Did the Apostles “worship Jesus” in Luke 24:52? What is the correct reading of Luke 24:52 - did they worship Jesus?  Latin Vulgate does not mention this and RSV puts this in footnotes.

Luke 24:50-53 (NIV)

  50 When he had led them out to the vicinity of Bethany, he lifted up
  his hands and blessed them. 51 While he was blessing them, he left
  them and was taken up into heaven. 52 Then they worshiped him and
  returned to Jerusalem with great joy. 53 And they stayed continually
  at the temple, praising God.

Latin Vulgate Luke 24: 50-53

  51 And it came to pass, whilst he blessed them, he departed from them,
  and was carried up to heaven. 52 And they adoring went back into
  Jerusalem with great joy. 53 And they were always in the temple,
  prais-ing and blessing God. Amen.

  Rsv – Luke 24:52 And they returned to Jerusalem with great joy.

footnote: ‘worshiped him’

There was some controversy over the phrase in the 80's because some minority of manuscripts appeared to omit the phrase which led to some Bible versions removing it or footnoting it. However, earlier manuscripts were found in the 50's that did have the phrase in it which make the later omissions likely scribal errors (mistakes).  It has since been restored to the majority of the versions that had removed it because of this find.  This is likely the reason why your version is missing it - if it's an older version.

Text Note: Luke 24:52

I will attempt to give you the reason the Greek (and now English versions) have the alternative that you stated.

In the best manuscripts the Greek states

  24:52 καὶ αὐτοὶ προσκυνήσαντες αὐτὸν...

Literally this states, "And they worshiped him..."

προσκυνήσαντες is the aorist, active, participle which means it is a variant. The root would be προσκύνέω.

  προσκύνέω has a range from "to do reverence or homage by kissing the hand" in the OT Septuagint but in the NT it means "to do reverence or homage by prostration (bowing or kneeling)"; to pay divine homage, worship, adore; "to bow oneself in adoration."

  from The Analytical Lexicon to the Greek New Testament William D. Mounce

To your question about the Vulgate:

You translated this as "52 And they adoring went back into Jerusalem with great joy. 53 And they were always in the temple, praising and blessing God. Amen."

This is what the Vulgate states in Latin

  24:52 et ipsi adorantes regressi sunt in Hierusalem cum gaudio magno

This translates to "And they worshiped him, and returned to Jerusalem with great joy."

It appears that whatever English translation you are using just did not translate the Latin word "adorantes" to worshiped but it still came close. If we go back to the Greek this is easier to see.

The operative clause is αὐτοὶ προσκυνήσαντες αὐτὸν.

In προσκυνήσαντες the ντ identifies it as a participle (participles are verbal adjectives as in they describe an action happening to someone or something)
The "σα" means that it is Aorist tense (a sort of past tense that means that it happened prior to now but doesn't specifiy time in itself)
The "ες" suffix means that it is identifying the adverb as describing the group (αὐτοὶ, "they").
We also know that a participle must modify something since if describes an action happening to someone or something and if there are only 2 nouns in the whole clause αὐτοὶ and αὐτὸν (αὐτὸν is singular and referring to a "him" and by context we know the him is Jesus) and the participle is plural and the only noun that is plural is αὐτοὶ (them) then the object of the participle (who it is being done to) must be the αὐτὸν (him).

In the translation you quoted above it doesn't make sense to say "And they adoring went back into Jerusalem with great joy." Here adoring is also a participle without an object. What were they adoring? If this were a verb, that is just an action the group was performing, then we would not expect this to be a participle and would have just been an plural, aorist, active, indicative (think time) form (as far as I know that form is never used anywhere in the NT).

There seems to be something missing as it is stated in your Vulgate version (not your documentation of it but an issue with the translation within it). Remember that the Vulgate was written by Jerome using the Greek so the priority should also go to the Greek text which clearly states that "they worshiped him..."

(All emphasis mine)

Luke 24:52 NASB
"And they, after worshipping Him, returned to Jerusalem with great joy"

Yes, the Greek word "προσκυνήσαντες" is talking about worship.

Here's the Greek word used:
https://biblehub.com/greek/proskyne_santes_4352.htm


Is there a concept of Ministerial Priesthood existing in Protestantism? Catholicism teaches ministerial priesthood (source).

Is there a concept of Ministerial Priesthood existing in Protestantism?

I'm referring to the hierarchy as well as to those who perform the sacraments. As for the scope of Protestants, I am asking those who adhere to the 5 Solae.

There are a lot of protestant churches so it's hard to be exhaustive, but I think the Anglican Church is what you're looking for.

After splitting from Rome the Church of England went through a reformation that aligned much of their theology with the Lutheran and Calvinist traditions. You can find this in the 39 articles.

For example, this is very Protestant:

  WE are accounted righteous before God, only for the merit of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ by Faith, and not for our own works or deservings

But the church's structure is very hierarchical (episcopalian) with bishops, priests, deacons, etc...

There's also the issue of Apostolic Succession which has a complicated history in the Anglican church.

To belabor the point, the lack of distinction between the Church of England and the Roman Catholic church is what led to the Puritans. In a similar vein the the Methodists broke off from the Church of England because Wesley ordained preachers and allowed them to administer the sacraments.

As far as Universal Priesthood goes, there really aren't many structured rules and therefore churches and denominations that believe in Universal Priesthood are free to structure their hierarchy and perform the Eucharist however they wish.

Since the only principle it focuses on is that God is just as accessible to a new believer as He is to a pastor, elder, deacon, or whatever, the hierarchy isn't considered all that important.

The sacraments, preaching, and any other aspects of worship services can be performed however the church or denomination deems appropriate. That isn't to say that the Bible doesn't address these things at all, just that the doctrine of Universal Priesthood doesn't really address it.

Acts, Titus, and 1 Timothy, for example, talk about church leadership and and those that adhere to the 5 Solae will do their best to structure their hierarchy to fit those commands. Since the Bible itself spends a lot more time talking about the character of a good leader than it does about the hierarchy itself, you'll see a lot of churches structure themselves differently and generally maintain the belief that they have the freedom to incorporate some cultural customs like holding elections for elders and allowing congregants to vote on how to spend money rather than it being decided by elders or denominational leaders.

For the Eucharist, you'll usually see the Senior Pastor lead and an Associate Pastor assist. But even this varies pretty wildly. Many churches only have 1 pastor so they'll handle it by themselves or an elder or designated helper will assist. Many churches don't require the congregants to get up to receive the elements so ushers or other volunteers will pass the elements from pew to pew. If a pastor is out of town, in the hospital, or otherwise unavailable to lead, someone else will step in. And that person who steps in doesn't necessarily need any special training or ordination. I've even stepped in once at my church. I was notified a few days in advance that the Senior Pastor would be out of town and so I assisted the Associate Pastor. He led and I prayed over the elements. All that seems to be required in most cases is that you're in good standing with the church, you display a reverence for the process and you have an understanding of how the church handles things so you don't mess something up or do things out of order. I've also seen the elements passed at less formal services at youth camps where camp staff and counselors would lead.

You will also see the other end of the spectrum where there are denominations with very strict denominational hierarchies more comparable to what you see in Catholicism. I, personally, am less familiar with them but I believe you're more likely to find them in Lutheran and Presbyterian denominations than say Baptists or Pentecostal denominations.


How did the livestock of the Egyptians die twice? Yesterday we were studying the ten plagues in Exodus. One of the things that confused us was this. Exodus 9:6 reads:

  6 And the next day the Lord did it: All the livestock of the Egyptians died, but not one animal belonging to the Israelites died. [NIV]

This means, the Egyptians did not have any livestock left. But in verses 20 and 21 we read:

  20 Those officials of Pharaoh who feared the word of the Lord hurried to bring their slaves and their livestock inside. 21 But those who ignored the word of the Lord left their slaves and livestock in the field.

Wait, which livestock? Wasn't the livestock already dead?

And in verse 25 we read that the livestock was indeed killed.

  25 Throughout Egypt hail struck everything in the fields—both people and animals; it beat down everything growing in the fields and stripped every tree.

So we discussed this, and thought well, maybe the ten plagues took place over a longer time so the Egyptians could restore their livestock. However this seems not really possible as Moses did die at 120 years old (Deuteronomy 34:7) where Moses was 80 years old (Exodus 7:7) when he was called by God.

What would be a good explanation for this conflict?

Answers in Genesis, an Apologetics site dedicated to defending the Bible as inerrant, gives five "reasonable" possibilities:  Bear in mind that the real answer is, "we don't know for sure", and we can't answer what did happen. The best we can do is offer plausible explanations of what might have happened.  Typically this is done using common rules behind resolving alleged Biblical discrepancies.  So, from an Apologetic standpoint, their answers do offer plausible resolutions to the apparent conflict.

  First, Exodus 9:3 states, “"Behold, the hand of the Lord will be on
  your cattle in the field, on the horses, on the donkeys, on the
  camels, on the oxen, and on the sheep—a very severe pestilence."”
  Surprisingly, this verse does not mention one of the most important
  domestic animals at that time—the goat.1 Therefore, it is possible
  that all of the livestock except goats were killed in the first plague
  on the livestock (fifth plague overall), and in the second instance it
  was goats that were affected by the plague of hail.

  Second, Exodus 9:19–20 mentions that those who “"feared the word of
  the Lord among the servants of Pharaoh"” were told to get their
  livestock out of the fields. Some scholars mention that these
  Egyptians may have been warned about the previous plague of pestilence
  (although it was not recorded), so they still had all of their
  livestock left. In this scenario, God warned them to put all of their
  livestock in barns so they wouldn’t be killed by hail.

  The third possibility is similar to the previous explanation except
  that the survival of their livestock hinges on the phrase “servants of
  Pharaoh.” Perhaps this means they were not actually Egyptians, but
  other vassal subjects who were warned of the plagues so that their
  animals could be spared. So in Exodus 9:6, where it says that all the
  livestock of Egypt died, this view suggests that the animals belonging
  to these foreign vassals were spared if they obeyed God and not
  Pharaoh.

  Fourth, the Bible does not reveal how much time passed between the
  fifth plague and the seventh plague. Following the fifth plague, which
  wiped out the livestock of Egypt, the Egyptians may have taken some of
  the livestock belonging to Israel. Another possibility is that they
  bought (or took) livestock from surrounding areas (Libya, Ethiopia,
  Canaan, etc). The first option would require very little time to
  complete while the second would probably require at least a few weeks.
  But since the Bible does not specify how much time passed, either is
  possible.

  The fifth, and perhaps simplest solution, would be to acknowledge the
  fact that “all” does not always mean exclusively “all.”2 We must use
  the context to determine its meaning. In the case of Exodus 9:6, it
  might be best translated that “"all manner of livestock of the
  Egyptians died."” In other words, the plague included all kinds of
  animals, as clarified in the third verse: “"on the horses, on the
  donkeys, on the camels, on the oxen, and on the sheep—a very severe
  pestilence."” This is the approach taken in Coverdale’s translation,
  and the New English Translation includes a footnote with a similar
  explanation.

