Do Catholics believe that everyone should convert to Christianity for their own salvation? From my understanding it is the Catholic view that all people should be baptized and converted to the Christian faith for their own salvation.

So, for me it follows logically, that Christians envision a world where Christianity is the only religion and all other religions are eliminated. I'm especially referring to non-abrahamic religions like Buddhism and Hinduism. In other words: Do Christians believe that they have to work for a world where there are no more Buddhist practicioners or followers of Hinduism and Christianity is the only religion?

I'm interested in the Roman Catholic point of view.

EDIT: My question targets towards the implicit cultural imperialism and the implicit goal of destruction of the religious cultures in Buddhist countries and India by the absolutist doctrine of Christianity as the only "right" religion. From my personal perspective, I cannot imagine that it would be God's or Jesus' will to destruct the incredible rich and deep religious cultures of these non-abrahamic religions.

I see many of the other answers here seem a little out of focus. The OP is asking for some Roman Catholic points of view, and while the history lessons are pretty neat, I would rather provide an answer to the OP.

Do Catholics believe that everyone should convert to Christianity for their own salvation?
Yes. Catholics believe that it is better for people to convert and, therefore, gain access to the sacraments. A Catholic believes that his salvation is assured with the sacraments, without sacraments there is no assurance of salvation.

From the point brought by Geremia. There is only one sacrament required for salvation: Baptism. Baptism is required as it is the only sacrament that removes Original Sin. Original Sin impedes communion with God, which is salvation. Note that a person without moral agency (a baby or small child) would be under Original Sin, so even that person needs to be baptized to achieve salvation upon death. So yes, Geremia is right when he says that you must be baptized, this is not an error as somebody implied. Geremia seems to ignore that the Church teaches three kinds of baptisms: sacramental, blood and desire. This last kind of baptism allows for salvation for non-Catholics; in this case, the term "implicit baptism of desire" is usually used. According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

  CCC 1259 For catechumens who die before their Baptism, their explicit
  desire to receive it, together with repentance for their sins, and
  charity, assures them the salvation that they were not able to receive
  through the sacrament.

  CCC 1260 “Since Christ died for all, and since all men are in fact
  called to one and the same destiny, which is divine, we must hold that
  the Holy Spirit offers to all the possibility of being made partakers,
  in a way known to God, of the Paschal mystery.”[...] Every man who is
  ignorant of the Gospel of Christ and of his Church, but seeks the
  truth and does the will of God in accordance with his understanding of
  it, can be saved. It may be supposed that such persons would have
  desired Baptism explicitly if they had known its necessity.

Do Christians believe that they have to work for a world where there are no more Buddhist practitioners or followers of Hinduism and Christianity is the only religion? Yes. A Catholic believes that there is only one true religion; and all other religions, although containing stints of truth, may be used by the devil to damn the souls of men. The Catholic also believes in tolerance, and that means that he will put up with other religions, despite their flaws. Something that I believe is much more important for your point of view, is that Catholics firmly believe in the separation of the Church and the State[1]. So a Catholic would never endorse that a state, say a police force, mitigate any kind of religious activity. It should be noted that some religious activity is dangerous, and may be dangerous for society, intervention, in this case, would be endorsed by a Catholic; not for the sake of religious intolerance (i.e. not for the religious activity itself), but for the protection of the weak and vulnerable.

Regarding your point on the destruction of cultural heritage, it should be noted that Catholicism doesn't replace culture. It entwines and mingles, exalting the best aspects of a people's cultural practices and elevating them to a new meaning. You might want to take as an example the work of Franciscan friars to not only preserve, but also promote the Navajo culture through the production of English-Navajo dictionaries and books.

Regarding that God does not will destruction, well you have the wrong religion. The whole point of Catholicism is the destruction of the old man, that is addicted to the world and it's temptations, and the creation of a new man, whose life is directed towards love, and only love. So yes, destruction of habits, customs, and old religions is part of Catholicism. For the Catholics, these things are at a personal level, not at a national or societal level. It is you, a single person the one that must destroy his old self.

It would be good to remember when dealing with Catholics that it began with the destruction of a single life, and through that death, we may not die.

[1] I've heard this is a recent development, and it might as well be, the oldest reference that I can remember comes from the conquest of the Americas by the Spanish Empire.

"From my understanding it is the Catholic view that all people should be baptized and converted to the Christian faith for their own salvation."

History would support that position.

In the mid 15th century, Tomás de Torquemada, as head of the Spanish Inquisition, converted tens of thousands of Jews and others to Catholicism.  Most of them converted under threat of torture and death.  Actual belief or lifestyle didn't matter much; what was important was public confession, acceptance of Christ, and baptism.  The sacraments of the Church would then lead these converts to salvation.

With full support of the Church and the Inquisition, Latin America was completely taken over by Spain and Portugal.  Almost all the original inhabitants were slaughtered or assimilated, conversion to Catholicism being the justifying force:

  Castilian law prohibited foreigners and non-Catholics from settling in the New World. However, not all conquistadors were Castilian. Many foreigners Hispanicised their names and/or converted to Catholicism to serve the Castilian Crown.
  …
  Catholic religious orders that participated and supported the exploration, evangelizing and pacifying, … . The Franciscans used a method of mass conversion, sometimes baptizing many thousands of Indians in a day. — Wikipedia: Conquistador

In the 19th and 20th Century, residential schools were established, mostly by the Catholic Church, in Canada, USA, Australia, and other recently settled countries.  Children were forcibly removed from their parents, forbidden to speak their first language, and deprived of their culture.  For most, the experience was a life of torture and abuse. Again, baptism into the Church and removal from heathen influences was the justification:

  Many of the government-operated residential schools were run by churches of various denominations, with the majority administered by Roman Catholics. […] The government provided facilities and maintenance, while the churches provided teachers and their own lesson-planning. As a result, the number of schools per denomination was less a reflection of their presence in the general population, but rather their legacy of missionary work. — Wikipedia: Canadian Indian residential school system

A similar position was taken by Mother Teresa in the 20th century.  She "converted" countless Hindus to Catholicism by taking sick and destitute children into her clinics and palliative care centers.  She sincerely believed that "Suffering is a gift from God.", and used this philosophy on her converts.  Many that would have otherwise survived became sick and eventually died under her care.  Dirty needles and other medical equipment were continually reused during medical treatment, ensuring the spread of disease, and those that suffered in pain were denied pain relieving drugs.  The obvious poverty and inadequate facilities made it easy to solicit millions of dollars in donations, which, rather than being used to improve the quality of care, were used to open more and more centers.  At its peak, thousands of nuns worked at over 600 shelters and missions.  Saving souls by "converting" Hindus to Catholicism was her overriding goal, a goal obviously shared by the Vatican, which eventually honoured her work with sainthood.

For more details, see my "Lie — Mother Teresa was a wonderful saintly person" and Wikipedia's "Criticism of Mother Teresa".

These examples illustrate that the Catholic church's philosophy includes baptising as many people as possible (even if forcibly) in order to make their souls eligible for salvation by the Church's sacraments.

While from a non-Catholic viewpoint, this philosophy can be seen in a very negative way, from a Catholic position, where it is the Church itself that has the power to save or condemn individuals, this is not at all an unreasonable way of achieving their goal of converting people to Catholicism for the salvation of their souls.


Did Judas betray Jesus willfully? Luke 22:3 (NIV) Then Satan entered Judas, called Iscariot, one of the Twelve.

Does this verse imply that

Judas had no more control over his own actions as he was possessed by the devil.
Judas yielded himself to the temptation of 30 pieces of silver offered by the priests for betraying Jesus.

The first option would mean that Judas was possessed and hence had no control over his own will whereas the second option would mean that the betrayal was a self-willed one.

Just because it was already prophesied, does not mean that Judas did not make a conscious choice. A man can most definitely choose to be used by Satan or by the Holy Spirit. Judas, by his actions, was already choosing, as he was choosing to steal from the purse.(John 12:6) This showed that even though he was with Jesus, the Holy Spirit was not working within him. He made a series of bad decisions and the devil took the opportunity.

God is blamed for many things, but just because He allows it to happen, does not mean He causes it to happen. Many times we put ourselves in this position. Isaiah 59:1-2 says:

Surely the arm of the Lord is not too short to save,
    nor his ear too dull to hear.
But your iniquities have separated
    you from your God;
your sins have hidden his face from you,
    so that he will not hear.

Judas put himself in this position. In a position where God allowed Satan use Judas.

Very good answers from everyone
Its apparent that Judas was not predestined for it was prophesied "The one whom I trusted" Jesus was deeply troubled by this, that someone he trusted would do such a thing. Also the fact that Judas tried to reverse course by going back to the Pharisees and give back the money clearly shows he didnt expect his actions to end with Jesus sentenced to death and admitted to betray innocent blood. The whole notion that Judas was predestined only serves in portraying a narcist God, cruel and unloving. But Jehovah is not like that. Satan, the angels that fallowed him and Judas, all made conscious choices based selfishness, putting their own interests first before Jehovah. When the love for God is not put first, then you worship yourself. This is why the first commandment is so important, its vital to love Jehovah with all our strength,with all our heart and with all our mind. Had Judas done this he would have never betrayed Jesus, the son of the living God!


To what extent did Isaiah understand his own prophecies? Consider Isaiah 53:4-6 (NIV), which is commonly interpreted as a prophecy that the Messiah would die for the sins of the world:

  4Surely he took up our pain
     and bore our suffering,
  yet we considered him punished by God,
     stricken by him, and afflicted.
  5But he was pierced for our transgressions,
     he was crushed for our iniquities;
  the punishment that brought us peace was on him,
     and by his wounds we are healed.
  6We all, like sheep, have gone astray,
     each of us has turned to our own way;
  and the LORD has laid on him
     the iniquity of us all.

