Has anyone in history suffered God’s visible wrath by uttering disrespect & attack on the dignity of the Vicar of Christ? We know from Apostle’s times that Jesus claimed that an attack or persecution to the Church member’s is a direct attack on Himself what more to a Vicar of Christ.
The Road to Damascus

"As Saul drew near to Damascus on his journey, suddenly a light from heaven flashed around him. 4He fell to the ground and heard a voice say to him,“Saul, Saul, why do you persecute Me?” “Who are You, Lord?” Saul asked. “I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting,” He replied.(Acts9:3-5)

And more importantly, St. Peter the 1st Vicar of Christ is shown in the Book of Acts as filled with the Holy Spirit guiding and empowering his thoughts,words & actions being the visible head of Christ founded Church..
Acts 5:3-10 New King James Version (NKJV)

But Peter said, “Ananias, why has Satan filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit and keep back part of the price of the land for yourself? While it remained, was it not your own? And after it was sold, was it not in your own control? Why have you conceived this thing in your heart? You have not lied to men but to God.”
Then Ananias, hearing these words, fell down and breathed his last. So great fear came upon all those who heard these things. And the young men arose and wrapped him up, carried him out, and buried him.
Now it was about three hours later when his wife came in, not knowing what had happened. 8 And Peter answered her, “Tell me whether you sold the land for so much?”She said, “Yes, for so much.”
Then Peter said to her, “How is it that you have agreed together to test the Spirit of the Lord? Look, the feet of those who have buried your husband are at the door, and they will carry you out.” Then immediately she fell down at his feet and breathed her last. And the young men came in and found her dead, and carrying her out, buried her by her husband. (Acts5:3-10)

The “lies uttered to St. Peter concealed with evil intentions” is abominable to God, thru the presence of the Holy Spirit guiding and inspiring the actions of the Vicar of Christ.
The Vicar of Christ is the mouthpiece of God as Jesus said;
Luke 10:16 New King James Version (NKJV)

He who hears you hears Me, he who rejects you rejects Me, and he who rejects Me rejects Him who sent Me.”(Luke10:16)

And for Ananias & Sapphira uttering lies to St.Peter  the Vicar of Christ “face to face” suffered Godly wrath immediately thru physical death.
Ananias & Sapphira suffered death is a testament to the wording of the 4th Commandment.

"Honor your father and your mother, that your days may be long in the land which the Lord your God gives you.(Exodus20;12)

Ananias & Sapphira’s days were ended when they lied infront of the Holy Father,St. Peter the Vicar of Christ.
My question is in light of the continuing attacks & disrespect on the dignity of Pope Francis being the Vicar of Christ daily if not hourly receiving unkind, harsh, foul & blasphemous words in the light of experienced of St. Peter during Apostolic times and teaching.
Is there a recorded accounts in history on anyone attacking & disrespecting the dignity of any of the 266 Popes by “uttering lies with evil intentions” that suffered God’s visible wrath like the one of Ananias & Sapphira?

Has anyone in history suffered God’s visible wrath by uttering disrespect & attack on the dignity of the Vicar of Christ?

Bishop William of Utrecht appears to have done so in 1076.

Pope Gregory VII, also known as Hildebrand, had excommunicated Henry IV, King of the Germans, also known as the  Holy Roman Emperor. Gregory said Henry was no longer King.  Henry summoned his bishops and ordered them to excommunicate the Pope. Henry said Gregory was no longer Pope.

Plans were made for the High Mass at Utrecht Cathedral on Easter Day, 27th March, 1076.  Henry was to attend wearing his crown and robes, several bishops were to formally denounce the Pope and pronounce his excommunication.

Several bishops left Utrecht secretly during the night of Easter Eve, leaving only Bishop William of Utrecht to formally condemn Gregory, and declare his excommunication, which he did.

Later that same day lightning struck the church and it was largely destroyed by fire. Then, exactly a month to the day later, Bishop William died in great agony.

Henry then summoned another council, to take place in the city of Worms, at Whitsun, seven weeks after William's formal excommunication of the Pope.  None of the nobles he had summoned turned up.

The following winter was unusually severe. Gregory was in a castle in Tuscany while Henry stood outside barefoot in the snow, wearing only a shirt, begging Gregory's forgiveness. Only after three days was he allowed inside to kiss the Pope's foot and receive pardon. Whether Henry's contrition was genuine, or merely politically astute, is unclear, but it was not the end of the disputes between the two men; or between future popes and monarchs.

Were the lightning strike and fire in the cathedral of Utrecht, and the agonising death of its Bishop a month later, really visible manifestations of God's wrath?  The chances of such events happening by chance, so soon after the formal excommunication was pronounced, must be very small. Many, at the time, concluded that it was highly likely that God had manifested his wrath in such a way as to demonstrate whose side He was on, the Pope's or the King's.

However unlikely it may be that the events at Utrecht, in 1076, considered alone, were due to pure chance, looking back over 2000 years we can see that there have been very many other occasions when opposition to, or criticism of,  the Papacy has not been met with a bolt of lightning or agonising death within a month. By the laws of probability, then, it would be extremely improbable if none of these occasions had coincided with a bolt of lightning and a death.

Nevertheless the idea that God uses bolts of lightning to expre3ss his disapproval is very persistent. The lightning strike on St Peter's Basilica in Rome on the night of Pope Benedict's resignation in 2013; and the 1984 strike on York Minster following the Consecration of the controversial Bishop Jenkins of Durham, are examples which have been popularly ascribed to God's disapproval.

Jong Ricafort, in his answer, has noted three prominent Catholic critics of modern Popes, all of whom seem to have lived for many years, continuing to propagate their views, before eventually dying of apparently natural causes. The exception may be Father Malachi Martin. Someone claims an anonymous close friend of Father Malachi said he had told him on his deathbed that he felt a push (from a kitchen stool he was standing on) when nobody was there. Since the friend is anonymous this cannot be corroborated. We cannot rule out the possibility that God allowed an invisible demon to push him off the stool as a mark of displeasure for his criticism of the Pope, but the evidence is not very strong.

Even if it were to be established that critics of the Pope were dying mysteriously, there would still be other possibilities to consider.

In 1988 Pope John Paul II addressed the European Parliament. The Reverend Ian Paisley, a member of the Parliament representing Northern Ireland, stood up and loudly denounced him as the Antichrist. Neither the Pope, nor Reverend Paisley, were zapped by lightning. Paisley remained a MEP until he retired in 2004, topping the poll at every election. He remained a member of the  UK Parliament until he retired in 2010, when his son took the seat. He became First Minister of Northern Ireland (equivalent to joint provincial premier); and was Moderator of the Free Presbyterian Church of Ulster.  If God wished to demonstrate disapproval of criticism of the Pope then Mr Paisley would seem an obvious choice.

He died aged 88 in 2014. It was said at the time that, while on his deathbed, he told a close friend  that he wished to convert to Catholicism. The reason he is said to have given was that, if anybody was going to die, he'd rather it was a Catholic than a Protestant.  As with Malachi Martin, there is no corroboration.

In conclusion, there is no evidence that, as a rule, those who disrespect or attack the dignity of the Pope are subject to the visible wrath of God. Although it was believed in the 11th century that Bishop William of Utrecht  was;  this may be ascribed to chance coincidence  when considered in the context of history as a whole.

Has anyone in history suffered God’s visible wrath by uttering disrespect & attack on the dignity of the Vicar of Christ?

  I'm looking for all the well-known critics and church enemies who uttered blasphemous words and had written books or thru mainstream and social media had seriously attacked the dignity of all the Vatican II Popes namely St.John XXIII, St.Pope Paul VI, St.John Paul II the Great. Is there a visible punishment or curse that they suffered in relation to their words and deeds against the Vatican II Popes.

Short Answer:

The shortlist that I've found thru research who are well-known in their opposition and rebellion by attacking the Vatican II Church teaching particularly the dignity of Vatican II Popes are the following personalities;

**1. Father Gruner (We resist you to the face; assosiated with this book)

2.Fr.Malachi Martin

3.Archbishop Marcel Lebfevre**

From the three listed names only Arch.Lefebvre had a recorded face to face conversation with St.Pope Paul VI. The other two I cannot find a source if ever they had a chance to voice out their opposition to the Pontiff directly.

Now, with regards to biblical relationship with the action of Ananias & Saphhira it would seems their sins is not in opposition neither rebellion to the leadership of the St.Peter.

If we read back on the nature of their sins, it's stems from face to face lying with St.Peter and in turn St.Peter pronounced that it's not to him that they cheated but to the Holy Spirit.

How can St.Peter, said this? Because as the Chief Shepherd the Anointing of God was with him and the Holy Spirit dwells with him to lead and care for the flock entrusted to him by Christ.

My understanding on the nature on the gravity of the sin of Ananias & Sapphira is that it was in a way a nature of "confession" and St.Peter was seated on His Chair of Authority. The wrath of God is unleash because it was a direct disrespect on the Sanctity of the Chair and the Position of the Authority given to Peter. As if Anananias & Sapphira sins against the Most Holy Trinity in that moment. St.Peter was asking them for the truth and instead they uttered lies.

Going back to the three well-known names who uttered disrespect and and attack the dignity of the Vatican II Popes.

Fr.Gruner it would seems on his deathbed that he comes to his senses and acknowledge his mistakes by recognizing the Papacy of Pope Francis as recorded here on the link;

The Fatime Crusade promoting the praying of the rosaries might have help Fr.Gruner in the hour of his death, as the 15 promises of the Rosaries is given to all the people who prayed and promote the holy rosary.

So, in effect Fr.Gruner was forgiven in the hour of his death from his utterances to the Vatican II Church and Vatican II Popes.

For other narration of Fr.Gruner's death account please see link below;

https://gloria.tv/article/qMRZ1yixPztq1CMnKLdSXFAz3

Although FR. Kramer had a different view of Fr.Gruner's death he said;

  FR. KRAMER’S GONE MAD: He Claims God Killed Fr. Gruner For Recognizing Francis as Pope.

www.trueorfalsepope.com/p/sedevacantist-w…

Fr.Malachi Martin, his death was a tragic one.

We know that Fr.Martin is an Exorcist, and Fr.Gabrielle Amorth the famous Chief Exorcist of Rome had a famous quote;

  "Anyone who goes to Mary and pray the rosary cannot be touch by satan".

However, in the case of the tragic & mysterious death of Fr.Martin it appears that satan and his demons is the cause of his death.

