What are the Church fathers' arguments that Peter is the rock? The Roman Catholic Church asserts that the Bishop of Rome, the Pope, is the legitimate successor of the apostle Peter, the "rock" upon whom the Lord Jesus Christ founded his Church, according to its interpretation of Matt. 16:18:

  And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it. NABRE

According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church,

  The Lord made Simon alone, whom he named Peter, the "rock" of his Church. He gave him the keys of his Church and instituted him shepherd of the whole flock. "The office of binding and loosing which was given to Peter was also assigned to the college of apostles united to its head." This pastoral office of Peter and the other apostles belongs to the Church's very foundation and is continued by the bishops under the primacy of the Pope. §881

Are there any writings of the early Church fathers that identify the apostle Peter as "the rock" upon which Christ founded his Church?

Moreover, if these writings do identify the apostle Peter as the rock upon which the Lord Jesus Christ founded his Church, does his identity as the rock have any significance in regards to identifying Christ's true Church?

That is, since the Roman Catholic Church identifies the Bishop of Rome as the successor of the apostle Peter (who they identify as the rock), do any of the writings of the early Church fathers identify the church which the bishop of Rome oversees (i.e., the Roman Catholic Church) as the same church which was founded upon the apostle Peter?

This is one of those issues where Catholic sources will tend to say the Fathers obviously called Peter the foundation of the Church (and supply quotes to prove it) and Protestant sources will tend to say they obviously did not (and likewise supply quotes to prove it).  To get the full picture, you need to look at sources from both sides of the debate.
An ancient debate
It has been said that "few texts have been the occasion for the spilling of more ink than Matthew 16:17-19."1  Catholics, naturally, see the text as proof of the legitimacy of the papacy, while Protestants the verse as establishing the Church under the join authority of all the Apostles or via Jesus' own authority.  One might think this is mostly a recent debate, but in fact debate about the meaning of this verse stretches back to the early days of the Church, long before any schisms arose.
The antiquity of this debate is made clear in a single passage by Augustine.  In his final work, Retratations ("Re-treatments"; 428) Augustine wrote:2

In a passage in this book, I said about the Apostle Peter: "On him as on a rock the Church was built." This idea is also expressed in song by the voice of many in the verse of the most blessed Ambrose where he says about the crowing of the cock: "At its crowing he, this rock of the Church, washed away his guilt."  But I know that very frequently at a later time, I so explained what the Lord said: "Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church," that it be understood as built upon Him whom Peter confessed saying: "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God," and so Peter, called after this rock, represented the person of the Church which is built upon this rock, and has received "the keys of the kingdom of heaven." For, "Thou art Peter" and not "Thou art the rock" was said to him. But "the rock was Christ," in confessing whom as also the whole Church confesses, Simon was called Peter. But let the reader decide which of these two opinions is the more probable.

From this passage is it clear that at different points in his life, Augustine interpreted Matthew 16:18 as establishing Peter as the founder of the church, but at other times he believed the "rock" in view was actually Jesus, not Peter.  As we look at other Church Fathers, we will see that both of these options are supported by multiple Fathers. In the end, Augustine didn't have a strong preference and left it up to the reader to decide for him or herself.
Tertullian
Tertullian (c. 160-240) wrote about the meaning of Peter and the Rock on several occasions.  In Scorpiace ("Antidote for the Scorpion's Sting", c. 210), he wrote:3

For though you think heaven still shut, remember that the Lord left here to Peter and through him to the Church, the keys of it, which every one who has been here put to the question, and also made confession [of faith], will carry with him.

From this passage, Tertullian appears to be saying that the "keys" to the Church were passed on from Peter to the Church, which certainly could be read as an argument for apostolic succession and the papacy.  Likewise, in De pudicitia ("On Modesty", c. 220), he wrote that "the Church" has the authority to forgive sins and as justification he writes:

what sort of man are you, subverting and wholly changing the manifest intention of the Lord, conferring (as that intention did) this (gift) personally upon Peter?  On you, He says, will I build My Church; and, I will give to you the keys, not to the Church; and, Whatsoever you shall have loosed or bound, not what they shall have loosed or bound. For so withal the result teaches. In (Peter) himself the Church was reared; that is, through (Peter) himself; (Peter) himself essayed the key

He then goes on to describe a couple other ways in which Peter was primary: He was the first to "unbar" the entrance to heaven through baptism; and, he was the first to open the Gospel message to the Gentiles.  As such, it is not hard to read this passage in support of papal succession.  However, Tertullian concludes the passage by explaining what "the Church" is and says it is "properly and principally, the Spirit Himself" adding that any gathering of believers counts.  He concludes:

And accordingly the Church, it is true, will forgive sins: but (it will be) the Church of the Spirit, by means of a spiritual man; not the Church which consists of a number of bishops.

which is certainly hard to read in a manner that would allow special authority for the papacy.
Tertullian clearly did believe in apostolic succession, for in De praescriptione haereticorum ("Prescription against Heretics", c. 200) he writes:5

For this is the manner in which the apostolic churches transmit their registers: as the church of Smyrna, which records that Polycarp was placed therein by John; as also the church of Rome, which makes Clement to have been ordained in like manner by Peter. In exactly the same way the other churches likewise exhibit (their several worthies)

However, there is no indication in this passage that the Church of Rome has a special authority.  It certainly seems like he views all churches founded by apostles as equal.
It appears that Tertullian viewed Matthew 16:17-9 as conferring a special authority on to Peter.  And he clearly believes in apostolic succession.  However, if he believed that the Church of Rome, founded by Peter, received special authority, he did not make that clear.
Pseudo-Clementine
The Epistle of Clement to James, supposedly a letter from Clement I (pope 92-99), supports the idea of papal succession through Peter.  In truth in was not written by Clement, but rather an unknown writer around 220 AD.  The fact that it is pseudographical is certainly problematic for doctrinal purposes and such, but does not mean the attitude of the writer did not reflect a common attitude of his day.  "Clement" writes:6

Be it known to you, my lord, that Simon, who, for the sake of the true faith, and the most sure foundation of his doctrine, was set apart to be the foundation of the Church, and for this end was by Jesus Himself, with His truthful mouth, named Peter, the first-fruits of our Lord, the first of the apostles; ... But about that time, when he was about to die, the brethren being assembled together, he suddenly seized my hand, and rose up, and said in presence of the church: "Hear me, brethren and fellow-servants. Since, as I have been taught by the Lord and Teacher Jesus Christ, whose apostle I am, the day of my death is approaching, I lay hands upon this Clement as your bishop; and to him I entrust my chair of discourse

While the writer of this letter does not quote Matthew 16:18 directly, he perhaps alludes to it and certainly sees Peter as the foundation of the Church.  Furthermore, he clearly believes in a special authority for the Church of Rome passed from Peter to Clement.  The pseudographical nature of the letter does raise questions as to how mainstream the belief was at the time (people often wrote pseudographically when they wanted to elevate the legitimacy of a minority position), but there are other possible motives for the pseudography (e.g. to elevate the importance of Clement), so the belief may well have been mainstream.  At minimum, the document establishes that the idea of papal succession founded on Peter began prior to 220 AD.
Similarly, it the Clementine Homilies, which may or may not have been written by the same hand, into Peter's mouth is put the claim to be the foundation of the church:7

For in direct opposition to me, who am a firm rock, the foundation of the Church, you now stand.

Origen
In his extensive commentary on Matthew (c. 250), Origen (c. 185-255) comments on the rock passage a couple times.  In book 13, he writes:8

in the case of Peter, this saying "I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of the heavens," has been specially set before the words, "And what things soever you shall bind on earth," etc. And, indeed, if we were to attend carefully to the evangelical writings, we would also find here, and in relation to those things which seem to be common to Peter and those who have thrice admonished the brethren, a great difference and a pre-eminence in the things said to Peter, compared with the second class. For it is no small difference that Peter received the keys not of one heaven but of more

As such, it appears that he does see a special authority assigned to Peter.  However, on the "rock" specifically he writes that every believer can "become a Peter" upon which the Church is built.  He further argues:9

But if you suppose that upon that one Peter only the whole church is built by God, what would you say about John the son of thunder or each one of the Apostles? Are the keys of the kingdom of heaven given by the Lord to Peter only, and will no other of the blessed receive them? ... [anyone who professes belief] will obtain the things that were spoken according to the letter of the Gospel to that Peter, but, as the spirit of the Gospel teaches, to every one who becomes such as that Peter was. For all bear the surname of rock who are the imitators of Christ, that is, of the spiritual rock which followed those who are being saved, that they may drink from it the spiritual draught. But these bear the surname of the rock just as Christ does.

