Do messianic Jews claim to be the beneficiaries of the new covenant now? Do messianic Jews say that the following is true in their lives?:

  NIV Jer 31:
  33b: ...“I will put my law in their minds
  and write it on their hearts.
  I will be their God,
  and they will be my people.
  34No longer will they teach their neighbor,
  or say to one another, ‘Know the Lord,’
  because they will all know me,
  from the least of them to the greatest,”

We are told in Hebrews 10:9-18 (and elsewhere) that Jesus ratified the new covenant with the houses of Israel and Judah when he died. It appears that the new covenant speaks of a pan-Israeli supernatural knowledge  of the Torah rather than individual knowledge involving teaching that I've not heard any express as being realized in modern times.

What do messianic Jews say about the outworking of the new covenant? Was it fulfilled in apostolic times and now gone? Is it active now? Or will it be active in the future?

I knew a Messianic Rabbi years ago, he and his congregation definitely accepted the New Covenant and the same goes for others I have since met online.  (Meaning they accepted Christ as Savior, accepted the Council of the Book of Acts that gentiles are not bound by the Mosaic law etc.).

Anyway, that rabbi tended to relate Messianic Judaism along the lines of "Wild" and "Natural" Olive Tree branches quoted at the end of this post.   His ambition was to be an evangelistic outreach to traditional Jews, as well as provide a spiritual home for them, and he wanted to be a resource for gentiles that would show them the Jewish context of the Gospel and the rest of the Bible (I think he wanted to do a lot the stuff that Jonathan Cahn currently does).

  Romans 11
  13 I am talking to you Gentiles. Inasmuch as I am the apostle to the Gentiles, I take pride in my ministry 14 in the hope that I may somehow arouse my own people to envy and save some of them. 15 For if their rejection brought reconciliation to the world, what will their acceptance be but life from the dead? 16 If the part of the dough offered as firstfruits is holy, then the whole batch is holy; if the root is holy, so are the branches.

  17 If some of the branches have been broken off, and you, though a wild olive shoot, have been grafted in among the others and now share in the nourishing sap from the olive root, 18 do not consider yourself to be superior to those other branches. If you do, consider this: You do not support the root, but the root supports you. 19 You will say then, “Branches were broken off so that I could be grafted in.” 20 Granted. But they were broken off because of unbelief, and you stand by faith. Do not be arrogant, but tremble. 21 For if God did not spare the natural branches, he will not spare you either.

We are currently apart of the new covenant.

The new covenant reaches further fulfillment on Jesus' return - then "the knowledge of the Lord will be as the waters cover the sea."

Currently, we are in a transition phase as we await the fulfillment of Ezekiel 37-38 and other end times prophecies.

Galatians 4:20-31

  20-21 -I stand in doubt of you. Tell me, ye that desire to be under
  the law, do ye not hear the law?

  22 For it is written, that Abraham had two sons, the one by a
  bondmaid, the other by a freewoman. 23-24 BUT HE WHO WAS OF THE
  BONDWOMAN WAS BORN AFTER THE FLESH;  but he of the freewoman was by
  promise. Which things are an allegory (allégoreó): for these are the 2
  covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage,
  which is Agar.

  25 For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem
  which now is, and is in bondage with her children.

  26 But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us
  all.

  27 For it is written, Rejoice, thou barren that bearest not; break
  forth and cry, thou that travailest not: for the desolate hath many
  more children than she which hath an husband.

  28 Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise.

  29 But as then he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that
  was born after the Spirit, even so it is now. Nevertheless what say
  the scripture? 30 Cast out the bondwoman and her son: FOR THE SON of
  the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the freewoman.

  31 So then, brethren, we are not children of the bondwoman, but of the
  free.

V28-29: Notice there were already those born after the spirit in Abraham’s time.

(Bondswoman) Agar is figuratively likened to the Old Covenant (Mount
Sinai) and represents individuals of her whom are bound to sin and
born by the flesh.
(Freewoman) Sarah is figuratively likened to the New Covenant (New
Jerusalem) and represents individuals of her whom are free from sin
and born by the spirit.

In Genesis, God promised Abraham a son through his wife Sarai (Sarah) whom was infertile (Ge. 15:2-4, 16:1-2, 18:12-15). This son was Isaac, who was born because of a divine promise from God and God made his covenant with him (Ge. 17:15-21) and the 12 tribe tribes of Israel descended from him. Abraham and Sarah decided for Abraham to have another son with his other wife who was a bondwoman (Ge. 16:15). This son he had by Agar was Ishmael, who did not come about due to a divine promise but a natural fleshly way. Ishmael also mocked Isaac, and was cast out of Abraham’s house which God approved of (Ge. 21:8-12).

It should be made clear that the meaning of this story is at the forefront: that God will toss out the bondwoman’s son (those born after the flesh: v23, 30). Ultimately, this allegory boils down to being a child of promise accepted by God for New Jerusalem, while the story’s persons, then these person’s traits which are assigned to the covenants are used together to illustrate this hidden lesson. This is not about God’s promises made to the national body of Israel (Ro. 9:3-4), and the assigned traits are not all inclusive for every individual. David, Moses and the other prophets from the Old Covenant will still be ‘children of the free women,’ (Lu. 13:28-29) and so will Abraham because he had faith in God’s word despite not being under either covenant. This allegory seems to have been given as a warning to those Galatians seen in the previous chapter (Gal. 3:1-5) who had gone back to walking by the flesh (being under the law of sin).

Messianic Passages: [A]

Passages regarding Israel, the prophetic timeline, and the covenants: [1] [2]

Source: Self - Messianic Jew: 3,000+ hours of Bible study.


Was eternal life promised by the Mosaic Law? John 3:16 (NIV) 16 For God so loved the world that he gave his one and
  only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have
  eternal life.

The New Testament clearly tells us how one can attain salvation or eternal life.

What about Old Testament? Was there any promise of eternal life associated with any of the Mosaic Law. For instance, was animal sacrifice promised with eternal life?

How can we understand this verse?

  Matthew 19:16 (NIV)
  Just then a man came up to Jesus and asked, “Teacher, what good thing
  must I do to get eternal life?”

If the rich man was a Jew, he must have known how to attain eternal life from the Torah.

Was there any promise of eternal life associated with any of the
  Mosaic Law. For instance, was animal sacrifice promised with eternal
  life?

No.  Eternal life is foretold in the Old Testament, but never as a promise associated to obedience to Mosaic Law.

The following verses refer to life after death, hinting at the eternal nature of life.   This explains the how the man in Matthew 19:16 knew about eternal life.

All are NIV.

  Psalm 71:20

  Though you have made me see troubles, many and bitter, you will
  restore my life again; from the depths of the earth you will again
  bring me up.

  Isaiah 26:19

  But your dead will live; their bodies will rise. You who dwell in the
  dust, wake up and shout for joy. Your dew is like the dew of the
  morning; the earth will give birth to her dead.

  Ezekiel 37:12-14

  12 Therefore prophesy and say to them: ‘This is what the Sovereign
  Lord says: My people, I am going to open your graves and bring you up
  from them; I will bring you back to the land of Israel. 13 Then you,
  my people, will know that I am the Lord, when I open your graves and
  bring you up from them. 14 I will put my Spirit in you and you will
  live, and I will settle you in your own land. Then you will know that
  I the Lord have spoken, and I have done it, declares the Lord.’”

And one that clearly teaches everlasting life as part and parcel with resurrection:

  Daniel 12:2

  Multitudes who sleep in the dust of the earth will awake: some to
  everlasting life, others to shame and everlasting contempt.

However, these are prophetic or poetic works, not books of the Law.  I'm not aware of any teachings on eternal life in the Pentateuch - this first five books, which are commonly referred to as the "books of the Law".  Technically, those are "The Law of Moses" or "Mosaic Law", so it would seem that the answer to your question is "no" if you wish to be that precise, but there are Old Testament teachings/revelations/writings on it.

From a traditional Sola Fide perspective, you wouldn't expect it to, though.

Most of the Mosaic laws talked about consequences or punishment for sin, along with a few promises of reward for obedience.

However, Scripture clearly teaches that eternal life is not earned through obedience to the Law.   It is a gift from God, not of works.  (Ephesians 2:9.) We are not justified by works of the law (Galatians 2:16)

If the Mosaic Law promised eternal life based on obedience to the Law, the entire message of Christianity would be invalidated.

No. Moses didn't write anything about eternal life or a future resurrection. Both of these were new ideas that were invented much later by the Iranian prophet Zoroaster. More


Why do the Seventh Day Adventists consider the Sabbath to begin on Friday at sunset? I understand that for the Jews, the beginning of the Sabbath is at 5 PM on Friday.
So why then does Sabbath start at sundown on Friday for the Seventh Day Adventists?

Seventh Day Adventism is what is known as a restorationist movement. This term is a references to their belief that something fundamental was corrupted or lost in Christianity and that their beliefs have unique insight to restore what was lost to the way it was supposed to me.

In the case of this question, they belief that the vast majority of Christianity from New Testament times on downward erred in their belief that the proper day to worship God changed after the resurrection. Throughout the Old Testament God's people always used the 7th day of the week (Saturday) as described in Genesis as the day set apart for the sabbath. Jews to this day continue that tradition.

Christians on the other hand believe that a change occurred when Christ was raised from the dead that in an senses sanctified that day, which happened to be the 1st day of the week (Sunday). Starting even in the pages of the New Testament you will find believers regularly meeting for worship, prayer, study of the Word, and sacraments on the 1st day of the week. Not a lot of explanation is given, everybody seems to just take it for granted that this was right and proper.