 -

This could be the answer we've all been looking for. I just realised that all God's warnings to pharaoh were very specific, precise in detail. So specific were they that there is no contradiction and no apologetics needed. Exodus 9: 1-3 is God's message to Pharaoh about Pharaoh's own cattle. Vs 2 For if YOU refuse to let them go and still hold them, vs 3 behold the hand of the Lord will be on YOUR Cattle in the field etc. So the threat and the plague itself is (on this occasion) aimed directly at Pharaoh, who of course had a great amount of livestock. Vs 6 does not then contradict this when it specifies the livestock of Egypt from the livestock of the children of Israel. It's simply stating two defined areas. Pharaoh's, in the field which is in Egypt) as opposed to that which belonged to the children of Israel. Therefore nothing else in this chapter is a contradiction. Down to Vs 17-23 and you see God being specific again. This time Pharaoh has obviously had some of his remaining cattle (that which was not in the field first time around) will be targeted as well as that of Pharaoh's servents and of the people who do not fear God and take their livestock to safety.  So again, more cattle, herds and livestock will actually survive if you read it carefully. Some where taken to safety. This is also how Pharoah was still able to muster war horses to chase down the Israelites. War horses would always be well kept, well protected from the elements and ready for battle. Not out in the field with all manner of livestock. Works for me, hope it works for you too!


A confusion about the fullfilment of the law Jesus said in Mat 5:17-18:

  Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I
  have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly I tell
  you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not
  the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law
  until everything is accomplished.

If we stop reading the paragraph at the former bolded sentence, we'll get the impression that the law is eternal (well... until heaven and earth disappear). But if we keep reading until reaching the latter bolded text, we'll get a different understanding: somehow the law will end after "everything is accomplished" (Christ's earthly duties are done?). So it's not eternal, after all.

Isn't this a contradiction? I'm still having a hard time understanding this passage.

As @curiousdanni pointed out in comments, the text here does not put forth the eternality of the Law and Prophets but rather highlights two conditions in which they may or will pass away:  If the current created order passes away or if everything in them is fulfilled.  It is possible that these two are to be understood as concurrent but that is not necessary.

Jesus said that he came for the purpose of fulfilling the Law and the Prophets, some of which has been accomplished and some of which is still yet to be.  Paul makes it clear that the Law's purpose as a means for obtaining righteousness has been brought to an end.  This is not a terminal end but an objective end;  Jesus is the righteousness that the Law was intended to produce.  "For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes." - Romans 10-4  Also, the epistle to the Hebrews is filled with elements of the tabernacle and sacrificial system that typified and were fulfilled in Christ (Hebrews chapter 9).  In 1 Corinthians 10:4 Christ is pointed out as the spiritual rock the Israelites drank from in the desert and there are many more such examples.  The Messiah was also prophesied to need to come and to suffer and to enter into glory (Isaiah 53 and Luke 24:26 among many others).  So, there are a great many aspects of the Law and Prophets which have already been fulfilled in the birth, life, death, burial, resurrection, and ascension of Jesus into heaven as well as the giving of the Holy Spirit (Joel 2:28) and the inauguration of the Church (Hosea 2:23).

But the Law and Prophets are not yet passed away.   "Do we then overthrow the law by this faith? By no means! On the contrary, we uphold the law." - Romans 3:31  We do not set the Law aside because "the law is holy, and the commandment is holy and righteous and good." - Romans 7:12  What has ended regarding the Law is that it is no longer the means by which righteousness may be obtained.  Christ has met every requirement of the Law for us in that regard; he has kept the Law in a positive sense, not only in letter but in spirit and he has borne the curse of the Law for us as well so that, through faith, we are now able to fulfill the righteousness that the Law required: "For God has done what the law, weakened by the flesh, could not do. By sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, he condemned sin in the flesh,  in order that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit." - Romans 8:3-4  This is why Paul speaks so harshly against those who claim that he taught a flaunting of the Law (Romans 3:8)

And there are many prophesies yet to be fulfilled regarding the second coming of Christ (Zechariah 12:10), the resurrection (Job 19:26), the permanent settling of God's people in the Land (Ezekiel 36), the creation of a new heaven and earth (Revelation 21) to name just a few.

In summary, God's Word is said to never pass away even if heaven and earth do pass away (Matthew 24:35) but the Law and Prophets, having been given for specific and limited purpose do have an expiration date that has yet to be reached.  It is also certain that these will ultimately be totally fulfilled by Christ "For all the promises of God find their Yes in him. That is why it is through him that we utter our Amen to God for his glory." - 1 Corinthians 1:20

"so shall my word (Christ) be that goes out from my mouth;
    it shall not return to me empty,
but it shall accomplish that which I purpose,
    and shall succeed in the thing for which I sent it." - Isaiah 55:11

In Romans 5:12-21 this is explained:

Through the disobedience of one man, sin came into existence.
Consequence was that death "ruled as king", meaning it was inevitable for all people, even for those who had not been disobedient like Adam.
Death was not a consequence of the Law: it was there before the Law.
The Law defined "sin", so that there were legally established consequences; and
Life can be gained through undeserved kindness by means of Jesus Christ, because of one act of justification.

One act of justification made up the balance versus one act of disobedience. How so? In Romans 3:23 we read the same statement, that "all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God", but the next verse calls that one act of justification a "release by the ransom paid by Christ Jesus". In 1 John 4:10 it is called a "propitiatory sacrifice". Why is the sacrifice of equal value, and to what? Adam lost his perfect life through his disobedience. Jesus was also a perfect man, without sin, and gave up his life even though he was not deserving of death (1 Peter 2:22,24). Because Jesus was, as a Jew, under the authority of the Law, this could also be legally established. So a life for a life.

That is why the Bible says that while people die from inherited sin because of their forefather Adam, they also have an opportunity to gain life through faith in Jesus' ransom sacrifice, so that in effect, Jesus becomes their (spiritual) father. That is why Jesus does not have to be the Almighty God to be called Eternal Father (Isaiah 9:6), because the effect of the ransom lasts forever (Hebrews 7:27). To illustrate, Abraham is also called "the father of all those having faith" (Romans 4:11,12), which goes beyond his physical offspring. Note that Paul also calls Abraham "the father of us all", which most likely would have included Roman Gentiles who did not have Abraham as their ancestor (Romans 4:16).

One could illustrate the above with a building contract. Does it last forever? No, it exists and is legally enforcable, until the building has been fully constructed according to all the terms of the contract. Once that has been accomplished, the contract is history. Not by ripping it apart, but by complying with all the terms. That is what Jesus did in connection with the Law of Moses from the beginning of his life, even when he had no control over it (Luke 2:21-24). Paul also notes in Romans 13:8,10 that love is the fulfillment of the law. Connect that with Jesus' words in John 15:13: "No one has love greater than this, that someone should surrender his life in behalf of his friends", and yet, he himself died even for his enemies (Romans 5:6,10)!

So in summary, Jesus was saying "There is no chance in heaven or on earth that even the tiniest part of the Law would change or be removed, until it has all been done."  Once he had died, the Law had been fulfilled because of the life that Jesus lived. At that point, there was also every opportunity to make a "new covenant" that would replace the old covenant that included the Law of Moses. Jesus took that opportunity and made a new covenant, meaning that then the Law of Moses was abolished (Luke 22:20,29). Does the new covenant come with a law? Yes, it is known as the 'Law of the Christ' (John 13:34; Galatians 6:2).

In case Romans 5:12-21 is not entirely clear, or difficult to understand, there is a video that explains it very well, I think. It's entitled "Why did Jesus die?" https://www.jw.org/en/library/videos/#en/mediaitems/VODBibleTeachings/docid-502016853_1_VIDEO

That should answer your question.


When is the first time in church history we find a prayer ending with "in Jesus' name, amen"? It is commonplace in Christianity today to close prayers "in Jesus' name, amen".  I don't see any prayer in the apostolic writings prayed in this way.  When does this first emerge in history?

A definitive answer to this question will be elusive, but here are some preliminary findings that give some idea and hopefully inspire more research.
As we'll see, the exact English phrase, "in Jesus' name, amen," appears to be a fairly recent development, as do its variations.  But it appears earlier in other languages, notably Latin and German.  Thus, we'll follow this outline:

Phrase in translation (German, Latin)
Traditional forms in English
Exact phrase and its variations in English

Phrase in translation
The earliest example of something similar to "in Jesus' name, amen" that I've found comes from the 5th century, in Latin:

In nomine Iesu Christi, Amen. (source)
In Jesus Christ's name, amen.

And in the early 8th century:

In nomine Domini nostri Iesu Christi, amen. (source)
In the name of Jesus Christ our Lord, amen.

Interestingly, the form also turns up much earlier in German than in English.  For example, in 1538:

In den Namen Jesu Amen. (source)

And in 1687:

Im Namen Jesu! Amen! (source)

Traditional forms in English
Prayers using the trinitarian formula – "in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost" – can be found early in church history, and it's thus not surprising that early English prayer books used it.  More interesting is the frequent ending of prayers with a variation on "Jesus Christ."  Over 50 prayers in the 1689 Book of Common Prayer use his name in a phrase immediately before "Amen," such as:

through Jesus Christ our Lord.  Amen.  (page 167)
through our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.  Amen.  (183)
but only the Name of our Lord Jesus Christ.  Amen.  (190)
for the honor of our Advocate and Mediator, Jesus Christ. Amen. (40)

Yet the phrase in question does not appear.  Nor does it appear in the popular non-conformist Method for Prayer (1710) by Matthew Henry.  The influence of such works, particularly the BCP, may have been a significant factor in the relatively late appearance of "in Jesus' name, amen" in English.
Phrase in English
Definitively identifying the earliest use of this phrase in English would require the use of more corpora than I have at my disposal.  The University of Michigan's Middle English corpus yields no results, so I turn then to Google Books.  There, the earliest variation of this phrase in English appears in 1778:

All which we beg for the sake and in the name of Jesus Christ.  Amen. (source)

And the exact phrase for the first time only in 1840:

We ask all in Jesus' name.  Amen. (source)

Summary
I haven't uncovered written evidence for the use of this phrase in English prior to the 18th century, even though it appears in other European languages much earlier – as early as the 5th century in Latin.
It's certainly possible that this lack of evidence is due to a limited written record (or access to it).  But the fact that my sources have German instances of this phrase in the 16th and 17th centuries, but no English ones, suggests that the influence of early English prayer books helped ensure that "in Jesus' name, amen" was not commonly employed.  Apparently only after Protestantism split further and revivals spread did the phrase come into common usage and eventually become ubiquitous.

