from this that Jeremiah was a spirit in Heaven prior to his mortality, maybe we can assume Jesus was a spirit prior to His mortality and the name of that Spirit was I Am. Maybe, I Am was talking to the Father of Spirits when it was said, "Look, man is as Us, able to tell good from evil." Maybe it was the voice Father of Spirits that was heard saying, "This is my beloved son... " while Jesus was on the Mount of Transfiguration. Maybe the Godhead is comprised of separate individuals and Constantine was a polititian with a bad idea.


What biblical evidence is there that our spirit only began in this life? LDS believe that our spirit was in existence before we are born here on earth. What biblical evidences are there that that is not the case?

  Genesis 2:4 These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens, 5 And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the Lord God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground. (KJV)

This implies that plants and herbs were in exhistance before they were placed on the earth. There also seems to be a double creation with Adam.

  Genesis 1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
  Genesis 2:7 And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

This implies that Adam was created spiritually, like plants and herbs, then created from the dust.

There are also other scriptures that support that man exhisted before this life. For instace Job 38:7, Eccl. 12:7, Jer. 1:5, John 9:2, Romans 8:29.

What evidences are there in the bible that our spirits were not in existence until this life?

I don't know if there are any particular verses in the Bible that specify souls do not pre-exist.  As Dick said, you are trying to prove a negative, which is difficult.
However, I did find a verse in the Orthodox Deutero-canonical text (referred to by others as the Apocrypha) that says there is no reincarnation:

A man indeed killeth through his malice: and the spirit, when it is gone forth, returneth not; neither the soul received up cometh again.
Wisdom of Solomon 16:14

It would stand to reason that if reincarnation is not true because a soul being in the place it goes to after life on earth does not come back to earth, then it follows that a soul simply does not come from there to here - it is a one way trip from here to there.

It is an almost universal view among biblical scholars that there are two distinct creation stories in Genesis, written by two different authors at different times. The first story is in Genesis 1:1-2:4a and was written by an anonymous author now known as the Priestly Source. The second is in Genesis 2:4b-25 and was written by the Yahwist, or 'J Source'. this explains the appearance of a "double creation."

Leon R. Kass says in The Beginning of Wisdom: Reading Genesis, at page 55, that pious readers, believing that the text cannot contain contradictions, ignore the major disjunctions between the two creation stories and tend to treat the second story as the fuller, more detailed account of the creation of man (and woman) that the first story simply reported.

Those who do see these disjunctions but believe there is only one creation account in Genesis have to look for explanations consistent with this belief. This is where we find the concept that the first story only tells of a spiritual creation.

In the first story, God is all-powerful and simply speaks things into existence. The second is older and more primitive, and here God can not create living things out of nothing: he creates Adam and each of the animals out of moist earth, then Eve out of Adam's rib. This is not necessary for plants, as they are pre-existing as seeds in the ground, waiting for God to make it rain. This is not because God had only created seeds in the ground in Genesis 1:11 - after all, God said to "bring forth" grass, etc.

Kass says, "Once we recognise the independence of the two creation stories, we are compelled to adopt a critical principle of reading if we mean to understand each story on its own terms." This then means we can not use the first story to speculate that God created us (and presumably the animals also created on day 6) spiritually before creating us out of moist earth. Proving from the Bible that our spirits were not in existence before this life involves proving a negative, which is usually impossible, so we usually have to rely on proving probability. Genesis gives no reason to believe that God created humans as spirits before creating us physically.


Is Jesus the reincarnation of Adam? Somewhere in my travels, I read that Jesus can be considered as Adam reincarnated. Is that a possibility? "First Adam flops, second Adam triumphs" - is that an idea some of you know?

No. Jesus may not be considered Adam re-incarnate.

Yet it's not hard to figure out where somebody might have gotten that idea. This is just a case of not understanding the terminology being used. Somebody got some of the words cross-wired¹ without understanding the concept.

In Christianity Jesus is known as the "Second Adam" or "Last Adam" but the naming has nothing to do with reincarnation! The title refers to a role rather than a personal ID. As far as personas go they are actually quite different. Adam was a man like you or me. He died and stayed dead. Jesus was God himself who had taken on human form. God and man at the same time.

