Apart from any claim related to antiquity, does the modern Roman Catholic Church claim to be ‘The Body of Christ'? An argument to be the Universal Church (made by any organisation) might be the argument of continuity and antiquity, that an organisation can trace its existence back to antiquity such that it can trace a continuous presence in the world back to the time of the Apostles.

Laying that argument aside, does the present day Church of Rome have any claim or argument to make that it can be genuinely called 'The Body of Christ'?

Apart from any claim related to antiquity, does the modern Roman Catholic Church claim to be" The Body of Christ"?

The short answer is: Yes.

Pope Pius XII's encyclical Mystici Corporis Christi (Mystical Body of Christ) (June 29, 1943) should count as being on topic for this post? And, if so, keep reading.

Although Pope Pius XII states in his encyclical states that the true Church is which is the One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic and Roman Church as being the Mystical body of Christ; he also states that the Universal Church comprises of the Latin and Eastern Rites.

  If we would define and describe this true Church of Jesus Christ - which is the One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic and Roman Church - we shall find nothing more noble, more sublime, or more divine than the expression "the Mystical Body of Christ" - an expression which springs from and is, as it were, the fair flowering of the repeated teaching of the Sacred Scriptures and the Holy Fathers.

  (42) What we have thus far said of the Universal Church must be understood also of the individual Christian communities, whether Oriental or Latin, which go to makeup the one Catholic Church. For they, too, are ruled by Jesus Christ through the voice of their respective Bishops.

Of all the Eastern Rites Churches, the Maronite Catholic Church has never been separated from unity with the See of St. Peter. Thus indicating a small flaw in the title of this question as it is presented at this moment in time.

  The Maronite Church is considered the only one of the Eastern Catholic Churches to have always remained in full communion with the Holy See, while most of the other churches unified from the 16th century onwards.

Before going on any further, I believe the word "Roman" should be used with caution. The reason being is that the first three centuries the liturgical language in Rome was Greek, not Latin. Some believe that it was St. Augustine who first brought in Latin in to the liturgy while in Africa. The Church has from her very foundation worshiped in several languages and still does. This is not an historical claim, but an historical fact and as such is permitted in this response.

The following is not an historical claim from antiquity, but an historical fact dating back to antiquity.

  The first language of Christian liturgy was Aramaic, the common language of the first Christians, who were Palestinian Jews. While Hebrew was the language of scripture and formal worship, Christian worship occurred in the home where Aramaic was spoken. The words Abba and maranatha are Aramaic.

  Christianity quickly spread from Palestine to the rest of the world, and the Eucharist came to be celebrated in many languages, including Syriac, Coptic, and Armenian. In most of the Mediterranean world, the common language was Greek, which became the language of liturgy in that region and remained so until the early third century.

  Eucharist itself is a Greek word, meaning thanksgiving. The phrase Kyrie eleison and the words liturgy, baptism, evangelize, martyr, and catechumen, among other familiar church words, are also Greek in origin.

  From around the third century B.C., what we call “classical” Latin was the language of the Roman aristocracy and the educated classes. Around the time Jesus was born, during the reign of Augustus Caesar, the language began to change. The Roman aristocracy was destroyed by war and political infighting; when they disappeared, their language went with them. Classical Latin was replaced by a less refined version of the language.

  In the third and fourth centuries A.D. this form of Latin began to replace Greek as the common language of the Roman world and soon became the language of the liturgy.

  Exactly how this change in the liturgy came about is uncertain. In the early church the liturgy was led extemporaneously by the bishop, according to a pattern. There were written examples of Eucharistic Prayers, but they were models, not prescribed prayers. The last such document in Greek was written around the year 215. By the sixth century, the Roman Canon (which is still in use, also called Eucharistic Prayer I) appears, completely in Latin and prescribed for use exactly as written. - When did we start celebrating Mass in Latin?

Now for responding to the question at hand: Apart from any claim related to antiquity, does the modern Roman Catholic Church claim to be "The Body of Christ"?

Yes.

Well it so happens that Pope Pius XII in his encyclical Mystici Corporis Christi (29 June 1943) affirms that the Catholic Church is in fact the Mystical Body of Christ. The pope is the head of the Catholic Church on earth whether of the Roman Rite or Eastern Rite Catholics. We are still one Church in Christ.