  A tragic fall, reportedly delivered by “an unseen hand”, caused Malachi Martin’s second stroke in twelve months. Now the world sadly bids a premature, “Adieu” to a great Irish American priest, distinguished for his life of selfless service to Christ as a long time champion of the underprivileged, a prolific, controversial author, and alike Pope Julius III in the days of Trent, a modern day apostle of the Tridentine Mass and reverential worship. On Tuesday, July 27th, Father Malachi Brendan Martin silently passed away in Manha ttan, only a few days after reaching his 78th birthday.

  The invisible (preternatural?) force that shoved Father Martin into a stumble, wherein he hit and fatally traumatized his head remains unknown. Yet, before an accompanying stroke claimed his physical existence, while lying in critical condition, Father managed to convey to a close friend, prudently preferring to remain anonymous...

  “I felt something push me,
  but... no one was there.”

file:///C:/Users/Acer/Downloads/Malachi%20Martin.htm

In this case, one would wonder why Fr.Martin was abandoned by God to the forces of evil doing an Exorcism and invoking God's help to free one soul from the grip of satan.

Arch. Marcel Lefebvre; while his contribution in preserving the Tradition of the Church like the Latin Mass is one of his good credential, he is also known to be in direct opposition and in rebellion with the Vatican II Church Teaching and had numerous statement on the Vatican II Popes that attack their dignity.

What is the recorded nature of the death of Arch.Lefebvre?

  Dear Friends and Benefactors,

  As the great majority of you surely know already, Archbishop Lefebvre died in the early hours of Monday morning, March 25, Western European time. He was in his 86th year and he felt he had fulfilled his mission on earth, so for his part he was quite ready to depart this life. Yet for us his death was still a shock.

  For many years he had seemed in such good health that few if any of us took seriously his own repeated references to his coming death. We readily imagined his living for another ten years to continue guiding the Society of St. Pius X with his irreplaceable experience and wisdom, especially through the next few years. Truth to tell, whenever he were to have died, it would have seemed too soon. But now he is gone from amongst us here on earth.

  He was hospitalized in Martigny in the Canton of the Valais near Ecône in Switzerland on March 9, as a result of violent pains in the abdomen. The doctors having discovered an alarming lump, they decided on an operation which took place on Monday, March 18. A large cancerous tumour was removed. For several days he seemed to be slowly recovering until on Sunday morning March 24 he fell into a high fever. Antibiotics reduced the fever but also overwhelmed the organism – at 11 pm on Sunday night he lapsed into a coma. Reanimation could not save him. At 3:30 am in the early hours of Monday morning on the day which is normally the Feast of the Annunciation he breathed his last, and gave back to God his heroic and pure soul –

For full content of the letter please see link;

file:///C:/Users/Acer/Downloads/Death%20of%20Archbishop%20Lefebvre.html

We know that Jesus Christ teaches in Matthew 7:1 for all the redeemed "Do not judge". And so, the action of the three well-known priest who are well-known for their opposition to the Vatican II Church Teaching and had in a way attack the dignity of the Vicar of Christ would be for us a reflection on the nature and the recorded way of their passing on this earth.

For the Traditionalist the actions of Arch. Lefevbre is guided by the Holy Spirit,maybe also true for Fr.Gruner and Fr.Malachi Martin as all of them are servant of God.

We can rest assured that only God knows the real story behind their action and if they fulfilled their God given mission to them.

May their souls rest in peace.

Godbless!


Shouldn't Mary’s genealogy be Jesus' family history? Matthew 1:1-17 provides a genealogy of Jesus, traced back to Abraham:

  The Family History of Jesus the Messiah:
  .  .  .
  Abraham was the father of Isaac
  .  .  .
  Matthan was the father of Jacob.
  Jacob was the father of Joseph.
  Joseph was the husband of Mary,
  and Mary was the mother of Jesus, who is called the Messiah. (from Matthew 1:1-2, 15-16, ERV)

However, next it says that Joseph had nothing to do with the birth of Jesus: that Jesus was born of the seed of the Holy Spirit, not Joseph's seed:

  This is how the birth of Jesus the Messiah happened. His mother Mary was engaged to marry Joseph. But before they married, he learned that she was expecting a baby. (She was pregnant by the power of the Holy Spirit.) (Matthew 1:18, ERV)

And:

  When Joseph woke up, he did what the Lord's angel told him to do. He married Mary. But Joseph did not have sexual relations with her until her son was born. And he named him Jesus. (Matthew 1:24-25, ERV)

How is Matthew 1:1-17 the family history of Jesus?

As far as any family lines were involved in Jesus' birth as a human, shouldn't Mary's genealogy be Jesus' family history? (I truly don't get this.)

There are some debates about this because these genealogies do not have every name along the branches but certain representative names. Most sources I have encountered think Matthew proves Christ was legally entitled to the throne of David as a legal ancestor to David through his father by law.  Luke on the other hand traces the  the physical lineage through Mary, who also was a descendent of David.

In any case as far as I can tell, although we have lost all the genealogical records when Jerusalem was destroyed, these records did not seem to cause any controversy among the early christians but effectively added further proof of the legitimate claims that Jesus was the Messiah.  To those who knew about the genealogies at the time this was important. For us we can only take that 'battle won' as historical proof.  Furthermore, with these records now lost no new Messiah can claim to have the correct genealogical record. Jesus was the Messiah, or there never was such a thing - case closed.

Jesus from both biological and scriptural perspective is the Son of Mary. He is a descendant of of David through Mary and not Joseph. Matthew's account suggests that there are 14 generations from Captivity in Babylon until Jesus Christ but this does not add-up. Count for yourself. The only correct account is Luke's which captures Mary's genealogy but was mistranliterated (not by the writer but the translators having been sinceerely influenced by the idea that Jesus must come from Royal line of King David) as Joseph's. It was predicted from the Begining that the seed of the Woman would bruise the head of the Serpent. With Mary, there are a complete 14 generations from the Captivity in Babylon.


What is the origin of 'omnipotence' as an attribute of God in the ecumenical councils and other Christian authorities? It is customary in Christian theological discourse and affiliated philosophy of religion literature to affirm that God is omnipotent. Often this attribute is joined to omniscience and moral perfection so as to form part of a triadic set of divine properties. What is the origin, if any, of the attribution of omnipotence to God in the ecumenical councils or other authorities binding for Christian churches?

The omnipotence of God is affirmed in the Creed set forth at the first Ecumenical Council in Nicea in 325: "We believe in one God, the Father Almighty [παντοκράτορ - pantokrator] ..."

As the Creed further affirmed that the Son and the Holy Spirit were of the same substance (ὁμοούσιον) as the Father, the Creed affirmed that all three persons of the share in the omnipotence of God.

Let me try to give a partial answer.

  The biblical texts provide a variety of evidences, and are often
  tinted with poetical qualities that make them difficult to interpret.

Yes, but this is not always the case. It is also of course important to see who wrote a give scripture at what point.

  As an orthodox Christian I therefore seek evidence that the ecumenical
  church councils or related theological authorities expressed that the
  mentioned ideas about God are part of Christian belief.

The first council(s) of the church is documented in the book of Acts. One of the attainers was St. John. From that fact we can defer, that whatever John believed was what that first council could at least agree to live with. There was no grounds for a division of the church at that point.

Now, putting those two together, we can for example see in John 1, 1 that he clearly states the omnipotence of God. So, from there we can infer that the consensus of the people who attained the first council did hold to an omnipotent God.


Does the Catholic Church officially recognize Protestants as Christians? I have always thought that the Pope did not recognize the validity of the faith of those outside of the Catholic church, but in comments from a different post I am surprised to find out I may be confused. It may be because I read old books and things have changed in more recent history.

Most Protestants believe that anyone who genuinely believes in Christ alone for the forgiveness of their sins is saved. I am one of them.  I believe simply believing in Christ without adding anything else to the mix, including church denomination, brings eternal life to anyone.

My question is does the Catholic church accept that Christians like me have eternal life, yes, or no? If so, when did the Catholic church begin to recognize the faith of those outside of her church and understand that as believers they will be in heaven?

I am not interested in if Catholicism recognizes my baptism, or other sacraments that may have been administered to me, but rather the eternal life which has been granted to me by believing in Jesus.   I am interested to know if my salvation as a whole, outside the Catholic church, is recognized by my trust in Chrst?

From Catholic Answers article Does "no salvation outside the Church" include non-Catholic Christians?, non-Catholic Christians are specifically addressed in the Catechism:

  The Church knows that she is joined in many ways to the baptized who
  are honored by the name of Christian, but do not profess the Catholic
  faith in its entirety or have not preserved unity or communion under
  the successor of Peter. Those who believe in Christ and have been
  properly baptized are put in a certain, although imperfect, communion
  with the Catholic Church. With the Orthodox churches, this communion
  is so profound that it lacks little to attain the fullness that would
  permit a common celebration of the Lord’s Eucharist. (CCC 838)

The way I read this, the answer is "yes, but they don't have the full Truth. If they've been properly baptized and believe in Christ, they are associated with the Church, but imperfectly."

This agrees with Catholic Answers article What is the relationship between the Church and baptized Protestants?

  Full Question

  What relationship does the Catholic Church perceive to exist between
  itself and various Protestants (the baptized ones who still accept
  their faith)?

  Answer

  Validly baptized Protestants are regarded as true Christian brothers
  and sisters who are in imperfect relationship with the Church. The
  nature of the imperfections is as varied as Protestantism itself. The
  idea at work here is that the faith is an incarnational thing, not
  just a "spiritual" (disembodied) thing—just like Jesus himself. Thus,
  it is possible to be out of union with the Church "bodily"
  (structurally, sacramentally, liturgically), yet still have a
  spiritual unity with the Church. Likewise, it is possible to be
  "bodily" united to the Church yet cease to be in communion with her
  spiritually (as an apostate Catholic is if he keeps going to Communion
  yet rejects the creed or continues unrepentant in grave sin). The
  latter form of disunity with Church is more serious than the former.

Also, from EWTN Global Catholic Network article Some Things That Catholics Do Not Believe (Item # 7):

  Catholics do not believe that Protestants who are baptized, who lead a good life, love God and their neighbor, and are blamelessly
  ignorant of the just claims of the Catholic Religion to be the one
  true Religion (which is called being in good faith), are excluded from
  Heaven, provided they believe that there is one God in three Divine
  Persons; *that God will duly reward the good and punish the wicked;
  that Jesus Christ is the Son of God made man, who redeemed us, and in
  whom we must trust for our salvation; and provided they thoroughly
  repent of having ever, by their sins, offended God.