The SDA argument is that even these early Christians erred and that no direct mandate was given that would supersede the creation mandate for the 7th day (Saturday). They believe most of NT Christianity (and the 1900 some years since) was corrupted until their own prophet Ellen G. White set the record straight.

In the case of SDA, they have many beliefs that are different from mainstream Christianity besides just their meeting on the 7th day rather than the 1st. Similar 19th century revelations that "set the record straight" and (in their view) fix corrupted beliefs involve dietary restrictions (also from the Old Testament, discounting the revelations given to Peter about all foods being clean), and not believing in an eternal hell at all.

Both of these originate from Genesis 1. During creation each day started with an evening, then went into a morning.

The final day created was the Sabbath day.


Are Catholics obliged to follow scientific evidence that they find disreputable with respect to the Covid-19 pandemic? Like most of the planet, I've been taking in gobs of information about Covid-19 and vaccinations. The latest news I read was that even the horribly abortion tainted Johnson and Johnson vaccine is permissible to take as long as there are no alternatives and that the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines are somehow examples of the means justifying the ends because of their remoteness.
So that first paragraph notwithstanding (I mean completely discounting abortion from this answer which has short circuited what I think is a more important and more imperative thing for the average Catholic to deal with), do we as Catholics need to "Trust Dr. Fauci"?  Like the President implores us to?  Or should we trust our consciences.
Our parish priest said that if we choose to not get the vaccine we should protect society in other ways, but can that mean telling our neighbors to chill out, take off their masks and stop worrying so much about Covid-19; trusting God, if not the odds over the science? Or does it mean that we still need to believe everything else that the authorities tell us about Covid-19 and more-or-less become hermits just so we can avoid taking a vaccine?

Are Catholics obliged to follow scientific evidence that they find disreputable with respect to the Covid-19 pandemic?
The answer seems to be in the negative. But based on the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF) guidelines, but the faithful are also bound by government rules and guidelines. The vaccines are a separate matter. Why? The CDF guidelines have a provision for Catholics to not accept the vaccines on personal moral grounds. But, Pope Francis in order to explain that the new vaccines are morally licit and will serve the common good.
Since the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) admits that the coronavirus is air born, it would reasonably prudent to take the normal safety measures health officials are mandating: wearing masks and staying 6 ft apart from others and avoid large crowds.
At least Pope Francis is in favour of following governmental health guidelines!

Pope Francis criticized groups protesting coronavirus restrictions and praised medical workers in an op-ed published Thursday in The New York Times.
“With some exceptions, governments have made great efforts to put the well-being of their people first, acting decisively to protect health and to save lives,” the pontiff wrote Thursday. “Yet some groups protested, refusing to keep their distance, marching against travel restrictions -- as if measures that governments must impose for the good of their people constitute some kind of political assault on autonomy or personal freedom! Looking to the common good is much more than the sum of what is good for individuals. It means having a regard for all citizens and seeking to respond effectively to the needs of the least fortunate.
Francis, 83, born Jorge Mario Bergoglio in Argentina, wrote that his own personal health crisis helped him to understand how science can be used to help people recover. The pope said he was 21 in 1957 when he had part of his lung removed, The Hill reported. - Pope Francis criticizes groups protesting COVID-19 restrictions

Maybe not obliged, but Catholics must make an informed decision on this matter. That much is clear.
To say the least, it is complicated!
Catholics should strive to take the vaccine the least morally offensive possible, if possible.
The Vatican’s Note on the morality of using
some anti-Covid-19 vaccines states the following:

The question of the use of vaccines, in general, is often at the center of controversy in the forum of public opinion.
Here, our objective is only to consider the moral aspects of the use of the vaccines against Covid-19 that have been developed from cell lines derived from tissues obtained from two fetuses that were not spontaneously aborted.

As the Instruction Dignitas Personae states, in cases where cells from aborted fetuses are employed to create cell lines for use in scientific research, “there exist differing degrees of responsibility” of cooperation in evil. For example,“in organizations where cell lines of illicit origin are being utilized, the responsibility of those who make the decision to use them is not the same as that of those who have no voice in such a decision”.

In this sense, when ethically irreproachable Covid-19 vaccines are not available (e.g. in countries where vaccines without ethical problems are not made available to physicians and patients, or where their distribution is more difficult due to special storage and transport conditions, or when various types of vaccines are distributed in the same country but health authorities do not allow citizens to choose the vaccine with which to be inoculated) it is morally acceptable to receive Covid-19 vaccines that have used cell lines from aborted fetuses in their research and production process.

The fundamental reason for considering the use of these vaccines morally licit is that the kind of cooperation in evil (passive material cooperation) in the procured abortion from which these cell lines originate is, on the part of those making use of the resulting vaccines, remote. The moral duty to avoid such passive material cooperation is not obligatory if there is a grave danger, such as the otherwise uncontainable spread of a serious pathological agent - in this case, the pandemic spread of the SARS-CoV-2 virus that causes Covid-19. It must therefore be considered that, in such a case, all vaccinations recognized as clinically safe and effective can be used in good conscience with the certain knowledge that the use of such vaccines does not constitute formal cooperation with the abortion from which the cells used in production of the vaccines derive. It should be emphasized, however, that the morally licit use of these types of vaccines, in the particular conditions that make it so, does not in itself constitute a legitimation, even indirect, of the practice of abortion, and necessarily assumes the opposition to this practice by those who make use of these vaccines.

In fact, the licit use of such vaccines does not and should not in any way imply that there is a moral endorsement of the use of cell lines proceeding from aborted fetuses. Both pharmaceutical companies and governmental health agencies are therefore encouraged to produce, approve, distribute and offer ethically acceptable vaccines that do not create problems of conscience for either health care providers or the people to be vaccinated.

At the same time, practical reason makes evident that vaccination is not, as a rule, a moral obligation and that, therefore, it must be voluntary. In any case, from the ethical point of view, the morality of vaccination depends not only on the duty to protect one's own health, but also on the duty to pursue the common good. In the absence of other means to stop or even prevent the epidemic, the common good may recommend vaccination, especially to protect the weakest and most exposed. Those who, however, for reasons of conscience, refuse vaccines produced with cell lines from aborted fetuses, must do their utmost to avoid, by other prophylactic means and appropriate behavior, becoming vehicles for the transmission of the infectious agent. In particular, they must avoid any risk to the health of those who cannot be vaccinated for medical or other reasons, and who are the most vulnerable.

Finally, there is also a moral imperative for the pharmaceutical industry, governments and international organizations to ensure that vaccines, which are effective and safe from a medical point of view, as well as ethically acceptable, are also accessible to the poorest countries in a manner that is not costly for them. The lack of access to vaccines, otherwise, would become another sign of discrimination and injustice that condemns poor countries to continue living in health, economic and social poverty. - (17 Dec 2020)

On March 2, 2021 Bishop Kevin C. Rhoades of Fort Wayne-South Bend, chairman of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops’ (USCCB) Committee on Doctrine, and Archbishop Joseph F. Naumann of Kansas City in Kansas, chairman of the USCCB’s Committee on Pro-Life Activities, issued a statement on the Johnson & Johnson COVID-19 vaccine recently approved for use in the United States.

The approval of Johnson & Johnson’s COVID-19 vaccine for use in the United States again raises questions about the moral permissibility of using vaccines developed, tested, and/or produced with the help of abortion-derived cell lines.
Pfizer and Moderna’s vaccines raised concerns because an abortion-derived cell line was used for testing them, but not in their production.  The Johnson & Johnson vaccine, however, was developed, tested and is produced with abortion-derived cell lines raising additional moral concerns. The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has judged that ‘when ethically irreproachable Covid-19 vaccines are not available … it is morally acceptable to receive Covid-19 vaccines that have used cell lines from aborted fetuses in their research and production process.’ However, if one can choose among equally safe and effective COVID-19 vaccines, the vaccine with the least connection to abortion-derived cell lines should be chosen. Therefore, if one has the ability to choose a vaccine, Pfizer or Moderna’s vaccines should be chosen over Johnson & Johnson’s.
While we should continue to insist that pharmaceutical companies stop using abortion-derived cell lines, given the world-wide suffering that this pandemic is causing, we affirm again that being vaccinated can be an act of charity that serves the common good. - U.S. Bishop Chairmen for Doctrine and for Pro-Life Address the Use of the Johnson & Johnson Covid-19 Vaccine

There still remains a fair bit of confusion on the data and scientific evidence in regards to vaccines at the present. In order to follow scientific evidence that they find disreputable with respect to the Covid-19 pandemic, we as Catholics have the right to understand what the scientific evidence truly is.

Johnson & Johnson vaccine is not morally compromised and even the Vatican knows it
By tainting the COVID-19 vaccine with its taboo morality, the bishops are not respecting life, they are instead exploiting a grave situation to inject their anti-abortion politics.
Though the Archdiocese of Philadelphia did not make any additional comments about the bishops’ pronouncement, they did share the statement with educators in all Catholic schools in the five-county Philadelphia region, spokesperson Kenneth A. Gavin told The Inquirer’s Marie McCullough in an email.
The truth is, all currently approved vaccines for COVID-19 used cell lines derived from aborted fetuses in their testing phases. The Johnson & Johnson vaccine, some antiabortion activists claim, is morally compromised because it also used these cells in its production. The pharmaceutical company has stated unequivocally that there are no fetal cells in its vaccine.