  The Maronite Church is considered the only one of the Eastern Catholic Churches to have always remained in full communion with the Holy See, while most of the other churches unified from the 16th century onwards. However, the Melkite Catholic Church and the Italo-Albanian Greek Catholic Church also claim perpetual communion. Eastern Catholic Churches (Wikipedia)

Pope Pius XII boldly asserts that the Universal Church is made up of the Roman Rite and those of the Eastern Rites united to the See of St. Peter.

  Mystici corporis Christi (29 June 1943) is a papal encyclical issued by Pope Pius XII during World War II, on the Church as the Mystical Body of Christ.2 It is one of the more important encyclicals of Pope Pius XII, because of its topic, the Church, and because its Church concept was fully included in Lumen gentium but also strongly debated during and after Vatican II. The Church is called body, because it is a living entity; it is called the body of Christ, because Christ is its Head and Founder; it is called mystical body, because it is neither a purely physical nor a purely spiritual unity, but supernatural.

The actual encyclical has much to say and here follows just a small sampling. One may peruse the entire encyclical at one's leisure (Mystici Corporis Christi):

  The doctrine of the Mystical Body of Christ, which is the Church, was first taught us by the Redeemer Himself. Illustrating as it does the great and inestimable privilege of our intimate union with so exalted a Head, this doctrine by its sublime dignity invites all those who are drawn by the Holy Spirit to study it, and gives them, in the truths of which it proposes to the mind, a strong incentive to the performance of such good works as are conformable to its teaching.

  (14) That the Church is a body is frequently asserted in the Sacred Scriptures. "Christ," says the Apostle, "is the Head of the Body of the Church." If the Church is a body, it must be an unbroken unity, according to those words of Paul: "Though many we are one body in Christ." But it is not enough that the Body of the Church should be an unbroken unity; it must also be something definite and perceptible to the senses as Our predecessor of happy memory, Leo XIII, in his Encyclical Satis Cognitum asserts: "the Church is visible because she is a body. Hence they err in a matter of divine truth, who imagine the Church to be invisible, intangible, a something merely "pneumatological" as they say, by which many Christian communities, though they differ from each other in their profession of faith, are untied by an invisible bond.

  (15) But a body calls also for a multiplicity of members, which are linked together in such a way as to help one another. And as in the body when one member suffers, all the other members share its pain, and the healthy members come to the assistance of the ailing, so in the Church the individual members do not live for themselves alone, but also help their fellows, and all work in mutual collaboration for the common comfort and for the more perfect building up of the whole Body.

  (22) Actually only those are to be included as members of the Church who have been baptized and profess the true faith, and who have not been so unfortunate as to separate themselves from the unity of the Body, or been excluded by legitimate authority for grave faults committed. "For in one spirit" says the Apostle, "were we all baptized into one Body, whether Jews or Gentiles, whether bond or free." As therefore in the true Christian community there is only one Body, one Spirit, one Lord, and one Baptism, so there can be only one faith. And therefore, if a man refuse to hear the Church, let him be considered - so the Lord commands - as a heathen and a publican. It follows that those who are divided in faith or government cannot be living in the unity of such a Body, nor can they be living the life of its one Divine Spirit.

  (34) That this Mystical Body which is the Church should be called Christ's is proved in the second place from the fact that He must be universally acknowledged as its actual Head. "He," as St. Paul says, "is the Head of the Body, the Church." He is the Head from whom the whole body perfectly organized, "groweth and maketh increase unto the edifying of itself."

  (42) What we have thus far said of the Universal Church must be understood also of the individual Christian communities, whether Oriental or Latin, which go to makeup the one Catholic Church. For they, too, are ruled by Jesus Christ through the voice of their respective Bishops. Consequently, Bishops must be considered as the more illustrious members of the Universal Church, for they are united by a very special bond to the divine Head of the whole Body and so are rightly called "principal parts of the members of the Lord;" moreover, as far as his own diocese is concerned, each one as a true Shepherd feeds the flock entrusted to him and rules it in the name of Christ. Yet in exercising this office they are not altogether independent, but are subordinate to the lawful authority of the Roman Pontiff, although enjoying the ordinary power of jurisdiction which they receive directly from the same Supreme Pontiff. Therefore, Bishops should be revered by the faithful as divinely appointed successors of the Apostles, and to them, even more than to the highest civil authorities should be applied the words: "Touch not my anointed one!" For Bishops have been anointed with the chrism of the Holy Spirit.

