Who is the object of the New Covenant and what are it's terms? I've asked this question to several people over the years, only professing Christians and particularly those who tout them selves as 'New Testament Christians'. And this is an important question as Mathew 26:28 tells us that this is the Covenant offered in Christs very own blood: Mat 26:28 For this is my blood of the New Covenant (testament), which is shed for many for the remission of sins.

Any one with apt comprehension can identify the parties to this Covenant as quoted in Hebrews 8 and Jeramiah 31, yet even more so for some one with legal background such as a contract lawyer the party and terms here specified are clad tight:

  Jer 31:31  Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:
  Jer 31:32  Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the LORD:
  Jer 31:33  But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.
  Jer 31:34  And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.

  Jer 31:35  Thus saith the LORD, which giveth the sun for a light by day, and the ordinances of the moon and of the stars for a light by night, which divideth the sea when the waves thereof roar; The LORD of hosts is his name:
  Jer 31:36  If those ordinances depart from before me, saith the LORD, then the seed of Israel also shall cease from being a nation before me for ever.

Now this is repeated in Hebrews 8, as I had said. By expository bible study and exegeting this text to understand what Christ is affecting in his blood what do you all arrive at for the what, who, why, and how?

1. The Covenants of Men
When an agreement was reached about wages of a penny a day, Matthew 20:13, the word used is συμθονεο, sumphoneo (sun, together, and phoneo to speak strongly). The same word is used when two agree together on earth about any matter, Matthew 18:19. Another, stronger word is used when the Jews agreed together, in council, to cast believers out of the synagogue, John 9:22, or to conspire against Paul and to murder him, Acts 23:20 - συντιτηεμι suntithemi (sun, together and tithemi, to lay down or establish). Yet another word is used when the Jews 'covenanted' with Judas for thirty pieces of silver to betray Jesus - 'ιστεμι, histemi (stand, set up, establish).
These are all agreements among men where parties negotiate and bargain and come to a conclusion.
None of these words are used, by the Holy Spirit's inspiration, in matters of the New Testament.
2. The New Testament
Instead, the word διαθεκε diatheke (dia through and theke, a secure containment) is used thirty three times in the Greek scriptures. Tyndale, in his 1534 New Testament, translated this word by 'testament' thirty one of those times. The KJV translators have chosen, unusually, not to conform to Tyndale on this particular matter and have only called it 'testament' twelve times.
The word διαθεκε diatheke is defined for us in Hebrews 9:16 and 9:17 where the writer says :

For where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator.
For a testament is of force after men are dead: otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth.

The other types of agreement among men, above, are defined otherwise, as seen by the words used. But a διαθεκε diatheke, is defined for us in Hebrews 9:16 and 17.
The Testament which the Holy Spirit conveys through the writers of the Greek scriptures concerns a Testator and it only comes into force when the Testator dies. In fact, it is even stronger than that - it is prevented from coming into force until the Testator is deceased.
3. The Object of the New Testament
The objective was made clear six centuries before the birth of Jesus Christ in Bethlehem :

For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people: [Hebrews 8:10 and 10:16 KJV]

This prophecy, originally delivered through Jeremiah, 31:33, promises two things : an internal rule of the heart from God himself (and, therefore, it must be of Spirit) and a shared inheritance, that is to say an inherited relationship between Deity and corporate humanity.
Inherited, of course, after the death of Another.
It promises a better rule than that of the legal commandment. It promises a better human existence than one in Adam. It promises a better communal worship than that of external ritual and earthly government.
4. The Terms of the New Testament
The terms are not temporal, they do not relate to this present world. It is an 'everlasting covenant' Hebrews 13:20. The promises are not dependent on man's works or man's abilities. It is not a covenant with man, at all. It is promised; it is assured; it is everlasting.
And, more - Hebrews 9:15.

And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance.

This testament is mediated. By the one mediator between Deity and humanity - Christ Jesus. There is no other name whereby men might be saved, than his name. He is the one who mediates it to every single needy soul who needs his mediation. And he does it personally - to each and every, single soul.
And by his mediation, the transgressions (which the first - 'old' - covenant could by no means remove) are thoroughly and utterly taken away by the shedding of his precious blood : Matthew 26:28 :

For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.

5. The Beneficiaries of the New Testament
The 'many' referred to by Jesus, above, are clearly they whom Jesus also described as :

He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him.

. . . which is clearly not a matter of digestion, but of faith. And it is to 'he' - it is personal and individual, neither congregative nor corporate.
6. The Messenger of the New Testament
Mark makes it clear in the first verses of his gospel account that 'the beginning of the gospel' involves the ministry of John the Baptist (the baptism of repentance) and the coming of the one prophesied by Malachi - 3:1 -

... the Lord, whom ye seek, shall suddenly come to his temple, even the messenger of the covenant ...

Jesus Christ, the Lord, come in flesh, is the Messenger of the Covenant, he is the Testator of the New Testament, He is the Meidator of the New Testament and his is the blood of the Everlasting Testament.
7. The Inauguration of the New Testament
The rich man who wanted to pull down his barns and build bigger, Luke 12:18, used the word apotheke to describe a containment secure against animals foraging or thieves stealing his agricultural wealth. Apo is a matter of dimension - it's big.
Jesus uses the word theke when he tells Peter to put up his sword in its theke, John 18:11. More likely than a sheath, is a secure containment at home, bearing in mind what Jesus said about bearing a sword. Put it in its secure box at home : is what I understand to be his exhortation, but whatever - it is a secure containment.
As to the Testament - the diatheke - the 'through' theke - I suggest a coffin  or a sepulchre is in view. A secure place to store a body until resurrection, is, I understand, to be the meaning.
The Testament comes into force through a securely contained body : in death.

The purpose of the new covenant was to finally bring about at the end of the Jewish age all of the promises made in the law and the prophets that could not be fulfilled because the Jews were, as all unregenerate men, slaves to sin and subject to death:

  [Jer 31:31-33 KJV] 31 Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah: 32 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day [that] I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the LORD: 33 But this [shall be] the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.

The last part, "they shall be my People" is a reference to Judah:

https://i.stack.imgur.com/HBfj5.jpg

They become God's people again, but this time they are the holy "Israel of God" - the elect remnant/144,000 new covenant Jews.

This little flock of Jews were the first fruits of God and they followed the Lamb (Jesus) wherever he went. The apostles were among these spiritual virgins (who had never been idolaters/gentiles).

This last days "mighty army" appeared in the last generation of the temple-centric system of things, just before the visitation of 70ad:

  [Eze 37:10-14 KJV] 10 So I prophesied as he commanded me, and the breath came into them, and they lived, and stood up upon their feet, an exceeding great army. 11 Then he said unto me, Son of man, these bones are the whole house of Israel: behold, they say, Our bones are dried, and our hope is lost: we are cut off for our parts. 12 Therefore prophesy and say unto them, Thus saith the Lord GOD; Behold, O my people, I will open your graves, and cause you to come up out of your graves, and bring you into the land of Israel. 13 And ye shall know that I [am] the LORD, when I have opened your graves, O my people, and brought you up out of your graves, 14 And shall put my spirit in you, and ye shall live, and I shall place you in your own land: then shall ye know that I the LORD have spoken [it], and performed [it], saith the LORD.

Once all had been fulfilled, judgement fell and Israel, Jerusalem and the temple were destroyed and with it the old and new covenants fell into obsolescence.


Do the people God sends to challenge His people (for His Glory) have salvation? Romans 9:17

  17 In the Scriptures God says to Pharaoh: “I made you king so that you
  could do this for me. I wanted to show my power through you. I wanted
  my name to be announced throughout the world.” [d]

God purposefully created the Pharaoh, the Canaanites, and every other enemy in real life at that time — to challenge His people to show His Glory.

Are his creations who are made enemies, have His salvation and blessings or are they cursed?

Does this have anything to do with why we are commanded to love our enemies?

I think the rest of the letter to the Romans can give a thorough answer to this question. Let's bear in mind, first of all, that the book is written by Paul (who formerly persecuted Christians, but was called by God to become his apostle to the Gentiles) to the church in Rome, the capital of the Empire that was occupying the Holy Land, persecuted Jews and Christians, and was the symbolic successor of all the big bad empires of the Old Testament. It's safe to say that the people who first read the letter would be very interested in knowing whether they, as Romans, could be saved, and what might happen to the other Romans who counted themselves against Christianity.

The theme of the book is set out in the first lines:

  I have an obligation to Greeks as well as barbarians, to the educated as well as the ignorant, and hence the eagerness on my part to preach the gospel to you in Rome too. For I see no reason to be ashamed of the gospel; it is God's power for the salvation of everyone who has faith - Jews first, but Greeks as well - for in it is revealed the saving justice of God: a justice based on faith and addressed to faith. As it says in scripture: Anyone who is upright through faith will live. (Romans 1:14-17, NJB)

So the text affirms, strongly, that salvation is available to anyone; and Paul's personal history proves that even previously being an "enemy" does not mean that one is cursed forever. Paul goes on to say that "there is no favoritism with God" (2:11), quoting Deuteronomy 10:17 (which goes on in v19 to say "Love the stranger then, for you were once strangers in Egypt"). Even worse,

  Are we any better off [than the condemned]? Not at all: we have already indicted Jews and Greeks as being all alike under the dominion of sin. (3:9-10)

However, faith is available to everybody - it is not the case that acting as an enemy of God cuts one off from salvation. If this were true then there would be no hope for anybody, since we are all slaves of sin. This theme is expounded throughout the letter. In 9:25-26, Paul loosely quotes Hosea, saying

  I shall tell those who were not my people, "You are my people," and I shall take pity on those on whom I had no pity. And in the very place where they were told, "You are not my people," they will be told that they are "children of the living God."