"Whatever you ask in my name, this I will do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son. If you ask me anything in my name, I will do it." John 14:13-14 (ESV)

Was the beginning of the use when read literally by the denotation. It is shown to by more so of a hypothetical sense according to:

Lincoln, Andrew (2005). Gospel According to St John: Black's New Testament Commentaries. Bloomsbury Publishing.

Although it seems nigh impossible you find the definitive first time in history because not everything that happened was recorded or documented in historical records.


Are those that enter into a marriage that is later annulled required to do any penance? I understand that in Catholicism, annulments are sometimes issued for marriages that meet certain criteria.  I'm wondering if the simple fact that the couple entered into a marriage that was not right or properly sanctioned by God if it is considered to have been a sin to do so.  It does appear, perhaps, that the couple would have been involved in a sexual relationship with someone who was not rightfully their spouse.

So, the question is, "Is there any penance required for those who have entered into a marriage that is later annulled?" and, if so, "What is the nature of that penance?"

No.

The idea of annulment aka declaration of nullity is that the marriage is void ab initio. It's not dissolved, it has never existed (Catechism 1629).

Now, normally, this is caused by innocent things: for instance, if I pretend to be a priest and marry you and your sweetheart, the marriage can (and will) be annulled due to CCC 1630, which requires a priest for marriage at least between Catholics. Equally, if you happen to be too young for marriage. Or, actually, if you've got antecedent & perpetual impotence (Code of Canon Law Canon 1084§1).

Some situations are dodgier. Annulment per lig aka per causa ligamentes means you've tried to marry while already being married. That might be an oopsie!, in which case there is nothing wrong with it, you just need to clear your previous marriage. Or it might be intentional deceit, which does attract the need to confess and do penance.

Finally, there are the really nasty forms that cause nullity. Crimen is everyone's favourite one, which consists of you and your sweetheart conspiring to whack your current spouse so you can marry (actually, this is so whether you have had sex or not!). Quite obviously, there will be some penance involved in that case! Also, jail time.

The bottom line:

Some things you do to enter into an invalid marriage may be a sin,
but simply entering into a void marriage is not a sin in itself.
If it's a sin otherwise, it will, obviously, attract penance.
Knowledge is important, of course. Knowingly entering into a marriage you know
would be void, such as when you know you're impotent, is basically
fraudulent.

Penance is man's way of paying for sin. You cannot pay for your sin. Christ paid the debt we were unable to pay.

One of The enemy's best strategies is to place a burden on you that u weren't designed to handle.

That's what religion does. It takes what Christ did and robs the power, thus placing the burden on you.

The bible says "Having a form of Godliness but they deny the power". That's EXACTLY what man made methods, or religion (trying to become right with God) does.

It us for freedom that Christ set us free but we do not use that freedom to indulge the sinful nature.


Is there a verse about "big" and "small" lies being the same in God's kingdom? I am looking for a certain verse or passage.

The one I'm looking for contains statements about there being no such thing as a "small" lie or "big" lie and that lies are all the same in God's kingdom.

This might be the idea you're going for:

  James 2:10-11 ESV For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles at just one point is guilty of breaking all of it. For he who said, “You shall not commit adultery,” also said, “You shall not murder.” If you do not commit adultery but do commit murder, you have become a lawbreaker.

"...just one point..." being the key statement. If you tell a "small lie" but don't tell a "big" one, you are just as much a law breaker before God because your heart intended to deceive in either case.

My favourite verse is found in the Book of Mormon; Another Testament of Jesus Christ:

2 Nephi 9:24;

  "Wo unto the liar, for he shall be thrust down to hell."

There is also Proverbs 19:9;

  "A false witness shall not be unpunished, and he that speaketh lies
  shall perish."

There's not exactly a whole lot of wiggle room in those verses.


If Jesus was God, then why did he pray? I don't know much about Christianity so I was watching this video:
Is Jesus God?

I was stunned by the following things:

At the start of the debate Stanley Sjoberg says Jesus is the Son of God.
Near the 21:30 mark, the pastor mentions, "you see Jesus is not the son of God". At the beginning he said "Jesus is the son of God". After that he said "Jesus is the God" and then "Jesus is equal to God". Is he equivocating here or what is going on?
If Jesus was God, then why/to whom did he pray? How many Gods are there?
How many gods are there in Christianity? If there is a god superior/bigger than Jesus, then why are there no Church/temple for those gods? Why do people not worship them?

There is one God who has revealed himself in three persons.

The vast majority of Christians across all major sects agree that Jesus is both the Son of God and God. This has been articulated many mays, but is not easy to explain in the confines of language. He is not the "son" as is a physical offspring as the result of sexual relations, but in another sense of being "begotten". Not created (as he always existed), and not lesser than (as they are one God) but having a defined relationship in himself. This is the classic issue knows as the "Trinity"—one God in three persons, all fully God not separate beings.

We don't know (because we aren't told) exactly why God is this way, just that he is and this is how he has revealed himself to us. God himself chose to become a man, to reveal himself to us in human flesh, the God-man Jesus Christ—100% God, 100% man.

One famous articulation of this can be found in the Athanasian Creed:

  Neither confounding the persons nor dividing the substance.

  For there is one person of the Father, another of the Son, and another of the Holy Spirit.

  But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit is all one, the glory equal, the majesty coeternal.

  Such as the Father is, such is the Son, and such is the Holy Spirit.

  The Father uncreated, the Son uncreated, and the Holy Spirit uncreated.

  The Father incomprehensible, the Son incomprehensible, and the Holy Spirit incomprehensible.

  The Father eternal, the Son eternal, and the Holy Spirit eternal.

  And yet they are not three eternals but one eternal.

  As also there are not three uncreated nor three incomprehensible, but one uncreated and one incomprehensible.

  So likewise the Father is almighty, the Son almighty, and the Holy Spirit almighty.

  And yet they are not three almighties, but one almighty.

  So the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God;

  And yet they are not three Gods, but one God.

  So likewise the Father is Lord, the Son Lord, and the Holy Spirit Lord;

  And yet they are not three Lords but one Lord.

Having listened to Pastor Stanley's address, he seems quite clear. You may not like or fully understand what he is saying, but he isn't equivocating or being irrational. His representation of what the Bible says about Jesus is rather accurate and would be agreeable to most Christians of every major sect.

The statement at 21:30 is quite plain but you have taken it out of context. He says "Jesus is not the son of God in the same way that I am the son of my Father". In this section he is defining his terms and making it what he does or does not mean. He goes on to explain how God's existence transcends the physical creation and we only exist in him. Therefor our physical relationship to our fathers is just a small aspect of a son/father relationship and what God means when he says that Jesus is his son is much more than that. All the way up to minute 28 he expands on the idea of God's "begetting" a son transcending our understanding of the physical world.

On a few minor points unrelated to the person of Jesus he wanders a little bit from broadly accepted teachings. For example his theology seems to be dispensational and pre-millenial. His eschatology is not important for this question whether those views are correct or not, but you should be aware that there are differences between major Christian sects on those issues. Likewise the bit in minute 43 about no-cost would be disputed by a number of Christian perspectives.
As for why Jesus prayed, there are several explanations. One is simply that as a man he demonstrated how to live in a proper relationship with God. He was a perfect role model for men and therefore did what men should do. Additionally as one of the persons of the God-head he was in fellowship with his Father.

Of course there are no other superior beings nor churches or temples dedicated to any other in true Christianity because we believe in only one God.

"
THE HOLY TRINITY

Our LORD JESUS CHRIST, the ONE AND ONLY TRUE GOD is called by three names, viz., GOD the FATHER; GOD the SON; and GOD the Holy Spirit. GOD the FATHER came into this world as Saviour with the name JESUS CHRIST to save sinners of the world.

“...Thou art the CHRIST, the SON of the living GOD.”
St. Matthew 16:16

Thus, GOD the FATHER came into this world as the SON. HE HIMSELF is the GOD the SON. HE suffered terribly for sinners and died on the cross and was buried. JESUS CHRIST resurrected HIMSELF on the third day and appeared alive to many for forty days. On the 40th day after HIS resurrection, JESUS CHRIST went up to heaven before the eyes of HIS disciples.

After our LORD JESUS CHRIST had gone up to heaven, HE sent the Holy Spirit, the holy power or the holy strength to live a holy life, into the world on the day of Pentecost, the 50th day of HIS resurrection, as HE had promised HIS disciples. Thus, JESUS CHRIST HIMSELF came into this world as the Holy Spirit. HE HIMSELF is the GOD, the Holy Spirit. Thus the FATHER, the SON, and the Holy Spirit are together and ONE. So the LORD JESUS CHRIST is called the 'GOD of the Holy Trinity'. Therefore, it is a great truth that the GOD who is called by the names the FATHER, the SON and the Holy Spirit is ONE GOD only.

It is said in the Holy Bible,

“For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon HIS shoulder: and HIS name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The Mighty GOD, The everlasting FATHER, The Prince of Peace.”
Isaiah 9:6

From the above verse, anyone can understand that the mighty and  wonderful GOD, the SON is the everlasting FATHER; and the GOD, the everlasting FATHER is the SON, the LORD JESUS CHRIST, who came into this world as a child to save and redeem sinners from their sins.

When our LORD JESUS CHRIST was in the world, HE said with HIS most holy mouth,

“...He that hath seen ME hath seen the FATHER; ...”
St. John 14:9

“I and MY FATHER are one.”
St. John 10:30

It is also said in the Holy Bible,

“But to us there is but one GOD, the FATHER, of whom are all things, and we in HIM; and one LORD JESUS CHRIST, by whom are all things, and we by HIM.”
 I Corinthians 8:6
“Now the LORD is that (the) Spirit: and where the Spirit of the LORD is, there is liberty.”
II Corinthians 3:17

Moreover GOD, the FATHER, the ONLY TRUE GOD is the Holy Spirit. HE is without form and is invisible. GOD, the SON or the LORD JESUS CHRIST took the human form; GOD, the SON or the LORD JESUS CHRIST was visible. GOD, the Holy Spirit has no form and is invisible. The ONLY TRUE GOD, the FATHER who is the Holy Spirit HIMSELF is GOD, the SON who is with form; and GOD, the Holy Spirit who is without form. GOD the FATHER, the ONLY TRUE GOD works as Saviour to save sinners from their sins, with the name GOD, the SON and Saviour; and with the name the Holy Spirit, HE works to strengthen people to live a holy life. The two immensely glorious works of GOD, the FATHER are the work of salvation and the work of strengthening to live a holy life. These two functions are performed by the ONLY TRUE GOD, GOD the FATHER HIMSELF. Therefore, there is no reason to have any doubt over the fact that GOD is the ONE and the ONLY ONE who involves HIMSELF in various activities.

