Works Rightouseness - Is there any Christian Group that focus on this I have been reading a Protestant book on evangelism and it, as well as other books I have read from Evangelical sources, focus greatly on on how their faith practice is in direct opposition to Works-Righteousness.

Coming from the Catholic Prospective of Grace Alone, which is consistent with Gods selection throughout history.  I am curious if there is a faith practice who instructs to its followers that we are saved as Payment for the works that we do.

A Good answer would have a official Document or "What we believe" Statement from the denomination that suggest that works somehow bring a person into the family of God.

I feel personally that the context is directed towards those outside the Church, who do not know the Gospel, the Evangelicals seem focused more on those inside the church, who in there minds, are not "REAL" Christians, like themselves.

Is there a Denomination that states that we are saved by Works?

Dr. John Fonville, in the third part of his sermon series entitled Threats To Christian Freedom: Legalism, discusses two types of works righteousness about which Paul warns the Church in Galatia in the 5th Chapter of his Epistle to them, and gives examples of each that include theologies that, by this site's standards, are Christian denominations. He contrasts these types of theological legalism with functional legalism, which he describes as grace-centered Christians who unintentionally judge themselves according to the law.

The first, called simply legalism (nomism), includes Christian theologies and other religions that teach that salvation itself- justification in the final judgement- is not imputed but is earned by works during life. He cites Mormonism, Jahovah's Whitness, and Islam as examples of theological legalism, as well as Christian denominations that teach that a salvific work like baptism or other sacrament is required for salvation. Contrary to what it may seem, this type of legalism actually diminishes the law, since the standard of the law must be lowered in order to be achieved by the individual. Ultimately in this theology, the sacrifice and divinity of Christ are of no consequence, as he becomes simply an example of righteous works and not the source of righteousness.

The second, called covenant nomism, teaches that while the initiation of the salvific process is a result of grace and election, both sanctification and ultimate justification are a result of works. In other words, you get in by faith, but you stay in by works. This is what Paul means when he asks rhetorically, "Are you so foolish? After beginning by means of the Spirit, are you now trying to finish by means of the flesh?"  Dr. Fonville includes charismatic revivalism with its alter calls for rededication, the Roman Catholic Church with its doctrine of penance, and first century Judaism as examples of this type of works based righteousness. In this theology, the effectiveness of God's grace, the existence of the Spirit in the life of the believer, and the believers unity with Christ are discarded.

A remedy to both of these types of works based righteousness in the Church, Dr. Fonville concludes, is the constant exposure to the sound Gospel of salvation by grace through faith, citing 2 Peter 1:12-13,

  Therefore, I will always be ready to remind you of these things, even though you already know them, and have been established in the truth which is present with you. I consider it right, as long as I am in this earthly dwelling, to stir you up by way of reminder,

The Catholic perspective on Baptism is works righteousness, because it is a wide belief that it alone saves by literally washing away your sins, though it is an outward act. Baptists refute this of course with

1 Pet. 3:21 "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."

In this capacity, Catholics are absolutely works righteous teachers.


Why did Jesus say to his accusers "You are gods"? John 10

  33The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not;
  but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself
  God.

  34Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are
  gods?

Why does Jesus mention to the people that are stoning him, that they are Gods?

Does that bring them up to the same level as Him (Christ)?

Here is one of those times where context helps quite a bit.

  John 10:33-36 (NIV)

   33 “We are not stoning you for any good work,” they replied, “but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God.”
   34 Jesus answered them, “Is it not written in your Law, ‘I have said you are “gods”’? 35 If he called them ‘gods,’ to whom the word of God came—and Scripture cannot be set aside— 36 what about the one whom the Father set apart as his very own and sent into the world? Why then do you accuse me of blasphemy because I said, ‘I am God’s Son’?

Emphasis mine, of course. The part in bold made me think that these were prophets, but let's check the reference to be sure.

  Psalm 82  (NIV)
  A psalm of Asaph.
   1 God presides in the great assembly;
     he renders judgment among the “gods”:
   2 “How long will you defend the unjust
     and show partiality to the wicked?
  3 Defend the weak and the fatherless;
     uphold the cause of the poor and the oppressed.
  4 Rescue the weak and the needy;
     deliver them from the hand of the wicked.
   5 “The ‘gods’ know nothing, they understand nothing.
     They walk about in darkness;
     all the foundations of the earth are shaken.
   6 “I said, ‘You are “gods”;
     you are all sons of the Most High.’
  7 But you will die like mere mortals;
     you will fall like every other ruler.”
   8 Rise up, O God, judge the earth,
     for all the nations are your inheritance.

Huh, this passage seems to be talking about judges, not prophets. However, remember that in ancient Israel, judges and prophets were often the same people1.

Now the question becomes: why call these people "gods"? One readily apparent reason is that God is the great Judge, hence these judges are gods in that sense. Another, less clear and more speculative reason, has to do with them being prophets. Taking parts of two verses and putting them near each other...

  John 10:35b - to whom the word of God came

  Psalm 82:6b - you are all sons of the Most High

...it would seem like they are related by God's Spirit somehow. An analogue can be found in the New Testament with regards to Christians being brothers and sisters in Christ.

  Hebrews 2:11 (NIV)
  11 Both the one who makes people holy and those who are made holy are of the same family. So Jesus is not ashamed to call them brothers and sisters.

  Romans 8:29 (NIV)
  29 For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers and sisters.

Similarly, God's prophets could be called "gods" due to their association with the Holy Spirit.

1 If someone could point me to a source for this, I'd greatly appreciate it.

I think the emphasis shouldn't be on the "ye are gods" part, but on "you are all sons of the Most High." Because on Psalms that is what gives meaning to the text. We are ALL sons of the Most High, including Jesus. Now becoming a Son of Man is a different thing and can only come through being born of water and spirit.


Was Voltaire's house being used by the biblical society? Is there any valid source for the claim that Voltaire' house has been used by the Bible Society? I heard this many times, but I've never read a valid source for it.

Apparently it is not true:

  There is an apocryphal story that his home at Ferney was purchased by the Geneva Bible Society and used for printing Bibles, but this appears to be due to a misunderstanding of the 1849 annual report of the American Bible Society. Voltaire's chateau is now owned and administered by the French Ministry of Culture.

Source: Wikipedia

in order to find a sufficient answer, please read the research from this article.
https://pastorbrianchilton.wordpress.com/2019/03/18/voltaires-prediction-home-and-the-bible-society-truth-or-myth/


How can we trust the Bible after it has been translated to another language? Islam considers the Qur'an to be authoritative only in its original language. Many teachings even claim it is a sin to read in any language but it's original, and while not all adhere to this belief, learning Arabic specifically to read or recite the Qur'an is common even in countries where it is of no other use.

On the other hand Christians openly encourage translations into other languages.

What does Christianity believe about the Bible that makes this possible? Are translations generally considered authoritative in their target languages in the same way that the original text was?

The different between the Quran and the Christian Bible is that the Islam teaches that the Quran was dictated in Arabic and written down - in only one language and thus saying and reading it in this language is deemed more valuable.

The Christian bible was written by men, inspired by God, having their own style, grammar and vocabularly. i.e. the greek of Luke (who was an educated man) is quite different to the greek of Mark (who wasn't educated).

Furthermore, the bible was written in 3 languages, Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek.

The new Testament writers quoted from a translation of the bible. The Septuagint is a greek translation of the old testament which the N.T writers used as their old testament scriptures, so they were already using a translation.

So it is more the message of what is being said rather than the words themselves that are important.

Yes, some details and nuances of the original are lost in translation, the general gist and message can still be conveyed accurately and authoritatively.

Great question. Translation is a difficult task and takes time, talent and aptitude. The Church and other religious establishments have been working on their translations for centuries. the King James translation for example had a team of six panels of translators, consisting of forty-seven clergy in all. The translation was commissioned after problems were discovered by the Puritans in earlier translations.
To a certain degree, one goes on authority, unless one can read the languages in question and cross-reference the works in question. But then again, when we go to a doctor, don't we trust that the medical establishment has qualified to practise medicine without us directly questioning their competence. Although, we may have disagreements. But medicine is just as difficult as translation, but differently.
However, given how widely the Bible is understood, and how little the various translations differ, I would suggest that they are now, enter ally authoritative - of course, there are always questions to ask ... for example, the recent rediscovery of texts once thought to be heretical and being understood as showing how the canon was devised through time.


What is the significance of transubstantiation? During the Eucharist ceremony where the Priest says some words and then transubstantiation takes place, what is the significance of this event?

I realize this is derived somehow from the last supper verse, but what does it mean?

Transubstantiation means the wine and bread literally become the blood and flesh of Jesus.

What does it mean to drink the blood and eat the flesh of Jesus?

Good question! The Transubstantiation is the spiritual AND physical process where the Eucharist changes into Jesus's real Body and real Blood at the hands of the Priest.

Summary

Jesus states at the last supper that "... this IS My Body..." As Catholics, we believe that He is telling us to have faith enough to believe His words. At the first supper and at every Mass held after, the Holy Eucharist has ALL the properties of Jesus's Body, yet has the outward appearance of Bread. By appearances, I mean every physical human observation that it can undergo. Whether that means touch, taste, smell, sight... it will still appear as bread. But, even with these outward properties, the Eucharist IS Jesus's Body. The same goes for the wine. We must have faith that He tells us what is true.

By taking Jesus's Body and Blood into your own being, you take in renewed strength against temptation. It brings closer the fact that Jesus made a sacrifice on the cross so that YOU may strive away from temptation. YOU must accept His sacrifice (the sacrifice of His Body and Blood) by taking Him unto yourself.

Three reasons why Our Lord Jesus Christ gives us His Body and Blood in the Holy Eucharist are:

    So that his Church on earth may receive Him through the sacrifice of the Mass.
    So that all of His people may remember the cross that he bore for them.
    So that all may remember the love that he has for us, and worship Him accordingly.