Even the governing authorities of Rome are meant to be respected (13:1-7, and likewise 2 Timothy 2:1-2, Titus 3:1). So it is clear from these passages that even those who set themselves up against God may be saved, in the same way as anybody else. This doesn't mean that they necessarily do enjoy salvation, just that they are not "cursed". Paul says in 13:14, "Bless your persecutors; never curse them, bless them," which is of course a direct echo of the words of Christ, in Matthew 5:43-44, "You have heard how it was said, You will love your neighbor and hate your enemy. But I say this to you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you."

The remaining issue from your question is whether people like Pharaoh might be "automatically" saved or blessed because they are carrying out God's will. Paul dismisses this possibility in Romans 3:7-8,

  You might as well say that if my untruthfulness makes God demonstrate his truthfulness, to his greater glory, then I should not be judged to be a sinner at all. In this case, the slanderous report some people are spreading would be true, that we teach that one should do evil that good may come of it. In fact such people are justly condemned.

So, no such luck for Pharaoh: just because God managed to make something good out of the bad things he did, doesn't mean he gets a free pass. But, much more importantly, the "enemies" of your question have just as much access to salvation as anybody else.

first off- my previous answer- no offence, but the bible you practically worship can not possibly be considered 'Gods Word'. it has been edited countless times and written by whoever felt like they were 'touched by god'. then there was the meeting of Nicea, a bunch of old men literally took the bible apart and put it back together.

At this 'religious council' they removed books and who says they didn't add or edit further. And thats only a microscopic part of the flaws in your 'divine' 'godsent' idol you call The Holy Bible -btw, im 17 and i can prove i know more about Xian beliefs then most who whole-heartedly give thier lives to it (well they say they do)-

And if you want to say it like that, then everyone else has no souls seeing your god made them to challenge you. not only that, say they do.. the chance of repent should be nearly impossible seeing your god killed most of them to 'save his people'

And again, if its like half of you say, whoever ((rapers, killers, abusers, people who might deserve death)yes all of them) can just repent and POOF all sins are washied away and they can go to heaven to be happy and smiling forever. if you died in childbirth... fiery torment forever. so yes, that is what is being said.


What is the biblical/logical basis for rejecting the "physical" interpretation of Christ's being the Only Begotten Son? Is there any verse in the Bible or a logical construction disproving the "physical" position on Christ's being the Only Begotten Son?

I had a conversation with a Mormon and he told me that Lucifer was a brother of Christ. When I referred him to these verses:

  In this was manifested the love of God toward us, because that God
  sent his only begotten Son into the world, that we might live through
  him (1 John 4:9, KJV)

  For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that
  whosoever believes in him should not perish, but have everlasting life
  (John 3:16, NKJV)

he said that when the Bible says that Christ is the Only Begotten Son, it must be understood in terms of His physical birth, however both Lucifer and Christ had been born of God spiritually even prior to Christ's physical birth.

Christ is God's begotten son, which to relate it to human terms means he was born of God.

Lucifer, on the other hand, is a fallen angel who was created by God as were the other angels, just as man was.

  Colossians 1:15-17 NIV
  15 The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all
  creation. 16 For in him all things were created: things in heaven and
  on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers
  or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him.
  17 He is before all things, and in him all things hold together.

These verses tell us that Christ was the firstborn, and all things were created through him.  This includes all things in heaven such as the angels.

What does 'begotten' mean in the context of John 3:16 and 4:9?  According to the dictionary we have only two meanings:

A. Procreate or generate offspring.
B. Cause to be produced.

We have a logical issue in relation to Jesus' eternal nature.  If A, then he is not eternally existing, and did not exist before bring born to Mary and God.  If B, he is a caused entity and therefore did not exist before being caused to exist by God, and hence not eternally existing again.

Better minds may have an answer to this conundrum.  We have the same logical issue if we take the Greek text of John 3:16 and 4:9 (as others have shown above) to mean 'only Child' or 'only Son' and look at the definitions of Child or Son.

Of course we could avoid the question by saying our languages are incapable of explaining Jesus' nature, but it seems such a crucial matter of faith ought to be explainable in words and not be so semantically and logically difficult.


Why do some Christians (Coptic orthodox and catholic) kiss the priest's hand? Considering kissing priest's hand is a christianity learning, where did this learning came from?

Considering kissing priest's hand is a custom
Where did this custom came from, Why it is wide spreading ?
What is it's historical story ?

In Western Catholicism it is usually connected to the anointing of a newly ordained priest's hands with the Sacred Chrism. His hands have been set aside for God to do the Lord's work, and so some people (particularly in more traditional circles) kiss the hand. This is especially common with newly ordained priests, but also happens with priests in general sometimes.

There are many teachings about the Holy Kiss.

Romans 16:16 NKJV

  Greet one another with a holy kiss. The churches of Christ greet you.

2 Corinthians 13:12 NKJV

  Greet one another with a holy kiss.

1 Thessalonians 5:26 NKJV

  Greet all the brethren with a holy kiss.

1 Peter 5:14 NKJV

  Greet one another with a kiss of love. Peace to you all who are in Christ Jesus. Amen.

If it is to kiss a hand or a ring or a sleeve or the air, I do not know. The tradition in the Catholic Church is the most likely example of the holy kiss. And if that example also flows out to kings of the past after the time of Christ, then that should be considered more evidence of its form. Here is a Reference you may enjoy.


Do Christian groups which think homosexuality is a sin think you can be a practicing homosexual and also a Christian? Many Christian groups condemn homosexuality as a sin, pointing to specific passages in the Bible and traditional Christian views on sexuality and marriage.

How do these groups handle the question of whether a person can be both a practicing homosexual and also a Christian?

Are there any additional steps required? Do these groups teach that it would be sinful to continue practicing after one became a Christian?

1. What you "are" is irrelevant

Let us first distinguish between being a member of a class - in this case homosexuals - and engaging in any sort of behavior.  For many people, being a member of the class "homosexual" means having feelings in one direction or another.  In no event would a "temptation" towards a certain behavior be taken as exclusion.

James makes it clear that temptation itself is not sin.

Galatians also makes it clear that being a member of any class is irrelevant:

  26 So in Christ Jesus you are all children of God through faith, 27 for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. 28 There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29 If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.

At the risk of self promotion, look at this answer for more.

2. What you do is irrelevant

Even without broaching the question of whether or not homosexual activity is sin, this question still be categorically answered "Of Course you can!"

The primary message of the Gospel is grace.  Grace is God's unmerited favor - the free gift that he bestows in which he says "You are forgiven"

Remember that before God ALL MEN ARE SINNERS.  As Isaiah 64:2 says, eve "our righteousness is as filthy rags" in God's sight.  There is simply no person that God loves more than any other - he is "no respecter of persons"

Furthermore, as Ephesians 2:8-9 states,

  "For by grace you are saved through faith - it is NOT through any work of your own, lest any man should boast."
  Since there is nothing that you do to earn your salvation, your status is irrelevant.

3. Whether or not you continue in homosexuality is the only question

Once one is a Christian, one is expected to grow in Christ - to become more Christ-like. Here is where as you mature, you may want to put these things away.  But, understand, obedience comes out of love and desire to be more like Christ.

As Jesus says in John 14:12 "If you love me, keep my commandments."  It is explicitly not "Do what I say so that I will love you."

Under no circumstances should one believe they need to get clean before being washed by Jesus!

Finally, what you probably want to ask is "Is Homosexuality a Sin"
This question has been asked here and here.  Gene Robinson, the Episcopalian bishop of New Hampshire who left his wife for another man likes to argue Acts 10 - (Let no man declare unclean what God has declared clean) - that God is doing a new thing.  I personally don't think God's word has changed on that matter - but I bring it up to say that Christians debate the matter.

In any case, sin is irrelevant.  God's grace is what is important.

Of course you can be whatever you want and be a Christian.  The question is whether or not God will leave you that way.

As for just your header question, the answer is simple - no.
My answer to your next question will explain more detailed about it.

As for your next questions in the body (How do these groups handle the question of whether a person can be both a homosexual and also a Christian? & Are there any additional steps required?), I explain to you here:
All the christian should seek, is to be approved by the Father. And the approval we can get only by doing His will. (This is where I fully agree with you that all the christians should do what the Bible says to do, apply all the divine principles in their day-to-day life.) And the faith needs to be proven, as we can see from the last part of this verse: Genesis 17:1
(NWT)

  When A′bram got to be ninety-nine years old, then Jehovah appeared to A′bram and said to him: “I am God Almighty. Walk before me and prove yourself faultless.

(CEV)

  Abram was ninety-nine years old when the LORD appeared to him again and said, "I am God All-Powerful. If you obey me and always do right,

The word of God in the Bible clearly states that the homosexuality is detestable to God eyes, and that God therefore condemns homosexuality.
It's clearly explained in Richard's posted answer on another related question.

Being christian is not easy, specially as we are imperfect and being taunted and tempted by Satan the Devil day by day, as this wicked system of things draws closer to its conclusion. Now you may want to do some BIG changes in your life, as per to be approved and allowed into His new upcoming Kingdom in a restored paradise.
God is All-Powerful. Just pray for He give you the Holy Spirit to help you to dress up with the new personality. Be specific, ask. And you'll be heard. Pray from your whole heart, whole mind and whole soul full of faith and hope (not doubt). And remember, God is kind to patient, faithful and discreet servant. May God Bless You!

As for your last question Do these groups teach that it would be sinful to continue practicing after one became a Christian?, there are no fitting answer (As from my point of understanding). And that is because one cannot become a Christian until he\she completes certain requirements, stop being homosexual in this case.