We know that the one and only sun gives warmth and light. Like the one and the same sun that gives warmth and light, the ONE AND ONLY GOD, the FATHER performs the work of salvation and the work of strengthening people to live a holy life. The work of salvation is being done in the most holy name of JESUS CHRIST and the work of strengthening is being done in the most holy name of the Holy Spirit. The ONE GOD and the ONLY GOD and the ONE AND ONLY TRUE GOD, GOD the FATHER HIMSELF is doing these two activities.

Therefore, there is no reason for anyone to have a doubt over the fact that GOD is ONLY ONE and salvation and strengthening people to live a holy life are HIS two glorious works. Salvation means saving of people's souls from sins and their consequences.
The Christian GOD is the Holy Trinity GOD-the unity of GOD the FATHER, GOD the SON and GOD the Holy Spirit as ONE GOD. The Christian GOD is the Holy Triune GOD-three functional Persons, GOD the FATHER, GOD the SON and GOD the Holy Spirit in one GODHEAD (I John 5:7). Mathematically saying, one into one into one = one (1 x 1 x 1 = 1). There is no change in the ONE GOD and the ONE AND ONLY TRUE GOD, the LORD JESUS CHRIST. In LORD JESUS CHRIST resides GOD the FATHER and GOD the holy Spirit.
The facts given above are divine secrets. None but the true servants of GOD can understand them. Anyone who reads the Holy Bible literally cannot understand the divine secrets. Though the holy scripture of the LORD has been written literally, it contains spiritual meanings and divine meanings. Only the true spiritual men can understand its exact meaning. Praise The LORD! Alleluia!    "

taken from the Book titled "ONE GOD ONE PEOPLE" written by Sadhu. C. Selvaraj, Administrator and Trustee, Beginning Pentecostal Truth Church, Malavilai, South India 629161.


How it is possible to be one God in three persons (Jesus, Holy Ghost, and God the Father)? 1)”Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one. Deuteronomy 6:4

  2)And the Word( Jesus) became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son[a] from the Father, full of grace and truth.” John 1:14

  3)In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” John 1:1

  4)He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. For by[a] him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things were created through him and for him. And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together. Coossians 1:15-17

  5)”and behold, a voice from heaven said, “This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased.” Mathew 3:17

According to these 5 verses, it tells that Jesus was created before all the rest. And in another verse says that Jesus always existed. And in another verse, it says that Jesus is God. This where I can’t explain. How can Jesus, Holy Ghost and God be one God?

In first, I thought that Jesus and Holy Ghost are 2 different creators that are uncreated and God is the uncreated one which it will equal 3 gods.

CLARIFICATION

I had a conversation today with my religious teacher, and I asked him, “sir, can I ask you something?” And he said, “yes, you can” and I asked him, “is that true that Jesus is God’s creation?” And he said, “no, Jesus is God, in fact, he part from trinity of one God.” And I asked, “how can this be possible?” And he said, “I don’t know”. What I found that in Bible says that God has sent Jesus, what is that suppose to mean? Is Jesus another creator like God Himself? And in another verse I find this:

  ”this is My beloved son! So listen to him”

Which it indicates that Jesus and God are different and not 3 in one God. But some rumors say opposite that Jesus, Holy Ghost and Father are three persons in one God.

  “I’ll be a Father to you, and you will be My sons and daughters, Says the Lord Almighty” [Corinthians, 6:18]

My questions are:

How it is possible to be 3 persons in one God?
Is there anything in Bible that clarifies the concept of trinity?

Can anyone please find something in Bible that can clearly explain how this is possible?

God is not a person.  God is a Being.
Within the One Being of God subsist the three persons of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.
Together, these three make up the One Being of God.
When Jesus was baptised in the River Jordan, all three were present: the Father whose voice was heard from heaven, the Son who was being baptised, and the Holy Spirit who appeared in the form of a dove.
That is why, when the Son died, the Father and the Holy Spirit did not also die.  The Being of God was not killed when the Son was killed because the Son is not the Father, the Father is not the Son, and the Holy Spirit is neither Father nor Son.
There has only ever been the One Being of God and there will only ever be the One Being of God.
Expressions such as "person", "Father" and "Son" are used to help us grasp the concept of a complex creator God, although it must be noted that the pre-mortal Jesus was never created, but was active in creation, along with the Holy Spirit.
The best Bible verses to explain this are in John 1:1-5 and 14:

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.  He was with God in the beginning.  Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.  In him was life, and that life was the light of men.  The light shines in the darkness, but the darkness has not understood it...  The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us.  We have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth."

Jesus is the Word.  Jesus came to earth to be born of a woman.  Jesus was God with us, back then. The Son laid down his life then took it up again and has returned to heaven, from whence he first came.
Edit: To Subsist, within the context of the Being of God, is To Exist, To Be.
Response to additional question: 2 Corinthians 6:18 must be read within the context of the previous verses about Christians not being yoked with unbelievers. They are being told to have nothing to do with pagans and idolatry.  Verse 18 is a quote from 2 Samuel 7:14 where God, through the prophet Samuel, makes promises to David regarding his kingdom.  God says “I will be his father and he shall be my son.  When he does wrong I shall punish him...  But my love will never be taken away from him as I took it away from Saul.”  David was not God’s literal son.  This is the explanation given in the NIV Study Bible notes:

This familial language expresses the special relationship God promises to maintain with David’s descendants... It marks him as the one God has chosen and enthroned to rule in his name as the official representative of God’s rule over his people. ”
The Christians in Corinth are being reminded of their special relationship with God.  Verse 16 explains: “I will live with them and walk among them, and I will be their God, and they will be my people.”
Romans 8:14 says that those who are led by the Spirit of God are sons of God.  In other words, all who have entered into the new covenant Christ Jesus established are adopted into God’s family.  It’s a spiritual relationship.   Ephesians 1:5 explains: “In love he predestined us to be adopted as his sons through Jesus Christ.”

There is only one Son of God, and that is Jesus, who brought with him his divine nature which was added to his human nature.  Those who belong to Christ are adopted into God’s family as sons and daughters, but not physically.  2 Corinthians 6:18 is about our spiritual relationship with God.

Perhaps the key to understanding the Trinity is to consider that God has the ability to extend Himself, and the two extensions of God are Jesus and the Holy Spirit. Think of God as a tree and it having two branches, those branches are Jesus and the Holy Spirit. Three Persons, but still One God.


In Eastern Orthodoxy, what is most important for the efficacy of the sacraments: the right Church or the right God? In Eastern Orthodoxy, is it most important for the efficacy of the sacraments that they be administered canonically by an ordained priest (who is in apostolic succession), or the fact that God is the one who works in and through the Holy Mysteries? Or is it both (or something else)? A discussion of canonical decisions made during the Novation and Donatist controversies would be helpful, as well as the decisions of Church councils. I am specifically interested in the sacraments of Baptism and Holy Communion (the Mystical Supper).

I'm not Orthodox and I don't know much on Orthodox theology, but I'll try to answer from what I have found.

AFAIK Orthodox Church shares the ex opere operato doctrine though the understanding is not the same (here near the bottom). This means that the answer is "God". The action of the priest is necessary, but not so much, it's less important than in Catholic understanding.

The priest is necessary for Eucharist (like in Catholic Church). For baptism the priest is not necessary: under extraordinary conditions, even a layman can baptise.

I'm Orthodox, but not a scholar by any means.  I can only share how I understand things, and invite correction from the more erudite!

The Sacraments, or Holy Mysteries, are asked from God, for the People of God (Laity), by and with clergy ordained (set apart from among us) to service these needs that we have (baptism, Eucharist, repentance, marriage, healing, burial,  etc.); in the context of, and through, the Church (Body of Christ) that we comprise. It is not possible for a person who is not a baptized member of the Church to partake of the Holy Mysteries (sacraments), with few exceptions (which not all Orthodox will even make).  In the context of an Orthodox church service, Orthodox Christians, individually and as part of the Body of Christ, offer themselves to Christ, as He did to us, and receive the Mysteries in return.  The only question touching on the idea of efficacy, therefore, is whether or not we are making that effort of offering ourselves to God, truly and constantly, and in peace with each other and the world around us, or if we're just taking God's Mercy for granted.  Which of course is not to say that you won't get His Mercy, since we can't ever really "deserve" it and there's no way to "earn" it.  It's about using your free will to choose to turn toward God and what He wants, instead of turning always to what you want, and accepting what comes from Him in return.  I know that doesn't specifically answer the question, but I'm not sure it can be answered in the way it was asked because the frame of reference is quite different. I hope it makes some kind of sense, though!


Is the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of the Father? Is the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of the Father? It's a pretty simple question, so I don't really know if there is much I can add to the body.

I will answer from the Trinitarian perspective.
The two terms are synonymous...

But when they hand you over, do not worry about how or what you are to say; for it will be given you in that hour what you are to say. For it is not you who speak, but it is the Spirit of your Father who speaks in you. -Matthew 10:19-20
When they arrest you and hand you over, do not worry beforehand about what you are to say, but say whatever is given you in that hour; for it is not you who speak, but it is the Holy Spirit. -Mark 13:11

...and yet, while the Father "is spirit"...

God is spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth. -John 4:24

...the Father is not "the Holy Spirit."

But when He, the Spirit of truth, comes, He will guide you into all the truth; for He will not speak on His own initiative, but whatever He hears, He will speak; and He will disclose to you what is to come. -John 16:13

If the Holy Spirit was just the Father in His spirit form, then He would in fact be speaking on His own initiative. Since Jesus makes it clear that the Spirit will not speak on His own initiative, but will do what He is told (basically), that indicates there is One with more authority who is "over" Him.
Conclusion: From these passages we can conclude that "the Holy Spirit" is not the Father (though the Father "is spirit") and yet, the "Spirit of your Father" is synonymous with "the Holy Spirit." Perhaps the best explanation is that the Spirit is "of" the Father in the sense that He comes forth from the Father, without confusing the two as if they were one Person.

Is the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of the Father?

Yes, That is the part of God that carries out the word of God, or the will of God. God speaks his word and the Holy Spirit makes sure it get don't according to God's will. Genesis 1;2 The Spirit of God was moving over the surface of the water, waiting for God to speak.

Even today the Holy Spirit is waiting for you to speak God's word, It is hard to be effective witness with out it, in you to carry out God's will. Acts 1; 4,5 this tells you that you need the baptism of the Holy Spirit or you witness will be weak. John baptized with water you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit and fire. The world is still happening and it still needs witness, to be a effective witness you need it. We didn't walk with Jesus we didn't see Jesus were not call to be apostle, No but you are called to be a witness. Not a run down and kick in the head witness, But one who has the power of God following out of them to destroy the works of the enemy on the Earth. Read Mark chapter 4 again Don't Kick people or hit them over the head with it either hit yourself over the head with it. Then learn to love people with it. It works.