It seems pretty clear that Origen believes the church is not founded on the authority of Peter alone, but on all the Apostles.  Furthermore, the promise passes not to a specific successor, but rather to all believers.  All become the "rocks" on which the church stands.
Cyprian
Cyprian (c. 200-260) perhaps offers one of the most favorable statement for the Catholic position of papal primacy.  In the first edition of De Ecclesiae Catholicae Unitate ("On the Unity of the Catholic Church", c. 250), he comments on Matthew 16:17-19, writing:10

On [Peter] he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep, and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair, and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were that also which Peter was, but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. So too, all are shepherds, and the flock is shown to be one, fed by all the apostles in single-minded accord. If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he deserts the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?"

As written this passage seems to be a clear endorsement of not only Peter as the founder of the church, but also a special authority for his successors.  The picture is complicated a bit, however, because Cyprian released a second edition of De Ecclesiae Catholicae Unitate in which he revised this passage:10

Upon [Peter], being one, [Jesus] builds His Church, and although after His resurrection He bestows equal power upon all the Apostles... that He might display unity, He established by His authority the origin of the same unity as beginning from one. Surely the rest of the Apostles also were that which Peter was, endowed with an equal partnership of office and of power, but the beginning proceeds from unity, that the Church of Christ may be shown to be one.

Overall the gist of the passage is the same - all the Apostle had equal authority, but the Church was founded upon Peter specifically - but the language is considerably softened.  Why did Cyprian make this change?  A Protestant will, of course, say it was because the passage conveyed a higher degree of authority for Rome than Cyprian actually intended.  However, this is not necessarily the case.  In addition to changing the language, Cyprian significantly expanded the passage.  It is possible that he was making the same argument in both cases - that Rome was given a special authority for the sake of Church unity - and was simply making it more clear that the Church at Rome wasn't "better", but rather only had a special (but equal) position.
Elsewhere (Epistle 39, c. 253), Cyprian wrote:11

There is one God, and Christ is one, and there is one Church, and one chair founded upon the rock by the word of the Lord. Another altar cannot be constituted nor a new priesthood be made, except the one altar and the one priesthood.

Given that we know Cyprian does equate the rock to Peter, it seems very likely that he means what he says in the first version of De Ecclesiae Catholicae Unitate.  That is, that the Church at Rome does have a special authority via its foundation by Peter.
Firmilian
In a letter to Cyprian (c. 253), Firmilian (? - 270) uses Matthew 16:18-9 to say that Peter was given a unique authority to forgive sins, which through him was inherited by the Church:12

But what is the greatness of his error, and what the depth of his blindness, who says that remission of sins can be granted in the synagogues of heretics, and does not abide on the foundation of the one Church which was once based by Christ upon the rock, may be perceived from this, that Christ said to Peter alone, Whatsoever you shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatsoever you shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

On the surface, this appears to establish papal authority and is sometimes quoted by Catholics as doing so.  However, Firmilian continues:

And again, in the Gospel, when Christ breathed on the apostles alone, saying, Receive the Holy Ghost: whose soever sins you remit they are remitted unto them, and whose soever sins you retain they are retained. Therefore the power of remitting sins was given to the apostles, and to the churches which they, sent by Christ, established, and to the bishops who succeeded to them by vicarious ordination.

which casts doubt on whether he believed Peter's special authority was passed on to his successors specifically, as opposed to the Church as a whole.  His position is made clear when, a bit later in the letter, he writes:

And in this respect I am justly indignant at this so open and manifest folly of Stephen, that he who so boasts of the place of his episcopate, and contends that he holds the succession from Peter, on whom the foundations of the Church were laid, should introduce many other rocks and establish new buildings of many churches; maintaining that there is baptism in them by his authority... Nor does he understand that the truth of the Christian Rock is overshadowed, and in some measure abolished, by him when he thus betrays and deserts unity.

It seems the letter was written in response to a letter by Pope Stephen I in which he argued that repentant heretics did not need to be (re-)baptized, but should be freely admitted to the Church.  Apparently, Stephen claimed authority to decide such matters based on a special authority for his office, handing down through Peter.  While Firmilian agrees that Peter was given a special position, he evidently strongly disagrees that this authority has been passed to Stephen in such a way that allows him to establish doctrine.
Cyril
In a homily around the year 350, Cyril (c. 313-386) described the heretic Simon Magus making trouble in Rome and then remarked:

As the delusion was extending, Peter and Paul, a noble pair, chief rulers of the Church, arrived and set the error right

and then quotes Matthew 16:19 as justification for Peter's authority:13

For Peter was there, who carries the keys of heaven: and nothing wonderful, for Paul was there, who was caught up to the third heaven, and into Paradise, and heard unspeakable words, which it is not lawful far a man to utter.

From this passage, we can conclude that Cyril considered Peter (jointly with Paul) to be the first "ruler" of the Church and can place him at Rome.  It is reasonable to think that Cyril was alluding to/supporting the idea of the papacy here, although as near as I can tell he did not comment directly on apostolic succession anywhere in his writings.
Ephraim
Writing in poetic form (c. 350; commonly described as a homily although not necessarily a homily in the modern term),  Ephraim (c. 305-373) writes the following (presumably coming from Jesus' mouth):14

Simon, my follower, I have made you the foundation of the holy Church. I betimes called you Peter, because you will support all its buildings. You are the inspector of those who will build on Earth a Church for me. If they should wish to build what is false, you, the foundation, will condemn them. You are the head of the fountain from which my teaching flows; you are the chief of my disciples. Through you I will give drink to all peoples. Yours is that life-giving sweetness which I dispense. I have chosen you to be, as it were, the firstborn in my institution so that, as the heir, you may be executor of my treasures. I have given you the keys of my kingdom. Behold, I have given you authority over all my treasures!

Although it is not explicit, the most natural reading of this passage is that Peter is the first leader of the Church and is given a special authority.  Furthermore, it is natural to see Ephraim as saying that authority is then passed on through a line of succession ("heirs").
Optatus
In his untitled treatise against Donatism (c. 370), Optatus (?-387) repeatedly draws on Matthew 16:17-19 to establish the legitimacy of the papal teachings and the illegitimacy of Donatist anti-popes.  For example:13

gates against which we read that Peter received the saving Keys - Peter, that is to say, the first of our line, to whom it was said by Christ: 'To thee will I give the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven,' and these keys 'the gates of Hell shall not overcome.'
How is it, then, that you strive to usurp for yourselves the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, you who, with your arguments, and audacious sacrilege, war against the Chair of Peter?

In the same work, he writes:

You cannot then deny that you do know that upon Peter first in the City of Rome was bestowed the Episcopal Cathedra, on which sat Peter, the Head of all the Apostles (for which reason he was called Cephas), that, in this one Cathedra, unity should be preserved by all, lest the other Apostles might claim - each for himself - separate Cathedras, so that he who should set up a second Cathedra against the unique Cathedra would already be a schismatic and a sinner.  Well then, on the one Cathedra, which is the first of the Endowments, Peter was the first to sit.

The word translated "Cephas" here is actually κεφαλή (kephale, literally "head"), hence Optatus is making a play on words similar to (but different from) Jesus' "rock/Peter".   He doesn't reference the "rock" specifically anywhere in his work, but does reference the surrounding context - as illustrated above - and makes explicit reference to Peter conferring a special authority on the Church at Rome.  (Optatus always explicitly endorses papal succession and includes a list of the popes, starting at Peter and continuing to his day.)
Ambrose
As we have already seen (in Augustine's commentary), Ambrose (c. 340-397) interpreted the rock passage as conferring a special authority on Peter.  In Exposition of the Christian Faith (c. 380), he wrote:16

Could He not, then, strengthen the faith of the man to whom, acting on His own authority, He gave the kingdom, whom He called the Rock, thereby declaring him to be the foundation of the Church?