Adam was given specific assignments, he had a role to play in the created order.

He failed it. Spectacularly.

  Romans 5:12 (ESV)
  12  Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned—

The "Second Adam" Jesus came to set right what he first Adam messed up.

  1 Corinthians 15:22 (ESV)
  22  For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive.

Jesus not only did what neither Adam nor of his descendants could do (live in perfect obedience to God) but by taking on himself Adam's guilt he also reversed the process Adam started and provided a way for those who had rebelled (Adam and all us after him) to be reconciled back to God.

  1 Corinthians 15:45 (ESV)
  45  Thus it is written, “The first man Adam became a living being”; the last Adam became a life-giving spirit.

When Christians talk about a  "Second Adam" it is not a reincarnation being talked about, but this principle of reversing the curse brought by the "First Adam".

¹ This could be intentional or accidental. History is full of deliberate miss-understandings of Christianity (e.g. the accusation of cannibalism in reference to communion) but I suspect this is simply a case of lack of knowledge. Rather that actually researching what is properly meant by various expressions, it is a natural tendency to run with them out of context. This tendency can not only result in very bad doctrine, it is the source of most of the worlds conspiracy theories.

Wow. The answer is, of course, yes, Jesus can be considered Adam reincarnated. This idea originated in the writings of Edgar Cayce. I wouldn't necessarily expect EC to be embraced by modern Christians.

To Jesus's credit, He did not focus on reincarnation as a philosophical truth. There is great advantage to this, because even from a context within reincarnation, we each have One eternal life. The here and now is here, and now, and nowhere else is important, not your past lives, not mine.

That said, it is written "Elijah came and they knew him not. And His disciples knew He was speaking of John the Baptist." I believe this is Matthew 12:17, though I don't have a Bible handy. EC cites this as evidence of reincarnation in the scriptures.

Jesus as first-begotten of the Father refers to the human Archetype. Jesus is within you, and within me. Or you can deduce from transitivity if you like: "Whatsoever you do to the least of my brothers, you do it to Me." (And through transitivity, Jesus, being within your brother, is within you.)

The first-begotten in time, as viewed historically, would be Adam. So, if you are viewing Adam as the human archetype, the first human, you are viewing Christ.

I would not ask questions such as these on the Internet, with all respect. You're going to get heady answers as you've received already. Reincarnation is thoroughly rejected in the West, because a fundamentalist approach wants to make God a certain way. God is not what God is because we want Him to be so (thank God!).

This is more understood in the East. God is the way God is, not because an American with an M-16 huffed and puffed that God is so. Though I will soften a bit and say that in the West, reincarnation is rejected because it seems to make God cruel. If life is difficult, why must we relive it? Yet Life as made by God is not the way we perceive it (thank God again).

You are better of asking God Himself what the Truth is about things. Or, ask Jesus. If I am right and Jesus is within you, then Jesus is available to you. A 2,000 year old book suffers from 2,000-year-old misunderstandings, as you can plainly see from the other answers.


What place do ritual and ceremony have in the church today? (Non-Liturgical POV) Scripture, especially in the Old Testament, goes into great detail about the specific ways of doing certain worship-related things. For example, The ordination of Aaron is a highly ritualized procedure. The sacrifices are each a little different and are laid out as detailed rituals performed by priest and worshiper. Even the camp around the tabernacle was highly organized and only set out when the trumpets were blown a certain way.

Given the ceremonial aspect of all the rituals laid out in the Sinaitic law, the specific guidelines for priests and sacrifices, and the ceremonial and symbolic nature of communion and baptism, is there any biblical basis for rejecting ceremony and ritual? In the worship service, this would be a question for non-liturgical churches. For things like weddings and the like, please give biblical support for why the ceremony or ritual of the wedding service itself would be considered unnecessary.

As a Protestant evangelical under the New Covenant in contrast to Jews under the Old Testament, or various forms of Catholics and Eastern Orthodox denominations, the answer is pretty clear comparatively - ritual and ceremony have almost no place in the church today.