  Catholics hold that Protestants who have these dispositions, and who
  have no suspicion of their religion being false, and no means to
  discover, or fail in their honest endeavors to discover, the true
  Religion, and who are so disposed in their heart that they would at
  any cost embrace the Roman Catholic Religion if they knew it to be the
  true one, are Catholics in spirit and in some sense within the
  Catholic Church, without themselves knowing it. She holds that these
  Christians belong to, and are united to the "soul," as it is called,
  of the Catholic Church, although they are not united to the visible
  body of the Church by external communion with her, and by the outward
  profession of her faith.

  Very different is the case of a person who, having the opportunity,
  neglects to learn from genuine trustworthy sources what the Catholic
  Religion is and really teaches, fearing, that were he to become
  convinced of the truth of the Catholic Faith, he would be compelled by
  his conscience to forsake his own religion, and bear the worldly
  inconveniences attached to this step. This very fear shows a want of
  good faith, and that he is not in that insurmountable ignorance which
  could excuse him in the sight of God, nut that he is one of those of
  whom it is said in Psalm xxxv. 4, "He would not understand that he
  might do well."

  Fairness, no less than common sense, teaches that a man should study
  and examine the teaching of the Catholic Church from Catholic sources
  before condemning her. Surely no man ought to reject Catholic doctrine
  if he has not made himself well acquainted with them. Nor is is fair
  to form a judgment from misrepresentations made by ill-informed,
  interested, or prejudiced persons; one should rather, by the study of
  authorized Catholic works, judge of the truth with that calm and
  unprejudiced mind which the all-important subject of Religion
  deserves. Thus having heard both sides, you will be in a state to pass
  a right judgment and not in danger of being misled by prejudice.

  Our Saviour gave no hope of salvation to the Samaritan woman unless
  she entered the one true Church of the tine, saying to her who was
  destitute of a sure guide: "You adore that which you know not; we
  adore that which we know; for SALVATION IS OF THE JEWS". (St John iv.
  22.) So likewise there is no salvation for any one who, having by God's grace come to the knowledge of the truth, obstinately refuses to
  join the true Church of God.

That third paragraph on, particularly the very last sentence, indicates to me that the hope of salvation for protestants doesn't extend to those that flat-out refuse to learn about what the Catholic Church really teaches.

“Do Catholics officially recognize Protestants as Christians?" More generally: Are baptized non-Catholics Christians?
The answer is no.
A Christian is someone who is a member of the Mystical Body of Christ. Baptized non-Catholics are not members of the Church because, as Pope Pius XII wrote in his encyclical Mystici Corporis Christi §22:

Actually only those are to be included as members of the Church who have

been baptized

and

profess the true faith,*

and

who have not been so unfortunate as to separate themselves from the unity of the Body, or been excluded by legitimate authority for grave faults committed.

“For in one spirit” says the Apostle, “were we all baptized into one Body, whether Jews or Gentiles, whether bond or free.” As therefore in the true Christian community there is only one Body, one Spirit, one Lord, and one Baptism, so there can be only one faith. And therefore if a man refuse to hear the Church let him be considered — so the Lord commands — as a heathen and a publican. [cf. Mt. 18:17] It follows that those [who] are divided in faith or government cannot be living in the unity of such a Body, nor can they be living the life of its one Divine Spirit.*[in its entirely; cf. Satis Cognitum]

Protestants are at least material heretics; they do not hold the same faith as Catholics. They deny the papacy, a truth necessary for being a member of the Church. They do not even recognize the visible Church (its government). And, as Pope Leo XIII said in Satis Cognitum, an encyclical on the unity of the Church consisting in being “one in faith, in government, and in communion:”

The practice of the Church has always been the same, as is shown by the unanimous teaching of the Fathers, who were wont to hold as outside Catholic communion, and alien to the Church, whoever would recede in the least degree from any point of doctrine proposed by her authoritative Magisterium.

Thus, Protestants are not Christian.


What is the significance of what Jesus ate after his resurrection? Is anyone aware of any special symbolic significance of Jesus eating specifically fish and honeycomb while showing his disciples he was not "a spirit" when he appeared to them (and somewhat scared them) after his resurrection in Luke 24:42-43?

Some commentators do employ a bit of speculation on this question, including Augustine himself.  The Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture summarizes Augustine, saying that the fish "represent the faith of the martyrs that have gone through the fiery trials of suffering." With respect to a similar passage in John 21, Augustine writes that "[t]he fish roasted is Christ having suffered" (Treatise 123).

With respect to the honeycomb (which some manuscripts do not mention), Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown write that it is simply "common frugal fare" (Commentary).  Matthew Henry likewise calls it "mean" (in the sense of "humble") and suggests that a lesson can be drawn from its inclusion:

  The honey-comb, perhaps, was used as sauce to the broiled fish, for Canaan was a land flowing with honey. This was mean fare; yet, if it be the fare of the disciples, their Master will fare as they do, because in the kingdom of our Father they shall fare as he does, shall eat and drink with him in his kingdom. (Commentary)

The more important point, attested by both church fathers and more modern commentators, is that Jesus is proving to his disciples that he is truly resurrected and that he has a real body.  As John Calvin writes:

  During the whole course of his life, he had subjected himself to the necessity of eating and drinking; and now, though relieved from that necessity, he eats for the purpose of convincing his disciples of the certainty of his resurrection.

Jesus ate fish and honey as proof that he is not a spirit but still has a body of flesh. The food was real food and that is it. Jesus showed them that he is in the flesh just like them. Important fact is that he showed them that his body of flesh will ascend to heaven. On the new earth the lion will lie with the lamb! Are they spirits? nope. real fleshly animals. Like we will be.


How do Protestants understand the "unforgivable" sin? Scripture refers to an unpardonable sin in Matthew 12:31–32, Mark 3:29–30, and Luke 12:10, as well as Hebrews 6:4–6.

There's also "sin that leads to death" (1 John 5:16–17).

Given the Protestant understanding of sin, what is an overview of the doctrines they develop from these passages?  To Protestants, what is the unforgivable sin?

Related, but not tradition-specific: What is the blasphemy of the Holy Spirit?

Protestants basically fall into three main camps, claiming that the unpardonable sin is:

attributing the works of the Holy Spirit to the devil; or,
refusal to repent even to the end of one's life; or,
hatefully and willfully slandering the Holy Spirit's testimony of Christ.

Within (3), there are three views regarding who can commit the sin: 3a) only the regenerate (saved), 3b) both regenerate and unregenerate (unsaved), and 3c) only the unregenerate.

(1) Some, particularly dispensationalists like Lewis S. Chafer, take the view (also held by Jerome and Chrysostom) that the unpardonable sin could only be performed during Jesus' time on earth, since the sin specifically "consisted in asserting that Christ’s works, which were wrought by the Holy Spirit, were accomplished on the contrary by Satan."1  Charismatics like J. Rodman Williams similarly view it as the "utterly perverse ascription of the work of God to Satan," but argue that it can still be committed today.2

(2) The second position was held by Augustine,3 some early Lutherans, and several Scottish theologians.  One of the latter was Thomas Chalmers, who writes that "it is a sin which can be charged upon every man who has put the overtures of forgiveness away from him."  Expressing his disagreement with other views, he writes:

  So that this sin, looked upon by many as the sin of one particular age, or, if possible to realise it in the present day, as only to be met with in a few solitary instances of enourmous and unexpiable transgression, is the very sin upon which may be made to turn the condemnation and the ruin of the existing majority of our species.4

(3) The third position is held by later Lutherans, Arminians, and Calvinists.  The Lutherans espouse the first subdivision, the Arminians the second, and Calvinists the third.

(3a) Lutheran John Mueller explains that the sin is "committed only when the Holy Spirit has clearly revealed the divine truth to the sinner and the sinner nevertheless utters blasphemies against it."5  He notes that most dogmaticians6 in his tradition "teach that the sin against the Holy Ghost can be committed only by those who were regernerated," with the exception of those who argue that it can also occur in the unregenerate "in the very moment when the Holy Ghost is about to convert them."

(3b) The second subdivision, that either regenerate or unregenerate can commit the sin, is held by Arminians.  Jacobus Arminius described the sin as the "rejection and refusing of Jesus Christ through determined malice and hatred against Christ [...] against conscience."7

(3c) The third subdivision (only the unregenerate commit the sin) is believed by those in the reformed tradition, like John Calvin and Louis Berkhof. Calvin writes that the sin is committed by those "whose consciences, though convinced that what they repudiate and impugn is the Word of God, yet cease not to impugn it,"8 but that "he who has been truly regenerated by the Spirit cannot possibly fall into so horrid a crime."9 Berkhof's definition reads:

  The sin consists in the conscious, malicious, and wilful rejection and slandering, against evidence and conviction, of the testimony of the Holy Spirit respecting the grace of God in Christ, attributing it out of hatred and enmity to the prince of darkness.10

Notes and References: Berkhof and Combs provide helpful summaries; Combs in particular includes additional quotes, including some from church fathers and medieval theologians, and a review of how modern theologians fall into the camps above.

Combs, William W., "The Blasphemy Against the Holy Spirit," Detroit Baptist Seminary Journal (2004), p64–67.
Williams, Renewal Theology, Volume I, p256.
Cited in Aquinas, Summa Theologica.
Chalmers, "On the Nature of the Sin against the Holy Ghost" (alt source, p192).  More from Chalmers on this is available in his Institutes of Theology, Vol. II, Lecture 4 (p472).
Mueller, Christian Dogmatics, p233.
A number of quotes are given in Schmid, Doctrinal Theology of the Evangelical Lutheran Church, p276–77.
Arminius, Works of James Arminius, Volume 2, p528–29.  For who can commit the sin, see p523–24.  (Alternate source)
Calvin, Institutes, Book 3, Chapter 3, 22.
Calvin, Harmony of the Gospels, Vol. 2.
Berkhof, Systematic Theology, 2.2.4, p252–54.

