Why did Magdalena use her hair to dry Jesus' feet? I don't really understand this part of the story in Luke 7:38. Why would Mary Magdalena use her hair to dry Jesus' feet? I have some clues, but I don't want to guide the replies.
I'd like to know both, the symbolism, and the spiritual meaning (what does it teach to us).

As she stood behind him at his feet weeping, she began to wet his feet with her tears. Then she wiped them with her hair, kissed them and poured perfume on them.
(NIV)

.

There are a number of possible meanings to help us understand this event, though none seem particularly compelling. It's possible that the full import of the event was clear to people living in the Levant 2,000 years ago, but are obscure to use today.

One of the most obvious meanings is that Jesus is a great King. The Hebrew Bible itself has many examples of the anointing of kings (1 Samuel 16). According to Keifer, the large amount and description of nard as "pure" implies kingly status (Oxford Commentary, 2001).

Many scholars recognize that Jesus is the "ultra" or "ultimate" in all His roles - if Moses and Elijah fasted for 40 days, Jesus spent 40 days without food or drink, making Him the "ultimate prophet." So while it's unusual to anoint the feet rather than the head of a king, the amount of nard (far too much for one person's feet), purity, and location of the anointing elevate Jesus to an ultimate status.

This also fits the cosmogony of ancient Israelites. The head is the highest and most respected part of the body, the feet the dirtiest and lowest (Hanson and Oakman, 1998).  A woman's hair is her "glory" (1 Cor 11:15).   When Mary used her hair to wipe Jesus' feet it may have been a shocking tribute.

It's already somewhat scandalous that Mary entered a room where men are dining, since that was a shameful violation of male space that implied she had no self-respect (Fiorenza, 1983).  To lower herself by using her hair on Jesus' feet might be even more disturbing.  It points to Jesus' heavenly status, a challenge to male status that might have led Judas to speak - as he couldn't wait to initiate a final showdown between Jesus and the Jerusalem authorities later, so Judas couldn't keep silent as all cultural mores were upended.

The anointing of Jesus' feet also echoes the "sinful woman's" (was her sin that she merely violated male space?) anointing of Jesus' feet with tears in Luke 7. John is considered the latest-written of the four gospels and seems to have included elements from the three earlier (Perkins, 2012). So some of the symbolism may foreshadow Jesus' death as atonement for others' sins, as that meaning was paramount in Luke 7.

Further symbolism includes the intimate nature of Mary's hair caressing Jesus' feet. Some point out that "feet" was a euphimsim for sexual organs, but that doesn't seem to make much sense here - it would be extremely strange for Judas to then object to the cost of nard!  Only unqualified scholars stretching to impute sexual overtones in John's largely asexual depiction of Jesus could waste time on that possibility.

Instead, there's a stunning intimacy about stroking another's feet with hair that is in itself disruptive. Numerous scholars and anthropologists point out that outside of blood relations and marriage, male and female spaces were highly divided (for some of the best scholarship on distinct spaces, see Douglas, 1999).  To allow this intimate gesture was taboo, and probably even more rare for a religious teacher. The Lukan account (probably of a separate anointing) more explicitly captures this aspect, as the host objects to the nature of the touching. Again, this points to Jesus' heavenly status - it's no problem for Jesus to accept the woman's ministrations, since they are only His due.

It's also notable that only in John does Nicodemus offer spices for the burial anointing. So the anointing by Mary of Jesus' feet is clear foreshadowing, a basic literary tool. But this particular foreshadowing helps John share his Christology: Jesus was already the fully-realized Son of God even prior to the Resurrection, which seems to be in slight tension with Mark. Since in John, Jesus' glory is fully realized on the Cross (when He is "lifted up") rather than after risen, the book-ends of royal anointings - Mary before death (right after the Sanhedrin formally decides to kill Jesus) and Nicodemus (at least in intent) after His death, helps maintain the Crucifixion as the high point of Jesus' influence.

Each of these paragraphs can lead to a lot more detailed consideration. It's worth saying that while all of these interpretations are solid not only because they make sense but also because they fit John's narrative arc very well, none of them alone seems to warrant including such an odd and potentially scandalous scene in this or any gospel.

We also read a similar account in the Gospel according to John at 12:3 (RSECV)

" Mary took a pound of costly ointment of pure nard and anointed the feet of Jesus and wiped his feet with her hair; and the house was filled with the fragrance of the ointment."

John goes on to quote Judas Iscariot commenting that the perfume would be worth 300 denarii (Jn:12:5). Remember that one denarius was the standard wage of a laborer in those days(Mtt:20:13) . Supposing that Jesus had left his sandals outside the house, much of the liquid perfume would have gone waste. So, the sense of economy prevailed and Mary wiped out the perfume with her hair . Was not that OK for a house-lady ?


How could the person in Luke 9:49 cast out demons without Jesus' mandate? Luke 9:49 (ESV):

  John answered, “Master, we saw someone casting out demons in your name, and we tried to stop him, because he does not follow with us.”

The 12 (and later the 70) only started healing people and casting out demons AFTER Jesus "gave them power and authority over all devils, and to cure diseases."

The Holy Spirit had not been sent yet, so with what authority was this person acting?

I am not questioning the good will of the anonymous healer. Was he an imposter Jesus would have stated so.

What I'm really wondering is that people didn't need a direct command (or mandate) from Jesus to act in His name?

DEV--Don's Edited Version

The answer to your question comes from Jesus, and also from the words of John in the verse you quoted.

John's words: John assumed that because the unnamed exorcist was not in the inner circle of the Twelve that his exorcism could not therefore be on the "up and up."
Jesus' words:  In essence, Jesus told John (and all the other disciples who were present during the "Who is the greatest?" incident),

  "Hey [he didn't say 'Hey'], if that person you speak of exorcised demons in my name successfully, then he must be one of us, even though he is not a member of this particular group of twelve disciples."

I think many Christians (and I count myself among that number) assume that the only disciples who performed miracles in Jesus' name were those whom Jesus sent out (or commissioned, as in Mark 6:7, Luke 9:2 and 10:1) to precede him and pave the way for him by preaching the kingdom and by performing miracles such as exorcisms and perhaps other works of healing. This assumption may not be warranted, particularly in light of Jesus' words; namely,

  "'Do not hinder him [i.e., the man who cast out demons], for he who is not against you is for you'" (Luke 9:50)

In other words, Jesus could very well have commissioned this man on a one-to-one basis. Perhaps for whatever reason this man could not "follow along with"--as John put it--the Twelve or some other recognizable group of Jesus-followers (e.g., "the 70" in Luke 10:1), so Jesus permitted him to heal people in Jesus' name.

I think it unwise to assume, for example, that this man was a nonbeliever (similar to Simon Magus in Acts 8:9 ff.) and a "Lone Ranger" who was performing miracles without Jesus' sanction. Jesus could very well have sanctioned him to perform these miracles. Moreover, as I've suggested above, Jesus seems to have assumed that since the man performed miracles "in Jesus' name," that he was indeed "one of us"--meaning the Twelve and all his other disciples, even if John did not recognize him as such.

In conclusion, there is no reason of which I am aware why this "lone wolf exorcist" was any more in need of the sending authority of the Holy Spirit than were the Twelve. After all, the Holy Spirit did not commission the Twelve (and others); Jesus did. On the authority of Jesus, the Twelve and this unnamed disciple were given the ability to heal. The power to do so undoubtedly came from the Holy Spirit, but the disciples were not even aware at this point that there was such a person called the "Holy Spirit." That awareness came later (e.g., in John 15).

Additional Thought/Addendum

Jesus had a way of surprising--shocking even--his closest followers and disciples. Example par excellence: Jesus' conversation with the Samaritan woman at the well of Sychar, in John 4:4-45. This woman had a number of strikes against her, at least from the disciples' perspective:

  She was a she. In other words, she was a second- or third-class citizen, as were most women in those days (with a few exceptions, to be sure).
  She was a member of a despised people group, the Samaritans, whom the Jews considered to be a bunch of religious half-breeds--which was partly true, since after the divided kingdom and the subsequent exile of Israeli Jews, Samaria was "seeded" with the importation of foreign colonists who brought their own syncretistic views of religion to Palestine. Consider Wayne Brindle's comments:

  "The development of Samaritanism and its alienation from Judaism was a process that began with the division of the kingdom of Israel, and continued through successive incidents which promoted antagonism, including the importation of foreign colonists into Samaria by Assyria, the rejection of the new Samaritan community by the Jews, the building of a rival temple on Mt. Gerizim, the political and religious opportunism of the Samaritans, and the destruction of both the Samaritan temple and their capital of Shechem by John Hyrcanus during the second century B:C. The Samaritan religion at
  the time of Jesus had become Mosaic and quasi-Sadducean, but strongly anti-Jewish. Jesus recognized their heathen origins and the falsity of their religious claims."

  She was a woman of questionable morals. (Today, a bigot would probably label her a slut!)
  She was alone with Jesus and conversed with him in a give-and-take discussion, which could have lasted an hour or more. Pious Jewish men simply did not talk with women in public, let alone have a religious confabulation. Unthinkable!
  She gave Jesus a drink of water from her own bucket, which to the Jews of Jesus' day would be unthinkable (just think of the ritual uncleanness of it all!).

Nevertheless, Jesus, John tells us, "had to pass through Samaria" (4:4). Why? Because a Samaritan woman had a divine appointment with her soon-to-be Savior and Lord! Jesus could have bypassed Samaria as he travelled from northern Israel to southern Israel, as did his fellow Jews, but he was never one to depart from the path his Father had chosen for him. Furthermore, his Father and he shared a love for outcasts, outsiders, the foreigner, the stranger, and the alien. Why else would the Law of Moses contain so many instructions regarding the humane treatment of non-Hebrews with whom the Israelis interacted.

