What Biblical support is there for a non-Churched Christianity? I'm interested in people who say "I'm a Christian, but I don't go to church."

I understand the sentiment - it really fits in well with the "spiritual, but not religious" Zeitgeist, and it seems to often coincide with a dislike of "hypocrites in the church." Jesus clearly inveighed vehemently against the Pharisees and all who would put on a show, but I'm trying to figure out what Jesus or any of the Biblical writers would have thought of the person who doesn't show up at all.

In making the case against a non-churched Christianity, I would point to:

"Wherever two or more are gathered in my name"
The fact that the vast majority of the NT is addressed to churches and not inviduals
The fact that the OT seems to also simply assume corporate worship.

I could keep going on, but I'm interested in understanding the opposite view.  What scriptural or traditional evidence could one muster to make the case for an idiosyncratic Christianity?  (Etymologically, the word "idiot" actually comes from "one who refuses to join the greater body") In other words, how would the idiosyncratic believer claim he's a Christian?

None. Every time the Bible presents the belivers it presents them in a context of a group. The biblical christian (believer in the Bible) always get together in houses, underground. Here are a few passages tackling this subject:

Romans 12.3-8
1 Corianthians 12.12-31
1 Peter 2.4-5
Heb 10.25

The argument advanced by the non-church goer is all over the place, but not in the Bible.

They say that Jesus never built a Church or been to one (But Jesus was in the synagogue).
The church was to protect and help the member in hostile time like the beginning.
There are hypocrites in the church.
The church does not serve me ...

What Biblical support is there for a non-Churched Christianity?

Some word definition is required before looking into this question. For example the word "church" is not found in the Bible. It is used to translate the word ekklēsia (called out ones). It is even used in Acts to refer to the Israelites that were with Moses at Mt. Sinai.

Non-"Churched" Christians might fall into the following categories;

Those who see to reason or purpose to associate with other Christians.
Those who can find no others with whom they could fellowship.
Those who shun organizational systems in favor of relational connections.
Those who cannot find fellowship without an intolerable level of taint from the flesh and the world.

While there is no Biblical endorsement of Christian isolation, There are verses that can apply to those who do not see a possibility of worthwhile fellowship.

Those who shun fellowship on the basis of denominationalism (divisions) can cite;

  1 Corinthians 1:11-12  For it hath been declared unto me of you, my
  brethren, by them which are of the house of Chloe, that there are
  contentions among you. Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I
  am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ.

  Galatians 5:19-20  Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are
  these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness,   Idolatry,
  witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions,
  heresies,  (heresies = hairesis = divisions)

Those who shun fellowship on the basis of false teaching can cite;

  Philippians 3:18-19  For there are many, of whom I have often told you
  and now tell you even with tears, who walk (live) as enemies of the
  cross of Christ (the Anointed One).  They are doomed and their fate is
  eternal misery (perdition); their god is their stomach (their
  appetites, their sensuality) and they glory in their shame, siding
  with earthly things and being of their party.

  2 Peter 2:1  But there were false prophets also among the people, even
  as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in
  damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring
  upon themselves swift destruction.

  Galatians 2:4  And that because of false brethren unawares brought in,
  who came in privily to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ
  Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage:

Those who shun organizational Christianity as preventing "one another" fellowship and restricting ministry only to approved programs or the task of paid staff;

  Rev 2:6  But this thou hast, that thou hatest the deeds of the
  Nicolaitans, which I also hate.

Those who shun fellowship with those lost in their sin;

  1 Corinthians 5:11  But now I have written unto you not to keep
  company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or
  covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an
  extortioner; with such an one no not to eat.

Those who shun fellowship with those given over to worldliness;

  James 4:4  Ye adulterers and adulteresses, know ye not that the
  friendship of the world is enmity with God? whosoever therefore will
  be a friend of the world is the enemy of God.

We have come to think of "church" in terms of the organizational systems Satan has led the world into. If one considers several generations of school children being told for twelve years each to shut up, sit down, and do what you are told, it is difficult not to see this pattern impressed upon most church systems.

The picture of the "called out ones" in Ephesians is a little different;

  Ephesians 4:11-16  And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and
  some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;   For the
  perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the
  edifying of the body of Christ:   Till we all come in the unity of the
  faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man,
  unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ:   That we
  henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about
  with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning
  craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive;   But speaking the
  truth in love, may grow up into him in all things, which is the head,
  even Christ:

While some who call themselves Christian reject church as unnecessary or inconvenient, others reject church because attendance has nothing to do with learning and maturing into the full image of Christ. The Bible gives us a little insight into the relationship between Paul and Timothy. It seems a little more involved than a boring once a week lecture.

People who use their church system to measure Christians may find that some of those Christians fall short. People who use the Bible to measure churches may find that churches fall short.


What did Jesus quote Psalm 22: "My God, My God, why have you forsaken me?" What is the correlation between these two scripture?
Why Jesus felt forsaken if he knew what was going on?
Why was it mentioned in Old Testament as well as New Testament(in two places)?

My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me? Why are You
so far from helping Me, And from the words of My groaning? (Psalm 22:1, NKJV)
And about the ninth hour Jesus cried out with a
loud voice, saying, “Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani?” that is, “My God,
My God, why have You forsaken Me?” (Matthew 27:46, NKJV)

He was quoting David in Psalm 22.  But nevertheless, Jesus must have felt these words Himself. What it was like for the Son of God to experience "Hell", or separation from God, we can not begin to imagine.

We can only speculate that Jesus, when He uttered those words, felt God had abandoned Him in a real way, not a symbolic way. Jesus truly felt separated from God, and that was far worse than even the pain and suffering on the Cross.

In my opinion God didn't turn his back but merely his gaze. Like any father asked to watch his son endure torture or pain God had to look away so that he would not stop what was always supposed to happen. It was written that Jesus would be born of a virgin, which He was. It was written that Jesus would be betrayed. Which he was. It was written that Jesus would then die for the sins of the world to be forgiven and that was done so that he didn't have to go back on his promise (with a rainbow) to never do what he did in the days of Noah again. Jesus died so we didn't have to. Our sins were all forgiven. We should however thank him for this gift by trying our hardest not to sin. Just cause we are forgiven doesn't give us free range to sin as we please.


Was Constantine The Great a Nicene Christian? Lately I've been trying to figure out whether or not Constantine is a Nicene Christian. He was baptised by Eusebius who was of course an Arian. And since he was very close to Eusebius, he was influenced by Arian views (exiling Saint Athanasius). Some sources I have looked at say that he favored Arianism instead of the Orthodox christian view. Others say that he also exiled Eusebius because he continued to teach Arianism. Was Constantine an Orthodox/Nicene Christian believing Christ was in fact God?

This answer is based on the following 3 resources I found:

A 2015 article Was Constantine the Great Baptized An Arian?
A 2012 paper The Spread Out of Arianism.  A Critical Analysis of the Arian Heresy published in the International Journal of Orthodox Theology
A 2005 article How Arianism Almost Won by Christopher A. Hall published in Christian History Issue #85

There was quite an upheaval between the Council of Nicaea (AD 325) and Constantine's baptism shortly before his death (AD 337) by an Arian sympathizer bishop Eusebius of Nicomedia. But although Eusebius tried to bring back Arianism, he DID sign the creed, making him an Orthodox bishop.  Initially after Nicaea Constantine was strongly opposed to Arianism, ordering Arius's works to be burned.  But,

  [w]ithin ten years of the Council of Nicaea, though, Constantine became convinced that Arius’s ideas fell within the pale of orthodoxy, though the exact details of Arius’s position — at least as represented to the emperor in the years following Nicaea — remain somewhat murky.   What is clear, though, is that neither Constantine nor later sons such as Constans and Constantius were skilled biblical interpreters or theologians. These Roman emperors were more concemed to preserve the unity of the church than to engage in prolonged debates over what to them often seemed theological nitpicking. [...skipped...] Both Arius and Athanasius experienced Constantine’s displeasure. It was Constantine who in A.D. 335 ordered the first of Athanasius’s five exiles—the same year Arius regained the favor of the Roman emperor.  [from "How Arianism Almost Won"]

The resurgence of Arianism was fought in earnest only after Constantine's death, but then suffered a definitive defeat at the Council of Constantinople 56 years after Nicaea.

Therefore, it appears that since Constantine was not a theologian, he was under the impression that he believed the orthodox faith.

  ... as far as Constantine knew, Eusebius repented of his error in his letter and he was restored to his See and gained the favor of Constantine precisely because he was Orthodox. And it was from this canonical bishop of the Orthodox Church, Eusebius of Nicomedia, that Constantine received Holy Baptism, fully in canonical communion with the Church. Consequently, there is no hesitation on the part of the Orthodox Church, which takes the entire historical data into account, that Constantine the Great was baptized as an Orthodox Christian by an Orthodox bishop.  [from "Was Constantine the Great Baptized an Arian"]

Despite the vigorous efforts of some Western and Eastern bishops to exonerate themselves and Constantine, the fact is that he had innumerable opportunities to “bear The witness” by being baptized and “owning” it publicly well prior to his demise. He refused. He retained the company of Pagans and did not earn the “offense of the cross” in keeping his unbaptized state. He clearly did not want to take the mark of the baptized.


Are there any modern churches that subscribe to the Donatist heresy? Back in the late 300s, the big heresy was Donatism.  The basic idea was that if a Priest cracked under the pressure of persecution that it somehow "proved" he was never really worthy of administering the sacraments in the first place, and therefore any baptism, eucharist, or other thing he administered was somehow invalid.

Augustine, however, issued a powerful defense of the idea that a sacrament doesn't depend on the one administering it, but rather the one receiving it.  In reading a recent question about the Waldensians, however, I was surprised to see that they really were much-later Donatists.