I just genuinely want to help you. In any case I want you to have your own opinion and to decide for yourself, instead of accepting my or other people viewpoints and understandings (regardless of what the majority or the authority has to say).


According to Catholic teaching that is biblically supported, who are "the enemies of Christians?" From Luke 1:68-79 (RSVCE), Catholics have a prayer that is termed CANTICLE OF ZECHARIAH (the Benedictus [cf. Traditional Prayers — Common Prayers | liturgyoffice.org.uk]). In it there is a section:

  [...]

  Through his holy prophets he promised of old that he would save us
  from our enemies, from the hands of all who hate us. He promised to
  show mercy to our fathers and to remember his holy covenant.

  This was the oath he swore to our father Abraham: to set us free from
  the hands of our enemies,

  [...]

From Catholic teaching that is biblically supported, who are these enemies of Christians because obviously applying this passage to Christians, the traditional enemies of Israel - like the nations they battled - may most likely not apply to Christians.

Regarding the promise to Abraham:

Christians consider themselves to be the (spiritual) descendants of Abraham, certainly as it applies to inheriting the promises of God to Abraham. This is based on passages such as Matthew 3:9, Luke 3:8, Romans 9, and Galations 3:7. Therefore the passage you quote is taken to mean that God promises to protect Christians from their enemies.

Regarding Enemies

As for the interpretation of the word 'enemies', there appears to be no reason not to take this word in its straightforward meaning - i.e. those who are opposed to you and would do you harm. That's almost certainly how it was intended in the original. There is nothing inconsistent with Christians having enemies - how could we be commanded to 'love your enemies' if we didn't have them? Note that the prayer does not ask for evil or punishment to be done to those enemies, but only that Christians are protected from them.

The enemies are spiritual, not temporal. This can be inferred from v. 73-4

  The oath which he sware to Abraham our father, that he would give to us that without fear being delivered from the hand of our enemies, we may serve him.

The oath is from Gen. 22:16:

  By my own self have I sworn, saith the Lord: because thou hast done this
  thing, and hast not spared thine only begotten son for my sake:

cf. Heb. 6:13-14:

  For God promising to Abraham, because he had none great by whom he might swear, he sware by himself, saying, Unless blessing I shall bless thee, and multiplying shall multiply thee


Why did foot washing become a common practice in Christianity? I am aware that some, but certainly not all, Protestant denominations employ the practice of foot washing in their services.  I understand that this is based on John 13, where Jesus washes the feet of His disciples.  However, how and why did this practice become adopted as a literal practice rather than a general principle?

What is the origin of this practice in churches?  Does it predate the Reformation or was it practiced before that in either the Orthodox and/or Catholic church?  What denominations employ this practice today?

The act of washing feet predates the Reformation. It was encouraged of the abbot of a Benedictine Monastery to wash the feet of guests by the Order of St. Benedict(c. 530). The washing of the feet is done yearly in the Roman Catholic Church.

I do not know what all denominations practice the washing of feet.

For more information, you can read about it in the Catholic Encyclopedia:

  The liturgical washing of feet (if we can trust the negative evidence of our early records) seems only to have established itself in East and West at a comparatively late date. In 694 the Seventeenth Synod of Toledo commanded all bishops and priests in a position of superiority under pain of excommunication to wash the feet of those subject to them. The matter is also discussed by Amalarius and other liturgists of the ninth century. Whether the custom of holding this "maundy" (from "Mandatum novum do vobis", the first words of the initial Antiphon) on Maundy Thursday, developed out of the baptismal practice originally attached to that day does not seem quite clear, but it soon became an universal custom in cathedral and collegiate churches. In the latter half of the twelfth century the pope washed the feet of twelve sub-deacons after his Mass and of thirteen poor men after his dinner.

Sacrament
Outward sign of an inward grace.

John 7:38  Whoever believes in me, as the Scripture has said, streams of living water will flow from within him."
John 4:14  but whoever drinks the water I give him will never thirst. Indeed, the water I give him will become in him a spring of water welling up to eternal life."

It has the same connotation as the Eucharist:

John 6 :53 Jesus said to them, “I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. 55 For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. 56 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in him. 57 Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me.
John 13:8 "No," said Peter, "you shall never wash my feet." Jesus answered, "Unless I wash you, you have no part with me."
Ephesians 5:25-27 NET Husbands, love your wives just as Christ loved the church and gave himself for her to sanctify her by cleansing her with the washing of the water by the word, so that he may present the church to himself as glorious – not having a stain or wrinkle, or any such blemish, but holy and blameless.

In Scripture, words like water, bread, wine, chicks, children means interpretation of Scripture. Israel was given Scripture, the vineyard, and expected to ”harvest”  life giving wine from it:

Matthew 21:33-35 NET “Listen to another parable: There was a landowner who planted a vineyard. He put a fence around it, dug a pit for its winepress, and built a watchtower. Then he leased it to tenant farmers and went on a journey. When the harvest time was near, he sent his slaves to the tenants to collect his portion of the crop. But the tenants seized his slaves, beat one, killed another, and stoned another.

Man shall not live by (physical) bread alone? This parable was told right after the Pharisees were informed that prostitutes and tax collectors would enter the kingdom of God before they themselves would.
Its parallel is here:

Matthew 23:37 NET“O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those who are sent to you! How often I have longed to gather your children together as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you would have none of it!

Bread and wine is the Word of God, metonym  for Message, which is the meaning, revelation, interpretation of Scripture:

John 5:39 NET You study the scriptures thoroughly because you think in them you possess eternal life, and it is these same scriptures that testify about me,
1 Corinthians 10:4 NET and all drank the same spiritual drink. For they were all drinking from the spiritual rock that followed them, and the rock was Christ.


What did Jesus mean by "this generation will certainly not pass away.." in Matthew 24:34? Matthew 24:34 says "I tell you the truth, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened.".

I am a Christian, and it is my duty to seek out truth, not plainly accept what I hear or what other people say it is. So I've read this verse, and it really had me confused. Taking it by word and its plain meaning. I can read this as:

'this generation' = people He was talking to
'these things' = judgement day/end times

It's clearly obvious that 'this generation' have already passed away, his disciples/followers/people at that time are already dead by now, and the world hasn't come to an end yet. What does this verse really mean?

The word "generation" there in Greek is γενεα (genea), which can also refer to a family, stock, nation. (Strongs, definition 2b) The NASB also has a footnote here next to "generation" saying "Or race".  I've always interpreted it, therefore, as meaning that the Jewish people will continue to exist until the second coming.

Another form of the same word, γενος, is used in 1 Peter 2:9 where the KJV says "But ye are a chosen generation..." and the NASB, NRSV, ESV, pretty much all the modern translations, say "But you are a chosen race..."

Some people object to this interpretation because of the other verses that are clearly talking about the people of that time not dying until they see the kingdom come.

Matthew 16:28 "Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom."

Mark 9:1 "And he said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That there be some of them that stand here, which shall not taste of death, till they have seen the kingdom of God come with power."

Luke 9:27 "But I tell you of a truth, there be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the kingdom of God."

But I maintain that these are about the coming of the kingdom in the form of the establishment of the church on Pentecost, whereas Matthew 24:34 is about the end of the world.  And so I believe they are speaking about different groups of people.  You will notice also that these other verses don't use the word "generation."

You were first born into Your generation. When you were  born again You were born into Jesus generation which still exists today, When he comes back his generation will still be alive and well all though it will contain completely different people than it first had when he said this. Jesus was the first born into the Jesus generation and it is his generation that will do all of Gods will and are the people who will full all the  Prophecies. Therefore this  is how and why this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened.


Why is Jesus named the Prince of Peace instead of the King of Peace? In Isaiah 9:6, the child to be born will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.

  For to us a child is born, to us a son is given; and the government
  shall be upon his shoulder, and his name shall be called Wonderful
  Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.  Isaiah
  9:6 ESV

A prince is one who will one day be king, but does not currently hold that position.  Why doesn't Isaiah say that Jesus will be the King of Peace?

Before it meant the son of a king, or someone who was not yet king, the original sense of the word 'prince' was someone of the highest rank.  (It's related to the word 'principal'.)

The Hebrew word שָׂר used in the original seems to have the same idea in it.

I am a former Jehovah's Witness.  I have come out of that faith, and have learned a lot about God since leaving.   My constant prayer has been to understand the NATURE OF GOD'S BEING.   I still pray to Jehovah through Jesus name, but understanding that Stephen prayed to Jesus directly to receive his spirit as he was dying (acts 7:59) Yet, the Bible says elsewhere that the spirit goes back to God at death Ecclesiastes 12:7.  hmmmm!?? So is Jesus God the King, God the Father or merely the son and prince?

Jesus is called our God in scripture and was worshipped, but I think the books of Daniel and Isaiah bring me closer to being a Trinitarian than ever!   There the PRINCE OF HOSTS is spoken of as having his temple profaned (Daniel 8:11).   This same prince is later taken out of the narration in chapter 11 and it says that the GOD OF GODS was the one who was magnified against when his temple was profaned (Daniel 11:36).  That put me in mind of Isaiah 44:6: "Thus says the LORD, the KING OF ISREAL and his Redeemer, the LORD OF HOSTS: “I am the first and I am the last, and there is no God besides Me.”   now compare that to Joshua chapters 5 & 6 where presumably it is Jesus saying in Joshua 5:16 "...I am PRINCE OF JEHOVAH'S HOSTS; now I have come;' and Joshua falleth on his face to the earth, and doth obeisance, and saith to Him, 'What is my Lord speaking unto His servant?'"  (FROM YOUNG'S LITERAL TRANSLATION ---THIS IS A DIRECT TRANSLATION FROM HEBREW) Yet, as you read through the chapter it is God himself who is with Joshua and the account ends in the last verse of Joshua chapter 6 stating that it was Jehovah who was with Joshua.   hmmmmm again!