My point is this: John--and perhaps the other disciples--did not realize at the time he registered his opinion about the "interloper" who was casting out demons in Jesus' name
that Jesus' compassionate heart had room for outsiders and interlopers, such as the Samaritan woman at the well, and also the Syro-Phoenician woman whose daughter was plagued by a demon:

  "Then Jesus went thence, and departed into the coasts of Tyre and Sidon. And, behold , a woman of Canaan came out of the same coasts, and cried unto him, saying , 'Have mercy on me, O Lord, thou Son of David; my daughter is grievously vexed with a devil.' But he answered her not a word. And his disciples came and besought him, saying , 'Send her away; for she crieth after us.' But he answered and said, 'I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.' Then came she and worshipped him, saying, 'Lord, help me.' But he answered and said, 'It is not meet to take the children's bread, and to cast it to dogs.' And she said, 'Truth, Lord: yet the dogs eat of the crumbs which fall from their masters' table.' Then Jesus answered and said unto her, 'O woman, great is thy faith: be it unto thee even as thou wilt.' And her daughter was made whole from that very hour'" (Matthew 15:21-28 KJV).

In conclusion, the people to whom Jesus reached out may not have fit the mold of "disciple material" which was in John's (and others') mind, but then Jesus was not big on molds. Jesus was more interested in people's hearts, and he was an equal opportunity Savior, Healer, and Lord, and not just to "the lost sheep of the house of Israel."

Ummm how could it have been powered by the Holy Spirit when the Holy Spirit had not yet been sent?  The exercising of the demon was clearly done through the power of the name.  As it is written, there is power in the name.


Why should we pray if God knows everything? If God knows everything, then why do we pray? For example, my dad is in the hospital, and he's really sick. So I pray to God to help my dad get better. Doesn't God know he's in the hospital and in need of help? Do my prayers prompt God to action? And if I don't prompt God for action, will he help my dad anyway?

Philippians 4:6 tells us

  "Be anxious for nothing, but in everything, by prayer and supplication with thanksgiving, let your requests be made known unto God."

In Acts 1:13-14, after Jesus ascends, we see

  "And when they (the Apostles) had entered, they went up to the upper room, where they were staying, Peter and John and James and Andrew, Philip and Thomas, Bartholomew and Matthew, James the son of Alphaeus and Simon the Zealot and Judas the son of James. All these with one accord were devoting themselves to prayer, together with the women and Mary the mother of Jesus, and his brothers."

Acts 2:42, Acts 3:1, Acts 6:4 and Acts 12:5 all mirror this - the need and dependency on prayer.

So, why do we pray?
For a number of reasons. We pray because it is a form of serving the Lord (Luke 2:36-38). We pray in preparation for major decisions (Luke 6:12-13); to overcome demonic barriers (Matthew 17:14-21); to gather workers for the spiritual harvest (Luke 10:2); to gain strength to overcome temptation (Matthew 26:41); and to obtain the means of strengthening others spiritually (Ephesians 6:18-19).

Does God know your father is in the hospital in need of help?
Absolutely. His eyes are everywhere (Proverbs 15:3), and He knows all things (1 John 3:19-20).

Do your prayers prompt God to action?
Yes and no. God is no respecter of persons (Acts 10:34), and all things are in accordance to His will and if you ask as such, He will hear you (1 John 5:14). By praying to the Lord, you are showing Him you need Him. A perfect analogy would be like this - are you yourself more likely to help someone asking in the heat of the moment, or someone asking out of true sincerity?

If you don't prompt God for action, will he help your dad anyway?
Absolutely. God does not need to wait for you, or anyone else, to take action. He is above all things, and everything moves in accordance to His will. He does not want you or your father to suffer, and the odds are with you that He will help you and your family through this tough time.

"Doesn't God know he's [user14269's dad] in the hospital in need of help?"

i think so.

"Do my prayers prompt God to action? And if I don't prompt God for action, does he help my dad anyway?"

perhaps.  we don't know.  we do not fully understand the "mind of God".  and it would be difficult (actually impossible) to run repeated experiments with all other things being the same, but where the difference is we pray or do not pray.  perhaps our prayers change God's response to a situation, perhaps God will do the same thing regardless.

"If God knows everything, then why do we pray?"

God knows our needs (or your dad's needs) before we know them.  prayer is more than supplication.  or imprecation (crying out for justice).  it is more than only praise or worship.  it is more than asking for forgiveness or for repentance.

prayer is also listening (to whom?).

so it's not so much about us telling God what he/she already knows.  it's about God speaking deeply to our souls.

and like keeping company with someone, sometimes prayer is just a way of "sitting with God in silence."  have you ever spent time just sitting in the same room with your parent or grandparent or spouse or kid without either saying a word?  prayer is, or can be, a little like that.


What extrabiblical sources support the existence of Jesus in history? What sources outside of the Bible give supporting evidence to the existence of Jesus and any of the events in His life?

In short

Lucian
Pliny the younger
Josephus
St. Ignatius of Antioch
Tacitus
Suetonius
Aristides
Galenus
Lampridius

I tried to get all those that Norman names. Just a problem with spelling those wholly foreign names. You can find all 19 of them in the video though.

It is curious to note that even Tacitus who was a rather big critic of the early church never thought that Jesus was a myth or never existed. When even Christianity's first century opposition talk about Jesus as a historical figure then it really becomes unreasonable to buy into this atheist rhetoric of him being a myth.

Josephus is the account is the most violently opposed because it gives such credence to Christianity. The atheist is left with the burden of proof of proving the text suspect. This again becomes unreasonable seeing as all the extant manuscripts of The Antiquities of the Jews says the same thing.

The Christian when confronted with these attacks need to ask the naysayer what is his / her evidence for these texts being suspect? This will probably get you the response of denial of the burden of proof or if the opponent is honest enough he / she will admit their is none.

Most historians choose to accept the existence of a person in ancient times if there is evidence that the person's contemporaries referred to him as existing. Thus, historians accept the historicity of Jesus because of the four gospel accounts of his life. Perhaps this consensus would now be weaker because of the accumulating evidence that Mark's Gospel was the source for the narrative material in Matthew and Luke, and probably also John, meaning that there was only one independent New Testament gospel and this was written by an author who never met Jesus. The apostle Paul seems to have believed that Jesus was a historical person, although he seems vague about how long previously Jesus had lived.

Extra-biblical evidence from the middle of the first century comes in the form of the Gospel of Thomas and the hypothetical 'Q' document, both of which report sayings attributed to Jesus. Of course, we also have documented sayings attributed to pagan gods of the same general period, so GThomas and Q are not strong evidence for the historical Jesus.

Philo of Alexandria would be a near-contemporary of Jesus and ought to be our best source for the existence of Jesus, since he wrote about every Jewish sect and movement of which he was aware, but unfortunately he never mentions Jesus.

Late in the first century, the Jewish historian, Josephus, mentions Jesus in the Testimonium Flavianum:

  Antiquities 18.3.3. "Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man, for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews, and many of the Gentiles. He was the Christ; and when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him, for he appeared to them alive again the third day, as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him; and the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct to this day."

It is impossible that this passage is entirely genuine, although it is likely that Josephus did write something like this and that Christians altered his text. In any case, Josephus was not a contemporary of Jesus and it seems clear from the text that he is simply reporting what the "tribe of Christians" had told him. He makes no claim to have met anyone who had actually met Jesus.

Tacitus wrote in the second century that Jesus was crucified, and this is often accepted as evidence that Jesus existed and was crucified under Pontius Pilate. Tacitus was a patriotic Roman senator and his writings shows no sympathy towards Christians, but it is difficult to imagine any source for his information about Jesus, other than Christians of his own time, and their gospels.

It can not be said with certainty whether the historical Jesus actually lived, but assuming it is likely that he did he may well have lived some time earlier than the gospel account attributes.


Why was the first man called Adam? I have started reading the Bible and I have found that in Genesis 2.19 the first man is already called Adam without any previous reference to this name.

But when it comes to Eve there is a clear explanation of her name in Genesis 3.20.

So my question is, how was Adam's name chosen? Was it chosen by himself or given to him by God? And why?

In case different traditions have different answer to this question I would prefer the Roman Catholic one.

'Āḏām comes from the Hebrew 'āḏām, meaning "human being, mankind collectively, cognate with Phoenician 'dm (probably adam), Arabic 'adam human being; further etymology uncertain: perhaps related to 'aḏamāh earth, ground (compare the juxtaposition of 'āḏām and 'aḏamāh in Genesis 2:7, where God forms man out of earth) or to 'aḏom red, ruddy" (OED).

Adam = ad (against/reduced) AM, it was after the fall @Genesis 3:17. His identity has changed therefore name changed. Before that, it was called the man and the women (because she was taken out of man), the two were one unity.
After the fall, Adam was the new identity and new name, when his name changed, he changed his woman’s name into Eve, with that came a new role for her, as the mother of all living.


How can we be sure the Old Testament is accurate if Elijah was the only prophet left? This morning in church the service was about Elijah with the Baal's prophets. I read this verse and some questions arose which I could not find an answer on.

  1 Kings 18:22
  Then said Elijah unto the people, I, even I only, remain a prophet of the LORD; but Baal's prophets are four hundred and fifty men.

The following questions arose:

Was the Bible already written in the time of Elijah?
If Elijah was the only prophet left, how can we make sure that the Baal's prophets did not corrupt the scriptures? And more in general, how can we make sure that none of the bad kings back in this time did not corrupt the scriptures?

Just because there was only one prophet does not mean there were no priests or followers - prophets were messengers from God, priests actually served in the Temple, and adherents, well, they adhered.  In Isaiah, the notion of the Remnant God's select people who remain true even when most fall away is well understood.