The question then, is this - Are there any modern / extant churches that subscribe to this?

Depending on how strictly you define Donatism (sacraments and their efficacy aren't a "given" for most modern movements), it could be argued that many historical movements have been (and are) Donatist when they create a class of Christians who are superior to others and denounce others as non-believers because they are not as devoted. Some have argued that the Anabaptist movement was Donatist, and others have argued that various hyper-conservative movements within denominations or within other movements are Donatist. This can be as subtle as making a distinction between "Spirit-filled" and "nominal" believers, or by other class distinctions whereby one group is repudiated as being inferior because they are less dedicated or do not share the same experiences as the "superior" group.

I'm glad that the apostles didn't adopt that approach, because we'd only be able to read the gospel of John if that were the case ;)

The following folks could be considered modern Donatists, I think:

-"Old Calendarist" Orthodox

-Russian Old Believers (they originated in the 1600s but still exist)

-Pretty much anyone who is completely opposed to ecumenism. Of course, blindly ignoring theological differences (as some extreme pro-ecumenists do) is not a good idea either. A balance is necessary. Many Eastern Orthodox nowadays believe reunion with the Oriental Orthodox may be possible because the two groups share a very similar Christology and the original schism that separated them was largely a semantic one. However, there are some Orthodox who are vehemently opposed to any such plan--those folks could be considered Donatist.

-Nestorians (yes, they still exist!) If I'm not mistaken, there are only about 20000 of them now and they still consider themselves the original true church. A tiny, tiny sect like that should be seeking reconciliation between itself and the larger body of Christians, not writing them all off as heretics.

-Independent Fundamental Baptists

-Westboro. Westboro. Westboro.


What is the Biblical basis for the Holy Spirit being God? I know that Trinitarians believe that God exists as one God in three persons: God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit.
That God the Father is God is patently obvious from the entire Old Testament.
That God the Son is God is made forcefully in John, Colossians, and throughout the New Testament.
We also know that Jesus sent the Holy Spirit, but...
Where in the Bible does it say that the Holy Spirit is God?

In Acts 5:1-4 it says Ananias has lied to the Holy Spirit and has therefore lied to God:

  Now a man named Ananias, together with his wife Sapphira, also sold a
  piece of property. With his wife’s full knowledge he kept back part
  of the money for himself, but brought the rest and put it at the
  apostles’ feet.
  Then Peter said, "Ananias, how is it that Satan has so filled your
  heart that you have lied to the Holy Spirit and have kept for yourself
  some of the money you received for the land? Didn’t it belong to you
  before it was sold? And after it was sold, wasn’t the money at your
  disposal? What made you think of doing such a thing? You have not lied
  just to human beings but to God."

In 2 Corinthians 3:17-18 we see the Spirit is the Lord:

  Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there
  is freedom. 18 And we all, who with unveiled faces contemplate[a] the
  Lord’s glory, are being transformed into his image with
  ever-increasing glory, which comes from the Lord, who is the Spirit.

The bold text is my emphasis of course.

*What is the Biblical basis for the Holy Spirit being God?
In establishing truth, the Scripture requires two or three witnesses.  Deuteronomy 19:15 says, “One witness shall not rise against a man concerning any iniquity or any sin that he commits; by the mouth of two or three witnesses the matter shall be established.”
In regards to the question above - "Is there Biblical basis for the Holy spirit actually being God" the answer is Yes, but we also have multiple passages - more than three that confirm this truth, and extra-Biblical evidence.
Scripture sheds light on, or interprets scripture.  This is why it's so important to compare and cross-reference other passages.

1 John 5:7  “For there are three that bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one."
John tells us that there are Three in heaven that bear witness of the truth.  These Three are the Father, the Word (Son), and the Holy Spirit - and these three are one.

Then, scripture also states that the Holy Spirit is God in the first act of creation, in Genesis 1:1-2  "and the Spirit of God was moving/hovering over the waters."  Only God was present - Not only was the Spirit part of the creation process, he co-existed eternally with God.  Jesus is also listed as being part of the Creation. "Without him was not anything made that was made."

Also, we have the visual representation of the Trinity at the Baptism of Christ, where we see God the Son being baptized, we hear God the Father's voice from Heaven, and we see God the Holy Spirit descending on Jesus as a dove.

Verses can be interpreted in many ways, but one of the most important points of evidence is that we also have grammatical or linguistic evidence.  Hebrew and some other Semitic languages are unique from most other languages in the world, in several aspects, but one of these is that Hebrew grammar has two plural forms.
One plural form is called "dual" and is for two nouns, or subjects, and it also has a separate plural form which is exclusively used when there are three or more things It is indicated by the use of the ending "im" or "om" in masculine words.  In the Creation account, we see this special plural form used for God.  Let us make mankind in our image. [Elohim]
*This is extremely significant, because it's not subjective and therefore cannot be interpreted or manipulated. If it's a dual form- it means two. If it's the plural, then it is not two and it's not one. It's three or more.

We see this special Hebrew plural form for three or more again, in Genesis 1:26, where this is even shown in English, - but it's not as clear, because we only have one plural form. 26 Then God said, “Let Us make mankind in Our image, according to Our likeness;
https://forum.duolingo.com/comment/7465436/Hebrew-Time-10-The-Hebrew-Nouns-Adjectives-Dual-and-Plural-Forms
This grammatical phenomena is cited and confirmed by countless Hebrew courses and textbooks, and is true of Ancient or Biblical Hebrew and also modern Hebrew.
https://www.hebrew4christians.com/Grammar/Unit_Four/Plural_Nouns/plural_nouns.html


Was Christ the man created? In historical Christian belief (of almost any type), it would be considered heresy to say that God the Son was created. The term "begat" is preferred, where this term does not imply creation.

In such a tradition, Christ became incarnate. Is it correct/acceptable in such a tradition to refer to the body of this incarnation as being created? Why or why not?

The problem that you run into is John 1 - in which it says of Jesus, that by him all things were made, and there is nothing that was made that He didn't make. This is why the Nicene Creed is so careful to say he was begotten not made. If God the Father made Jesus, then John made a boo-boo.

The incarnation, on the other hand, is merely putting flesh to that which already existed, namely the spirit of Christ in the man Jesus. The physical manifestation is well known to anyone who has watched a science film on conception.

In other words, the spirit is eternal, but the flesh is temporary, and created.

The fun part, however, is that since it is something made, it means that God the Son got to make his own body. (Reminds me of an episode of ST:TNG called The Offspring, in which Lt. Cmdr. Data's daughter gets to choose her form) I find it interesting that He chose to be so normal and plain- but that's who our God is- he wants so desperately to be with us, that he chooses to be just like us.

The debated part of the incarnation is the nature of the Spirit/Soul/whatever of that flesh in relationship to the pre-existant Spirit of God the Son. The relationship of that spirit of God to the flesh of that baby born is the root of most Christological heresies like Nestorianism, Apollinarianism, and Monophysitism.  Here's the "problem" of each:

Apollinarism: Says that the flesh that was created had no mind of its own.  The problem with this idea is that God was never actually a man. In its most extreme form docetism Jesus only appeared to be human, and was in fact, merely a 'phantasm' of the flesh - a solid spirit that had no human substance whatsoever.  That basically denies the incarnation altogether.
Nestorianism: Says that the flesh was just a normal guy whom God the Son indwelt.  In this idea, Jesus was schizophrenic, having two distinct personalities in one body.
Monophysitism: Says that there was only one nature, in that the human nature was so dissolved in the divine that it basically ceased to exist.  Of the "heresies" listed, this is probably the closest to Orthodoxy, but fails insofar as it denies the existence of a human will.

The orthodox position is the so called hypostatic union.  It says that Jesus was fully God and fully man.  (Hey, Jesus is just 200% that's all!) It's a bit tricky, but the basic idea is to ensure that any Christology recognizes that Jesus was fully able to fully be both things to fully accomplish what he was sent to do.

Traditions can be good or not so good. When ideas are reduced to mantras people stop thinking.
It is acceptable to say things in a way that gets people thinking rather than labeling.

The Unbegotten Only Son made his own DNA from materials he himself created and it was planted in Mary by the Holy Ghost where he became the Only Begotten Son, who died on the cross becoming the Usurping Second Son (second Adam).

The idea is important, not the specific formulation of the idea.


Why was no one able to recognize Jesus as Messiah using prophesy, yet we believe end times prophesy will be easier to clarify? Unless I am missing something, it seems that absolutely no one (with the exception, in part, of the wise-men) was able to identify Jesus as the Messiah at His first coming, using the prophesy they were given to identify Him.

All the accounts I read, including Jesus' recognition by Simeon and Anna down through the Apostles indicate that these people were only able to recognize Jesus as the Messiah either after a personal introduction by Jesus, or by revelation of the Holy Spirit to them.

I know that all the prophesies concerning the Messiah were fulfilled by Jesus perfectly and those prophesies were used and still are used to validate His identity, but my question/concern is this--

If the best Bible/Torah scholars of all time were not able to correctly interpret the OT prophesies well enough to recognize that the Messiah had come and was in their midst, and the Bible is inspired by God, who is the same yesterday, today and forever, why do we think our best interpretation of the end time prophesies will be as cut-and-dry as we have made them out to be?

To be honest, one can hardly blame the people of Jesus' time for being confused. According to what they saw as clear cut prophesy they were expecting someone called "Immanuel" (not Yeshua), They were expecting the Messiah to come as a King and establish a government that would deliver them from their enemies, and they were expecting Elijah to return before the Messiah appeared. I can see how anyone would be confused considering John The Baptist, Himself denied openly that he was Elijah.

It is important to note the nature of the prophecies themselves. The Old Testament gives very conflicting prophecies about the Messiah. To briefly look over them, here's an outline of a few of them:

He was to be a rejected Messiah
He was to be a betrayed Messiah
He was to be a ruler of all nations
He was to come in power 'on clouds'
He was to come in weakness 'on a donkey'
He was to be a teacher of the Gentiles
He was to be a Sacrifice for the sins of Israel.