In Rev 9:4 What grass was left for them to not hurt? When the first angel sounds all green grass is burnt up.

The first angel sounded, and there followed hail and fire mingled with blood, and they were cast upon the earth: and the third part of trees was burnt up, and all green grass was burnt up.
-Rev 8:7

When the 5th angel sounds it is commanded not to hurt the grass or the earth.

And it was commanded them that they should not hurt the grass of the earth, neither any green thing, neither any tree; but only those men which have not the seal of God in their foreheads.
-Rev 9:4

What grass was left for them not to hurt?

Cecil is very correct in that the book of revelation was written with heavy use of symbolism. You really have to study the scriptures around the one you are confused about in order to understand them.

There is also the translation to consider. My New World Translation renders the scripture in Revelation 8:7 as:

  "The first one blew his trumpet. And there was hail and fire mingled with blood, and it was hurled to the earth; and a third of the earth was burned up, and a third of the trees were burned up, and all the green vegetation was burned up."

However those scriptures are talking about the same thing whether it be grass or vegetation. I have the book, but it is not currently on the website. I will be using the book Revelation-ITS GRAND CLIMAX AT HAND! chapters 21 and 22 as my source for gleaning more from the book of revelation. The book itself is very well researched and breaks down each scripture and explains it. So on the topic's we are looking at in chapters 8 and 9 it says this.

  "In the Bible, the word “earth” often refers to mankind. (Genesis 11:1; Psalm 96:1) Since the second plague is on the sea, which also has to do with mankind, “the earth” must refer to the seemingly stable human society that Satan has built up and that is due to be destroyed. (2 Peter 3:7; Revelation 21:1) The plague scenario reveals that false religion's third of the earth is scorched by the searing heat of Jehovah’s disapproval. Her prominent ones—standing like trees in the midst of her—are burned up by the proclaiming of Jehovah’s adverse judgment. All her hundreds of millions of members, if they continue to support false religion, become like scorched blades of grass, spiritually wilted in God’s eyes.—Compare Psalm 37:1, 2."

Really then false religion is not being literally burned up, but spiritually. They are at that point experiencing God's full disapproval of them.

Later in chapter 9 of revelations that book again elaborates as to what those symbols mean.

  "First, though, let us examine other scriptures that will help us to understand this plague better.
  The Bible book of Joel, written during the ninth century B.C.E., describes a plague of insects, including locusts, that is similar to the one that John sees. (Joel 2:1-11, 25) It was to cause much discomfort for apostate Israel but would also result in individual Jews’ repenting and returning to Jehovah’s favor. (Joel 2:6, 12-14) When that time arrived, Jehovah would pour out his spirit upon “every sort of flesh,” while fearful signs and alarming portents would precede “the coming of the great and fear-inspiring day of Jehovah.”—Joel 2:11, 28-32.

  "There was a fulfillment of Joel chapter 2 in the first century. It was then, at Pentecost 33 C.E., that holy spirit was poured out, anointing the first Christians and empowering them to speak “the magnificent things of God” in many tongues. As a result, a large crowd assembled. The apostle Peter addressed those astonished onlookers, quoting Joel 2:28, 29 and explaining that they were witnessing its fulfillment. (Acts 2:1-21) But there is no record of a literal insect plague at that time, causing discomfort to some and leading others to repentance."

  "Was there a figurative plague during those days? Yes, indeed! It came as a result of the relentless preaching of the newly anointed Christians. Through them, Jehovah invited those Jews who would listen to repent and enjoy blessings from him. (Acts 2:38-40; 3:19) The individuals who responded received his favor to a remarkable degree. But to the ones who refused the invitation, the first-century Christians became like a devastating swarm of locusts. Starting in Jerusalem, they spread through all Judaea and Samaria. Soon they were everywhere, tormenting the unbelieving Jews by publicly proclaiming Jesus’ resurrection, with all that this implied. (Acts 1:8; 4:18-20; 5:17-21, 28, 29, 40-42; 17:5, 6; 21:27-30) That plaguing continued until the “fear-inspiring day,” in 70 C.E., when Jehovah brought the Roman armies against Jerusalem to destroy it. Only those Christians who in faith called on the name of Jehovah were saved.—Joel 2:32; Acts 2:20, 21; Proverbs 18:10."

So something very similar was prophesied about locusts tormenting people and an outcome is given in the bible. So what about the modern time fulfillment of revelations locusts? Revelation 9:4-6

  "They were told not to harm the vegetation of the earth or any green plant or any tree, but only those people who do not have the seal of God on their foreheads. And it was granted the locusts, not to kill them, but to torment them five months, and their torment was like torment by a scorpion when it strikes a person. In those days people will seek death but will by no means find it, and they will long to die, but death will flee from them."

And the books explanation:

  "Notice that this plague is not directed first against the people or prominent ones among them—the ‘vegetation and trees of the earth.’ (Compare Revelation 8:7.) The locusts are to harm only those men who do not have the seal of God on their foreheads, those of false religion who claim to be sealed but whose record belies that claim. (Ephesians 1:13, 14) Thus, the tormenting utterances of these modern-day locusts were directed first against the false religious leaders. How these self-assuming men must have been tormented at hearing it publicly announced that not only were they failing to lead their flocks to heaven but they themselves would not get there! Truly, it has been a case of ‘the blind leading the blind’!
  "

So now that we know what those passages mean we can analyze your question better. The green vegetation or grass mentioned in chapter 9 are the men that are not in a leadership position be it government or religious. They are the common people.

Because revelations is very symbolic is is tough to say what portion of mankind is included in the grass/vegetation or what it means for them to be burnt up. That could mean a spiritual burning or withering. Thus they are spiritually weakened, but they can be hurt or weakened further.

The thing we need to remember first is that the Revelation was written mostly in Symbolic language. The reason for this may well have been that Christians were being very much persecuted at that time, as is witnessed by the fact that John was currently serving a sentence on Patmos for being a Christian.

Even so we know from experience that when Grass, trees and indeed forests are burned they reseed from seeds, roots, and so forth even though the green grass had been burned there would still be grass available.

However in the same spirit of translation the idea here is that the 5th angel was sent to punish mankind and not nature.

John due to his circumstance would have used every trick he could think of and Surely the Angels themselves would have made sure that the messages to the Churches, and the word of Jesus would be preserved and as innocuous as necessary to not arouse the suspicion of the Romans. Certainly John would have been under strict Roman observance, since the Island of Patmos was in fact a penal colony.


A Question regarding arguments against the Nicene Creed The Nicene Creed, produced at the First Council of Nicaea in 325 AD, was later amended (see Wikipedia) at the First Council of Constantinople in 381 AD and states :
( I am quoting excerpts from the original Greek and the literal English) :

Πιστεουμεν εις ενα θεον Πατερα [...]. . . . I believe in one God (the) Father [...]
και εις ενα Κυριον Ιησουν Χριστον . . . . . and in one Lord Jesus Christ,
τον υιον του θεου, τον μονογενη. . . . . . . the son of God, the only-begotten,
τον εκ του Πατρος γεννηθεντα . . . . . . . . that of the Father begotten
προ παντων των αιωνων [...] . . . . . . . . . . . before all the ages [...]

Francis Warden wrote a Ph.D. dissertation in 1938 which was summarised in 1953 in a journal and led to a publication by Dale Moody (also 1953) in the Journal of Biblical Literature which argued against the Nicene Creed's expression of 'only begotten' for the Greek word  monogenes (used nine times in scripture) and argued that the meaning should be 'one of a kind' or 'unique'.
This is a strange thesis as that is what monos, by itself, means. Moody has failed to translate the -genes suffix and has ended up conveying the concept of solitude, rather than expressing the fact of a relationship, especially considering the nine contexts of intimate relationship recorded in scripture :-
Luke 7:12, 8:42, 9:38 Hebrews 11:17 John 1:14,18 3:16,18 I John 4:9.
Subsequently, Denny Burk, Professor of Biblical Studies at Boyce College (The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, Kentucky) argued strongly against Dale Moody's conclusions. Also, Charles Lee Irons of the Fuller Theological Seminary argued against it and contributed to a book Retrieving Eternal Generation, Zondervan 2017, in which ten University Professors and three Assistant Professors argued unanimously in favour of the Nicene stance on the subject.
I am interested to know if there has been any response to the extensive research work of Burk, Irons and their compatriots and am interested to know if any further arguments, from the opposing faction, have been presented against this considerable resistance to Dale Moody's theory.
Denny Burk - Monogenes and Eternal Generation
Charles Lee Irons - The Only Begotten

Warden's thesis is not strange at all. That is what the word was used for in a several ancient Greek texts:

μονο-γενής, ές, Ep. and Ion. μουνο-, (γένος): the only member of a kin or kind: hence, generally, only, single. Used as such in Hes.Op.376, Hdt.7.221, cf. Ev.Jo.1.14, Ant.Lib.32.1; of Hecate, Hes. Th.426.

The association with "begotten" is logical for a Latin speaker, as the Greek γενής shares the same IndoGermanic root as the Latin verb genere, which can both mean to be born and to beget.

(used nine times in scripture)

OP makes the oft repeated mistake of only counting the NT as Greek when there are other Greek scriptures. When the LXX is taken into account 'μονογενης' in its various forms appears 20 times. (Although, this runs afoul of the slippery definition of the word 'scripture' because it includes 7 citations in the Apocrypha.)
If we are to adhere to Sola Scriptura, at its broadest extent, then the Nicene viewpoint just edges out the Warden interpretation. However, 3 times as many verses either are ambiguous enough to allow either viewpoint or does not support either -- and at worse entirely offers another view altogether at least 3 times. If you take out the Apocryphal verses, then the Nicene view loses more than half of its explicit supporting verses. This brings its edging out Warden's view down to winning out by just one more verse.
For your review, here are the verses:
μονογενεῖς   Noun, Acc Plur Masc

Tobit 8:17

εὐλογητὸς εἶ ὅτι ἠλέησας δύο μονογενεῖς· ποίησον αὐτοῖς, δέσποτα, ἔλεος, συντέλεσον τὴν ζωὴν αὐτῶν ἐν ὑγιείᾳ μετὰ εὐφροσύνης καὶ ἐλέους.
(NRSV) Blessed are You because You had compassion on two only children. Be merciful to them, O Master, and keep them safe; bring their lives to fulfillment in happiness and mercy.”
[Tobit’s son Tobias and his wife Sarah are both called the only child of their respective parents – a similar use in common with the Nicene, although ambiguous here, other verses in Tobit make this explicit.]