I SEE OVER AND OVER AGAIN THIS INTERCHANGEABLENESS OF THE TWO BEINGS.   I do see where Jesus was used to lead and protect Israel and referred to as THEIR PRINCE and since the whole Old Testament is the story of Israel it makes sense Jesus would continually be referred to as PRINCE to the people because Jehovah was the God of the people, but when Jesus shed his blood, it seems to me that singular act did something to that relationship between God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit.   Now we see Jesus being relabeled by God himself as our Eternal Father, our source of life and light and being worshipped openly in the book of Revelation (where he is also referred to as the Alpha and Omega).   Hmmmm...I am still confused beyond words, but I can say that after spending 40 years condemning anyone who worshipped Christ as God instead of Jehovah as God and Jesus as the mere Son of God who should not be worshipped...I am humbled to say I was wrong!   At the very least, I see that Jesus is to be worshipped as a God in our time and that his shedding that blood took him from being a leader and a protector to being a savior and the eternal father in the sense that he gave us back the prospect of eternal life!   And now...every knee should bend to Jesus and God wants it that way.   Something amazing that I do not fully understand transpired after Jesus was raised up to heaven,   Something that allowed God to make Jesus a King who sits on the ONLY throne of supreme power....something that allowed God to give Jesus power beyond what he had before he came to earth (See John 5:25-29 below)...Something that made a jealous God say 'worship him too!  I said there would be no other God, but I have allowed Jesus to be a God with the power of life and death' Philippians 2:10- it is all mind blowing.

John 5:25-29—“Truly, truly, I say to you, an hour is coming and now is, when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God, and those who hear will live. For just as the Father has life in Himself, even so He gave to the Son also to have life in Himself; and He gave Him authority to execute judgment, because He is the Son of Man. Do not marvel at this; for an hour is coming, in which all who are in the tombs will hear His voice, and will come forth; those who did the good deeds to a resurrection of life, those who committed the evil deeds to a resurrection of judgment.”

So the short answer is Jesus was a Prince until he shed his blood and was raised to heaven...then he became the king of king and lord of lords....mind blowing!   Next question is...is it a temp job?   Look at 1 Corinthians 15....after all things are reconciled Jesus is said to step aside and hands all things BACK TO GOD SO THAT GOD MAY BE ALL THINGS TO ALL PEOPLE WITH NO JESUS IN THE EQUATION.   Presumably this would be JESUS RELINQUISHING ALL AUTHORITY OVER LIFE, DEATH, JUDGEMENT, ETC. BACK TO GOD.  RESEARCH THAT ONE!  I WILL.


What is the Biblical definition of what makes one a Christian? Many religious leaders/organizations place the "cult" label on groups of people or churches who interpret the Bible differently than them. If we claim the Bible as our only authoritative source for our doctrinal foundation. What does it actually say on the matter?

The disciples were called Christians first at Antioch. (Acts 11:26, NIV)

Therefore, a Christian is a "disciple" of Christ. And a "disciple" of Christ is one who "believes Jesus and abide in his word" (John 8:31).

Therefore, one who does not believe Jesus or does not abide in the word of Jesus is not a "disciple" of Christian and not a Christian.

A true Christian is a person that is baptized by the Holy Spirit (Mark 16:16). The confusion is created because few actually know what this means. To build a proof that one is indeed baptized by the Holy Spirit an outlined structure first needs explained.

Phase One:
  Peace with God without the Knowledge of Good and Evil (Gen 1:31).

Phase Two:
  Abel dies to Cain because Cain Knew it was good to have Gods approval and became angry (Gen 4:5).

Phase Three:
  God floods the world because every thought of the human heart was evil  (Gen 6:5).

Phase Four:
  The Law was written to describe actions that would prevent anger.

Phase Five:
  Natural rebellion against the laws.

Phase Six:
  Jesus shows that by faith God can protect the self from getting angry.

Phase Seven:
  Resurrect for himself a crop of humans that do not get angry, and peacefully live for all eternity.

Anger and Love, these are moods / attitudes / your spirit. From an ancient Jewish perspective, if I were to Jerry-Rig something I would be doing it in the name of Jerry. Therefore, those that through faith can prevent themselves from becoming angry, and can resist the physical urges that make others angry, or distract themselves from thoughts given from God. These are the ones that are baptized into his name (Romans 2:14-15).

The Wheel of Emotions: Denial - Anger - Bargaining - Depression - Acceptance
In Jesus Terms: Lack of Faith - Gnashing of Teeth - Weeping - Forgiveness

Wear the clothes: (Ephesians 4:22-24 Romans 13:14) Because if Not: (Matthew 22:1-14)

If you can separate your evil thoughts from your good thoughts, and believe that God's angels will gather the bad thought and throw them in the fire (Matt 13:30), instead of releasing them with your mouth, only to have more evil return (Luke 11:24). Then your Demons have been taken away from you by the Power of God, and you can know that you have found Heaven (Luke 11:20). Seek Heaven First (Matthew 6:33). Welcome to the family.


Have witches ever been executed by the Eastern Orthodox Church? If we don't count lynchings, have people ever been executed for witchcraft by the Eastern Orthodox Church?

In western Christianity, the execution of witches was condemned until 1484, four centuries after the schism of the eastern and western churches, so I'd guess no, but I'd be glad for some evidence for it.

Most early Eastern theologians didn't believe in witches (technically, neither did Western theologians, as is evidenced by Canon Episcopi), but most common folk did. Without getting into the confounded history of witch-burning, it is generally held that theologians prior to the 10th century did not believe in witches. The 9th century Canon Episcopi that I mentioned is interpreted by modern historians to be a renunciation of the existence of witches, not of witchcraft itself (the bible sufficiently denounces witchcraft). For various reasons, medieval Western society changed their tune and began burning witches.

According to Stephen Hayes (the link is now dead but clicking here will take you to an online archive),

  It is perhaps significant that the persecution of witches began in the
  West after the Great Schism of 1054. In parts of the Orthodox East, at
  least, witch hunts such as those experienced in other parts of Europe
  were unknown (Stewart 1991:38). The Orthodox Church is strongly
  critical of sorcerers (among whom it includes palmists, fortune
  tellers and astrologers), but has not generally seen the remedy in
  accusations, trials and secular penalties, but rather in confession
  and repentance, and exorcism if necessary (Stewart 1991:212f).

  I have tried to show that the process of accusation, trial, sentencing
  and execution of alleged witches is not a typical Christian reaction
  to witchcraft. It was practically unknown in Christendom for the first
  ten centuries. It then gradually appeared in certain parts of the
  Christian world, but not in others. It lasted for about 600 years,
  though the last 200 years of this period were the worst, after which
  it suddenly disappeared. Such behaviour was fairly common in
  pre-Christian societies, but was altered when those societies became
  Christianised.

The article goes on to elaborate on Orthodoxy and its response to witches (hint: it didn't burn them). The source continually referenced by Hayes in the above quote is:

Stewart, Charles. 1991. Demons and the devil. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

I highly doubt that the Eastern Orthodox Church ever executed witches (and I have not found any sources indicating that they did). It is far more likely that they tried to lead witches to repentance.

Specifically no. No witches were recorded in orthodox tradition, not even as legends or myths. If there were ever witches there would be in isolated places, and again as others said before, the clergy would try to make them confess and finally repent with peaceful meanings.


What is the Catholic view on EFT? Did the Catholic Church or any of the representatives issued any stance on Emotional Freedom Technique (EFT)?

I realize it comes from an Eastern religion which is not in line with Christianity, but my question is: what would be wrong with a simple tapping. How can evil spirits enter our life through the tapping on our body?

What is the danger? Instead of understanding and accepting the cross we get from a physical pain, we lean to tapping?

Catholics should be wary of the acceptance of eastern, non-Christian religious concepts. EFT appears to have similarities with acupuncture, so I did some looking for acupuncture since EFT is lesser-known. I came across the following:

The Western form of acupuncture, which is based on science and not
Taoism, is acceptable for use by Christians. However, the traditional
Chinese acupuncture belief system is not compatible with Christianity.
"The philosophical thinking behind acupuncture comes from Taoism and
the concept of the yin and yang, and of being at one with the forces
in the universe through meditation," the Irish Theological Commission
wrote in 1994 in its document, "A Catholic Response to the New Age
Phenomenon." (See article)

So the test for whether this practice conflicts with Catholicism is whether it incorporates foreign teachings that conflict with core beliefs within the faith.
If something helps with pain or addiction and has been stripped of the dangerous dogmas of another faith, it may be harmless. This seems to rely somewhat on a placebo effect. Placebo effects can actually be very powerful at overcoming pain, apprehension, and addiction (see further reading)
A word of warning: recognize that these activities have the potential to soften your objectivity when encountering elements from eastern religions like Taoism. It has the potential to inadvertently open you up to oppositional ideas and concepts that could lead you into dangerous territory.

There’s no religious forms of scientific treatment. Western medicine and Eastern medicine are simply named according to their culture of origin. Both are biologically based.
In fact Eastern medicine supersedes our medicines by almost 2000 years. In many Asian countries, national insurances cover both forms of medicine equally. It also takes more years of study to become an Eastern Medical Dr.  than Western Medical Dr.

There are Catholics in China who’ve had and continue to use their own medical system because it’s natural to them.

It’s one thing to prefer a medical form treatment and another to denigrate another because it isn’t like yours.

EFT does work. Anyone with crippling anxiety or panic attacks will benefit from it and those who’ve gone through trauma and experienced it can attest to it. I certainly can.