Personal Research

Click here for a thoroughly informative article on Transubstantiation by Frank J. Sheed

Click here for the Vatican's own explanation of Transubstantiation

You might also check out the Catholicism TV series which gives many stunning explanations on Catholicism in general (IT'S REALLY GOOD)

More on why we partake in His Body and Blood

I hope this has answered any questions you have had. Feel free to leave a comment below if not!

God Bless!

As I've shared recently in my answer to a different question with similar content, in the Protestant tradition, not the Roman Catholic, Jesus debunked the word "literally" vis a vis His words regarding the eating of His flesh and the drinking of His blood (see John 6:26-58) in John 6:63, where we read,

  "'It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life.'"

Instead of saying

  ". . . the words that I have spoken to you are literal and life,"

Jesus said,

  ". . . the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life" (my emphasis).

Parenthetically, Christians should be cautious when "spiritualizing" what is meant to be literal, and "literalizing" what is meant to be spiritual. (Hey, I like that sentence; it has a certain ring to it!) That is, in essence, what Jesus was saying to His grumbling disciples who took offense at Jesus' "difficult statement" (v.60).

  "Guys, don't be so literal. I'm speaking spiritually. I can understand why my opponents are offended by my words, but I expected more from you!"

In other words, Jesus' hyperbole, if you will, in speaking of His flesh and blood was designed, purposely, to offend His critics, to get them to see how spiritually blind and deaf they were. Jesus used this "tactic," if you will, quite frequently. See, for example, Matthew 13:13 NIV,

  "'This is why I speak to them in parables: 'Though seeing, they do not see; though hearing, they do not hear or understand'".

Also, Matthew 13:14 NIV,

  "'In them is fulfilled the prophecy of Isaiah: 'You will be ever hearing but never understanding; you will be ever seeing but never perceiving.'"

Also Mark 4:12 NIV,

  "so that, 'they may be ever seeing but never perceiving, and ever hearing but never understanding; otherwise they might turn and be forgiven!'"

Also Luke 8:10 NIV,

  "He said, 'The knowledge of the secrets of the kingdom of God has been given to you, but to others I speak in parables, so that,' 'though seeing, they may not see; though hearing, they may not understand.'"

While I respect many of Roman Catholicism's traditions and teachings, their teaching on transubstantiation, in my perspective and in the perspective of most if not all Protestant denominations, is that Jesus' body and blood, which are represented symbolically in the fruit of the vine and in bread, are just that: symbols of His earthly body and blood which He offered up at Calvary for the forgiveness of sins.

Furthermore, we can no more partake of the life of our Savior and His life-giving words by "taking communion" than we can by simply mouthing the words, "I believe Jesus is the Savior of the world." In order for us truly to benefit from Jesus' life-giving words, we must receive them into our hearts in childlike faith, and not simply give mental assent to them just because they have been taught to us, or because other people are pressuring us to say them.

In conclusion, Jesus' "difficult saying" caused some of His disciples to separate themselves from Jesus. Perhaps they were "easy believers" who were more impressed with Jesus' miraculous provision of bread (see John 6:1-14, and 6:26 and 27) than they were with the heart of His message, which was to believe in Him, even when their belief was challenged.


Keep the law OR nail to the cross? I have seen two views about the laws of the old testament in the bible. One view is  where Jesus himself says "keep the Law" while in the other Paul says that "the Law has been nailed to the cross"

This is odd, but both these teachings are in contradiction. I was hoping to get a clarification if the Law should be kept or nailed to the cross??

Please provide some verse of the bible and not personal opinions.

Quotes from the bible are below....

In the gospel, Jesus says....

  Matthew 5:18

  I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.

  Matthew 5:19

  Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

But Paul says...

  Colossians 2:14

  having canceled the written code, with its regulations, that was against us and that stood opposed to us; he took it away, nailing it to the cross.

There are three types of the law in the Bible:

moral (part of which are also 10 commandments),
ceremonial (for example Hebrew ceremonial holidays and activities),
civil (Hebrew "country laws" and punishments)

Most christians agree, that ceremonial and civil laws are not binding anymore (ceremonial laws pointed to Christ and ended with the cross).

The most interesting question is if the 10 commandments are binding for a christian. Does Jesus want you to "have other gods" or "commit adultery" or steal?

I think he doesn't want us to do that...

Colossians 2:14 is speaking about ceremonial laws (the regulations which were nailed to the cross were Hebrew ceremonial laws), Matthew 5:18.19 is speaking about moral law (10 commandments) and both teachings are in harmony.

The Law could only EVER be fulfilled in Jesus.  The Old Testament Saints, were believing in Jesus, even when they sacrificed a bull.  The Bull was only a symbol of Jesus.  The act of believing also consisted of living. If we believe, we will live.  God is not mocked.  Be sure and know your sin will find you out.

The Old Testament is just as active, and living as the New.  Sharper than any two-edged sword.

The Sword of the Spirit is not split in half.

Ps. 119  All of it.

Why would God take something, He made PERFECT, and do away with it?

6:7  Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap. 6:8  For he that soweth to his flesh shall of the flesh reap corruption; but he that soweth to the Spirit shall of the Spirit reap life everlasting.  6:9  And let us not be weary in well doing: for in due season we shall reap, if we faint not.


What do Catholic Deacons do that a Priest would never do? In the Latin rite of the Catholic Church we have permanent Deacons. What do they do that a Priest would never do? I know they cannot say Mass and hear Confessions. There must be a good reason why we have men who are ordained but not allowed to say Mass or hear Confessions. Why do we even have Deacons?

What can Deacons do that a Priest woud never do?
The short answer is nothing, at least liturgically speaking. Permanent deacons are permitted to be married and have a family, whereas priests are generally celibate. A few permanent deacons go on to the priesthood after the death of their spouse.
However, permanent deacons are of great value to the Church.
For example, they run parishes in communities that do not have access to priests. In Canada, this becomes more and more true as one goes further north.
At mass, deacons read the Gospel and aid the priest in the distribution of Holy Communion.
In the Words of Pope Francis: “they are dedicated to the service of the poor, who carry within them the face of the suffering Christ.”
Deacons were instituted by the Apostles so as to help the poor and widows. Thus this would free up time for the Apostles so that they could be more dedicated to preaching the Gospel.

The name deacon (diakonos) means only minister or servant, and is employed in this sense both in the Septuagint (though only in the book of Esther, e.g. 2:2; 6:3) and in the New Testament (e.g. Matthew 20:28; Romans 15:25; Ephesians 3:7; etc.). But in Apostolic times the word began to acquire a more definite and technical meaning. Writing about 63 A.D. St. Paul addresses "all the saints who are at Philippi, with the bishops and deacons" (Philippians 1:1). A few years later (1 Timothy 3:8 sq.) he impresses upon Timothy that "deacons must be chaste, not double tongued, not given to much wine, not greedy of filthy lucre, holding the mystery of faith in a pure conscience." He directs further that they must "first be proved: and so let them minister, having no crime", and he adds that they should be the husbands of one wife: who rule well their children and their own houses. For they that have ministered well shall purchase to themselves a good degree, and much confidence in the faith which is in Christ Jesus." This passage is worthy of note, not only because it describes the qualities desirable in candidates for the diaconate, but also because it suggests that external administration and the handling of money were likely to form part of their functions.
Origin and early history of the diaconate
According to the constant tradition of the Catholic Church, the narrative of Acts 6:1-6, which serves to introduce the account of the martyrdom of St. Stephen, describes the first institution of the office of deacon. The Apostles, in order to meet the complaints of the Hellenistic Jews that, "their widows were neglected in the daily ministrations" (diakonia), called together

“the multitude of the disciples and said: It is not reason that we should leave the word of God and serve (diakonein) tables. Wherefore, brethren, look ye out seven men of good reputation, full of the Holy Ghost and wisdom, whom we may appoint over this business. But we will give ourselves continuously to prayer, and to the ministry of the word (te diakonia tou logou). And the saying was liked by all the multitude. And they chose Stephen, a man full of faith, and of the Holy Ghost”

(with six others who are named). These they placed "before the Apostles; and they, praying, imposed hands upon them."
Now, on the ground that the Seven are not expressly called deacons and that some of them (e.g. St. Stephen, and later Phillip (Acts 21:8) preached and ranked next to the Apostles, Protestant commentators have constantly raised objections against the identification of this choice of the Seven with the institution of the diaconate. But apart from the fact that the tradition among the Fathers is both unanimous and early — e.g. St. Irenaeus (Adv. Haer., III, xii, 10 and IV, xv, 1) speaks of St. Stephen as the first deacon — the similarity between the functions of the Seven who served the tables and those of the early deacons is most striking. Compare, for example, both with the passage from the Acts with 1 Timothy 3:8 sq., quoted above, the following sentence from Hermas (Sim., IX, 26):

“They that have spots are the deacons that exercised their office ill and plundered the livelihood of widows and orphans and made gains for themselves from the ministrations they had received to perform.”

Or, again, St. Ignatius (Ep. ii to the Trallians):

“Those who are deacons of the mysteries of Jesus Christ must please all men in all ways. For they are not deacons of meats and drinks [only] but servants of the church of God.”