If you notice, many of these prophecies seem to contradict each other. So to reconcile these apparent contradictions Christians, who believe Christ to be the Messiah for His fulfillment of so many of these prophecies and most importantly His death and resurrection, hold that these prophecies speak of one Messiah who exists and reveals Himself in two capacities, or at two different points in time, under distinct conditions.

In order to answer your question regarding why most people did not realize Christ to be the Messiah until such was revealed to them, it is important to recognize what prophecies were being fulfilled by Christ in His first appearance, or in other words what type of Christ was to be seen in the first coming; the humble and betrayed or the glorified and praised. The answer to this question is clear; Christ fulfilled the prophecies of the 'suffering servant' who faced rejection, betrayal, death and resurrection. As such, Christ's main purpose in His first coming to this world was not to bring about the final elucidation, peace and clarity (which can be assumed to occur in the second coming, along with other prophecies that have yet to occur) but rather to establish His Church through His suffering and crucified body of ministry and power, so that we might grow in the Spirit and in the way we love what the Savior has done through the mystery of the Sacraments. It is through the events that occur now that the world is being prepared for the final coming of the Savior, who shall come in full recognition to all people 'on clouds' to raise the living and the dead to their respective judgement.

With this understanding in place, one can still question why so many free willed people that Christ crossed paths with did not know Him to be the Messiah, if He indeed was the Messiah, and to answer such a question requires a brief explanation of grace. The only way in which truth of any kind is revealed to any soul is through the will of God. If God wills that we not know a certain truth, it is fully within His capacity to hide such knowledge from people. This, however, does not eradicate nor interfere with free will, for what comes to pass is still essentially through the reality of our free interaction. So it is that prophecies are secured to pass in the way that they do. Christ's purpose for coming was not to be glorified, but rather to be ridiculed, and as such, He was left with the task of avoiding glorification and renown recognition. Thus, Christ encouraged others not to speak of Him as the Son of God:

Matthew 8:4

  And Jesus said to him, "See that you tell no one; but go, show yourself to the priest and present the offering that Moses commanded, as a testimony to them."

Mark 1:34

  Jesus healed many who had various diseases. He also drove out many demons, but he would not let the demons speak because they knew who he was.

Matthew 16: 20

  Then he warned his disciples not to tell anyone that he was the Christ.

We as a human race did not collectively recognize Christ because it was not in God's will for us to glorify Him. His purpose in the first coming was not to be glorified by all, but to die humbly in submission to the Father for our sins.

The reason the leaders and elders were not able to identify Jesus as Messiah is that God made them incapable of understanding what was written about the Messiah.

Isaiah prophesies against Israel:

  Isaiah 29:10-16

  For the Lord has poured over you a spirit of deep sleep,
  He has shut your eyes, the prophets;
  And He has covered your heads, the seers.

  The entire vision will be to you like the words of a sealed book, which when they give it to the one who is literate, saying, “Please read this,” he will say, “I cannot, for it is sealed.” Then the book will be given to the one who is illiterate, saying, “Please read this.” And he will say, “I cannot read.” Then the Lord said,

  “Because this people draw near with their words
  And honor Me with their lip service,
  But they remove their hearts far from Me,
  And their reverence for Me consists of tradition learned by rote,
  Therefore behold, I will once again deal marvelously with this people, wondrously marvelous;
  And the wisdom of their wise men will perish,
  And the discernment of their discerning men will be concealed.”
  Woe to those who deeply hide their plans from the Lord,
  And whose deeds are done in a dark place,
  And they say, “Who sees us?” or “Who knows us?”
  You turn things around!

By "you turn things around", he means that it is for the Lord to conceal things from men, and not men to conceal things from the Lord:

  Psalm 25:2 It is the glory of God to conceal a matter, But the glory of kings is to search out a matter.

The leaders of the people, however, had been acting unjustly as though they could hide their actions from God. This is turning things on it's head. So, God says he is going to "deal marvelously," that is, he is going to act contrary to their expectations. In short, he is going to hide what he is doing from them. The psalmist agrees that it defies expectation:

  Psalm 118:22-24 The stone which the builders rejected
  Has become the chief corner stone.
  This is the Lord’s doing;
  It is marvelous in our eyes.
  This is the day which the Lord has made;
  Let us rejoice and be glad in it.

This theme of a lack of understanding of the Prophets is common throughout the prophets, especially Isaiah. At the end of Chapter 52 and beginning of 53, Isaiah speaks for the prophets:

  Kings will shut their mouths on account of Him;
  For what had not been told them they will see,
  And what they had not heard they will understand.
  Who has believed our message?
  And to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed?

These questions are rhetorical, and are exclaimed in woe as though he is saying, "we declare these things, but who is even listening?"

On the contrary, we are made so that we can understand- by the Spirit.

  1 Corinthians 2:6-16 Yet we do speak wisdom among those who are mature; a wisdom, however, not of this age nor of the rulers of this age, who are passing away; but we speak God’s wisdom in a mystery, the hidden wisdom which God predestined before the ages to our glory; the wisdom which none of the rulers of this age has understood; for if they had understood it they would not have crucified the Lord of glory; but just as it is written,

  “Things which eye has not seen and ear has not heard,
  And which have not entered the heart of man,
  All that God has prepared for those who love Him.”

  For to us God revealed them through the Spirit; for the Spirit searches all things, even the depths of God. For who among men knows the thoughts of a man except the spirit of the man which is in him? Even so the thoughts of God no one knows except the Spirit of God. Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, so that we may know the things freely given to us by God, which things we also speak, not in words taught by human wisdom, but in those taught by the Spirit, combining spiritual thoughts with spiritual words.

  But a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised. But he who is spiritual appraises all things, yet he himself is appraised by no one. For who has known the mind of the Lord, that he will instruct Him? But we have the mind of Christ.

We can understand the Spiritual things in spiritual ways because we are taught by the Spirit, and indeed if we are in Christ we have the mind of Christ. At the same time, it's obvious that there are disagreements about what will and will not happen, how it will happen, and when it will happen. Paul says that factions reveal who is approved by God, and who is not:

  1 Corinthians 11:19 For there must also be factions among you, so that those who are approved may become evident among you.

So in closing, we can understand the things of the Spirit because we have the Spirit. If we do not have the Spirit, we cannot understand them, like the spiritual leaders of Israel did not understand them.


Does any church denomination believe it possible to go one moment without sinning? In looking at the opposite of this question posted here, I realized it seems better to raise this question in the reverse.

Assuming the doctrine of original sin, and God's work of the holy Spirit in a believer, can a believer ever do something where the motive becomes sinless? This would assume that the motive could not be improved upon any moral ground but was perfect and 100% pure.  In this sense I guess that one idea, or one thought, or act, would be no less pure then our acts and thoughts in heaven?  Maybe it means it would be as pure as Christ's thoughts himself? Is this possible, or impossible? Does any church body believe in such perfection for at least one moment.

Note: My own church tradition under Luther, Calvin, St, Augustine, etc. does not believe this is possible, but am curious if any other church does.

Most Wesleyan/Holiness denominations teach that it is at least theoretically possible. This would include Methodists, Wesleyans, Nazarenes, and the Salvation Army, as well as most churches that have "holiness" in their name.
This doctrine is known as Christian Perfection or Entire Sanctification (depending on the denomination) and was outlined by John Wesley in a sermon titled Christian Perfection. Wesley later wrote a book, A Plain Account of Christian Perfection.
Essentially, the teaching is this. God expects us to give up our own desires and live for him alone:

1 Peter 4:1-2
Since therefore Christ suffered in the flesh, arm yourselves also with the same intention (for whoever has suffered in the flesh has finished with sin), so as to live for the rest of your earthly life no longer by human desires but by the will of God.

It is God at work within us that enables us to do this:

Philippians 2:12-13
Therefore, my beloved, just as you have always obeyed me, not only in my presence, but much more now in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling; for it is God who is at work in you, enabling you both to will and to work for his good pleasure.
1 John 5:18
We know that everyone who has been born of God does not keep on sinning, but he who was born of God protects him, and the evil one does not touch him.

If God works in us and protects us and enables us to stop sinning, then all we have to do is give up our own willfulness and let God take control.
In theory it's that simple, but in practice it is far from easy. The Apostle Paul struggled:

Romans 7:19-23
For I do not do the good I want, but the evil I do not want is what I do. Now if I do what I do not want, it is no longer I that do it, but sin that dwells within me. So I find it to be a law that when I want to do what is good, evil lies close at hand. For I delight in the law of God in my inmost self, but I see in my members another law at war with the law of my mind, making me captive to the law of sin that dwells in my members.

After preaching Christ for many years, Paul wrote from prison that this perfection was still in the future:

Philippians 3:12-14
Not that I have already obtained this or am already perfect, but I press on to make it my own, because Christ Jesus has made me his own. Brothers, I do not consider that I have made it my own. But one thing I do: forgetting what lies behind and straining forward to what lies ahead, I press on toward the goal for the prize of the upward call of God in Christ Jesus.

And even Jesus was tempted to follow his own (human) will rather than God's:

Matthew 26:39
And going a little farther he fell on his face and prayed, saying, "My Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me; nevertheless, not as I will, but as you will."

So God's expectation is that we don't sin any longer. God has promised to protect us and work in us to accomplish this, and with God all things are possible. Therefore, theoretical perfection is possible. Just don't ask me for examples of people who have actually achieved it.

No I don't think it is possible.

All our actions even the best ones are always motivated by some form of selfishness.

Take motherly love for example. A mother's love may be based in a lot of factors one of which may be a need for old age security. (emphasis on maybe) That could be why a mother has the strongest love for her own children and not for other children roaming in the street.