And in Enarrationes in xii. Psalmos Davidicos ("Commentary on Twelve Psalms of David"), he wrote:

This is that Peter to whom Christ said, ' Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church.' Therefore, where Peter is, there is the Church;

In isolation, these passages seem to suggest that Ambrose not only viewed Peter as having a special position in the Church, but arguably also as supporting papal succession on this basis.  However, his view was a bit more complicated than that as can to seen by, for example in Expositio evangelii secundum Lucam ("Exposition of the Gospel according to Luke") he writes:17

Christ is the rock, for ‘they drank of the same spiritual rock that followed them, and the rock was Christ’; also He denied not to His disciple the grace of this name; that he should be Peter, because he has from the rock the solidity of constancy, the firmness of faith. Make an effort, therefore, to be a rock! Do not seek the rock outside of yourself, but within yourself! Your rock is your deed, your rock is your mind. Upon this rock your house is built. Your rock is your faith, and faith is the foundation of the Church. If you are a rock, you will be in the Church, because the Church is on a rock. If you are in the Church the gates of hell will not prevail against you...He who has conquered the flesh is a foundation of the Church; and if he cannot equal Peter, he can imitate him.

In this passage, he seems to be saying Jesus is the "true Rock" on which the Church is founded and Peter's "rockship" is available to all believers, not just the pope.
Conclusion
There is sufficient evidence within the writers of the Church Fathers to find an early basis for the idea that "on this rock I will build my church" gives Peter a special position within Church history.  There is also evidence that some Church Fathers saw this passage as a justification for a special place for the Bishop of Rome; that is, as a basis for papal authority.  In some cases, the evidence is pretty clear, but in many cases it is ambiguous, and is some cases the writings appear to argue against the idea.  Thus, no firm conclusion can be drawn about a collective teaching of the Church Fathers.  Perhaps the most accurate statement would be that opinion was mixed as to whether Jesus started a special office via Peter.
It seems likely that the debate about what Jesus meant exactly by "on this rock I will build my church," which began in antiquity, will continue indefinitely.  Neither those who believe Peter passed on a special authority to the Church at Rome nor those that deny it have a conclusive case in the writings of the Fathers.

References
1 "Peter the Rock" by Tim Staples at Catholic Answers
2 The Retractions (The Fathers of the Church, Volume 60) by Saint Augustine
3 Scorpiace by Tertullian at Tertullian.org
4 On Modesty by Tertullian  at New Advent
5 Prescription against Heretics by Tertullian  at New Advent
6 *Epistle of Clement to James at Tertullian.org
7 "Homily 17 at New Advent
8 Commentary on Matthew, Book XIII by Origen at New Advent
9 Commentary on Matthew, Book XII by Origen at New Advent
10 "The Unity of the catholic Church in The Faith of the Early Fathers by W. A. Jurgens
11 Epistle 39 by Cyprian at New Advent
12 Epistle 74 by Firmilian at New Advent
13 Catechetical Lecture 6 by Cyril at New Advent
14 "Homilies" in The Faith of the Early Fathers by W. A. Jurgens
15 Against the Donatists by Optatus at Tertullian.org
16 *Exposition of the Christian Faith, Book IV by Ambrose at New Advent
17 *A Commentary, by Writers of the First Five Centuries, on the Place of St. Peter in the New Testament by J. Waterworth

Origen-

  "Considered that this was a very great favor to Peter on the Part of Jesus, as having adjudged him greater than the other disciples"

also

  "There is one baptism and one Holy Ghost, and one Church founded by Christ our Lord upon Peter, for (or from) an original and principle of Unity."

and

  "To the seven children ther is evedently conjoined thier mother, the origin and root, which afterwards bare seven churches, herself having been founded fist and alone, by the voice of the Lord, upon Peter"

I add this to the previous answers because often times the intent of the early fathers are picked clean from thier purpose.   There is one Church of that fact ther can only be deniel of the unity that was establish and continues in orthodoxy.


How did Matthew know that Hosea 11:1 was about Jesus? How did Matthew know that Hosea 11:1 was about Jesus?

  “When Israel was a child, I loved him, and out of Egypt I called my son. (NIV)

Even looking at the context of the verse, I see no clues that this means anything more than the simple fact that God brought the Israelites out of Egypt, freeing them from slavery.

When Hosea 11:1 was written, did people already realize that it was about the messiah, or was Matthew the first person to note it and revealed it for the first time in Matthew 2:13-15?

If it's the latter, how did he discover it? Is it really a prophecy if it's only revealed after it's fulfilled?

If it's the former, how did people know they were messianic prophecies?

“I see no clues that this means anything more than the simple fact that God brought the Israelites out of Egypt, freeing them from slavery.”

There appear to be clues in the context of Hosea 11 and the following verses that allude to more than an act accomplished in history, Jon. Read at least through verse 11.

11 they shall come trembling like birds from Egypt,
    and like doves from the land of Assyria,
    and I will return them to their homes, declares the LORD.

This chapter appears similar to Ezekiel 36-37 and Isaiah 40-55 in that it speaks of prophecies concerning Gods covenant love. Hosea was not only speaking of the history of YHWH bringing Israel out of Egypt but was also pointing to a time when He would again rescue Israel and fulfill His promises to her.

In the time of Jesus I don’t think many Israelites believed God had fulfilled his promises. They were in exile to Rome. They were waiting rescue. They were very possibly waiting for the fulfillment of the Hosea 11 prophecy.
When Jesus comes he seems to be saying through his words and actions, “I am the one you have been waiting for. Through forgiveness of sins and following me, I will save you from exile. I am your King”.
When Mathew quotes Hosea and says in 2:15,

“out of Egypt I called my son”,

he is not simply saying that since Israel came out of Egypt and so did Jesus, that therefore Jesus is the fulfillment of this passage. He is saying that Jesus is the embodiment of all that Israel was waiting for within the context of the promise of this Hosea passage.
N.T. Wright gives a persuasive argument in “The New Testament and The People of God.

“What the early church is saying, when telling the story of Jesus’ resurrection and announcing it to the world as the summons to obedient faith, is that the history of, and promises to, Israel had come true in Jesus, that in his death and resurrection he had inaugurated the real return from that real exile.”  (NTPG chp.13 pg. 400)

What I believe Matthew is saying is this: God first called His son out of Egypt. That was Israel. This we find in Hosea 11:1. But in the second verse of that same chapter, the prophet says, "[As] they called them, so they went from them: they sacrificed unto Baalim, and burned incense to graven images." They were called out of Egypt, but as they called them, so they went from them. They served the Baalim and the graven images instead of the true God." In short: imperfection. Then Matthew in the NT goes on with saying that in Jesus this history is perfected. The Israelites were called out of Egypt, but were imperfect by serving Baalim. But Jesus was called out of Egypt, and was perfect in His obedience towards God. The Israelites were the sons of God. But Jesus perfected this being the Son of God. For Jesus was the Son of God in a more perfect sense, namely directly born from the Spirit.

In short: What was done imperfect in the Israelites, was perfected in Jesus. Looking at the original Greek lexicon on what "fulfilled" means is also helpful. It doesn't necessarily apply to prophecy.


What version of the Bible should a beginner read? I am interested in learning the true Bible story. Yet; there are so many different versions published. From general talk they all seem to have varied content and conflict with each other.  Many are said to have removed verses. Other are said to have removed entire books. Which one should I read to understand the true Bible story?

Short answer: Because people can't agree on what the "true" version of the Bible is due to issues of translation, authority, and the existing copies of original texts that we have access to today, your best bet is to use the one your church or other religious authority recommends.
Long answer: By "beginner", I assume that you mean a person who is new to the Christian faith, rather than a beginning reader (there are a number of Bibles that use simpler language suitable for those just learning to read English).
By "true Bible story", I assume you mean the original, without alteration. You're not alone in wanting this. This article from The Washington Post says that

The proliferation of Bibles underscores the anxieties people have about whether or not they are reading the right Bible. Concerns over accuracy and interpretation are especially true among religious traditions that distrust secular scholarship on the Bible.

Additionally, I'm sure that you want a version that is understandable. The article says that

The robust market does not alleviate anxieties about the Bible’s accessibility, though. There are persistent concerns that despite being so widely available, people struggle to understand the Bible.