St. Clement of Rome (about A.D. 95) clearly describes the institution of deacons along with that of bishops as being the work of the Apostles themselves (Ep. Clem., xlii). Further, it should be noted that ancient tradition limited the number of deacons at Rome to seven (Eusebius, Church History VI.43), and that a canon of the council of Neo-Caesarea (325) prescribed the same restriction for all cities, however large, appealing directly to the Acts of the Apostles as a precedent. We seem, therefore, thoroughly justified in identifying the functions of the Seven with those of the deacons of whom we hear so much in the Apostolic Fathers and the early councils. Established primarily to relieve the bishops and presbyters of their more secular and invidious duties, notably in distributing the alms of the faithful, we need not do more than recall the large place occupied by the agapae, or love feasts, in the early worship of the Church, to understand how readily the duty of serving at tables may have passed into the privilege of serving at the altar. They became the natural intermediaries between the celebrant and the people. Inside the Church they made public announcements, marshaled the congregation, preserved order, and the like. Outside of it they were the bishop's deputies in secular matters, and especially in the relief of the poor. Their subordination and general duties of service seem to have been indicated by their standing during the public assemblies of the Church, while the bishops and priests were seated. It should be noticed that along with these functions probably went a large share in the instruction of catechumens and preparation of the altar services. Even in the Acts of the Apostles (8:38) the Sacrament of Baptism is administered by the deacon Phillip.
An attempt has recently been made, though regarded by many as somewhat fanciful, to trace the origin of the diaconate to the organization of those primitive Hellenistic Christian communities, which in the earliest age of the Church had all things in common, being supported by the alms of the faithful. For these it is contended that some steward (oeconomus) must have been appointed to administer their temporal affairs. (See Leder, Die Diakonen der Bischöfe und Presbyter, 1905). The full presentment of the subject is somewhat too intricate and confused to find place here. We must content ourselves with noting that less difficulty attends the same writer's theory of the derivation of the judicial and administrative functions of the archdeacon from the duties imposed upon one selected member of the diaconal college, who was called the bishop's deacon (diaconus episcopi) because to him was committed the temporal administration of funds and charities for which the bishop was primarily responsible. This led in time to a certain judicial and legal position and to the surveillance of the subordinate clergy. - Deacons

A great example for deacons can be found in the person of St. Lawrence who distributed alms to the poor, whom he called the riches of the Church.

St.Lawrence was thought to have been born on December 31, AD 225,2 in Valencia, or less probably, in Huesca, the town from which his parents came in the later region of Aragon that was then part of the Roman province of Hispania Tarraconensis. The martyrs Orentius (Modern Spanish: San Orencio) and Patientia (Modern Spanish: Santa Paciencia) are traditionally held to have been his parents.
Lawrence encountered the future Pope Sixtus II, who was of Greek origin and one of the most famous and highly esteemed teachers, in Caesaraugusta (today Zaragoza). Eventually, both left Spain for Rome. When Sixtus became the Pope in 257, he ordained Lawrence as a deacon, and though Lawrence was still young appointed him first among the seven deacons who served in the cathedral church. He is therefore called "archdeacon of Rome", a position of great trust that included the care of the treasury and riches of the Church and the distribution of alms to the indigent.

St. Lawrence is one of the patron saints of deacons.
As a personal note, I celebrate his feast day by praying for all deacons in the Church. If possible I have an outdoor barbecue in his honor. St. Lawrence was cooked to death on a gridiron on 10 August 258 in Rome.
Besides going to mass on his feast day, I listen to John Denver’s song "Rocky Mountain High", Which refers to his experience watching the Perseid meteor shower (also known the tears of St. Lawrence) as during a family camping trip in the mountains near Aspen, Colorado, with the chorus lyric, "I've seen it raining fire in the sky."

In August, watch this meteor shower named for a saint

The diaconate is one of the orders of the sacrament of Holy Orders:
Minor orders:

porter
lector
exorcist
acolyte

Major orders:

subdeacon
deacon
priest

Council of Trent session 23 ch. 2:

On the Seven Orders.And whereas the ministry of so holy a priesthood is a divine thing; to the end that it might be exercised in a more worthy manner, and with greater veneration, it was suitable that, in the most well ordered settlement of the Church, there should be several and diverse orders of ministers to minister to the priesthood, by virtue of their office; orders so distributed as that those already marked with the clerical tonsure should ascend through the lesser to the greater orders. For the sacred Scriptures make open mention not only of priests, but also of deacons; and teach, in words the most weighty, what things are especially to be attended to in the Ordination thereof; and, from the very beginning of the Church, the names of the following orders, and the ministrations proper to each one of them, are known to have been in use; to wit, those of subdeacon, acolyth, exorcist, lector, and door-keeper; though these were not of equal rank; for the subdeaconship is classed amongst the greater orders by the Fathers and sacred Councils, wherein also we very often read of the other inferior orders.

The Catechism of the Council of Trent on Holy Orders describes the duties of the deacon:

The second degree of Sacred Orders is that of the deacons,15 whose functions are much more extensive and have always been regarded as more holy. His duty it is to be always at the side of the Bishop, guard him while he preaches, serve him and the priest during the celebration of the divine mysteries, as well as during the administration of the Sacraments, and to read the Gospel in the Sacrifice of the Mass. In former times he frequently warned the faithful to be attentive to the holy mysteries; he administered Our Lord’s Blood in those churches in which the custom existed that the faithful should receive the Eucharist under both species; and to him was entrusted the distribution of the Church’s goods, as well as the duty of providing for all that was necessary to each one’s sustenance. To the deacon also, as the eye of the Bishop, it belongs to see who they are in the city16 that lead a good and holy life, and who not; who are present at the Holy Sacrifice and sermons at appointed times, and who not; so that he may be able to give an account of all to the Bishop, and enable him to admonish and advise each one privately, or to rebuke and correct publicly, according as he may deem more profitable. He should also read out the list of the catechumens and present to the Bishop those who are to be admitted to orders. Finally in the absence of a Bishop or priest, he can explain the Gospel, but not from the pulpit, thus letting it be seen that this is not his proper office.17The Apostle shows the great care that should be taken that no one unworthy of the diaconate be promoted to this order, when in his Epistle to Timothy (1 Tim. 3:8–10) he sets forth a deacon’s character, virtues and integrity. The same point is also gathered from the rites and solemn ceremonies which the Bishop employs when ordaining him. The Bishop uses more numerous and more solemn prayers at the ordination of a deacon than at that of a subdeacon, and he also adds other kinds of sacred vestments.18 Moreover, he imposes hands on him, just as we read the Apostles used to do when ordaining the first deacons. (Acts 6:6). Finally, he hands him the book of the Gospels, with these words: Receive the power to read the Gospel in the Church of God, both for the living and the dead, in the name of the Lord.
15.  The word deacon is derived from the Greek διάκονος, minister.
16.  The deacons, being in attendance on the Bishop, would naturally be found in the cities. Most churches in the first centuries had only seven deacons, even where the Christian community was large. At Rome Pope Fabian divided the city into seven regions, each of which had its deacon.
17.  That deacons may preach is shown by the example of St. Stephen (Acts 5), St. Philip (Acts 8) and St. Vincent (Aug., Serm. 2. de Sancto Vincentio).
18.  On the various ecclesiastical vestments see Summa Theol. Suppl. xl. 7.


Term that means to commit a sin when you know it is a sin? I am drawing a blank here, I know that such a term exists but I cannot remember it and my Google Fu is failing me.
There is a term for a sin that means that the sinner who committed the sin did it willfully and knowing that the action was indeed a sin.
It could fill in the blank here:

Steve _____ (past tense verb) by lying, as he knew fully that lying was a sin.

Forgive me, Lord, for my sins and _____ (noun).

If a person sins and commits a trespass against the LORD by lying to his neighbor about what was delivered to him for safekeeping, or about a pledge, or about a robbery, or if he has extorted from his neighbor, Leviticus 6:2 NKJV

I know it has been brought up already, but here’s a verse for “trespass” that seems clear that the sin was intentional.

The old Lord's Prayer (Matt 6: 12) goes  :
"... And forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive them that trespass
against us. ". So, the word trespassed 'can be used to fill in the first sentence. As for the second sentence, the word short-comings' should be a good option in that  it does not take willfulness as a pre-requisite.


What is the biblical basis for a post-tribulation rapture? I am fairly well-versed in premillennial theology, however, I was challenged frequently while at Bible College on my point of view of a pre-tribulation rapture in favor of a post-tribulation rapture. I understand the principles of post-trib thought, but I fail to see any scriptural evidence for it. Can someone please point me to the scriptural evidence used to support a post-tribulation rapture?

I have read "Gospel of the Kingdom" by George Eldon Ladd and I enjoyed it, but I suppose that perhaps I did not properly understand it or his argument for a post-trib rapture.

Revelation 1:9

  I, John, both your brother and companion in the tribulation and
  kingdom and patience of Jesus Christ, was on the island that is called
  Patmos for the word of God and for the testimony of Jesus Christ.

The "great tribulation" is not a future event, it is an ongoing event. The Apostle John speaks of himself as enduring the tribulation of Jesus Christ during his lifetime. This tribulation will continue straight up until Jesus returns. His return marks the end of the tribulation, and the immediate beginning of eternity.

Many scriptures speak of the last trumpet, the seventh trumpet, or the great trumpet.

Matthew 24:31

  And He will send His angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they
  will gather together His elect from the four winds, from one end of
  heaven to the other.

1 Corinthians 15:52

  in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the
  trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised incorruptible, and we
  shall be changed.

1 Thessalonians 4:16

  For the Lord Himself will descend from heaven with a shout, with the
  voice of an archangel, and with the trumpet of God. And the dead in
  Christ will rise first.

Revelation 11:15

  Then the seventh angel sounded: And there were loud voices in heaven,
  saying, “The kingdoms of this world have become the kingdoms of our
  Lord and of His Christ, and He shall reign forever and ever!”

My understanding of these scriptures is that they all describe the same event:

The Lord comes, raises the dead, and gathers the elect to bring them immediately to heaven. This is an apantesis, when a delegation leaves a city to escort in a dignitary and escorts that dignitary into the city. Examples in scripture are:

King David greeting the Ark of the Covenant when it was brought into his city
Jesus being greeted on Palm Sunday and escorted into Jerusalem.
Paul the Apostle being escorted into Rome for his visit.

Thus Jesus is leaving the heavenly city with a delegation of angels to welcome in his Church, only to quickly return to that heavenly city. It will not be secret, and when it happens, all wars will cease. There will be no more tribulation after Christ's appearance.

Seal 1 - Preaching of the Gospel (Bow/Covenant) throughout the world from Ascension up to the end of the   Great Tribulation

Seal 2,3,4 - Wars and Rumors of Wars continued on; Economic Woes continued on; Death from Wars, Earthquakes, Famines, Calamities, and from Wild Beasts continued on from Ascension up to the end of the Great Tribulation

Seal 5 - Persecution and martyrdom continued on from Stephen and up to the last martyr to be killed in the Great Tribulation

Seal 6 - Great Tribulation, Bowls Judgement, Resurrection of the Dead in Christ and Rapture of the Alive in Christ, Second Advent

Seal 7 - The Millennium, the Thousand Years of Peace on Earth, the Half Hour Silence in Heaven

Trumpet Judgement happens at the end of the Millennium

White Throne Judgement happens at the Seventh Trumpet Judgement.