Old age isn’t always beneficial and New age, isn’t always demonic or useless. Stay open. Trust your intuition. Research all available documents: Scientific, Spiritual or Experiential.

The world and the wisdom in it is vast and endless...


How much did Paul's travels cost? The Apostle Paul famously made an extensive series of missionary journeys around the eastern Mediterranean (in various company, and stopping off in some places for months or years, also getting shipwrecked at one point). These are described in Acts and in the letters.

I am curious about the rough financial cost of these travels, in terms of the means of typical first-century people. Basically, how wealthy would you have to be in order to make these trips (assuming you're paying for it all yourself)? How much support might therefore have been required from other Christians in order to finance the voyages?

I'm not after exact numbers - just an estimate of where these trips fall on the scale of "Paul could easily have paid for the whole thing out of his own money" to "this was a major outlay for the whole church community".

Image from Wikimedia Commons - JWooldridge CC-BY-SA

Searching the web I came across this fascinating site which allows you to enter a route and it will calculate the cost of freight and passenger transport as it was in Roman times along that route.

For example entering Antioch to Ephesus, and forcing a land route, gives you a cost of around 30 denarii to ship 1kg of wheat, and 1500 denarii for a passenger in a carriage! Remembering that a denarius is about a day's wages for a peasant, this is a not inconsiderable cost. Shipping is noticeably cheaper than land transport, and I'm guessing Paul travelled more cheaply than a passenger in a carriage, but even 50kg of wheat would cost 1500 denarii - a considerable sacrifice for those who sent him.

Alan Millard says in Discoveries from the Time of Jesus, page 72, that the silver denarius, equal to the Greek drachma, was a good day's wage, which means only the wealthy could afford a trip costing hundreds, or even thousands of denarii. If Acts 18:3 is correct in describing Paul as a tentmaker, he would have been among the very poor of society. This is quite at odds with his literacy skills, since such a well-educated man would be described in terms of a higher and more lucrative vocation. We will consider the possibility that Acts is wrong in describing Paul as a tentmaker, because Bart D. Ehrman says in Forged, page 208, that the author seems to be far too poorly informed about Paul's theology and missionary activities to have been someone with firsthand knowledge.

Paul's epistles show Paul not only to be able to write well, but to have a good knowledge of the Septuagint (LXX) scriptures used by diaspora Jews and a knowledge of Greek culture. Stanley E. Porter says in 'Paul and His Bible: His Education and Access to the Scriptures of Israel', published in As it is Written, page 104, that recent rhetorical studies of Paul's letters attribute to him the ability to use a number of stylistic characteristics that were commonly taught in the grammar school curriculum of Greece. With a grammar school education, he was able to earn a comfortable living and could have afforded to travel on his own account. In Philemon 18, Paul appears ready to recompense Philemon for any damage that Onesimus had done when he ran away, with a confidence that suggests a substantial financial capacity:

  Philemon 18: If he hath wronged thee, or oweth thee ought, put that on mine account;

The "poor ones" of Jerusalem (cf Galatians 2:10) were probably unable to assist Paul in undertaking these extensive travels and Paul had not yet established his Christian communities around the eastern Mediterranean, but he could perhaps have undertaken them on his own account while taking occasional work as a scribe, tutor or in some other professional role.

Having established a plausible financial capacity to fund Paul's three missionary journeys described in Acts, we should be able to dismiss doubts based on expense. The question moves on to whether he did in fact undertake these journeys. Raymond E. Brown says in An Introduction to the New Testament, page 433-436, the three journeys are only a convenient classification developed by students of Acts. He says that Paul gives us no information about the first missionary journey in his undisputed letters, and that the itinerary of the third journey has also been called into doubt by some scholars. Finally, since there is no confirmation in the undisputed (or even the pseudonymous) Pauline letters of the appeal to Caesar and the journey to Rome, Brown says that some dismiss the account of Paul's hazardous sea journey in Acts 27:1-28:14 as novelistic fiction.

-- just an estimate of where these trips fall on the scale of "Paul could easily have
paid for the whole thing out of his own money" to "this was a major outlay for the
whole church community".

Certainly the journeys described in Acts of the Apostles would have been far outside the capacity of the church so recently established in Jerusalem, especially as there was no assurance that this new convert to Christianity would be at all successful in winning long-term converts. According to Acts 9:20-25, Paul had already been noticeably unsuccessful in Damascus, having to be rescued down the wall in a basket, then in Caesarea (Acts 9:29), yet he was soon sent to Antioch, Seleucia and elsewhere on the first Missionary Journey.

As a tentmaker, Paul might have been able to earn some sustenance in his travels, but he certainly could not have contributed to the cost of sea voyages. However, if Acts is wrong in so describing Paul, then the evidence of his grammar school education means he might have been able to pay for these journeys. Since some New Testament scholars seriously doubt whether Paul ever undertook the three missionary journeys described by Acts, he might not have needed to finance them. His own epistles describe journeys that were chiefly undertaken on land, and in many cases possibly on foot.


What is the meaning of Holy Spirit in Mark 3:28-29? Mark 3:28-29
28 : Truly I tell you, people can be forgiven all their sins and every
slander they utter,
29 : but whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit
will never be forgiven; they are guilty of an eternal sin.

As here mentioned, what does the Holy spirit is referred to as:

is that refers to the Holy Spirit or the man who get Holy Spirit (general)?

If that refers to the Holy Spirit, how we can sin against Holy Spirit or blaspheme them?

The Holy Spirit is the Holy Ghost, the third member of the Godhead (Father, Son, Holy Ghost)

Book of Mormon, Alma 39:6 gives us further insight on this scripture:

  6  For behold, if ye deny the Holy Ghost when it once has had place in you, and ye know that ye deny it, behold, this is a sin which is unpardonable; yea, and whosoever murdereth against the light and knowledge of God, it is not easy for him to obtain forgiveness; yea, I say unto you, my son, that it is not easy for him to obtain a forgiveness.

What does it mean to deny the Holy Ghost?

Moroni 8:28

  28 Pray for them, my son, that repentance may come unto them. But behold, I fear lest the Spirit hath ceased striving with them; and in this part of the land they are also seeking to put down all power and authority which cometh from God; and they are denying the Holy Ghost.

The Holy Spirit is the spirit of humility. To blaspheme the spirit of humility is to blame the spirit of humility. Therefore suggesting that to be humble is an evil course of action. When indeed to be humble is the requirement.

If you blame the spirit of humility you will never be forgiven, for it is "IN" humility that one finds forgiveness. The measure that God uses as the measurement of life and death is ones humility. Therefore guilt will remain, for the destination of the proud is the grave.

Micah 6:8 NKJV

  He has shown you, O man, what is good; And what does the Lord require of you But to do justly, To love mercy, And to walk humbly with your God?

And this is humility

Proverbs 28:13 NKJV

  He who covers his sins will not prosper, But whoever confesses and forsakes them will have mercy.


What did Jesus look like or did Jesus look different for certain people? Now, I don't go to church, my family stopped when I was like 8 (I'm 13), the church near me, that didn't have a raping problem and was Christian(not Catholic even though that is Christian), was a super church. It didn't really teach me much, since I was little I went with the other little kids, we only watched Veggietales and colored. We really didn't like that it used fast food and drink places, like Starbucks, to attract people since that isn't what church is about to us. I did learn what ellipses were though.
So, I didn't really know what Jesus looked like except the pictures in my grandma's house. The Jesus in her house had (idk if she has them in her new house) a black guy with thick hair and then one with lighter skin, very long hair, and a long beard.
I asked her which one was really Jesus and she said that she said that she thinks that the black one is since nowadays they don't portray peoples' colors correctly and that we were the first people. She has both because she likes to have more than one thing portraying Jesus, even though it isn't the right one to her, she still knows who it is supposed to be. (Her church is a black church and the booklets portray Jesus as black)
I have even seen Jesus with white skin, blonde hair, and blue eyes and for some reason, I don't really like it since it seems fake.
My question is, which Jesus is right? And for the wrong ones, do you know why they changed them or did God make it so Jesus could be seen differently for different people?

What did Jesus look like?
While the Bible doesn't give any detailed information as to Jesus' appearance, let's look at the facts:

Jesus was born of a Jewish woman, therefore he would have the characteristics of that particular nationality. He would blend in with the local people without standing out amongst a crowd. (John 7:10,11)
Jesus' hair would have been longish, probably around the shirt collar, but not long like that of women (1 Cor. 11:14)
Jesus would have a beard as was the custom for those following the Law of Moses (Lev. 19:27)
Being a carpenter for a time, Jesus had the physical traits of someone that did intensive labor. Let's not forget that Jesus did lots of walking during his 3 1/2 year ministry. (Matt. 9:35)

Some people have argued that Jesus was of African descent because of the description of Jesus in Revelation 1:14, 15. But the book of Revelation was presented "in signs" (Rev. 1:1) to the Apostle John, so the description of Jesus would have symbolic meanings. Take for example that Revelation also describes Jesus as having feet of bronze or copper (Rev. 1:15), but there is no race that has skin color like in that description.
Some people say that Jesus was weak or frail. Jesus was a man of action like when he overturned the tables of the moneychangers in the Temple. (John 2:14, 15) The only time Jesus needed help was after he had been whipped and beaten by Roman soldiers. (Luke 23:26)
If you would like more information on this topic, read the article "What Did Jesus Look Like?" on jw.org. This is just one of several "Bible Questions Answered".

Jesus looked the same for everyone.

did God make it so Jesus could be seen differently for different people?