We could go on from there to all of our other relationships. We make friends that laugh at our jokes and like the same movies. We try to date that guy (or gal) that looks smart and is intelligent. And then we try to marry a guy who is rich, dumb and altogether silent.

In each of the cases we expect something for ourself.

Even when we may do something at a complete loss, we have at the back of our head an unconscious idea that we won't admit even to ourselves. "I did this, I must be a very good person." "Psalms says one who gives to poor lends to Lord, so God must be pleased." Or hundreds of different variations thereof.

Now compare this to God. Who does he have to please? What does he stand to gain out of anything? His love is kind of like quantum mechanics. When you hear about it you nod approvingly with absolutely no idea what it's all about.

And human nature is kind of like Chemistry. You have few basic elements which can be combined to create an uncountable number of compounds. But all of those different from each other, and just by looking at the them you can't always guess the constituents.

The corruption/original sin forms the fundamental element of human nature. Whenever we cook up a thought or action it always finds its way into it some way or other. It may not be directly visible (just as you couldn't tell that water contains hydrogen just by looking at it), but it's always there.

Everything in our life is laced with trace quantities of pride and self love. Our hope and faith in God are laced with a desire to roll around the clouds and send bolts of lightning at will.

I could ramble on with examples but this my point - I don't think it is possible to achieve the purity of thoughts at the same level as God for even a single moment. Purity and love are defined by what God is/does. And we can't be God.

A better part of our eternity in heaven would be spent in trying to become like Him, and to try to imitate (desperately and hopelessly) the one who -

  Job 4:18 ... puts no trust even in His servants; And against His angels He
  charges error.


Is ex-nihilo creationism irreconcilable with the concept of individual free will? Looking on this site in many answers involving the problem of evil I see affirmations of belief in free-will.

According to Calvinist Mark Hausam, who presented a paper at a conference on Mormonism, the assertion that God gave us free-will and that God created everything ex-nihilo, beliefs that he asserts are held by many evangelicals, are incompatible. He argues:

  Creation ex nihilo implies a radical metaphysical dependence upon
  God, one that logically guarantees that the creature will not be independent from God or
  be capable of independent contributions to reality in the ways envisioned in Arminian
  thought. In fact, creation ex nihilo logically leads directly to Calvinistic determinism.

Hausam continues to argue that Arminian thought is not all that dissimilar from Mormonism. Mormonism explicitly rejects the notion of creation ex-nihilo and as such resolves the problem of evil as well as the paradox: If God created everything, how is our will independent of him? He argues that Arminians, in order to believe in our having free-will, must reject the concept of ex-nihilo creation as well.

My question is directed to those who hold both these views. I am not entirely convinced that these views are irreconcilable as argued, but I cannot produce a good counter-argument. How do you resolve the paradox presented here by Hausam?

Note: I recognize one way to argue this is that God, being all-powerful, created our free wills out of nothing, but this is still the same paradox. How can God determine (create) something that is undetermined? (free-will). If you could present a logical argument for this view, I would gladly hear it.

With all due respect to Mark Hausam, the logic just doesn't hold water.  That sounds like a category error.

  Category Errors

  These fallacies occur because the author mistakenly assumes that the
  whole is nothing more than the sum of its parts. However, things
  joined together may have different properties as a whole than any of
  them do separately. The following fallacies are category errors:

  Composition (Because the parts have a property, the whole is said to have that property)
  Division (Because the whole has a property, the parts are said to have that property)

Free will is not dependent on our origins. To illustrate this, we can look at a polar opposite theory of origins and show that the same argument can be stated, and it's equally nonsensical.

Creationism implies a first cause, which is God. It deals with the origin of everything. Ex-nihilo creationism claims God as a first cause, leaving the question "where did God come from?"

Current Atheistic Naturalism also assumes a first cause - the Big Bang, and question "what existed before it?  Where did the energy, which eventually became matter, come from?"

Both claim either a first cause, or a first known cause, leaving the question of whether or not this known first cause is truly first... But I'm getting off the subject.

Let's rephrase the question attempting to tie free will to this alternate theory of origins:

  The Big Bang theory implies a radical metaphysical dependence upon
  energy and matter.

To which we can only reply "duh."

If the Big Bang is true, and we have a metaphysical dependence on matter and energy, that has nothing to do with whether or not we have free will.

The existence of free will has nothing to do with origins. It doesn't matter if the proposed theory of origins is the Big Bang, or Ex-nihilo Creationism, or the idea that a Turtle god barfed up the universe. (Sorry. I've been reading some odd legends lately.)

The phrase ex-nihilo is Latin and literally means "from nothing" and thus the doctrine of Creation Ex-Nihilo [CEN] is simply the belief held by most Evangelical protestants, and many Catholics that God created the world from nothing.
In other words, there was no starting blocks or original existing gas, or time or existing chemical elements or energy or anything.  He spoke the entire universe into existence and this is soundly supported by scripture.
This has no more to do with the doctrine of free will than the virgin birth, or the deity of Christ, or trinity, or physical resurrection of Christ - all core tenets of Christianity
Calvinist Mark Hausam's paper and assertions are not only patently absurd, but by making the fallacious comparison of an Evangelical position held by the majority of Protestant Christians with a cult [Mormonism] he shows his ignorance of

what Creation Ex-nihilo really means,
the basic beliefs of Arminianism, and
the fundamental beliefs of Mormonism, which recognizes and relies on other 'sacred writings' in addition to the Bible, and denies the deity of Christ- 2 classic marks of a cult.

https://reasons.org/explore/publications/rtb-101/read/rtb-101/2005/04/01/creation-ex-nihilo
Reference  & Creation ex nihilo Statement

Genesis 1:1    Implies a singular beginning and that God created everything in its totality.
Proverbs 3:19 By His wisdom God created the heavens and the earth.
Psalm 90:2    Only God is eternal; the created order had a distinct beginning
John 1:3  Jesus Christ, who shares the divine nature, identified as taking part in the work of creation
Romans 4:17   God calls things into existence
Colossians 1:16   God created all things visible and invisible
Acts 4:24 God is the absolute Creator of everything
Acts 17:28    Creation is dependent on God for its very existence
2 Timothy 1:9; Titus 1:2  God existed before time, implying that He created time
Hebrews 11:3  An explicit statement of Creation ex nihilo
Revelation 4:11   Describes what creation's (humanity's) response to the Creator should be

"He [Mark Hausam] argues that Arminians, in order to believe in our having free-will, must reject the concept of ex-nihilo creation as well."
Not only is this totally false- both logically and scripturally, the overwhelming majority of non-Calvinist Protestant Christian denominations actually teach and believe creation ex-nihilo - it's clear he's very misinformed about what the majority of Protestants actually believe.  [This is not surprising, when you consider that there is not a single clear scripture that proves Limited Atonement - says Christ only died for the elect, but not for the whole world.]
The plain reading of scripture when cross-referenced with other passages confirms both

free will of man, [John 3:16, Romans 10:13, Acts 2:21, Rev 22:17, Joshua 24:15] and

that God created the world from nothing.

Southern Baptists, Freewill Baptists, Bible Methodist, Nazarenes, most all Church of God and most all Charismatics and Pentecostals, all Holiness denominations, Wesleyan, Church of God Holiness, Christian Missionary Alliance, fundamentalists, 7th Day Adventists, and most Assembly of God, and many Evangelical Free Church of America as well as many Methodists.


What did St. Thomas Aquinas write about Christ's passion? St. Thomas Aquinas never wrote a complete treatise devoted solely to Christ's passion. So what did St. Thomas Aquinas have to say about Christ's passion?

This contains a collection of excerpts from St. Thomas's works (e.g., his Summa, quodlibetal questions, and commentaries on the Gospels) that pertain to the passion:

Meditations for Lent from St. Thomas Aquinas (audiobook)


How old was Timothy when he became a Christian? Some people think he was a child or a teenager, others believe he was a young man when he converted to Christianity.

Is there any Biblical evidence to support any of these assumptions?

How old was Timothy when he became a Christian ? The question?

when he converted to Christianity?

Some people think he was a child?

Some people think he was a teen?

Some people think he was a young man.?

Is there any Biblical evidence, to support any of these assumptions?

  2Ti 1:2  To Timothy, my dearly beloved son: Grace, mercy, and peace, from God the Father and Christ Jesus our Lord. (Not here...)

He has grandmother Lois, and mother Eunice; who were in the faith first, cause.....it say so here.

  2Ti 1:5  When I call to remembrance the unfeigned faith that is in thee, which dwelt first in thy grandmother Lois, and thy mother Eunice; and I am persuaded that in thee also. (Nope, not here either...)

We could speculate, but they frown on that here.
I'm pretty much outta ideas.

So, no, there is no biblical evidence to prove any of these assumptions; which is really odd, 'cause you have a whole bunch of people that you cited there that think he was a child, a teenager, and a young man. That covers nearly half his life. And yet with all of these questions, and several speculative witnesses I can find no evidence of any of it. At least nothing substantial with respect to his age, or when he became a Christian.

We do, however, have him narrowly pegged; anywhere from a child to a young man, over a period of approximately twenty years. We can't really say any of that though; we must try to be precise when answering questions here, so as strange as it may seem there is absolutely no evidence for any of these assumptions. I'm surprised, I thought I would be able to find more.

I'm also surprised that no one else has answered this question yet. I almost never make it to a post before the moderators do; and this one is only seven months old. Weird.

Addendum:

By curtesy of Bruised Reed, we do also have this verse:

  1Ti 4:12  Let no man despise thy youth; but be thou an example of the believers, in word, in conversation, in charity, in spirit, in faith, in purity.

This is good evidence that Timothy was a youth at the time Paul wrote 1 Timothy.