At the top level of the idea this is merely a division between the Old Covenant and the New Covenant.  For most Protestants there are only two rituals   enshrined under the word 'sacrament' which force an external observation that would not necessarily occur spontaneously out of worship for God. These two rituals are baptism and the Lord's supper.  In contrast to this I do not know how many sacraments existed under the Old Testament but would imagine if they were counted it would be over a hundred.

So why the transition by God of over a hundred sacraments to two? A common starting point is often traced to Jesus himself who predicted how things would be aft he died, but left it to the Apostles to have those things revealed to them and subsequently taught by them after Christ ascended into heaven.

You will recall that all the ritual and ceremony of the Old Covenant was integrated and based upon worship in the temple of God on Mount Zion. In predicting the new order of things Jesus said:

  Our fathers worshiped on this mountain, but you say that in Jerusalem is the place where people ought to worship.” Jesus said to her, “ Woman, believe me, the hour is coming when neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem will you worship the Father. You worship what you do not know; we worship what we know, for salvation is from the Jews. But the hour is coming, and is now here, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for the Father is seeking such people to worship him. (John 4:20-23, ESV)

Notice Jesus made a contrast between the location of worship and its implied rituals with the 'truth' and 'in Spirit'.  Clearly Jesus was contrasting the 'external form' of religion with the inward 'truth' of it.  This contrast of ritual verses truth, implied that the ritual was within the old order primarily to foreshadow the reality but the worshippers often never had the reality within themselves. That is the point of ritual, it does not rely on the spontaneous sincerity of the people but prescribes an external rule.

This foundational statement of Christ is further established by the church in Acts that broke away from ceremony but in stead practiced brotherly love and community within peoples family homes.  Furthermore the Apostles established this freedom form ritual and the need to have genuine love in the Spirit in their writings and when referring to the God ordained rituals of the past said things like:

  For since the law has but a shadow of the good things to come instead of the true form of these realities, it can never, by the same sacrifices that are continually offered every year, make perfect those who draw near. (Hebrews 10:1, ESV)

As far as subsequent traditions and ceremonies that may have been established in churches such as when performing marriage, burial, etc. These are not to be made inflexible rules but for those cultures that find more meaning with more structure around them, let them be free to enjoy such structure and form those who enjoy less structure and ceremony let them enjoy less.  The Apostles always relied on brother love and forbearing with each other's differences and the rule of church government.  It was only later that some denominations took upon the form of pagan governments designed to enforce top down authority as like a Monarchy.

Regarding those churches who do enforce top down government and want to return to many outward forms, most Protestants feel it is a betrayal of the Spirit of Christ and the liberty of the gospel so that it is a denial of the inward reality in accordance with predicted apostasy of the church among many:

  having the appearance of godliness, but denying its power. Avoid such people. (2 Timothy 3:5)

Therefore although some tradition is alright and may be highly valuable to some, the external forms of tradition rather than the invisible doctrinal forms, are often considered the enemy of Christ if they become abundant and made mandatory as this opposes 'the spirit and the truth' in the gospel.

Is the ceremonial aspect of all the rituals laid out in the Sinaitic law, the specific guidelines for priests and sacrifices, and the ceremonial and symbolic nature of communion and baptism relevant or important?

Okay, the ritual you're referring to here:

  The ordination of Aaron is a highly ritualized procedure. The sacrifices are each a little different and are laid out as detailed rituals performed by priest and worshiper. Even the camp around the tabernacle was highly organized and only set out when the trumpets were blown a certain way.

In my opinion is a type of Jesus and the two thieves. The explanation of this is far too long for this answer, but there another person out there that I agree with wholly at this point, you can find that here.

Therefore, with that being the interpretation of the ritual we can see that this ritual has no more significance because a sacrifice is no longer necessary for our salvation, a pure and Holy sacrifice was made.

Now, I would like to focus on the following text for a minute:

  ...and the ceremonial and symbolic nature of communion and baptism...

These two ceremonies are still very relevant and in fact 100% necessary to our salvation. Let's break each one of them down here.

Baptism

Let's start here:

  18 For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit:
  19 By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison;
  20 Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water.
  21 The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ: (1 Peter 3: 18-21 KJV)

Clearly baptism is still very necessary for our salvation. But let's not just concrete this on one account, let's get another.