Additionally, it does not diminish the text for Elijah to have engaged in hyperbole.  Even most inerrantists can accept that a human feeling all alone might exclaim, "I'm the only one left!"

Finally, if you read the context of 1 Kings 18 - you find just a few verses up (1 Kings 18:1 - 15) an encounter in which Elijah speaks with a fellow servant of the Lord - Obadiah - who would qualify as part of the remnant. And, as @RyanFrame points out, in 1 Kings 19:18, God reminds Elijah that he has "7000 who have not bended the knee".

To answer the related questions:

Most scholars assume the books of the Torah to have been pretty well settled no later than 600 BC - and these events are less than 200 years away from that.  Beyond that, the JEPD theory would argue that an iteration of the text was done as early as 1000BC - and depending on how liberal or conservative one is, there were no changes to some oral retelling changes in that time.
Some historians like to state that Ba'al and El Shaddai / Yahweh were originally in one narrative together.  The preserved Old Testament doesn't seem to reference this in any way, but other local myths do.  This answer, in particular speaks to the Ugaritic and Cananite understandings of Ba'al, and his consort-like status to Yahweh. Theoretically, if the prophets of Ba'al had corrupted the Scriptures, they would have preserved the role of Ba'al. As it is, the only mentions of Ba'al are negative (disputing her actual existence) and as a misguided belief only.  That they did not would seem to suggest that the preserved text was not influenced by the surrounding nations.

First of all: what is in Torah are the teachings of God to Israel. Torah today contains these teachings. There are no Torah (Torah is the five books of Moses only)scrolls older than the 10th. cent.
Most of Torah is oral teaching, which was passed down orally until the 3rd. cent A.D. when the oral Torah was finally written down. It is tradition that confirms that Torah today represents what God gave to Elijah.

The Church in the 3rd. century had no access to the Hebrew "bible" because there were no gentile Hebrew scholars in the Church - they had all been kicked out of the Church by then, and they wrote the "Old Testament"  - the version that is in most English Bibles - from a Greek document called the Septuagint, which was a translation of Jewish documents with a few Greek additional books thrown in. It was condemned by the Judean authorities.

What Elijah did was teach the people by speaking to them, and most of what he said was not written down until the 5th cent. A.D. when the Babylonian Mishnah was written by the rabbis. Followed by the Jerusalem Mishnah. To see what Elijah taught (that is the Oral teachings,) you have to read a Jewish Bible - The Chumash, Stone edition, or the Etz Hayim, for example, which are five times thicker than the Pentateuch in the English Bible, and contain both Written and Oral Torah.


When did the teaching that salvation can still be obtained by people after their physical death first appear in Christianity? Since the time canon was formed, when did the teaching that salvation can still be obtained by people after their physical death first appear in Christianity?

The idea shows up very early on, dating back to apostolic times.  We see Paul talking about baptisms on behalf of the dead (1 Corinthians 15:29) as if it were a familiar, non-controversial practice, and in Peter tells how Christ went to preach to "the spirits in prison" while he was dead, (1 Peter 3:18-20) and saying that they were sinners who had been disobedient in their lives.  So it's safe to say that the concept has been around since the beginning of Christianity.

As far as I can tell, no one knows for certain where the doctrine of a second chance after death began (sometimes called "postmortem evangelism"). Catholicism invented the first major variety of this doctrine with it's concept of purgatory. Since then, many denominations, such as the Mormons, have developed different varieties of this concept. As with most false teaching, this is a product of misinterpreted Scriptures and man-made creeds. One of the most vital rules of interpretation is that ambiguous or difficult passages should be interpreted in light of plainer passages.

Here are the two Scriptures most often abused to support salvation for the unfaithful dead:

I Peter 3:18-20 & I Corinthians 15:29

In light of Hebrews 9:28, which plainly shows that man dies and then he is judged, as well as Luke 16:19-26, which plainly shows that the deceased righteous and wicked are separated by an impassible gulf, we can determine what these more complex passages illustrate. We can instantly flag any interpretation which conflicts with these as false teaching.

I Corinthians 15:29 is simple - Paul, in support of the resurrection, used the ungodly as an example. The point made here is, "Not even the ungodly deny the resurrection, or else they wouldn't baptize on behalf of the dead." Interestingly, Paul never stated that he, the other apostles, or the Christians at Corinth practiced such a thing. Note his use of pronouns.

I Peter 3:18-20 - Admittedly, this can be a very difficult passage. The context is the key to unlock the meaning. We should first review the flood account in Genesis 6-7. The elements here are salvation in Jesus, The Holy Spirit, preaching, lost souls, and God's patience. The people of Noah's day could have been saved by obeying the message that was preached to them. Jesus, being the source of salvation, issued a call to repentance to them in the Spirit through Noah ("a herald of righteousness") just as he did later through the prophets and the apostles. For 120 years, God was patient, but they rejected Noah's preaching, thus perishing in the flood in a lost state. At death, lost souls are cast into a "pit" or "prison" and reserved for judgment (II Peter 2:4-9). The NASB clarifies the tense of I Peter 3:19.

  He went and made proclamation to the spirits now in prison

Jesus did not preach to the spirits after they were dead and imprisoned, but while they were alive and there was still hope, he preached to them through Noah. They refused, and are thus doomed along with the rich man in torment.


What is the practical application of the story of the woman caught in adultery? John 8:2-11 tells us the story of the woman caught in adultery:

2At dawn [Jesus] appeared again in the temple courts, where all the people gathered around him, and he sat down to teach them. 3The teachers of the law and the Pharisees brought in a woman caught in adultery. They made her stand before the group 4and said to Jesus, “Teacher, this woman was caught in the act of adultery. 5In the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women. Now what do you say?” 6They were using this question as a trap, in order to have a basis for accusing him.
But Jesus bent down and started to write on the ground with his finger. 7When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, “Let any one of you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her.” 8Again he stooped down and wrote on the ground.
9At this, those who heard began to go away one at a time, the older ones first, until only Jesus was left, with the woman still standing there. 10Jesus straightened up and asked her, “Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?”
11“No one, sir,” she said.
“Then neither do I condemn you,” Jesus declared. “Go now and leave your life of sin.”

It's a wonderful story of Christ's compassion on an obvious sinner... as well as a story of Christ's cleverness when dealing with the Pharisees.
But what is the practical application of this story?

In the story, everyone there recognised that they were sinners, including the top religious leaders. We should recognise that in ourselves also, no matter how 'good' we try to be. Jesus' compassion is not just for the woman but also for all of us.

This comes to the heart of Christianity and is the whole point of John's Gospel: everyone has sinned/rebelled against God and faces his just judgement. But God sent his Son Jesus to come and save such sinners, and we're invited to trust in him so that we're no longer condemned by God.

Basically all that is above is what i felt but moreover,Jesus also addressed the earth not to condemn people-vs6 and vs 8,unless there is something that was meant by Jesus writing on the ground.


Is communion service at the rail vs. in the pews a function of denomination or church size? In the small baptist churches I've been a part of, (and the LDS service I attended), the communion elements are served to worshippers in the pews. In my Episcopal church, everybody comes up to the rail.  I'm wondering a bit about how this variation in practice arose (Anyone know which came first?) and if there is a way of predicting how any given church will practice it.

In Catholic churches, Communion is required by the Holy See to be distributed by a minister (priest, bishop, deacon, etc) and may only be done so by a lay person if there are not enough ministers to do the job. This, and the requirements about how the congregants receive the Eucharist from the minister, suggests that in Catholic churches, altar distribution is the way it goes. This is one of the many Catholic practices that originated in the Catholic Churches need to control its congregants. The ministers have control over whether you receive the sacrament of the Eucharist.

Episcopal/Anglican churches also practice this distribution by ministers, although I'm not certain about requirements as I know less about the Anglican church hierarchy. Lutheran churches do too, sometimes referring to it as The Sacrament of the Altar. Both of these come from their close ties to Catholicism back in the day.

In the various other Protestant persuasions, the desire to draw away from the rules and rituals of the more orthodox denominations and the belief that God connects directly with all people, not just through the ministers, lead to a significant de-formalization of the communion rite. Also, since most Protestants do not hold the that communion is a sacrament, but rather a remembrance of Christ's death for Christians on the cross, the formal ritual became unnecessary.

Also because of the lower importance that Protestants place on the Eucharist, it is not celebrated weekly at all churches, including Lutheran and Anglican churches. Catholics, however, are required to take communion weekly.

As to whether you can tell, at Protestant churches, there is not a sweeping generalization to be made based on denomination or size. That said, you could probably tell by when you walk in if you see a communion table set up with those communion cup-holders stacked on top of each other or if you see somewhere to kneel at the front of the church.

I've attended evangelical and Fundamentalist churches most of my life, including Southern Baptist, Regular (GARBC) Baptist, Assemblies of God, Christian & Missionary Alliance, and Evangelical Free Church, and we almost always celebrate communion while sitting in the pews. I've attended a handful of Catholic services and there everyone went to the front of the church for communion. I've generally assumed it was a denominational thing: Protestants do it from the pews while Catholics go to the front. It wouldn't surprise me if Anglicans and Episcopalians did it like Catholics, as their practices are more Catholic-like than most other Protestants. (As they split from the Catholic church over leadership issues rather than doctrine.)


According to Calvinists, how could Adam and Eve fall? How could Satan fall? Under Calvinism, men under grace are guaranteed to choose God and be saved.

If God's holy influence is so convincing, that it is impossible for free thinking creations to choose against it, why did something go wrong in the first place?

One prominent Reformed theologian, Louis Berkhof, has written that "[t]he problem of the origin of the evil that is in the world has always been considered as one of the profoundest problems of philosophy and theology." Other Reformed theologians share this assessment.  Charles Hodge suggests that given "the feebleness of our powers" and the "limited range of our vision" that it would be reasonable to "leave this question to be answered by God himself."2 Nonetheless, to answer what he sees as false doctrines, Hodge and others strive to provide an explanation.