μονογενές    Adj, Nom/Acc Sing Neut

WisSol 7:22

Ἔστιν γὰρ ἐν αὐτῇ πνεῦμα νοερόν, ἅγιον, μονογενές, πολυμερές, λεπτόν, εὐκίνητον, τρανόν, ἀμόλυντον, σαφές, ἀπήμαντον, φιλάγαθον, ὀξύ, ἀκώλυτον,
(NRSV) There is in her a spirit that is intelligent, holy, unique, manifold, subtle, mobile, clear, unpolluted, distinct, invulnerable, loving the good, keen, irresistible,
[Wisdom has an only-begotten spirit in her? A use counter to the Nicene.]

μονογενὴ/μονογενῆ    Adj, Acc Sing Masc/Fem, Nom/Acc Plur Neut

Psa 22:20 (LXX: Psa 21:21)

ῥῦσαι ἀπὸ ῥομφαίας τὴν ψυχήν μου καὶ ἐκ χειρὸς κυνὸς τὴν μονογενῆ μου·
(RSV) Deliver my soul from the sword, my life from the power of the dog!
(AMPC) Deliver my life from the sword, my dear life [my only one] from the power of the dog [the agent of execution].
[Only-begotten life? Unique life? Or is the Psalmist alluding to an only child?]

Psa 35:17 (LXX: Psa 34:17)

κύριε, πότε ἐπόψῃ; ἀποκατάστησον τὴν ψυχήν μου ἀπὸ τῆς κακουργίας αὐτῶν, ἀπὸ λεόντων τὴν μονογενῆ μου.
(NRSV) How long, O Lord, will you look on? Rescue me from their ravages, my life from the lions!
(AMPC) Lord, how long will You look on [without action]? Rescue my life from their destructions, my dear and only life from the lions!
[Only-begotten life? Unique life? Or is the Psalmist alluding to an only child?]

Odes 15:13

κύριε υἱὲ μονογενὴ
Lord, the only-begotten Son
[Follows orthodox pattern, since it is a song written by Nicenean adherents.]

PsSol 18:4

ἡ παιδεία σου ἐφʼ ἡμᾶς ὡς υἱὸν πρωτότοκον μονογενῆ ἀποστρέψαι ψυχὴν εὐήκοον ἀπὸ ἀμαθίας ἐν ἀγνοίᾳ.
(Brenton) Your discipline for us [is] as for a firstborn son, an only child, to divert the docile soul from the stupidity [caused] by ignorance.
[Refers to God as disciplining Israelites as though they were His only-begotten child, i.e.  a national, corporate only-begotten child. God has an only-begotten son besides Jesus? Or is this only metaphorical? Does this contrasts with the ‘unique’ interpretation?]

John 3:16

Οὕτως γὰρ ἠγάπησεν ὁ Θεὸς τὸν κόσμον, ὥστε τὸν Υἱὸν τὸν μονογενῆ ἔδωκεν, ἵνα πᾶς ὁ πιστεύων εἰς αὐτὸν μὴ ἀπόληται ἀλλʼ ἔχῃ ζωὴν αἰώνιον.
(NRSV) For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, so that everyone who believes in him may not perish but may have eternal life.
[Ambiguous – fits either intpretation.]

Heb 11:17

Πίστει προσενήνοχεν Ἀβραὰμ τὸν Ἰσαὰκ πειραζόμενος, καὶ τὸν μονογενῆ προσέφερεν ὁ τὰς ἐπαγγελίας ἀναδεξάμενος,
By faith Abraham, when put to the test, offered up Isaac. He who had received the promises was ready to offer up his only son,
[So, Abraam had only one child? No, Ishmael and not so many sons had Father Abraham? So, I’m not one of them and nor are you?]

1Jo 4:9

ἐν τούτῳ ἐφανερώθη ἡ ἀγάπη τοῦ Θεοῦ ἐν ἡμῖν, ὅτι τὸν Υἱὸν αὐτοῦ τὸν μονογενῆ ἀπέσταλκεν ὁ Θεὸς εἰς τὸν κόσμον ἵνα ζήσωμεν διʼ αὐτοῦ.
God’s love was revealed among us in this way: God sent his only Son into the world so that we might live through him.
[Ambiguous – fits either intpretation.]

μονογενής/μονογενὴς

Judg 11:34

Καὶ ἦλθεν Ιεφθαε εἰς Μασσηφα εἰς τὸν οἶκον αὐτοῦ, καὶ ἰδοὺ ἡ θυγάτηρ αὐτοῦ ἐξεπορεύετο εἰς ἀπάντησιν αὐτοῦ ἐν τυμπάνοις καὶ χοροῖς· καὶ αὕτη μονογενὴς αὐτῷ ἀγαπητή, καὶ οὐκ ἔστιν αὐτῷ πλὴν αὐτῆς υἱὸς ἢ θυγάτηρ.
(NRSV) Then Jephthah came to his home at Mizpah; and there was his daughter coming out to meet him with timbrels and with dancing. She was his only child; he had no son or daughter except her.
[Used in a similar context as the Nicene formula and adds explicitness in a following phrase.]

Tobit 3:15

καὶ οὐκ ἐμόλυνα τὸ ὄνομά μου οὐδὲ τὸ ὄνομα τοῦ πατρός μου ἐν τῇ γῇ τῆς αἰχμαλωσίας μου. μονογενής εἰμι τῷ πατρί μου, καὶ οὐχ ὑπάρχει αὐτῷ παιδίον, ὃ κληρονομήσει αὐτόν, οὐδὲ ἀδελφὸς ἐγγὺς οὐδὲ ὑπάρχων αὐτῷ υἱός, ἵνα συντηρήσω ἐμαυτὴν αὐτῷ γυναῖκα. ἤδη ἀπώλοντό μοι ἑπτά· ἵνα τί μοι ζῆν; καὶ εἰ μὴ δοκεῖ σοι ἀποκτεῖναί με, ἐπίταξον ἐπιβλέψαι ἐπʼ ἐμὲ καὶ ἐλεῆσαί με καὶ μηκέτι ἀκοῦσαί με ὀνειδισμόν.
(NRSV) and that I have not disgraced my name or the name of my father in the land of my exile. I am my father’s only child; he has no other child to be his heir; and he has no close relative or other kindred for whom I should keep myself as wife. Already seven husbands of mine have died. Why should I still live? But if it is not pleasing to you, O Lord, to take my life, hear me in my disgrace
[Used in a similar context as the Nicene formula and adds explicitness in a following phrase.]

Tobit 6:11 (AlexVat)

εἶπεν ὁ ἄγγελος τῷ παιδαρίῳ Ἄδελφε, σήμερον αὐλισθησόμεθα παρὰ Ραγουηλ, καὶ αὐτὸς συγγενής σού ἐστιν, καὶ ἔστιν αὐτῷ θυγάτηρ μονογενὴς ὀνόματι Σαρρα·
(NRSV) Raphael said to the young man, “Brother Tobias.” “Here I am,” he answered. Then Raphael[a] said to him, “We must stay this night in the home of Raguel. He is your relative, and he has a daughter named Sarah.
[The only-begotten or uniqueness is almost ignored in translation.]

Tobit 6:15 (Sin)

καὶ νῦν φοβοῦμαι ἐγώ – ὅτι αὐτὴν οὐκ ἀδικεῖ, ἀλλʼ ὃς ἂν θελήσῃ ἐγγίσαι αὐτῆς, ἀποκτέννει αὐτόν· μονογενής εἰμι τῷ πατρί μου – μὴ ἀποθάνω καὶ κατάξω τὴν ζωὴν τοῦ πατρός μου καὶ τῆς μητρός μου μετʼ ὀδύνης ἐπʼ ἐμοὶ εἰς τὸν τάφον αὐτῶν· καὶ υἱὸς ἕτερος οὐχ ὑπάρχει αὐτοῖς, ἵνα θάψῃ αὐτούς.
(NRSV) It does not harm her, but it kills anyone who desires to approach her. So now, since I am the only son my father has, I am afraid that I may die and bring my father’s and mother’s life down to their grave, grieving for me—and they have no other son to bury them.
[Used in a similar context as the Nicene formula and adds explicitness in a following clause – although, the word ‘son’ is not present in the Greek and must be inferred.]

Psa 25:16 (LXX: Psa 24:16)

ἐπίβλεψον ἐπʼ ἐμὲ καὶ ἐλέησόν με, ὅτι μονογενὴς καὶ πτωχός εἰμι ἐγώ.
(NRSV) Turn to me and be gracious to me, for I am lonely and afflicted.
[The translation adds another view to the mix. Not unique nor only-begotten, but solitary.]

Luke 7:12

ὡς δὲ ἤγγισεν τῇ πύλῃ τῆς πόλεως, καὶ ἰδοὺ ἐξεκομίζετο τεθνηκὼς μονογενὴς υἱὸς τῇ μητρὶ αὐτοῦ, καὶ αὐτὴ ἦν χήρα, καὶ ὄχλος τῆς πόλεως ἱκανὸς ἦν σὺν αὐτῇ.
(NRSV) As he approached the gate of the town, a man who had died was being carried out. He was his mother’s only son, and she was a widow; and with her was a large crowd from the town.
[Ambiguous – fits either interpretation.]

Luke 8:42

ὅτι θυγάτηρ μονογενὴς ἦν αὐτῷ ὡς ἐτῶν δώδεκα καὶ αὐτὴ ἀπέθνῃσκεν. Ἐν δὲ τῷ ὑπάγειν αὐτὸν οἱ ὄχλοι συνέπνιγον αὐτόν.
(NRSV) for he had an only daughter, about twelve years old, who was dying. As he went, the crowds pressed in on him.
[Ambiguous – fits either interpretation.]

Luke 9:38

καὶ ἰδοὺ ἀνὴρ ἀπὸ τοῦ ὄχλου ἐβόησεν λέγων Διδάσκαλε, δέομαί σου ἐπιβλέψαι ἐπὶ τὸν υἱόν μου, ὅτι μονογενής μοί ἐστιν,
(NRSV) Just then a man from the crowd shouted, “Teacher, I beg you to look at my son; he is my only child.
[Ambiguous – fits either interpretation.]

John 1:18

Θεὸν οὐδεὶς ἑώρακεν πώποτε· μονογενὴς Θεὸς ὁ ὢν εἰς τὸν κόλπον τοῦ Πατρὸς, ἐκεῖνος ἐξηγήσατο.
(ESV) No one has ever seen God; the only God, who is at the Father's side, he has made him known.
[The only-begotten God?  Here we have either polytheism or Arianism – definitely not what Nicaea tried to establish. (Or we could just explain it away to the detriment of God preserving His Holy Word through the centuries.)]

μονογενοῦς       Adj, Gen Sing Masc/Fem/Neut

John 1:14

Καὶ ὁ Λόγος σὰρξ ἐγένετο καὶ ἐσκήνωσεν ἐν ἡμῖν, καὶ ἐθεασάμεθα τὴν δόξαν αὐτοῦ, δόξαν ὡς μονογενοῦς παρὰ Πατρός, πλήρης χάριτος καὶ ἀληθείας.
(NRSV) And the Word became flesh and lived among us, and we have seen his glory, the glory as of a father’s only son, full of grace and truth.
[Ambiguous, could fit either party’s argument., but the word ‘son’ must be inferred as it is not present in the Greek.]