The Beast coming out of the bottomless pit; the time for judging the Dead; the Mystery of God shall be finished at the end of the Millennium

The Mystery of God is Christ.

God's plan of Salvation and Justice to mankind shall be made complete through His Son, Jesus Christ, at the White Throne Judgement, where death and sin will be destroyed, and all power, kingdom, and authority will be handed over to God, so that God will be all in all.

It is at the end of the Millennium where transgression will be finished, and sins will be put to an end, and reconciliation for iniquity will be made, and everlasting righteousness will be brought in, and the vision and prophecy will be unsealed, and the Most Holy will be anointed. Daniel 9:24

YBIC,

eaglet


What evidence do we have today about Christian groups not represented at the first four ecumenical councils? Were there any Christian groups that existed during the time of the first four ecumenical councils and that were not represented at them either because they chose not to attend or they were not invited or, perhaps, were not even known?

The Nestorians are a good example for the latter two councils. There were a few attendees from the non-Greek east, groups that would later be called Nestorians. There was at least two, Jacob of Nisibis and another bishop named John. The eastern church "officially" accepted Nicea in 410 at the council of Isaac though the Nestorian schism happened soon after. But I guess nobody doubts the existence of the now-called Nestorian church during the time. Some of their writings survive and I'd recommend a reading of Moffett's "Christianity in Asia".

If I recall correctly, it is still too early for the Indian Christians to be associated very closely with the churches later called "Nestorian". Perhaps they are as old as Thomas. One tradition says it was Bartholomew rather than Thomas. It is reported that when Pantaenus went to India in the second century from Egypt he found Christians there. So there is probably an old tradition there, but as far as I know none of theme made it to the ecumenical councils.

The Chinese churches probably did not yet exist at the time of the first councils.

Keep in mind that groups east of the Roman Empire might have had troubles at times traveling to councils in the west. The Romans and Persians were on and off again at war, which would have hurt the communication lines a bit I'm sure, even if travel wasn't completely stopped.

If you go further west, there are traditions of Christianity reaching England in the second century, though as far as I know it didn't really thrive till much later (but I could be wrong on that). But if there are groups that far west, it is less likely that they would have made it to an ecumenical council.

We know the Marcionites existed, even after the death of Marcion. As far as I know, they had no presence at the councils and none of their writings survive.

Some lump them the Marcionites in with the Christian gnostics (and not all gnostics would have attached themselves to Christianity), but it might just be best to say there were a number of different types of gnostic groups. We have evidence of various gnostic groups because of polemics against them by the early fathers. If you haven't read Irenaeus, you can see a variety of gnostic groups attacked there. Since the discoveries of the Nag Hammadi documents we also have evidence of gnostics in their own words. You can also see some material on the gnostics in the early Christian historians.

There are also the Ebionites, who were a group of law-following Christians that some would say are akin to what people think of when they think "Judaizer". They were still around to a certain degree during the councils but as far as I know did not attend and no writings survive.

The Arians were around during the councils but they attended...and were ultimately condemned. So they don't really fit your question, but I figured I would mention them anyway.

So if you want to read for yourself from the groups that were eventually considered heretics by the orthodox, you are going to have trouble finding primary source texts to read. Most of what we have are from their opponents, which we can't assume always portray their opponents fairly, even if some (like myself) think they were right in deeming the ideas unorthodox (well...at least I think they were mostly right)

Yes: the Apostle Thomas evangelized a significant part of the globe, including north and south America and Asia.  A summary, drawn principally from the writings of Cornelius a Lapide and Dr. Warren Carroll -- who cite that the Fathers and Doctors of the Church teach that the Gospel was preached literally to the whole world before the death of the last Apostle --  is recounted in this sermon/homily on St. Thomas the Apostle.  I don't think many/any of these evangelized people attended any of the first four Councils.

UPDATE: For those down-voting this answer solely because I'm citing the Apostle Thomas' evangelization of north and south America, here's a link for you: http://is.gd/yAnaJg -- and notice that the Apostle Bartholomew is recorded to have been with him.  More links to come as I find them.  If I have to scan printed texts and link to those I will.


Natural law, accident When it comes to natural law (in Catholicism perspective), I understand that there is wrong to kill, also when it's suicide, but is it wrong with self defense? And what if there is an accident? Like you forget to turn off the oven at home and someone on the block gets hurt, is that the same as taking a life? On purpose?

Generally speaking the intentions/motivations of the person make it right/wrong or allowable/forbidden.

Sin has always been rebellion against God—generally speaking, doing something that you believe to be wrong. The Jews had some mandates about accidental sins, but with the atonement that Jesus made, I don't see how there's a need for any form of repentance for things that you did not knowingly choose to do (or not do, in the case of something you ought to have done).

If someone dies due to my negligence or irresponsibility, then that might constitute a sin on my part, because I made that choice. Accidents that you could not have controlled do not constitute a choice. You're choices are what will condemn or exonerate you.

Biblically, there is no exception. By both word and deed, Christ taught that it is wrong to take a human life or hurt another person, even in self-defense. "But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also." Matthew 5:39 (NIV).

But actions speak louder than words, and Christ did not resist his arrest and execution. When Peter picked up a sword and attempted to defend him (cutting off the ear of the high priest's servant/slave) Jesus forced him to put the sword down.  John 18:11-12

Catholicism and many other churches have made doctrinal exceptions, but these do not have any Biblical basis that I can find.

Even under the law of Moses, causing an accidental death was not treated as murder. "If anyone kills his neighbor unintentionally without having hated him in the past— as when someone goes into the forest with his neighbor to cut wood, and his hand swings the axe to cut down a tree, and the head slips from the handle and strikes his neighbor so that he dies—he may flee to one of these cities and live, . ." Deut. 19:4-13


Do 'Bible Christians' find paraphrasing the Bible distasteful? This might be a meta question, but I really mean it in a scholarly way.  Does paraphrasing the Bible for conversational use make Sola Scriptura folks cringe?

I'm not even sure what my Church thinks about it, other than improperly quoting the New American Bible too much is a copyright violation. But as for Bible Only Christians who believe that the Bible is the inspired word of God and are of the mentality that the Bible is the Mother of the Church rather than the other way around, should I take the extra effort and state what the Bible says correctly, or is it OK to paraphrase or change words around to draw out a particular meaning or just make it more readable or conversational?

For instance, not that there are a lot of Protestants in my Catechism class, but if I were to just say, without a bible open to the chapter and verse, "Jesus says, Love one another as I have loved you".  I've got no idea if that's exactly what Jesus said, but I know he said something like that.  So, if in conversation with a Bible Christian, if I don't have the Bible open, can I say anything to them without pointing out the chapter and verse?

I don't believe there is a problem with paraphrasing the Bible in conversational, or even teaching use.  The important thing is that what is being paraphrased can be verified against the Bible.

A lot of a pastor's message is likely to be paraphrasing or expounding on a Bible verse.  There is nothing wrong with this, as long as it is being verified against the original Bible.

This is why there are so many different translations.  Why are there so many translations of the Bible?  There are a lot of ways to convey a message in English, and some may understand one method versus another better.  Even then, when using 1 or more translations as the verification, these translations can be further verified against the original Hebrew or Greek, such as with an interlinear Bible.

As far as it applies to this site, I think it'd be nice to provide the base scripture for any direct paraphrasing, either directly quoted or just as a link.  This would make it easier for those who are new to the Bible or who would like to read more into what you are saying to access the scripture.  For a comparison, would you ever expect to have a church leader teaching on the Bible without actually being able to reference it directly?

I would be very careful with this subject. http://bible.cc/galatians/1-8.htm

I think that scripture really applies more to Mormons and whatnot, but Gods Word does not need to be paraphrased and it is not boring! It is clear as day, and if you don't understand something, pray for understanding!

Paraphrasing runs the danger of teaching your flock things that does not line up with God's Word. It leads to doctrines that are not sound! It leads to beliefs being formed from a stretch, assuming that something is this way even though it is not clear!

I think the wiki page hits the nail on the head... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_paraphrase


Does Catholic Church acknowledge St. Paul the Apostle as consecrated Bishop during Apostolic times? St. Paul the Apostles admitted that Christ did not sent him to baptize but to preach the Gospel.

17For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel, not with eloquent words of wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power. (1Corinthian1:17)
In the Catholic Church, a bishop is an ordained minister who holds the fullness of the sacrament of holy orders and is responsible for teaching doctrine, governing Catholics in his jurisdiction, sanctifying the world and representing the Church. Catholics trace the origins of the office of bishop to the apostles, who it is believed were endowed with a special charism by the Holy Spirit at Pentecost. Catholics believe this special charism has been transmitted through an unbroken succession of bishops by the laying on of hands in the sacrament of holy orders. - Bishop in the Catholic Church

In Catholicism the priest has the faculties to administer Sacraments of Baptism, Penance and Matrimony but the Sacrament of Confirmation is only for the consecrated  Bishop.
If St. Paul was not sent to baptize although the scriptures showed St. Paul had the faculties to baptize if he wants too. It would mean St. Paul lacks the faculties to confer the Sacrament of Confirmation unlike the rest of the Apostles who were present at the Upper Room and had received the Holy Spirit.

1299 In the Roman Rite the bishop extends his hands over the whole group of the confirmands. Since the time of the apostles this gesture has signified the gift of the Spirit. The bishop invokes the outpouring of the Spirit in these words:
All-powerful God, Father of our Lord Jesus Christ,
by water and the Holy Spirit
you freed your sons and daughters from sin
and gave them new life.
Send your Holy Spirit upon them
to be their helper and guide.
Give them the spirit of wisdom and understanding,
the spirit of right judgment and courage,
the spirit of knowledge and reverence.
Fill them with the spirit of wonder and awe in your presence.
We ask this through Christ our Lord.113

Does Catholic Church acknowledge St. Paul the Apostle as a consecrated bishop during Apostolic times?