We should note that this question is closely related to the general problem of the existence of evil.  I will attempt to focus on the specific questions asked, regarding the fall of Adam and Eve and the demons.

Reformed theologians make several points: 1) that God is not the author of evil, 2) God's creation was good, 3) that Man and demons sinned voluntarily, and 4) God ordained that sin would come into the world.

God is not the author of evil

The first point emphasized is that God cannot be considered the author of evil.  Wayne Grudem writes that "we must clearly affirm that God himself did not sin, and God is not to be blamed for sin."3 Among the many passages cited in defense of this statement is Deuteronomy 32:4:

  The Rock, his work is perfect, for all his ways are justice. A God of faithfulness and without iniquity, just and upright is he. (ESV)

Berkhof writes that we cannot "make God the cause of sin in the sense of being its responsible author.  This idea is clearly excluded by Scripture."4

Creation was originally good

Berkhof takes time to explain the original states of the angels and of men.  Citing Genesis 1:31, "God saw everything that He had made and, behold, it was very good," Berkhof argues that angels had an "original good condition," and notes that the good angels are called "elect" in 1 Timothy 5:21.  These, he says, must have received a "special grace of perseverance," which the fallen angels did not receive.5

Regarding man's original state, Berkhof calls it one of "relative perfection," like a child compared to an adult, "destined to reach a higher degree of perfection in the way of obedience." He was endowed with "original righteousness," but he "could lose it and still remain man."6 This original righteousness, according to Hodge, comes from man being created in God's image, and "includes not only his rational nature, but also knowledge, righteousness, and holiness."7

Covenant of Works vs. Covenant of Grace

One thing worth noting here is that prior to the Fall, Reformed theologians teach that Adam and Eve lived under a Covenant of Works, that is, a Covenant under which they were required to perfectly obey the law.  The punishment for failure was (obviously) death, but the reward for obedience was eternal life. Under this Covenant of Works, says Berkhof,

  [Adam] was not yet raised above the possibility of erring, sinning, and dying.  He was not yet in possession of the highest degree of holiness, nor did he enjoy life in all its fulness.  The image of God in man was still limited by the possibility of man's sinning against God, changing from good to evil, and becoming subject to the power of death.8

However, the reward for obedience in the Covenant of Works was eternal life.  Berkhof calls the time before the Fall a period of "probation, in order to determine whether he would willingly subject his will to the will of God."8  If Adam had obeyed, he and his descendants would have obtained eternal life.

God's relation to Adam under the Covenant of Works is different, therefore, from his relation to mankind under the post-Fall Covenant of Grace, which God made with sinners.  In the Covenant of Grace, say the Reformed, there are elect and non-elect, and the elect are predestined to receive grace ("irresistible grace"). Thus, Adam being "elect" under the Covenant of Grace would only make sense after the Fall.

Man and demons sinned voluntarily

Turning then to Adam's sin, Berkhof says that Adam's transgression was "a perfectly voluntary act on the part of man."9  Explaining God's command to not eat from the tree, Berkhof writes:

  [I]n order that the test of Adam might be a test of pure obedience, God deemed it necessary to add to the commandments of which Adam perceived the naturalness and reasonableness, a commandment which was in a certain sense arbitrary and indifferent.  Thus the demands of the law were, so to say, concentrated on a single point.  The great question that had to be settled was, whether man would obey God implicitly or follow the guidance of his own judgment.8

Other reformed theologians are also quick to state that man and fallen angels sinned voluntarily.  Hodge says that Adam's sinfulness was "self-acquired," and that the fallen angels "kept not their first estate."10 Grudem writes:

  It was man who sinned, and it was angels who sinned, and in both cases they did so by willful, voluntary choice.3

God ordained sin

In light of the previous points, it may seem surprising that Reformed authors continue by saying that God ordained sin to come into the world.  Grudem, citing Ephesians 1:11 and Daniel 4:35, writes that God

  did ordain that sin would come into the world, even though he does not delight in it and even though he ordained that it would come about through the voluntary choices of moral creatures.3

The natural follow-up question to this is, "why?," which gets into the general problem of evil.  I'll briefly mention, however, Hodge's answer to this question.  He argues that the glory of God is the ultimate purpose of creation, and that "there could be no manifestation of his mercy without misery, or of his grace and justice, if there were no sin."11 Citing Romans 9:22-23, where Paul discusses God's creation of vessels of wrath and vessels of mercy, Hodge concludes:

  Sin, therefore, according the Scriptures, is permitted, that the justice of God may be known in its punishment, and his grace in its forgiveness.  And the universe, without the knowledge of these attributes, would be like the earth without the light of the sun.11

Conclusion

Ultimately, Reformed theologians admit the difficulty of the problem, but hold these points as the clear teaching of Scripture and thus accept them.  Hodge recommends that we "rest satisfied with the simple statements of the Bible" and "with the assurance that the Judge of all the earth must do right."2 Similarly, John Calvin closes his treatment of the problem of evil by saying that "[o]ur true wisdom is to embrace with meek docility, and without reservation, whatever the Holy Scriptures, have delivered."12

References:

Berkhof, Systematic Theology
Calvin, Institutes of Christian Religion
Grudem, Systematic Theology
Hodge, Systematic Theology

Berkhof, 2.2.1, page 219
Hodge, 1.5.13, page 430
Grudem, page 492
Berkhof, 2.2.1, page 220
Berkhof, 1.2.4, page 145
Berkhof, 2.1.3, page 209
Hodge, 2.5.3, page 102
Berkhof, 2.1.4.C, pages 215-17
Berkhof, 2.2.1, page 221
Hodge, 2.5.6, page 113
Hodge, 1.5.13, page 435
Calvin, 1.18.4

Why would Adam and Eve be different from anyone else?

To the best of my knowledge, Calvinists do not say that "God's holy influence is so convincing, that it is impossible for free thinking creations to choose against it". Where do you get this statement from? Is that a quote from a Calvinist? My understanding of Calvinism is quite the opposite: Calvinists say that sinners by their nature rebel against God, his authority, and his holiness.

On this point Calvinists don't really differ from other branches of conservative Christianity. They all say that some people reject God for a variety of reasons: They may not want to follow God's rules. They may not believe there is a God. They may be angry at God for things that have happened in their lives. Etc. The difference is that the Calvinist says that God in his sovereignty decided before you were born who would turn to him and who would not, while believers in free will say that each person can choose. (Note that Calvinists agree that you choose: they just say that the choice you will make is predetermined.)


Does the Old Testament foretell the time in history in which the Messiah would come (the first time)? I understand that the Old Testament prophecies many different things about the Messiah who was to come, including the virgin birth, His suffering, His resurrection, etc.

However, is there anything in the Old Testament that indicates the time in history in which He would come, or is it just "some time in the future"?

Yes. Daniel, who wrote during the Babylonian Empire prophesied that Messiah would come after four succesive Kingdoms. One which had already existed, the Babylonian, would be taken over by the Persian, then the Persian taken over by the Greek. The Greek then taken over by the Roman, then Messiah overthrowing the Roman. This is not just a Christian re-interpretation but an actual Jewish expectation that Messiah would overturn the Roman Empire.  Of course the common Jewish expectation was that Messiah would lead by sword, not by conversion to an 'invisible' kingdom, but nevertheless, both traditional Jewish and Christian interpretation of Daniel Chapter 7 puts Messiah after the formation of the Roman Empire.

A wiki article on the four beasts of Daniel has it right:

  The following interpretation is a traditional view of Jewish and Christian Historicists, Futurists, Dispensationalists, Partial Preterists, and other futuristic Jewish and Christian hybrids, as well as certain Messianic Jews, who typically believe that the kingdoms in Daniel (with variations) are:

Neo-Babylonian Empire
Medo-Persian Empire
Macedonian Empire of
Alexander and his successors to the Ptolomaic and Seleucid Empires
together, and
Roman Empire, with other implications to come later.

This was the scheme described by Jerome in his Commentary on Daniel.[7] Within this framework there are numerous variations.

Yet this is not all. Many respectable theologians believe that Daniel was more particular in foretelling the time of the coming of Christ than ever any prophet had been before. In Daniel 9 of his prophecy, it is foretold that it should be '70 weeks', i.e. 70 weeks of years, or 70 times 7 years, or 490 years, from the decree to rebuild and restore the state of the Jews till the Messiah should be crucified. There is much calculation by various people to argue that this was the very year that Christ died dated from the commission granted to Ezra by Artaxerxes in Ezra 7. Naturally this is fairly complicated to prove and there would be much debate about the details.

However this exactness to the precise year does not appear to have provided any Rabbinic traditions to expect Messiah at the time of Christ exactly, rather according to the Jewish historian Alfred Edersheim there was many guesses from around 4000 years after the Creation to around 729 A.D. based on an extended view of a five monarchy prediction where after Rome somehow Ishmael was added without any scriptural warrant. Yet even in this confusion and speculation some interesting Rabbinic opinions can be found concerning Daniel. First around the time of Messiah as predicted by Daniel some thought that the second temple would be destroyed which is surprisingly accurate considering.

  Dan. 9:24. In (The Talmudic Tractate Nazir, on the Nasirate. 32 b) it is noted that this referred to the time when the second Temple was to be destroyed. So also in Yalkut vol. ii. p. 79 d, lines 16 &c. from the bottom. (Edersheim, A. (1896). Vol. 2: The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah (P734)

Second, a kind of disappearance and reappearance of Messiah was thought of. Although not seen as 3 days in the grave a 45 day disappearance is again a pretty good guess:

  Dan. 12:11, 12. These two verses receive a peculiar Messianic interpretation, and that by the authority of the Rabbis. For it is argued that, as Moses, the first Redeemer, appeared, and was withdrawn for a time, and then reappeared, so would the second Redeemer; and the interval between His disappearance and reappearance is calculated at 45 days, arrived at by deducting the 1,290 days of the cessation of the sacrifice (Dan. 12:11) from the 1,335 days of Dan. 12:12 (Midr. on Ruth 2:14, ed. Warsh. p. 43 b). (Edersheim, A. (1896). Vol. 2: The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah (P734).