It seems apparent that the majority of Jews at the time, did not interpret this passage (and others) to mean that Jesus was the Messiah, until after Christ died.  This seems to be common with many (maybe most or all) Biblical prophecies: There is sufficient detail to identify once an event has occurred, but not sufficient detail to predict when a prophesied event will occur.

So my question:  Did Isaiah understand his own prophecies, in the sense that we do today?  Would Isaiah, for instance, have known that the Messiah would die for the sins of the world? If Isaiah had met Christ before His death, would he have realized he was the Messiah?

Or were Isaiah's own words enigmatic to him as they were to the rest of the world, prior to the fulfillment of the prophecies?

Peter gives us some insight into this:

  10 Concerning this salvation, the prophets, who spoke of the grace
  that was to come to you, searched intently and with the greatest care,
  11 trying to find out the time and circumstances to which the Spirit
  of Christ in them was pointing when he predicted the sufferings of the
  Messiah and the glories that would follow. 12 It was revealed to them
  that they were not serving themselves but you, when they spoke of the
  things that have now been told you by those who have preached the
  gospel to you by the Holy Spirit sent from heaven. Even angels long to
  look into these things.  1 Peter 1:10-12 NIV

Many passages in the Old Testament were considered to be Messianic well before the time of Christ. One theory was that there would actual be two Messiahs.  This arose out of an attempt to reconcile what appeared to be both a suffering Messiah and a conquering Messiah.  These were known as Messiah Ben Joseph (or Ephraim) and Messiah Ben David.

The Messiah Ben Joseph (son of Joseph) indicated the sufferings that Joseph, the son of Jacob, endured at the hands of his brothers and during the first part of his time in Egypt.  Interestingly enough, Joseph became as Pharaoh in Egypt, much like Jesus, who did suffer at the hands of His brothers and the forces of another country, but who now reigns as King of Kings.

Messiah Ben David would be a king.

So, Isaiah, like Peter reveals, likely searched intently and with the greatest care trying to find out the time and circumstances when Messiah would come.  He likely did not understand everything about it, but more than likely understand a good bit.

Let's do one question at a time!

Did Isaiah understand his own prophecies, in the sense that we do today?

A NT Scripture can answer this pretty well for you!

  Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet's own interpretation of things. (2 Peter 1:20
  NIV)

This NT passage tells us that what Isaiah was writing he did not know
was going to be interpreted in light of the messiah instead of a
suffering nation of israel in exile.

Would Isaiah, for instance, have known that the Messiah would die for the sins of the world?

Perhaps.  This prophecy was written through Isaiah, but no one realized that the Messiah was going to die for the sins of the world.  Even John the Baptist who called Jesus the Lamb of God in John 1 did not think Jesus was going about as the Messiah in the way he thought He would.  Jesus' approach towards being the Messiah caught everyone off-guard but in hindsight we see that was how it was always meant to be!

If Isaiah had met Christ before His death, would he have realized he was the Messiah?

We don't know!  The answer could go either way.  But one could ask,
how does it edify the church to know that Isaiah would have
recognized the Messiah?

Or were Isaiah's own words enigmatic to him as they were to the rest of the world, prior to the fulfillment of the prophecies?

To answer this question, I will refer to the 2 Peter passage above.
Apparently the prophet's own interpretation of things (events
happening around him, remember, Isaiah was writing about the time of
the exile) was not how the prophecy came about.  Isaiah was writing
about the suffering of the nation of Israel in exile, not knowing
that it was also about the Messiah to come!  I say this because
Isaiah does not make mention in Isaiah 53 that he was telling a
prophecy, plus he makes no official mention of a Messiah.  Which
means that what GOD was saying through Isaiah at one point GOD also
used to point towards the Messiah!
Case in point, no where in that chapter does Isaiah actually use the
word "messiah.".  This doesn't mean the passage isn't about the
messiah, but just that Isaiah wasn't writing thinking "one day people
are going to figure out that I am writing about the messiah.". No, he
was a prophet trying to explain the suffering of his own people in
exile.

Here are some exerpts from the wikipedia page on Is 53...

"Jewish commentator Rashi believed Isaiah 53 referred to Israel.[7]
Rashi, writing in the 11th century, did have some historical
precedent for this interpretation, as his commentary became one of
the best popular commentaries on the Tanakh.

Eliyahu Rabbah, which scholars agree was written in the end of the
tenth century[8], (Tana Devei Eliyahu) has 3 citations referenced
below.

The first book of the Talmud - Brachot page 5a (compiled between app
220 and 300 CE) applies Is 53 to the people of Israel and those who
study Torah..."

and

"Furthermore, the Midrash known as Tana Devei Eliyahu contains three
references to Isaiah 53, applying them to the righteous of Israel
(chapters 6, 13, 27).[12]

Another Midrash, Aleph Beitot (final chapter) quotes Isaiah 53 in
reference to the nation of Israel as a whole.[12]

Midrash Psalms 94:2 applies Isaiah 53:10 to the righteous in general
(also in other earlier writings - Mechilta De Rabbi Ishmael)

Kuzari also identifies Isaiah 53 as the nation of Israel.[12]

Chovot ha-Levavot also identifies Isaiah 53 as the nation of
Israel.[12]"

But all of this goes to say that what man thought was only about one thing, GOD also intended it to point towards the Messiah to come.  Which is how most of the prophecies in the OT were found out, after the event of Jesus' life, death, and resurrection!

I hope this helps!


What is the significance of the three different gifts (gold, frankincense and myrrh) given to Jesus by the Magi after his birth? In Matthew 2:11, we read that the Magi or wise men brought gifts of gold, frankincense and myrrh.  Were these common gifts to be given at that time or did each of them hold significant meaning, perhaps unknown to the wise men themselves but part of God's sovereign plan?

  And going into the house they saw the child with Mary his mother, and
  they fell down and worshiped him. Then, opening their treasures, they
  offered him gifts, gold and frankincense and myrrh.  (Matthew 2:11, ESV)

We Three Kings

The verses to 'we three kings' are pretty wonderfully theological and wrap across most doctrines.

The gifts symbolize aspects of Jesus' ministry and purpose.

  Born a King on Bethlehem's plain
  Gold I bring to crown Him again
  King forever, ceasing never
  Over us all to rein

Gold is the gift to honor a King.  It is offered in acknowledgement that Jesus is the King of His Kingdom. Prince of Peace, etc...

  Frankincense to offer have I
  Incense owns a Deity nigh
  Pray'r and praising, all men raising
  Worship Him, God most high

Frankincense is the incense burned in religious ceremonies.  It is an offering to honor Jesus as God.

  Myrrh is mine, its bitter perfume
  Breathes of life of gathering gloom
  Sorrowing, sighing, bleeding, dying
  Sealed in the stone-cold tomb

Myrrh is the oil that is used to anoint a dead body before burial.  It is offered as a prophecy of the way he would die.

Prefiguring the New Covenant

There may also be some symbolism in the three offerings in terms of Jesus as Priest, Prophet and King.  Hebrews 9 says that inside the Ark of the Covenant was held a gold jar of Manna from Heaven, the Rod of Aaron which sprouted and the 10 Commandments.

These are also types for Jesus. Manna for Jesus as the Great Prophet, the rod for Jesus as the Eternal High Priest and the ten commandments for Jesus as the Lawgiver or King. And the Gifts reflect those items stored in the Ark.  Gold for kingship, Frankincense for priesthood and Myrrh for prophecy.

They're offered to Jesus, but it is Mary, who accepts them as the Ark of the New Covenant.

Alas, I just read this in the Catholic Encyclopedia

  The giving of gifts was in keeping with Oriental custom. The purpose of the gold is clear; the Child was poor. We do not know the purpose of the other gifts. The Magi probably meant no symbolism. The Fathers have found manifold and multiform symbolic meanings in the three gifts; it is not clear that any of these meanings are inspired

Apparently there is no inspired and obvious symbolism.

Traditionally, these gifts are seen representing a variety of things:
Gold
This is an expensive metal.  This signifies his kinghood.  It's a gift fit for a king and the wise men use it as a gift to signify that they consider Jesus a king.
Frankincense
Incense, to signify his priesthood.  The wise men gave Jesus this gift in order to signify that they believed him to be the high priest.
Myrrh
This is another spice used as a burial spice.  While Frankincense shows he was a priest and gold shows he was a king, Myrrh prophesies his death.


How come Easter is associated with Eggs, Bunnies and Flowers? On the note of soon to pass Good Friday, Good Friday is the time of the year where we remember the death of Jesus, and Easter is where we remember the Resurrection of Jesus Christ. Correct me if I am wrong.

However, people seem to associate Easter with egg hunting and bunnies and chocolates. I wouldn't mind a little celebration considering that it is the day Jesus rose from the dead, however I would like to know what in the world eggs and bunnies have to do with it.

It isn't... Or rather, they are associated with the seasonal event but not the Christian event of Easter.. Pagans and general common folk had celebrated spring with signs of new life for a long long time before Christ. Easter then became associated with the spring festivals (in particular, but not limited to, the equinox) in the same way that Christmas became intermingled with pre-existing winter (and in particular, solstice) celebrations. All of the "popular" symbols of Easter are nothing to do with what Christianity calls Easter.

http://www.home2b.nl/susan-office-easter-pagan.html
http://www.witchology.com/contents/march/ostara.php
http://atheism.about.com/od/easterholidayseason/p/PaganChristian.htm
http://www.letgodbetrue.com/bible/holidays/easter-problems.htm
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2010/apr/03/easter-pagan-symbolism

Eggs and bunnies have as much to do with the resurrection as trees and sleighs have to do with the birth.