John 3:18

ὁ πιστεύων εἰς αὐτὸν οὐ κρίνεται· ὁ μὴ πιστεύων ἤδη κέκριται, ὅτι μὴ πεπίστευκεν εἰς τὸ ὄνομα τοῦ μονογενοῦς Υἱοῦ τοῦ Θεοῦ.
Those who believe in him are not condemned; but those who do not believe are condemned already, because they have not believed in the name of the only Son of God.
[Ambiguous, could fit either party’s argument.]


According to Catholicism and/ or Protestantism, how many times was Jesus of Nazareth, whether pre-incarnate or incarnate, begotten? How many times was Jesus of Nazareth, whether pre-incarnate or incarnate, begotten?

Once - in two different ways depending on our definition of 'begotten'

There seems to be some confusion on the subject because "only begotten" a theological term  does not mean "begotten" a biblical term.

But to answer your question, if thinking 'begotten' as in 'only begotten' it gains prominence in Council of Nicaea in A.D. 325 representing Christ’s single eternal generation:

  The phrase “only-begotten” is not an accurate translation and should not be used in any of the nine passages. This phrase is derived from the Latin Vulgate (a translation of the Bible from about the 5th century which has been quite influential on other translations) and reflects certain theological debates about the person of Christ. While the language of the Word being born of God is present in the 2nd century, the most notable occurrence of this language is the creed from the Council of Nicaea in A.D. 325. This creed speaks of the Son of God as begotten of the Father, unique—that is, from the substance of the Father—God from God, light from light, true God from true God, begotten not made, of one substance with the Father. This creed was the result of the rejection of the heresy that the Son of God was the first created being. Ultimately the phrase “begotten not made” leads to what theologians call the doctrine of the eternal generation of the Son. (Elwell, W. A., & Beitzel, B. J. (1988). Baker encyclopedia of the Bible (1590). Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House.)

Not to say that the theological term is not very biblical. When the word begotten is used with “son” it does mean God’s only Son, indicating God’s absolute delight towards him and his absolute uniqueness (Jn 3:16, 18; 1 Jn 4:9). The statement at the baptism and transfiguration of Jesus in the Synoptics 'This is my beloved son' also carries the same sense of God’s absolute delight towards him and his absolute uniqueness, but not principally a literal/spiritual 'birth'. Not 'principally' a 'birth' but by implication as Jesus is unique since he is also eternally begotten. If that does not make him unique I do not know what can. In fact the very notion of a son, and all its uses in scripture could be argued as having its ultimate meaning in dimly reflecting the glory of the Son. The concept of sonship finds its ultimate meaning in Christ.

To confuse matters more, in Hebrews Chapter 1:5 it reads ‘For to which of the angels did God ever say, “You are my Son, today I have begotten you”? Or again,  “I will be to him a father, and he shall be to me a son”? this seems to imply a 'birth' or sorts, but not really. From this type of reference we are naturally tempted to mix the theological term (i.e. eternal generation) with the biblical prophecy first fulfilled in David (as a type) and in Christ as Messiah. Therefore, although “only begotten” is a theological term referring to a single eternal event, ‘today I have begotten you’ means something totally different in terms of a true generation, or 'birth'. This really refers to his 'birth' from the dead, or the first born.

John Owen explains the different views about 'begotten' very well here, as well as the correct view to take:

  And some assign this to the day of his incarnation, when he declared him to be his Son, and that he should be so called, as Luke 1:35; some to the day of his baptism, when he was again solemnly from heaven proclaimed so to be, Matt. 3:17; some to the day of his resurrection, when he was declared to be the Son of God with power, Rom. 1:4, and Acts 13:33; some to the day of his ascension, whereunto these words are applied. And all these interpretations are consistent, and reconcilable with each other, inasmuch as they are all means serving unto the same end, that of his resurrection from the dead being the most signal amongst them, and fixed on in particular by our apostle in his application of this testimony unto him, Acts 13:33.
  And in this sense alone the words have any appearance of respect unto David, as a type of Christ, seeing he was said, as it were, to be begotten of God when he raised him up, and established him in his rule and kingdom. (Owen, J. (1854). Vol. 20: An Exposition of the Epistle to the Hebrews, Volume 3 (W. H. Goold, Ed.). Works of John Owen (136–137). Edinburgh: Johnstone and Hunter.)

Conclusion: The biblical term “begotten” refers to the resurrection of Christ, which happened once. The theological term “only begotten” refers to the eternal generation of the Son, by an inconceivable communication of the essence and substance of the Godhead by the Father --- only happened in a continuous forever. God’s absolute delight towards Christ and his absolute uniqueness implied by the words 'only Son' brings the single eternal generation and the single generation from the dead together under the Sonship theme. Both his eternal generation and his resurrection make him absolutely unique and proven fully approved of by God. This is partly why Jesus always used the phrase 'the Son' as implying being one and only person generated from yet equal to his Father, for example, as in John 5:16-29.

The Logos has two nativities begotten eternally from the Father before all ages and born of the Virgin for our salvation.

If anyone will not confess that the Word of God has two nativities, that which is before all ages from the Father, outside time and without a body, and secondly that nativity of these latter days when the Word of God came down from the heavens and was made flesh of holy and glorious Mary, mother of God and ever-virgin, and was born from her: let him be anathema.
Second Constantinople (553), Anathemas Against Three Chapters, Canon 2.

The first nativity refer to His begotten eternally from the Father while His second nativity is always referred to as born of the Virgin not begotten. Subtle difference but theologically significant. Because begotten refer to His eternal generation while born refer to His temporal conception by Theotokos. The same self Logos has two nativities He was begotten once in His divinity and born once in His humanity.

[T]his whole contemplation begins in the Scripture, because it begins with Jesus. Jesus is the Son of God. Well, how is he the Son of God? He’s the Son of God because he’s begotten of the Father, meaning he has no human begetter. He has no human father. His Father, literally, is God. And God who is his Father begets him before all ages, and then this very one, who is God’s Son, is born as a man, as a human being, from the Virgin Mary. And it’s interesting that, in Greek, the same verb, when it applies to a father, is “beget”; when it applies to a mother, it’s “born.” So we wouldn’t say that Jesus was “begotten” of Mary humanly; he was “born” of Mary humanly. But we would also not say that he was “born” of the Father; he was “begotten” of the Father. Those are important things to think about, and that’s why we’re talking about them now. We have to contemplate these things and get it straight, get it clear.
Fr. Thomas Hopko, The Holy Trinity.

The same Greek verb can be used in two distinguishable ways: one to designate the eternal relationship between the Father and His Son (μονογενής) and another to designate the temporal relationship between the Theotokos and her Son (γεννήθηκε).

Begotten of His Father before the worlds according to His Godhead; but in these last days for us men and for our salvation born of the Virgin Mary, the Mother of God according to His manhood.
Pope St. Leo the Great, Tome (448).


Which prophecies are fulfilled outside of Scripture? In thinking over the "fulfillment" of certain prophecies in AD 70, it struck me that this is really the only prophecy (other than the Second Coming) that isn't fulfilled in Scripture.

Even the general prophecies about gospel proclamation and evil abounding are partially fulfilled in Acts, as we see things spinning into motion.

So, other than the AD 70 prophecy (assuming you believe that's the fulfillment, which I'm beginning to doubt) and the Second Coming, are there any prophecies in the Old Testament (or the New?) that (regardless of their fulfillment status) are not fulfilled in Scripture?

To clarify, I'm not looking for extra-biblical support for prophecies; rather, I'm looking for prophecies which are only fulfilled outside Scripture and whose fulfillment is never mentioned in the Bible.

In Daniel 2, Nebuchadnezzar has a dream. Daniel interprets the dream, even though Nebuchadnezzar first insists that Daniel tell him the details of what he saw.  He responds:

31 “Your Majesty looked, and there before you stood a large statue—an enormous, dazzling statue, awesome in appearance. 32 The head of the statue was made of pure gold, its chest and arms of silver, its belly and thighs of bronze, 33 its legs of iron, its feet partly of iron and partly of baked clay. 34 While you were watching, a rock was cut out, but not by human hands. It struck the statue on its feet of iron and clay and smashed them. 35 Then the iron, the clay, the bronze, the silver and the gold were all broken to pieces and became like chaff on a threshing floor in the summer. The wind swept them away without leaving a trace. But the rock that struck the statue became a huge mountain and filled the whole earth. ...
44 “In the time of those kings, the God of heaven will set up a kingdom that will never be destroyed, nor will it be left to another people. It will crush all those kingdoms and bring them to an end, but it will itself endure forever. 45 This is the meaning of the vision of the rock cut out of a mountain, but not by human hands —a rock that broke the iron, the bronze, the clay, the silver and the gold to pieces.

The interpretation is then clearly identified as those kingdoms which will rise up after Babylon - and historically speaking, these can be very closely ascribed to the Medeo-Persian, Macedonian, and Roman empires. Indeed, the prophecy is so good that many scholars refuse to date Daniel to the time of Nebuchadnezzar because of it.  Within the Protestant canon, there is no mention of Alexander the Great, nor of the rise of Rome.
The point of this vision, and the prophecy as a whole, however, is NOT the statue.  Indeed, so much ink has been spilt over exactly what the kingdoms represent, etc... - but notice that the point of the dream isn't the statue.  It is the rock, not hewn by humans, that destroys all the Kingdoms of the world.
What is this rock? Well, I think its pretty clear that upon that rock, Jesus built his kingdom, and the Gates of Hell will not prevail against it.  Rome, even divided into East and West, and later into many kingdoms, was clearly succeeded, not by an earthly kingdom, but an ecclesiastical one.  It was not made by human hands. And while we may have witnessed its birth in Acts 2, its full flower was clearly not understood until well after the canon was closed. John the Revelator may have understood that the church would be triumphant - but it certainly wasn't going to be in his lifetime.
Want a prophecy that isn't attested to by Scripture alone? Look no further than the church, my friend.

I believe all of the prophecies in the bible were fulfilled in the generation of Jesus' disciples through the destruction of Jerusalem and Jerusalem temple in 70 AD.

Luke 21:20-32 (NIV) - “When you see Jerusalem being surrounded by armies, you will know that its desolation is near. Then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains, let those in the city get out, and let those in the country not enter the city. For this is the time of punishment in fulfillment of all that has been written. How dreadful it will be in those days for pregnant women and nursing mothers! There will be great distress in the land and wrath against this people. They will fall by the sword and will be taken as prisoners to all the nations. Jerusalem will be trampled on by the Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled.