Unfortunately, people can't agree on what the "true Bible story" is. The reasoning is a bit complicated and comes down to how we go about translating Bibles. To help answer that, I'd like to go through a few questions you alluded to in your post.
Why are some books removed?
I assume that you are talking about the Apocrypha, which are books of the Old Testament that some groups, like Catholics, accept but others, like Protestants, do not. In that case, some would ask "why are some books added"?
There are lots of different reasons for this, but two common reasons are:

These books should be included because they were accepted by some of the earliest Christians, such as St. Jerome in his Latin Bible in 405 AD (this argument is one of several used by Catholics)
These books should not be included because they are not accepted by the vast majority of Jewish people, past or present (this argument is one of several used by Protestants)

Which one is "true"? Did these books come from God or from people? We don't know, and lacking God directly telling us, we can't know (consequently, there's the question of if somebody says that God told them, should we trust them?)
Why are some verses different?
To talk about this, let's talk about what a book says. Virtually all Christians would say that the gospel of Matthew is "true", meaning that Matthew wrote it with some level of inspiration from God. Unfortunately, the original pages that Matthew hand-wrote (or dictated, or whatever) have been lost, so all we have are copies that people have made throughout the centuries. The trouble is that sometimes these copies have differences, either through mistakes or potentially from deliberate changes.
Two of the earliest copies of the book of Matthew that we have access to today say different things in Matthew 1:21:

τεξεται δε σοι υιον αυτος γαρ σωσει τον κοσμον (Then she will bring forth to you a son for he will save the world)
τεξεται δε υιον αυτος γαρ σωσει τον λαον αυτου (Then she will bring forth a son for he will save his people)

Unfortunately, we have no idea which is "correct". We could guess that the older one is more correct, but what if the older one was done by a subpar copyist? Or maybe we don't know which one is older.
Some Bible translations would use the first and some would use the second. Without further scholarship, we don't know which is "true".
Why are some verses removed?
Again, some people would instead ask "why were some verses added?"
As we said above, different copies of the Bible say different things. Some copies have certain verses, but others don't. One big example of this is the story of Jesus and the woman caught in adultery (John 7:53-8:11). The trouble is, some of the earliest versions of the book of John don't include this passage, suggesting that it was added by someone later. Does that mean we should remove it from the Bible?
But if those verses should be removed, why do they have verse numbers at all? Bible chapter and verse numbers were not present in the early Greek and Hebrew versions and are a relatively new invention. The version we use today is from Robert Estienne, where he assigned verse numbers that were first printed for the New Testament in 1551 and 1571 for the Old Testament. Naturally, he did this for the version he had at the time, which included passages like what he called John 7:53-8:11.
Bibles that "remove" verses do so because they are looking at earlier copies of the Bible that lacked these verses. However, some people argue that the verses were what God intended to be there in the first place and should be kept.
So which version of the Bible should I read?
I know that it's difficult and not fun to have so many different Bibles to choose from. But in most cases, the differences between versions are minor. It is my opinion that beginners shouldn't worry too much about the differences, and that they should instead just read whichever one your church or other spiritual community uses or recommends.
For instance, most Catholic churches use the Revised Standard Edition, Catholic Edition.
Many Protestant Churches use the New International Version, the second-most read English translation of the Bible in the United States.
The most read translation is the King James Version, which was completed in 1611. There are some churches that use that, but many modern readers find the language too archaic to understand, or prefer translations that use earlier versions of the original text that the translators of the King James Version didn't have access to.
When you are more familiar, you may try to read other versions of the Bible, that way you can get a different perspective.

The answer to this doesn't depend on weather you're new to Christianity or you've been Christian for a long time. It's a very important topic and if you want the answer first, It's the King James Version. Of course, there are disputations on weather or not it's the inspired infallible word of the living God. There are multiple beliefs on the topic

1) Find which Bible you're comfortable with, and use that one.
2) They were all lost in translation, go back to the Greek and the Hebrew
3) Read all types of different versions, and take what you can from them
4) The King James Only group

Well lets see what Bibles (in general) say about it.

Psalms 12:6

(NIV) "And the words of the Lord are flawless,
    like silver purified in a crucible,
    like gold refined seven times."
(ESV) "The Lord’s promises are pure,
    like silver refined in a furnace,
    purified seven times over."
(RSV) "The promises of the Lord are promises that are pure,
    silver refined in a furnace on the ground,
    purified seven times."
(KJV) "The words of the Lord are pure words:
    as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times."
(nASB) "The words of the Lord are pure words;
    As silver tried in a furnace on the earth, refined seven times."

So it's clear that there is a perfect word of God, and we know it's still here by Mark 13:31 "Heaven and earth shall pass away: but my words shall not pass away"

God's words will not pass away, But he never said the language would never diminish! The King James uses words such as Shall, Contemn, Thus, Thine, Ye, Shalt, Lo, and so forth, and that's the 1769 version. The 1611 version is very archaic! I don't think there's a difference between the two other than spelling, but if any disputations happened I would stand with the 1611.

What reason do I have to say the King James Version is the correct one? Well, first of all we have to say, This wasn't the first perfect Bible, I think the "original Greek and Hebrew" were, but we don't have those anymore, I think God transferred them over, but maybe there still is a perfect one in those languages. The King James (Minus the Apocrypha) was translated from the Masoretic text, and the Textus Receptus. There may have been more perfect versions, but those are not here, I think God preserved his word through the King James.

Now, I'm going to show why it's Inerrant and Infallible, unlike all the other current translations. Mainly, a perfect word will not have any contradictions.

NIV
1 Samuel 7:50 "So David triumphed over the Philistine with a sling and a stone; without a sword in his hand he struck down the Philistine and killed him."
2 Samuel 21:19 ""In another battle with the Philistines at Gob, Elhanan son of Jaare-Oregim the Bethlehemite killed Goliath the Gittite, who had a spear with a shaft like a weaver's rod."
   If you look it up, they've fixed it to say the brother of Goliath, but that was a pretty recent fix.

Another contradiction
   2 Samuel 10:18 "But they fled before Israel, and David killed seven hundred of their charioteers and forty thousand of their foot soldiers. He also struck down Shobak the commander of their army, and he died there."
   1 Chronicles 19:18 "But they fled before Israel, and David killed seven thousand of their charioteers and forty thousand of their foot soldiers. He also killed Shophak the commander of their army."
   They were both talking about the same battle, and they had a vast difference of Charioteers killed. If you read the King James, you would see that they killed 7000 Charioteers, which was 700 Chariots. There were 10 charioteers per Chariot.

The Bible says to be like the Bereans and research into things before taking someone's word for it. There are some great resources like Chick publications on this topic ( http://www.chick.com/whykjv/ ) that has more info, but I urge you to look into the Bibles, and their history.

The love of money is the root of all evil, translations need a 10% change for the Copyright, the little C in a circle that means money ($). Satans first words were "Yea hath God said?"... He's trying to sow confusion on what God has said, and I firmly believe the Authorized King James Version is the Absolutely correct, infallible, inerrant Word of the Living God.

May the LORD bless you and guide you in your journey. Remember in whatever you do to walk after the spirit and not after the flesh. And Romans 8:28 "...All things work together for good to them that Love the Lord, to Them who are the called according to his purpose"

Just keep reading the Bible and Praying, and if you love God, every mistake you've ever made, will be put together for your Good, and if you're saved, every sin you've ever committed will be wiped clear and made as if they never were.

God bless you brother.


Can Christians manufacture cigarettes? My husband and I were discussing an essay my nephew wrote where he says he wants to manufacture cigarettes. I thought it was a good dream but shouldn't we address whether this is something that is good to people who use them? My husband said there is nothing wrong with manufacturing cigarettes because the bible doesn't forbid it. Are there verses that are relevant to my question?

While it is possible that Christians may disagree about this issue, with some claiming verses such as:

Command those who are rich in this present world not to be arrogant nor to put their hope in wealth, which is so uncertain, but to put their hope in God, who richly provides us with everything for our enjoyment. - 1 Timothy 6:17 NIV (emphasis added)

could be interpreted to grant implicit permission towards smoking cigarettes and that therefore their manufacture is morally neutral and an acceptable occupation to engage in; this is a considerably more difficult case to maintain since it has become common knowledge that smoking cigarettes is harmful.
Of considerable relevance to a Christian's consideration of whether an occupation is consistent with Biblical principles are the following:

35 One of them, an expert in the law, tested him with this question: 36 “Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?”
37 Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ 38 This is the first and greatest commandment. 39 And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ 40 All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.” - Matthew 22:35-40 NIV
Love does no harm to a neighbor. Therefore love is the fulfillment of the law. - Romans 13:10 NIV (emphasis added)

Many would argue that taken together, the fact that cigarettes are known to be harmful  and the importance of loving our neighbor in a way that does them no harm constitute a strong reason that a Christian should not engage in the manufacture of cigarettes.