All vaccine companies must give the scientific evidence of research and how the vaccines are actually made, in order that as Catholics, we can follow what the scientific community is claiming.
The Church has not pronounced on the mRNA vaccines as of yet, so Catholics must ultimately make the best informed decision possible, including talking it over with your local bishop.
The following articles may be of interest here:

Coronavirus: CDC acknowledges airborne transmission of COVID-19
Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) advice for the public
Want to Know More About mRNA Before Your COVID Jab?

Are Catholics obliged to follow scientific evidence that they find disreputable with respect to the Covid-19 pandemic?
The answer is NO, based on the CDF Guidelines, but citizens are also bound by Government rules and guidelines, and that is another battle for people to hurdle with. Why? The CDF Guidelines has a provision for Catholics to not accept the vaccines. But, Pope Francis in order to explain that the new vaccines is morally licit and will serve the common good, had shown it together with Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI by accepting the jab.

At the same time, practical reason makes evident that vaccination is not, as a rule, a moral obligation and that, therefore, it must be voluntary. In any case, from the ethical point of view, the morality of vaccination depends not only on the duty to protect one's own health, but also on the duty to pursue the common good. In the absence of other means to stop or even prevent the epidemic, the common good may recommend vaccination, especially to protect the weakest and most exposed. Those who, however, for reasons of conscience, refuse vaccines produced with cell lines from aborted fetuses, must do their utmost to avoid, by other prophylactic means and appropriate behavior, becoming vehicles for the transmission of the infectious agent. In particular, they must avoid any risk to the health of those who cannot be vaccinated for medical or other reasons, and who are the most vulnerable. -Note on the morality of using some anti-Covid-19 vaccines

We can see from the CDF Guidelines ordered by Pope Francis for publication is not mandatory, however, there is a higher wisdom why the Church united to Pope Francis was inspired by the Holy Spirit to accept the new vaccines as morally licit and serves the common good. One good example is Pope Francis visit to Iraq to serve the common good of our Muslim brothers. If Pope Francis had opposed the vaccines, then, his visit to Iraq is not possible. We have to see the bigger picture in light of scriptures like Romans13:1 and Ephesians6:12-17 and add to that the biblical prophecy on Thessalonians and Revelation 13:16-18. How will the prophecy unfold and how to interpret it belongs to the wisdom of the Church united to the Pope only.
We know, that Jesus promised the Apostles united to the Peter the guidance of the Holy Spirit the Spirit of Truth in matters of teaching the faithful on "faith & morals", and the new vaccines falls under morals.

The Promise of the Holy Spirit

…12I still have much to tell you, but you cannot yet bear to hear it. 13However, when the Spirit of truth comes, He will guide you into all truth. For He will not speak on His own, but He will speak what He hears, and He will declare to you what is to come - (John16:12-13)

But for those faithful who will not accept the vaccines, they still have responsibility to prevent the transmission of the disease by taking prophylactic measures, but since the government can impose protocols on their citizenry, it's now between government and their people.
This article from WherePeterIs further clarifies the CDF Guidelines on people who are not willing to accept the new vaccines. Also, it is related to other disreputable arguments on the issues of not wearing the mask, not following strictly social distancing and other measures that fall under "disreputable" science.

This document, much like the one from the USCCB, is clear in its reasoning. It is worth noting that the document does respect individual consciences, saying, “Those who, however, for reasons of conscience, refuse vaccines produced with cell lines from aborted fetuses, must do their utmost to avoid, by other prophylactic means and appropriate behavior, becoming vehicles for the transmission of the infectious agent. In particular, they must avoid any risk to the health of those who cannot be vaccinated for medical or other reasons, and who are the most vulnerable.” - Catholicism and the COVID-19 Vaccine

In closing, the acceptance of the new vaccines is not mandatory, but as a faithful Catholic we are bound to put our trust & obedience to the Living Church Magisterium for our guidance. With regards to other "disreputable" science like wearing face mask, social distancing,etc. it will now be a battle of obedience vs. disobedience.
My personal take or discernment on this is, God in creating mankind was instructed to obey God's commandments written in their hearts or written in their DNA, but ofcourse fallen mankind failed to practice the virtue of obedience because we want to do it "My Way and not God's Way". And so, if we cannot practice obedience by God's Way, the devils will force mankind to practice obedience by their "Evil Ways" like all the "disreputable" science behind Covid-19 protocols.
What is the bottomline of all this chaos? Is it a prelude to a Great Reset or the unfolding of the Thessalonian and Revelation chapter 13 prophecy? The answer for me is YES!
In the near future, are we going to see the literal interpretation of Genesis3:15? When it says, "serpent offspring" it would mean that Satan had infected not only the soul or heart of the people but Satan had also changed or altered the "mRNA/DNA code". How? The messenger RNA, like Satan an angel or messenger will instruct the DNA to worship the Beast like what Cain did in his times. Cain doesn't know how to worship God because his DNA was altered to worship the Beast and so God is the one who put the mark of the beast on Cain. But, in the near future mankind whose soul are infected by Satan malice will find themselves accepting the mRNA instruction. Will it contain an instruction to plainly creates protein spike like a crown, or it will crown Satan as it also might contain an instruction to worship the beast?
The Astra Zeneca volunteer, had shown why vaccinated people will worship the beast, because it has no memory of God, the written instruction on man's DNA to worship God in the form of protein can be erase. Can it also be replace or gene edited to form a new encoded instruction?

"They've Killed God; I Can't Feel God; My Soul Is Dead" AstraZeneca Halts COVID-19 Vaccine Trials after Second Volunteer "Develops Neurological problems"


How do "once saved, always saved" advocates explain the Parable about wise virgins? The Parable Matthew 25:1-13 King James Version (KJV)

  Then shall the kingdom of heaven be likened unto ten virgins, which
  took their lamps, and went forth to meet the bridegroom.

  2 And five of them were wise, and five were foolish.

  3 They that were foolish took their lamps, and took no oil with them:

  4 But the wise took oil in their vessels with their lamps.

  5 While the bridegroom tarried, they all slumbered and slept.

  6 And at midnight there was a cry made, Behold, the bridegroom cometh;
  go ye out to meet him.

  7 Then all those virgins arose, and trimmed their lamps.

  8 And the foolish said unto the wise, Give us of your oil; for our
  lamps are gone out.

  9 But the wise answered, saying, Not so; lest there be not enough for
  us and you: but go ye rather to them that sell, and buy for
  yourselves.

  10 And while they went to buy, the bridegroom came; and they that were
  ready went in with him to the marriage: and the door was shut.

  11 Afterward came also the other virgins, saying, Lord, Lord, open to
  us.

  12 But he answered and said, Verily I say unto you, I know you not.

  13 Watch therefore, for ye know neither the day nor the hour wherein
  the Son of man cometh.

Did the 5 foolish virgins were saved once but lost their salvation in the end? Clearly, they were waiting for Christ(the bridegroom) which means they were saved but didn't have faith(oil).

While it is impossible to account for all OSAS interpretations of of the passage, the most obvious answer is that the unwise virgins were not saved. Remember that certain (purported) proponents of OSAS allow that someone can be (self) deceived about their status as one of the elect.

Consider what Calvin wrote:

  Experience shows that the reprobate are sometimes affected in a way so similar to the elect that even in their own judgment there is no difference between them. Hence, it is not strange, that by the Apostle a taste of heavenly gifts, and by Christ himself a temporary faith is ascribed to them. Not that they truly perceive the power of spiritual grace and the sure light of faith; but the Lord, the better to convict them, and leave them without excuse, instills into their minds such a sense of goodness as can be felt without the Spirit of adoption .... there is a great resemblance and affinity between the elect of God and those who are impressed for a time with a fading faith .... Still it is correctly said, that the reprobate believe God to be propitious to them, inasmuch as they accept the gift of reconciliation, though confusedly and without due discernment; not that they are partakers of the same faith or regeneration with the children of God; but because, under a covering of hypocrisy they seem to have a principle of faith in common with them. Nor do I even deny that God illumines their mind to this extent .... there is nothing inconsistent in this with the fact of his enlightening some with a present sense of grace, which afterwards proves evanescent (Institutes, 3.2.11).

The unwise virgins believe that are ready only to learn too late that they lack the needed oil (grace?).

The oil, I wouldn't have thought, represents faith. The whole thing is about being ready for the second coming. The foolish virgins weren't ready. What does it mean to "be ready"? Luke 12: 35-48 is another parable and good explanation on being ready. Jesus is always going on about being ready. Basically, those who are "ready" are saved and those who are not ready are not saved.


How do Christians understand the existence of God in relation to the scientific concept of energy? In physics, the quantity of energy is the most fundamental aspect of existence.  All "entities" have a some sort of energy (either kinetic or potential) as an intrinsic aspect of their being.  Though people often use language that suggests that concepts or phenomena exist (e.g. "a signal propagates..."), such language is actually just short-hand for descriptions of a collection of entities.

The quantity, energy, is a measure of the ability of an entity to perform work on (i.e. to cause something to happen to) another entity.  Christians clearly believe that God causes things to happen.  Do Christians believe that the concept of energy (as understood by physics) can be applied to God?

Energy is merely matter in another form (see Wikipedia). Matter and energy are both part of the created universe, made by God (see Book of Genesis). Energy, like matter, was created by God. It is not an attribute of God, any more than height, weight or hair colour.

Obvious exception for the incarnated Jesus, who would have had energy, height and hair colour.

God is pure Spirit if you had a spiritual scale, He would fill it.