Does Catholic Church acknowledge St. Paul the Apostle as consecrated Bishop during Apostolic times?

The short answer is yes.

The Catholic Encyclopedia states that St. Paul actually consecrated Timothy a Bishop by St. Paul himself thus St. Paul had to have been a bishop.

  From Scripture we learn that the Apostles appointed others by an external rite (imposition of hands), conferring inward grace. The fact that grace is ascribed immediately to the external rite, shows that Christ must have thus ordained. The fact that cheirontonein, cheirotonia, which meant electing by show of hands, had acquired the technical meaning of ordination by imposition of hands before the middle of the third century, shows that appointment to the various orders was made by that external rite. We read of the deacons, how the Apostles "praying, imposed hands upon them" (Acts 6:6). In 2 Timothy 1:6 St. Paul reminds Timothy that he was made a bishop by the imposition of St. Paul's hands (cf. 1 Timothy 4:4), and Timothy is exhorted to appoint presbyters by the same rite (1 Timothy 5:22; cf. Acts 13:3; 14:22). In the Third Clementine Homily (73), we read of the appointment of Zachæus as bishop by the imposition of Peter's hands. The word is used in its technical meaning by Clement of Alexandria (Stromata VI.13, 106; cf. Apostolic Consitutions II.32). "A priest lays on hands, but does not ordain" (cheirothetei ou cheirotonei) "Didasc. Syr.", IV; III, 10, 11, 20; Cornelius, "Ad Fabianum" in Eusebius, Church History VI.43.

  The ordinary minister of the sacrament [of holy orders] is the bishop, who alone has this power in virtue of his ordination. Holy Scripture attributed the power to the Apostles and their successors (Acts 6:6; 16:22; 1 Timothy 5:22; 2 Timothy 1:6; Titus 1:5), and the Fathers and councils ascribe the power to the bishop exclusively. First Council of Nicaea (Canon 4) and Apostolic Constitutions VIII.28 — "A bishop lays on hands, ordains. . .a presbyter lays on hands, but does not ordain." - Holy Orders

To see more that the  Church believes that St. Paul was a bishop can be seen in the Apostolic Constitutions (Book VII) that St. Paul is believed to have ordained several men.

  Who Were They that the Holy Apostles Sent and Ordained?

  XLVI. Now concerning those bishops which have been ordained in our lifetime, we let you know that they are these:— James the bishop of Jerusalem, the brother of our Lord; upon whose death the second was Simeon the son of Cleopas; after whom the third was Judas the son of James. Of Cæsarea of Palestine, the first was Zacchæus, who was once a publican; after whom was Cornelius, and the third Theophilus. Of Antioch, Euodius, ordained by me Peter; and Ignatius by Paul. Of Alexandria, Annianus was the first, ordained by Mark the evangelist; the second Avilius by Luke, who was also an evangelist. Of the church of Rome, Linus the son of Claudia was the first, ordained by Paul; 2 Timothy 4:21 and Clemens, after Linus' death, the second, ordained by me Peter. Of Ephesus, Timotheus, ordained by Paul; and John, by me John. Of Smyrna, Aristo the first; after whom Stratæas the son of Lois; 2 Timothy 1:5 and the third Aristo. Of Pergamus, Gaius. Of Philadelphia, Demetrius, by me. Of Cenchrea, Lucius, by Paul. Of Crete, Titus. Of Athens, Dionysius. Of Tripoli in Phœnicia, Marathones. Of Laodicea in Phrygia, Archippus. Of Colossæ, Philemon. Of Borea in Macedonia, Onesimus, once the servant of Philemon. Of the churches of Galatia, Crescens. Of the parishes of Asia, Aquila and Nicetas. Of the church of Æginæ, Crispus. These are the bishops who are entrusted by us with the parishes in the Lord; whose doctrine keep always in mind, and observe our words. And may the Lord be with you now, and to endless ages, as Himself said to us when He was about to be taken up to His own God and Father. For says He, Lo, I am with you all the days, until the end of the world. Amen. Matthew 28:20 - Enumeration Ordained by Apostles

Does Catholic Church acknowledge St. Paul the Apostle as consecrated Bishop during Apostolic times?

The answer is YES, if we accept the number of Popes who had chosen the name of St.Paul as their papal name.

  Pope Paul I (757–767)

  Pope Paul II (1464–1471)

  Pope Paul III (1534–1549)

  Pope Paul IV (1555–1559)

  Pope Paul V (1605–1621)

  Pope Paul VI (1963–1978)

St.Pope Paul VI is perhaps the most well known to had witnessed the charism of St.Paul the Apostles as a Missionary Bishops preaching the gospel of Christ to many parts of the world.

  Paul VI, an 'evangelical' pope
  For Francis, the key to Paul's pontificate was his 1975 exhortation on evangelization, Evangelii Nuntiandi ("On Proclaiming the Gospel"), which Francis has called "the greatest pastoral document written to date."

  In that landmark document -- largely overshadowed by the contraception encyclical -- Paul said that the church itself "has a constant need of being evangelized," and he wrote that people today listen "more willingly to witnesses than to teachers," so Catholic leaders above all must practice what they preach.

  "The world calls for, and expects from us, simplicity of life, the spirit of prayer, charity towards all, especially towards the lowly and the poor, obedience and humility, detachment and self-sacrifice. Without this mark of holiness, our word will have difficulty in touching the heart of modern man. It risks being vain and sterile," Paul wrote in words that could have come from the pen of Francis.

  In fact, in November 2013, Francis sent a personal representative to a meeting of the U.S. bishops and had him read those passages to the hierarchy, followed by clear instructions that Francis, like Paul, "wants 'pastoral' bishops, not bishops who profess or follow a particular ideology." Francis also asked all eight cardinals in his special advisory groups to reread Evangelii Nuntiandi.
  https://www.ncronline.org/news/people/pope-paul-vi-almost-saint-here-are-four-his-biggest-legacies

After St.Pope Paul  VI, the next two Popes had chosen to combine the name of St.Paul the Apostle with St.John the beloved apostle.

  Pope John Paul I (1978)

  Pope John Paul II (1978–2005)

The Church also celebrates the feast day celebration of St.Peter and St.Pau the Apostle;

  The Feast of Saints Peter and Paul or Solemnity of Saints Peter and Paul is a liturgical feast in honour of the martyrdom in Rome of the apostles Saint Peter and Saint Paul, which is observed on 29 June. The celebration is of ancient origin, the date selected being the anniversary of either their death or the translation of their relics.[2]
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feast_of_Saints_Peter_and_Paul

But, to answer the question on hand;

Does Catholic Church acknowledge St. Paul the Apostle as consecrated Bishop during Apostolic times?

Biblical Proof that St.Paul the Apostle can confer the Sacrament of Confirmation which is proper only to Bishop can be seen in the following passages;

  Acts 19:6 New International Version (NIV)
  6 When Paul placed his hands on them, the Holy Spirit came on them, and they spoke in tongues[a] and prophesied.

This can be seen as the same effect on the people who had experienced the Pentecost.

  Acts 2 New International Version (NIV)
  The Holy Spirit Comes at Pentecost
  2 When the day of Pentecost came, they were all together in one place. 2 Suddenly a sound like the blowing of a violent wind came from heaven and filled the whole house where they were sitting. 3 They saw what seemed to be tongues of fire that separated and came to rest on each of them. 4 All of them were filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other tongues[a] as the Spirit enabled them.

The remaining question is, when did St.Paul received the "anointing" as Bishop?

Is the laying of hands of Ananias "enough to consecrate" St.Paul as Bishop?

  So Ananias went to the house, and when he arrived, he placed his hands on Saul. “Brother Saul,” he said, “the Lord Jesus, who appeared to you on the road as you were coming here, has sent me so that you may see again and be filled with the Holy Spirit.” (Acts9:17)

Is the laying of hands of Anannias has the power to confer raising Saul to episcopate or Bishop or Prince of the Church?

So, where can we found the biblical passage pertaining to Saul consecration as Bishop?

The answer is in Acts13:1-2;

  Acts 13 New International Version (NIV)
  13 1 Now in the church at Antioch there were prophets and teachers: Barnabas, Simeon called Niger, Lucius of Cyrene, Manaen (who had been brought up with Herod the tetrarch) and Saul. 2 While they were worshiping the Lord and fasting, the Holy Spirit said, “Set apart for me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them.” 3 So after they had fasted and prayed, they placed their hands on them and sent them off.

Now, these passage has "prophets" plus they "united in praying thru worship and fasting" resembling the Mary and the Apostles as they invoke the Holy Spirit to come down. Also, since the prophets knew the Jewish Tradition in "anointing with oils" if one will be "set aside for a mission meaning chosen" to empower them with the Holy Spirit, did the prophet "anoint Saul & Barnabas with oils" like what prophet Samuel did to Saul and David that made them Prince of Israel or Bishop?

We can see on the next passages it mentioned the name of Saul became Paul and mentioned that he was "filled by the Holy Spirit", not only that it display the power of Saul now name Paul to exorcise demons which in the Catholic Church reserve only to the Bishop.

  They traveled through the whole island until they came to Paphos. There they met a Jewish sorcerer and false prophet named Bar-Jesus, 7 who was an attendant of the proconsul, Sergius Paulus. The proconsul, an intelligent man, sent for Barnabas and Saul because he wanted to hear the word of God. 8 But Elymas the sorcerer (for that is what his name means) opposed them and tried to turn the proconsul from the faith. 9 Then Saul, who was also called Paul, filled with the Holy Spirit, looked straight at Elymas and said, 10 “You are a child of the devil and an enemy of everything that is right! You are full of all kinds of deceit and trickery. Will you never stop perverting the right ways of the Lord? 11 Now the hand of the Lord is against you. You are going to be blind for a time, not even able to see the light of the sun.”