To a community where much of the population are involved in food production, the seasons (and spring/winter in particular), and the signs there-of, are all-pervasive.

The crucifixion story is a pretty gruesome thing, and frankly doesn't "market" as well as eggs and bunnies.

The Easter is a pagan feast. It has it's beginning in the cult of Astarte - from this comes the the very similar word "Easter". It has nothing to do with God. It's actually a blasphemy to associate these symbols with Jesus. The symbols are related to the fertility. Eggs and bunnies are hidden symbols for man genitalia and uncontrolled sexuality, where I come from there is also a sausage comming to this, what is a disgusting result. Also the chick brings these associations to mind.

The only saint day is sabath on saturday. It's a sin to celebrate pagan feasts


A Question Regarding the Relationship between God and Messiah As for the Messiah, of him God says,

  And I will set up one shepherd over them, and he shall feed them,
  even My servant David; he shall feed them, and he shall be their
  shepherd. And I the Lord will be their God, and My servant David
  prince among them; I the Lord have spoken. (Ezekiel 34:23-24)

In a related passage ...

  The kings of the earth set themselves, And the rulers take counsel
  together, Against the Lord and against His Anointed. (Psalm 2:2)

As indicated by the first verse, The Lord alone will be worshiped as God, while the Messiah, as the servant of God, lives with the people.

As indicated by the second verse, the Lord and the Messiah are mutually exclusive, and not the same being.

How is this apparent contradiction explained in the light of New Testament allusions to the Messiah's divinity?

In Dan 7:14 we see the Son of Man is coming to take the everlasting kingdom. In the subsequent verses termed as the interpretation we see in verse 22 it is the Ancient of Days who is coming. This tells me the ancient of days and the Son of Man are the same.

In traditional Judaism, they have a picture of G-d as a composite of potencies called sephirot. Different combinations can form different faces of G-d. They are all divine and are none are independent of each other yet we have examples in their literature where one speaks to another. Not all are credited with creation. Pro 3:19  The LORD by wisdom hath founded the earth; by understanding hath he established the heavens. 1Co_1:24 tells us this wisdom is Messiah. We have an entire proverb (8) which deals with wisdom and alludes to its deity and power to save. It also states it (wisdom) is understanding, alluding to their combination in creation (v 19).

When we impose on G-d the limitations of a physical world (where something has one nature, one presence, one spacial dimension, etc.) we are always going to have a difficulty.

But even in nature we have examples of duality. An amoeba can change shape and when it reproduces by meiosis, one cannot say that this part is the parent and that part is the child, they are both identical even though they occupy different places in space.

Daniel 7:13

“In my vision at night I looked, and there before me was one like a son of man,[a]coming with the clouds of heaven. He approached the Ancient of Days and was led into his presence. 14 He was given authority,glory and sovereign power; all nations and peoples of every language worshiped him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion that will not pass away, and his kingdom is one that will never be destroyed.

[a]Daniel 7:13 The Aramaic phrase bar enash means human being.

Note the term worshipped

I am assuming that the question is to clarify the allusion by new testament writers on why the Messiah is both divine and human.

Only God is worthy of worship
We see a human being worshipped and given dominion over all, in Daniel's Vision

Therefore this being is both God and Man at the same time. Duality of Divinity.

The reason for this elevation is visible through a careful study of the implicit prophecies in the old testament fulfilled explicitly in the new testament.
List of prophecies need assistance with hermeneutics while studying the same


Does God encourage hurting or killing others in his name in the Bible? In the Quran there is this passage:

  And when the sacred months have passed, then kill the polytheists wherever you find them and capture them and besiege them and sit in wait for them at every place of ambush. (Quran 9:5)

As seen here, extremist interpretations of this verse push Islamists towards violence against others.

Does the Bible have anything similar to this, encouraging hurting or killing people who defy God?

I know there is Matthew 10:14-15, but that is reserved for the Judgement day.

So is there any place in the Bible where God encourages or commands others to be harmed or killed in His name?

Short answer
There is not a single passage in the New Testment that even encourages phisical violence against others.
Long answer
Yes, at the Old Testment you have some instructions that involves death penalty, for example, for murder (Exodus 21:12), kidnapping (Exodus 21:16), bestiality (Exodus 22:19), adultery (Leviticus 20:10), homosexuality (Leviticus 20:13), being a false prophet (Deuteronomy 13:5), and so forward.
But now, you have to understand that all this penalties were restricted to the context of the nation of Israel, at the time of the Law, and this all was a glimpse of God's moral standards. But when Christ comes at the plenty of time, when it comes to the New Testment, like says the Author of the book of Hebrews, "when the priesthood is changed, the law must be changed also". You now notice that all violence now is figuratively turn to the self, no more to the other.
You are told not to persecute, but to love the ones that persecute you.
If you suffer for the Name of the Lord, you don't repay, you rejoice.
You don't have to strike others, but to stike yourself (figurativelly, of course).
If someone do you harm, the Lord will give repay (not you in the name of the lord).
If someone blaspheme, you just hand them to Satan, not by killing them, but by simply removing them from communion.
The thing here is: you have no mention in the NT to, personally, do phisical harm to another. This idea is even contrary to the whole premise of the NT teaching. Instead, you have lot of instruction to suffer the harm for love of the other.
External resource
And, finally, here is a great article with a comparision of Violence found in Bible x Violence found in Quran (This article is great dealing even with the Old Testment violence). There, i think, you'll find a solid base to answer your real question.

In fact not. There is no general case in all the scriptures of any such thing. The closest you will find is 1 Samuel 15 1-3, where King Saul is ordered to destroy the Amalekites. But see, this is a specific command given at a specific time with a specific target, given via a well-ordained and uncontested prophet of God. Here the standard of evidence is so high that if God were to order such a thing again he would have to send a prophet again, and seal his words with signs as was done of old.

Even if a prophet were to appear with signs and wonders and give such an order as sampled in the Koran, the counter would be Matthew 28:19 followed by Deuteronomy 13:2. No such order as kill the polytheists can be given because it is the plan of God that all nations shall have the chance to repent.

But Muhammad gave no sign.


Why do churches often have altars? In Judaism, the template had an altar for sacrificing. But we believe our sacrifice is done.

So, what is the point of a church altar?

In Roman Catholic liturgy specifically, the altar is where the Eucharistic Sacrifice is made; i.e., Christ's one sacrifice on Calvary is made present again on the altar at each mass. The altar, in this theology, is still for performing sacrifices.

  "In the New Law the altar is the table on which the Eucharistic Sacrifice is offered. Mass may sometimes be celebrated outside a sacred place, but never without an altar, or at least an altar-stone."

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01346a.htm

As the largest unified body of Christians on the planet, Roman Catholics have a large influence on the terminology we use. Note that as a Protestant I don't agree with this theology, but the term "altar" likely persists in our churches merely as a matter of "stale" terminology used by those who do not know better. Protestant theology (at least all that I'm aware of) does not allow for an "altar." The reason to have an altar is antithetical to the Protestant doctrines regarding regeneration and justification and having something that fulfills the purpose of altar (meaning that it isn't just a matter of stale terminology) is nonsense in Protestant churches.

An altar is not an altar if it hasn't been made as a place for sacrifices, but we can conclude it is still necessary. Notice that Hebrews 13:10 says, 'We have an altar...', and if food were not offered there, it needn't have been said that Levitical priests were barred from eating at it, so to not have one and not offer the required food is to stand apart from the author and from the first Christian Hebrews. Thus we can conclude sacrifices of some sort, including of food, are still necessary.

What really is the antecedent of 'It' in 'It is finished'? One might say the Sacrifice is the Sacrifice to end all sacrifices, but with what basis? Or one might say it is for all time the one Sacrifice for sins, concluding it is the Sacrifice to end all sin-offerings, and no more animals are to be sacrificed.

But other sacrifices have not been abrogated: the grain-offering (Notice, instead of reproving the Jews for the understanding that He required them to eat His flesh and drink His blood, Christ repeated Himself about it even more plainly.) and the drink-offering, so bread and wine are offered, and incense (Malachi 1:11 and Revelation 8:3,4) as well. (Of course it is commonly understood the sacrifice of praise, offering bodies as a living sacrifice, and offering of money continue too.)


What color was Augustine's skin? Ok, let me start by saying I don't think more or less of a person because of the color of their skin. I consider racism to be both misguided and a sin.  But, when I visualize a person, I like to think of them in ways that at least approximate their actual appearance.

I am skimming some works of that greatest of the Patristics - Augustine of Hippo, later the Bishop of Milan (in Italy), but hailing from what is today, Tunisia.  He wrote the City of God and the Confessions - two classics still studied more than 1500 years after their creation.

And, as I consider the young Augustine of Hippo - a region of northern Africa, nowadays near the Algerian / Tunisian border - I have this image of a white guy in my head.

That said, he was from Africa.  And indeed, this seems wholly legitimate as well.

And, then I remember, the Arab Invasions that went alongside the rise of Islam also changed the area as well.

So, it's a simple question - Was Augustine white or black?  Many of the Church Fathers from Alexandria to Carthage would have probably shared this legacy, and I'm just sort of curious - What did they look like?

He's the product of Patricius and St. Monica.
Monica

Augustine's mother's name, Monica, is Berber ... the names Monnica and Nonnica are found on tombstones in the Libyan language - as such Monnica is the only Berber name commonly used in English
From Wikipedia citation of Michael Brett and Elizabeth Fentress, The Berbers, Wiley-Blackwell, 1997, p.71, 293

Patricius
Patricius probably was a Curiale and he was definitely a pagan of the Roman sort, not the tribal African sort.
Conclusion
So, my money is that he looked like his mom, who according to scant evidence was a Berber, like these people:

(source: wikimedia.org)

The Roman Catholic Church teaches that Saint Augustine was from Thagaste in Africa and that Saint Augustine was, by today's racially-charged language, Black.