Agreeing mostly with point 1 in Nathanial's answer, though it requires a bit of clarification and expansion because as with most groups, dispensationalists (myself included) are not monolithic. We do tend to be an exception to the general protestant rule of Bible interpretation in that we first look at whom a given letter was addressed before deciding if and how its content applies. Through that lens, we're convinced that Hebrews was written to exactly whom the supplied title of the letter indicates. It was not written to the Body of Christ in which there is no longer any Jew/Gentile distinction and in which all sin has been forgiven (Rom 8:1; Col 2:13), its members guaranteed be kept safe by God unto glory (Rom 8:28; Phil 1:6). Rather, it was written to group that could taste the things that accompanied salvation but were still at risk of falling away through faithlessness. Those were Jews, just as the author indicates throughout the book.

However, there is not full dispensational agreement on WHAT that unforgivable sin entailed. Some do say as pointed out in Nathaniel's answer while others believe it involved rejecting Christ as Messiah, which most of Israel of that day did. One line of reasoning here (which I share) is that the Jews allowed John the baptizer (the voice of the Father) to be killed. Then, they demanded Christ Himself be killed (though He asked they be forgiven for they knew not what they did). Finally, Stephen, of whom it was pointedly said "was full of the Holy Spirit," was brutally murdered by Jews' own hands (Acts ch. 7). It was shortly after that point we see the unexpected salvation of the vilest human enemy of Christ, the persecutor Saul, who as Paul was sent forth unto the world with the previously unrevealed Secret (mystery) that Israel was now being set aside and all mankind could come to God directly through Christ without any national or human intermediaries.

And why? Because the covenant nation Israel not only refused to repent, she blasphemed the Holy Spirit by murdering Stephen. That, some of us believe, marked the blasphemy that would not be forgiven, and it also coincides with the historic beginning of the end of God's dealings with her as a nation.

As to the original question:

To Protestants, what is the unforgivable sin?

The only "unforgivable sin" believed by most dispensationalists (and many non-dispensational protestants) to exist during this dispensation of God's grace is to die after having heard and understood the Gospel of the grace of God, but rejecting it. For that, there is no remedy.


Why do some Bible Translations omit John 7:53-8:11? When I tried to look at the verses quoted in this question Ihttp://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/5903/what-did-jesus-write-on-the-ground/
I found that in the New World  Translation of the Holy Scriptures  John 7 ends at verse 52 and John 8 starts with verse 12 so the whole story about Jesus writing in the dust and saying let he who is without sin cast the first stone does not exist in this translation
A foot note states that many consider the omitted verses to be of questionable sourcing

Why would some bibles have these verses and others leave them out?

The simple answer is that there are some older manuscripts that lack the reading.  If credence is placed in the older manuscript, then the reading is left out.  The assumption is that the older manuscripts are closer to the source documents.

By the way, many view the New World Translation with suspicion. It is a product of the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society (Jehovah's Witnesses.) From what I've heard, there isn't much known about how they created the translation.

The passage in question was (most likely) not part of the Gospel According to John, instead of being added later. It is the most significant text theologically that might have been added.
The Codex Vaticanus, either the oldest or second oldest full New Testament manuscript we have, omits this passage.
The Codex has been around with Western Catholic and possibly Eastern Orthodox churches since it was written.
The Codex was not paid attention to much (Catholics are not Sola Scriptura believers so they care less about the bible) until a scholar "found" it in the Vatican library. That codex as well as all other ancient manuscripts omit it.
In my opinion, the oldest manuscript we have with 100% of the New Testament in Greek (yes, Revelation is there too, just not written by the same copyist at the same period) is what God would use to preserve the accurate form of scripture.
Other reasons to think the passage is not original exist too

it cuts the flow of the narrative in John.
it has been added in other parts of that area in John as well as into Luke with the same text.
the story makes little sense (what is Jesus writing in the ground?

Also, until Jesus died on the cross, the Law that Jesus goes against WAS IN EFFECT IN ISRAEL, as seen in the rest of scripture where Jesus says that all the Torah should be kept and teaches the most extreme way to understand it in the sermon on the mount. Only after he died, is the law not applying (it was given because of transgressions until the seed comes according to Galatians).
One thing I do need to stress - the New World translation is one of the worst ones out there and is used and writen by followers of a heresy that denies that Jesus is YHWH, and uses YHWH name in vain. Literally, any translation is better than that one.


Why does the Coptic church still perform circumcisions? Circumcision is a requirement from The Mosaic Law:

  Any uncircumcised male who has not been circumcised in the flesh of
  his foreskin will be cut off from his people – he has failed to carry
  out my requirement. (Gen. 17:14, NIV)

However the old laws are no longer a requirement based on being saved by grace.

  For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith--and this is not
  from yourselves, it is the gift of God (Ephesians 2:8, NIV)

I understand that the Coptic Orthodox Church still practices circumcision. What is the Biblical basis for this?

Actually they don't; it is derived from Egyptian culture, not necessarily Christian Coptic. The Coptic Church does infant baptism as a sign of the covenant, and you should know that the Coptic Church holds to the view that the Church is the New Israel.

The Coptic Church is the only Church remaining from the first century.  They practiced Judaism from the time of Solomon, and they eagerly accepted Yeshua of Nazareth as HaMessiach.
They practice the Law as given to Moses by Yehova, and as commanded by Yeshua in Matthew Ch 5:17 and John 14:15 and 21, and Matthew 23:3, when He commanded his followers to follow what the Pharisees instructed them to do from the Seat of Moses, but not as the Pharisees do themselves which was additional Rabbinical Traditions.
This is in keeping with Paul's comment in Romans 3:31 "Do we then Nullify the Law through Faith? May it never be! On the Contrary, we establish the Law."
There has been a whole lot of word crafting over the last 2000 thousand years, and deliberate misinterpretation of Paul, who is made to appear to contradict Yeshua.  This was warned about also, as the Apostasy, and it has come just as fortold in Scripture.
Everyone should research what can be found about the doctrine of the Nicolasians--there is a severe warning to John from Yeshua about this doctrine in Revelations Ch2.
I think there is much we can learn from the Coptic Church which has been mostly forgotten about, but inspite of infiltration by Jesuits in the 1500's, and the continues persecution from worldly forces around them (Islam), have remained Faithful in every detail.  There existence today is a Miracle, but with God all things are possible.
Shalom!


Is spirituality different than superstition? Since Enlightenment we seem to have entered an age where “reality” is often confined to empirical explanations. Yet the Bible speaks of a spiritual reality that is not open to empirical investigation.

Are there any generally accepted (within Christianity) writings on this subject?  If defining "reality" is a branch of philosophical thought, who are the writers of such thought and are there any summaries of their perspectives?

The strictly empirical worldview seems reductionistic to thoughtful Christians (not to mention many atheists etc.) because, in their view, it fails to adequately account for phenomena such as love, beauty, reason, morality, the "unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics," and the like. Moreover, empiricism as a worldview seems to fail on its own terms because it is open to explanations for observable phenomena such as a multiverse and potentially undetectable forms of matter that are themselves not open to empirical investigation.

If we thus take spiritual to be non-material or non-empirical, then superstition is merely that subset of non-material things that you think are not real. But that's being a bit coy, because Christians believe there exists, not just non-material "stuff," but also non-material personal agents -- indeed the personal agent -- who interact with the material world in various ways.

Why do we believe such things? Christian philosopher Alvin Plantinga argues that one reason we do is because of a built-in sensus divinitatis (SD), a natural faculty common to all humans that leads us to the divine. If God made us, it seems reasonable that he would instill in us a faculty to draw us to himself. Like the other faculties (sight, hearing, reason, imagination, the affections, etc.), however, the SD operates at varying levels of quality among different persons. An errant SD may lead one to become what Calvin calls a "factory of idols," seeking the spiritual in ways where it cannot be truly found -- superstition, if you will.

Moreover, it stands to reason that if God did make the world, there would be some clues in it that would point in his direction. Christians believe they can and have recognized such clues in the order, design, and telos of the world and of mankind itself. But make no mistake -- there is no neutral ground here. All facts must be interpreted, and evidence or data itself cannot act as a neutral arbiter between the interpretations (as non-Christian Stanley Fish says, "evidence is never independent and is only evidence within the precincts of a particular theory"). Thus, there is no airtight proof or evidence for God or spiritual reality that will convince all reasonable people, but a cumulative case of clues can be mounted for those with eyes to see it, as it were. (See Tim Keller, The Reason for God, chapters 8 and 9.)

Christians do not believe they have the power to "define" or delimit what is real, as your question seems to imply. We seek only to acknowledge what is real in the world where we find ourselves. As finite beings, we may not be equipped to fully explore all that exists. Hence there may be some realities we cannot explore effectively with the tools at our disposal, but we could still learn about these realities indirectly from someone who knows them directly. Hence we find ourselves seeking divine revelation to know something about non-empirical realities, and virtually all Christians believe that the person, work, and teaching of Jesus and the Bible hold such revelation to one degree or another and reveal God and his character and nature.

The three previous paragraphs, intrepid readers may note, align with John Frame's triperspectival approach laid out in his Doctrine of Knowledge of God and represent the existential, situational, and normative perspectives, respectively. Each of these is mutually interdependent, informing and being informed by the others.

Two other writers worthy of note here are particle physicist-turned-priest John Polkinhorne, who has compared and contrasted how science and theology pursue truth in their respective domains, and chemist-turned-philosopher of science Michael Polanyi, who described "tacit knowledge" (that we know more than we can tell or prove).

As a footnote: Beyond more philosophical musings like the above, which can sometimes be too abstract, I might recommend C. S. Lewis' Space Trilogy for an imaginative telling of a Christian view of reality. In it, the material world, for instance, has a maximum speed of the speed of light, whereas the spiritual world's minimum is the speed of light, and the spiritual beings interact with the material world only loosely, passing through conventional matter as we do through a fog.

CS Lewis wrote in Miracles about the Sub-natural, the Natural and the Super-natural. You can read a short summary here, but it's always best to read the source material itself.
Empricism deals with observations of Nature. It cannot say anything about Sub-nature or Super-nature.


Where do we draw the line when questioning/testing God? It's pretty clear that we shouldn't put God to the test.

  Luke 4:12 NIV

  Jesus answered, “It is said: ‘Do not put the Lord your God to the
  test.’ ”

Or is it?

  Isaiah 7:10-12

  10 Again the LORD spoke to Ahaz, 11 “Ask the LORD your God for a
  sign, whether in the deepest depths or in the highest heights.”