  (66) And if at times there appears in the Church something that indicates the weakness of our human nature, it should not be attributed to her juridical constitution, but rather to that regrettable inclination to evil found in each individual, which its Divine Founder permits even at times in the most exalted members of His Mystical Body, for the purpose of testing the virtue of the Shepherds no less than of the flocks, and that all may increase the merit of their Christian faith. For, as We said above, Christ did not wish to exclude sinners from His Church; hence if some of her members are suffering from spiritual maladies, that is no reason why we should lessen our love for the Church, but rather a reason why we should increase our devotion to her members. Certainly the loving Mother is spotless in the Sacraments by which she gives birth to and nourishes her children; in the faith which she has always preserved inviolate; in her sacred laws imposed on all; in the evangelical counsels which she recommends; in those heavenly gifts and extraordinary grace through which with inexhaustible fecundity she generates hosts of martyrs, virgins and confessors. But it cannot be laid to her charge if some members fall, weak or wounded. In their name she prays to God daily: "Forgive us our trespasses;" and with the brave heart of a mother she applies herself at once to the work of nursing them back to spiritual health. When, therefore, we call the Body of Jesus Christ "mystical," the very meaning of the word conveys a solemn warning. It is a warning that echoes in these words of St. Leo: "Recognize, O Christian, your dignity, and being made a sharer of the divine nature go not back to your former worthlessness along the way of unseemly conduct. Keep in mind of what Head and of what Body you are a member."

Then there is the fact that the Church claims of Apostolic Succession; but because this question overtly refuses to allow such legitimate claims (in Antiquity) shows yet another flaw on the subject (wording in the title of this post) of the true Universal Body of Christ which is the Church.

The Pope is the Supreme Pontiff of the entire Catholic Church (Latin or Oriental) which is called the Mystical Body of Christ, yesterday and today.

Paul states in 1 Corinthians 12:12-27 that the church is one body, with many parts. The one body being the body of Christ. This is also stated in Romans 12:4-5, again by Paul.    Paul outright says the Church is Christ's body in Colossians 1:24.
Back in the day, when there was one universal "catholic"(as opposed to Roman Catholic ), there was one church, thus that Church was the Universal body of Christ. The Catholic church .  They, themselves say this in their Catechism shown here, via google cache. Pope Francis, back in 2013 also proclaimed that the church was Christs's body as well


What is the Catholic view on frozen embryos We all know that IVF fertilization is against the catholic teaching. Recently I found out that when the treatment is carried out, some of the embryos are frozen for the future implantation in case if the couple want more children.

My question is: Do the catholic church allow couples to access the sacraments if they have children from IVF?

And if the couple realize the wrongness of IVF and have embryos frozen, what do they have to do with them according to the teaching? Let them die or try to implement them in woman's womb? Both, I see as wrong decision.

Starting with the second question, the Magisterial teaching of the Church likewise finds both decisions to be bad

All things considered, it needs to be recognized that the thousands of abandoned embryos represent a situation of injustice which in fact cannot be resolved. Therefore John Paul II made an “appeal to the conscience of the world’s scientific authorities and in particular to doctors, that the production of human embryos be halted, taking into account that there seems to be no morally licit solution regarding the human destiny of the thousands and thousands of ‘frozen’ embryos which are and remain the subjects of essential rights and should therefore be protected by law as human persons”
Dignitatas Personae - 19

And for the first question, I don't believe it's documented that a couple (or individual) receives a latae sententiae excommunication (automatic excommunication) for procuring IVF, but there is a good case to make for it on grounds that it is tantamount to abortion, which does receive that.

Abortion is not an act of love. IVF is, because the parents are driven by the love of wanting to have children. However it is wrong morally. It can NEVER be compared to abortion morally.