St. Thomas Aquinas addresses this idea quite a bit.

  This error seems to have originated from two statements of the ancients. For those who first began to observe the nature of things, being unable to rise above their imagination, supposed that nothing but bodies existed. Therefore they said that God was a body, which they considered to be the principle of other bodies. And since they held that the soul was of the same nature as that body which they regarded as the first principle, as is stated De Anima i, 2, it followed that the soul was of the nature of God Himself. According to this supposition, also, the Manichaeans, thinking that God was corporeal light, held that the soul was part of that light bound up with the body.

http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1090.htm

Like other answers state, your premise is that nothing else can exist.  But consider those people whom you admire and look up to:

Is there something about them that makes you go towards them?
Does their reasoning impress you?
Do they have a knack for rationality?

Consider what you feel to be excellent qualities in other human beings and then consider where their source is.  What is the source of our rationality and moreover our desire to reason?  It's not merely self-preservation.

I believe it's our soul and if we have a soul which animates our rationality, we must have a Creator who animates our soul.


What is meant by keeping people blind and deaf so as not to get healed? What is meant by keeping people blind and deaf so as not to get healed? [see footnote regarding answers]

I understand this to be one of those scriptures that is meant to challenge our understanding, such as "drink my blood and eat my flesh"...yet I still can't see the purpose behind these words:

Isaiah 6:9,10

  “‘Be ever hearing, but never understanding;
      be ever seeing, but never perceiving.’ 10, Make the heart of this people calloused;
      make their ears dull
      and close their eyes.[a] Otherwise they might see with their eyes,
      hear with their ears,
      understand with their hearts, and turn and be healed.”

Mark 4:10-13

  10 When he was alone, the Twelve and the others around him asked him
  about the parables. 11 He told them, “The secret of the kingdom of God
  has been given to you. But to those on the outside everything is said
  in parables 12 so that,

  “‘they may be ever seeing but never perceiving,
      and ever hearing but never understanding; otherwise they might turn and be forgiven!’[a]”

  13 Then Jesus said to them, “Don’t you understand this parable? How
  then will you understand any parable?

What is meant by keeping people blind and deaf so as not to get healed?

edit:

I've reopened the bounty. The entire bible is encoded in parables, and Isaiah 6 eludes to what the purpose of encryption-through-symbolism is needed in the word. Jesus applies it, but does not explain it's full necessity, and why it must be that way.

So we ask again - what is the meaning of "Keeping people blind and deaf so as not to get healed?" a concept which contradicts the idea "I want to, be made clean...".

In spirit this concept contradicts the nature of God, who wants to heal and restore. Yet this says "Make it so that cannot happen". To a Christian, one would be confused the same as Jesus Jewish audience when he said "Drink my blood"...something that seemingly contradicted their law.

Hence we seek to explain the mystery and remove the supposed contradiction.

This mystery is so important to me I'd happily keep reopening the bounty, using up my points, until a conclusively accurate answer is given.

FOOTENOTE:

Of the answers given, three authors gave appropriate and correct answers from different angles, thus giving a very good understanding of the possible answer to this question.

@ShemSeger's answer was the first comprehensive one given, helping to understand the purpose behind the veiling of scriptures as it pertains to our human accountability. See the first paragraph see his heading "Understanding Parables". This was auto-awarded a bounty due to votes because I had sought more explanation on the issue. This answer, though, certainly gives a glimpse into what it means for our personal welfare.

@Trober's answer gives a very in-depth look at how this mystery pertains to God's justice and mercy, essentially giving everyone a chance to benefit equally at the right time from God's efforts to save and heal humankind. His answer addresses the answer from a prophetic aspect, citing very, very good examples in the scriptures to which this question pertains.

@Andrew's answer relies completely in the scriptures, and in it's own right very complete and elegant. It would have been assigned the "bounty" points, except many who are not trained in the scriptures might not see how these scriptures relate, although his outline is very authoritative.

Thus Trober's answer is given the bounty for the most harmonious and well explained answer. ShemSeger's answer elaborates greatly on our own responsibility, and its meaning to individuals. Andrew's answer solidifies these things with well chosen supporting scriptures.

The complementary nature of these answers reminds me of this scripture: 1 Corinthians 12:12-31

TL;DR: Milk before meat. Deep doctrine is dangerous to an unprepared soul.

  "I have fed you with milk, and not with meat: for hitherto ye were not
  able to bear it, neither yet now are ye able." (see 1 Corinthians 3:1-3)

Christ taught in parables [as did Isaiah] so that the  spiritually immature and spiritually mature could both benefit from the message. He kept the deeper doctrines hidden in the parable from those who were spiritually "blind" and "deaf" to them until they matured spiritually enough that they could bear the deeper doctrines, and be healed by them.

Understanding Isaiah

You are right that this is one of those scriptures that is meant to challenge our understanding. Prophets like Isaiah veiled their teachings in language that preserved their teachings for those who would understand with their heart. Isaiah’s words are similar to the parables of Jesus in their manner of teaching. Spiritually speaking, Isaiah’s writings are meat, not milk (see 1 Corinthians 3:1–3; Hebrews 5:13–14; Isaiah 28:9). It requires spiritual maturity to understand them.

Prophecy of the Rejection of Spiritual Things

Isaiah 6 is a prophecy of the Jews rejecting Christ's teachings. The words the prophet Isaiah was commissioned to deliver were in part to bring the people to a full accountability for their choices, so that they would be left without excuse. The words are better understood:

  "And he said: Go and tell this people—Hear ye indeed, but [they]
  understood not; and see ye indeed, but [they] perceived not."

The people claimed to hear and see, but they did not understand the spirit of the message.

–– UPDATE – in response to OP edit:

  "Make the heart of this people fat, and make their ears heavy, and
  shut their eyes; lest they see with their eyes, and hear with their
  ears, and understand with their heart, and convert, and be healed."
  (Isaiah 6:10)

Keil and Delitzsch, Commentary on Isaiah 6:

  The command to “make the heart of this people fat, … their ears
  heavy, and shut their eyes” is used to describe the process of making
  the people accountable. The command, of course, refers to “their
  spiritual sight, spiritual hearing, and spiritual feeling.” (Keil and
  Delitzsch, Commentary, 7:1:200).

  “There is a self-hardening in evil. … Sin from its very nature bears
  its own punishment. … An evil act in itself is the result of
  self-determination proceeding from a man’s own will.” (Keil and
  Delitzsch, Commentary, 7:1:201).

An individual cannot resist or reject the truth without eventually becoming spiritually hardened.

Isaiah’s indictment of the kingdom of Judah was cited again in the New Testament to show that the people of that time were no different. The inability of many to understand the parables is a fulfillment of Isaiah’s prophecy:

  "And his disciples asked him, saying, What might this parable be? And he said, Unto you it is given to know the mysteries of the kingdom of God: but to others in parables; that seeing they might not see, and hearing they might not understand." (see Luke 8:9–10; also see Matthew 13:10–17).

The significance of many of the miracles was also misunderstood:

  "He hath blinded their eyes, and hardened their heart; that they
  should not see with their eyes, nor understand with their heart, and
  be converted, and I should heal them." (see John 12:37–41).

The testimony of the Messiah and His Sonship was understood, at least in part, by the disciples, but it was rejected by others:

  "21 ¶In that hour Jesus rejoiced in spirit, and said, I thank thee, O
  Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that thou hast hid these things from
  the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes: even so,
  Father; for so it seemed good in thy sight.

  22 All things are delivered to me of my Father: and no man knoweth
  who the Son is, but the Father; and who the Father is, but the Son,
  and he to whom the Son will reveal him.

  23 ¶And he turned him unto his disciples, and said privately, Blessed
  are the eyes which see the things that ye see:

  24 For I tell you, that many prophets and kings have desired to see
  those things which ye see, and have not seen them; and to hear those
  things which ye hear, and have not heard them." (see Luke 10:21–24).

In direct response to your comment:

"... it is mentioned that people should be deaf and blind until the cities crash down and the human population is decimated."

  "Then said I, Lord, how long? And he answered, Until the cities be
  wasted without inhabitant, and the houses without man, and the land be
  utterly desolate," (Isaiah 6:11).

The prophet Isaiah asked the Lord how long some men would be hardened against truth (v. 11); the answer—until mortal man no longer exists.

––

Understanding Parables

These scriptures refer to spiritual understanding. Many of the people of Jesus’ time were spiritually immature and unprepared to receive the doctrines He taught (they have eyes, but they can't "see" the deeper meaning). Through parables He was able to teach the more spiritually mature and at the same time veil His teachings from those who were not prepared to understand or follow them. In that manner He kept many from being condemned for having a knowledge of principles they were unable to live.

  "That seeing they may see, and not perceive; and hearing they may hear,
  and not understand [hear the message, but not understand the deeper spiritual context]; lest at any time they should be converted, and
  their sins should be forgiven them [so that they can can join the church later, without being held accountable for sinning while having a greater understanding of spiritual things]." (Mark 4:12; KJV)

Matthew's account gives us more clarity on his words:

  11 He answered and said unto them, Because it is given unto you to
  know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not
  given...

  13 Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see
  not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand...

  15 For this people’s heart is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of
  hearing, and their eyes they have closed; lest at any time they should
  see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and should understand
  with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them.

  16 But blessed are your eyes, for they see: and your ears, for they
  hear. (Matthew 13:11,13,15-16)

In answer to your question, the people cannot be healed until their spiritual eyes are opened, and they can hear with their spiritual ears. Only then can they understand with their heart. Therefore it is prudent to keep them blind and deaf to the deeper "meatier" doctrines until they are spiritually mature enough to "stomach" them, Otherwise it could be detrimental to their spiritual development, much like giving meat instead of milk to a suckling babe would be detrimental to the physical health of the baby.