Also from Bruised Reed, I should have let him answer this one, we have incontrovertible evidence that:  Timothy was familiar with the Holy scriptures from infancy. That's pretty close to a definitive answer there, if it weren't for that pesky doubt about whether or not Paul was speaking in the context of Judaism. Hek with it, I am going to change my answer in light of this new evidence.

Answer: Timothy was an infant when he became a Christian; there is plenty of evidence to support that assumption.

Thank you Bruised Reed.

  2 Timothy 3:14-15New International Version
  14 But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have become convinced of, because you know those from whom you learned it, 15 and how from infancy you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus.

How old was Timothy when he became a Christian?
Timothy was between 49 and 52 years old when he was converted to Christianity by the preaching of St. Paul. He died around the year 97 A.D. at the age of 80. He became a Christian in either 48 A.D. or 51 A.D.

St. Timothy was an early Christian evangelist and the first Christian bishop of Ephesus, who tradition relates died around the year AD 97.
Timothy was from the Lycaonian city of Lystra in Asia Minor, born of a Jewish mother who had become a Christian believer, and a Greek father. The Apostle Paul met him during his second missionary journey and he became Paul’s companion and missionary partner along with Silas. The New Testament indicates that Timothy traveled with Paul the Apostle, who was also his mentor. Paul entrusted him with important assignments. He is addressed as the recipient of the First and Second Epistles to Timothy.
Life
Timothy was a native of Lystra in Lycaonia (Anatolia). When Paul and Barnabas first visited Lystra, Paul healed a person crippled from birth, leading many of the inhabitants to accept his teaching. When he returned a few years later with Silas, Timothy was already a respected member of the Christian congregation, as were his grandmother Lois and his mother Eunice, both Jews. In 2 Timothy 1:5, his mother and grandmother are noted as eminent for their piety and faith. Timothy is said to have been acquainted with the Scriptures since childhood. In 1 Corinthians 16:10 there is a suggestion that he was by nature reserved and timid: "When Timothy comes, see that you put him at ease among you, for he is doing the work of the Lord".
Timothy's father was a Greek Gentile. Thus Timothy had not been circumcised and Paul now ensured that this was done, according to Acts 16:1–3, to ensure Timothy's acceptability to the Jews whom they would be evangelizing. According to John William McGarvey: "Yet we see him in the case before us, circumcising Timothy with his own hand, and this 'on account of certain Jews who were in those quarters'". This did not compromise the decision made at the Council of Jerusalem, that gentile believers were not required to be circumcised.
Timothy became St Paul’s disciple, and later his constant companion and co-worker in preaching. In the year 52, Paul and Silas took Timothy along with them on their journey to Macedonia. Augustine extols his zeal and disinterestedness in immediately forsaking his country, his house, and his parents, to follow the apostle, to share in his poverty and sufferings. Timothy may have been subject to ill health or "frequent ailments", and Paul encouraged him to "use a little wine for your stomach's sake".
When Paul went on to Athens, Silas and Timothy stayed for some time at Beroea and Thessalonica before joining Paul at Corinth. Timothy next appears in Acts during Paul's stay in Ephesus (54–57), and in late 56 or early 57 Paul sent him forth to Macedonia with the aim that he would eventually arrive at Corinth. Timothy arrived at Corinth just after Paul's letter, 1 Corinthians reached that city.
Timothy was with Paul in Corinth during the winter of 57–58 when Paul dispatched his Letter to the Romans (Romans 16:21). According to Acts 20:3–6, Timothy was with Paul in Macedonia just before Passover in 58; he left the city before Paul, going ahead of him to await Paul in Troas (Acts 20:4–5). "That is the last mention of Timothy in Acts", Raymond Brown notes. In the year 64, Paul left Timothy at Ephesus, to govern that church.
His relationship with Paul was close and Paul entrusted him with missions of great importance. Timothy's name appears as the co-author on 2 Corinthians, Philippians, Colossians, 1 Thessalonians, 2 Thessalonians, and Philemon. Paul wrote to the Philippians about Timothy, "I have no one like him" (Philippians 2:19–23). When Paul was in prison and awaiting martyrdom, he summoned his faithful friend Timothy for a last farewell.[10]
That Timothy was jailed at least once during the period of the writing of the New Testament is implied by the writer of Hebrews mentioning Timothy's release at the end of the epistle.
Although not stated in the bible, other sources have records of the apostle's death. The apocryphal Acts of Timothy states that in the year 97 AD, the 80-year-old bishop tried to halt a procession in honor of the goddess Diana by preaching the gospel. The angry pagans beat him, dragged him through the streets, and stoned him to death.

We know St. Paul first visited Lystra in 48 A.D. and then in 51 A.D. as well as four other times. Timothy was certainly converted to the faith on one of St. Paul’s first two visits to Lystra.

Lystra
Paul the Apostle visited here to preach the Christian gospel in 48 AD and again in 51 AD on his first and second missionary journeys, initially coming after persecution drove him away from Iconium.
Paul visited this city again on his second missionary tour. Timothy, a young disciple there,[13] was probably among those who on the previous occasion at Lystra witnessed Paul's persecution and courage. Timothy left Lystra to become the companion of Paul and Silas on the rest of the Second Missionary Journey. It is also possible that Paul revisited Lystra near the beginning of his Third Missionary Journey.


What are the best ways to refute the position that Paul started Christianity? It is a position that many Christian scholars and thinkers have espoused over the years. I think that this link would provide a good exposition of the position I am referring to.

http://www.sullivan-county.com/news/paul/paul.htm

Basically it says that Luke's writing isn't completely trustworthy and that Paul's epistles show much innovation from Jesus' teaching. The Jerusalem Church started by Jesus, led by Peter and James, believed in salvation through following the Law, as taught by Jesus in for example in Matthew 5:17-20 and Matthew 19:16-21 . Jesus never taught that the Law would be nailed to the cross, even when speaking in the Gospels about the Son of Man being given over to be crucified and rise on the third day.

Paul's background was in a limited Greek version of Judaism, and he bases all his scriptural quotes on the Septuagint. Since he never met Jesus in real life, and did not study with his disciples, Paul relied on his own visions and went on missions to Asia to convert various people to his cause. His encounters with the Jerusalem Church (from which Nazarenes / Ebionites came) are described briefly in his own epistles but also in Acts. Reading Acts 21 one sees that the Jerusalem Church that Jesus set up told Paul to dispel rumors he was teaching Jews not to follow the Law, and he acquiesced. In addition they sent a letter to all Gentile believers (Acts 15) apparently telling them to follow the Noahide laws (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven_Laws_of_Noah).

I am not sure how the standard arguments for Christianity address this possibility. After all, proving that the resurrection occurred does not at all prove that Paul's claims about personal revelation and authority accurate. Mohammad makes similar claims of personal revelation. One might say that Paul is the real deal because Acts says so, but Acts was written by Luke, his student. Luke accurately describing the names of places etc. doesn't mean that his claims about Paul's miracles are actually true. In short if you look at it as a graph, it seems that Paul and Luke are completely disconnected from Jesus and his followers in authority. Except in one place, 2 Peter 3:16, where in a passage that sounds a little suspicious, Paul is endorsed and his opponents are attacked. I thought that would be strong evidence, but looking at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Epistle_of_Peter, it seems that there was always difficulty accepting this epistle and today the "vast majority of scholars consider it pseudoepigraphical."

So that kind of removes the last argument I know for the authority of Paul. Meaning, maybe Paul was the real deal and maybe not, but I don't know how to argue against the position in the link. It seems that Paul might be like Mohammad or Joseph Smith, and I don't understand the reasons for taking his writings or Luke's writings on faith, especially since his conception of Christianity contains many concepts Jesus did not teach.

What are the best ways to refute the position that Paul started Christianity?

If you read the book of Acts, you get the impression that the beginning talks about the Apostles and what is happening in Jerusalem and ends with the focus on Paul and what is happening outside of Jerusalem. Many people see in this a hijack of Christianity, a diversion of Christianity, and even a repackaging of Christianity to a new market by Paul.

Jesus told his disciples that he was giving them the new covenant.

  Mark 14:24  and he said to them, `This is my blood of the new
  covenant, which for many is being poured out;

Jesus told his disciples that they would be bringing the good news (gospel) of the Kingdom to the whole world.

  Mark 16:15-18  And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and
  preach the gospel to every creature.   He that believeth and is
  baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.
  And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they
  cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues;   They shall take
  up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt
  them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.

The original plan was for Israel to receive her King and spread the gospel over the whole earth. However unlike the first covenant when the entire nation of Israel accepted the covenant, this covenant was not received by the nation.

Paul writes that one of the reasons salvation had come to the gentiles was to provoke the Jews to jealousy.

  Romans 11:11  I say then, Have they stumbled that they should fall?
  God forbid: but rather through their fall salvation is come unto the
  Gentiles, for to provoke them to jealousy.

One can also see that Paul was not instructed like the other Apostles. He himself calls himself the Apostle to the gentiles.

  1 Timothy 2:7  Whereunto I am ordained a preacher, and an apostle, (I
  speak the truth in Christ, and lie not;) a teacher of the Gentiles in
  faith and verity.

Paul did perform an occasional baptism (cited in the commission of Jesus to his disciples), but it was not part of what he was called to do.

  1 Corinthians 1:17  For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach
  the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should
  be made of none effect.

Paul had every hope and expectation that his ministry would be short lived and that the Kingdom would come to Israel. We can see his expectation in his use of the word "we".

  1 Thessalonians 4:17  Then we which are alive and remain shall be
  caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the
  air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord.

I think we can take from the words of Jesus in what is called the great commission that his kingdom was always intended to be worldwide.

Paul was called to go to the gentiles. The failure of Israel to receive the kingdom for the last 2,000 years makes the ministry of Paul seem larger. As a result, many make claims about Paul's work and motivation that are difficult to substantiate.