  12 But Ahaz said, “I will not ask; I will not put the LORD to the
  test.”

God clearly wanted Ahaz to ask him for the answer, but Ahaz assumed that this was a test. We know from other faithful people in the Bible that they all went to God and asked God for answers to their questions.

Where should we not test God and when/where is it ok to test Him?

The commandment against putting God to the test comes from Deuteronomy 6:16, as part of a series of instructions relating to loyalty to the one true God:

Do not put the Lord your God to the test as you tested him at Massah.

The reference to Massah is from the events of Exodus 17:1-7, also recounted in Numbers 20:1-13. This is the story where the Israelites have come out of Egypt, have been wandering in the desert, and are getting fed up with the harsh conditions and lack of water - they have lost their trust in God's promise. Moses, at God's command, strikes the rock with his staff to let out a stream of water. Exodus 7:7 explains: "He gave the place the names Massah and Meribah because of the Israelites' contentiousness and because they put the Lord to the test by saying, 'Is the Lord with us or not?'". 'Massah' means 'trial' and 'Meribah' means 'contention'.
The account in Numbers is a little more colourful.

There was no water for the community, so they banded together against Moses and Aaron. The people laid the blame on Moses. "We would rather have died," they said, "as our brothers died before the Lord! Why have you brought the Lord's community into this desert, for us and our livestock to die here? Why did you lead us out of Egypt, only to bring us to this wretched place? It is a place unfit sowing, it has no figs, no pomegranates, and there is not even water to drink!" (Nb 20:2-5)
The Lord then said to Moses and Aaron, "Because you did not believe that I could assert my holiness before the Israelites' eyes, you will not lead this assembly into the country which I am giving them." These were the Waters of Meribah, where the Israelites laid the blame on the Lord and where, by their means, he asserted his holiness. (Nb 20:12-13)

This context shows that 'putting God to the test' is strongly connected to one of the major themes of the exodus - that despite God's continual promises, people are still doubtful, resentful, unsatisfied, and disobedient. We demand more and more evidence of God's love for us (sweetening the foul water, raining manna, making water spring from the rock, ...) rather than  accepting and returning it. This is what is going on in the passage from Luke - the devil is suggesting that God's unconditional love is a resource to be exploited.
The statement of Ahaz in Isaiah 7:12 should be seen in the context of his reign, which is described in 2 Kings 16.

[Ahaz] did not do what the Lord his God regards as right, as his ancestor David had done. He followed the example of the kings of Israel, even causing his son to pass through the fire of sacrifice, also copying the disgusting practices of the nations whom the Lord had dispossessed for the Israelites. (2 Kings 16:2-3)

Ahaz was no true follower of God. As a king, besieged by Razon and Pekah (2 Kings 16:5 and Isaiah 7:1), his response was to offer his kingdom as a vassal state to Assyria. He sent treasures from the Temple to Assyria's king (2 Kings 16:8), and made other changes to the Temple structure (16:17-18).
The New Jerusalem Bible has this to say in a footnote to Isaiah 7:7-9 :

For the prophets, faith is not so much a theoretical belief in the existence and uniqueness of God as an attitude of confidence based on God's choice of Israel: he has chosen Israel, he is Israel's God, he alone has the power to save his people. This unconditional trust, a guarantee of salvation, excludes all reliance not only on human beings but still more on false gods.

So when Ahaz says, "I will not put God to the test," he is showing a lack of faith in God. He would rather trust in the mighty Assyrian empire, or in foreign gods, than accept the sign that God has just promised to give him. God demonstrates his patient love yet again by giving the sign anyway - a young woman (or virgin) is "with child and will give birth to a son whom she will call Immanuel" (Isaiah 7:14).

When fastening in the desert, the devil asks Jesus, according to the bible, to commit a miracle, but Jesus says, that you shall not test God. (Mt 4,1-11²).

On the other hand, when Thomas does not believe in him, he shows his wounds to him, with the sound of a mild dispraise, but Thomas isn't banned or send to hell or excluded from his community. (Joh, 20²). And his skepticism might look like his fault, but the other follower where present, when Jesus appeared before, so they didn't show more faith.

A small problem with this rule, to not test god, is, that every prayer, where you ask god for something - health, food, freedom, luck for your relatives and support for your friends in trouble, all this can be seen as an implicit test. If you believe that God helped to heal a disease, you implicitly believe, that God has proven his existence that way. It is a fine line to balance on.

²) I guess you prefer to read the part in your own translation, and have a link ready, so I don't search for an English link.


When was the first occurrence of Jesus being used as a name? I would suspect that Jesus himself was the first to have the name "Jesus", but was there anyone before him with the same name? In other words, was the name completely unique when the Angel Gabriel told Mary to name her son "Jesus" or had the name been bestowed to someone else before? Today, the name is not rare (especially in some cultures), but was it so back then also?

Well, to be accurate, are you asking about the Greek name Ἰησοῦς (English transliteration: Iēsous), or the actual Anglicized (English) name, "Jesus"? Or, are you referring to his likely Hebrew/ Aramaic name, יֵשׁוּעַ (English transliteration: Yeshu'a)?
I suspect you're probably talking about his Hebrew/ Aramaic name since that was what he would have been named --- and that is the name that actually has relevance to the phrase, "...he shall save his people from their sins."
So, who was the first to be called יֵשׁוּעַ? Well, I can tell you who was the first to be named יֵשׁוּעַ in the Tanakh, but you must understand that the Tanakh does not record the name of every Israelite who has ever been born. So, there may have been people named יֵשׁוּעַ even before the first one to possess that name as recorded in the Tanakh. In any case, the first one to be named יֵשׁוּעַ in the Tanakh (if I am not mistaken) is recorded in Ezra 2:2:

who came with Zerubbabel, Jeshua, Nehemiah, Seraiah, Reelaiah, Mordecai, Bilshan, Mispar, Bigvai, Rehum, Baanah. The number of the men of the people of Israel: (JPS Translation)

There was an early Hebrew variant of the name יֵשׁוּעַ, it being יְהוֹשׁוּעַ (English transliteration: Yehoshu'a). This was the name of the one we known in English as "Joshua son of Nun." Both the names יֵשׁוּעַ and יְהוֹשׁוּעַ were transliterated into the Greek Septuagint by the proper name Ἰησοῦς.
Compare Nehemiah 8:17:

יֵשׁוּעַ בִּן־נוּן
Ἰησοῦ υἱοῦ Ναυη

with 1 Kings 16:34:

יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בִּן-נוּן
Ιησου υἱοῦ Ναυη

For this reason, the KJV translators mistook "Jesus" for "Joshua" in Acts 7:45:

Which also our fathers that came after brought in with Jesus into the possession of the Gentiles, whom God drave out before the face of our fathers, unto the days of David;

The passage is not referring to the Lord Jesus, but rather, Joshua son of Nun (Yehoshu'a bin Nun), the successor of Moshe, who brought the Israelites into the promised land.
As an aside, the Hebrew/ Aramaic names יֵשׁוּעַ and יְהוֹשׁוּעַ are actually quite common in the Jewish culture. For example, you can see many people by those names in the Talmud.

When was Jesus name first used?

HEBREW BIBLE
285-246 B.C. Septuagint was the GREEK Old Testament official translation of the Old Testament.  The 2nd century B.C. the Old Testament was translated into Greek. This translation is known as the Septuagint.

325 A.D. Constantine held the Council of Nicaea.

360 A.D. Codex Sinaiticus Greek New Testament was written after the Council of Nicaea.  This was only used to produce the Latin Vulgate Bible.  On 1859, the Codex Sinaiticus was discovered in Egypt, in the Monastery of Saint Catherine, by the Leipzig archaeologist Constantin von Tischendorf. The Codex Sinaiticus is an ancient handwritten copy of the Greek Bible, and alongside the Codex Vaticanus, it is the finest Greek text of the New Testament. Also including much of the Old Testament, it is an inestimably important document in the history of Christianity. The Codex was written sometime in the 4th century (between 325 A.D. and 360 A.D.), and is an Alexandrian text-type manuscript.

382 A.D. [Latin Vulgate Bible translated by St. Jerome] the translation was largely the work of St. Jerome, who was commissioned by Pope Damasus I. St. Jerome translated Greek into Latin.  This means the original 285-246 B.C. Septuagint was translated into Latin in 382 A.D.

After 382 A.D. the following bibles were translated from the 382 A.D. Latin Vulgate Bible rather than the original Greek and Hebrew. Latin word Iesus was used.  The correct word should be Iesous which is Greek. The correct word should be Joshua which is English.

1395 A.D. Wycliffe Greek Bible, 1514 A.D. Erasmus-Greek New Testament, 1525 A.D. Tyndale's New Testament, 1534 A.D. Tyndale Bible, 1540 A.D. The Great Bible also called Cranmer, 1568 A.D. The Bishops' Bible, 1587 A.D. The Geneva Bible, and 1611 A.D. King James Version translated from 80% of 1525 A.D. Tyndale's Bible which was translated from the 382 A.D. Latin Vulgate Bible. James II of England (1633-1701) was indeed the last Catholic monarch of England.  James was driven from the throne by Protestants.  England passed a law stating that no Catholic can hold office again.

1638 A.D. King James English used both Latin and English to create the English bible version.  This was a translation from the 1611 Kings James which was a translation from the Latin Vulgate Bible. Latin word Iesus was used.  The correct word should be Iesous which is Greek. The correct word should be Joshua which is English. The 1638 A.D. King James English texts all literally have the name JESUS in these two places, though the contexts refer to the man Joshua. In Hebrews 4:8 we read: "For if Jesus had given them rest, then would he not afterward have spoken of another day." Likewise in Acts 7:45 we have: "Which also our fathers that came after brought in with Jesus into the possession of the Gentiles, whom God drove out before the face of our fathers, unto the days of David."

In 1604, Robert Cawdrey published the first English dictionary, the letter “J” was added to create the modern English alphabet we know today.   The 1611 King James Bible written in English did not use the letter “J” instead used Latin words.  If Jesus name was used before 1611 why was the name Jesus not used in the 1611 King James Bible? This would only mean that the English did not accept the “J” until after 1611 and before 1638 A.D. or the name Jesus was not used until after 1611 A.D.

One possible answer to how “J” was used to create the name Jesus is someone took the Latin word Iesus and added “J” to create the name Jesus.  The problem is the use of the Latin word and not the Greek word.  The second problem this had to take place after 1604 A.D. The third problem is that the 1611 A.D.  King James Bible used the Latin word Iesus not Jesus.