Do Old Testament individual, family and social laws and guidance apply to Christians or did Jesus come to discard OT laws and guidance? If OT laws are to be ignored by Christians, does God/Jesus provide substitute laws in the New Testament texts? I.e., if God thought it important to provide laws (in addition to requiring certain beliefs) to guide people prior to the New Testament, why has He not deemed it important to either re-affirm these same laws in the New Testament, or provide substitute laws?

Most Christians believe (I think) that accepting Christ in their lives provides innate guidance on how to lead their lives virtuously, and this impacts the creating of virtuous family and social life.  The implicit problem is that individual understanding of what is 'virtuous' may vary significantly as it applies to organizing and governing society.  I am trying to understand why God/Jesus Christ would replace detailed written guidance with something open to individual understanding and interpretation.

"Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did
  not come to abolish                           but to fulfill. 18 For
  truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest
  letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished. 19
  Whoever then annuls one of the least of these commandments, and
  teaches others to do the same, shall be called least in the kingdom of
  heaven; but whoever keeps and teaches them, he shall be called great
  in the kingdom of heaven." Matthew 5: 17-19.

It is clear from the above verses that Jesus did not come to discard the Law, even though a lot of churches do preach that. However, us as Gentiles are not required to follow the Law since the Law was mainly given to the Israelites and those who attached themselves to Israel (i.e. either were their slaves, servants or those who converted to Judaism).

When God sent Jonah to Nineveh, he asked that they repent and that was that, he did not demand that they follow the Law of Moses.

Jesus does ask us to follow his commandments. So whatever he said to us in the Gospels is what we should follow. Whether that means following the Law of Moses or not is a different matter (I, for one, don't believe that the Law is discarded or any such thing, God and his people have a lot of love for the Law of Moses. I don't believe God just sent it to tell people that they can't follow God's commands, I believe the Law is good and that we should use it as a guidance even if we don't follow it as legally and morally binding).

  "He who has My commandments and keeps them is the one who loves Me" John 14:21

This is, of course, my opinion.

God gave us 10 commandments that no human can possibly fulfill for their entire life from birth to death without breaking at least one commandment at least one time (except Jesus).  I believe the Sermon on the mount was to show US that we can't be perfect in the eyes of God.  Most people can say with pride, "I never killed anyone" but how many can say "I never thought about it" or "I never hated anyone"?  The point was to teach us "ALL have sinned and fall short of God's glory" so we wouldn't boast or throw stones with the attitude "yeah, I'm a sinner but I'm better than that guy" and yet that is exactly what we do and Christians are some of the worst.  Some ministers even preach this without realizing the damage they are doing. There is no such thing as "acceptable sins".  Taking a pen from work has less consequences than cheating on your wife but it is still stealing.  We need to focus on loving the Lord and forgiving our brothers and the rest will come.  Our actions reflect what is in our heart which is what God sees.  We can't see another person's heart which is why we shouldn't judge others.  We should worry about what God sees when he looks at us.


Is it possible to be a good Christian and be psychic at the same time? I've seen many conflicting biblical statements that have been interpreted as condemning psychics and others that promote using "gifts from God". How can a psychic reconcile such a gift without conflicting with biblical teachings?

For that matter, if one is psychic, how can you tell if it's a gift from God or somewhere else?

It depends what you mean by "psychic."  Do you mean a prophet - someone who sees the future just kinda unprovoked, as in "I had a dream that the plane would crash and it did?" Or do you mean a fortuneteller, as in crystal balls/Tarot cards? Or do you mean having other psychic kinds of powers like telekinesis or others? Those are three fundamentally different things, Biblically.

Small Medium At Large

The Bible is extremely against spiritists.  Here's a collection of verses about mediums, necromancers, sorcerers, etc. Probably most to the point:

  “A man or a woman who is a medium or a necromancer shall surely be put
  to death. They shall be stoned with stones; their blood shall be upon
  them.”
  Leviticus 20:27 (ESV)

This is because they are seeking answers not from God, but from other supernatural beings.  This is one of those basic "Ten Commandment no-no's."

The Prophecy, Starring Christopher Walken

A prophet is different. God has told them to go do something and/or carry some message to someone. They are sometimes (but less commonly) told of (e.g. Abraham re: Sodom)/granted visions of (e.g. Revelation) the future by God. Those who are posing as prophets but aren't (lying, or getting it from somewhere naughtier but in God's name) are false prophets. Needless to say, discerning between the two is a big deal in Scripture.