  15 And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.
  16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned. (Mark 16:15-16 KJV)

So, now we have both Peter and Jesus speaking about the necessity of baptism for our salvation. But how do we do it right? I mean there must be some instruction. Let's start with Jesus:

  18 And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.
  19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: (Matthew 28:18-19 KJV)

Alright, but what is the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost? Let's start with the Father:

  I am come in my Father's name, and ye receive me not: if another shall come in his own name, him ye will receive. (John 5:43 KJV)

Now, I don't think we need to review the name of the Son, so let's move on to the Holy Ghost:

  But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you. (John 14:26 KJV)

Alright, so now that we know the name to baptize in, let's find out how:

  Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. (Acts 2:38 KJV)

So, I think we can see now that baptism is absolutely essential to our salvation.

Communion

As far as communion goes, it's still a very necessary part of our salvation, and the process by which it should occur is pretty summed up by Paul. The emphasis is mine but it's an attempt to show what parts would need to occur in the service.

  20 When ye come together therefore into one place, this is not to eat the Lord's supper.
  21 For in eating every one taketh before other his own supper: and one is hungry, and another is drunken.
  22 What? have ye not houses to eat and to drink in? or despise ye the church of God, and shame them that have not? What shall I say to you? shall I praise you in this? I praise you not.
  23 For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, That the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread:
  24 And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me.
  25 After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me.
  26 For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come.
  27 Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.
  28 But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup.
  29 For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body.
  30 For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep.
  31 For if we would judge ourselves, we should not be judged.
  32 But when we are judged, we are chastened of the Lord, that we should not be condemned with the world. (1 Corinthians 11:20-32 KJV)

One thing I'd like to point out as well:

  ...this is not to eat the Lord's supper

As you can see they were calling it the Lord's supper even then, and Paul let them know, that's not what this is.

  I understand that Jesus fulfilled the law, but do these rituals as rituals inform our worship of God today?

Generally speaking, the act of worship today can be summed up pretty easily. In fact, you can see that worship began changing with David when he danced out of his clothing. Worship began to become more spontaneous. This would have never occurred with Moses or Aaron.

EDIT

  Would you mind expanding your answer to include a discussion of this nature as a whole?

In regards to this, I believe that just about every ritual that existed in the old testament you will either find was fulfilled by Jesus (as shown with Aaron's sacrifice) or you will find that it still exists and that there is a prescribed way like with baptism and communion that still exists in the new testament.

However, you will find that there are ceremonies created by man which have confused the meaning of things. The one that comes to mind the quickest is marriage. Marriage is clearly defined in the bible as intercourse between a man and a woman and a ceremony or federal law have nothing to do with marriage in the eyes of God. But there is nothing wrong with the ceremony, I went through one with my wife :) ... you can find a more exhaustive explanation from my point of view on marriage here.


Did Mary and Joseph become rich with the presents given to them by the magi? Scriptures tell us that the magi gave Mary and Joseph gold, frankincense and myrrh as presents. Although we do not know the amount given to them, it might not have been just a symbolic amount (e.g. 100 grams), as the magi were, apparently, representative of kings, if not kings themselves. As such, they were wealthy (and are traditionally represented as wealthy).

Is there any Christian tradition or author (e.g. Church Fathers) arguing that Mary and Joseph became rich with these gifts? Perhaps arguing what they did with these gifts? For example, maybe donated to the Temple?

Marc's answer and curiousdannii's comment are correct. I went to a study series where the flight into Egypt was made into an epic tragedy of escaping, being afraid, homeless and barely scraping by. Now, that's possible, but I would hope that God would be a bit more generous. So I told the group that the gold, frankincense and myrrh were enough to get the Holy Family to Alexandria, where there was a sizeable Jewish community, where they could be somewhat comfortable and to support them while Joseph did what he could. I was scolded for being so optimistic, so I never went back.

When Presenting Jesus to the temple, Mary and Joseph not being able to afford a lamb, made an offering of two turtle doves for their purification indicating that they were not rich but poor. What ever amount they did receive it was not to last more than a few months at most.