These predictions are all quite remarkable and they shows us how precise and speculative those were who pondered them, yet somehwat accurate still. Also it should give us pause to consider how miraculous that these prophecies did predict events which arguably occured. Of course after the fact we are able to see the predictions more clearly but that is partly the purpose of prophecy, to prove that events which have occurred were clearly predicted by an omniscient God.

Daniel's prophecies are the clearest, because they can be used to count years. However, another way to measure time is by generations. Note how in Matthew 1, the writer of the Gospel makes this curious statement:

  17 Thus there were fourteen generations in all from Abraham to David,
  fourteen from David to the exile to Babylon, and fourteen from the
  exile to the Messiah.

The construction of 14 + 14 + 14 draws attention to the number forty-two, but the genealogy only lists forty-one names; King David's name is given twice. Let us subtract Jesus' name (because he is divine and the one who brings an end to death and the spiritual exile from Eden). That leaves us with forty names of fallen men wandering in the desert of the world of exile, waiting for a savior to lead them to the promised land of the new Eden in Heaven. In the Bible, the number forty is associated with suffering and exile:

forty years of wandering in the desert after the Exodus
forty days of fasting (Moses, Jesus)
forty days of rain to flood the earth in the days of Noah
forty days to embalm Joseph in Egypt
Eli, unfaithful judge, died after having led Israel for forty years on hearing that the Ark of the Covenant had been captured and his sons killed
Elijah's forty day journey through the wilderness to meet God at Mount Horeb
Ezekiel's prophecy of a forty year exile for the people of Egypt (Ezekiel 29)
Jonah's prophecy against Nineveh that God's wrath would come in forty days
Many of Israel's kings (David, Solomon, and others) ruled for forty years

Thus in a subtle way, the Old Testament draws attention to the number forty as signifying the length of time between when an exile begins and it ends. It also makes much of God's promises as pertaining to generations of people, with the line from Adam to the savior being defined in terms of the descendants from one chosen person to the next.

The last name in Matthew's genealogy mentioned in the Old Testament was Zerubbabel, who returned with the first wave of exiles in about 538 BC. That leaves ten more generations of non-saviors left to make it all the way to the savior, or about fifty years per generation. Given God's habit of often skipping the firstborn, this line of reasoning would have given a window of 300-600 years from the time of Zerubbabel to the Christ. Not precise in terms of years, but precise in terms of generations.


In light of grace, How does a Christian consider the devotedness of Muslims and Jews? This question is somewhat triggered by this question. I felt a plethora of emotions when I thought about the right way to approach answering it, and I felt it would be better to express these sentiments in another question rather than as an answer to that question.

The sentiments are as follows: Judaism and Islam are two religions whose devotees display (quite frankly) an incredible and exceptional level of devotion to God, a level of devotion which I could not personally dare to imagine myself undergoing. When I think of the number of commandments which adherents of Judaism have to follow, and think of the common image of adherents of Islam bowing to God in humble submission, I feel nothing but utter respect. From the point of view of Christianity, this level of devotion might appear misguided, as salvation is through Jesus Christ and nothing else. Agreed.

But with all the above mentioned factors in play, how does one go about even thinking about this issue? How does one go about approaching it? Is there a balance that can be sought in discussions on the topic? How can one aptly say, "yes, salvation is through Jesus Christ, but the amount of devotion to God which adherents of Judaism and Islam display is frankly admirable, even to (certain) Christian eyes"?

Apologies if the presentation of the question is a little unclear, but I hope you get what I mean. Thanks.

Find the most dedicated Jew or Muslim and you probably won’t find anyone more dedicated to God under his moral Laws than the Apostle Paul before he became a Christian.  Paul said he was blamelessly devoted to God before knowing Christ but after becoming a Christian he counted all that devotion as mere rubbish:

If someone else thinks they have reasons to put confidence in the flesh, I have more:  circumcised on the eighth day, of the people of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews; in regard to the law, a Pharisee; as for zeal, persecuting the church; as for righteousness based on the law, faultless. But whatever were gains to me I now consider loss for the sake of Christ.
But whatever were gains to me I now consider loss for the sake of Christ.  What is more, I consider everything a loss because of the surpassing worth of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord, for whose sake I have lost all things. I consider them garbage, that I may gain Christ (NIV Philippians 3:4-9 Bold mine)

Pharisees in the Bible were precisely known for the ‘incredible and exceptional level of devotion to God’, a level of devotion which most could not personally dare to imagine or undergo.
We sometime forget how dedicated they were and how much respect they obtained from the general population for that 'holy behaviour'. We forget this wisely, because Jesus said doing holy things for God for the respect that man will provide is evil. This respect you have is what a self-righteous person works for, so they would be very happy to hear you speak this way. However, Jesus looked at it quit differently. If good works are not done by faith in Messiah, they are not done by faith in God. Also anything that is not done by faith is sin, therefore all good deeds done in unbelief is not good at all -- it is sin -- and the deadliest kind -- for it makes a person self-righteous.

everything that does not come from faith is sin. (NIV Romans 14:23)
And without faith it is impossible to please God (NIV Hebrews 11:6)

Jesus took a different view to those 'committed to God', but were not committed to faith in Him, for the forgiveness of their terrible and huge sins.
Religious people without faith in Christ can be very dedicated in converting others to their zeal for God:

“Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You travel over land and sea to win a single convert, and when you have succeeded, you make them twice as much a child of hell as you are. (NIV Mathew 23:15)

Religious people without faith in Christ can sacrifice many material things in their devotion to God:

“Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You give a tenth of your spices—mint, dill and cumin. (NIV Mathew 23:23)

Religious people without faith in Christ can sacrifice impress others by outwards commitments to God, but their unrepentant hearts by rejecting Christ shows the true state of their inwards perversity:

“Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You clean the outside of the cup and dish, but inside they are full of greed and self-indulgence. (NIV Mathew 23:25)

Religious people without faith in Christ seem like very good people and its sometime hard to tell what is going on inside but Christ shocked everyone by having a fiery discernment:

“Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You are like whitewashed tombs, which look beautiful on the outside but on the inside are full of the bones of the dead and everything unclean. (NIV Mathew 23:27)

I could keep going and going but I think you get the point.
Some of these highly impressive people who were extremely dedicated to God at the times of the Apostles had doubts whether Jesus was the Messiah, or not. Some had converted to Christianity but not with real sincere faith yet. Their religious convictions and how they perceived the faith of their holy forefathers made them seriously doubt the gospel. There were struggling with a deadly poison - unbelief. It was a heaven, or hell, tuype of decicision.
The Epistle to the Hebrews (Jewish people) was written to them, to ensure they do not get confused. In that Epistle we find some of the most severe warnings in all of scripture, because turning away from Christ to Judaism is exposing your soul to the danger of hell – with a sort of 'fast track' direction. For having been exposed to the truth anf grace of Christ and then rejecting it! and turning to another religion is possibly the greatest sin a man can commit.

If we deliberately keep on sinning after we have received the knowledge of the truth (i.e. turn away from faith in Christ and return to Judaism), no sacrifice for sins is left, but only a fearful expectation of judgment and of raging fire that will consume the enemies of God. Anyone who rejected the law of Moses died without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses. How much more severely do you think someone deserves to be punished who has trampled the Son of God underfoot, who has treated as an unholy thing the blood of the covenant that sanctified them (i.e. disrespecting the blood that brought them into an external knowledge of the gospel, offering them eternal life which they were about to possibly reject!!), and who has insulted the Spirit of grace?  For we know him who said, “It is mine to avenge; I will repay,” and again, “The Lord will judge his people. ”It is a dreadful thing to fall into the hands of the living God. (NIV Hebrews 10:26-31 Italics mine)

So you see there is nothing here but a disappointing answer. The Bible does not just sprinkle sugar on all our fears and worries. Sometimes it says something pretty tough, and I know this can be very hard at times. The Bible has knocked me down many times, but God’s love pulls me back up! The Bible wants us to 'hang in there' and 'do not get discouraged' about all this. Gods grace is much bigger than our sins, whether they are ‘white’ sins of self-righteousness like those in religion, or those lesser evils, those ‘black’ sins of sexual perversity, drunkenness, greed for money, etc.

Let me say something, Noah was the prophet, his religion was the only one accepted by God at that time so that at those times salvation was just through Noah, this was the case then for Abraham, also for Moses for the sons of Isreal, and then for Christ, PBUT. This was always the case for all prophets of God, if a prophet of God was there in public leading people to God and people were leaving him alone fighting against him you think any chance for them to survive? Certainly not. Now the problem is this, if Jesus is the last prophet then his religion is the last divine one, so salvation would certainly be trough him, but what if he is not the last one? I see Christians believe in Christ not as a prophet for him to be the last one or one before the last one, but they saw him as God himself, this is something that I just cannot understand, but to us now salvation is just through Muhammad, however, it is written in Quran that this will not be true unless we believe in all the prophets of God, not even rejecting a single one of them.

  The Messenger believeth in what hath been revealed to him from his
  Lord, as do the men of faith. Each one (of them) believeth in Allah,
  His angels, His books, and His messengers. "We make no distinction
  (they say) between one and another of His messengers." And they say:
  "We hear, and we obey: (We seek) Thy forgiveness, our Lord, and to
  Thee is the end of all journeys." [Abdullah Yusuf Ali] (2:285)

and the last part of this Ayah is what makes a Muslim a real muslim, as the word "muslim" means yielder to the will of God: we hear, and we obey.