Life and Death

  And in vain they worship Me, Teaching as doctrines the commandments of men. (Mark 7:7 NKJV)

Cigarettes are considered harmful because of the Cancer. This however has been shown to me. They smoke their cigarettes because of their Anxiety. Those trusting on an outside source to relieve their anxiety will not enter into the Kingdom of Heaven.

Let us Dissect

  Now the works of the flesh are evident, which are: adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lewdness, 20 idolatry, sorcery, hatred, contentions, jealousies, outbursts of wrath, selfish ambitions, dissensions, heresies, 21 envy, murders, drunkenness, revelries, and the like; of which I tell you beforehand, just as I also told you in time past, that those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God. (Galatians 5:19-21 NKJV)

No matter how you attempt to reduce your "Anxiety" whether it be by CIGARETTES, vitamins, prescription medicines, over the counter drugs, illegal drugs, alcohol, partying, legal or illegal sex, orgies, strip clubs, homosexuality, adultery, legal or illegal pornography, bestiality, necrophilia, power struggles, rivalry, hostile fits of rage, dissension from authority, joining a clique, slandering others, satisfying the desire for objects of adoration, wanting what others have (even stuff at the store), pride over what you have, soft things of adoration, stealing to obtain possessions, wanting in general and not being satisfied, cheating others out of money, killing people, abortion, sacrificing children to false gods, or lying to get your way.

All of these forms of "Relief" only satisfy the result of Denial(Finding Error to a Process). Yet the cure for denial is "Faith" for those that believe do not suffer the symptoms of denial. All this is proven by the stages of grief, and the polarization of faith and anxiety.

Here is logic, if the cure for anxiety is of a thing, when the thing is not present then anxiety because the cure is not present can still occur. Therefore the only cure for anxiety must be with us always. As is the truth in the teachings that the Jesus gave us. For I am in reality and the truth is in me (Ref: John 14:11).

Wait Jesus Drank!

  The Son of Man came eating and drinking, and they say, ‘Look, a glutton and a winebibber, a friend of tax collectors and sinners!’ But wisdom is justified by her children.” (Matthew 11:19 NKJV)

How can this be!
There is no command "Do not Drink". But Jesus drank and drunkards do not get to heaven! What does this mean? The difference is "Reliance". If the Attitude of a person is reliant on a thing then it is Idolatry. However if reliant on God, then the Attitude reflects the Holy Spirit. Then one relying on God can drink? Yes. But one relying on the Alcohol for "Spiritual Release" is under condemnation? Yes.

So how does this connect to Cigarettes?
The same goes for Cigarettes. If the reason you are smoking is because you need relief from the "Tension of Anxiety" you will die. If your smoking for Love then you are not condemned.

What about the Manufacturing of Cigarettes?
Let us look to the fruits of the Breath.

  But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control. Against such there is no law. (Galatians 5:22-23 NKJV)

Can the Holy Attitudes be maintained while manufacturing the Cigarettes? I think so.

  “Again I say to you that if two of you agree on earth concerning anything that they ask, it will be done for them by My Father in heaven. (Matthew 18:19 NKJV)

So if there is agreement between the two of you that making Cigarettes is OK then it is allowed by God. But if there is disagreement then making Cigarettes is condemned.

People "Can Have" "Their Own" perspectives

  One person esteems one day above another; another esteems every day alike. Let each be fully convinced in his own mind. (Romans 14:5 NKJV)

If the other is convinced then the self may join in to that understanding. If the self finds error then because "Anxiety is Destroyed by Faith", the self can do what is from Love. Yet if you lack faith as many do, then do not do it. For "Anxiety Begs for Death".

To be of one mind

  Now I plead with you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment. (1 Corinthians 1:10 NKJV)

So also the perspective of those around you, if what you do causes them to fall to anxiety are you really loving them? This is What God Said Through Paul about this.

  Therefore, if food makes my brother stumble, I will never again eat meat, lest I make my brother stumble. (1 Corinthians 8:13 NKJV)

Let us say that there is unity between you, your husband, and your nephew that the manufacturing the Cigarettes has been through unity a clean activity. Then it is clean, let us say though that Grandma finds out, and Grandma starts to worry about what you all are doing. Then it is Loving to Grandma to stop, for "Her life is the one in Jeopardy" because of "Her Anxiety". Yet if Grandma although not wanting to join in, agrees. Then it is clean also.

  Greater love has no one than this, than to lay down one’s life for his friends. (John 15:13 NKJV)

When you lay down what you want to do for another you show the greatest Love. That of God. Hope this helps.


Is there any methodology according to Bible to drive out demons from possessed people? There are numerous instances in the Bible where Jesus drives out demons from people who were possessed by them. If we take a general view of these events during the ministry of Jesus, we find that there were a number of such miracles performed by Jesus apart from other miracles. Sometimes these demons were themselves testifying about who Jesus was.

Recently we saw even Pope Francis performing what was called as exorcism on one of the visitors to him. So we can say that it is something similar to what Jesus was doing during His ministry.

The question is why this practice of driving out of demon is not very common nowadays in Christianity? And Is there any methodology according to Bible to drive out demons from possessed people?

Acts 16:18 (NIV)  She kept this up for
  many days. Finally Paul became so annoyed that he turned around and
  said to the spirit, “In the name of Jesus Christ I command you to come
  out of her!” At that moment the spirit left her.

Apostle Paul cast out the evil spirit by using the name of Jesus Christ. Anyone who believes Jesus Christ is given the power to drive out demons by faith and prayer.

  Mark 16:16-18 (NIV) Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved,
  but whoever does not believe will be condemned. And these signs will
  accompany those who believe: In my name they will drive out
  demons; they will speak in new tongues; they will pick up snakes
  with their hands; and when they drink deadly poison, it will not hurt
  them at all; they will place their hands on sick people, and they will
  get well.”

Some evil spirits are so powerful that it require more prayer and faith.

  Mark 9:29 (NIV) He replied, “This kind can come out only by prayer.”

As we can see in these verses, it's quite simple. It only require faith and prayer followed by pronouncing the name of Jesus Christ. But the most problematic here is having faith, which can be achieved through prayer and experience only. I myself once participated in an exorcism performed by our pastor. All we did was pray, sing songs and command the evil spirit to come out in the name of Jesus Christ, and it worked :-)

The methodology is simple. Prayer, Fasting and Commanding in the name of Jesus Christ. But it is not easy. Method is simple, but not easy to carry it out. It needs a lot of faith, personal relationship with God and patience.

Is there any methodology according to Bible to drive out demons from possessed people? Yes.

The question is why this practice of driving out of demon is not very common nowadays in Christianity? It actually occurs pretty often actually.

And Is there any methodology according to Bible to drive out demons from possessed people? With study you will find what I am about to say is true even if it sounds unbelievable. To do this we need some big truths in a row I suggest just reading over all the statements, even if you disagree, til the end.

Satan means adversary, usually taught as a fallen angel, which is a correct description from a perspective but leads to personification such as believing that Satan is One Angel and that is his name.

The fallen part means to fall out of peace.

One that Follows Satan also falls out of peace because of the same reason that Satan fell. to unpersonify it, the adversary fell out of peace came to you and you then fell out of peace. The result of both falling out of peace is an argument.

Spirit means attitude, so Devil means an evil spirit(attitude). We can see that the attitude of one that has fallen out of peace is considered an evil attitude. Diablos means devil, and a demon is a characteristic of the attitude.

Therefore the demon can be categorized into three categories: Angry, Depressed, or Anxious.

The Holy Spirit is the attitude of peace, and by three methods the demons can be cast out.

The Angry Spirit
God teaches us through Psychology that anger is caused by "the decision to fix the threatening behavior". So to cast this devil out we do not resist the evil person, if he takes we give more, if he hits we let him hit more. Once the display of nonthreatening behavior is realized, no longer will the decision to fix the threatening behavior need to be made.

The Depressed Spirit
Depression is caused when the error causes anger to the self. So then faith, words of encouragement, self forgiveness, and righting other wrongs even if the error can no longer fixed will cast out this demon. So we give generously to balance errors, or simply accept the forgiveness.

The Anxious Spirit
Worry and fear cause anxiety, so by nonthreatening behavior coming in weakness, love, with blessings, and service this devil can be cast out.