“There will be signs in the sun, moon and stars. On the earth, nations will be in anguish and perplexity at the roaring and tossing of the sea. People will faint from terror, apprehensive of what is coming on the world, for the heavenly bodies will be shaken. At that time they will see the Son of Man coming in a cloud with power and great glory. When these things begin to take place, stand up and lift up your heads, because your redemption is drawing near.”

He told them this parable: “Look at the fig tree and all the trees. When they sprout leaves, you can see for yourselves and know that summer is near. Even so, when you see these things happening, you know that the kingdom of God is near.“Truly I tell you, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened.

So no prophecies are fulfilled outside of the scriptures.


If Christ is considered the 'Son of God' then how is He a part of a Trinity? Note: This is in NO way a troll or a poke at any faith that believes in the doctrine of the Trinity but rather is simply a question for clarity.

There are several passages within the bible that refers to Jesus Christ as the "Son of God" or where He Himself refers to a "Father" who was in Heaven:

Luke 1:35 (Mary inquires of an angel how it's possible for her to ear a child while being a virgin)

  The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God

Luke 2:49 (Joesph and Mary share their concern of Christ leaving them at the age of 12. This is His response)

  And he said unto them, How is it that ye sought me? wist ye not that I must be about my Father's business?

Matthew 3:17 (The baptism of Christ)

  And lo a voice from heaven saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.

Matthew 26:39 (while suffering in the Garden of Gethsamane, Christ prays to the Father)

  and prayed saying, O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me: nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt.

In these passages, and many others, it appears that God and Jesus Christ are separate being. My limited understanding of the doctrine of the Trinity is that God, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost are "One". How does this doctrine fit with these scriptures?

For a fairly detailed explanation of the Trinity, see this answer.  But the gist of it is that God is three in person and one in nature.

Since then, there are three persons in God, they exist in relationship.  The terms Father and Son express the relationship between two of the persons; these terms do not speak in any way to the nature of God.

The question of how the relationship of Father and Son makes sense in the divine eternity is somewhat complex.  Begetting is a concept which we are less in tune with in our modern western culture, but it speaks to an idea of bringing into existence by the process of reproduction, giving rise to; bringing about.  It is the act of reproducing something of the same nature as the original being.

In our experience, begetting is temporally limited; a Father must be born and then mature before he begets.  But when he begets it's another person of like nature (note that a person begets of similar nature, but God, being inifinite, necessarily begets of perfectly identical nature).

However, in God's eternal present, begetting occurs in the immediate eternal such that there never was a time when the Son was not, but yet the Son is a second person in eternity arising from the nature of God.

In my thinking, and this is just my thought, it's as if the nature of God necessitates from all eternity that there be three persons for relationship and communion.

As something of an aside, a further point of confusion that arises is because Jesus "put off" his divine nature in order to be incarnate as a man:

  Phil 2:6-8

  6 Who, being in very nature God,
     did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage;

  7 rather, he made himself nothing
     by taking the very nature of a servant,
     being made in human likeness.

  8 And being found in appearance as a man,
     he humbled himself
     by becoming obedient to death—
        even death on a cross!

and again:

  Heb 2:9

  9 But we do see Jesus, who was made lower than the angels for a little while, now crowned with glory and honor because he suffered death, so that by the grace of God he might taste death for everyone.

In order to properly be able to redress the disobedience of Adam, it was necessary for Christ to enter our dimensions of time and space and to function in obedience as a man. To this end, scripture teaches he emptied himself of his divine nature; he was the same person, but with a temporarily (that is, within the dimensions of our temporal existence) diminished nature. He chose not to exercise his God-nature except via the Holy Spirit as a man.

So while on earth, Jesus functioned in a limited capacity, as a man invested with the Holy Spirit.  Thus he said, "the Son can do nothing by himself; he can do only what he sees his Father doing":

  John 5:19

  16 So, because Jesus was doing these things on the Sabbath, the Jewish leaders began to persecute him. 17 In his defense Jesus said to them, “My Father is always at his work to this very day, and I too am working.” 18 For this reason they tried all the more to kill him; not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God.

  19 Jesus gave them this answer: “Very truly I tell you, the Son can do nothing by himself; he can do only what he sees his Father doing, because whatever the Father does the Son also does. 20 For the Father loves the Son and shows him all he does. Yes, and he will show him even greater works than these, so that you will be amazed. 21 For just as the Father raises the dead and gives them life, even so the Son gives life to whom he is pleased to give it. 22 Moreover, the Father judges no one, but has entrusted all judgment to the Son, 23 that all may honor the Son just as they honor the Father. Whoever does not honor the Son does not honor the Father, who sent him.

Note there is a duality of sorts here; Jesus is still God in person, but has emptied himself of his divine attributes in order to become man.

If Christ is considered the 'Son of God' then how is He a part of a Trinity?

Answer:

To help us better understand the concept it's better to visualize the Most Holy Trinity and the Son of God with the use of our senses.

The picture below is the Last Vision of Sis. Lucia

  Vision of Most Holy Trinity and Our Lady of Fatima at Tuy, Spain, June 13, 1929 ~ It was at this time, at the most solemn apparition of the whole series of Fatima apparitions, that Our Lady said to Sister Lucy: "The moment has come in which God asks the Holy Father to make, and to order that in union with him and at the same time, all the bishops of the world make the consecration of Russia to My Immaculate Heart, promising to convert it because of this day of prayer and worldwide reparation

In the Last Vision of Sis. Lucia we can see the Image of an old Abba Father on above the Cross and next the Holy Spirit in the form of a dove and Jesus Christ the Son of God Crucified.

The picture also showed the Theotokos and on the right side there was an imprinted text "GRACES & MERCIES".

Now, how can this image better help us picture why Jesus Christ the Son of God is also a member of the Most Holy Trinity, Why?

Jesus Christ is the LOGOS or the WORD of God destined to be Incarnated to Redeem the Fallen Humanity, because there's is no animal not even human sacrifices can redeemed the fallen humanity back in the garden of Eden when our first parents fall into Satan temptations. The Fall of Adam and Eve since all mankind are their descendants by God's Holy Decree also inherited their fallen nature.

So, the only sacrifice acceptable to God is a sacrifice of no less than God Himself.
and this was accomplished thru LOGOS Incarnation in the person of Jesus Christ.

Jesus Christ soul is a mystery, although it is a human soul the bible tells us it pre-existed in eternity in the bosom of the Father.

New American Standard Bible

  No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him.(John1:18)

When we say bosom, Jesus substance is the same with the Father. That's why Jesus said;

  "I and the Father are one.” (John10:30)

and St.Paul tells to the Collossians what is the humanity of Jesus is as the Son of God;

  "The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. "

In conclusion, the Most Holy Trnity is One God in Three Divine Person as the Jesus Christ taught the Apostles how to Baptize before sending them to cleanse all mankind of the original sin inherited thru Adam the progenitor of mankind.

  "Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit,"(Matthew28:19)

As a bonus, I would like to you to watch and ponder this video link as the image above is of the Crucified Jesus with the Abba Father & the Holy Spirit and the Theotkos on the left side and the right side was the printed text "Graces & Mercies" is written in Genesis1:1.

Genesis1:1 is the Blueprint of God's Divine Plan that reveals to us that God foreknew that Adam & Eve will fall to temptation and that the sending of Jesus to Redeem mankind is not because Adam & Eve committed the original sin but the Omnipotent God in desiring to share His Glory to created mankind has to conceive a Divine Plan how every human being can enter His Kingdom.

And Genesis1:1 revealed that there's only one way for mankind to enter the Glory of Heaven and that is what Jesus Christ humanity offers it's called the "Way of the Cross".

Jesus in Genesis: 1. The First Word of the Bible
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RmnUkNT55gU&t=1s
The video would tell us that God conceptualize first His Divine Plan and who are the Key Players to fulfill His Dream of having a created mankind achieve Theosis/Divination for it to be worthy to enter His Kingdom.
The Divine Plan is very simple "God will create a soul and the soul will need a human body to animate and that soul must return to God Divinized or Glorified, How?

The soul of man can only be Divinized/Theosis by embracing the only way, only one way that what's Jesus Christ had shown to all of mankind, that's why God the Father sent Him to show us the Way. What is the Way?

  "THE WAY OF THE CROSS" is the only way to enter God's Kingdom.

So, going back to the picture above with the printed text "GRACES & MERCIES" on the right side and on the left side is the Theotokos.
It tells us that in order for us to follow Jesus Christ all the Way to the Foot of the Cross we need "GRACES & MERCIES" and like Jesus we need a Mother on our side.
That's why Jesus agonizing "AT THE FOOT OF THE CROSS" commanded all the Redeemed;

  "Woman BEHOLD your Son, son BEHOLD your Mother." (John19:27)

The Hebrew word "BERESHIT BARA ELOHIM" if you can decipher and digest it as it is not milk but solid food then you are already matured christian as St.Peter said;

  "Brothers, I could not address you as spiritual, but as worldly—as infants in Christ. 2I gave you milk, not solid food, for you were not yet ready for solid food. In fact, you are still not ready, 3for you are still worldly.(1Corinthian3:1-3)


Is it more Participatio Actuosa if the congregation hears the words of the Consecration? I have a question on Participatio Actuosa. This is a term that makes a lot of people confused.
Anyway, in the EF of the Roman rite the Priest says the words of the Consecration in silence. He is the only one who can hear him saying the words. In the OF the Priest says the words so that we all (unless you are deaf) can hear him. There seems to be a new teaching here. If you hear the words than you are participating more. Nowadays you should hear almost everything the Priest says. I don't know why this is.
Is it more Participatio Actuosa if the congregation hears the words of the Consecration?

"Active participation" means participating in the prayer of the Mass.
"Active participation" originally meant the congregation participating in the priest's sacrifice, especially by singing the Gregorian chant (cf. Pope St. Pius X, Tra le sollecitudini).
The words of consecration must not be said in a loud voice.
The Council of Trent, Session 22, Doctrina de ss. Missae sacrificio, 17 September 1562 anathematizes those who think

Canon IX.— […] that the rite of the Roman Church, according to which a part of the canon and the words of consecration are pronounced in a low tone [submissa voce], is to be condemned; or, that the mass ought to be celebrated in the vulgar tongue only

It also says (Chapter V. On the solemn ceremonies of the Sacrifice of the Mass.) that

holy Mother Church instituted certain rites, to wit, that certain things be pronounced in the mass in a low [summissa], and others in a louder [elatiore], tone [voce].

This teaching was also taught by Pope Pius VI in his bull Auctorem Fidei condemning the heretical Council of Pistoia [DZ 1533]:

The proposition of the [heretical] synod [of Pistoia:] […] "[…] by expressing it [the liturgy] in the vernacular language, by uttering it in a loud voice"; […]—rash, offensive to pious ears, insulting to the Church, favorable to the charges of heretics against it.