Saint Augustine confesses in many of his homilies that he was a sexually-charged youth espousing socially deleterious political philosophies before his conversion; what mattered was not skin tone but scholastic achievement and adherence to the then-current, fanciful, anti-Catholic, political philosophies in Rome.  Augustine also was noted for the difference in his skin coloration (Black) by his Roman peers with whom he was openly, fiercely promiscuous and with whom he was strongly part of that day's youthful student intelligentsia.

Augustine's skin color was a problem for some in Europe; the problem was that he did not blend with the hoi polloi in the locale and was even ridiculed and stigmatized for his darker skin by some residents where he studied.  Augustine paid no attention to the ethnocentric racism he experienced as a student during those Roman times because his sexual drive eclipsed the paltry arguments for a comfortable phenotypical blend among the general population.  Augustine's darker skin coloration became a scapegoat problem when authorities discovered that he molested a young girl who later became pregnant with their child.

At this time, his mother, Monica was known to have prayed for twenty years for her son, Augustine, who she loved very much, that he may be converted from his excessive hedonism and his repugnant political philosophies.  As she died, Augustine converted back to Catholicism.  The girl who Augustine molested became a nun; their child became a religious as well.

Augustine refers to himself many times being African with dark skin in his homilies as bishop.  On the current understanding of Augustine, much has been ascertained that Augustine was Black (by the racially-charged vernacular of today).  The term, "Black" is an Anglicized expression of the Portuguese-Spanish term, "Negro."

Moreover, the Roman Catholic Church already had two Black African popes who were later sainted, so understanding that Augustine was "Black" was not hard to fathom as he was from Africa as well.  But for sure, Augustine gave his own accounts, making his own testimony as a primary source, that he was an African with way way darker skin than most European Romans.  As some spinmeisters try to Whitewash Augustine in order to align his stellar philosophies with a European phenotype, Augustine gives first-hand accounts dealing with nebulous racism, again, during his younger, much more wilder, days.  Thagaste today is still "Black".  While not everyone in Africa is "Black," the Muslim conquest in the early centuries circa 7 AD were predominantly at the hands of black West Africans who adopted the Islamic faith and spread it across three African empires.

Bottom line, any argument for Berber-ethnicity may be more European aspirational than actual:  Augustine of Hippo was Black.  God does not see color, so "race" does not matter in Christendom-- only love of God and of neighbor matter as Jesus welcomes the sheep into the home of His Father for their LOVE not their hospitality toward a preferred race.  #AugustineIsBlack


What is life in Heaven going to be like? How is life going to be once you get to Heaven?

ie: What activities are you going to perform every day, for all eternity?

I am interested in responses that are backed up by verses from the Bible, of course.

(question inspired by this video: Why Would Anyone Want To Go To Heaven?)

I'm reminded of the story of two twins inside a mother's womb.  They are discussing what things might be like on the other side of "birth".  One wonders if there really is a "Mom".  Neither can conceive of what life will be like, though, since neither has ever been there.  They've heard that it's a painful trip, but that there's a wonderful world of adventure and excitement beyond their wildest dreams just waiting for them.  After birth, they find that what they were told was, indeed, true.

There are parallels as we discuss what things could be like after "death".  We know it may be a painful trip, and we read of wonderful things on the other side.  Some may wonder if there really is a "God".  However, none of us can really perceive what heaven will be like.

Still, we are told a few things in the Scriptures.

We will reign with Christ (2 Timothy 2:12)
We will have eternal pleasures (Psalm 16:11)
We will have eternal possessions (Matthew 6:19-21)
We will live in perfect communion and relationship with God, no longer separated (1 Thessalonians 4:17)

To be sure, the effects of the Fall will be destroyed as well.

No more death (1 Corinthians 15:26)
No more tears (Revelation 21:4)
No more shame (2 Corinthians 5:1-4)

So, eternal pleasures (beauty and joy), possessions (joint heirs with Christ), prominence (a kingdom of priests, sons and daughters of the King).

Finally, "No eye has seen, no ear has heard, no mind has conceived what God has prepared for those who love him."  1 Corinthians 2:9

We will be in a choir singing praises to God 24 hours per day, 7 days a week, for eternity.

Sound a little boring? Better get used to it.

(To "Buck up and source [my] claims", I point to Don Piper and his book 90 Minutes in Heaven.  Don's been there and back so I have a direct, first-hand, eye-witness source.)


Is the “Dome of the Rock” the “Abomination of Desolation” spoken of by the prophet Daniel? The Abomination of Desolation spoken of in both Matthew and Mark is specifically in reference to “End Time” perspectives.  Are there any Christian teachings that the Dome of the Rock is the “Abomination of Desolation”?

I'm not sure I'd limit the application "abomination of desolation" to a single event/place/thing.  Many scholars believe that the references in the book of Daniel (Dan. 9:27; 11:31; 12:11) refer to the time of Antiochus IV Ephiphanes who made an unclean sacrifice in the Jewish temple (among other terrible things) in the 2nd century BC.

However, in the New Testament (Matt. 24:15; Mk. 13:14) this would be a past event, so would be applied to something else.  If you look at the parallel passage in Luke you'll find something interesting:

  Mk. 13:14 - "So when you see the abomination of desolation spoken by
  Daniel the prophet, standing where it ought not, then let those who
  are in Judea flee to the mountains."

  Lk. 21:20-21 - "But when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then
  know that its desolation is near.  Then let those who are in Judea
  flee to the mountains..."

And then notice Mk. 13:30:

  "Assuredly I say to you, this generation will by no means pass away
  until all these things take place."

So if you take "generation" to mean the people living at that time, then the application here would refer to the time when Jerusalem was surrounded by armies sometime in the first century.  And in fact, we find that the Roman armies did so and destroyed the entire city and temple (70 AD).  The Romans were an abomination that made the city desolate.

Multiple applications seem to make sense because Antiochus IV Epiphanes matches so remarkably well to the descriptions in Daniel, yet Jesus' application had to be different because Antiochus was already past.  They were both abominations of desolation.

Now, as to the "Dome of the Rock" theory.  It is interesting that the Dome of the Rock only exists because the Romans destroyed the temple in 70 AD, so perhaps, in a sense an application of "abomination of desolation" could be made here.

The Scriptures in Daniel and Matthew/Mark/Luke seem to specifically point to the applications I've cited above, but certainly a Jew would view the mosque as "an" abomination of desolation due to its location.

I am glad that least at some of the responders are reading the NT in its "context" and not seeing the gospel proclamations attributed to Jesus through 21st century lenses and interpretations.  Most biblical scholars believe that the only NT writings available at all, before the fall of Jerusalem, were the authentic letters of Paul, between 51 and 64 AD.  Peter and Paul were both gone before the destruction of the second temple.  The first Gospel, Mark, did not appear until the time of the destruction of the second temple.  The majority of the NT writings were not as widely circulated as you might think, at this point.  But, it was the beginnings of the formation of a majority gentile Christian church since Jerusalem, the original center of Christianity, was now gone.   The abomination spoken of by Jesus had to do with Rome and the second destruction of the Jewish temple.  Can you imagine the carnage and the sacrilegious treatment the Romans gave to the temple and holy of holies?  According to Josephus, there weren't enough trees to nail the Jewish rebels to after the first Jewish/Roman war had officially ended.
Anyway, that is my take on the Markian/Daniel passage.


Is there any real significant difference between Protestantism and Catholicism? I know a lot of people who have very strong views against Catholics and was really starting to wonder, just as the title suggests, other than Catholicism having priests, what differences are there?

The question makes the assumption that "Protestantism" is easily defined, and can easily be compared.

"Protestant" simply means "Not Catholic or Orthodox", and could refer to one of hundreds of different denominations, all with subtle and not-so-subtle differences in beliefs.  Some hold doctrine that is similar to Catholic doctrine, and some that is vastly different.

There's a comparison chart of Catholic to Protestant views here, but as I said in the above paragraph, on the Protestant side, there are a wide range of beliefs, and this chart only shows one particular protestant view.  (Glancing at it, it appears to be a Calvinistic point of view.)

An entire book could be written on this subject alone, but some differences include:

In general, Protestant Churches adhere to the concepts of Sola Fide and Sola Scriptura.  These are probably the biggest differentiating beliefs, but even they are not universall held by protestant denominations.
The Catholic Church includes Apocryphal writings as part of their accepted Scripture.  This includes a few extra books to the Bible, and two extra chapters to the Book of Daniel.
The Catholic Church accepts the concept of Purgatory, which is almost universally rejected in protestant denominations.  The same can be said for Transubstantiation, indulgences, prayer to saints, confession to a Priest rather than direct confession to God through prayer, and a host of other teachings.

In general, your question can be answered as "yes, there are some significant differences between Catholicism and Protestantism", but the difference varies based on which Protestant denomination you're referring to.

In answer to user3512 redirected here from Which are the exact differences between catholics and Christians?

I. "I think the whole bible is canon for all of them though, I've also hear that new testament can maybe be considered as a whole canon for Christians."

Not exactly : Catholics entrust particularly the Gospel, within the new testament, as the record of the most probably effectively-spoken words of Jesus (logia, logion). But at the same time, they consider that the Gospel is only understandable in the background of, and in the light of, the whole Word of God, meaning, the whole Bible, where the Old Testament is the context talking in allegory of God finding ways to save the human being, and the New Testament, as the accomplishment of the Salvation by the coming of Jesus. In addition, they also think that Jesus Christ reveals Himself in the traditions which developed in the historical religious uses of the Catholic church history (example the vows of chastity taken by religious) and in the wisdom of cultures all over the world and all over human history.