The Savior’s parables therefore included an implied invitation to seek further understanding of the truths they contained, and those who did so were rewarded with greater enlightenment.

A simple illustration showing why some people may fail to understand the truths taught in parables:

  “Two men may hear the same words; one of them listens in indolence and
  indifference, the other with active mind intent on learning all that
  the words can possibly convey; and, having heard, the diligent man
  goes straightway to do the things commended to him, while the careless
  one neglects and forgets. The one is wise, the other foolish; the one
  has heard to his eternal profit, the other to his everlasting
  condemnation” (Jesus the Christ, 3rd ed. [1916], 297).

The Establishment of Zion (Isaiah 1–12), (13-37).
Old Testament Student Manual Kings-Malachi, (1982), 137–50.Understanding Isaiah, (E-3)
Old Testament Student Manual Kings-Malachi, (1982), 131–35.Chapter 5: Matthew 13–15, Matthew 13:13. “They Seeing See Not”
New Testament Student Manual, 2014.

Gnostic Light

The Metaphor (the Darkness)
The Darkness represents the initial result of sin. That of separation from reality which is "The All". Phrases have been build by God into society to help us understand this concept like: "Being lost your own little world", "Lost in Thought", "Snap out of it", "Pay Attention", "Come back to earth", "head in the clouds".

A Description of the Darkness

  And He said, “Go, and tell this people: ‘Keep on hearing, but do not understand; Keep on seeing, but do not perceive.’ 10 “Make the heart of this people dull, And their ears heavy, And shut their eyes; Lest they see with their eyes, And hear with their ears, And understand with their heart, And return and be healed.” (Isaiah 6:9-10 NKJV)

Jesus teaches these Metaphors Light and Darkness

  The lamp to the body is one's focus, if therefore your focus is of undivided attention and seeing clear, your body is full of light, 23 but if your focus is toilsome, all of your body will be full of darkness, then if that light within you is darkness, how great is that darkness. (Matthew 6:22-23)

Judgement has already been declared by Jesus

  And this is the condemnation, that the light has come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. 20 For everyone practicing evil hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his deeds should be exposed. 21 But he who does the truth comes to the light, that his deeds may be clearly seen, that they have been done in God.” (John 3:19-21 NKJV)

Important: I do not vouch for this NKJV translation, however it is good enough to explain that being in the light is God's will.

To single your focus on the now, Jesus taught it like this:

  Jesus said to him, "If you want to be perfect, go, sell what you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow Me." (Matthew 19:21 NKJV)

Possession minded people (as most are, and even the rich man in this story) think of selling everything they own, and automatically think of their objects that they own. However, the true possessions that you own are your thoughts that have been given to you by God.

  “Do not lay up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy and where thieves break in and steal; 20 but lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust destroys and where thieves do not break in and steal. 21 For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also. (Matthew 6:19-20 NKJV)

So by selling all of our thoughts and paying attention to the one speaking at us (the beggar), we gain seeds of truth into our memory (a treasure in heaven).

Explained in most of his parables, however he makes it easier for us to see this in two of his parables.

The Parable of the Sower
When reading the parable you learn of four states that a mind can be in. Three of the states represent the Darkness, and the one state represents the Light.

The Wayside(The saying is not understood)
The Thorny Place(The saying is crowded out by to many other thoughts)
The Stoney Ground(This mind hates what it hears so does not retain in memory)

Finally

The Good Ground(A mind willing to hear and understand)

The Parable of the Wheat and the Tares
When the person starts to talk to you, the temptation is to "pull the weeds" correct the incorrect saying. However we are instructed by the Master not to pull the weeds, and instead wait until we have heard the entire message from the beginning to the end. Then after we have heard the entire message, the forget the error, and to gather the good sayings into the memory.

Why the healing does not come
Because our focus is on so many projects when in the darkness. The mind must use many resources to continually be able to process all of these different activities. So the mind never gets to rest to allow the body to heal. It is like lifting weights over and over again. The body takes a very long time to heal, since it does not get its rest. Those that want the scientific explanation just ask. I'd rather someone ask for it, then to waste time writing it, when it is not cared about and thrown away by the ones that do not understand. Thanks.

As Paul Explains it

  Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ; (2 Corinthians 10:5 KJV)

This Greek word that the scribe translates as imaginations is (λογισμοὺς) meaning: reasoning, thinking; a conception.

So thinking is our enemy, for the deeper we think, the further our focus fades from reality. So by casting away our own thoughts, and simply become aware. We see what is going on, and hear what is being said. This allows us to be baptized or born again into the breath of the speaker.

My mind brings to reference a scripture, however I fail at finding it, maybe the Light can give me remembrance. However the point to it is this. We will be judge by what is inside of us, and we will be judge by what is not inside of us. For if we heard, and do know what the sower has said, and can hold it in our hearts. Then we are free from a condemnation. However what I did not hear, so therefore is not inside of me. Because it is not inside of me. Then I do receive condemnation.

Therefore I encourage each of you to live the truth of this, and to be children of Light. For your sake, because I love you.


Does Numbers 5:11-22 describe sanctioned abortion? Numbers 5:11-22 NIV

  11 Then the Lord said to Moses, 12 “Speak to the Israelites and say to
  them: ‘If a man’s wife goes astray and is unfaithful to him 13 so that
  another man has sexual relations with her, and this is hidden from her
  husband and her impurity is undetected (since there is no witness
  against her and she has not been caught in the act), 14 and if
  feelings of jealousy come over her husband and he suspects his wife
  and she is impure—or if he is jealous and suspects her even though she
  is not impure— 15 then he is to take his wife to the priest. He must
  also take an offering of a tenth of an ephah[a] of barley flour on her
  behalf. He must not pour olive oil on it or put incense on it, because
  it is a grain offering for jealousy, a reminder-offering to draw
  attention to wrongdoing.

  16 “‘The priest shall bring her and have her stand before the Lord. 17
  Then he shall take some holy water in a clay jar and put some dust
  from the tabernacle floor into the water. 18 After the priest has had
  the woman stand before the Lord, he shall loosen her hair and place in
  her hands the reminder-offering, the grain offering for jealousy,
  while he himself holds the bitter water that brings a curse. 19 Then
  the priest shall put the woman under oath and say to her, “If no other
  man has had sexual relations with you and you have not gone astray and
  become impure while married to your husband, may this bitter water
  that brings a curse not harm you. 20 But if you have gone astray while
  married to your husband and you have made yourself impure by having
  sexual relations with a man other than your husband”— 21 here the
  priest is to put the woman under this curse—“may the Lord cause you to
  become a curse[b] among your people when he makes your womb miscarry
  and your abdomen swell. 22 May this water that brings a curse enter
  your body so that your abdomen swells or your womb miscarries.”

  “‘Then the woman is to say, “Amen. So be it.”

I recently saw this post by an atheist claiming this passage describes bible-sanctioned abortion in the case of a cheating wife. I had read this passage previously, but it never screamed out abortion to me; however, on a second reading it's not so clear. Is he correct in that this is abortion? If not, then what is this passage talking about?

It is not about abortion, it's about Jealousy and the Lord acting as a witness in trials that otherwise had none.

Note that the NIV is the only translation to use the word 'miscarriage' (see Numbers 5:22 in parallel to 18 other translations). The translators interpret 'Your thigh to rot' and 'to rot [your] thigh' as 'miscarriage'. Whereas the Hebrew for 'thigh', יָרֵ֑ךְ (yā·rêḵ), is translated elsewhere in the NIV Bible as 'side'.

  "Gird your sword on your side, you mighty one; clothe yourself with
  splendor and majesty." (Psalm 45:3 NIV)

And the Hebrew for 'to rot', or 'waste away', נֹפֶ֥לֶת (nō·p̄e·leṯ), is translated elsewhere in the NIV as 'to fall down' (see Judges 19:27 NIV) Similarly, only a couple of translations even translate בֶּ֖טֶן (be·ṭen) and בִּטְנֵ֖ךְ (biṭ·nêḵ) as 'womb'. The rest use 'belly' or 'abdomen'.

Interpreting these scriptures to mean abortion is isolated to the questionable translation given in the NIV.

The section copied below does a really good job of explaining these verses (source link included).

Numbers 5:11–31. The Trial of Jealousy

This law for determining the guilt or innocence of an adulterer is puzzling in many respects. At first it seems heavily biased against the woman for there is no similar requirement for the man. A close examination of the law will show what was involved in it and why the Lord revealed it.

“The rabbins who have commented on this text give us the following information: When any man, prompted by the spirit of jealousy, suspected his wife to have committed adultery, he brought her first before the judges, and accused her of the crime; but as she asserted her innocency, and refused to acknowledge herself guilty, and as he had no witnesses to produce, he required that she be sentenced to drink the waters of bitterness which the law had appointed; that God, by this means, might discover what she wished to conceal. After the judges had heard the accusation and the denial, the man and his wife were both sent to Jerusalem, to appear before the Sanhedrin, who were the sole judges in such matters. The rabbins say that the judges of the Sanhedrin, at first endeavoured with threatenings to confound the woman, and cause her to confess her crime; when she still persisted in her innocence, she was led to the eastern gate of the court of Israel, where she was stripped of the clothes she wore, and dressed in black before a number of persons of her own sex. The priest then told her that if she knew herself to be innocent she had no evil to apprehend; but if she were guilty, she might expect to suffer all that the law threatened; to which she answered, Amen, amen.