Ego Whip

What about a more sci-fi psychic, like Stephen King's Carrie or Firestarter?  Well, not that telepathy/telekinesis/etc. have been shown to exist, but if they do, I imagine Christian opinion would be split since it's not really spoken to in the Bible. If it was simply some physiological/scientific process, then it would be fine, or at least morally neutral, no different from being good at math. If it were truly supernatural power, then the question would become what its source is, and is that source good or evil from a Biblical perspective.

1 Thessalonians 5:19-22 (NIV)
  19 Do not quench the Spirit. 20 Do not treat prophecies with contempt 21 but test them all; hold on to what is good, 22 reject every kind of evil.

The Bible has accounts of many great prophets that did amazing things. Not only did some of them contribute to the actual writing of the Bible, but they were also a part of many miracles and wonders. They made a difference in the outcome of important Biblical events. They were the messengers of God.

The calling of a psychic is very similar to the work of a prophet. I guess it is just on a smaller scale? When a psychic does a reading they see many things from the past, the present and the future, the same way the prophets did in the Bible.  The prophets were there to help, guide, advise and warn of coming danger, the same way modern psychics read for their clients.

  1 Corinthians 14:3 (NIV)
  3 But the one who prophesies speaks to people for their strengthening, encouraging and comfort.

Being born a psychic or medium is a God-given talent and calling. Did you know that one of the world’s most well-known psychics, Edgar Cayce, was also a devout Christian who read through the whole Bible once every year. Why should a psychic, who received his gifts from God, be persecuted as someone who is doing evil?

It is sad that people sometimes judge psychics and mediums for helping others to overcome fear, sadness and grief. There is a difference between having a God-given ability and using it for evil purposes. Evil and corrupt people can be found in all professions and all walks in life. People being evil is not due to the talents or gifts they received from God, but due to their abuse of those gifts or talents for their personal, selfish gain.


Does Catholicism consider body building to be a sin? I am an amateur body builder. I have heard that the Roman Catholic church categorizes this as a 'sin'. Is this in line with church beliefs?

The short answer is “no.”

First of all, the Church is not in the habit of listing all possible sinful behavior. The vast majority of possible behaviors are left to the prudent judgment of the faithful: only when certain things are particularly grave violations of the natural law does the Church speak out about them. (See the Catechism of the Catholic Church [CCC], 1954-1960, for an overview of the natural law.)

Hence, when we consider the morality of body building, it is sufficient to apply the principles of natural law, because in fact the Church has no official teaching about it.

It is fairly evident that, in and of itself, body building does not offend God, neighbor, or self in any way, and hence it is not sinful.

Of course, there are any number of excesses that can go along with body building: using steroids or other performance-enhancing drugs (unless they are being used to treat some kind of disorder), for example, would be immoral (see CCC 2291), as would damaging one’s health for the sake of body building (see CCC 2289). Another possible pitfall is that body building can become an obsession: spending excessive amounts of time in what is essentially a recreational activity can be immoral. Moreover, body building can be the occasion for vanity: of seeking the approval of others in a disordered way.

However, as long as body building is viewed as an essentially recreational activity, or as legitimate means to train for sports, there is no problem with it.

From the horses mouth. So to speak.

http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=481624

Catholic Forum
Question: Is it a sin to body build?

"I really don't see it as being anything more than self-glorification and vanity."

"The probability is quite high that this activity would lead one away personally or others away from God."

"wow, great responses! I tend to agree that it really does depend on the individual, and his/her own disposition and intentions."

I doubt everyone has these views. Here is a relevant bible verse:
1 Tim 4:8 "For physical training is of some value, but godliness has value for all things, holding promise for both the present life and the life to come."

God wants your heart. Keep him first above body building. Just because that forum says these things doesn't mean it is the view of the church as a whole. @steve makes good point. I would talk with a spiritual leader you can trust.


What does the Emerging church see itself as emerging from? Despite the fact that the emergent/emerging Church is a fairly nebulous and relatively undefined concept, without a centralized organization or structure, they chose the term terms emergent/emerging to describe the movement.

What does that the Emerging church see itself as emerging from?