II. "Christians believe in Christ while Catholics also believe in Virgin Mary and also on saints and adore their figures."

Catholics distinguish between 'latrie' and 'veneration'. Latrie is reserved to the Holy Trinity, while veneration can be given to Holy Mary and the Saints. Meanwhile, the Virgin Mary is considered superior to all the other Saints by Catholics, because she pronounced the "Fiat" (the YES) which answered positively to the desire of God to make her carry His Word in her "flesh", and to "deliver" it to the whole world. Catholics see this "Fiat" as the model of christian life : saying yes to God allows Him to make that that Jesus Christ enter into our "flesh" (the word flesh meaning here all our humanity : spirit, soul, will, everything, like in Dt 6.5), grow inside our humanity, and be "delivered" to the whole creation, making us become cooperators of the Redemption.

III. "Catholics believe in 7 sacraments while Christians do not necessarily believe in them."

As far as I know, the theology of sacraments in Christianity is much marked by how theologians of respective christian denominations addressed historical circumstances. However, each Sacrament has Scriptural bases. The path I know is the catholic one, for five of the seven sacraments : Baptism, Confirmation, Eucharist, Ordination and Reconciliation. For the other ones, you may wait for further answer from other contributors.

Baptism (Mt 28.19), Confirmation (see below), Eucharist ("Do this in memory of me" : Lk 22.19 and 1 Co 11.24) and Ordination (Jn 20.21:23) were historically the four first, based on the Scriptures, as quoted.

However, Baptism and Confirmation were two steps of the same spiritual action, the Gift of New Life : Baptism was concealed through immersion in water, and after that, the Head of the Community imposed hands on the new baptized to confer to him the Gift of the Holy Spirit. For organizational reasons, later, the moment for receiving the hands of the Episcope was delayed and reinforced by more doctrinal training. It became thus the Sacrament of Confirmation, which is the final seal of the Baptism.

Reconciliation (Jn 20.21:23 again), as a Sacrament, and historically, came upon the need for faithful Christians during persecution to welcome again those who  denied Christ by fear of being killed ; later, it became a sacrament, but the forms evolved a lot until the one actually in practice in the Catholic Church.

IV. "Catholics believe in Virgin Mary as a saint with no sins meanwhile Christians do not necessarily believe that."
Catholics believe that the only way for God to enter humanity after the sin of Adam and Eve was to enter through a sinless person. Such a person could not exist without God's special intervention. For the Catholic church, the anticipated benefits of Redemption were applied to the whole being of the Blessed Virgin Mary before Christ came to the world, making her immaculate from her conception (Catechism no 491-492). The christian faithfulness of Mary was therefore to keep being immaculate all her life, especially during the sufferings of her Son Jesus during Passion, meaning, keeping saying Yes to God whatever happens, which is heroic. This is why Catholics consider Mary as sinless. Other Christian denomination do not elaborate such a lot about the place of Mary in God project, and, therefore, do not include any statement about her being sinless or not.

V. "Catholics do believe in the Pope as leader while Christians do not necessarily believe in him."

The question of papacy is considered as Gospel- grounded by Catholics, because of a verse in the Scriptures : Mt 16.18, where Jesus congratulates his disciple Peter for recognizing Him, Jesus, as the Son of God, and decrees that He, Jesus, will build His church on him. Other denominations, especially because of scandals emerging in the guidance of the church by Catholics during medieval age (abuse of power, asking of money for remission of sins (cf. alleged 95 theses of Martin Luther)), re-examine this verse and see it as meaning that the Stone points to Jesus-Christ himself, the Word of God, not to Peter.


Who sent John the Baptist to baptize with water? In the first chapter of the Gospel of John, the following account of John the Baptist's introduction of Jesus is given:

  29 The next day he saw Jesus coming toward him, and said, “Behold, the
  Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world! 30 This is he of
  whom I said, ‘After me comes a man who ranks before me, because he was
  before me.’ 31 I myself did not know him, but for this purpose I came
  baptizing with water, that he might be revealed to Israel.” 32 And
  John bore witness: “I saw the Spirit descend from heaven like a dove,
  and it remained on him. 33 I myself did not know him, but he who sent
  me to baptize with water said to me, ‘He on whom you see the Spirit
  descend and remain, this is he who baptizes with the Holy Spirit.’ 34
  And I have seen and have borne witness that this is the Son of God.”  John 1:29-34

John specifically states that the one who sent him to baptize with water was the one who informed him that he would be able to recognize the one for whom he himself was the predecessor.  The indicator would be that John would see the Spirit come down and remain on him.

So, my question is, "Who was it that sent John to baptize with water and who told him how he would be able to recognize Jesus?"  Is there anything in church tradition or elsewhere in the Bible that informs us who this was?  An angel?  God Himself?  Another prophet?

When the angel came to Zechariah to announce the birth of John, he said that the child would be "filled with the Holy Spirit, even from his mother's womb. (Lk 1:15)" Also, Jesus said of John that "all the Prophets and the Law prophesied until John. (Mt 11:13)" It seems most reasonable to view him as a prophet like those of the OT, that he was commissioned and sent directly by God, and that he received inspiration and revelation directly from God.

Remember John is Jesus's earthly cousin. When Mary went to visit Elisabeth Luke 1:39 it mentions that John leaped in the womb at the sound of Marys voice so basically that was the first sign John was no ordinary man he was of the Heavenly relm.. It also states in Luke Elisabeth found out she would be with child by an Angel as well..so basically what I get from this is Jesus said the only way is to be reborn again through baptism, so in order for Jesus to for fill that God needed to send someone to Baptise Jesus so that way Gods plan can go into play...God is good God knew he would send Jesus thousands of years before he actually did... Jesus is of the same blood line as King David,Noah,Adam even Abraham Matthew 1:2-16


Did Christ consort with mystics? In the time of Christ, were there mystics, Jewish or otherwise, with whom Christ consorted before or during the time of His ministry?

By "mystics" is meant those comparable to Sufi mystics, who seek hidden spiritual truths by various means, and not those who perform acts the results of which are unexplained by temporal science ("magicians".)

In John 2 (NIV), it says:

  23 Now while he was in Jerusalem at the Passover Festival, many people
  saw the signs he was performing and believed in his name. 24 But
  Jesus would not entrust himself to them, for he knew all people. 25 He
  did not need any testimony about mankind, for he knew what was in each
  person.

In the KJV, it says:

  23 Now when he was in Jerusalem at the passover, in the feast day,
  many believed in his name, when they saw the miracles which he did.

  24 But Jesus did not commit himself unto them, because he knew all
  men,

  25 And needed not that any should testify of man: for he knew what was
  in man.

While this does not say outright that Jesus did not consort with mystics, it attacks the very basis of the mystical approach to knowledge.

In the Socratic method of the Greeks, a teacher would ask questions and the pupils would answer them and the process would lead them to truth. Jesus needed no such dialogue to establish or explore truth. He did not need a school of researchers to perform experiments and write papers that he could attach his name to. All truth originated within Jesus.

Let no one be found among you who sacrifices his son or daughter in the fire, who practices divination or sorcery, interprets omens, engages in witchcraft,
  or casts spells, or who is a medium or spiritist or who consults the dead.
  Anyone who does these things is detestable to the LORD, and because of these detestable practices the LORD your God will drive out those nations before you.

  Deuteronomy 18:10-12

Mystics who hold to special secrets of knowledge in God, was not Jesus's way.  He declared His truth was able to be seen by those given the ability by God.

  Simon Peter answered, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God." Jesus replied, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven."
  Matthew 16:16-17

Jesus is the light bringing life and sight to the world.  Any mystics would either acknowledge this truth or be condemned as liars.  There is little point therefore to record or even partake in conversations between Jesus and such people who hold the secrets of spiritual knowledge which Jesus would simply stand against.

  "I am the light of the world. Whoever follows me will never walk in darkness, but will have the light of life."

  John 8:12


According to Catholic teaching, does sin disfigure? According to Catholic teaching perhaps with support from scripture, does sin disfigure/deform the sinner?

And does such a disfiguration affect both body and soul? Is so, in what way?

Catechism of the Catholic Church

The Image of God

  1701 "Christ, . . . in the very revelation of the mystery of the
  Father and of his love, makes man fully manifest to himself and brings
  to light his exalted vocation." It is in Christ, "the image of the
  invisible God," that man has been created "in the image and likeness"
  of the Creator. It is in Christ, Redeemer and Savior, that the divine
  image, disfigured in man by the first sin, has been restored to its
  original beauty and ennobled by the grace of God.

The emphasis in this passage is mine. The catechism says that the divine image in man is disfigured by original sin. Although the catechism is, at this point, talking about the soul, it does not make a direct connection between 'divine image' and 'soul'. At least, there is not suggestion that the disfigurement said to be caused by original sin affects a person's physical beauty. Elsewhere, it is said that original sin disfigures the soul.

Catechism of the Catholic Church

God's Spirit and Word in the Time of the Promises

  705 Disfigured by sin and death, man remains "in the image of God," in
  the image of the Son, but is deprived "of the glory of God,"66 of his
  "likeness." the promise made to Abraham inaugurates the economy of
  salvation, at the culmination of which the Son himself will assume
  that "image"67 and restore it in the Father's "likeness" by giving it
  again its Glory, the Spirit who is "the giver of life."

Once again, the emphasis in this passage is mine. Here we see that man is disfigured by sin, which presumably includes original sin, but is not restricted to it. This disfigurement is equivalent to the disfigurement of death, which is purely physical; in fact the good surely are not disfigured in the soul when they die. Here the disfigurement of sin does not affect the "image of God" in which man remains - but surely the "image of God" is an identical term to "divine image." We seem to have a different theological view here, but presumably there is an explanation.