“The priest then wrote the words of the law upon a piece of vellum, with ink that had no vitriol in it, that it might be the more easily blotted out. The words written on the vellum were, according to the rabbins, the following:—‘If a strange man have not come near thee, and thou art not polluted by forsaking the bed of thy husband, these bitter waters which I have cursed will not hurt thee: but if thou have gone astray from thy husband, and have polluted thyself by coming near to another man, may thou be accursed of the Lord, and become an example for all his people; may thy thigh rot, and thy belly swell till it burst! may these cursed waters enter into thy belly, and, being swelled therewith, may thy thigh putrefy!’

“After this the priest took a new pitcher, filled it with water out of the brazen bason that was near the altar of burnt-offering, cast some dust into it taken from the pavement of the temple, mingled something bitter, as wormwood, with it, and having read the curses above mentioned to the woman, and received her answer of Amen, he scraped off the curses from the vellum into the pitcher of water. During this time another priest tore her clothes as low as her bosom, made her head bare, untied the tresses of her hair, fastened her torn clothes with a girdle below her breasts, and presented her with the tenth part of an ephah, or about three pints of barley-meal, which was in a frying pan, without oil or incense.

“The other priest, who had prepared the waters of jealousy, then gave them to be drank by the accused person, and as soon as she had swallowed them, he put the pan with the meal in it into her hand. This was waved before the Lord, and a part of it thrown into the fire of the altar. If the woman was innocent, she returned with her husband; and the waters, instead of incommoding her, made her more healthy and fruitful than ever: if on the contrary she were guilty, she was seen immediately to grow pale, her eyes started out of her head, and, lest the temple should be defiled with her death, she was carried out, and died instantly with all the ignominious circumstances related in the curses.” (Clarke, Bible Commentary, 1:634.)

Several points should be noted.

Although this ritual focused on the woman, it in no way implied that men who committed adultery were to be excused, for the law clearly stated that adulterers of both sexes were to be stoned (see Leviticus 20:10).
In a way, the law provided protection of two different kinds for a woman. First, without this law it is possible that a husband could unjustly accuse his wife of infidelity. If his word alone were sufficient to convict her, she would be in a terrible state indeed. Putting the determination of guilt or innocence into the hands of God rather than into the hands of her husband, or even other men, ensured that she could vindicate herself if she were innocent.
The second positive benefit is more subtle but probably is of even greater value. If a husband suspected his wife of adultery, one result would be a terrible strain in the husband-wife relationship. In today’s legal system, with no witnesses to prove her guilt, the court would probably declare her not guilty. But the basis for her acquittal would be a lack of positive evidence of her guilt rather than proof of her innocence. Such a legal declaration, therefore, would do little to alleviate the doubts of the husband and the estrangement would likely continue. Neighbors and friends also would probably harbor lingering suspicions about her innocence. With the trial of jealousy, however, dramatic proof of God’s declaration of her innocence would be irrefutable. The reputation of the woman would be saved and a marriage relationship healed. Thus, true justice and mercy were assured, and the whole matter would be laid promptly to rest.
Those who ask why there was no parallel test a woman could ask of her husband should remember that if the accused woman refused to undergo the trial by drinking the water, her action was considered a confession of guilt. Thus, she and her partner in the evil act would be put to death (see Leviticus 20:10). If she attempted to lie and pass the test, but brought the curses upon herself, this result too was considered proof of the guilt of her male partner. It is possible that a wife who believed her husband guilty of infidelity could ask that his suspected partner be put to the trial of jealousy. The outcome would immediately establish the guilt or innocence of her husband as well as that of the other woman.
Thus, in a world where the rights of women were often abused, the Lord provided a means for protecting their rights as well as seeing that evil was put away and justice done.

Thus, in a world where the rights of women were often abused, the Lord provided a means for protecting their rights as well as seeing that evil was put away and justice done.

Source: Old Testament Student Manual Genesis-2 Samuel, (1980), 196–202: Numbers 1–12: Wilderness Wanderings, Part 1, (section 17-10: Numbers 5:11–31. The Trial of Jealousy)

While I don't think this "sanctions" abortions per se, I think it is good to draw attention to this passage (and others like Exod 21:22-25) insofar as they show that all the "life begins at conception" etc. rhetoric of the religious right is not as clean-cut as they would have us believe.

That said, the context is that of divination---it is the deity, YHWH, who judges and makes the elixir effectual, not the elixir itself. In other words, this isn't about voluntary (or even forced) abortion, but ritual divination. It's more akin to tossing a woman into a pond to see if she's a witch, or casting lots to determine who is telling a lie.


How can God be three persons? How can God be three Persons when He is defined by thousands of singular personal pronouns, which define ONE Person?

The problem is not existential but definitional. God exists and is a certain way. We can define "person" to exclude God's Trinitarian nature as a logical possibility, or we can define "person" to include both human persons and the three Divine persons. The Church has chosen to base the definition of person on God and humanity, not on humanity alone. It recognizes multiple aspects of personality as already understood by human philosophers in the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, where they are shown in Scripture to be distinct persons.
At the same time, there is a unity among the persons of the Trinity that no group of human persons has between them. Our unity as individuals does not extend to incorporate other persons. God's does. That makes God very different from us, in a category by Himself.
The Bible says that when a man and women marry, they become one flesh. This unity is limited but real. Perhaps if Adam and Eve had not eaten from the tree of the knowledge of Good and Evil before consummating their marriage, human marriages, families and even all of humankind would have had such unity as God always has? This insight gives us the answer.
How can God be three persons yet be one God? Because He never sinned. Sin brings division. Division cannot occur unless there was a preexisting unity.
Unity is the original state of being. Our separation from one another not just in personhood but in love, communion and fellowship, that is what needs explanation.


How does the Catholic Church reconcile evolution with original sin? According to Catholic doctrine:

all men inherit ancestral sin from Adam;
God descended upon Earth as the Son in order to free mankind from this sin, was crucified, died etc.

From the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

  Adam and Eve transmitted to their descendants human nature wounded by their own first sin and hence deprived of original holiness and justice; this deprivation is called "original sin".

The theory of evolution states that we (as Homo Sapiens) gradually evolved from other creatures. This implies—if we don't misinterpret the theory—that Adam and Eve never existed.

If Adam and Eve never existed, no one fell, and we cannot inherit ancestral sin from no one. Moreover, there wasn't any reason which Jesus had to be born for, anything he had to free us from.

Now, my question is: How can the doctrine of ancestral sin be justified in view of the Darwinian theory of evolution?

Catholics reconcile the two beliefs by being allowed to believe in evolution, but required to believe in the existence of Adam and Eve.

For the purposes of this discussion, evolution is the scientific hypothesis that the physical bodies of various living beings have developed from those of other living beings of different species. To believe in evolution is to hold evolution as a scientific hypothesis, subject to falsifiability in the event of countering evidence (that is, evidence that can only be explained if the hypothesis is false).

With these definitions in mind, then, the Catholic Church neither requires nor forbids Catholics to believe in evolution—to the extent (and only to the extent) that such a belief is not found to conflict with Church teaching. However, the Church does require that Catholics assert that there were a single original man and woman, who sinned, and who are the ancestors of all subsequent humans.

The encyclical letter Humani Generis, written by Pope Pius XII in 1950, discusses (among other philosophical stances the Church considers to be errors or heresies) evolution as it has sometimes been used to back an existential, relativist view of the world. Pope Pius writes:

  The Teaching Authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions, on the part of men experienced in both fields, take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter—for the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God. However, this must be done in such a way that the reasons for both opinions, that is, those favorable and those unfavorable to evolution, be weighed and judged with the necessary seriousness, moderation and measure, and provided that all are prepared to submit to the judgment of the Church, to whom Christ has given the mission of interpreting authentically the Sacred Scriptures and of defending the dogmas of faith.

(paragraph 36)

In other words, the Church has no issue with discussion of evolution as science, and purely as science; it's when the scientific conclusions are used to back philosophical statements at variance with the revealed Truth, or when evolution is held as if it were a matter of Faith, that the Church takes issue.

Pope Pius continues, however:

  The faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains that either after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parent of all, or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents. Now it is in no way apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled with that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the Teaching Authority of the Church propose with regard to original sin, which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam and which, through generation, is passed on to all and is in everyone as his own.

(paragraph 37)

In other words, if Adam and Eve were not a single pair of people, who sinned, and who were the ancestors of all subsequent humans, it would be possible to deny that all human beings are subject to original sin. Since this is a matter of Faith—something which cannot be denied without committing heresy—there appears to be no way to hold that Adam and Eve were not literal beings.

The Pope concludes by mandating that teachers of the Catholic faith not present such statements (e.g. that Adam was not a real person, but represents a number of early humans) as fact.

Note: To believe that there were two humans who were the ancestors of all subsequent humans is scientifically reasonable, as I understand things. That is, it appears that the statement found above in this question:

  The theory of evolution ... implies—if we don't misinterpret the theory—that Adam and Eve never existed

may be false without contradicting what is known scientifically about humans; and the Catholic Church, as appears in this document, officially believes that it is false.

It really depends if you consider Homo Sapiens as the first "man" or when in the chain of Darwinistic human evolution you would consider the first "man" to have arrived.

I know the Church allows us to accept evolution (despite any shortcomings with abiogenesis) but still requires belief in the creation of man by God and therefore in God's creation in Adam (from which we all descend and subsequently inherit his original sin).