Do we answer the arguments of fools or not? How are Proverbs 26:4-5 to be understood? Proverbs 26:4-5 (NLT)

  4 Don’t answer the foolish arguments of fools,
          or you will become as foolish as they are.

  5 Be sure to answer the foolish arguments of fools,
          or they will become wise in their own estimation.

At first read, these seem to be contradicting one another. Verse 4 tells us not to answer fools' arguments and verse 5 tells us do answer fools' arguments. With such a seeming contradiction, there is certainly some sort of official material out there that resolves this issue. According to the Wesleyan denomination (or as close as possible), how is this apparent contradiction resolved?

The common understanding of this apparent conflict is that the two verses describe two situations.

One involves answering foolish questions...  The ones that are so foolish they don't deserve an answer.  The ones that people ask to get a rise out of you, or make a point, when there's no real possibility of an intelligent conversation.  The kind we quickly vote to close, downvote, and delete. Don't waste your time on them.
The other addresses rebuking foolishness where necessary. When someone is honestly confused, or their foolishness is causing another to stumble or fall into error.

There's a relevant article on it at Ask the Pastors that spells this out better than I, with the following points.

Wisdom is only acquired by those who want it bad enough to work for it
Every issue has many sides to it
There are exceptions to some rules

and the conclusion of that article:

  In the proverb you cite, there is a time to answer a fool according to
  his folly and a time not to. Jesus talked about not casting our pearls
  before swine (Matthew 7). This describes a situation where the
  receiver of truth despises truth and it is not worth telling it to him
  and may even be dangerous to. Paul is an example, however, of
  answering a fool according to his folly when in 2 Corinthians he brags
  and boasts of his “accomplishments” to the Corinthians because it was
  the only way they could receive him (11:16; 12:11). The wise person
  will learn when and how to respond to the fool in the best way
  possible, though even then he or she may not know which way was best
  until he or she got into it.

wisdom is knowing when to apply the principle - there will be times when you should reply and there are other times when you shouldn't reply. Those who are wise will know what and when to do it. So seek after wisdom and learn from the wise - if you walk with the wise - you will become wise. learn to Love wisdom. (Student of Dr Willem VanGemeren, Trinity Evangelical Divinity School).


Did Jesus say to preach to Gentiles, or not? Besides Paul, who never met Christ, was Jesus' message ever meant to be told to the Gentiles?

Jesus told the disciples to preach the Gospel to all nations.

  Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in
  the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit (Matthew
  28:19, ESV)

  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.” (Acts 1:8, ESV)

Paul wasn't the first one nor the only one who preached the Gospel to the Gentiles. According to Acts, Peter was the first to preach the Gospel to the Gentiles. Peter received a vision from the Lord and received a command to preach to the Gentiles in the house of Cornelius the gentile. The Gentiles were filled with the Holy Spirit and were baptized.

  While Peter was still saying these things, the Holy Spirit fell on all
  who heard the word. And the believers from among the circumcised who
  had come with Peter were amazed, because the gift of the Holy Spirit
  was poured out even on the Gentiles. For they were hearing them
  speaking in tongues and extolling God. Then Peter declared, “Can
  anyone withhold water for baptizing these people, who have received
  the Holy Spirit just as we have?” And he commanded them to be baptized
  in the name of Jesus Christ. Then they asked him to remain for some
  days. (Acts 10:44-47, ESV)

Peter reported this to the believers in Jerusalem and they all glorified God.

  When they heard these things they fell silent. And they glorified God,
  saying, “Then to the Gentiles also God has granted repentance that
  leads to life.” (Acts 11:18, ESV)

If Jesus meant for his disciples to go to all nations and preach the gospel to Gentiles, why did Peter need a vision in Acts 10 to visit Cornelius, a Gentile (actually a proselyte of the gate)?  Why did Peter tell Cornelius it was an unlawful thing for him, a Jew, to be in the house of a Gentile?

Because Jesus in His earthly ministry was strictly preaching to "the lost sheep of the house of Israel".  Salvation to the world, apart from the nation of Israel, was not revealed until the ascended Christ shared this "mystery" with the Apostle Paul.  The apostle Paul is THE apostle of the Gentiles (ROM 11:8 KJV).  The "mystery" revealed is revealed in Ephesians 3.  Rightly divided the word of truth (II TIM 2:15) and you will see Paul's unique authority and apostleship.