However the 1638 A.D. King James Bible used Jesus’ name.  We know the Latin did not use the letter “J” until the 18th Century or 100 years after 1638 A.D. King James Bible used Jesus’ name.  King James I of England authorized the Protestant translation of the King James Version and chose to continue the anti-Catholic policies.

As you can see the only original Greek text was used to produce the Latin Vulgate Bible and after that all  Bibles were translated from the Latin Vulgate Bible using both English and Latin words. As you can clearly see the Name Jesus cannot be used in the English Bibles except when adding the English letter “J” to the Latin word Iesus.

The 1638 King James Bible translated the Latin word Iesus into the English word Jesus.  The problem translating the Latin word Iesus into English as Jesus before 1701 A.D. is that there was no “J” in the Latin alphabet.  After 1701 A.D. the Latin word Iesus became the English word Jesus. The only “J” was used by the English and this would mean that Jesus name was made up by the English about 100 years earlier.

Asking bibleinfo.com for comments, they replied by saying.  “I have no problem with those who want to try to pronounce the Hebrew and Greek equivalent of the names commonly translated Jesus. The name commonly transliterated Jesus in the Greek is Iasous.  I have no problem with those who want to try to pronounce the Greek equivalent of the names commonly translated Jesus. The problem comes with contentions, accusations, and strife that results from those who insist on making an issue out of pronunciation rather than meaning”. The problem is that the word iasous was never used in the old or new testament.

“The problem comes with contentions, accusations, and strife that results from those who insist on making an issue out of pronunciation rather than meaning”.

One way was by translation, which tries to capture the meaning of a word, but in the process, loses the sound.

The other way was by transliteration, which tries to capture the sound of the Hebrew word, but in the process, loses the meaning. Translating the Latin word Iesus by using “J” to make the English word Jesus loses the meaning.

A Latin person with the name Iesus meets an English person and he calls Iesus Jesus.  A Greek person with the name Iesous meets an English person and he calls Iesous Joshua. Pronunciation and meaning does not change the name or meaning.  However, a Latin person with the name Iesus meets an English person and he calls Iesus Joshua.  A Greek person with the name Iesous meets an English person and he calls Iesous Jesus. Pronunciation and meaning does change name and meaning. The Latin word Iesus was used only after 282 A.D. when the Greek word Iesous should have been used.

If being right means I am contentious then I am contentious.  If making an accusation that is true then I have made a true accusation.  If I am being strife and insist on making an issue on the correct name, the issue is true and has merit.  I am only making an issue with the name and this does not change anything other than the name and the meaning in the bible.

All scripture are by inspiration of God. [2 Timothy 3:16 KJB] If all scriptures are inspired by God, then why was the Latin word Iesus being used and not the Greek word Iesous.  For nothing is secret, neither anything hid, that shall not be known. [Luke 8:17 KJB]  The secret no longer is hidden and this was inspired by God.


Should biblical laws apply to non-Christians? Obviously a lot of Christians want to have biblically based laws in the society, in effect requiring everybody to follow biblical morals. But the opposite is also a popular view among Christians: as non-believers are not saved either way, we shouldn't make it our problem whether they sin little or much.

Which is it, and why?

It's unclear to me whether you're asking for an answer that relates to political or governmental policy, or how we ought to behave as individual Christians.  But to address the latter, 1 Corinthians 5:12-13 I believe is relevant:

  12 What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside? 13 God will judge those outside. “Expel the wicked person from among you.”

In other words, regardless of whether Biblical laws would be helpful for non-Christians, as Christians it's not our place to pass judgment; we ought to leave that for God.

In early America, it's said that the laws were completely based off of scripture. Harvard was originally a Christian founded school until it was taken over by atheists.

Biblical law has one common foundation.

  Matthew 22:37-40  (NKJV)

  37 Jesus said to him, “ ‘You shall love the LORD your God with all
  your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind.’[a] 38 This is
  the first and great commandment. 39 And the second is like it: ‘You
  shall love your neighbor as yourself.’[b] 40 On these two commandments
  hang all the Law and the Prophets.”

That foundation is love. It would make perfect sense to have biblical laws apply to non-Christians. As the biblical law states that love is the foundation and love does no harm to your neighbor.

The problem is that people reject God, thus rejecting His laws. I expect to see more and more laws contradicting the bible as time goes on and as our country drifts farther and farther from the Truth.


According to Protestants, what is the lesson being taught by scripture when God killed so many men for looking into the Ark? Many people find a short passage in the Old Testament to be both disturbing and very peculiar; that being 1st Samuel 6:19,

  and He (God) smote (killed) the men of Beth-she-mesh, because they
  had looked into the Ark of the Lord, even He smote of the people
  50,070 men.

The disturbing question is why God would kill so many men for simply looking into the Ark.  It seems to be a very peculiar thing to do.  One thing is obvious, God is using this event and recording it in His Word as a historical parable. A teaching lesson with a spiritual meaning.

What is that meaning?

I am not attempting to ask God's motivation for killing these men; but I am asking, what God is teaching through this story?  Are there different interpretations of this lesson between the different denominations of Christianity?

Sin really did abound when the Law was given in the old testament, and every form of disobedience or sin, as little as it can be, was dealt with strict punishment or Death.

Jesus came to fulfil all laws (Matthew 5:17-20) and destroy sin and death.
This means that we no longer live in sin but by Grace and we can walk boldly to his throne (Hebrews 4:16) without fear or guilt like Old Testament people.

The Law has been abolished and Jesus took every judgement upon Himself.

I believe there are two options a Christian can live with:

there was a reason for those people to die and God knew it, but we
don't and won't.
They were somehow sinning against God in the issue of "not looking
into the sacred things" (Numbers 4:20)


Jesus predicts that some will not die until he comes in his kingdom, but did this occur? Matthew 16:28

  I tell you the truth, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom.

Mark 9:1

  And he said to them, "I tell you the truth, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the kingdom of God come with power.

Luke 9:27

  I tell you the truth, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the kingdom of God

Obviously everyone that heard Jesus say this is no longer living, so it seems this prediction by Jesus did not take place. Perhaps I am misunderstanding what the 'Kingdom of God' is. Or maybe Jesus is saying that salvation brings life, and physical death is not important. I think that is was the pervading belief among early Christians that they would live to see the second coming of Christ, as evidenced by some of the letters of Paul. How am I misinterpreting this?

The very next story in each of those passages is the transfiguration. My interpretation: The kingdom is here! Jesus is alive and reigning through his church and in the hearts of the saints. Because the Kingdom has an already/not-yet character, it has not yet come in its fullness, but it is here. And Peter/James/John saw in the transfiguration a preview of the fullness which is to come, Christ in his power and glory.

Yes, everything occured by 70 AD. It must be noted that Jesus Christ said Kingdom of God will not come with observables (Luke 17). Kingdom of God is spiritual.

But in terms of Second Coming, Jesus said that the sign of Son of Man will appear in the sky (Matthew 24). It must be noted that everything must be fulfilled within the generation of Jesus' disciples - ""This generation shall not pass until all these things happened." (Matthew 24, Mark 13, Luke 21).

A Generation is 40 years in Bible. Here are some examples.

Numbers 32:13 (ESV) - And the Lord's anger was kindled against Israel, and he made them wander in the wilderness forty years, until all the generation that had done evil in the sight of the Lord was gone.

Deuteronomy 1:34-36 (ESV) - And the Lord heard your words and was angered, and he swore, ‘Not one of these men of this evil generation shall see the good land that I swore to give to your fathers, except Caleb the son of Jephunneh. He shall see it, and to him and to his children I will give the land on which he has trodden, because he has wholly followed the Lord!"

Psalms 95:10 (ESV) - For forty years I loathed that generation and said, “They are a people who go astray in their heart, and they have not known my ways.”

Hebrews 3:9-10 (ESV) - Today, if you hear his voice, do not harden your hearts as in the rebellion, on the day of testing in the wilderness,where your fathers put me to the test and saw my works for forty years. Therefore I was provoked with that generation, and said, ‘They always go astray in their heart; they have not known my ways."

The Israelites wandered 40 years in the wilderness (Ex. 16:35; Deut. 2:7), in which time an entire generation died out (Num. 14:33; 32:13).

Acts 13:36 (ESV) - For David, after he had served the purpose of God in his own generation, fell asleep and was laid with his fathers and saw corruption.

In 2 Samuel 5:4 (ESV)- "David was thirty years old when he began to reign, and he reigned forty years."

We also know that Jerusalem was destroyed within the generation Jesus taught (AD 30-70).

So all of the prophecies were fulfilled in that generation. Although this may look like a little off topic, still it is related to the fulfillment of all prophecies mentioned by Jesus which also answers the above question.

Jesus said that the sign of Son of Man will appear in the sky (Matthew 24). This was supposed to happen in the generation of his disciples (Matthew 24, Mark 13, Luke 21).

During the fall of Jerusalem in 70 AD, chariots and troops of soldiers in their armor were seen running about among the clouds, and surrounding of cities. This extraordinary incident was recorded by Josephus and Tacitus who lived during that period. This is also recorded in Jewish History Document "Sepher Yosippon", Fourth century Latin Document "Pseudo Hegesippus", and Historian Eusebius in his Ecclesiastical History.

Here are the details.

Josephus (Jewish Wars)

Jewish War 6:289 (6.5.3.289) Thus there was a star resembling a sword, which stood over the city, and a comet, that continued a whole year.

Jewish War 6:290 (6.5.3.290) Thus also, before the Jews’ rebellion, and before those commotions which preceded the war, when the people were come in great crowds to the feast of unleavened bread, on the eighth day of the month Xanthicus [Nisan], and at the ninth hour of the night, so great a light shone round the altar and the holy house, that it appeared to be bright day time; which light lasted for half an hour.

Jewish War 6:291 (6.5.3.291) This light seemed to be a good sign to the unskillful, but was so interpreted by the sacred scribes, as to portend those events that followed immediately upon it.