But about what Mike said in his answers I should have some clarifications. We just believe the same thing:

  Jesus said doing holy things for God for the respect that man will
  provide is evil. This respect you have is what a self-righteous person
  works for, so they would be very happy to hear you speak this way.
  However, Jesus looked at it quit differently. If good works are not
  done by faith in Messiah, they are not done by faith in God. Also
  anything that is not done by faith is sin, therefore all good deeds
  done in unbelief is not good at all -- it is sin -- and the deadliest
  kind -- for it makes a person self-righteous.

actually, if my memory helps I saw a Hadith wherein an old letter was found and brought to the one of the 14 saints of Shia Islam, he looked at it and announced that the letter is a piece of writing from saint Peter, the succeeder of Jesus, which reads: the best person is a stealth pious, and the worse is one famous pharisee! (maybe not a good translation due to my lame English but hope that it would give you the message). But a point of bifurcation between us is that Mike said: "by faith in Messiah" and certainly it was true for that time but we believe not also after the last prophet came as well, unless faith in Jesus is accompanied by faith in also Muhammad, PBUT.

Also, note that the faith is God is the one single requirement and everything beside it is just a prerequisite of that on its own. So again back to the original question, every worship dedicated only to God is respected by God as he says in Quran, the prayer be Muslim or not:

  Not all of them are alike: Of the People of the Book are a portion
  that stand (For the right): They rehearse the Signs of Allah all night
  long, and they prostrate themselves in adoration. (3:113)

and

  Ye are the best of peoples, evolved for mankind, enjoining what is
  right, forbidding what is wrong, and believing in Allah. If only the
  People of the Book had faith, it were best for them: among them are
  some who have faith, but most of them are perverted transgressors.
  (3:110)

and

  And there are, certainly, among the People of the Book, those who
  believe in Allah, in the revelation to you, and in the revelation to
  them, bowing in humility to Allah: They will not sell the Signs of
  Allah for a miserable gain! For them is a reward with their Lord, and
  Allah is swift in account. (3:199)

There are many people in Shia Islams that are known to public as a holy person just after their death, so to speek not all muslims worship God in the sense of the self-righteous people, there are many who do their best to hide their position in front of God as much as possible, behaving just as others, a stranger would never even suspect he may be a holy man, however, there are also people who are discovered before their death, among them is Ayatollah Bahjat, this is the link to a movie showing a prayer of him in a mosque, don't you feel God in his front?

Godspeed


Does it state ANYWHERE in the Bible that pets can or can not go to heaven? I've heard it both ways , but can't seem to find it.  Some have told me dogs have no soul so they can't go, but I am sure my dog feels guilt when he steals food from the cat.  Is that not a sign of a soul?

I understand that the question of whether or not they do go to heaven has been addressed in Do animals go to heaven/hell? but this is a different question.  The answers there deal don't directly state whether or not there is a direct Biblical statement on this.

Can anyone tell me, all personal interpretation or doctrinal extrapolation aside, is there any clear, unambiguous, direct statement in Scripture that tells whether or not animals/pets can go to heaven?

"...is there any clear, unambiguous, direct statement in Scripture that tells whether or not animals/pets can go to heaven?"

No. The topic isn't addressed in scripture anywhere.

I say this with only clear discernment and personal experience.  God created animals  before people.  He had a such a great amount of love for them that he put them on this earth first.  Certain animals were meant to relate, connect and even live with humans.  The bible says the soul is the mind.  Pets as you know, can be very intelligent  thinkers, they have minds.  They also have the ability to love.  They readily receive love, and as most of us have experienced, they are ever so gracious to give it to us in abundance.  This only shows they have a spirit as well as a soul.  My answer may not be


Concept and permanence of hell and the "outer darkness" according to LDS beliefs [Edited because I first got confused from the answers about for whom should "hell" be a permanent place (I had assumed that the SE answers meant that it was not a permanent place for anyone).]

This is related to this other StackExchange question about who ends in hell according to LDS doctrine.

In this other question, the topmost of two current answers state about hell:

  Instead of a place of suffering and torment, it's a temporary
  prison where they will get a chance to learn about the Truth, and if
  they are willing, repent and embrace the Truth.

  Those who reject it are cast into outer darkness with Satan and his
  angels, and the "sons of Perdition".

The second answer states that:

  While some refer to spirit prison as 'hell' it is not actually
  referred to as that in any official church teaching. It is as @David
  said a temporary place where people have a chance to accept the
  gospel of Christ. See: 1 Peter 3: 18-20

  In all actuality no place in LDS teachings is actually called hell.
  The 'Sons of Perdition' are relegated to outer darkness, after the
  final judgment (as opposed to right when you die) So after the second
  coming of Christ.

However the page at lds.org (quoted in the first answer) says that:

  Latter-day revelations speak of hell in at least two ways. First, it
  is another name for spirit prison, a temporary place in the postmortal
  world for those who died without a knowledge of the truth or those who
  were disobedient in mortality. Second, it is the permanent location of
  Satan and his followers and the sons of perdition, who are not
  redeemed by the Atonement of Jesus Christ.

I am not intending to nitpick on answers, but I probably need some clarification.

On one hand the official lds.org answer refers to hell as a permanent place for Satan, his followers, and the sons of perdition.

On other hand the answers here refer to hell as a temporary place where people can learn about God.

The questions I wanted to ask about this:

Is the hell that is a spirit prison in the lds.org answer, or the
place were people learn the truth about God, the same as the hell
that is a permanent place for Satan and the sons of perdition?
What is the "outer darkness" referred to in both answers?
Is anyone tortured in hell or in the "outer darkness", by God or
because of the will of God, according to LDS beliefs?

Please indicate whether your answer is the official church answer (or if that is what you have been taught in church) or if it is your own interpretation.

Is the hell that is a spirit prison in the lds.org answer, or the place were people learn the truth about God, the same as the hell that is a permanent place for Satan and the sons of perdition?

No, they're different. Alma 40 says:

6 Now there must needs be a space betwixt the time of death and the time of the resurrection.
7 And now I would inquire what becometh of the souls of men from this time of death to the time appointed for the resurrection?
...
13 And then shall it come to pass, that the spirits of the wicked, yea, who are evil—for behold, they have no part nor portion of the Spirit of the Lord; for behold, they chose evil works rather than good; therefore the spirit of the devil did enter into them, and take possession of their house—and these shall be cast out into outer darkness; there shall be weeping, and wailing, and gnashing of teeth, and this because of their own iniquity, being led captive by the will of the devil.
14 Now this is the state of the souls of the wicked, yea, in darkness, and a state of awful, fearful looking for the fiery indignation of the wrath of God upon them; thus they remain in this state, as well as the righteous in paradise, until the time of their resurrection.

(Alma was not a very concise speaker.)
This refers to a temporary place between death and the resurrection for those who were wicked. (It's confusing that sometimes the terms are used interchangeably, but in the eternal scheme of things, it probably doesn't matter, since the one who is consigned to hell, was always there in the first place (CS Lewis).)

2 . What is the "outer darkness" referred to in both answers?

Those answers refer to a place called "outer darkness" which is permanent.

3 . Is anyone tortured in hell or in the "outer darkness" according to LDS beliefs?

Yes, I think so. The scriptures refer to hell as a state of "weeping, and wailing, and gnashing of teeth, and this because of their own iniquity" and being led captive by the devil. Sounds pretty torturous to me, anyway. (I should clarify too that Mormon belief sends way fewer people to this hell than "traditional" Christian belief systems.)

As referenced in 1 Corinthians  Chapter 15 (Bible citations KJV)

  "40 There are also celestial bodies, and bodies terrestrial: but the glory of the celestial is one, and the glory of the terrestrial is another.
  41 There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars: for one star differeth from another star in glory.
  42 So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption:
  43 It is sown in dishonour; it is raised in glory: it is sown in weakness; it is raised in power:"

Our belief is that everyone on the earth will receive of the glory of God. Some will dwell eternally in Telestial or Terrestrial glory (kingdoms) outside of the presence of God and Jesus Christ, while those who fully accept Christ and receive all that He offers, will live with Them in Celestial glory; Romans 8:17:

  "And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together."

So in a sense of "hell" and "fire & brimstone" it is more a state of mind that an eternal location.   The Book of Mormon speaks of this in several passages including Mosiah Chapter 3:

  "25 And if they be evil they are consigned to an awful view of their own guilt and abominations, which doth cause them to shrink from the presence of the Lord into a state of misery and endless torment, from whence they can no more return; therefore they have drunk damnation to their own souls.
  26 Therefore, they have drunk out of the cup of the wrath of God, which justice could no more deny unto them than it could deny that Adam should fall because of his partaking of the forbidden fruit; therefore, mercy could have claim on them no more forever.
  27 And their torment is as a lake of fire and brimstone, whose flames are unquenchable, and whose smoke ascendeth up forever and ever. Thus hath the Lord commanded me. Amen."

In essence, torment "is as" a lake of fire and brimstone. For eternity, those who chose the things of the world over Christ and His Atonement and mercy, will have to realize that while they are in a place of His glory, they are not with him and will forever have the realization of what they gave up in eternal relationships.

Outer Darkness is a result of what the scriptures also refer to as the unpardonable sin or denying the Holy Ghost: Matthew 12:

  32 "And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the world to come."

(Note: this is also an interesting verse as it relates to the nature of the Trinity and the LDS view that the three members of the Godhead are separate, but that is for another discussion).