Ponder the possibility that this carnal animal that our souls are trapped in (aka our bodies) may have evolved, whereas Adam, the first man, was created in God's image. Later, after his fall, God clothed him in "skins" (Genesis 3:21). Logically you have to kill an animal in order to cloth yourself in its skin. Might this animal, homo X, have been what God used to cloth Adam in sin? If so, then this animal very well could have had a complex prior evolution but was not technically a man.

This is not official Church doctrine, but is discussed and pondered by several saints and is therefore the reason why the Church herself will not take a definitive stance on such technicalities.


Parable of The Two Sons [Matthew 21:28-31] It is a very powerful parable indeed but I am very curious about the first and the second son, their chronology. In many places in the bible, e.g. Romans 2:9-10 I perceive the Jews denoted as the first and the gentiles as the second which I see is close to the context when Jesus said in Matthew 19:30

Matthew 19:30 But many who are first will be last, and many who are last will be first.
Romans 2:9-10 9There will be trouble and distress for every human being who does evil: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile; 10 but glory, honor and peace for everyone who does good: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile

But in this parable, Matthew 21:28-31, The order is different, do you have any thoughts or ideas or even better has anyone been touched by the Holy Spirit on this parable?

Matthew 21:28-31
28“What do you think? There was a man who had two sons. He went to the first and said, ‘Son, go and work today in the vineyard.’ 29 “‘I will not,’ he answered, but later he changed his mind and went. 30 “Then the father went to the other son and said the same thing. He answered, ‘I will, sir,’ but he did not go. 31 “Which of the two did what his father wanted?” “The first,” they answered. Jesus said to them, “Truly I tell you, the tax collectors and the prostitutes are entering the kingdom of God ahead of you.

These are three entirely unrelated passages. The first two do not explain or qualify the third.

Matthew 19:30, which says that many who are first shall be last and the last shall be first,  should be read in conjunction with the parable that follows, in which the householder paid first those who began their hire last, then paid those who began their hire first, paying all an equal amount (Matthew 20:9-10). In this account, Jesus then says that it is lawful for him to choose those he will (presumably for salvation).

In Romans 2:9-10, there is no dichotomy of first and last. Paul simply mentions the Jews first in both cases, perhaps because he himself was a Jew and he often expresses concern for the spiritual welfare of the Jews. Paul then says (2:11) that God is impartial, in other words favouring neither Jew nor Gentile.

The parable of the two sons, in Matthew 21:28-31, is about the importance of repentance. It says that just as the repentant son found favour, so will publicans and harlots enter the kingdom of heaven. Jesus explains this parable in Matthew 21:32, saying that the publicans and harlots believed John the Baptist and, because they believed, repented. And just as the lying son deserved less than his repentant brother, so also those who did not believe John, and have not repented, are less deserving than the publicans and harlots. Here, Jesus is simply saying that even those of the lowest social standing will come first if they have faith and repent.

I think that the parable in Mathew 21 should be read in its context. In my opinion the clue is in the question at the start of the parable. It is the quest 'what do you think?' the context of that question determines whether there is any predefined order in the sons.


What do charismatic Christians actually mean by the phrase "tonight is an open heaven"? I have heard this phrase bandied around for about the last 10-15 years and I am wondering how it originated and if it has any scriptural basis.

My own belief is that in the light of the cross and the finished work of Christ, it is always an open heaven and God is always accessible everywhere.

It's a term used to describe  the revelation of something the Holy Spirit showed them in a dream or a word of knowledge.


If God set the maximum age to 120, then how could Jacob be 130 years old? At the time of Noah, God said:

  Genesis 6:3 NIV
  Then the LORD said, “My Spirit will not contend with humans
  forever, for they are mortal; their days will be a hundred and
  twenty years.”

Now, later on, we have the account of Jacob and his sons. When Jacob moves to Joseph in Egypt, the pharaoh of asks him of his age, to which he replies:

  Genesis 47:9 NIV
  And Jacob said to Pharaoh, “The years of my pilgrimage are a hundred
  and thirty. My years have been few and difficult, and they do not
  equal the years of the pilgrimage of my fathers.”

Is there any explanation for this? I guess that either you can interpret this as Jacob referring to something else then his true physical age (e.g. "the years of my pilgrimage" having some kind of special meaning), or he might have miscalculated, or God's rule of the maximum age of man might not apply to all, like Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses and other distinguished men of God.

There are a number of different theories as to the meaning of Genesis 6:3:

120 years to the flood

One common interpretation is that it's not talking about lifespan, but the amount of time humanity has to repent before the coming of the Flood.1,2

Aside: Genesis 7:6 tells us that Noah was 600 years old when the flood came, placing the flood 1656 years after the creation of Adam according to the dates in Genesis 5, thus placing the Genesis 6:3 statement at 1536 years after Adam's creation.

120 years left of Adam's life

Another argument is that many versions have slightly mistranslated this verse. If you compare translations you'll see that some have the passage relating to "humans" - all humanity (such as the NIV, which you've quoted), many others use the term "man". This is because the word that's interpreted here as "humans" can also mean "the man"; or, more specifically, "the man Adam". So this argument states that Gen 6:3 is not talking about everyone, but specifically that Adam had 120 years left to live at the time God made this statement.2

Aside: Genesis 5 tells us that Adam lived for 930 years, so this statement would have happened when he was 810 years old. According to the chronology in chapter 5, this places the statement after the birth of Methusela (Noah's grandfather) but 64 years before the birth of Lamech (Noah's father).

Human lifespan of 120 years

This is the way many versions of the Bible are translated, and of course the meaning you have taken from the passage. But as you say, there are several people recorded in the Bible that have lived longer than 120 years since then. It's worth noting of course that we don't know what methods were used for recording the passing of time in those days, and how accurate or otherwise those methods were. Moreover, Dr John Oakes tells us that it's really only a Western culture thing that puts such an emphasis on the exact-ness of numbers. A common example of not using time literally would be the phase “just a minute” or “in a second”.

A quick note on my asides above - here's a footnote from Genesis 5:31 in the Amplified Bible:

  It is now well known that the age of mankind cannot be
  reckoned in years from the facts listed in genealogies, for there are
  numerous known intentional gaps in them. For example, as B. B.
  Warfield (Studies in Theology) points out, the genealogy in Matt.
  1:1-17 omits the three kings, Ahaziah, Jehoash, and Amaziah, and
  indicates that Joram (Matt. 1:8) begat Uzziah, who was his
  great-great-grandson. The mistaking of compressed genealogies as bases
  for chronology has been very misleading. So far, the dates in years of
  very early Old Testament events are altogether speculative and
  relative, and the tendency is to put them farther and farther back
  into antiquity.

When God said man's days will be 120, he didn't mean he would not allow people to live longer if that suited his plan. Indeed he is offering us Eternal Life!
When we look at the Kings, none of them lived more than 70 years - many were killed off quickly.  Zimri after only 7 days!
The priest, Jehoida lived to 130! (2 Chr.24).  But God had a good reason for that - he was protecting and advising the good King, Joash.
Similarly God has a very good reason that the patriachs lived to 175, 180, 147 years.  God is NOT the God of Abbie (killed in a motor-cycle accident aged 45), The God of Issy (died of TB aged 39), the god of Jack (died fighting in the Somme).  What sort of god would that be??
He is the God of the Living. Of course the patriachs lived very long. Note that Pharoah was amazed to hear that Jacob was 130, and Jacob told him that was nothing compared to his ancestors!  This is a fact.  It is not a fairy story. God is the God of the impossible.


According to Reformed Theology, how is Compatibilism different than Hard Determinism? This question is related to What is the difference between hard determinism and compatibilism, under the assumption of physicalism?, but I'm looking for the Reformed/Calvinism understanding of this topic.

From what I understand, both Compatibilism and Hard Determinism deny freewill. Although Compatibilism is an attempt to reconcile freewill with determinism, it completely denies the idea that the will is free. Rather, as Arthur Schopenhauer said, "Man can do what he wills but he cannot will what he wills."

According to ReformationTheology.com:

  Compatibilism is a form of determinism and it should be noted that this position is no less deterministic than hard determinism. It simply means that God's predetermination and meticulous providence is "compatible" with voluntary choice. Our choices are not coerced ...i.e. we do not choose against what we want or desire, yet we never make choices contrary to God's sovereign decree. What God determines will always come to pass (Eph 1:11)...

According to Reformed Theology, how is Compatibilism different than Hard Determinism?

Definitions:

Libertarianism= everything free will.
Hard determinism= no free will at all.
Compatibilism combines these and says they are compatible
with each other.

Your question assumes that Reformed Theology has a view of compatibilism. My reason for agreeing that it does is that A.W. Pink, W. Grudem, D.A. Carson, J. MacArthur and J.I. Packer for example would all agree with D.A. Carson's explanation of compatibilism:    I'm sure of this but I only mention their names so that others can check out the details for themselves. If I included quotes from all of these then this answer would be over long, I guess.

Carson:

God is absolutely sovereign, but his sovereignty never functions in such a way that human responsibility [ and freedom] is curtailed, minimized,or maligned.
Human beings are morally responsible creatures- they significantly choose, rebel, obey, believe, defy, make decisions, and so forth, and they are rightly  held accountable for such actions; but this characteristic never functions so as to make God absolutely contingent.

A. W. Pink in "The sovereignty of God" puts that more simply [P9], "God is sovereign, man is responsible".Pink continues on page 9 to say:" To emphasize the sovereignty of God, without also maintaining the accountability of the creature, tends to fatalism".