Jewish War 6:296 (6.5.3.296) So these publicly declared, that this signal foreshowed the desolation that was coming upon them. Besides these, a few days after that feast, on the twenty-first day of the month Artemisius [Jyar],

Jewish War 6:297 (6.5.3.297) a certain prodigious and incredible phenomenon appeared; I suppose the account of it would seem to be a fable, were it not related by those that saw it,

Jewish War 6:298 (6.5.3.298) and were not the events that followed it of so considerable a nature as to deserve such signals; for, before sunsetting, chariots and troops of soldiers in their armor were seen

Jewish War 6:299 (6.5.3.299) running about among the clouds, and surrounding of cities. Moreover at that feast which we call Pentecost, as the priests were going by night into the inner [court of the] temple, as their custom was, to perform their sacred ministrations, they said that, in the first place, they felt a quaking, and heard a great noise,

Jewish War 6:300 (6.5.3.300) and after that they heard a sound as of a great multitude, saying, “Let us remove hence.”

Tacitus, Histories, Book 5

"Prodigies had occurred, which this nation, prone to superstition, but hating all religious rites, did not deem it lawful to expiate by offering and sacrifice. There had been seen hosts joining battle in the skies, the fiery gleam of arms, the temple illuminated by a sudden radiance from the clouds. The doors of the inner shrine were suddenly thrown open, and a voice of more than mortal tone was heard to cry that the Gods were departing. At the same instant there was a mighty stir as of departure. Some few put a fearful meaning on these events, but in most there was a firm persuasion, that in the ancient records of their priests was contained a prediction of how at this very time the East was to grow powerful, and rulers, coming from Judaea, were to acquire universal empire."

Eusebius Ecclesiastical History, Book 3, Chapter 8, Section 4-6

And the eastern gate of the inner temple, which was of bronze and very massive, and which at evening was closed with difficulty by twenty men, and rested upon iron-bound beams, and had bars sunk deep in the ground, was seen at the sixth hour of the night to open of itself.

And not many days after the feast, on the twenty-first of the month Artemisium, (97) a certain marvelous vision was seen which passes belief. The prodigy might seem fabulous were it not related by those who saw it, and were not the calamities which followed deserving of such signs. For before the setting of the sun, chariots and armed troops were seen throughout the whole region in mid-air, wheeling through the clouds and encircling the cities.

And at the feast which is called Pentecost, when the priests entered the temple at night, as was their custom, to perform the services, they said that at first they perceived a movement and a noise, and afterward a voice as of a great multitude, saying, ‘Let us go hence.’

Sepher Yosippon" is a 10th century historical Jewish document written in Hebrew that mentions about the fall of Jerusalem in 70 AD. Sefer Josippon also mentions about the vision of soldiers and chariots in the sky which we read in Josephus' Jewish Wars, Tacitus's Histories, and Eusebius' Ecclesiastical History.

Sepher Yosippon (A Medieval History of Ancient Israel) translated from the Hebrew by Steven B. Bowman. Excerpts from Chapter 87 "Burning of the Temple"

"Moreover, in those days were seen chariots of fire and horsemen, a great force flying across the sky near to the ground coming against Jerusalem and all the land of Judah, all of them horses of fire and riders of fire. When the holiday of Shavu'oth came in those days, during the night the priests heard within the Temple something like the sound of men going and the sound of men marching in a multitude going into the Temple, and a terrible and mighty voice was heard speaking: "Let's go and leave this House."

This vision of the chariots and soldiers in the sky happened during fall of Jerusalem in 70 AD.

You may ask what does chariots and the soldiers in the sky have to do with the sign of Son of Man and Bible. Here are some examples.

Jeremiah 4:13 (KJV) – "Behold, he shall come up as clouds, and his chariots shall be as a whirlwind: his horses are swifter than eagles. Woe unto us! for we are spoiled."

Isaiah 66:15 (KJV) – "For, behold, the Lord will come with fire, and with his chariots like a whirlwind, to render his anger with fury, and his rebuke with flames of fire."

2 Kings 2:11 (KJV) - And it came to pass, as they still went on, and talked, that, behold, there appeared a chariot of fire, and horses of fire, and parted them both asunder; and Elijah went up by a whirlwind into heaven.

2 Kings 6:17 (KJV) - And Elisha prayed, and said, Lord, I pray thee, open his eyes, that he may see. And the Lord opened the eyes of the young man; and he saw: and, behold, the mountain was full of horses and chariots of fire round about Elisha.

Zachariah 6:1-6 (KJV) - "And I turned, and lifted up mine eyes, and looked, and, behold, there came four chariots out from between two mountains; and the mountains were mountains of brass. In the first chariot were red horses; and in the second chariot black horses; And in the third chariot white horses; and in the fourth chariot grisled and bay horses. Then I answered and said unto the angel that talked with me, What are these, my lord? And the angel answered and said unto me, These are the four spirits of the heavens, which go forth from standing before the Lord of all the earth. The black horses which are therein go forth into the north country; and the white go forth after them; and the grisled go forth toward the south country."

There are other verses in the Bible that involve God and his chariots.

This vision in the sky and the fall of Jerusalem (which includes the destruction of temple) happened between 30 AD - 70 AD (40 years) period.

Let's also take a look at Latin Document "Pseudo Hegesippus" about Chariots and Soldiers in the sky which happened right before Fall of Jerusalem in 70 AD.

Pseudo-Hegesippus, Chapter 44. (Translated from the Latin by Wade Blocker. This excerpt taken from the Latin edited by Vincente Ussani):

Also after many days a certain figure appeared of tremendous size, which many saw, just as the books of the Jews have disclosed, and before the setting of the sun there were suddenly seen in the clouds chariots and armed battle arrays, by which cities of all Judaea and its territories were invaded. Moreover in the celebration itself of the
Pentecost the priests entering the interior of the temple at night time, that they might celebrate the usual sacrifices, assered themselves at first to have a felt a certain movement and a sound given forth, afterwards even to have heard shouted in a sudden voice "we cross over from here."

More informations are available here.

http://secondcomingofjesuschrist70ad.blogspot.com/


Do miracles violate the laws of physics? I asked a Christian today whether he believed that Jesus turning water into wine literally happened, or was just a metaphor. He said it literally happened, and also that other miracles literally happened, such as Jesus dying and coming back to life.

Some miracles described in the bible appear to violate the laws of physics. For example, in turning water into wine, I assume carbon atoms would have to appear where they did not exist before.

Do Christians have an opinion on what happened? Do they believe

The laws of physics were obeyed, and that our understanding of them is merely insufficient to understand what happened.
God does not break the laws of physics, but he changed the laws of physics temporarily such that those laws permitted certain miracles to occur.
God is not only able, but is willing, to break the laws of physics that he created?

The latter two sound like God being inconsistent, and the first one raises the possibility that if humans can understand the science fully, it may (or may not) be possible to replicate what he had done.

The laws of physics are certainly quite different from moral laws.  In fact, the Bible never refers to the laws of physics as "laws".  We see them as laws, because we are bound by them and are unable to break them.  We don't obey them based on our own volition.

Moral laws define what we ought to do, but we are under no compulsion to obey them.  We have a choice.

We obey the laws of physics because they bind us to them.  We obey moral laws because we bind ourselves to them.

So, the idea of God "obeying" what we describe as the laws of physics is really an absurdity.  These laws govern the physical universe--not the Maker of the physical universe.

This is a very significant distinction, because I have heard someone make the claim that if God breaks His own laws (of physics), then He is guilty of sin for breaking the law.  This is a completely false statement, though, because the laws of physics are distinct from moral law. Breaking a moral law is, by definition, immoral, but this is not true of the breaking of physical or natural laws.  Breaking a natural law would simply be "unnatural", or, more appropriately, "supernatural".

The Maker of the physical universe certainly has the power to create new matter according to His own will, as in the case of the Feeding of the 5,000.  He can change matter according to His will as well, as in the case of the Turning of the Water into Wine, the healing of the blind, the raising of the dead, etc.

Yet, His authority is not merely over the physical world, but over the spiritual realm as well, as demonstrated in Jesus casting out demons.

So, God is not confined by what we happen to refer to as the laws of physics.  They are laws the govern the physical universe.  They do not govern God Himself.

Miracles are only miracles until you understand them  God does not have to break physical laws...he just has to understand them and know how to use them.  A lot of the time instead of a physical miracle he can apply a "spiritual" miracle.  Take the place where he fed a large crowd with a few fish.  I always believed that the fish was there, but the people that had it were too selfish to share...leaving a lot of people with no food.  By having someone give what he had it evolved into the selfish people coming out of their shells and helping out.  I love those parts of the New Testament, because to me the miracle is not Christ showing what he can do for us, but what we can do for each other.


Are there any archaeological evidences suggesting the existence of the Book of Mormon? The Old Testament has many archaeological findings which confirm its existence many years ago. A good example would be the discovery of Dead Sea Scrolls with some of the scrolls estimated to be created around 300 years before Christ.

The New Testament also has many archaeological proof of existence. One good example would be Codex Sinaiticus estimated to be created about 350 years after Christ.

I have no idea about the archaeological evidence for the existence of Book of Mormon at least some 1000 years ago. Is there any discovery till date which suggests the existence of the Book of Mormon before Joseph Smith? Did any ancient scholar mention it? Was it ever quoted by ancient writers? Such an important book about Jesus Christ should leave some traces of its existence in the past.

(Please note that this question is not asking for the evidence of events in the Book of Mormon)

To answer your question, I would challenge you to learn as much about the American continent as you can for the date that the Book of Mormon was compiled (~400AD). You will quickly discover that there are no other surviving records from that time period at all.1 In fact, the oldest manuscript written in the Americas known by historians–the Dresden Codex–was written half a millennia after Mormon compiled the Book of Mormon, and is one of only 15 ancient Mesoamerican records left in existence.

The Spanish conquest of Mesoamerica erased most of the history there. Temples were torn down and Cathedrals were built upon their foundations. The vast majority of what we know about those cultures was written by their conquerers.

If there were any codecies that supported the existence of the Book of Mormon, they would have likely been destroyed around the same time all of the Christians in Mormon's time were slaughtered, or during one of Bishop Diego de Landa's purges, and had the Gold Plates or any other plates made of gold been discovered, they would have been melted down into ingots, just like Atahualpa's ransom, and sent back to Spain.

So no, there are no evidences comparable to the Dead Sea Scrolls, or Codex Sinaiticus that serve as evidence of the Book of Mormon's existence. It is unknown exactly how the scriptures were even shared with the people other than by the kings and prophets preaching to them. Mormon states in his book–The Words of Mormon–that the plate records he used to compile the Book of Mormon, which are briefly explained here, were handed down by the kings until they were delivered to him, who then spent a large portion of his life compiling them into the book which he delivered to his son Moroni, who finished the book, buried it, and 1400 years later revealed to Joseph Smith in resurrected form.