I'll address this part of your question, since agarza has addressed what Jesus actually looked like based on Biblical sources.
In essence, no, Jesus looked the same for everyone. During his life on Earth, Jesus had a fully human body of flesh and blood. While his facial features were supernaturally transformed during his Transfiguration, he still remained fundamentally human.
1 John 4:2-3

By this you know the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is of God, and every spirit that does not confess 1that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is not of God. And this is the spirit of the Antichrist, which you have heard was coming, and is now already in the world.

If Jesus had a flesh-and-blood human body, then it would have interacted with the world the same way every other flesh-and-blood human body does; it would have reflected light the same way our bodies do, and it would have appeared the same to everyone the same way our bodies do - though the interpretation of the light Jesus's body might have varied from person to person, the same way that two different people can look at the same thing and interpret it differently based on differences in their personal experiences and contexts.


Is there any theological basis for the eating of lamb at Easter? I'm almost certain that the answer is no and that lamb is eaten mostly because it's available and tasty. However my attempts to Google this have met with limited success. I have found suggestions that the practice originated with the popes towards the end of the first millennium AD, and of course lots of articles suggesting a connection with Passover and with the lamb of God. However I have been unable to find any definitive statements from a reliable source.

I would be interested to if there is any religious significance to the eating of lamb, or whether it's one of those traditions that owe more to pragmatism than theology.

A footnote

Lee asks me to clarify my question. Suppose I was asking why Jews eat lamb at Passover, then the answer would be that it's mandated in the Torah. This would be a nice clear answer that is easily independently checked.

I want to know why Christians eat lamb at Easter, but I am fairly sure there is nothing in the Bible instructing them to do so. So I am anticipating that the answer might be along the lines of:

Because Pope Whoever adopted the practice in 962 and it has been a tradition ever since

or possibly:

There is no clear reason - it has just become popular due to the association of the Lamb of God with Jesus

Lesley mentions it became a tradition in the ninth century, but the linked article is very vague about who adopted the tradition and exactly when. If a more precise origin for the tradition can be identified I would be very interested to know it.

So when I ask about a theological basis I mean was there some occasion when Christians were instructed to eat lamb or when they were encouraged to eat lamb by an example set by some Christian authority? Or has the practice simply emerged without any clear origin?

It seems that the Catholic tradition of eating lamb at Easter was first documented in the 7th century:

  “The oldest prayer for the blessing of lambs can be found in the seventh-century sacramentary (ritual book) of the Benedictine monastery, Bobbio in Italy. Two hundred years later Rome had adopted it, and thereafter the main feature of the Pope's Easter dinner for many centuries was roast lamb.” - Easter Symbols and Food (Catholic Culture)

Eating lamb at this time of the year has religious significance, not only for Christians but also for Jews.  It goes back to the year 1446 B.C. on the night before Moses led his people out of Egypt.   To this day the Passover (Pesach in Hebrew) is the most widely celebrated Jewish festival where a lamb is roasted then eaten.  It is called the Passover because the angel of death passed over the homes of the Israelites who had obeyed God’s commands to kill a lamb and then mark their doorposts and lintels with its blood:

  “Then Moses called all the elders of Israel and said to them, “Go and select lambs for yourselves according to your clans, and kill the Passover lamb. Take a bunch of hyssop and dip it in the blood that is in the basin, and touch the lintel and the two doorposts with the blood that is in the basin. None of you shall go out of the door of his house until the morning. For the Lord will pass through to strike the Egyptians, and when he sees the blood on the lintel and on the two doorposts, the Lord will pass over the door and will not allow the destroyer to enter your houses to strike you. You shall observe this rite as a statute for you and for your sons forever.” (Exodus 12:21–24).

The theological significance for Christians is that on the night he was betrayed, Jesus and his apostles gathered together in a room in Jerusalem to prepare for the Passover.  As you have mentioned, there is a connection with Passover and Jesus, who is seen by Christians as the Lamb of God who was sacrificed and his blood shed to atone for the sins of the world.  That is the theology behind eating lamb on Nisan 14, which is the night Jesus was betrayed.

In Western countries, Passover is celebrated in early- to mid-April and is always close to Easter since that was the time when Jesus was crucified.  Passover and the story of the exodus have great significance for Christians, as Jesus is our Passover (1 Corinthians 5:7; Revelation 5:12). He was killed at Passover time, and the Last Supper was a Passover meal (Luke 22:7–8).  That is the theology behind the eating of lamb and it is traditional among Catholics and Protestants alike.

“Behold the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world”

The very first interaction early in the Gospel of John is this proclamation by John the Baptist as he sees Christ approaching.

It is a very unusual thing to call someone the Lamb of God wouldn’t you think?

Though out the Scriptures we see that God talks to us through various means. He speaks directly to some, through prophets to others, and through the actions of many.   All of these events, as they unfold in the Old Testament are made new and fulfilled in the New Testament.  This method of Gods teaching is referred to as Typology where things that happen in the earliest periods of salvation history are made known in the History of salvation in the fullness of time.  Yeah, yeah, but what did the Pope have to do with it?  Well, Pope means basically “Father” and one significant father in salvation history was Abraham.

Part 1: Genesis 22 it the recalling of the story referred to as the “Sacrifice Of Isaac”

There are some distinct parts of this story, and I can’t address them, the typology here is deep.

Abraham having previously not “Trusting God” implicitly has learned his lesson and learned that God keeps his promises.  Especially concerning his One and Only Son.

He is asked to offer his Son Isaac up as a Holocaust on a mountain in the land of Mori’ah.  A Mountain, in what is later to be called Jerusalem.
Isaac carries the wood for the Sacrifice up the mountain, asking, “Where is the Lamb” for the burnt offering.  Abraham says, “ God will provide himself the Lamb”
Isaac is bound to the wood.  Abraham fulfills his promise to God, but God stays his hand.
A Ram, is found caught in the thicket by its horns  and Abraham takes the Ram and offers that to God.

This is where the traditions of men and Popes and stuff come in.   Typological references.  There is so much here, but here goes

Isaac is a “Type” of Christ, being offered to the Lord as a sacrifice, the ancient Rabbi’s believed that Isaac was, based on the text indicating that he carried the wood for the burnt offering up the hill, between the ages of 25 and 37.  Remembering also that the very same hill that Isaac is carrying the wood up, Is the very same hill Christ was crucified on, I’m leaning on the age of Isaac to be more around 33, because this seems to be the way God works.  The age of Isaac however is not disclosed.  The important thing to remember is that Isaac is young and strong enough to climb up a hill in Jerusalem with enough wood on his back to burn at least a boy, but most likely a man.  He is Strong.  Abraham on the other hand is over 100 years old and not in his prime.  It is the tradition of the Rabbi’s again that Isaac was a willing victim (like  Christ) obedient to his father.   The account we call “The Sacrifice of Isaac” was referred to for this reason by the Rabbi’s as “Aqedah”, or in English “Binding”.

The other typological references here is that of the Abraham saying “God will provide the Lamb” it is interesting that he calls the place “Yhwh Yir’eh” which translates “the Lord will see” but is understood as meaning, “ the lord will provide”.  Provide what, he will provide the “Lamb” in answer to Isaac’s question.  The lord did provide a Ram, which was put to death, a Ram stuck in the thickets by its horns.  (Think crown of thorns).   The understanding of those Popes, is that God would eventually provide the Lamb.

So in summery, what we have is Isaac age 33 or so carrying the wood of the sacrifice up the same hill Christ was sacrificed on where by Abraham and through him Isaac receive the promise of God.   Typology.

Part 2:  The Passover Instituted

The last of the 10 plagues, the angel of death and the institution of the Passover meal.  The sacrifice of the lamb, the sharing and eating of the Lamb, and the marking of the doorway with the blood of the lamb in order that the sons of Israel be saved from death.

We must not three things especially important here

A lamb must be sacrificed; its blood must be spread on the lintel and doorposts of each house. And the Lamb must be eaten.
Nothing of the lamb must remain after the Passover, if there is it must be offered up to god in a burnt offering.  It is sacred.
The Jews must be ready to leave after eating the lamb.
This ordinance will be observed forever.

There is a Christian tradition that the marking on the door, above and to the sides of the doorpost, is an image of the Cross-, and how the blood from the wounds of Christ would have fallen at Calvary (popes again).   It is also important to note that the Lamb must be eaten (Not just until Calvary, but forever).   The question to the Israel believer would be, if you do not eat the lamb, would you have been passed over?  The typology here, the wounds of the Cross-, the eating of the Lamb, the Sacrifice, the sacredness of the Lamb, how it should be revered as sacred and not simply discarded, how the Jews must be ready to exit after the offering is complete.  That this offering must be done forever.

Part 3 The Passover Sacrifice, the Tamid, the fulfillment of the Sacrifice of the Lamb.

In Leviticus, the Passover celebration is explained in detail.  I will point out a few typological comparisons.

All the Jews would come to Jerusalem for the Passover feast, offering a Lamb at the temple.  The blood would be drained from the lamb and sprinkled on the alter.  From the side of the temple, after Passover, after lambs from millions of sacrifices was over, the temple would have to be cleaned, water would wash, mix with the blood and flow from the temple into the kidron valley.   Water and lambs blood flowed from the side of the temple.  Water and blood, flowed from the side of Christ.  There is more typology here than I can mentions, the lambs being sacrifice over a railing, the Catholic tradition of receiving the Eucharist over a railing. The way the thousands of lambs were carried through Jerusalem on spits which looked like Crosses.  The necessity of eating the Lamb, (John 6).  Then we get to the TAMID.