Yet in all of these, Faith in humility prevents the denial which leads to anger and depression as stated in the stages of grief. Yet with forgiveness offered by the death of the Jesus. Acceptance can be made and the attitude can enter into peace.


Why is Jesus at the center of everything If you look through the Bible we know that Jesus is at the center of everything both in the old and new testament.

I have some clues like him being beloved or as a reward of what he suffered.

  John 3:35

  The Father loveth the Son, and hath given all things into
  his hand

and

  Philippians 2:8-9

  8 And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became
  obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.

  9 Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name
  which is above every name

I feel my clues are not concrete or complete so I would like a broader view or complements.

Reason 1

According to reformed theology, the Bible is about the Glory of God.
Jesus is God.
Thus, the Bible is about Jesus.

More concretely, some would go so far as to state that the Elect is the father's gift to the Son (I'm not sure if this can be scripturally verified). That would be further reason for the Bible focusing on Christ.

Reason 2

Without Jesus, these would be no forgiving of sins. Without the forgiving sins, the Bible would be a very different book.

Why is Jesus at the center of everything? If you look through the Bible we know that Jesus is at the center of everything.

Technically, he's not. God is at the center of everything.

As Christians we believe in the Trinity, and the Trinity has three "parts"*: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Jesus is one of these parts, but it would be incomplete to say that Jesus is at the center of everything.

Furthermore, your question referred to The Bible and did not qualify the question by saying The New Testament. Surely you'd agree that most of the Old Testament speaks about The Father, and the New Testament, after Pentacost, speaks about The Holy Spirit.

*Disclaimer: I realize that the word "parts" is an insufficient word to describe the Trinity.


Why did the Blessed Virgin Mary marry? According to Catholicism, why did the Blessed Virgin Mary, who intended to remain a virgin, marry St. Joseph?

According to ch. 6 of Brown, O.F.M.'s The Life of Mary as Seen by the Mystics, a compilation of the approved private "Revelations of St. Elizabeth of Schoenau, St. Bridget of Sweden, Ven. Mother Mary of Agreda and Ven. Anne Catherine Emmerich," she married because her parents died and young girls' service in the Temple was not perpetual:

WHEN MARY reached the age of thirteen and a half, having grown considerably for her age, Almighty God in a vision commanded her to enter the state of matrimony. Because of her intense love of chastity and her early vow of perpetual virginity, which she had often renewed, this divine order meant to her a sacrifice as painful as that of Abraham when God commanded him to offer up his son’s life.
When Mary heard this unexpected decree, she was astonished and became greatly afflicted. Nevertheless she prudently suspended her own judgment and preserved her faith and hope more perfectly than Abraham. Still hoping against hope, she meekly replied:
“Eternal God, Thou, O Lord, canst dispose of me, Thy worthless little worm, according to Thy pleasure, without making me fail in what I have promised. And if it be not displeasing to Thee, my good Lord, I renew my desire to remain chaste during all my life.”
Thus Mary in her great trial, though she felt some human uneasiness and sadness, obediently resigned herself entirely to the Will of God. And the Lord answered her:
“Mary, let not thy heart be disturbed, for thy resignation is acceptable to Me. And by My disposition, that will happen which is best for thee.”
Then, as God intended, while left between uncertainty and hope, Mary gave herself over to fervent prayer and inner acts of love, faith, humility, obedience and chastity.
Meanwhile the Lord spoke in sleep to the High Priest, who happened to be St. Simeon, and commanded him to arrange the marriage of Mary, whom He regarded with special love, to whomever it seemed right to the council of priests. After consulting together, the priests appointed a day on which all the bachelors of the line of David, which was also Mary’s, were to assemble in the Temple.
Nine days before that date, Simeon called in Mary and gently explained to her that as she was an orphan and a first-born daughter with an inheritance, now near the age when the young girls had to leave the service of the Temple and marry, the priests were planning to find her a worthy husband. Though deeply moved, Mary replied with great composure and modesty:
“As far as my inclinations are concerned, I desire to preserve chastity during all my life, and I never had the intention to enter the married state. But you, my master, will teach me God’s holy Will.”

The Gospels do state that Mary was a virgin at the time of the Annunciation, but they do not per se say that she had intended to remain a virgin all trough life, in spite of her betrothal to Joseph. In those days, unmarried girls were called virgins, as is evident from the Parable of Ten Virgins. 1 Cor 7:36 (KJV) reinforces the fact :

"But if any man think that he behaveth himself uncomely toward his virgin, if she pass the flower of her age, and need so require, let him do what he will, he sinneth not: let them marry." ... He is not sinning; they can get married."

The very words "before they came together " (Mtt 1:18) state in unequivocal terms that Joseph and Mary had, after their betrothal and before the Annunciation, intended to consummate their union by marriage. It was the Annunciation and the events thereafter that changed the course of their life.


The first premise of the Kalam Cosmological Argument for the existence of God The first premise of the KCA is stated as:

Premise 1: Anything that begins to exist must have a cause.

The contrapositive statement for this should read. If something is not caused to exist then that something does not have a beginning.

My question is related to the trinity. Would it also be true that anything that has a cause must have a beginning? If applied to the second person of the trinity should it not follow that since the Son depends on the father for his existence. ie. The second person of the trinity is the only begotten Son of the Father, then the preexistent Son of God must have had a beginning?

Please help.

It sounds like you think generation of the Son by the Father implies there was a time when the Son did not exist; however, all three Persons are co-eternal.

St. Thomas, in Summa Theologica I q. 27 a. 2 ("Whether any procession in God can be called generation?") c., distinguishes between and compares the two senses of "generation":

  The procession of the Word in God is called generation. In proof whereof we must observe that generation has a twofold meaning: one common to everything subject to generation and corruption; in which sense generation is nothing but change from non-existence to existence. In another sense it is proper and belongs to living things; in which sense it signifies the origin of a living being from a conjoined living principle; and this is properly called birth. Not everything of that kind, however, is called begotten; but, strictly speaking, only what proceeds by way of similitude. Hence a hair has not the aspect of generation and sonship, but only that has which proceeds by way of a similitude. Nor will any likeness suffice; for a worm which is generated from animals has not the aspect of generation and sonship, although it has a generic similitude; for this kind of generation requires that there should be a procession by way of similitude in the same specific nature; as a man proceeds from a man, and a horse from a horse. So in living things, which proceed from potential to actual life, such as men and animals, generation includes both these kinds of generation. But if there is a being whose life does not proceed from potentiality to act, procession (if found in such a being) excludes entirely the first kind of generation; whereas it may have that kind of generation which belongs to living things. So in this manner the procession of the Word in God is generation; for He proceeds by way of intelligible action, which is a vital operation:—from a conjoined principle (as above described):—by way of similitude, inasmuch as the concept of the intellect is a likeness of the object conceived:—and exists in the same nature, because in God the act of understanding and His existence are the same, as shown above (q. 14 a. 4). Hence the procession of the Word in God is called generation; and the Word Himself proceeding is called the Son.

This application is not appropriate because you are attempting to apply a physical law to a metaphysical being. Rather than being something which exists, God is the Cause of existence.

"Beginning" in and of itself is a physical construct of our universe which measures our travel along the 4th dimension of time..

Therefore, only that which is subject to that 4th dimension requires a beginning. In other words, for the creator of that 4th dimension, they will exist outside of that realm (much as you do when you draw a 2-dimensional picture).

Furthermore, Premise I is a one-way syllogism, or deductive inference. So in formal logic, A -> B, then it does not necessarily mean B -> A. We cannot inductively infer that.

So for example,

1. All humans are mortal.
2. All Greeks are humans.
3. All Greeks are mortal.

Is certainly true, but it cannot be said that:

All mortals are Greek

Similarly, to say that

1. All things in time and space exist
2. All things that begin to exist in time and space must have a cause
3. Therefore all things that exist in time and space have a cause

It does not necessarily follow that

1. All things that *do* exist, do so in time and space
2. All things that exist have a cause

In other words, your conclusion that:

  If something is not caused to exist then that something does not have a beginning.

Is a syllogistic fallacy. Just because A -> B does not mean that A = B and that B -> A. You are proceeding from a false premise.


How to receive the gift of tongues according to the New Testament? 1 Corinthians 14:39 (NIV)

  Therefore, my brothers and sisters, be eager to prophesy, and do not
  forbid speaking in tongues.