Regarding the effect of sin on the body, St. Thomas Aquinas writes in his question "Whether death and other bodily defects are the result of sin?":

  By reason of itself, one thing is the cause of another, if it produces its effect by reason of the power of its nature or form, the result being that the effect is directly intended by the cause. Consequently, as death and such like defects are beside the intention of the sinner, it is evident that sin is not, of itself, the cause of these defects.

And regarding the stain on the soul of sin:

  A stain is properly ascribed to corporeal things, when a comely body loses its comeliness through contact with another body, e.g. a garment, gold or silver, or the like. Accordingly a stain is ascribed to spiritual things in like manner. Now man's soul has a twofold comeliness; one from the refulgence of the natural light of reason, whereby he is directed in his actions; the other, from the refulgence of the Divine light, viz. of wisdom and grace, whereby man is also perfected for the purpose of doing good and fitting actions. Now, when the soul cleaves to things by love, there is a kind of contact in the soul: and when man sins, he cleaves to certain things, against the light of reason and of the Divine law, as shown above (Question [71], Article [6]). Wherefore the loss of comeliness occasioned by this contact, is metaphorically called a stain on the soul.


Were any prophets sent to the Canaanites before Jewish immigration? Were any prophets sent to the Canaanites before Jewish immigration? I seem to recall there was a verse stating there were not, but I wasn't able to find it.

Are there any verses in support of or opposition to the premise, "All Gentile nations received prophets pre-Christ, especially those peoples living in the promised land"?

I would be most interested in whether any prophets were sent to the Canaanites before the Jews arrived in the Holy Land. But if there is any evidence of prophets being sent to them before the Incarnation, I would be interested to know that as well.

Were any prophets sent to the Canaanites before Jewish immigration?

Yes* - Abraham was a prophet (cf. Genesis 20:7) and was sent to dwell in Canaan as a "sojourner"; ie, to be present as a witness to the living God among the people there (cf. Hebrews 11:8-16). His son Isaac and grandson Jacob were inheritors of "the same promise" and likewise fulfilled this role.
*Assuming by "Jewish immigration" you mean the conquest of Canaan under Joshua.

The only Jews the entered Canaan before the main body of the Israelites where the Twelve Spies mentioned in the Book of Numbers.

  "And the people marched from Haseroth, and pitched their tents in the desert of Pharan. And there the Lord spoke to Moses, saying. Send men to view the land of Chanaan, which I will give to the children of Israel, one of every tribe, of the rulers." Numbers 13:18-21, DRB

Moses gave the following commands to the spies:

  "Go you up by the south side. And when you shall come to the mountains, View the land, of what sort it is, and the people that are the inhabitants thereof, whether they be strong or weak: few in number or many: The land itself, whether it be good or bad: what manner of cities, walled or without walls: The ground, fat or barren, woody or without trees. Be of good courage, and bring us of the fruits of the land. Now it was the time when the firstripe grapes are fit to be eaten." Numbers 13:1-3, DRB

After 40 days, the Twelve Spies returned with a large bunch of grapes. Of the twelve, only two had good things to say about the Promised Land. Those two men, Caleb and Josue, would later become leaders of the Jewish people. The other ten spies did not have good things about the Promised Land. Because of the lies of the ten, the Israelites murmured against God. In response, God cursed them to wander in the wilderness for 40 years.

  "Your children shall wander in the desert forty years, and shall bear your fornication, until the carcasses of their fathers be consumed in the desert, According to the number of the forty days, wherein you viewed the land: a year shall be counted for a day. And forty years you shall receive your iniquities, and shall know my revenge: For as I have spoken, so will I do to all this wicked multitude, that hath risen up together against me: in this wilderness shall it faint away and die." Numbers 14:33-35, DRB

After 40 years, the Israelites were finally allowed to enter the Promised Land.


Why did God create a new covenant? Why did God create a new covenant?  It seems as if he had a covenant set in place in the Old Testament and provided a means for Israel to follow the covenant and offer sacrifices to atone for their sins.  Why did he create a new covenant in the New Testament which is the basis of Christianity?  Did mankind or God change in a way that a new covenant needed to be set up?

If God had created Christianity first, people would not have known their need for a Saviour. "What do we need to be saved from?
So God first sets up a do-it-yourself religion; by which I mean that if the Jews followed all the laws they could save themselves earning their right to heaven.
That didn't work. Worse, some people became more interested in the laws than the purpose of the laws:

Matthew 23:23-24
“Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You give a tenth of your spices—mint, dill and cummin. But you have neglected the more important matters of the law—justice, mercy and faithfulness. You should have practiced the latter, without neglecting the former.
You blind guides! You strain out a gnat but swallow a camel.

See also: a brief summary of how salvation works.
But now people could at least compare their standards to God's and realise the gap between themselves and God:

Romans 3:23
for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God

If you want to read more about this, the book of Hebrews explains more about how Judaism (and particularly the law) was a shadow of the forthcoming revelation. For example, the animal sacrifices in Judaism teach us that a sacrifice is required for the forgiveness of sins. This is how we can understand passages like this:

Hebrews 9:23-28
It was necessary, then, for the copies of the heavenly things to be purified with these sacrifices, but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these. For Christ did not enter a sanctuary made with human hands that was only a copy of the true one; he entered heaven itself, now to appear for us in God’s presence.
Nor did he enter heaven to offer himself again and again, the way the high priest enters the Most Holy Place every year with blood that is not his own. Otherwise Christ would have had to suffer many times since the creation of the world. But he has appeared once for all at the culmination of the ages to do away with sin by the sacrifice of himself. Just as people are destined to die once, and after that to face judgment, so Christ was sacrificed once to take away the sins of many; and he will appear a second time, not to bear sin, but to bring salvation to those who are waiting for him.

a_hardin

God and His Son, Jesus started this whole Plan for man Their way. No permission or changes needed from man. So if we think none of the steps They decided  were not need ,refresh your memory God is the Creator of all things.

In Jeremiah 3:8,Jeremiah 31:31-34, Ezekiel 36:22-27, Jesus and the Apostles go to the Gentile to provoke Israel, because they left their First Love and went a whoring. This is  the Christianity Jesus set By the Apostles on Pentecost for the Gentiles  to open Israel"s eyes n ears.(they heard the apostles talk in may tongues, their language, Gentile languages).

The OT was changed by Jesus death and the NT was set up .Therefore The OT was reestablish, not abolished.

There is a Church the Believers on Jesus who follow Him and serve Him .You cannot change the Word it is sanctified,preserved and anointed by God Himself. It has made it through ant-Semitic, anti-Christ and just plain evil doers who try to  to destroy it's meaning and values. Don't ever believe anyone's commentary on Gods meaning and instruction of His Word. Search for yourself you have free will, thinking ,also decision making and path for your own eternal life.


How old was Moses when he parted the Red Sea and how old was he when he wrote the ten commandments I'm trying to write a timeline of Moses's greatest achievements and this is all I haven't found so far. If you know what the two ages of Moses are in relation to these two events, please let me know, that would be great!

According to the Bible, in Exodus 7:7 it states:

  And Moses was eighty years old and Aaron eighty-three years old when
  they spoke to Pharaoh.

Therefore, Moses was at least 80 years old at the red Sea and at Sinai when he received the 10 Commandments from the LORD. To be a bit more specific, it took about 2 months to reach Sinai, but they spent 2 years at Sinai according to Numbers 10:11:

  Now it came to pass on the twentieth day of the second month, in the
  second year, that the cloud was taken up from above the tabernacle of
  the Testimony.

So Moses was 80 or 81 years of age when he reached Sinai and 82 to 83 years of age when they left.

Although it is now widely accepted by scholars that Moses does not exist, I will take the question to mean:

  How old was Moses, according to the Bible, when he parted the red sea (or reed sea), and how old was he when he wrote the ten commandments?

An important point, is that Moses did not write the ten commandments, according to the Bible. God wrote it by Himself.

According to the Bible, when he was 80 years old, he started leading the Israelites out of Egypt, parting the red sea, also receiving the ten commandments.

However, the 80 is an approximation (his life is divided into three stages of 40 years), so you can just take it as around 80.

From http://www.gotquestions.org/life-Moses.html:

  Moses’ life is generally broken down into three 40-year periods. The first is his life in the court of pharaoh. As the adopted son of pharaoh’s daughter, Moses would have had all the perks and privileges of a prince of Egypt. [...] [T]the next chapter in Moses’ life, [is] his 40 years in the land of Midian. During this time, Moses learned the simple life of a shepherd, a husband, and a father. [...] [T]he Bible doesn’t spend a lot of time on the details of this part of Moses’ life[.] [...] The third and final chapter in Moses’ life is the chapter that Scripture spends the most time chronicling, namely, his role in the redemption of Israel.


Are there any known non-trinitarian apologists in the Anglican communion? I understand that the Anglican Church is trinitarian in belief. However, are there any known non-trinitarian apologists in the communion?

Any information both historical and present-day would be helpful for my studies.

The Anglican church in many places is extremely lax in disciplining or evicting those with heretical beliefs. Historical Anglicanism had no capacity for non-Trinitarianism, and even though the foundational documents of the Prayer Book and the 39 Articles are accepted to varying extents in various provinces, one of the foundations of the Anglican Communion called the Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral still affirms the ecumenical Trinitarian creeds. The sad reality is that many ministers and bishops have been allowed to keep their positions despite publicly teaching things which directly contract the creeds, the 39 Articles, and the Bible.

The most famous Anglican heretic is retired bishop John Shelby Spong, who rejects theism, the trinity, the virgin birth, miracles, prayer, and resurrection.