The book of Revelation describes a future where a faithful remnant of Israel will receive her King and the prophecies for Israel will be fulfilled.

The article you cite at http://www.sullivan-county.com/news/paul/paul.htm is a poorly constructed attempt to prove a point. To counter this you need to know its weaknesses, but also its strengths.

First of all, avoid misquoting the article, as in "Paul started Christianity" - the article asserts that Paul started Christianity as we know it today, an entirely different matter. It is crystal clear that Christianity existed in Jerusalem and perhaps even Rome before Paul. Knowing exactly what is being asserted enables you to know what to assert in return.

As for Acts of the Apostles, it is the consensus of scholars that Luke the physician was not really the author. As with all four New Testament gospels, Acts was originally anonymous. It (and Luke's Gospel) was attributed to Luke later in the second century on the twin assumptions that it ought to have been written by someone who knew Paul quite well, also by a gentile, and finally by a moderately well educated person who could write in high Koine. Luke was the one person whom the Church Fathers felt fitted these criteria. In fact, Acts is now believed to have been written around the end of the first century or early in the second century. Authorship by a companion of Paul is also inconsistent with the historical and theological differences and discrepancies from Paul's letters.  So, Acts of the Apostles should be set aside when determining the influence of Paul on later Christian belief. You are also right in that 2 Peter must be put aside as a second-century forgery.

Strange as it may seem, we know little about Paul's theology - his view of Christianity. He does say that the risen Jesus was seen by Cephas (Peter), then the twelve, then by more than 500, most of whom were still alive, then by James and all the apostles, and finally by himself. Christianity is based on very different accounts found in the New Testament gospels, including the obvious difference that there were at that time only eleven disciples.

Scholars do detect elements of Gnosticism in certain passages in Paul's epistles, and his statement that he never learnt the gospel from humans but by revelation is consistent with a gnostic approach. Modern Christianity is not gnostic, so whatever influence Paul had, it was not to influence Christianity towards Gnosticism.

Having said that Luke/Acts should be put aside as pseudepigraphical when considering what Paul taught, it is at the same time true that Christianity today reflects much of what we find in Luke's Gospel and Acts of the Apostles. With the possible exception of the author of Mark's Gospel, no other evangelist has has more influence on the direction of the Christian faith.


Why are we given details about what the descendants of Cain did? Is there special significance to these details? Genesis 4 discusses the descendants of Cain:

  "Cain knew his wife, and she conceived and bore Enoch. When he built a city, he called the name of the city after the name of his son, Enoch. To Enoch was born Irad, and Irad fathered Mehujael, and Mehujael fathered Methushael, and Methushael fathered Lamech. And Lamech took two wives. The name of the one was Adah, and the name of the other Zillah. Adah bore Jabal; he was the father of those who dwell in tents and have livestock. His brother's name was Jubal; he was the father of all those who play the lyre and pipe. Zillah also bore Tubal-cain; he was the forger of all instruments of bronze and iron. The sister of Tubal-cain was Naamah." Genesis 4:17-22

Why are we given details about what the descendants of Cain did? Is there some special significance to these details?

To me, it sounds like a recounting of early civilization: domestication of animals, music, metallurgy, city building. A secular anthropologist would tell a story of hominids evolving over millions of years culminating with emergence of homo sapiens in Africa. Then the story shifts into high gear as humans migrated all over the world and culture, technology and cities grew.

The first 11 chapters of the bible explain how we came to be and why we are the way we are. There are lots of similarities between the story the bible tells and what anthropologists think happened.

Yes, there is a special significance to these names.
As far as I know, the descendants of Cain did not die as did the descendants of Seth . . . Whereas of the descendants of Seth it is said "And all the days of x were xxx years: and he died" (Gen 5:8,11,14,17,20,27,31), no such words are used for any of Cain's descendants, see Gen 4:17 ff.

The significance of these names is not in what "they" (the imaginative people with those names) have done. It is in what these names by themselves represent. Cain, the first son of Adam and Eve represents a living representative of the Tetragrammaton. The second son (Abel) died, not because Cain killed him, but because he could not stand the truth which Cain tried to tell him (Gen 4:8 "Cain talked with Abel"). Abel represents a weak container of that which is poured into it, whereas Cain is a blueprint for the kind of man who could carry the human seed into the future. Abel is the dogmatic person, who believes that he needs to appease a God with animal sacrifice (very much a pagan ritual), while Cain is immersed with God's very nature of life, death and rebirth and does not need approval. God protects Cain, but Cain is being judged for what nobody understands.

Seth is the "natural" line after Cain and Abel, of whom it is said that his descendants "began to call upon the name of the Lord" (Gen 4:26). Most read into it the "worship of God". But why then doesn't it say "began to call upon the Lord"? Note that "Lord" and "God" are different words in Hebrew. And "Lord" stands for the Tetragrammaton, God's name. And even though the descendants of Seth know how to write this name, they only refer to it indirectly, unlike Cain. See Gen 4:1, which shows what Eve says when she has delivered Cain into the world, which is translated as "I have gotten a man from the Lord", but in Hebrew there is no "from" and it is at least strange that she doesn't say "infant boy" but a full-grown "man". This verse just plainly says "This perfect image (Quph) of YHVH which was possible to form within me (Nuwn-Yuwd) and which I have delivered (Tav-Yuwd), this man (Aleph-Yuwd-Shiyn), is totally YHVH". And note that Eve was the first person to pronounce God's name. She knew its meaning, but did not call upon it.

This truth is further codified by the "mark" that God set on Cain. The Hebrew word for "mark" is spelled Alaph-Vav-Tav: this mark is the knowledge of the Hebrew Alphabet, signified by the Aleph and Tav, the first and the last letter of the Hebrew Alphabet.

Cain's descendants are recorded up till the seventh generation, mimicking that God "rested" on the seventh day. This number seven indicates the possibilities that come from the mindset which unites opposites (Aleph and Tav, light and darkness, life (Cain) and death (Abel)), which make the two one.

More revelations about the Hebrew and how without it you can never understand the Bible, can be found here http://TheEndOfReligion.weebly.com


Why did God create man with the ability to sin? I've read a highly favored answer here on C.SE that when people get to heaven they are no longer capable of sinning yet they still have free will.

So my question is simple, why did he ever create us with capability to sin and then punish us if we do sin? Free will is out of the question now since it was clear that we can have free will without the capability of sinning.

When you say: “when people get to heaven they are no longer capable of sinning” not all Christians would agree with this response.  There is no evidence that any “free will” creature who has been reborn and experienced the wholeness of God’s love, would then rebel against that love.  Can’t and won’t are two different things.

  Romans 4:16 Therefore it is of faith, that it might be by grace; to the end the promise might be sure to all the seed…

So a faith relationship enables a loving relationship.  God created man for a loving relationship, thus man was created with choice.  Faith is a choice, whom will I trust, will I trust the serpent or will I trust the Word of God?

So your question: “why did he ever created us with capability of sin and then punish us if we do sin”?  God desires a loving relationship with mankind and the wholeness of love with some is evidently of more value to God than the rejection and damnation of others.

  2 Peter 3:9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance

God does not want any to perish!

The simple answer to the question, “Why did God create man with an evil nature?”,  is that the god of the Bible, that mad created in man’s image in the Bible, is evil and since God created man in his image, and since God is evil (so He says), man is evil.
Enough said!

As a lawyer I have approached the question on the basis that the only source of evidence that I rely on are the various Bibles.

Now in that regard I mention that the Bible authors pulled no punches in ascribing to God all the evils of the world. They actually have the Word of God saying that he is in charge of all evil on earth, and He appears to have an immense capacity for evil. He must have, in order to live up to the reputation of being the cause of all evil, as is evident from the following:

And what follows is what God, ever so proudly and gleefully proclaims about his evil disposition.

“I make peace and create evil: I the Lord do all these things.” (Isaiah. 45:7-King James Version)

“The will of the Lord alone is always carried out. Good and evil alike take place at his command.” (Lamentations 3:38)

“… shall there be evil in a city, and the Lord hath not done it?” (Amos 3:6 King James Version

“… an evil spirit sent by the Lord tormented him” (1 Samuel 16:14)

“… an evil spirit from God suddenly took control of Saul…”  (1 Samuel 18:10);

“… one day an evil spirit from the Lord took control of Saul.” (1Samuel 19:9)

“Then God sent an evil spirit between Abimelech and the men of Shechem; and the men of Shechem dealt treacherously with Abimelech.” (Judges 9:23 King James Version)

scch@mweb.co.za


What are the differences between Eastern Orthodoxy, Oriental Orthodoxy, and Nestorianism? In another question, @Daи excellently explained the differences between Western and Eastern Christianity. But what are the differences between the Eastern Christianity itself, particularly between Eastern Orthodoxy, Oriental Orthodoxy, and Nestorianism?

One difference is that they have different stance on Christology. But do they have other differences? Maybe like different rituals, or different theology?

As pointed out in that question, the differences were originally in Christology. Generally the fourth-century Christological debates were about how the relationship between the nature(s) of Christ and the person of Christ.

The "Nestorian" party held that there were two natures in Christ, the divine and the human, with very little relationship between them. Essentially there were two hypostases ("persons"), the human and the divine.

The "monophysite" party (which became the Oriental Orthodox) held that there was one nature in Jesus Christ, in which the human and the divine were brought together. Monophysitism was essentially a reaction against Nestorianism.