In 1 Corinthians 12:3 it states, "… no man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost." If someone has come to know that Christ is the Savior of mankind, that He is the literal Son of God our Heavenly Father, that He is our Creator, that He overcame sin and death, that through Him each of us may also overcome sin and death and live with God forever in His Kingdom and His Glory; this knowledge would have come through a relationship with the Holy Ghost (Holy Spirit). If that knowledge and relationship is then rejected, or in other words, that person chooses to reject the Light given them through Christ, they have chosen to dwell in Outer Darkness (or without any Light from Christ). One is not necessarily cast into Outer Darkness, as much as one would choose to be there by deliberately rejecting the light of Christ.

Hell can be described as a separation from Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ.  in this life - those who do not enjoy the knowledge of Christ and the inspiration and comfort the the Holy Spirit - even if they live next door to or work in the cubicles next to someone who does, could be considered to be living in hell (not knowing Christ), after this life, there is an interim space known as the Spirit World where, like here, those who know of Christ will continue to teach those who haven't learned of Him, so that all can have the opportunity to know and be saved through Christ. Then, when all have Learned and chosen, will be the final judgement.

Hell is not a place where we will be tormented or tortured by anyone other then ourselves for our choices and the results (i.e. Why did I smoke all those years when I knew it was bad for me and now I have cancer and won't live to see my children get married or my grandchildren grow up; why was I so selfish and stupid; only on an eternal scale; why didn't I follow Christ and accept of His Grace and now I can't live with Him forever…)


Why is Ruth's child in the line of Boaz and not Mahlon? It seems to me that according to this law the first-born child of Boaz and Ruth should have been recorded in the line of Mahlon:

  If brethren dwell together, and one of them die, and have no child, the wife of the dead shall not marry without unto a stranger: her husband's brother shall go in unto her, and take her to him to wife, and perform the duty of an husband's brother unto her. And it shall be, that the firstborn which she beareth shall succeed in the name of his brother which is dead, that his name be not put out of Israel. Deuteronomy 25:6 KJV

Boaz clearly mentions this when he purchased the land:

  Then said Boaz, What day thou buyest the field of the hand of Naomi, thou must buy it also of Ruth the Moabitess, the wife of the dead, to raise up the name of the dead upon his inheritance. Ruth 4:5 KJV

mar mine own inheritance - is why the other relative was unwilling to redeem the property.

Yet, Jesus, David, Solomon were all recorded as belonging to the lineage of Boaz, not Mahlon.

Questions:

Why was it recorded like that?
Is this the norm or the exception?
Is there any other recorded incident in the Scriptures where this was done and the lineage was accorded to the deceased person?

tl;dr>
Why was it recorded like that?

because the story is making a theological point, not a legal one

Is this the norm or the exception?

the exact particulars of Boaz are exception, but it is based on a normal practice

Is there any other recorded incident in the Scriptures where this was done and the lineage was accorded to the deceased person?

Yes, Judah and Tamar, the lineage was based on the person who acted as the dad, not the specific rules of Deuteronomy.

My points:
1. Levirate Marriage appears elsewhere in Scripture, with similar result
The concept you are referring to is levirate marriage and appears in other interesting stories in scripture. In the situation of Tamar, we have the same genealogical "problem." Here we have a woman who was destitute and desperate after the death of not one but two husbands, and the withholding of a third. The child that was the offspring of ultimately Judah and Tamar should have also been ascribed to Er - although the fact that Judah, the father, was fulfilling the job that either Er or Shelah, the brothers, should have done may be a complicating factor. Nonetheless, when Jesus' genealogy is recorded, both the women and the men are called out.
2. Levirate Marriage was about property moreso than a "name"
As moderns, our first look is probably at the "honor" being preserved in the idea "that his name be not put out of Israel," but in ancient times, there was a more practical reason as well - money.
Note that levirate marriage had a property purpose that may be obscured by the phrase "that his name be not put out of Israel."  Women in Ancient Israel had no property rights, and absent a child, were destined for a life of destitution. Anna, for example outlived her husband by as much as 80 years, and was basically a homeless woman living in the Temple as a result.
That this was a property thing is attested to in the Lexham Bible Dictionary. Under Levirate Marriage, it says:

Levirate marriage was a cultural expectation designed to preserve some aspect of a deceased’s man’s life. Such marriages could preserve familial inheritance and patrilineal descent, as well as provide support for a widow. The impetus for such marriages could range from moral obligation to legislated responsibility.
Many ancient Near Eastern societies practiced levirate marriage, including Babylon, Assyria, the Hittites, Nuzi, and Ugarit. The custom was also present in parts of modern Africa and Asia (Falusi, “African Levirate,” 300–08). In much of the ancient Near East, the goal of such a practice was to preserve a family’s inheritance. While provisions existed allowing women to inherit property, and though polygamy and adoption offered increased chances of progeny, varying circumstances created problems to which levirate marriage offered a solution (Davies, “Rights,” 138–41).

It should also be understood that levirate marriage was as much a "tradition" as it was a law. As such, the concept will necessarily lean on the "spirit of the law," moreso than the letter. The Word Biblical Commentary states:

Campbell observes that we must not be misled by such terms as “law-code” and “legislation” into thinking that collections of ancient case law functioned as codes of law do in modern Western countries. We must not regard the OT codes of law as comprehensive and all inclusive, intended to regulate the legal needs of life by a system of courts, lawyers, judges, and police. On the contrary, legal decisions were made by the town elders on the basis of local legal precedents, preserved primarily orally.

With oral preservation and a focus on the story rather than the "law" the fact that Boaz is simply way more important than Mahlon, the practical answer becomes obvious.
3. There is a theological point being made, not a legal one
The question then becomes, why would the biblical record gloss over the property implications?  Here, I posit a theological answer, because the theology behind the genealogy is the more "important" lesson for posterity.
In Jesus' "line" four women are noted. None of them have a great reputation:

Tamar - well, we;ve already mentioned the incest and deception
Rahab was a prostitute. Period. Says so.
Ruth was at very least, quite forward, as https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/1391/did-ruth-uncover-boaz-feet-or-something-else points out
Mary was an unwed teenage mother.  Yes, she was given a child by the Holy Spirit, and I belive in the Virgin Birth, but the only people who actually knew that were Mary and Joseph.

In each of these instances, a story is being told about the moms and dads - and they belong more in the "adult" section than as children stories. But therein lies the point. Jews and Christians don't whitewash their history. Doing the official "so that the name isn't blotted out" is a little bit of a whitewash.  By recording the "true" stories of the true fathers, the genealogical story retains its significance and the property support that levirate marriage was supposed to attain is also fulfilled.
Furthermore, by "adopting" different fathers into the line, a point about the doctrine of adoption is made for later Christian readers subscribing to a Pauline interpretation.
4. At least some commentators don't think Boaz was actually doing a levirate marriage, but if he was, his role is correctly reported.
Excursis. The Word Biblical COmmentary has some additional insights:

(1) Ruth 4:5, 10 show that Boaz’s marriage to Ruth was a levirate type of marriage, similar at least to that prescribed in Deut 25:5–10. Even though Boaz was not a levir (Heb. יבם), a “brother-in-law,” this was a levirate marriage because 4:5, 10 specify that the purpose of the marriage to Ruth was “to raise up the name of the deceased on his inheritance so that the name of the deceased shall not be cut off from his brethren” (4:10), which is similar to the purpose given for levirate marriage (cf. Deut 25:6). (2) In 3:9 Ruth bases her request that Boaz accept the levirate marriage responsibility on the fact that he is a גאל, “redeemer.” Therefore, one of the legal responsibilities of the “redeemer” was to perform the levirate marriage, even though the passages in the OT legal corpora dealing with redemption never touch upon the levirate obligation; nor do the passages dealing with the levirate ever call the one responsible for this obligation a “redeemer.” (3) In chap. 4 land that belonged to Elimelech suddenly surfaces in the story, and Boaz calls upon the redeemer more closely related than he to act upon his rights and duties as redeemer and buy back (or preempt the sale of) this land. Further, the standard interpretation argues, Boaz uses the implications of the redeemer’s double responsibilities of “levirate” marriage to Ruth and of redemption of the land of Elimelech to induce the unnamed גאל, who has prior rights, to cede those rights and responsibilities to him. Boaz then redeems the land and marries Ruth. For representative treatments, see the discussion of Campbell, 132–37; Thompson and Thompson, VT 18 (1968) 79–99, and for a full treatment, see Leggett, The Levirate.
Recently a number of studies have sought to solve the many difficulties that arise in applying the postulates outlined above to the exegesis and interpretation of chaps. 3 and 4 of Ruth by denying that the marriage between Ruth and Boaz is connected in any way with levirate marriage. See in particular Beattie, VT 21 (1971) 490–94; VT 24 (1974) 251–67; JSOT 5 (1978) 39–48; JSOT 5 (1978) 65–68; Gordis, “Love, Marriage, and Business,” 241–64; Sasson, JSOT 5 (1978) 49–64;Ruth, 125–29, 143–46.

And this is an interesting problem, mentioned in

PROBLEM: Deuteronomy 25:5–10 delineates what is known as the law of the levirate marriage. If a man dies and leaves his wife childless, the man’s brother was morally obligated to take his brother’s wife and raise up children in the name of his deceased brother. This practice insured that the brother’s name would not die out. However, Boaz was not the brother of Ruth’s dead husband. Wasn’t this marriage arrangement contrary to the law of the levirate marriage?
SOLUTION: Although it was a more complicated incident, the arrangement between Boaz, Naomi, and Ruth was certainly not contrary to the law of the levirate marriage. The primary concern of the levirate marriage was to perpetuate the family line of the deceased. Certain factors indicate that by the time of Boaz and Ruth, some additional provisions had become customary. First, if there was no surviving brother in the immediate family, then the obligation of the levirate marriage became the responsibility of the nearest surviving male relative. In this case, there was one individual who was nearer to Naomi’s family than Boaz. However, when he declined the invitation, Boaz became the nearest male relative and the next in line to legally fulfill this moral obligation.
Second, along with the responsibility to raise up children in the name of the deceased, there came the responsibility to redeem any property that belonged to the deceased and that had been sold or forfeited (Lev. 25:25). Because the nearest kinsman was not financially able to assume this responsibility (Ruth 4:6), he relinquished his right and responsibility to redeem Naomi and marry Ruth and passed that obligation on to Boaz. There is nothing in the account of the redemption of Naomi and the marriage of Boaz and Ruth that is contrary to the law of levirate marriage.