The Tamid is the daily offering at the Jewish Temple of Bread and wine and a lamb, the offering was done morning, and evening  (9am and 3Pm).  The bread and wine are the bread and wine that was offered in Exodus 25.  It is understood that the meal that Moses and the Elders ate was a meal of bread and wine (to much) Just think table of Presence.  Every day at the temple, the offering of bread wine and lamb was made, typology of the Lamb of God, who comes to us in the form of Bread and wine, who was nailed to the Cross at 9am and gave up his spirit at 3pm.  Year after year, day after day, Lamb, bread & wine.    This was done all the way to 70AD when the temple was destroyed.  The offering, the ordinance, which was forever, continues in the celebration of the Catholic mass, the offering of Bread and wine and Lamb (of God) each and every day.  Each and Every Easter at Mass, the Lamb is eaten, the True Lamb, the True Bread that came down from heaven.   So yeah, the Popes are responsible, not is a pragmatic way, but in a real theological way, Gods way.

Now, I rushed this so I will need to tweak it.  I was in a hurry because it is Easter and I think it’s important that you get your Lamb.  Or at least work towards it.  There is so much more to this.   The deeper you get into the mystery of the Eucharist, the source and summit of the Christian Faith, the more and more you have an understanding of Christ and the Beauty of his Church.


Are we saved by grace or works? Throughout the New Testament there seems to be a distinction drawn between grace and works, it is almost as if one salvation question is “who you are” and the second salvation question is “what have you done”.  On the one hand, we know we are saved by grace not by works, and yet we read that only the "doers" of the will of the Father will enter Heaven.

It seems as if there are two salvation questions: Have you received God’s grace by faith, are you born anew with the Holy Spirit and as such a child of God’s? The second seems to be as a child of God’s and with the availability of the Holy Spirit, is the Spirit of God bearing out Jesus Christ through your life's work?

Examples from Scripture:

Beginning with Jesus chastising Nicodemus in John 3:5,6 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.

Grace to the Gentiles: Acts 15:8-10 And God, which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as he did unto us; Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear?

Ephesians 2:5 Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved;)…2:8,9 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast.

2 Timothy 1:9 Who hath saved us, and called us with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began

In contrast Jesus says: Matthew 7:21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.

1Corinthians 3:13-15 Every man's work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man's work of what sort it is. If any man's work abide which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward. If any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire.

Revelation 21:7 He that overcometh shall inherit all things; and I will be his God, and he shall be my son. But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death.

Is there any historical references within Christianity where the salvation of the soul by grace and the salvation of ones life works are differentiated (realizing that they are related)?  It certainly seems that 1 Corinthians 3:15 differentiates these perspectives: (If any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved).  It seems the "new birth" assures entrance into God's kingdom and the "works" born of faith in the will of God the Father determines how much of ones life will will enter into the Kingdom of God, is this correct?

For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of
  yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should
  boast. For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good
  works, which God prepared beforehand that we should walk in them.
  (Ephesians 2:8-10)

Good works do not earn us a ticket into heaven, the merits of the sacrifice of Christ alone earn us a ticket into heaven.  But it is also written

  Those who regard worthless idols Forsake their own Mercy. (Jonah 2:8)

Although good works do not earn us a ticket to heaven, evil works if not confessed and overcome can disqualify us from heaven.  Therefore we can say "For it is by grace you have been saved through faith, and faith if it has not works is dead" (Ephesians 2:8, James 2:17) You are absolutely on the right track when you say we must be doers of the word, and overcomers of sin, yet we are saved by grace.

  We have no hesitancy in telling you that in order to obtain the
  immortal inheritance and the eternal substance, you must be overcomers
  in this probationary life. Everything that blots and stains the soul
  must be removed, must be cleansed from the heart. We must know what it
  means to be a partaker of the divine nature, having escaped the
  corruptions that are in the world through lust. Are you willing to
  wage war against the lusts of the flesh? Are you ready to battle
  against the enemy of God and man? Satan is determined to enslave every
  soul if he can; for he is playing a desperate game to win the souls of
  men from Christ and eternal life. Will you permit him to steal from
  you the graces of the Spirit of God, and plant in you his own corrupt
  nature? or will you accept the great provision of salvation, and
  through the merits of the Infinite Sacrifice made in your behalf,
  become a partaker of the divine nature? God has given His
  only-begotten Son, that through His shame, suffering, and death, you
  might have glory, honor, and immortality. The Signs of the Times, June
  15, 1891

John 6:29 NKJV

Jesus answered and said to them, “This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He sent.”

Work will be done, the real question is by whom does the work be completed by. For every action has an opposite and equal reaction. If you study the "Laws through Moses" you will find that the flesh was given the responsibility to complete the opposite equal reaction.
Exodus 21:23-25 NKJV

But if any harm follows, then you shall give life for life, 24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.

As mankind failed at this requirement God decided that he would complete the opposite equal reaction.
Romans 12:19 NKJV

Beloved, do not avenge yourselves, but rather give place to wrath; for it is written, “Vengeance is Mine, I will repay,” says the Lord.

Therefore the "Laws given from God"(10 Commandments) are more completely fulfilled when God responds with the vengeance. For if by the requirement of the Laws of Opposite Equal Reaction life must be taken for life, then when God takes the life instead of the flesh, the flesh follows his commandment to not kill. Here is an example of this at work:
Acts 23:2-3 NKJV

And the high priest Ananias commanded those who stood by him to strike him on the mouth. 3 Then Paul said to him, “God will strike you, you whitewashed wall! For you sit to judge me according to the law, and do you command me to be struck contrary to the law?”

See by the "Laws through Moses" Paul would have been required to strike him back with his flesh. Therefore faith requires work, specifically "the decision to not fix the threatening behavior, and believe that God will fulfill the requirements of the law whether it be forgiveness or punishment."
The second part to the works of God are to keep his commandments. These are his Ten Commandments. Although a believer can cultivate an advantage to the Laws of Opposite Equal Reaction. Anyone who breaks a Commandment leans towards death. For if one kills the Opposite Equal Reaction is for the offender to be killed.
Revelation 13:10 NKJV

He who leads into captivity shall go into captivity; he who kills with the sword must be killed with the sword. Here is the patience and the faith of the saints.

Therefore we must have faith that God will Fulfill the law.
Matthew 5:17 NKJV

Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill.

So the works of faith, is allowing God to do the work like he did with Ananias and Sapphira
Acts 5:5-6 NKJV

Then Ananias, hearing these words, fell down and breathed his last. So great fear came upon all those who heard these things. 6 And the young men arose and wrapped him up, carried him out, and buried him.

Acts 5:9-10 NKJV

Then Peter said to her, “How is it that you have agreed together to test the Spirit of the Lord? Look, the feet of those who have buried your husband are at the door, and they will carry you out.” 10 Then immediately she fell down at his feet and breathed her last. And the young men came in and found her dead, and carrying her out, buried her by her husband.

And was taught by Jesus.
John 8:7 NKJV
So when they continued asking Him, He raised Himself up and said to them, “He who is without sin among you, let him throw a stone at her first.”
He might as well have said “God who is without sin among you, let God throw a stone at her first.”
Is there room for disagreement in this area, or would this be an issue to divide over? Plenty of room for disagreement, the initial break off from the Catholic Church was because of the understanding of faith and the fact that Jesus died. They put their faith in the fact that he died instead of seeing his death as the instruction of how we ourselves are to die. Indeed salvation came to us by his death, for to understand how to allow ourselves to just die was a foreign concept as we forceful pursue life. Sayings like:
Matthew 16:24 NKJV

Then Jesus said to His disciples, “If anyone desires to come after Me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow Me."

Matthew 5:39 NKJV

But I tell you not to resist an evil person. But whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also.

and why?
Romans 12:19 NKJV

Beloved, do not avenge yourselves, but rather give place to wrath; for it is written, “Vengeance is Mine, I will repay,” says the Lord.

Became overwhelmed with forgiveness and a license to sin, and/or forgiveness is easier then permission. Yet the works of God are to believe in Jesus, but for more clarity the works are also to not decide to fix the threatening behavior. For those that decide to fix the threatening behavior have stolen Gods Vengeance, and that has a penalty attached. The penalty of Death, unless God shows mercy. His mercy abounds! Thank you God!
Galatians 6:7 NKJV

Do not be deceived, God is not mocked; for whatever a man sows, that he will also reap.

Yet what did Jesus say about his death! The kingdom of God will be taken from those that trust on his death!
Matthew 21:38-44 NKJV

But when the vinedressers saw the son, they said among themselves, ‘This is the heir. Come, let us kill him and seize his inheritance.’ 39 So they took him and cast him out of the vineyard and killed him. 40 “Therefore, when the owner of the vineyard comes, what will he do to those vinedressers?” 41 They said to Him, “He will destroy those wicked men miserably, and lease his vineyard to other vinedressers who will render to him the fruits in their seasons.” 42 Jesus said to them, “Have you never read in the Scriptures: ‘The stone which the builders rejected Has become the chief cornerstone. This was the Lord’s doing, And it is marvelous in our eyes’?
43 “Therefore I say to you, the kingdom of God will be taken from you and given to a nation bearing the fruits of it. 44 And whoever falls on this stone will be broken; but on whomever it falls, it will grind him to powder.”

By your own blood you enter the most holy place, just as he did.
Hebrews 9:12 NKJV

Not with the blood of goats and calves, but with His own blood He entered the Most Holy Place once for all, having obtained eternal redemption.

So the works is also to be a living sacrifice!
Romans 12:1 NKJV

I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that you present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable to God, which is your reasonable service.

So for more clarity the works are faith by not deciding to fix the threatening behavior through the trusting of God to fulfill the Law of Opposite Equal Reaction by becoming a living sacrifice. For those that do, will be given the reward of everlasting life. Amen in the name of Jesus.


In Catholic doctrine, is limbo eternal? The Catholic Church professes a belief in the existence of limbo. Although the doctrine on this subject has not yet been defined, does the Catholic Church believe that it is eternal?