The remaining party is best known as the "Chalcedonian" party after the Council of Chalcedon: the Eastern Orthodox and all Western churches derive from this party. It held a view between the two: there were two natures in Christ and one person. The famous definition is the Chalcedonian definition:

  in Two Natures unconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, inseparably; the difference of the Natures being in no way removed because of the Union, but rather the properties of each Nature being preserved, and (both) concurring into One Person and One Hypostasis; not as though He were parted or divided into Two Persons, but One and the Self-same Son and Only-begotten God, Word, Lord, Jesus Christ

It is frequently argued that there is no substantial difference between the Chalcedonian and Monophysite positions. (It's worth noting, BTW, that the Oriental Orthodox prefer the term "Miaphysite", which essentially means the same but lacks the connotations of heresy.)

As to other theological and liturgical differences? Well, they have been divided for 1700 years or thereabouts and they grew up separately, often regarding the others as heretical. It should be no surprise, then, that they have substantial differences in liturgy and theology. All three traditions are very tradition-centred and give a special place in their theology to great theologians of the past. So the Eastern Orthodox will quote Maximus the Confessor, while the Oriental Orthodox might quote Gregory the Illuminator. But again, it's not so simple: the Armenian Orthodox (an Oriental Orthodox church) are very different from the Coptic Church (another Oriental Orthodox church) and are not in communion with one another.

The differences are complex and very old: too many to mention in this context. But if I may give an opinion as an ecumenist: the Christological differences started the divisions and dominate in ecumenical dialogue between the churches, yet they are not the reason for the modern-day division. The Oriental Orthodox and the Eastern Orthodox agreed a common statement on Christology a few years ago, but they are not in full communion because the cultural and theological divisions are too great to bridge in so short a period of time.

There is indeed a difference ,sadly.  The Eastern believe in two wills of the incarnated Son, while the Oriental believe in one will, and that (if you are asking me) is greatly a reason for schism, that means that either the Oriental have the "Fully Human" definition wrong, or that Eastern got it wrong ,and for either cases there must be someone who is wrong and someone who is right!


Why does God ask Abraham to walk blameless? This question is an offshoot from this question and it’s comments.  The question is:

Why does God remains silent for 13 long years after Hagar gives birth to Ishmael and then suddenly commands Abraham to walk blamelessly before Him. Was God annoyed with Abraham for some reasons?

There are several accounts in the scripture where we can find Abraham lacking in the uprightness God desires of His children.

Although a man of faith as we know, there were times Abraham doubted the ability of God to provide, deliver and fulfil His promises. In Gen. 12, after God led him to the land of Cannan and famine struck, he didn't trust God for provision. This indeed is lack of faith although it was the early stage of his conversion. Hence, Abraham travelled Egypt to be confronted with a circumstance that made him engage in conspiracy to deceive the Egyptians (vs 12). Although many believers have called Abraham a liar and all sorts, words which I'm very careful to use because the scripture didn't explicitly say so. I rather stick to the point that Abram doubted God and deceived Egyptians. Thereafter, the doubt of Abraham and Sarah took a different dimension resulting in the extra- marital union with Hagar which preceded the birth of the troublesome Ishmael.

These are not blameless life God wants. Morever, a lot of other things that might not have been recorded in the scripture because they won't be necessary for our learning might had taken place necessitating God's rebuke. What this tells us is that Abraham was a man just like us and wrestled with challenges of life and sins as we do today. Another thing to learn is that God's standard has always remained the same: ' walk before me and be thou perfect'.

One of the hardest verses for a young believer to understand is in Matt. 5:48 "Therefore you shall be perfect, just as your Father in heaven is perfect." Immediately most believers take this as a matter of trying to be a better person, attempting to remove old sinful habits that don't match their new calling to be sanctified in Christ.  This isn't the first time this word "perfect" is given to us by God.  "And when Abram was ninety nine years old, the LORD appeared to Abram, and said to him, I am the All-sufficient God; walk before me, and be thou perfect." The first verse was spoken by the Lord to people who did not know Him very well in a general sense and most people received it as a commandment or an ordinance.  The second verse was spoken between two friends who knew each other for 24 years.

It would be hard to argue with the Lord about being perfect as he gives the sermon on the mount in front of thousands of people but what Abraham experienced was in a more intimate setting.  God first appeared to Abraham when he was 75 years old and now he was about to turn 100.    If I was Abraham I would have said "God don't you know me by now?  Are we not friends?  I'm not perfect.  I can't even fulfill the promise you gave me in a way that makes you happy. I've lived on this earth for 99 years and I'm not getting any better I'm only getting worse, what do you mean when you say 'be perfect.'"

What did God mean anyways?  How someone answers this question is very exposing in terms of what insight they really have concerning God's purpose.  Let's be honest, do we really know what is going on here?  Do we really know what God means, what He is saying?  Doesn't God know that Abraham gave up Sarah to pharaoh and that he would have the same serious failure again later with the king of Gerar.  Abraham doesn't even believe God initially when He says that he will have a child by Sarah and instead pleads with God asking him "Oh that Ishmael might live before You" (Gen 17:18).  Abraham's faith wasn't perfect and neither was his testimony.  What part of Abraham was perfect?  Only the Christ that would be worked into Abraham would be the perfection God had planned for Abraham.

God did not need Abraham to do anything to fulfill His covenant with Abraham.  When Abraham tried to do something by his flesh, his natural strength to fulfill God's covenant this only offended God.  By this we see God needs Abraham but God does not need Abraham to do anything for God.  If you are thirsty you need a cup of water.  You don't need the cup to do anything for you.  You simply need the cup to contain the water.  If the cup was to try and help you fill it with water this would be troublesome.  God needs a man on the earth to receive God's blessing and God's supply as the All-sufficient God.  God needs to work Himself into this man so that Christ can be produced out of this man.

This is not easy to see in the bible in fact it is completely hidden.  We shouldn't fault anyone for interpreting these verses some other way because what God is saying to Abraham, what God means when he says "be perfect" is hidden.  90% of Christians won't help you understand these passages telling you "to be perfect does not mean to be a better Christian, no to be perfect means that the God who is perfection is worked into us to produce Christ out from us.  Only the Christ that is worked into us and lived out of us is the perfection God is seeking"  This is straight from the ministry of Watchman Nee and Witness Lee but is this really in the bible?

God's covenant with Abraham is that God would give Abraham a seed and that he would be the father of many nations.  The seed fulfills God's purpose.  Who is the seed?  Issac is the seed.  Who is Issac?  Issac is a type of Christ (Gal. 3:16 and note Gen 22:2 and note 1).  But in order to do this God needs to first work Himself into Abraham.  This matter of God working Himself into man is this in the bible?  Without the new testament it would be impossible to see this.  We need to put together a number of different verses to even begin to understand this.

Gen. 15:6 - And Abram believed Jehovah, and He accounted it to him as righteousness.

Rom. 4:9 - For we say, Faith was accounted to Abraham as righteousness

Rom. 1:17b - But the righteous shall have life and live by faith.

Rom. 4:12-13 - (we) walk in the steps of the faith of our father Abraham ... for it was not through the law that the promise was made to Abraham or to his seed ... but through the righteousness of faith.

Gal. 3:14 - In order that the blessing of Abraham might come ... that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.

Gal. 3:5 - He therefore who bountifully supplies to you the Spirit ... does He do it out of the works of law or out of the hearing of faith?

Gal. 3:6 - Even as "Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him as righteousness"

Gal. 3:7 - Know then that they who are of faith, these are sons of Abraham

Gal. 3:26 - For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus

Rom. 4:17 - as it is written, "I have appointed you a father of many nations" in the sight of God whom he believed who gives life to the dead and calls the things not being as being.

Gal 4:22-28 - Abraham had two sons ... one (Issac) of the free woman (Sarah) ... (who) was born through promise ... These things are spoken allegorically, for (Sarah typifies God's covenant) ... and you, brothers, in the way Issac was, are children of promise

Gal. 5:4 - you who are being justified by law; you have fallen from grace.

Rom. 6:14 - you are not under the law but under grace.

Gal. 3:18 - For if the inheritance is of law, it is no longer of promise; but to Abraham God has graciously given it through promise

Rom. 4:16 - Therefore the inheritance is out of faith that it might be according to grace, so that the promise may be certain to all the seed, not to that which is of the law only, but also to that which is of the faith of Abraham, who is the father of us all.

What bible do you have?  In your bible does it have Abraham believing, being justified and receiving the Spirit as the divine life to be regenerated as a son of God and then growing in life by experiencing the God of resurrection to produce Christ by being joined to grace (typified by Sarah) and growing further in life by trusting and depending on the God of resurrection so that he can offer to God the Christ which was worked into him and was produced out from him through faith?  Abraham is in fellowship with God.  Abraham walks with God.  Abraham intercedes for Lot.  Abraham obey's God.  Does he do all of this out from himself?  Is his willingness to trust in the God of Resurrection and sacrifice Issac out from himself?  Let's read again from the scriptures

Gen 22:5 - And Abraham said to his young men, Stay here with the donkey; and I and the boy will go over there, and we will worship, and then we will return to you.

Heb. 11:17 - By faith Abraham, being tested, offered up Isaac; indeed he who gladly received the promises was offering up his only begotten,
Heb. 11:18 - Of whom it was said, "In Isaac shall your seed be called'';
Heb. 11:19 - Counting that God was able to raise men even from the dead, from which he also received him back in figure.

Abraham believed in the God of resurrection for Issac to be produced and Abraham believed in the God of resurrection for Issac to be offered back to God for His purpose.  What does "be perfect" mean in the context of Abraham's experience?  How then do we now read Genesis 17 or Matthew 5?

Genesis  17:1 - Jehovah appeared to Abram and said to him, I am the All-sufficient God; Walk before Me, and be perfect.

Matthew 5:48 - "Therefore you shall be perfect, just as your Father in heaven is perfect."