Elimelech is efrati.
If follow levirate line: david is efrati see quote in samuel.

If follow bloodline: david is judah cause Boaz is yudah.

Recall yacob said yudah will supplant his brother and scepter matter & 1st born blessing is with Yosef (type of Jesus Christ redeemer) / Ephraim in his blessings. & in revelation Yosef (not ephraim) & manasseh are numbered & sealed smongst 144 000.

Recall prophecy that the 2 sticks be joined as 1? YAH being legal ... this is likely how He does it in Yahshua = the lion of Yudah by bloodline (likely myriam not Yoseph  .... btw they are half-uncle & niece cause Yoseph is borne out of levirate marriage whoch lokely eliaviate the cursed jeconiah line from solomon vs nathan, both doms of david)) ... EFRAIM BY LEVIRATE (legally) ...

Reason why no mention of mahlon of efrati cause Yudah prominence & now Jews = Israel where as Efrati is lpst in mixing  ... & fulfilling prophecy of "davidic kingdom of Yudah"


Is the tree of "knowledge of good and evil" the same as the "tree of life"? Is there one off-limits tree in the Garden of Eden or two? Genesis speaks of the tree of knowledge of good and evil (Genesis 2:17) and then later talks of the tree of life (Genesis 3:22). Are they the same tree or two different trees?

No. These are two different trees.

  The LORD God made all kinds of trees grow out of the ground--trees that were pleasing to the eye and good for food. In the middle of the garden were the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. (Gen 2:9)

At first, only one was made off limits to humans.

  but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat from it you will certainly die. (Gen 2:17)

Then, after humans disobeyed, God made the other tree off limits, as well.

  And the LORD God said, "The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever. (Gen 3:22)

But now... it is under guard.

  After he drove the man out, he placed on the east side of the Garden of Eden cherubim and a flaming sword flashing back and forth to guard the way to the tree of life. (Gen 3:24)

In summary: There are two trees (among many) in this story, the fruit of one was forbidden, humans disobeyed God. Now we are locked out of the other tree (from which the humans were allowed to eat in the first place.)

Genesis 2:17 says that God placed a Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil in the middle of the Garden of Eden, telling Adam that he must not eat the fruit of this tree. By way of explanation, the ancients thought of existence as comprising good and evil, so knowing both good and evil meant to know everything.

Leon R. Kass says, in The Beginning of Wisdom: Reading Genesis, page 69, that the Tree of Life had not been a concern, because until Adam and Eve ate from the Tree of Knowledge, they were unaware that they were not immortal. As long as they had not eaten the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge, God had no need to forbid Adam from eating the fruit of the Tree of Life that he had also planted in the Garden of Eden. So that the people would not now eat of the Tree of Life and thus become immortal, God sent Adam and Eve from the Garden and placed cherubim (Hebrew; sing: cherub) and a flaming sword to keep (block) the path to the Tree of Life (Genesis 3:24).

Kass believes the Tree of Life was actually more important than the Tree of Knowledge. He  says that once Adam and Eve are aware of their mortality, immortality becomes at once a conscious desire and a known impossibility.  By placing a tree of life in our mythical original condition, and by showing original man's indifference to it, the Garden of Eden story speaks more to the impossible longings of its readers than of the desires of innocent man.  Indeed, the Bible may even regard the human longing for (literal) deathlessness as mistaken, and limitless life as undesirable for a creature such as man.


Were humans created before the animals? (Catholic perspective) In Genesis 2:18-19, it is mentioned that God created man first and then the animals so the man can't be alone and he can name them.

  The LORD God said, "It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him." Now the LORD God formed out of the ground all the wild animals and all the birds in the sky. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name.

But in Genesis 1:25-26, it is mentioned that God created animals and THEN man.

  God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good. THEN God said, "Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals, and over all the creatures that move along the ground." (emphasis added)

So according to the Catholic Church, were humans created before or after animals?

Read on to Genesis 2 : 20-23 and you will understand that Gen 2:18 is in fact setting the stage for narrating the creation of Eve, the perfect life-companion for Adam. The interlude of Adam's `screening' of the animals and birds to look for a companion , is only meant to reinforce the design of Creation meant for mankind.

I'm going to ignore the textual part of this question because I'm not a Hebrew expert and this aspect of the question is probably better suited to Biblical Hermeneutics. Whichever tense is used in English is an artefact of translation, and different translations treat the Hebrew differently. It does seem that most "Catholic" translations do not use had formed, and retain the distinction and apparent anomaly between Genesis 1 and Genesis 2.

Turning to the aspect of the question which concerns Catholic doctrine, there is nothing in the current Catechism of the Catholic Church which demands that the Creation story be taken as literal truth or as myth, or whether Genesis 1 is more or less valid than Genesis 2. Both are in the Bible and both are inspired. The order of creation is ultimately unimportant: what is important is that God created the world at all. There's too much to quote here but one seminal paragraph is

  Among all the Scriptural texts about creation, the first three chapters of Genesis occupy a unique place. From a literary standpoint these texts may have had diverse sources. The inspired authors have placed them at the beginning of Scripture to express in their solemn language the truths of creation — its origin and its end in God, its order and goodness, the vocation of man, and finally the drama of sin and the hope of salvation. Read in the light of Christ, within the unity of Sacred Scripture and in the living Tradition of the Church, these texts remain the principal source of catechesis on the mysteries of the "beginning": creation, fall, and promise of salvation.


Nakedness in the Bible When Adam and Eve first eat the forbidden fruit, they put clothes on to hide their nakedness, indicating man was meant to be naked. However, angels show up in the Bible "dressed in white garments".

Why would angels wear clothes when they are holy?

Both nakedness (and the awareness of that nakedness) and white garments are symbols (this does not mean we are not talking about real things, just that they are also symbolic).

White is a symbol of purity. For example, Revelations 3:5

  5 He that overcometh, the same shall be clothed in white raiment;
  and I will not blot out his name out of the book of life, but I will
  confess his name before my Father, and before his angels.

Here, the saints are given white garments to symbolize that their sins are taken away and that they are pure. Similarly, white garments symbolize purity and holiness when seen on the angels.

Next, the clothes of Adam and Eve. God created them naked, so there can't be anything wrong with that, really.

Genesis 2:25

  25 And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not
  ashamed.

Note the addition "they were not ashamed".

Next, when they eat the fruit:

Genesis 3:7

  7 And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they
  were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves
  caprons.

And then they hide themselves. In that moment, they did something wrong and they are

aware of being in sin
aware that they are "naked" before the Lord, in other words, he knows what they did. They try to hide their sins from him. Nakedness could also be a symbol of the sinfulness itself (although that doesn't make sense since they were created naked), but important is that it is only a symbol of something happening in Adam and Eve. Before sinning, they are also naked, but not ashamed, because there is nothing to be ashamed of. After sinning, that nakedness is a problem for them.

Adam hides, is called out and has to take responsibility. And then, God does the following:

  21 Unto Adam also and to his wife did the Lord God make coats of
  skins, and clothed them.

In the end, God covers their nakedness. Much symbolism and promise in that action, if we take nakedness to symbolize sin. A foreshadow of Revelation 3:5, if you are with me. Either way, God makes clothes for them, so we shouldn't say that clothes themselves are something bad, unwanted, or sinful (or symbolizing sin).

The isssue is one of how cultures express themselves.  "God breathed into his nostrils" GEN 2:7.   Does God Breath?

The idea espressed in Gen 3:11 of Adam being Naked is not one of lack of clothing. Adam lost his devine sonship, his partacipation in the devine Nature as it was in the beginning.  Ideas, such as being clothed in white, have meaning that we can understand as flesh and blood creatures who are subject to the carnal world.  However, the idea of the "White Garmet" is something more, it's a return to the divine sonship that God intended for us (intends for Us").

To understand these concepts is is important to understand some basic concepts of Language, especially when investigating the mysteries associated with writings so ancient.  It is easy when involved with cross cultural translations and cross cultural customs to find difficulty in understanding these things.  This characteristic is far to common in modern interpretations.  When you add on to this equation the fact that we are talking about a world that existed 2000 years or more ago, this adds even more complexity to the situation.

I offer the fallowing as help in understanding these distinctions:

Here is a nice article addressed by Dallas Theological Seminary"

https://faculty.gordon.edu/hu/bi/ted_hildebrandt/new_testament_greek/text/metzger-translationproblems03-bs.pdf

other issues include:

Linguistic Hyperbole: Here is a modern article relating to the issue.

http://www.iasj.net/iasj?func=fulltext&aId=63889

limited Vocabulary and it's issues:

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/judaica/ejud_0002_0008_0_08629.html

The Hebrew language is said to only have about 8000 words, this number is attributed to some words being altered so really there is only about 4000 words.  This creates a situation where one word means more than one thing. Consider culture norms such as "It was raining cats and dogs"  The difficulties are endless.

As to your questions, "Would Angels wear clothes if they were Holy?"  I am not sure that it is even a valid questions as the word Holy has nothing really to do with clothes.  Things that are Holy or sacred, are things set apart for God and his Glory.  Things set apart can be bowls, hats, a people, a mother, a trust, a peice of ground, a nation or a religious rite.

There is a large amount of resources available to understand the difficulties in translating ancient texts, I would encourage anyone who has a more sources to add them to this answer here:

.