1 List of Existing Codecies of Mesoamerican Literature.

There are several archaeological problems with the Book of Mormon. Several have suggested that items like parchment, scrolls and Codexes would not have survived, but as the book of Mormon mostly notes writings as being on metal plates, We would expect to see these writings. In Helaman 3:15 states:

  But behold, there are many books and many records of every kind, and
  they have been kept chiefly by the Nephites.

(emphasis added)

Since metals are not subject to the same rot and degradation as parchment and scrolls, codexes made of metal would have survived. Were these writings truly as voluminous as described, we would expect to find them better preserved than stone tablets that are found in the Middle East. Were we to assume the writings not on metal plates unless otherwise specified, then the books and records kept by the Nephites are not truly of every kind.

Furthermore, the book of Mormon also lists several things like Barley, Elephants, Horses, Chariots, Iron and Steel as being common and present in large quantities, yet archaeologists do not find these kinds of items in North America dating to the times of the Book of Mormon.

You may find a good overview of these problems with Book of Mormon Archeology detailed here.

Finally, the Book of Mormon states that the Native Americans are descendant from Middle Easterners, but DNA samples of Native American remains do not agree with and confirm this ancestry for Native Americans.

These things tend to suggest that the Book of Mormon did not exist in any form prior to 1927 when Joseph smith recorded the Book of Mormon as we have it now.


Why isn't Zebulon near Sidon but Asher? In Genesis 49:13 is written:

  "Zebulon shall dwell by the haven of the sea;
  He shall become a haven for ships,
  And his border shall adjoin Sidon.

But if I take a look on the maps, which are created for the twelve tribes, Zebulon is not near Sidon and neither at the seaside. Instead, Asher has the place I thought Zebulon should get. Was there something I missed, or why was Jacob's words "false"?

The maps of the tribes of Israel contain a lot of guesswork. The tribe of Asher is one of them. No one is even sure whether Asher had a continuous territory.

Chuck Smith commented on this passage by saying, Zebulan has yet to do what God through Joseph said they can and they will do.
Like many Christian, some people don't enter into the full potential God has destined for them because of distractions.
Along with idolatry, and disobedience there was a lot of fearful people amongst the early tribes and this may have contributed to then not yet reaching their full potential and God given abilities.


Christian Position on the meaning of Faith We are told, 'The just (upright) shall live by faith.' So I have a question for the Christians here. How do you understand faith? This does not have to be strictly biblical (since the scripture does not interpret itself, except where it really explicitly does so) but can also use anecdotal, philosophical or logical proofs/reasons for your explanation.

A good definition an agnostic gave me once was, 'A strong trust in someone or something'.

Consider the following two sided propositions:

Does faith refer to a blind acceptance?

We are often told, no, and consider the case of Gideon, but --
Job is told he does not understand -- he is expected to accept the goodness of God without an explanation he can grasp

Is faith rational?

In some cases, we are told yes, consider the phrase, 'a reason to believe'... but --
Abraham is asked to do something wrong on orders from God; that he really will go through with it is met with 'Now I know that you are faithful.'

Does faith itself save a person?

John 3:16 suggests this, as do some of Jesus' words, but --
We are repeatedly told, 'Those who endure until the end shall be saved.'

Is faith a work?

In some traditions, faith is contrasted against works, but --
James the Just tells us 'faith without works is dead' and in another place equates Abrahams faith and works ('see how he was justified by works...') and indeed many passages where we have the word 'faith', it is really 'faithing', i.e. trusting, meaning something active: a work.

Is doubt a sin, or at least, the lack of faith?

Jesus warns against doubt as does James the Just, but --
The Apostle Thomas is in our tradition lauded for his doubt ('the precious doubt of Thomas' it is called) and we are also confronted with a contradiction where the man in the Gospels says, 'I believe, help my unbelief' - suggesting doubt and faith can coexist.

Is faith a source of knowledge?

Paul suggests so 'evidence of things not seen'
But we have numerous examples where faith itself is only a substitute for knowledge (for example, Abraham's case.)

What is the 'faith of Christ' (pisteis Christou)?

Some suggest it is Christ's faith, i.e. his personal faith, but
The verbiage is vague, and may be interpreted as 'faith in Christ', i.e. believing in him.

We use faith generically, but is this even correct?

Is having faith in Christ the same as having faith that space aliens exist?
or does our definition of 'faith' implicitly include the object of that faith?

Is it possible to overemphasize faith, as opposed to questioning?

On the one hand, we are told we must enter the Kingdom as little children: that's radical acceptance
We are also told that false Christs will come with false signs and to test all of the spirits. That seems like pretty radical skepticism there.

You may either answer personally or for your tradition, or for another person's interpretation. But most of all, I'm hoping to find a consensus on some if not all of these points. It does not have to be either/or, it can be both/and, but if so, why?

Faith is the conviction and acceptance of what God has revealed to you. Faith persists even when challenged or confronted with reasons to not accept what God has revealed to you.

The object of Christian faith is always God. Christian faith is not blind or baseless, rather it derives it's strength and endurance from it's source: God.

Since faith is based on God's revelation, it outweighs any other form of evidence that one may base a conclusion on.  It may coexist with doubt when doubt is caused by some evidence contrary to what God has revealed, but faith will always win out.

"Faith is the key to open the door inside of us, that opens to God."

It is the bridge between the physical and spiritual worlds.

  Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit, who is
  in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own;
  -Corinthians 6:19


Is there a doctrinally supported name for a designated "home prayer space" in the RCC? Some Catholics set up "prayer stations" in their homes, placing crucifixes, candles, and sometimes a few small saint statues for their particular devotions. In doing so, they create a special place for the family to offer their prayer. But, they often call these stations a family altar, or home altar, or sometimes a shrine.

However, in Roman Catholicism, a Christian altar is "a table upon which the eucharistic sacrifice is celebrated ..."

And a shrine is "a church or other sacred place to which numerous members of the faithful make pilgrimage for a special reason of piety, with the approval of the local ordinary." (Or the bishops in the case of a national shrine, or the Holy See in the case of an international one).

Within the scope of Roman Catholic doctrine, then, is it permissible to call these home prayer-centers altars or shrines of any sort? If not, what terms have been used by Roman Catholic Officials or Documents to refer to such a space in the home?

Prayer Corner

The term "prayer corner" is used in the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

See Part 4, Section 1, Chapter 2, Article 3, 2691

Catechism Compendium:

  One can pray anywhere but the choice of an appropriate place is not a
  matter of indifference when it comes to prayer. The church is the
  proper place for liturgical prayer and Eucharistic adoration. Other
  places also help one to pray, such as a “prayer corner” at home, a
  monastery or a shrine.

Catechism:

  For personal prayer, this can be a "prayer corner" with the Sacred Scriptures and icons, in order to be there, in secret, before our
  Father [Matt 6:6]. In a Christian family, this kind of little oratory fosters
  prayer in common.

The verse cited (Matthew 6:6) is as follows in the New American Bible:

  But when you pray, go to your inner room, close the door, and pray to
  your Father in secret. And your Father who sees in secret will repay
  you.

This suggests that "prayer corner" is a loose-fitting term for an "inner room" in one's home in order to foster private prayer.

According to the Catechism, a "prayer corner" may include Scripture and icons, is the private home counterpart to a shrine or monastery, and may be used to foster common family prayer.

I would also point out that the term is in quotes in the catechism, and is a rather "quaint" term. This suggests to me that the term is being specifically contrasted against more "official" modes of prayer. The humble prayer of a family in private is designated by a term with like humility.

I vote for family altar or home altar. The terms clearly communicate what they are referring to and Googling either terms give good results on web and image. They are differentiated from "Christian altar" or other kinds of altars found in churches by the adjective "home" or "family"


Who was the Egyptian that led the revolt of the Assassins in Acts 21? When Paul was arrested in Jerusalem he was mistaken for an anarchist Egyptian:

  Acts 21:37-38 ESV As Paul was about to be brought into the barracks, he said to the tribune, “May I say something to you?” And he said, “Do you know Greek? Are you not the Egyptian, then, who recently stirred up a revolt and led the four thousand men of the Assassins out into the wilderness?” Paul replied, “I am a Jew, from Tarsus in Cilicia, a citizen of no obscure city. I beg you, permit me to speak to the people.”

There is a snippet of info about what the Egyptian did here, but it's very little. Is there any more information about this Egyptian? Specifically his name, what he did, who the Assassins were, etc...?

Here is a summary of what I found on this subject :

The Greek word for “dagger men”, used in the the quoted verse, is derived from the Latin sicarii, which means “users of the sica,” or dagger. First-century historian Flavius Josephus describes the Sicarii as a band of fanatic Jewish patriots, unrelenting enemies of Rome, who engaged in organized political killings.

Josephus adds that the Sicarii later played a leading role in the Jewish revolt against Rome in 66-70 C.E. Thus, the Roman commander would be anxious to detain the supposed leader of such a group.

The “Egyptian” seditionist with whom the military commander at Jerusalem confused Paul is possibly the same one mentioned by Josephus. (The Jewish War, II, 254-263 [xiii, 3-5]) His insurrection is stated to have taken place during the reign of Nero and the procuratorship of Felix in Judea, circumstances fitting the account at Acts 21:37-39; 23:23, 24.

In  Acts 21:38, the Egyptian is described as leading an army of sicarii ('the assassins')' out into the desert.

Richard Carrier, in his paper on Luke and Josephus explains that the Egyptian was first mentioned by Josephus in both Jewish Wars (75 CE) and Antiquities of the Jews (93 CE). Josephus mentions three specific rebels, and Acts of the Apostles mentions the same three - Judas the Galilean, Theudas and the Egyptian. As Theudas is not mentioned in Wars, the author of Acts was probably relying on Antiuities for his information.

Acts has the Egyptian leading the sicarii into the desert, but Carrier points out that the sicarii operated by assassination under the concealment of urban crowds, and would have been out of their element and vulnerable in the open. Moreover, Josephus does not link the Egyptian with them, though he does mention both in exactly the same place (cf. JW 2.258-61, JA 20.167-9), and in fact also mentions there other figures who led people into the desert, even though the Egyptian led them to the Mount of Olives.

The Egyptian was a rebel leader whom Josephus chose to mention, out of the many now-forgotten rebel leaders he could have mentioned. The author of Acts confused his role, by portraying him as a leader of the sicarii, a feared group of assassins.