A 2014 YouGov survey of more than 1500 Anglican clergy in the UK found that 2% think God "is no more than a human construct." An earlier survey from 2002 of almost 2000 clergy found that more than 75% of Church of England clergy overall accept the Trinity, with the implication that more than 20% do not accept it in some way.

I am going to answer this not as an academic, but as a lifelong Episcopalian.  In the 1928 Book of Common Prayer, the final document is the Articles of Religion, also known as the Thirty Nine Articles.  These are commonly attributed to Archbishop Thomas Cranmer.  The First Article reads as follows:

Of Faith in the Holy Trinity

  There is but one living and true God, everlasting, without body, parts, or passions; of infinite power, wisdom, and goodness; the Maker, and Preserver of all things both visible and invisible.  And in unity of this Godhead there be three Persons, of one substance, power, and eternity; the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost.

Even though Anglicanism is non-authoritarian compared to Roman Catholicism, this is a pretty non-negotiable statement.  So even if some contemporary pastors in the Anglican Communion purport to be non-Trinitarian in belief, at least according the the original standards, the Anglican Church is decidedly Trinitarian.

So if these non-Trinitarian "apologists" you ask about claim to be Anglican, can they really be considered Anglican apologists?  It's a little like asking if there are any non-Papist apologists in the Roman Catholic Church, especially when the first attribute listed to Anglicanism in the Thirty Nine Articles is a belief in the Trinity.

The fact that such a question can be taken seriously perhaps is an indication of the direction the Anglican Church has taken in departing from its founding ideas.


Are we born sinners? We can be quite certain that God didn't originally create us as sinners. Rather Adam and Eve chose sin in the Fall.

The doctrine of original sin is widely held in Christian churches, but those opposing it are not a small minority, either. As original sin means that we inherit our sinfulness from the Fall, I think it might be equivalent to the question asked here: Are we born sinners?

Please provide at least the biblical evidence for an answer -- non-biblical arguments are, of course, welcome as additional information. Also, I might be wrong, and some believers in original sin might not think we're born sinners. If these notions are actually separate, please elaborate in the answers.

Since I had to find relevant Bible verses for another purpose, I'll answer my own question with them. I still expect someone to write a more full answer. This interpretation/selection of passages is close to the Lutheran view.

David does seem to state that we're born sinners:

  Psalm 51:5 (ESV)
  Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity,
  and in sin did my mother conceive me.

Paul also writes to the Romans, saying that "one trespass led to condemnation for all men"

  Romans 5:12-13,18 (ESV)
  12 Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned— 13 for sin indeed was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not counted where there is no law.

  18 Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men.

He also makes a similar statement when writing to the Corinthians:

  1 Corinthians 15:22 (ESV)
  For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive.

The Bible does seem to say that we indeed are sinful from birth because of the Fall of Man.

We are not born sinners. Think about it, if we were, then Christ would have been a sinner and therefore the entire story would collapse.

  1 John 3:4 Everyone who sins breaks the law; in fact, sin is lawlessness.

You do not break any of God's laws by merely being born, as by his design, nor by being in existence, as per his design.

  ISAIAH 7:16 (KJV) For before the child shall know to refuse the evil, and choose the good, the land that thou abhorrest shall be forsaken of both her kings.

We see that every child has the option to Obey or Disobey God in Isaiah.

  Matthew 18:1-4:

  At that time the disciples came to Jesus and asked, “Who is the
  greatest in the kingdom of heaven?”

  He called a little child and had him stand among them. And he said: “I
  tell you the truth, unless you change and become like little children,
  you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. Therefore, whoever humbles
  himself like this child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven.

We see Jesus telling us to be like the children. If the Children were sinners, Jesus would not have likely condoned their activity.


Is rape condoned in the Bible? If so, why? Rape is not a judgment that's commanded upon those that violate the law, whether in the new testament or the old. So why does God choose to use rape as a means of judgement?

In america we have a bill of rights that prevents cruelty to criminals. We feel that this is a moral thing to do, why does God not have moral standards that would prevent him from using rape as a means of judgement?

Why is rape condoned in the Bible?

  Isaiah 13:15-18 (NIV)

  15 Whoever is captured will be thrust through;     all who are caught
  will fall by the sword.  16 Their infants will be dashed to pieces
  before their eyes;     their houses will be looted and their wives
  violated.

  17 See, I will stir up against them the Medes,     who do not care
  for silver     and have no delight in gold.  18 Their bows will strike
  down the young men;     they will have no mercy on infants,     nor
  will they look with compassion on children.

  Zechariah 14:1-2

  1 A day of the LORD is coming, Jerusalem, when your possessions will
  be plundered and divided up within your very walls.  2 I will gather
  all the nations to Jerusalem to fight against it; the city will be
  captured, the houses ransacked, and the women raped. Half of the city
  will go into exile, but the rest of the people will not be taken from
  the city.

  2 Samuel 12:11 (NIV)

  11 “This is what the LORD says: ‘Out of your own household I am going
  to bring calamity on you. Before your very eyes I will take your wives
  and give them to one who is close to you, and he will sleep with your
  wives in broad daylight.

Please feel free to target any of the suggested rape events that are listed here. http://www.evilbible.com/Rape.htm

God does not condone rape in the Bible.  This is a commonly raised objection to Christianity that's been answered ad-nauseum on apologetics websites, such as this one:

http://www.rationalchristianity.net/numbers31.html

Quote from the linked post:
Weren't the virgin women raped?

  There are two parts to this objection: did God instruct or permit the
  soldiers to rape the women, and did the soldiers actually rape them?

  It's clear that God didn't intend for the soldiers to rape the women,
  but rather to take them captive. The law God had given to the
  Israelites condemned rape, in some cases punishing it with death (Dt
  22:25-27). Also, immediately following the command to spare the virgin
  women, the soldiers were instructed to purify themselves and their
  captives (31:19), and rape (or consensual intercourse) would have
  violated this command (Lev 15:16-18). In the rest of the chapter, the
  women are usually referred to as people (using the masculine adam),
  not women or virgins, underscoring the notion that they were seen as
  captives rather than sexual objects.1

  It's theoretically possible that some of the soldiers raped the women,
  but given the circumstances it seems very unlikely. The soldiers would
  have known that rape was a violation of both the law and the
  instruction to purify themselves, as shown above; they had also seen
  God punish such violations with death during their travels in the
  desert. In fact, they had recently experienced a plague and executions
  resulting from their relations with Midianite women (25:1-9), as Moses
  reminded them. At that time, all those who had sexual relations with
  the Midianites were killed. It's highly implausible that the soldiers
  would have wanted to have anything to do with the Midianite women
  given this context.

  So what did happen to the women (and children)? God gave the
  Israelites permission to marry women they took captive, but they were
  to treat their wives with respect: the women were to have time to
  mourn their families first, and were not to be mistreated (Dt
  21:10-14). Those who didn't marry would have become servants, but
  there were rules against mistreating them as well (Ex 21:26-27, Dt
  23:15-16). See the article on slavery laws for more on the treatment
  of female slaves.

As with most commonly cited objections to Christianity, the idea that God condones rape is based on a mis-reading of scripture (intentional or unintentional), and taking verses out of context.

Edited to address the changes to the question since I originally answered.

The verses that are there now are not condoning rape, they are warning that this is what is to come.

If I were to say "If you spend more than you earn you're going to go into debt and will suffer financially" I'm not condoning going into debt, I'm warning you.

You'd have to be intentionally mis-reading the verses posted to interpret them as "condoning" rape.

Im a Christian, and I know God is a God of unspeakable wrath. Did anyone consider those women may not have wanted to marry their violators? If a woman today is raped, she is not going to marry her raper. So its clear to me that these women were under Gods wrath. read
Isaiah 13:12-17

  12 I will make a man more precious than fine gold, even a man than the golden wedge of Ophir.
  13 Therefore I will shake the heavens, and the earth shall remove out of her place, in the wrath of the Lord of hosts and in the day of His fierce anger.
  14 And it shall be as the chased roe, and as a sheep that no man taketh up; they shall every man turn to his own people, and flee every one into his own land.
  15 Every one that is found shall be thrust through; and every one that is joined unto them shall fall by the sword.
  16 Their children also shall be dashed to pieces before their eyes; their houses shall be despoiled and their WIVES RAVISHED.
  17 “Behold, I will stir up the Medes against them, who shall not regard silver; and as for gold, they shall not delight in it.

  Zechariah 14:1-3
  14 Behold, the day of the Lord cometh, and thy spoil shall be divided in the midst of thee.
  2 FOR I WILL gather all nations against Jerusalem to battle; and the city shall be taken, and the houses rifled, and the WOMEN RAVISHED. And half of the city shall go forth into captivity, and the residue of the people shall not be cut off from the city.
  3 Then shall the Lord go forth and fight against those nations, as when He fought in the day of battle.

Clearly Rape is a tool of Gods wrath, he will destroy his enemies and his enemies wives.
Then in the end cast them in the lake of fire for their trouble.
Look God is not a lovy-dovy, he is a GOD OF UNSPEAKBLE CRULE WRATH against those who don't know Christ. People say God loves the Sinnner but hates the Sin, that's is a lie.

  Psalm 5:4-6
  4 For Thou art not a God that hath pleasure in wickedness; neither shall evil dwell with Thee.
  5 The foolish shall not stand in Thy sight; Thou HATEST all workers of iniquity. (Side note: Not only their deeds, them)
  6 Thou shalt destroy them that speak lies; the Lord will abhor the bloody and deceitful man.

God has a perfect hatred, if one repents God embraces that person and loves them. all the sins of the past are forgotten.