  Immediately mist and darkness came over him, and he groped about, seeking someone to lead him by the hand. 12 When the proconsul saw what had happened, he believed, for he was amazed at the teaching about the Lord. (Acts13:6-12)

This passages, although not explicit stated the Holy Spirit instructed the prophet to "set aside or consecrate" and aided by united prayers of the prophets and teachers Saul & Barnabas was "filled by the Holy Spirit" and have now the power over demons and Saul name was now mentioned as Paul. A change in the character and power implied Saul becoming Paul marks his missionary role as Prince of the Gentiles a Bishop and Apostles chosen by Christ and anointed by the Holy Spirit.


Are all of the red letter text the words of Jesus? To what extent can we be sure that the red letters in a KJV Bible are the actual words of Jesus?

The 'red letters' are not themselves part of the KJV translation. The red letters appear in many different translation of the Bible.

To answer the question: no, there is not universal agreement about exactly what words in the Bible were spoken by Jesus. The New Testament languages did not include punctuation like quote marks. Most of the time it is pretty clear from the text where Jesus words begin and end. Occasionally however it is hard to tell where a quote of Jesus ends and where an explanation from the Gospel author begins. For example in John 3 there is some uncertainty about whether Jesus quote which begins in verse 10 continues to verse 21 or stops after verse 15, with the remainder being explanation by the author.

If you are asking about actual words, then Jesus probably spoke in Aramaic, and so even the original Greek is not an untranslated quote. English and other modern language renditions are further translations.

The Red Letter  KJV shows the words attributed to Jesus in red. Translation differences aside, it is the strong consensus of scholars that we do not know the actual words Jesus used. Rex Weyler, in The Jesus Sayings, page 14, cites Robert J. Miller, editor of The Complete Gospels: "Some of the words attributed to Jesus were not actually spoken by him. While this is not news to scholars, it is news to the ... public."

The Jesus Seminar, a theological research group, sought a consensus among theologians and scholars as to whether sayings attributed to Jesus were likely to have been spoken by him at all. It used voting of members as criteria for establishing what Jesus said, with weighted member votes:

3 - Jesus did say the passage quoted, or something very much like it;

2 - Jesus probably said something like the passage;

1 - Jesus did not say the passage, but it contains Jesus' ideas;

0 - Jesus did not say the passage.

The criteria for acceptance were based on orality, irony and whether Jesus was telling his listeners to trust in God. The criteria for non-acceptance were based on self-reference, whether the words framed or introduced other material, dealt with Christian issues, or represented a theological agenda specific to one gospel.

Even by voting '3' - Jesus did say the passage quoted, or something very much like it - the participants were not claiming that his actual words were somehow remembered and written down years later.   The Seminar concluded that in the four canonical gospels and the Gospel of Thomas, only about 18 per cent of sayings attributed to Jesus were likely to have been said by Jesus himself, with nearly all the sayings in John's Gospel seen as inauthentic.


Is there a sect of Christians that believe in the divinity of Mary, Mother of Jesus? Is there a sect (dissenting or schismatic) of Christians that believe in the divinity of Mary, Mother of Jesus?

Collyridianism was a movement in the 4th century in Arabia which is said to have taught that Mary was a goddess. We know little about them however, and they are mentioned in only one contemporary source by Epiphanius of Salamis.

I don’t know if the World Mission Society Church of God (South Korea) qualifies, but they have ascribed divinity to the wife of the founder of this cult.
The WMSCG was founded by Ahn Sahng-hong in 1964.  He was supposed to be the second coming of Christ.  Ahn Sahng-Hong died in 1985 leaving the leadership of the church to his spiritual wife, Zahng Gil-Jah, known in the church as "the Heavenly Mother".  The General Pastor, Kim Joo-Cheol. Zahng is also chairperson of the’ New Life Welfare Foundation’ and of the’ International We Love You Foundation’.  The church believes that Zahng Gil-Jah is God the Mother:

On a meeting in Seoul on 2 June 1985 two major new doctrines were codified:

Ahn Sahng-hong should be regarded as Jesus Christ who had already come, should be titled Christ Ahn Sahng-hong, and pursuant to a traditional trinitarian view of Christian hypostasis, Ahn was consequently also The Holy Spirit, God the Father, and thus God.

Zahng Gil-jah should be regarded as God the Mother, a female image of God, be titled Heavenly Mother, or simply Mother, and together with Ahn Sahng-hong be regarded as God.

Source: World Mission Society Church of God: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Mission_Society_Church_of_God#History
I realise that calling this woman God the Mother is not the same thing as saying Mary (the mother of Jesus) is divine.  It's much worse.


In Luke 5 did Levi become an apostle almost straight away? In Luke 5 we have the conversion of Levi. It appears that he became an apostle almost straight away. Is that what is happening here?

Yes. From that point on Levi became a disciple of Jesus.

Levi left everything and followed Jesus. The Greek for left everything, katalipon panta, means abandoned all, forsook or deserted. The word for followed is in the imperfect tense, not a one-off action but a continuing state.

He didn't knock off for the day, he quit his job. He didn't sneak off early, he abandoned his post. That evening there was a party at his home to which Jesus was, of course, invited. Many other tax collectors were present. It was in part a Leaving Do in which many of his former colleagues came to say goodbye. It was also a chance for them to meet Jesus, and to understand for themselves what had prompted his resignation, and the new life he had chosen.

It was not until some time later, perhaps a few weeks, that Jesus chose from amongst his many disciples Twelve in particular. So whether or not Levi became one of the Twelve it did not happen immediately. Long tradition says that Levi and Matthew were one and the same person.  St Augustine of Hippo in his Harmony of the Gospels Book 2 Chapter 26 thought so. In Matthew, Mark and Luke the story of the calling of a tax collector immediately  follows the healing of the paralytic, and all say the calling of the tax collector was followed by a meal at his home, which led to identical complaints from the pharisees. It is widely conjectured that this was one and the same incident.

Luke and Mark refer to the tax collector as Levi, and include the name Matthew amongst the Twelve. If he is one and the same they may be referring to "Levi" as the name he used then, rather as we might refer to an incident involving the Duchess of Cambridge before her marriage as happening to a Miss Middleton. They may also have wished to avoid embarrassing Matthew by mentioning his former profession. Matthew,  in his own gospel, refers to the tax collector as Matthew, modestly having no wish to hide his shady past.   Similarly, whereas Luke refers to a great banquet, Matthew plays down the occasion as a dinner.

Following the Resurrection Matthew became one of the Apostles, as did all the Twelve disciples apart from Judas. The difference between a disciple and an apostle  is that a disciple learns and an apostle teaches. During Christ's earthly ministry they were disciples, afterwards apostles.

So yes, Levi became a disciple immediately.   He probably, though some reasonably doubt it,  became one of the Twelve Disciples  when they were called, a few weeks later. If so,  after the Resurrection he became an apostle.

Levi never becomes a disciple or apostle, unless we assume that he is also called Matthew, but Luke's Gospel never makes this assumption.

The passage in Luke 5:27 is known to have been sourced from Mark, which 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). As with Luke, Mark never again refers to Levi, who is not mentioned in the full list of the twelve disciples (verses 3:14-19), where Mark introduces other disciples including Matthew, Thaddaeus, and James, son of Alphaeus. In this list, we do have a son of Alphaeus, although this disciple's name is James, but we do not have a tax collector (publican). In this gospel, as in Luke's Gospel, there is no good reason to see Levi and Matthew as being the same person.

Levi arose and followed Jesus in Mark 2:14 and Luke 5:28, but is never again mentioned in either gospel, leaving open the possibility that he changed his mind. Disciples are not meant to change their minds when called by Jesus, but it is only Matthew that recognises this issue and creates a solution. Its 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.  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 here in Luke.


Should a woman cover her head in Christian worship? Traditionally in many Christian churches the women would cover their heads in worship citing 1 Corinthians 11:2-16.  Why has this practice stopped, and why has it stopped mostly in the last 70 years?  Might we be offending the angels because we are not practicing this?

I am looking for biblical support for the answer not just cultural or opinion.

Here's what Matthew Henry says in his short commentary:

  We should, even in our dress and habit, avoid every thing that may dishonour Christ. The woman was made subject to man, because made for his help and comfort. And she should do nothing, in Christian assemblies, which looked like a claim of being equal. She ought to have "power," that is, a veil, on her head, because of the angels. Their presence should keep Christians from all that is wrong while in the worship of God. Nevertheless, the man and the woman were made for one another. They were to be mutual comforts and blessings, not one a slave, and the other a tyrant. God has so settled matters, both in the kingdom of providence and that of grace, that the authority and subjection of each party should be for mutual help and benefit. It was the common usage of the churches, for women to appear in public assemblies, and join in public worship, veiled; and it was right that they should do so. The Christian religion sanctions national customs wherever these are not against the great principles of truth and holiness; affected singularities receive no countenance from any thing in the Bible.

As Matthew Henry says, the Christian religion sanctions national customs wherever these are not against the great principles of truth and holiness.

70 years or so ago, the wearing of hats was common.  Upon entering a church, or any building for that matter, a man would remove his hat out of respect.

Customs have changed in the United States.  Men wear baseball caps, if they wear a hat, and for the most part, women do not wear hats.  Now, having said that, there are still some southern conservative churches where the women do wear hats to church.

In my church, a congregation of the United Methodist Church, our dress code is: wear clothes.  We're not concerned with what people wear to church, and we even have meetings to discuss whether the church leadership is dressing up too much, and discouraging people from attending.

Accoding to scriptures women are required to cover their head in public prayer and ministry, wear modest clothing to churches, and barred from teaching or having authority over men in churches. Today most christian churches break these teachings of Jesus Christ through his apostle Paul, to satisfy misled feminists  and gain money from the foolish "sheep" that follow them.

Regarding angels, God created man a little below angels (Hebrews 2:7). When women aren't covering their head to show submission to man and God, they are unknowingly submitting their authority to angels. Women of the past did this and had sexual intercourse with angels. Their offspring are the legends of the past whose exaggerated stories are depicted in all ancient mythologies. God never approves this union of woman with angels. God created angels for a different purpose - they are spirits sent out to serve those of mankind who are getting saved. The fallen angels whose leader is Satan, who rebelled in the ancient past (Revelations 12:7) and made the earth formless, void and covered with darkness (Genesis1:2) are what we know as evil spirits.