"Fatalism" then, is something Pink is trying to avoid. I am confident that Pink's "Fatalism" just about = your "hard determinism". Let's try and look at- Reasons against Fatalism. It just reduces man to being a puppet. We are free to choose. [ But what if we are puppets and God holds all the strings, doesn't John 3v35 say, all things are in His hand]. Hard determinism is, man is what he is, sinful, fallen, in need of redemption if he is going to go to heaven, but everything that occurs is dictated by God and man's fate depends upon God's will alone. Can puppets love God? "Yes they can if that is the way their strings are pulled. Or, in Bible terms, if the Holy Spirit chooses to come upon them to make them born from above". This is, I think, the reply of the hard determinist. ["born from above" is literal translation of "anothen" John3 v7 and emphasises initiative taken in heaven rather than "born again" which might be result of human initiative]. Why translate it as born again unless one is trying to keep compatibilism alive? That last sentence is my own comment but the fact that I made it at all shows how important this question is.

In reformed theology compatibilism reigns and hard determinism is not usually thought about. But that does not mean that hard determinism has nothing to say. "The lives we give back, apodo 1 Pet 4v5, an account of, are first given to us. We first give to God nothing, for from Him are all things Rom 11v35/36", is as I understand it, the cry of the hard determinist.

I mentioned it in the comments, but I might as well post an answer. As @bradimus brought up though, this might be better for the philosophy QA site.

Compatibilism does not deny free will. Although, as the wikipedia page says:

  Compatibilists are sometimes called "soft determinists" pejoratively

Reformed theology doesn't have anything to do with this - reformed theology denies free will and do not adhere to Compatibilism. And by free will I simply mean total autonomy and agency - ie, when this article says:

  has it in his power to either do good or evil toward God

As an side - I am not necessarily reformed (but I think lots of their ideas have biblical and logical merit), and I would identify as a Compatibilist. I think God basically does what He wants, as He is Lord - which I can prove by citing.. well.. the entire Bible I guess.

I don't think this conflicts with His gift of agency to us though. Sometimes God 'hardens hearts' - and we have to deal with that. But at the same time, so often we pray for guidance on things, and He doesn't seem to give us answers, perhaps because either way is fine with God.

Or perhaps He is more interested in what we decide on our own. There are precedents for both in Scripture. (Pharaoh in Moses' time, Saul choosing to disobey God, David's adultery and subsequent repentance, Paul/Barnabas split and their ministry decisions, Peter's Vision and subsequent teaching/lifestyle changes... etc. etc.)


According to open theism, did God know that the crucifixion of Jesus would benefit anyone after him? Ronald Nash challenges open theism in his book, Life's Ultimate Questions, in particular on the point of God's foreknowledge during the crucifixion of Jesus.  Since God's knowledge of the future is "open" or "dynamic," according to open theism, he is not omniscient in the classical sense.  Nash argues:

  Think back to this God's conundrum at the time his Son was dying on the cross.  At that moment, the finite God of open theism had no way of knowing if even one human being would accept his Son as Savior.  This poor impotent deity faced the possibility that the suffering of his Son upon the cross would bring about the salvation of no one. (323)

Nash seems to be ignoring the case of OT saints (whom presumably God knew would be saved through the death of Christ).  But otherwise, is he right?  Is he fairly representing the view of open theism?  Do its adherents generally admit that God didn't know if Christ's death would result in a church, or indeed a single post-resurrection believer?  If he didn't know, did he have any purpose for sending Jesus to earth other than saving OT saints?

If there is disagreement on this among the various types of open theists, I'd like an overview of their positions.

Ron Nash doesn't seem to be wrong here in the facts he's presenting, however he's picking his words carefully.

This poor impotent deity faced the possibility that the suffering of his Son upon the cross would bring about the salvation of no one

Could easily be rephrased as

God did not dictate that particular people be saved, but allowed free will to preside and for none to be saved forcibly - just as his Son died on the cross, he left himself vulnerable to the possibility that Jesus' death on the cross would bring about the salvation of no one

I've intentionally taken a tone here which makes it sound like God is being overly noble in choosing to take on this "impotence" that Ron Nash describes. My point here is that while he has the facts right, his statement is misleading in that it appeals to a subjective view of what that God would be like, when the same facts can be portrayed very differently.
As you might assume, there are a number of varieties of Open Theism - here is the Wikipedia summary:

Philosopher Alan Rhoda has described several different approaches several open theists have taken with regard to the future and God's knowledge of it.
Voluntary Nescience: The future is alethically settled but nevertheless epistemically open for God because he has voluntarily chosen not to know truths about future contingents. Dallas Willard was thought to hold this position.
Involuntary Nescience: The future is alethically settled but nevertheless epistemically open for God because truths about future contingents are in principle unknowable. William Hasker, Peter Van Inwagen,[45] and Richard Swinburne espouse this position.
Non-Bivalentist Omniscience: The future is alethically open and therefore epistemically open for God because propositions about future contingents are neither true nor false. J. R. Lucas and Dale Tuggy espouse this position.
Bivalentist Omniscience: The future is alethically open and therefore epistemically open for God because propositions asserting of future contingents that they 'will' obtain or that they 'will not' obtain are both false. Instead, what is true is that they 'might and might not' obtain. Greg Boyd and Arthur Prior hold this position."
"Open Theism" - Wikipedia

The key thing here is that all of the positions described above agree on one thing: God does not know the future (this is what "epistemically open" means). Where these views split is that the "Nescience" camps believe the future is "alethically settled" - that is to say that there is already "truth" about the future now in the form of facts. The "Nescience" camps disagree on whether God chooses not to know these facts, or whether he doesn't know these facts because they can not be known.
On the other hand the "Omniscience" camps believe that the future is unwritten entirely, that there are no set truths about the future yet, whether they'd be knowable or not. The split here appears to be less to do with the nature of God and more to do with facts about the future. Either there simply are none (they are neither true nor false- hence not facts) or they are all "might and might not be true". I can't see any real functional difference between these two personally, it just gives philosophers something to argue about..
I'll see if I can find some actual open theist quotes to back this up, but from what I can see, any variety of Open Theist is logically committed to the fact that when Jesus died, it was not a necessary truth that any single future person would be saved.
The only way you can have God knowing any actual facts about this is through some form of middle knowledge (see - Molinism)
But - again, according to Wikipedia, Open Theists do not believe in this by definition:

...Yet other versions of classical theism hold that even though there is freedom of choice, God's omniscience necessitates God foreknowing what free choices are made (God's foreknowledge is closed). Open theists hold that these versions of classical theism are out of sync with:
1 - the biblical concept of God
2 - the biblical understanding of divine and creaturely freedom
and/or result in incoherence

Again, I'll try and find some actual open theist sources rather than just relying on Wikipedia, and I'll update the answer when I do.
On a side note, Ron Nash has a some free courses/podcasts on Biblical Training on the history of philosophy, and also on apologetics. I don't agree with everything he says but he's usually at least entertaining to listen to, in particular he tends to put on a bizarre "false pride" (in contrast to "false humility")- at least, as far as I can tell he's joking about how brilliant he thinks he is.

As far as I am aware of, in open theism god is taken to know every possibility of future events, and since he is wise, he can associate a probability to these events. So one could argue, that god knew if it was probable or not that someone would turn to him.

But I think that this is besides the point. Open theism poses a problem for many critics because fundamentally, it shows god as taking a risk, that he actually loves humanity to the point to send his only begotten...

For some, this exposes a certain impotence on the side of god. But isn't a certain impotence constitutive of love itself?


Which NT books were written after the destruction of the temple? The temple was destroyed sometime around AD 70.

Which New Testament books were written after that catastrophe?

Do these books comment at all on the destruction of the temple?

The dating of the New Testament is a matter of some controversy, so there is no consensus answer to the question of which ones were written after the destruction of the temple. (The Old Testament books were of course written well before).

No New testament documents make clear reference to the destruction of the temple. Some appear to prophecy the destruction, but it is clearly written as prophecy and not fulfilment, and even then it is not an absolute certainty. Many scholars use this information to date the NT canon as fixed before the destruction of the temple, on the reasonable grounds that had it been known about some NT writers would certainly have mentioned it as evidence of the correctness of prophecy. Bishop John A Robinson makes a well-argued case for this in his book "Redating the New Testament", or its popular version "Can we Trust the New Testament?".

Extensive quotes of the New Testament in letters known to be written at the end of the 1st century AD show that the NT documents were well known and accepted by that time, although it is technically possible that they may have undergone further editing between then and the dates of the first positively dated manuscripts from a hundred years later.

See the excellent summary on Wikipedia.

So to answer the questions:

Probably none of them
No, they don't.

A common sense approach to the dating of the Gospels is that since Jesus clearly predicts the destruction of the Temple (Mark 13, Mathew 24 and Luke 21), the writers of the Gospels must have been writing after its destruction OR the Gospels were edited after its destruction.

The argument that they would surely have pointed to the actual destruction as evidence of the prophetic accuracy of Jesus is a weak one.  Since the writers were writing in world where everyone knew about the fall of Jerusalem at the hands of the Roman Empire and consequent destruction of the Temple there would be no need to make that actual point.

All three synoptic Gospels use the same words - 'not one stone left upon another' - which suggests that all three of the Gospels are based on a common text written after the destruction of the Temple (AD 70).  Many scholars suggest that this text is what makes up the core of Mark's gospel.