In the early church, the gift of tongues was a common gift which almost everyone received, as we see in the church in Corinth as an example. Paul had to give advice on how to utilize their spiritual gifts in an orderly manner in the church.

However, I can't find any specific method/instruction given in the New Testament on how to receive the gift of tongues. If I want to receive the gift of tongues, what must I do? Is there any instruction given in the New Testament on how to receive the gift of tongues?

The New Testament does not give us a method for receiving the gift of tongues.  On the contrary, we are taught that the Holy Spirit distributes various gifts according to His own will.  Thus, it may not be His will that you or me receive the gift of tongues.

The twelfth chapter of 1 Corinthians is the key text on all of this:

  4 Now there are varieties of gifts, but the same Spirit. 5 And there are varieties of ministries, and the same Lord. 6 There are varieties of effects, but the same God who works all things in all persons. 7 But to each one is given the manifestation of the Spirit for the common good. 8 For to one is given the word of wisdom through the Spirit, and to another the word of knowledge according to the same Spirit; 9 to another faith by the same Spirit, and to another gifts of healing by the one Spirit, 10 and to another the effecting of miracles, and to another prophecy, and to another the distinguishing of spirits, to another various kinds of tongues, and to another the interpretation of tongues. 11 But one and the same Spirit works all these things, distributing to each one individually just as He wills.  1 Corinthians 12:4-11 NASB

So, the Spirit will give believers gifts as He Himself wills--not as we will.  We may desire the greater gifts, but that is all.  From the following passage, it appears the the gift of tongues is not considered one of the greater gifts, as apostleship, prophecy and teaching are given as the first three.

  27 Now you are Christ’s body, and individually members of it. 28 And God has appointed in the church, first apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, administrations, various kinds of tongues. 29 All are not apostles, are they? All are not prophets, are they? All are not teachers, are they? All are not workers of miracles, are they? 30 All do not have gifts of healings, do they? All do not speak with tongues, do they? All do not interpret, do they? 31 But earnestly desire the greater gifts.  1 Corinthians 12:27-31

The practice of speaking in tongues is really only discussed in 1 Corinthians chapter 14, but Paul provides no information how to achieve this gift of the Holy Spirit, and appears to discourage it as he regards speaking in tongues as not being useful, compared to other gifts such as the ability to prophesy. In 1 Corinthians 14:6, he says that he would not have been useful to the Corinthians if he had come speaking in tongues, but instead he had come to speak by revelation and knowledge and prophesying:

  Now, brethren, if I come unto you speaking with tongues, what shall I profit you, except I shall speak to you either by revelation, or by knowledge, or by prophesying, or by doctrine?

Paul says if there is no interpreter, the person who speaks in tongues should keep silent in the church and speak in tongues only to himself and to God (14:28), concluding the chapter by recommending the brothers strive to prophesy and not forbid speaking in tongues, but see to it that everything must be done properly and in order (14:39-40).

Speaking in tongues must have become a popular practice in the Christian community at Corinth, but Paul chose not to do so himself, and kept no record as to how others received this gift.

Although Paul's epistle appears to have sought to discourage the Corinthians from speaking in tongues, Acts 19:6, written anonymously some decades later, credits Paul with granting the Corinthians the gift of speaking with tongues by laying his hands upon them, upon which the Holy Ghost came on them:

  And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied.


Is Heaven up and Hell down? Ever since I was a little tyke I have heard people say go up to Heaven or down to Hell.

Up and down would seemingly have its relationship to the surface of the Earth, and while down in that case can only mean toward the center of the Earth; Up would be relative to where you were on the surface of the Earth.

In the Bible Jesus himself appears to fortify that assumption in:

  John 3:12 and 13 KJV  If I have told you earthly things, and ye believe not, how shall ye believe, if I tell you of heavenly things?  13  And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven.

and again in:

  John 20:17 KJV  Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.

So when:

  Luke 24:51 KJV  And it came to pass, while he blessed them, he was parted from them, and carried up into heaven.

So then if up is in relation to the spot where Jesus ascended from, would up on the opposite side of the Earth still be toward the clouds or would it be in the opposite direction?

It would seem more logical to me ascending and descending would be more in line with being closer to God or further away from him.

Has this been addressed before by any denomination, Theology, or Biblical Scholar?

We do not know exactly where heaven or hell is.  However, in Scripture, the word "up" is commonly used in association with the location of heaven and "down" is typically associated with the location of hell, either figuratively or literally.  Also, from the vantage point of heaven, earth is down.
The "up" and "down" context may certainly be completely figurative, as heaven is exalted and glorious and hell is shameful and desolate.
Up to Heaven

And Elijah went up by a whirlwind to heaven. 2 Kings 2:1b NASB
The Lord has looked down from heaven upon the sons of men To see if there are any who understand, Who seek after God.  Psalm 14:2 NASB
We lift up our heart and hands toward God in heaven.  Lamentations 3:41 NASB
And behold, a severe earthquake had occurred, for an angel of the Lord descended from heaven and came and rolled away the stone and sat upon it.  Matthew 28:2 NASB
While He was blessing them, He parted from them and was carried up into heaven.  Luke 24:51 NASB

Down to Hell or Hades

And you, Capernaum, will not be exalted to heaven, will you? You will be brought down to Hades!  Luke 10:15 NASB
In Hades he lifted up his eyes, being in torment, and *saw Abraham far away and Lazarus in his bosom.  Luke 16:23 NASB

Given the flat-earth conception of the universe that has already been mentioned, heaven is "up" in the "heavens" and hell/Sheol is "down" beneath the ground. The argument for "not knowing exactly where heaven is" is a modern problem that has only existed since the time of Galileo. Before the age of the telescope, heaven - as in the place where God lived - was widely accepted to be the sky and the clouds. This fact is clearly demonstrated in several places in the Bible, some of which have been cited in the other answers.

In short, the only view of heaven that is consistent with the Bible's actual teachings is "the sky". Yahweh is, quite literally, a sky god.


Which denominations believe that the misfortunes of Jews are a result of "God's curse" for their killing of Jesus? In this answer user Mike made the following statement:

  For the curse they put upon themselves was later brought to pass in
  the actual destruction of their nation which occurred in 70 A.D. Their
  homeless position on the earth did not end until 1948 making the
  punishment so very great.

This possibly also includes the Holocaust (although not mentioned by name) because it directly resulted from the "homeless" position and happened before 1948.

Thus my question is as follows:

What Christian groups consider the destruction of the Jewish nation in 70 AD, the persecutions of the Jews due to their homeless position until the creation of Israel, discrimination of the Jews in Europe, the pogroms in Imperial Russia, the Holocaust and other misfortunes the Jews suffered from Christians a punishment of God for killing Jesus Christ?

Even within Christian groups there are differences among individuals.
I would say that the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans in 70 A.D. was absolutely a consequence of the corporate sin of Israel, like the destruction of Jerusalem by the Babylonians. No difference, really. Why did God allow the Babylonians to destroy Jerusalem? Because of Israel's sin. There's no need to whitewash this, and Christians shouldn't be ashamed to state this as a fact. If anyone thinks God allowed the Romans to conquer Jerusalem because He was pleased with Israel, such a one is twisted.
During the siege of Jerusalem, there was an interval in which the Roman army under Cestius essentially retreated, giving time for the Christians (who were privy to Jesus' prophetic warning; cp. Matt. 24:16) to escape and flee before the full onslaught of the Roman army destroyed Jerusalem.
In Wars of the Jews, 2.19.7 (§540), the Jewish historian Josephus wrote,

It then happened that Cestius was not conscious either how the besieged despaired of success, nor how courageous the people were for him; and so he recalled his soldiers from the place, and by despairing of any expectation of taking it, without having received any disgrace, he retired from the city, without any reason in the world.