To attempt to be perfect by trying harder to meet God's standards is the law.  This verse is not telling us that we should keep the law by trying to improve ourselves to meet God's standards.  It is telling us that perfection is a matter us believing that Christ has died so that we can have God as our righteousness so that we may have another life a higher life the divine life, and live by faith.  God's covenant with us is to give us His life and this life is just Christ Himself who lives in us and lives out perfection itself.  Perfection for the believer is not merely an attribute or an outward practice.  Perfection is a person the most wonderful Christ.  As we enjoy this marvelous Christ living in us we experience grace and this grace labors in us.

This is my paraphrasing of the below verses:

Gal. 2:21 - I do not nullify the grace of God; for if righteousness is through law, then Christ has died for nothing.

Gal. 3:11 - By law no one is justified before God ... "The righteous one shall have life and live by faith";
Gal. 3:21 - Is then the law against the promises of God? Absolutely not! For if a law had been given which was able to give life, righteousness would have indeed been of law.

Gal. 2:20 - I am crucified with Christ; and it is no longer I who live, but it is Christ who lives in me; and the life which I now live in the flesh I live in faith, the faith of the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself up for me.

1 Cor. 15:10 - But by the grace of God I am what I am; and His grace unto me did not turn out to be in vain, but, on the contrary, I labored more abundantly than all of them, yet not I but the grace of God which is with me.

Christ's process of perfecting the believers in Hebrews chapter 10:

1 For the law ... can never by the same sacrifices year by year ... perfect those who draw near.
4 For it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins.
9 He then has said, "Behold, I have come to do Your will."
10 By which will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.
14 For by one offering He has perfected forever those who are being sanctified.

I highly recommend the ministry book the Crystallization-Study of the Epistle of James by Witness Lee which focuses on the matter of Christian perfection.  In this volume brother Lee uses the phrase "genuine christian perfection" more than 20 times.  What is "genuine christian perfection?" it is nothing more and nothing less than a believers experience of the Triune God in all of his riches and all of his divine attributes.

~J


Will suicide keep me out of Heaven? I don't want to set off any red flags here.  I am not pursuing a suicidal lifestyle, nor do I have the desire to end my life. That being said:

Perhaps the greatest thing a person can hope for is to enter the
Kingdom of Heaven.
We are told that if a person truly accepts God as their Saviour,
they promised an eternity in heaven.

With this in mind, why not just accept Christ and then off yourself? We all want to go to heaven, don't we? Why prolong the wait and "misery" of living in a sinful world and just proceed to enter the pearly gates?  Strictly speaking in a logical sense this is the best thing a person could do for themselves.

I know in other faiths suicide nullifies a person's access to their promised land, but does the Bible say anything about this?

In the Protestant traditions I am familiar with suicide is not an automatic exclusion from Heaven. However it must be said that there is a logical incompatibility between suicide and faith. A faith that aborts just when it has something to trust is no faith at all.

First of all, suicide flies in the face of everything that we learn from Christ about what is good and true. Suicide is murder. It is taking a life that does not belong to you. As Christians we believe that we are the property of another -- that we belong to Christ as a slave belongs to a master.1 We believe that the life that is in us belongs to him. We believe that those who commit suicide will only be in heaven on the same grounds that any of us will, by grace and forgiveness, even for murder.2 However faith in Christ demands action, those who love Him will obey his commands. His commands including not murdering.3

Also, belief in Christ is the very thing that gives us hope for this life4, not just the life to come. We are able to endure whatever sufferings we experience here5 knowing that they will produce in us something even better6. To take your own life is to despair of life itself. This is fundamentally at odds with Christian belief. There would be no logic in believing and then killing yourself, because the later act would show that you really did not understand the former.

See the way the Apostles introduced themselves in letters as "bond-servants", Parables such as in Luke 12 were Jesus uses the servant/master analogy, and Romans (The whole book).
See the David in the OT, the thief on the cross in the NT.
See the commandment "You shall not murder." Exodus 20:13 (ESV)
Hebrews 6:19
1 Peter 5:10
James 1:1-4

Would someone want to kill themselves if they had the hope and love of Christ in their heart? Suicide is most commonly a result of hopelessness. Suicide is only self-serving. Suicide is the act of ending one's own life because that circumstances or emotions are overwhelming to the point of despair. Such despair cannot exist in a heart filled with the love of God and the hope of eternity with Him.

The taking on of the responsibility of one's own life and choosing to end it bears no regard to the consequences that the action will have on the living. Such selfishness is rejected by God:

  People will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boastful, proud, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy, without love, unforgiving, slanderous, without self-control, brutal, not lovers of the good, treacherous, rash, conceited, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God — having a form of godliness but denying its power. Have nothing to do with them. They are the kind who worm their way into homes and gain control over weak-willed women, who are loaded down with sins and are swayed by all kinds of evil desires, always learning but never able to acknowledge the truth. Just as Jannes and Jambres opposed Moses, so also these men oppose the truth — men of depraved minds, who, as far as the faith is concerned, are rejected. -- 2 Timothy 3:2-8 (NIV)

I believe that most of the excuses anyone would use for committing suicide are covered in that passage.


What was the purpose to animal sacrifices? I've never completely understood the purpose as to why God required that the Israelite's should kill an animal in order for God to forgive them.

There were two main meanings to this.  The first was as a symbol of Christ, whose blood makes it possible for everyone to have their sins forgiven.  The second is as a sacrifice in the more traditional sense: willingly giving up something important and valuable.  And when your animals are both your livelihood and the food on your family's table, giving the best of your flocks to the Lord (and the sacrifices were required to be the best, not just any old animal) is quite a sacrifice indeed!  By the Law of Sacrifice, the Lord teaches us to have faith and trust in him instead of getting too attached to material possessions and trusting in them to bring us happiness and success in life.

Genesis 2: 15-24 and Genesis 3: 1-24 tells the story of our beginning;  And simply stated: The woman snared by the dazzling of jewels which was Satan's appearance and her child like-mind could not properly understand, the words she heard;  She taking it to her husband and by his own desire accepted the words of the fallen immortal son, Satan, he created to be a cunning persuader, a deceiver, and destroyer, for his work on the earth is to destroy all men who will not hear the truth in God's word.  For their fate will be as his in the latter days to come.  But the disobedience of having too much knowledge at one time is and remain harmful to us.  Therefore innocent animals were killed by God to provide clothing and heat for our unprotected bodies.  For in sin there is shame and eternal death; this, we their children have been trying to cover up our inborn shame, in the sight of God the only Living Son of the Father, in the day of our creation.


How did the phenomenon of "Megachurches" come about? Megachurches are part of the landscape in a lot of Christendom and have been defined as a Protestant church where average weekend attendance exceeds 2000. How did the phenomenon of megachurches arise? Are they an effect of mass urbanisation? Are they a recent thing (as they seem to be).

Many of them seem to promote prosperity gospel-type beliefs. Is the prevalence of megachurches associated with the rise in popularity of this belief system? Alternatively is the rise of megachurches associated with the increase in attendance of popular music concerts in that they can offer worship in a similar format to a concert?

Reason #1

Mega Churches can likely be explained in part by the fact that more modern denominations, including Baptist (Even non-denominational) have integrated together with each other a lot. People are starting to realize that on a basic level, everybody is teaching the same thing; the love of Christ and desire to be like/with him.

I've asked several people (most not even from my church) and 90 percent admitted to being non-denominational or passive about where they go on Sunday as long as there is a good christian influence and a love of God. This means that in an example town, there will be one huge church and a handfull of smaller ones, rather than tons of same-size-small churches.

Of course this can't completely explain the phenomenon.

Reason #2

Mass urbanization, along with greater ease when it comes to getting places, as you said in your question, is a very likely factor into why churches of such massive sizes have sprung up. My church started in around 2000-2003 and has several thousand attending every weekend!

I'll bet that if you were to make a map of all of the 'Mega Churches' and overlay it on a political map, the churches would line up pretty closely with cities of population from 400k to around 700k.

Reason #3

Acceptance of 'Non-Believers';
Along with the increase of population at churches came the popularization of 'Christian Contemporary' music. It appeals to people who may not necessarily be christian because of its good vibes and heavy beat more closely matching that of 'Normal" music. I know several people who listen to christian pop and admit to not even believing in Jesus Christ.

Churches are also making a greater effort to have effect on their personal community, not just nations across the globe. This encourages those attending the church to reach out to their neighbors though increased fellowship with them.

My pastor said this sunday

  America has never been more spiritually minded as today.

Then he said something about it  not being christian spirituality necessarily. I've forgotten his exact words.

My point being that the idea of religion has grown in popularity, and simply, christian churches are everywhere, and open for folks to just walk in and here the message. There are a variety of different styles of churches, and people who don't like one style, may like another, so they end up joining a church rather than no church.

I don't claim to know what is happening with these Mega Churches all the way, maybe God has some really big plan for it.

How did the phenomenon of “Megachurches” come about?

We live in an age of increasing collectivization. There are few "mom and pop" stores anymore. Mega stores define our age. It should not be surprising that we find mega churches also thriving.

Are they an effect of mass urbanization?

It might be more accurate to say that they were an effect of mass suburbanization.

As recent as forty years ago people would get into fist-fights over politics or religion. While not necessarily noble, it does reflect a time when many more people felt what was right or true was important. Today such activity seems alien. One of the biggest crimes you can commit today is to make someone feel bad.

Our society has transitioned from truth to comfort. This makes the appeal of market driven churches much greater.

What churches were supposed to do (old way):

  Ephesians 4:11-13  And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and
  some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;   For the
  perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the
  edifying of the body of Christ:   Till we all come in the unity of the
  faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man,
  unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ:

What many churches have become (new way);

  2 Timothy 4:3-4  For the time will come when they will not endure
  sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to
  themselves teachers, having itching ears;  And they shall turn away
  their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.

That this is happening now and on such a large scale may have to do with;

  2 Thessalonians 2:3  Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day
  shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man
  of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;