We must distinguish between the two limbos:

Limbo of hell or of the Patriarchs (limbus inferni seu patrum)This is also known as Abraham's bosom. This limbo no longer exists (cf. "Reply to Objection 3" of this) because Christ has already descended into hell and brought those souls detained there to heaven during His Ascension.
Limbo for children (limbus puerorum)This is different than the limbo of the Fathers, which "is placed higher than the limbo of children." (cf. "I answer that…" of this). It is where the souls of unbaptized children are. It is a place of perpetual, natural happiness where souls are not actively punished by fire because they have not committed any personal sins; however, it is still hell, which, by definition, is the place where one is deprived of the Beatific Vision.

As St. Thomas Aquinas writes ("I answer that…" of this):

  The limbo of the Fathers and the limbo of children, without any doubt, differ as to the quality of punishment or reward. For children have no hope of the blessed life, as the Fathers in limbo had, in whom, moreover, shone forth the light of faith and grace. But as regards their situation, there is reason to believe that the place of both is the same; except that the limbo of the Fathers is placed higher than the limbo of children, just as we have stated in reference to limbo and hell (Article [5]).

Now, hell is eternal. The limbus puerorum is in hell. Therefore, the limbus puerorum is eternal.

Pope Pius VI condemned "as a Pelagian fable" the fact that the false Synod of Pistoia "introduced that middle place and state free of guilt and of punishment between the kingdom of God and eternal damnation.

The full quote of Pope Pius VI's “Auctorem fidei,” Aug. 28, 1794, is reproduced in Denzinger-Schönmetzer, Enchiridion Symbolorum, definitionum et declarationum de rebus fidei et morum. Ed. 34. 1965, §2626

  The doctrine which rejects as a Pelagian fable, that place of the lower regions (which the faithful generally designate by the name of the limbo of children) in which the souls of those departing with the sole guilt of original sin are punished with the punishment of the condemned, exclusive of the punishment of fire, just as it, by this very fact, that these who remove the punishment of fire introduced that middle place and state free of guilt and of punishment between the kingdom of God and eternal damnation, such as that about which the Pelagians idly talk,—false, rash, injurious to Catholic schools.

Where do these souls end up, then? They can't be in heaven or purgatory because they are not baptized, and they can't be punished with the fires of hell because they committed no personal sin; nor can they be somewhere between heaven and hell. Thus, they must be in hell (because they are deprived of the Beatific Vision, and hell is the place of being deprived of seeing God), but they are not punished by the fires of hell. This is the limbus puerorum.

Limbo falls into a Category which in the Catholic Church is call "THEOLOGOUMENON"

In Roman Catholic Theology, is usually refers to statements that are without direct confirmation in Scripture or official endorsement by the divinely inspired Teaching Magisterium of the Church, and are therefore not dogmatically binding per se, but are worth recommending because they cast light on understanding doctrines that are considered to be divinely revealed. wiki

Limbo has always fallen into the category of THEOLOGOUMNON.  Presently, they idea of limbo is not accepted or taught as the concept of Gods perfect Mercy towards children, is more favorable considering his perfect nature.

Other THEOLOGOUMON in Catholicism are the fiery torments and countless years in purgatory. As Theologians look closer at this mystery and compare it to the perfect mercy of God, they start to see that Purgatory is not so much a place but a state, not a time but an experience.  The reality of our final sanctification is still Theologoumenon.

I can say with certainty that as a Catholic in the current age, LIMBO has never been taught to me as it no longer applies in our current environment where the unborn are murdered in the womb.

Furthermore, the idea of limbo brings negative emotional reactions to especially non-catholics, when the teachings of the Church should be, Mercy to the victims, not pain and suffering.  Limbo is often used by anti-catholics as they persecute the Church, usually by misrepresenting it's teaching, and in so doing, persecute Christ by being false witnesses to it.


Does Catholic doctrine teach that atheists go to heaven, too? The following is taken from the following article: Pope Says Atheists Are A-OK By God.

  Referencing a passage from the Gospel of Mark in his homily, the Pope
  recounted the story of a priest who told an inquiring Catholic that
  Jesus redeemed everyone, even atheists, and all he asks in return is
  that people "do good and do not do evil."

  "The Lord has redeemed all of us, all of us, with the Blood of Christ:
  all of us, not just Catholics. Everyone!" the Pope quoted the priest
  as saying.

  "Father, the atheists?," the skeptical Catholic responded. "Even the
  atheists. Everyone!" the priest replied, and added: "We must meet one
  another doing good. ‘But I don’t believe, Father, I am an atheist!’
  But do good: we will meet one another there."

  The Guardian notes that Pope Francis's ongoing efforts to unite all
  people, both believers and nonbelievers, stands in stark contrast to
  approach of his predecessors — particularly Benedict, "who sometimes
  prompted complaints from non-Catholics that he seemed to see them as
  second-class believers."

  Catholic Online has already embraced the newly christened Pope's
  message, taking it a step further by declaring that atheists can "go
  to heaven too."

Is universal reconciliation now the official belief in Catholicism?

The short answer is No.

The misconception that Pope Francis has in any way changed Church teaching or turned us into universalists was explicitly addressed by quite a few Catholic bloggers recently. In particular, Fr. Dwight Longenecker states states it like this:

  Unfortunately for those who wish to paint Pope Francis as a lovable
  liberal, in fact, the Pope is simply affirming certain truths that any
  somewhat knowledgable Catholic will uphold. First, that Christ died to
  redeem the whole world. We can distinguish his redemptive work from
  the acceptance of salvation. He redeemed the whole world. However,
  many will reject that saving work. In affirming the universality of
  Christ’s redemptive work we are not universalists. To say that he
  redeemed the whole world is not to conclude that all will be saved.

The Catholic Church, not unlike other Christian groups, has always taught that Christ's redemption is for all. It's always taught that the "Mystical Church" extends beyond the visible Church. And while the visible Church is the "normal means" for salvation, God is not limited by those means.

To be clear, atheism is still a sin according to the Catholic Church — and always will be. But, all of us are sinners. And the best any of us can do is continually re-submit ourselves to God. The "gotcha" that the Pope may have intended to highlight is simply that God is big, transcendent, and mysterious: He doesn't operate exclusively under the name of "God."

Even within the scope of scripture and Catholic literature, God is known by a lot of names, each of which tends to arise for the purpose of meeting sinners "where they are." An atheist may be averse to "God" so-called by Christians because of our hypocrisies, not realizing that our God (Christ) and their Truth, Source, Life, or Love are alluding to the same being.

The role of the Church is not to condemn. It's to continually recognize the truthiness and goodness already in people and draw them deeper into truth. This is exemplified by Paul in Acts 17:22-34, wherein he recognizes and elaborates on a single shred of truth the Athenians confess, the idol to "an unknown god."

And it's important to remember, we're all on a truth spectrum. None of us, presumably, are living in a state of complete knowledge or complete ignorance. According to Catholic theology, it's less important where we are on the spectrum than it is in which direction we're actively trending.

A theist is someone who looks to an external God. Atheists are sometimes described as people who have no belief in a God somewhere out there in the Universe. But this also describes the teaching of many Christians. If an Atheist believes in God within them, which is the way I read the Pope's comment, and if they follow their conscience, they could be saved. A friend who was a Sister superior at the time explained that a native who knew nothing about Jesus, but who followed his conscience and lived a Godly life, could find salvation. This has been a teaching of the Church fathers of the 3rd. Cent. Today, the Church is a way for men and women to learn to follow their conscience (to trust God) and to lead a Christ-like life. It is possible to learn to trust God without going to church, but most people need the Church to support them on their journey.


Who was St. Joseph's Father? The New Testament seems to give two answers Matthew 1:16 (NASB)

  16 Jacob was the father of Joseph the husband of Mary, by whom Jesus was born, who is called the Messiah.

Luke 3:23 (ESV)

  23 Jesus, when he began his ministry, was about thirty years of age, being the son (as was supposed) of Joseph, the son of Heli,

The problem here is that Matthew names Jacob Jesus's Grandfather and Luke names Heli. What is going one here? A mistake? A misunderstanding of Jewish genealogies?

The books of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John can be seen to present Christ as King, Servant, Man, and God (in that order). See E.W. Bullinger's wonderful book Number in Scriptures for more on this topic (the chapter on the number seven).

As Bullinger puts it, a king must have a genealogy, and a man should have one. You'll notice that Matthew's genealogy starts with Abraham and goes down to Joseph, while Luke's genealogy proceeds up from Joseph to Adam and God. Matthews lineage describes the royal lineage through Solomon, while Luke's lineage describes the natural line through Nathan (Solomon's older brother, the third of four sons to David and Bathsheba - see I Chronicles 3:5). The first (Matthew's) is legal, the latter (Luke's) is natural.

Both lines eventually meet when Joseph, the son of Jacob (Matthew) marries Mary, the daughter of Heli (Luke). Luke 3:23 refers to Joseph as being the son of Heli out of the Jewish legal sanction and customary practice to refer to the son-in-law as son.

To summarize, Matthew's is the genealogy of Joseph, son of Jacob. Luke's is the genealogy of Mary, daughter of Heli.

Source: EW Bullinger's Number in Scriptures

Genealogies presented in Matthew and Luke can be seen as being in contradiction when you believe that Greek was the original language of the Gospels. Such contradiction doesn't exist in Aramaic manuscripts and it can be showed that contradictions in Greek manuscripts come from poor translating from Aramaic ones.

Recomennded scholarly reading:

"Use of 0rbg in Classical and Contemporary Aramaic Thought" by Paul David Younan.
Exploding the Myth of a Flawed Genealogy in Matthew by Andrew Gabriel Roth.