Evangelicalism. The early leaders of the Emergent church were members of a special project of Leadership Network, a non-denominational parachurch organization designed to help implement church growth/creativity projects for evangelical leaders. Originally, it was a special project aiming at the millennial demographic, which at the time was roughly college aged and showed signed of being a major demographic gap in large evangelical churches. As many of these leaders began to grow in size and popularity they became less affiliated with their traditional churches and more influenced by postmodern theology and philosophy. Though they typically receive harsh criticism from evangelicals for being difficult to pin down, there seems to be a self identity that the Emergent Church is a progressive development of Evangelicalism.

What is the Emergent church emerging from?

The word “emergent” is more of a marketing term than a doctrinal one. It coveys an image similar to a butterfly leaving a cocoon. In this way it implies an almost evolutionary or progressive change from the traditional.

The appeal is mostly at a feeling level and as it is so non-specific, many can be drawn to it.

As society transitions away from a Christian truth based world view, the non-Christian feeling based world view is in ascendancy. Words are often selected and used more for their efficacy than their accuracy.


What is the biblical basis for salvation by faith alone (sola fide)? One of the key issues in the Reformation was the doctrine of Sola Fide, that is, that salvation is by faith alone, apart from works.

What, then, is the biblical basis for this belief?

I'm going to have to limit my quotes from Scripture and leave some compelling verses out, because there are simply so many.  This answer would be even longer than my  normal long-winded answers if I included all supporting Scripture references.  Please forgive me if I miss something you consider relevant.

First, there is the entire book of Romans, which is a build-up to, statement of, and then supporting evidence of, the doctrine.  Some relevant verses:

Chapter 1 is a description of Gentiles (non-Jews) and shows the wickedness as part of the build-up.  By extension, this shows that religious affiliation (even to a so-called "one true Church" as many denominations claim) can save us.

Chapters 2 segues into showing that the Jew is no better, for even though they have the promise of God, they are still corrupt.

Chapter 3 continues to show that the Jew (and by extension everyone) is unable to attain salvation through the works of the Law and gets to verse 27:

  Romans 3:27 and 28 (KJV)

  27 Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? of works? Nay:
  but by the law of faith.  28 Therefore we conclude that a man is
  justified by faith without the deeds of the law.

The remainder of Romans is support for this doctrinal statement.  Paul starts out by showing how the early heroes of the Jewish faith were not justified by their own goodness, but by Faith on God.

He then goes on to show how the Law is perfect, and cannot save us, but rather was given to us that we might know what sin is - so that we can realize that we are sinful.

In the words of Ray Comfort in his teaching on Hell's Best Kept Secret, God's Law is like a mirror that shows us to ourselves in our true nature.  If we see we have a dirty face in a mirror, we don't wash our faces with the mirror.  No, we wash our faces with water.

Likewise, we can't wash away our sins with the mirror of God's law, but instead are washed clean by the blood of Christ. This is the essence of the message to the Romans.

Other verses throughout the New Testament also state this doctrine plainly.

  Epesians 2:8-9 (KJV) 8 For by grace are you saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: 9 Not of works,
  lest any man should boast.

As I said in the beginning, a comprehensive list of Scriptures would be prohibitively large, and it would be impossible to do a better job of answering this than has already been done by Paul in Romans, but here is a link to an article with more.

http://www.biblefacts.org/bible/salfaith.html

Jesus says in many places that blindly following the Law of Moses will not lead to salvation, and is his primary criticism of practicing Jews of the time.  Belief in Jesus' message and God is required for salvation.

Now, mainstream Christians take Jesus' statement "I did not come to abolish the Law but to fulfill it" as evidence that he has completed the Law and belief in him is enough going forward to attain salvation by faith alone.

However, some Christians (e.g. Messianic Jews http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messianic_Jews), believe that Christians must believe in Jesus' message and God to attain salvation.  But they also follow the Law of Moses as they lead their lives, not because the Law is required for salvation, but because otherwise they will be committing sin given that Jesus did not abolish the Law.  Even these Christians believe in salvation by faith alone, but they do not excuse themselves from the Law believing that God will punish them for sins due to breaking the Law, before ultimately accepting them into Heaven.