In Ecclesiastical History, 3.5.2-4, the Church historian Eusebius wrote,

2 For the Jews after the ascension of our Savior, in addition to their crime against him, had been devising as many plots as they could against his apostles. First Stephen was stoned to death by them, and after him James, the son of Zebedee and the brother of John, was beheaded, and finally James, the first that had obtained the episcopal seat in Jerusalem after the ascension of our Saviour, died in the manner already described. But the rest of the apostles, who had been incessantly plotted against with a view to their destruction, and had been driven out of the land of Judea, went unto all nations to preach the Gospel, relying upon the power of Christ, who had said to them, "Go ye and make disciples of all the nations in my name."
3 But the people of the church in Jerusalem had been commanded by a revelation, vouchsafed to approved men there before the war, to leave the city and to dwell in a certain town of Perea called Pella. And when those that believed in Christ had come thither from Jerusalem, then, as if the royal city of the Jews and the whole land of Judea were entirely destitute of holy men, the judgment of God at length overtook those who had committed such outrages against Christ and his apostles, and totally destroyed that generation of impious men.
4 But the number of calamities which everywhere fell upon the nation at that time; the extreme misfortunes to which the inhabitants of Judea were especially subjected, the thousands of men, as well as women and children, that perished by the sword, by famine, and by other forms of death innumerable,—all these things, as well as the many great sieges which were carried on against the cities of Judea, and the excessive. sufferings endured by those that fled to Jerusalem itself, as to a city of perfect safety, and finally the general course of the whole war, as well as its particular occurrences in detail, and how at last the abomination of desolation, proclaimed by the prophets, stood in the very temple of God, so celebrated of old, the temple which was now awaiting its total and final destruction by fire,—all these things any one that wishes may find accurately described in the history written by Josephus.

He ends chapter 5, stating,

7 But passing by the particular calamities which they suffered from the attempts made upon them by the sword and by other means, I think it necessary to relate only the misfortunes which the famine caused, that those who read this work may have some means of knowing that God was not long in executing vengeance upon them for their wickedness against the Christ of God.

Read Leviticus 26 and note all the curses Israel would endure because they refused to listen to God. The curses are extremely severe. I guess many simply skim over that as though God made empty threats; He does not.
Finally, there's Deut. 18:15-19. Altough it applies to any prophet of Israel, it is also referring to the Messiah (cp. Acts 3:22, 7:37), the prophet par excellence, who would be "like Moshe." God commanded the Israelites to listen to this prophet because he spoke the words that God put in his mouth. Again, this applies to every prophet, but especially the Messiah who would be a greater prophet than Moshe (contrary to Judaism which says that he will only be "near" Moshe's prophetic degree).
But, pay particular attention to Deut. 18:19, in which it is written, "And it shall come to pass, whoever shall not listen to My words that He shall speak in My name, I will require of him." "Require" doesn't really capture the meaning of the Hebrew.
The Hebrew in this particular context essentially means "exact vengeance" (cp. Gen. 9:5; Ps. 10:4; Eze. 33:6, etc.). Ibn Ezra cited one example of this occurring. He refers to a particular prophet ("man of God") in 1 Kings 13:1 who did not listen to the word of YHVH (1 Kings 13:9). Long story short, this "man of God" --- yes, he was actually a prophet of Israel --- was riding a donkey in the way when God sent a lion to devour him. The donkey, remained unharmed. The man of God, torn to shreds.
Jesus (who was a prophet) repeatedly said that he did not speak his own words but the words of the Father. The Jewish people refused to listen to him. God the Father commanded them to listen, as it is written (Matt. 17:5), "This is My beloved Son in whom I am well pleased; listen to Him!"
Unbelieving Jews are still under the Old Covenant, and the curses of the Law (which they acknowledged in an oath), still remain if they refuse to listen to God. It is certainly true that Jews have suffered countless calamities because of their unbelief. With that being said, it does not excuse those who murdered Jews. God will judge both. I cannot emphasize that enough. Also, do note that it is not only because they (again, not all Jews) had a hand in killing Jesus, but the prophets and other saints of God.

Addressing Anixx's question.
The answer is "no," because man is not aware of God's predeterminate purpose and will.
Regarding Jerusalem during the Babylonian captivity, God said (Jer. 34:2), "I will give this city into the hand of the king of Babylon, and he shall burn it with fire."
God is going to give it. It's His will, His counsel, His purpose.
Yet, Nevukhadne'tzar said (Dan. 4:30), "The king spoke and said, 'Is not this great Babylon, that I have built for the house of the kingdom by the might of my power, and for the honour of my majesty?" ("Babylon" would have also included Jerusalem since they had captured it and incorporated it into their kingdom.)
Nevukhadne'tzar didn't believe in the God of Israel. He conquered Jerusalem with evil intentions, not thinking He was serving the God of Israel. Accordingly, God judged him for the evil he committed.
Likewise, Vespasian, Titus, and all those of Rome who conquered Jerusalem did not believe in the God of Israel, nor did they believe they were performing His will. They did so because of the evil in their heart.
Now, you may say, "What if an individual (e.g., a Christian) does believe in the God of Israel and does believe He is performing the will of God by killing a Jew?"
Well, now we have the true Scottsman fallacy, and unfortunately, it is my response. Any Christian who murders another human being, Jew or Gentile, is going straight to Gehinnam (Gal. 5:21). Oh wait...let me make that more precise. Any individual who calls him/ herself a "Christian," yet murders another human being, is going straight to Gehinnam. Because, anyone who murders another human being is not a Christian. Christ gave a new commandment (John 15:12), "Love one another as I have loved you." He also said, "Greater love has no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends" (John 15:13). Nowhere does he advocate killing unbelievers, nor does Paul.
I understand this may not sit well with my Jewish brothers. My ancestors were killed in the Inquisition, burned alive in "autos-de-fe." Many, many of the Jews on Mi Yodeya and here have ancestors who died in the Holocaust. They may have been killed by individuals claiming to be Christians and supposing to do the will of God. What they know of Christians is likely distasteful, and I cannot blame them. I cannot heal those wounds; only God can.
History has shown that many Jews, despite knowing that so-called "Christians" killed Jews in the name of Christ, reaized that such individuals were not Christians at all and did not represent the teachings of Christ. These Jews then later became Christians, most willingly. Again, there is the unfortunate aspect of forced conversion by both Islam and Christianity. While the Qur'an may advocate forced conversions (cp. Qur'an 8:39, 9:29), the New Testament never does. After all, one of the most fundamental teachings of Christ is "forgiveness" and loving one's enemies (thanks to David Stratton and svidgen for their comments on that previous thread of mine).

The answer is that no religious, nor theologian today accuses the Hebrews of the death of Jesus. Many years ago the Roman Catholic Church apologized for its part in spreading this idea. The Pope has said that all humans must share the blame.

As far as suffering more than others - I would consider the Russians to have suffered as much in the War - millions were killed. And In the first WW, millions of English were killed. This is not to minimize what happened to the followers of Judaism, and to deplore the way the world has treated them.
Since the beginning, God has blessed them as a race. From among them have come the most gifted scientists, musicians, doctors, and artists.   Thank God they are with us. We would be a poor lot without them.

An Anglican.


Why is vengeance for the Lord? God has said that vengeance should belong to Him alone, but why?

Romans 12:19 ESV Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave it to the wrath of God, for it is written, “Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord.”
Deuteronomy 32:35 ESV Vengeance is mine, and recompense, for the time when their foot shall slip; for the day of their calamity is at hand, and their doom comes swiftly.’

I take vengeance in this context to mean that God will intercede for a wronged person and give the other party their come-up-pance here on earth (distinct from His eternal judgement).
What is the biblical basis for God doing this?
I understand why we shouldn't take vengeance--because our judgement would almost certainly be faulty and out of an unloving intent. But it seems like God would be acting on the vengeance in our hearts if he were to do it himself.
I'm looking for scripture to support scripture and want a biblically cited reason in an answer.

First off, this bit of your question:

  I take vengeance in this context to mean that God will intercede for a wronged person and give the other party their come-up-pance here on earth

I'm sorry, but there is no reason to think that. I'm not saying it's wrong, but you can't assume it because there is nothing in the passage to support it.

The general theme of Romans 12 and Deuteronomy 32 is very much along the lines of "don't take the law into your own hands: rely on God and let him execute his judgement." That's what the phrase means. In particular, in Romans 12, the theme is about the paradoxical behaviour required of Christians. The following verses say,

  No, ‘if your enemies are hungry, feed them; if they are thirsty, give them something to drink; for by doing this you will heap burning coals on their heads.’ Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.

The point Paul is making is not that vengeance is for the Lord per se, but that it is not for Christians to execute for themselves.

I understand why we shouldn't take vengeance--because our judgement
  would almost certainly be faulty and out of an unloving intent. But it
  seems like God would be acting on the vengeance in our hearts if he
  were to do it himself.

1 John 2:2  And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.

Since Jesus paid the price for the sins of the whole world, every sin is in effect against him. He has the legal right to exact revenge if he desires.