Who changed the Sabbath to Sunday according to the Seventh Day Adventists? The Great Controversy describes Constantine as making Sunday a public festival.

  In the early part of the fourth century the emperor Constantine issued a decree making Sunday a public festival throughout the Roman Empire.

In her early writings we twice see that it was the Pope that changed the day.

  But the Pope had changed it from the seventh to the first day of the week; for he was to change times and laws.
  The pope has changed the day of rest from the seventh to the first day.

Since Constantine was never pope these 3 passages can not be speaking of the same person.

Who do the Seventh Day Adventists say changed the Sabbath day?

Seventh day adventist would argue that the sabbath has not been changed to Sunday.

However what you are referring to is when in history did the change creep into doctrine. The information you have is correct, first Constantine made the decree for the festivals on Sunday. This made it easier for christians to simply follow along without fear of persecution.

The pope did eventually make Sunday a day of rest at some point in the future. (I don't have the date) but many christians already were gathering on that day.

https://www.britannica.com/biography/Constantine-pope

Constantine was considered to be pope and emperor.


Do any Bibles contain the Book of Nathan the Prophet and/or the History of Nathan the Prophet A possible reference to the Book of Nathan is described in 1 Chronicles 29:29:

  "Now the acts of David the king, first and last, behold, they are written in the book of Samuel the seer, and in the book of Nathan the prophet, and in the book of Gad the seer."

A possible reference to the History of Nathan the Prophet is described in 2 Chronicles 9:29:

  "Now the rest of the acts of Solomon, first and last, are they not written in the history of Nathan the prophet..."

I seek information on the whereabouts of these writings and whether they are considered to be authentic by either the Christian or Jewish religious community.

It may be the views of Judaism on the matter of this ‘Book [or History] of Nathan’ that has given rise to questions about existence or authenticity. The Book of Nathan the Prophet and the History of Nathan the Prophet are among 19 “lost books of the Tanakh”. They may be the same text, but they are sometimes distinguished from one another. As no such text is found in the Tanakh, some assume that text has been lost or removed from earlier ones.

The Bible itself speaks of such prophets and their writings. There are two passages in the Old Testament that speak of them. First, there is 1 Chronicles 29:29 which goes up to the death of King David and mentions

  “Samuel the seer, the records of Nathan the prophet and the records of
  Gad the seer.”

Second, there is 2 Chronicles 9:29 which is about the reign of King Solomon:

  “As for the other events of Solomon’s reign, from beginning to end,
  are they not written in the records of Nathan the prophet, in the
  prophecy of Ahijah the Shilonite and in the visions of Iddo the
  seer..."

The Bible appears to says very little but elsewhere we find additional information that enables a complete picture to be put together.

The New International Study Bible (1987 edition) gives such helpful information in its ‘Author, Date and Sources’ section to the introduction of 1 Chronicles (page 566) that I now quote from it.

  “According to ancient Jewish tradition, Ezra wrote Chronicles… but
  this cannot be established with certainty…  In his recounting of
  history long past the Chronicler relied on many written sources. About
  half his work was taken from Samuel and Kings; he also drew on the
  Pentateuch, Judges, Ruth, Psalms, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Lamentations and
  Zechariah… There are frequent references to yet other sources: ‘the
  book of the kings of Israel’ (9:1; 2Ch 20:34; cf. 2Ch33:18), ‘the book
  of the annals of King David’ (27:24), ‘the book of the kings of Judah
  and Israel’ or ‘…of Israel and Judah’ (2Ch 16:11; 25:26; 27:7; 28:26;
  32:32; 35:27; 36:8). ‘the annotations on the books of the kings’ (2Ch
  24:27). It is unclear whether these all refer to the same source or to
  different sources… In addition, the author cites a number of prophetic
  writings: those of ‘Samuel the seer’ (29:29), ‘Nathan the prophet
  (29:29 2Ch 9:29), ‘Gad the seer’ (29:29), ‘Ahijah the Shilonite’ (2Ch
  9:29), ‘Iddo the seer’ (2Ch 9:29; 12:15; 13:22), ‘Shemaiah the prophet
  (2Ch 12:15), ‘the prophet Isaiah’ (2Ch 26:22), ‘the seers’ (2Ch
  33:19)… He did not invent, but he did select, arrange and integrate
  his sources to compose a narrative ‘sermon’ for post-exilic Israel as
  she struggled to find her bearings as the people of God in a new
  situation.”

There is a need to see the book of Nathan the prophet, the book of Gad the seer and the history of Nathan the prophet in that context.

Now come the chronological factors. Please note that 1 Chronicles 29:29 also mentions “the records of Gad the seer” and his name crops up again in 1 Samuel 22:5 where we find that it is the prophet Gad, not Samuel, who gives instructions to David.

  “But the prophet Gad said to David, ‘Do not stay in the stronghold. Go
  into the land of Judah. So David left and went to the forest of
  Hereth.”

That is significant because it was the prophet Samuel who had earlier anointed the boy David to be king (1 Samuel 16:1-13) but when Gad is mentioned David is still king-in-waiting as king Saul continues to reign. This is where a bit of chronology and age of the characters involved needs to be worked out.

Samuel was born in 1105 B.C. and he was an old man when he anointed Saul to be king (1 Samuel 8:1-5) and Saul reigned for 40 years from 1050 to 1010 B.C. (Acts 13:20-21).  David reigned from 1010 to 970 B.C.  This means that Samuel was 55 years old when Saul came to the throne and he would have been 95 years old if he had lived long enough to see David become king.  But Samuel died long before then, while Saul was still alive and before David became king (1 Samuel 25:1).

Samuel anointed Saul then later God told Samuel to anoint David.  However, it is the prophet Gad, not Samuel, who gave instructions to David to depart into the land of Judah (1 Samuel 22:5). That is because Samuel was a very old man.  Likewise, it is Nathan who rebukes David after he takes Bathsheba to be his wife (2 Samuel 12:7-10). That is because Samuel had died.

Samuel lived long enough to anoint David to be king, but not long enough to see him sit upon the throne.  Nathan and Gad took over from where Samuel left off.  God used these men as his messengers and as his scribes.  It is they who record the events of King David’s reign, from beginning to end.  Their writings, their books, were never lost because they exist today within the books of Samuel and Chronicles.  God used Samuel to write part of the history of Israel as the time of the judges was drawing to a close, and the time of the kings beginning; then God used men like Nathan and Gad to continue writing that history of God’s dealings with His people during the times of the kings. The writer of the Chronicles in the Old Testament drew upon those, and other sources, to make a comprehensive compilation of that history, to help the post-exilic Israelites.

In summary, the answer to your question is that the writings you ask about have been incorporated into the Old Testament itself, in various places as detailed above, so in that sense they have not been ‘lost’. The originals may have had more material but those originals are not available just as none of the original manuscripts of any and all of the Bible (the autographs) are not available. They are considered to be authentic, certainly by Christians, and to the extent that they are in the ancient Hebrew scriptures, Judaism also accepts them.  All Bibles have Nathan’s writings as source material that has been incorporated into various parts of it, parts with other book names; it’s just that there is no ‘Book of Nathan’ on its own.

There are no Bibles that I'm aware of that have the Book of Nathan the Prophet in them. Even the two volumes of the Pseudepigrapha doesn't have this book in them (which are not inspired scripture). That said, the integrity of the versions available is suspect because there's very little verification of origin which is obviously important.

I personally would love to read that if someone is aware of a legitimate version.

As far as Gad the seer, there is a book that Ken Johnson authored which is quite good actually.

Also, there is a Bible called the Eth Cepher that has a lot of additional apocryphal writings within the Bible itself and is actually a very useful translation. I don't recommend it for casual Bible study but for those serious about study, if you use Eth Cepher in conjunction with an Interlinear Hebrew/Greek/English study bible, then you've got a deep source to work with. My favorite combo are Eth Cepher, Interlinear & Strongs Exhaustive with a couple other translations available for context.

Hope this helps a bit.


What is the understanding of "an evil spirit from the LORD tormented him"? In 1 Sam 16:14-23 (RSVCE), David Plays the Lyre for Saul, the passage opens

  14 Now the Spirit of the LORD departed from Saul, and an evil spirit from the LORD tormented him.

God is said to be infinitely good, intelligent, wise, just, holy, etc. [cf. The Nature and Attributes of God | New Advent].

Given these perfections of God, what is the understanding of "an evil spirit from the LORD tormented him"?

Needless to say, in keeping with the criteria for acceptable questions and answers, this question is not eliciting personal opinions but scholarly and/or authoritative exegesis.

Different translations describe the spirit in different ways:

NIV, KJV, NASB, ISV - Evil
ESV - Harmful
NLT - Tormenting
YLT - Spirit of Sadness

However all these translations agree that this Spirit was sent from the Lord. So to stay with your question, how could a loving God send an evil spirit to torment?

He could for the very same reasons he sent a worldwide flood: it was His divine way to deal with the sin of that time, of that moment. Saul was rebelling and this was his de facto punishment.

Dave Miller, Apologetics Press:

  As Keil and Delitzsch maintained: “This demon is called ‘an evil spirit (coming) from Jehovah,’ because Jehovah had sent it as a punishment” (1976, 2:170). John W. Haley added: “And he has a punitive purpose in granting this permission. He uses evil to chastise evil” (1977, p. 142). Of course, the reader needs to be aware of the fact that the term for “evil” is a broad term that need not refer to spiritual wickedness. In fact, it often refers to physical harm or painful hardship (e.g., Genesis 19:19; 2 Samuel 17:14). source

Habakkuk had this very same question for God when it was clear that God was allowing the wicked nation of Babylon to punish Judah. God responded with this:

  Habakkuk 1:5 ESV Look among the nations, and see; wonder and be astounded. For I am doing a work in your days that you would not believe if told.