  Malachi 1:2-4
  2 “I have loved you,” saith the Lord. “Yet ye say, ‘Wherein hast Thou loved us?’ Was not Esau Jacob’s brother?” saith the Lord. “Yet I loved Jacob,
  3 and I hated Esau, and laid his mountains and his heritage waste for the dragons of the wilderness.”
  4 Whereas Edom saith, “We are impoverished, but we will return and rebuild the desolate places,” thus saith the Lord of Hosts: “They shall build, but I will throw down; and they shall call them the Border of Wickedness and the people against whom the Lord hath indignation forever.

Don't say that God was just saying Esau lost his inheritance, because the following sentence is clear, God laid his land waist.
God has no pleasure in the destruction of the wicked of course that's true, because he commands them to repent.. that's not a request, not a choice, do it or else.

  Romans 5:7-9
  7 For scarcely will one die for a righteous man, yet perhaps for a good man some would even dare to die.
  8 But God commendeth His love toward us in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.
  9 Much more then, being now justified by His blood, we shall be saved from wrath through Him.

God made a way to escape his wrath, God sent Christ, then it pleased God to Smite him.

  Romans 11:20-22
  20 Thou sayest well! Because of unbelief they were broken off, and thou standest by faith. Be not highminded, but fear;
  21 for if God spared not the natural branches, take heed lest He also spare not thee.
  22 Behold therefore the goodness and severity of God: on those who fell, severity; but toward thee, goodness, if thou continue in His goodness. Otherwise, thou also shalt be cut off.

  Romans 8:31-33
  31 What then shall we say of these things? If God be for us, who can be against us?
  32 He that spared not His own Son, but delivered Him up for us all, how shall He not with Him also freely give us all things?
  33 Who shall lay anything to the charge against God’s elect? It is God who justifieth.


What is the origin of the Covenant of Grace? In Covenant Theology the Covenant of Grace refers to an overarching theological covenant which God made on the basis of grace. The various Biblical covenants such as Abraham's, the Mosaic/Deuteronomic, and David's are considered to be expressions, administrations, or even (ironically) dispensations of the single original Covenant of Grace. The Covenant of Grace is timeless, an eternal agreement that God will graciously save his people, on the basis of which God made other specific covenants like Abraham's etc.

Who first developed this concept of the Covenant of Grace?
Were the other two metacovenants of Covenant Theology, the Covenants of Redemption and Works, developed at the same time?
Are there any substantial differences from how the Covenant of Grace was first conceptualised compared to how it is understood now?

Who first developed this concept of a covenant of grace?

Much like the doctrine of the trinity, to proponents of the doctrine, the answer is, "It comes from the Bible." But obviously the actual historical development and refinement of definitions is less straight-forward than that. But do keep in mind that to those explicating covenant theology, all they're doing is teaching what's in Scripture.

It's hard to pin down exactly who was first. Heinrich Bullinger, Huldrych Zwingli, and Johannes Oecolampadius all wrote letters and delivered sermons in the 1520s about the covenant of grace. They are difficult to date with precision. In the case of Oecolampadius, he was teaching the covenant of grace as an "outworking" of the covenant of redemption (though he does not explicitly name it) in 1521.

Reformed theologians contend that Martin Luther's law/gospel distinction, first developed around 1525, is just another way of speaking of the covenant of works and covenant of grace.

From what I can tell, the two most commonly cited as the originator of the covenant of grace are Bullinger and Oecolampadius. In my non-scholarly opinion, I'd give the edge to Oecolampadius.

Were the other two metacovenants developed at the same time?

Roughly. The ideas are implicitly there (even as early as 1521, as I mentioned above). The covenant of grace assumes a covenant of works (or else, what is there to be gracious about) and also a covenant of redemption (or else God was blindsided by humanity's fallenness and made the decision to intervene temporally rather than eternally). But it took some decades before all three ideas were talked about simultaneously, as part of a "package deal." The order seems to be that first the reformers were eager to talk about grace (often "using the covenant of grace as a summary of biblical theology"), then started discussing the covenant of works as a "creation covenant," then developed the doctrine of the covenant of redemption to round it out.

Zacharius Ursinus, one of the authors of the Heidelberg Catechism, is credited as one of the originators of the idea of the covenant of works in the 1560s. Johannes Cocceius is credited as an originator of the covenant of redemption around the same time. Coeccius, Ursinus, and Herman Witsius wrote systematic theologies in the latter half of the 17th century organized around the three covenants.

Are there differences from how the Covenant of Grace was first conceptualised and how it is understood now?

No substantial differences I'm aware of. Though I haven't read the primary sources pre-1700, I've never read any indications that it underwent significant changes through the years.

Sources

I consulted these works to write this post:

Covenant theology - Wikipedia article
A Brief History of Covenant Theology - a 2001 Westminster Seminary at California lecture by R. Scott Clark
The History of Covenant Theology - a 2006 Table Talk magazine article by R. Scott Clark and an abridgement of the lecture above (don't be fooled by the titles, this is the brief one)
Henry Bullinger and the Covenant of Grace - a 2005 article by George M. Ella, published by Martin Bucer Seminary

The History of Covenant Theology by R. Scott Clark says

Until recently, it was widely held that covenant theology was created in the middle of the seventeenth century by theologians such as Johannes Cocceius (1609–1669). In fact, covenant theology is nothing more or less than the theology of the Bible. It is also the theology of the Reformed confessions. In the history of theology, the elements of what we know as covenant theology; the covenant of redemption before time between the persons of the Trinity, the covenant of works with Adam, and the covenant of grace after the fall; have existed since the early church.
Indeed, Reformed readers who turn to the early church fathers (c. 100–500 AD) might be surprised to see how frequently they used language and thought patterns that we find very familiar. The covenant theology of the fathers stressed the unity of the covenant of grace, the superiority of the new covenant over the old (Mosaic) covenant, and that, because Jesus is the true seed of Abraham, all Christians, whether Jewish or Gentile, are Abraham’s children. They also stressed the moral obligations of membership in the covenant of grace.
The covenant theology of the medieval church (c. 500–1500 ad) was related to that of the early fathers but distinct in certain ways. In response to the criticism that Christianity gave rise to immorality, the early church tended to speak about the history of redemption as the story of two laws, the old (Moses) and the new (Christ). They tended to speak of grace as the power to keep the law in order to be justified.
According to Ursinus, in his obedience for the elect, Christ fulfilled the covenant of works and bore their punishment. On this basis God made a covenant of grace with sinners. The message of the covenant of grace is the Gospel of undeserved favor for sinners.
This was the focus of Caspar Olevianus influential book, On the Substance of the Covenant of Grace Between God and the Elect (1585). He taught that the covenant of grace can be considered in a broader and narrower sense. In the narrower sense, the covenant can be said to have been made only with the elect. It is the elect who are united to Christ by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone, who receive the benefits of the covenant, strictly speaking.


Are there Christians who believe Jesus was an ideology and not a person? Is there a denomination or Christian religion that believes that Jesus Christ was just an idea or way of thinking and that the apostles must have personalized him for the people to understand it easier? If so, what is their biblical basis for rejecting the historical personhood of Jesus? I'm not asking on the historicity of Christ.

For example:

  Mark 6:45-56 Shortly before dawn he went out to them, walking on the lake. He was about to pass by them, but when they saw him walking on the lake, they thought he was a ghost.

He was about to pass by them? It doesn't make sense. It would make sense if he was going towards them. This is something that could be taken as a metaphor from the Old testament. Title for God, the one who walks on water. Job 9:8, Psalms 76:19, LXX]

Further arguments would be that the whole life of Christ could be summed up into something that the first Christians started to believe. That is was their new way of thinking and that surrounding Jews tried to kill this new way of thinking but in 3 days it rose again.

There certainly are people and movements who believe that, in several variations. The most significant ones are typified by the book The Pagan Christ, by Tom Harpur, a former Anglican priest. In the book he claims to identify many similarities between the stories of Jesus and ancient myths, especially Egyptian ones, and concludes that the early church leaders fabricated a literal and human Jesus based on those myths. Harpur based his work largely on that of Alvin Boyd Kuhn, who was in turn influenced by Gerald Massey.

The ideas of Harpur and his predecessors has garnered a lot of attention, much of it from people more anxious to disprove Christianity than to find the 'true version' of it. However, there are very few who would follow his teachings as an ideology, and even fewer who do so would call themselves Christian. The ideas of this movement have been widely criticised (most would say 'refuted') not just by Christian theologians, but also by Egyptologists and other students of ancient religions.

There are no denominations of Christians who believe the above statement. There are denominations of people calling themselves Christian, some of whom believe according to the above statement, in an 'ideology of Jesus, the Bible and God', but not in the factual side of the same. The operative word here is 'calling themselves' possibly by the name Christian, but most likely they may say they may say they are church goers instead. They would not be called Christian by believing others, but instead, they would be called apostasized or liberal, and would not fit in the bible definition of Christian.

The United Church, for example, includes practicing ordained pastors, some of whom are athiests*, who say they believe the Bible is a story book* full of morals, but few facts. These people have an ideology of Jesus and what is contained in the Bible, but deny that it is factual.

http://www.ucobserver.org/features/2013/10/beyond_belief/

These people would not call themselves Christians exactly either, ie. the pastor who does not believe calls herself an atheist, and those without saving belief in Christ, and without adherence to the new birth, would not pass the litmus test of who a Christian is scripturally either. Other 'signs' of Christian believers are listed in the
Bible as well, ie 'these signs will follow those who believe,' and anyone who does not believe cannot produce these signs, not being connected to the head, therefore their lives produce telltale signs that they are not Christian, even if they call themselves Jesus himself it would still prove to be not true by no signs following.