...and then gave Habakkuk his rebuke for Babylon:

  Habakkuk 2:8 ESV Because you have plundered many nations, all the remnant of the peoples shall plunder you, for the blood of man and violence to the earth, to cities and all who dwell in them.

Basically, God's great plans extend beyond the painful moment. God had a plan to rescue Judah from Babylon/Persia just like God had a plan for Saul in sending the evil spirit, even though neither made sense at the time. If you continue reading the chapter in 2 Samuel you'll see that it is through this evil spirit that Saul has his first encounter with his royal successor, David.

Evil spirits are not sent by God, nor does God give revelations through the evil spirits which sometimes trouble men. He cast these evil spirits out of heaven long ago for their rebellion against Him.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints teaches that the evil spirit was not sent from God. The prophet Joseph Smith corrected this passage in an inspired revision of the Bible to say, “An evil spirit which was not of the Lord troubled him” (JST, 1 Samuel 16:14 footnote c; emphasis added).

To say that God sent an evil spirit contradicts Christ's own teachings on the Sermon on the Mount:

  "Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt
  tree bringeth forth evil fruit. A good tree cannot bring forth evil
  fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit." (Matt.
  7:17-18; emphasis added)

This does not answer the question of why the sixteenth chapter of 1 Samuel reads that the Spirit came from the LORD four times (vv. 14, 15, 16 & 23), but it is the authoritative position of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints that it is not meant to communicate that God sent an evil spirit.

The best guess I could make is that this is meant to communicate that the Lord allowed an evil spirit to torment Saul, much like the Lord allowed Satan to torment Job:

  "And the LORD said unto Satan, Behold, all that he hath is in thy
  power; only upon himself put not forth thine hand. So Satan went
  forth from the presence of the LORD." (Job 1:12; emphasis added)


Who is "Samuel" in the story of Saul, Samuel, and the Medium? In 1st Samuel 28, Saul gets the witch of Endor to summon Samuel back from the dead.  Is this really Samuel or some demon impersonating Samuel?

If it is the real Samuel here, how does this woman have the power to pull Samuel from Abraham's bosom (re: the story of Lazarus) back into this world?

This is a very tricky set of verses to interpret. Some think it is the Devil taunting Saul, but others think God used the very vices that Saul sought in his guilt to reprove him and prophecy against him.

I prefer the second option, that is this apparition is not of the Devil, but quite contrary to the woman’s satanic powers God used the occasion to overwhelm Saul so that wherever Saul turned God’s frown would follow him as a horrid curse.

To wonder whether Samuel appeared objectively or by a vision, I would lean towards merely a vision because his soul appears to have come out of the earth in the vision.  Naturally there was a belief that holy disembodied souls lived in heaven and if the vision was meant to be assumed as objective, the real soul of Samuel would probably have come from the sky down to the earth as that would have been more in keeping with how Enoch, Elijah and Jesus left the earth.

Addition

Contrary to what one might think today there were some Jewish beliefs before Christ of the soul going to paradise, or the Bosom of Abraham. The Sadducess did not probably hold this view but Jesus mentioning the Bosom of Abraham was probably in line with some of the views held in the traditios of the Pharisees.  In any case the famous Jewish historian says:

  the carrying up of the soul of the righteous by Angels is certainly in accordance with Jewish teaching, though stripped of all legendary details, such as about the number and the greetings of the Angels. (Alfred Edersheim Life and Times of Jesus, P858)

As another sample, in the Hebrew writings of the Maccabess we have similar ideas in accordance with the jokes that people have today about Peter meeting us at the pearly gates:

  For if we so die, Abraham and Isaac and Jacob will welcome us, and all the fathers will praise us. (4 Maccabees 13:17)

Although it may be difficult to prove when the Hebrews started to beleive in paradise as recording in ancient rabbinic literature, there seems to be logical grounds for assuming very early on. It is plausable that before Isaac was born Abraham had faith that his soul would go to his ancestors when his body was burried. His belief that God could raise Isaac from the dead is described in the New Tetament as the reason why he was willing to kill him.

  You, however, will go to your ancestors in peace and be buried at a good old age. (NIV Genesis 15:15)

Mike gives two possible interpretations here.  There's a third one as well: that "Samuel" here is... nobody at all.

Keep in mind that the witch is the only one who "saw" Samuel, and she had to describe him to Saul. Everything in the message could have been deduced as a good guess by anyone with a decent knowledge of the current political situation.  This passage reads like like a classic description of a séance, a deception that hangs entirely upon the customer's willingness to believe.


According to Catholicism, how many heavens are there? I read in book of Enoch there are 10 heavens God created. Most Christians believe in 1 heaven and Muslims I think believe in 7 heavens.
The purpose of each of 10 heavens was described in Book of Enoch but my Christian friend said in Bible there is one heaven and hell. I think the 3rd heaven in the book of Enoch is said to contain that heaven and hell he is referring to from the Bible.

The book of Enoch is not part of the canon of the Jewish Tanakh nor the Christian/Catholic Bible. Meaning that it is not accepted as authoritative by jewish or christians. This book is used as part of the kabbalistic literature in the zohar, that in itself could tell you that it is not a great source of information to use for knowing about God (it can be used for knowing a god, satan).
There are three heavens named in the Bible (Deut 10:14), the first is the sky where there are clouds and birds (Gen 1:8, 20; Deut 11:17; Judg 5:4), the second is the space where are planets and stars (Gen 15:5; Psa 19:4-6; Deut 17:3), and the third is the methapysical heaven (Matt 6:9; 2 Cor 12:2; Eph 4:10) where Jesus Christ went.

In [Revelation 22:3-5] we read about a new Eden

The throne of God and of the Lamb will be in the city, and his
servants will serve him. They will see his face, and his name will be
on their foreheads. There will be no more night. They will not need
the light of a lamp or the light of the sun, for the Lord God will
give them light. And they will reign for ever and ever

However Eden ( עֵ֔דֶן) is not Heaven in regards to the Hebrew creation narrative in Bereishit (Genesis).

We discover better insight regarding the Heavens (Shamayim) in the Torah. Regarding the plurality of שָׁמַיִם  "Shamayim" (Heavens), [Bereishit (Genesis) 1:6-8] states Elohim made 2 Heavens.

"Shamayim" was the name of the 'expanse' that "separated the water above the expanse" ( וַיַּבְדֵּ֗ל בֵּ֤ין הַמַּ֨יִם֙ אֲשֶׁר֙ מִתַּ֣חַת לָֽרָקִ֔יעַ) - - - "and the water below the expanse" ( וּבֵ֣ין הַמַּ֔יִם אֲשֶׁ֖ר מֵעַ֣ל לָֽרָקִ֑יעַ ).

Shamayim (שָׁמַיִם) in context refers to "waters", since the sky and ocean always are moving.

However - readers could argue there are 7 Heavens based on [ Ezekiel 1:28 ] when the prophet Yechezkel (יְחֶזְקֵ֨אל) sees the vision like a rainbow (7-lights) surrounding God's throne. If a rainbow more accurately symbolizes the divine number of Heavens instead of referencing just the sky & ocean, then we can assume Heaven is more like "Light" (א֖וֹר) than "Waters" (מַיִם).


Are there any secular historical references to the natural phenomena that occurred at the crucifixion and resurrection? The Scriptures record that there was three hours of darkness during the crucifixion of Jesus.  This is a pretty significant meteorological event.  Furthermore, the morning of Jesus' resurrection, the Scriptures indicate that there was an earthquake.  Additionally, when Jesus died, the curtain of the Temple was apparently torn in two.

Now from the sixth hour there was darkness over all the land until the ninth hour.  Matthew 27:45 ESV
And behold, the curtain of the temple was torn in two, from top to bottom. And the earth shook, and the rocks were split.  Matthew 27:51 ESV

I don't know if there are historical records of any earthquakes, eclipses, or such things in any of antiquity.  Yet, I am indeed curious to know if there are, and, if so, if there are any secular historical records that could match up to these events that surrounded the death of resurrection of Christ.

Julius Africanus was an early third century Christian historian.  He says that a pagan historian named Thallus mentions the darkness that occurred during Jesus' crucifixion, and that Thallus explained it as an eclipse.  However, Africanus correctly notes that an eclipse is not possible during the Jewish Passover when Jesus was crucified (see: On the Circumstances Connected with Our Saviour’s Passion and His Life-Giving Resurrection).

Africanus also mentions another historian named Phlegon who wrote about the darkness and earthquake.  James Ussher, in his Annals of the World (first published in 1658), writes: "“Phlegon stated that in the 19th year of Tiberius (as Eustathius Antiochus noted in Hexaemeron) and the fourth year of the 202nd Olympiad (that is 33 AD), the following events took place... 'There was the largest and most famous eclipse that had ever occurred. The day was so turned into night at the sixth hour (noon), that the stars were seen.  Also, an earthquake in Bithynia destroyed many houses in the city of Nicaea’” (Annals of the World 6503).

In addition, Pliny the Elder, a first century Roman historian and naturalist, wrote that "“[t]he largest earthquake happened in the principate of Tiberius Caesar when twelve cities in Asia Minor were razed to the ground in one night” (Pliny's Natural History 38).

So, while there are secular accounts of the darkness and earthquake, they are quoted and preserved by Christian writers (with the exception of Pliny's writings, which were preserved independently; yet, Pliny doesn't date the earthquake except to say it was during Tiberius' reign).

There are no original references to this darkness outside of the New Testament. Josephus mentions Jesus, at least in retrospect, but makes no mention of a strange period of darkness at the time of the Passover.  A historian named Thallus is reported to have said that an eclipse of the sun occurred at the appropriate time, but we do not know when Thallus lived. Given that a contemporary could not have mistaken a three-hour period of total darkness for a solar eclipse, Thallus probably relied on Christian tradition for his information, and was merely trying to discredit it.

In Antiquities of the Jews Book V chapter 5, Josephus describes the temple curtain and the curtain to the Holy of Holies in some detail, with no suggestion of earlier damage or repair.

A common view in modern scholarship is that the account in the synoptic gospels is a literary creation of the gospel writers, intended to heighten the importance of what they saw as a theologically significant event.