There seems to be major misunderstanding of what Jesus says and preaches, and this shows in answers provided by others.  Most Christians believe that Jews are wrong to rely on practicing the Law of Moses as a pathway to salvation.  This is not the case.  As far as I know, Judaism also believes in salvation by faith alone.  The Law is to be followed to avoid displeasing God and not sin.  Following the Law to the letter, without faith in the One God, is not enough.

Jews do not believe that abiding by the Law of Moses is enough for attaining salvation - belief in the One God is key to attaining salvation.  Jesus saw that many Jews of his time were obsessed with details of the Law and its interpretation, and not on Moses' call to focus on the belief in the One God.  Jesus came to correct them in their practice and reinforce belief in God.

I am not even close to being knowledgeable enough to answer the question in a scholarly manner, but the above difference in belief is what I have uncovered by practicing in discussions on this portal.  Others may be better able to elaborate further.


What measures do Catholic dioceses take at Mass during viral outbreaks? What changes are made at Masses around the world because of outbreaks like the Covid-19/Coronovirus outbreak? For the last two weeks I've noticed a few changes, but we don't do communion in both species on my diocese and I'm not really sure what I should expect when I go to a different diocese.

Are priests expected to announce the differences that they do at each Mass so visitors won't be caught unawares?

What measures do Catholic dioceses take at Mass during viral outbreaks?

First of all it will depend on the severity of a particular outbreak in a particular geographical location or diocese.

For the most part, a particular national conferences of bishops would make up some general guidelines for a particular ecclesiastical region. Nevertheless a local ordinary is always free to impose further measures (within reason) for his own subjects in his own (arch)diocese during certain circumstances.

At the moment there seems to be no official statement of particular measures from the US Conference of Catholic Bishops itself, for the coronavirus outbreak.

For example, I live in the archdiocese of Vancouver and a few years ago, His Grace asked that the ”sign of peace” should be suppressed during a rather nasty flu outbreak that had hit Vancouver and adjoining areas.

Up here, pastors generally announce any changes of the Mass itself (at least for the first time) at a convenient moment at Mass, since most parishioners do not read the weekly bulletins prior to Mass. Most bulletins will have fuller information for the faithful to peruse in their own time at home. This is how we do things here.

As a token of what guidelines are being implemented I am going to refer to what the US dioceses are doing in light of the Covid-19/Coronovirus outbreak. Canada will follow similar protocols.

  Dioceses nationwide are taking precautions to guard against the spread of the coronavirus and reminding parishioners to take commonsense steps related to hygiene in their personal lives.

  Among the most common preventative measures being taken are urging reception of holy Communion in the hand, suspension of distribution of the Communion cup and exchanging the sign of peace without physical contact.

  Diocesan leaders also asked people who are ill to refrain from attending Mass.

  “If you are sick, stay home until you are feeling better,” Bishop David A. Zubik of Pittsburgh said in a March 2 announcement to parishioners.

  In a Feb. 28 letter, Charlotte Bishop Peter J. Jugis urged clergy to remind parishioners to cover coughs and sneezes and throw away used tissues, clean all “high-touch” surfaces daily, avoid shaking hands, wash hands often and not share personal items such as cups and eating utensils.

  Like diocesan officials across the U.S., Jugis encouraged priests not to extend the sign of peace, distribute Communion from the cup or invite people to shake hands in greeting at Mass or other gatherings. Those who distribute holy Communion should wash their hands before Mass and clean their hands again before and after distributing Communion, he said.

  Similar precautions were being implemented in the Archdioceses of Washington and the dioceses of Jackson, Mississippi, and Little Rock, Arkansas.

  Beyond those steps, the Archdiocese of Miami suggested that parishes empty the holy water fonts at church entrances, and it also is allowing extraordinary ministers of holy Communion who feel uncomfortable in carrying out their ministry to temporarily step down.

  Guidelines from the Ohio Department of Health for dealing with contagious illnesses were reviewed in a statement shared with parishes and posted on the Diocese of Cleveland’s website March 2.

  The diocese’s Office for Worship also reminded priests, deacons and extraordinary ministers of holy Communion to continue practicing good hygiene including frequent hand washing.

  Archbishop John C. Wester of Santa Fe, New Mexico, updated liturgical practices introduced in January because of the severity of the flu season in Utah. In a March 3 statement, he mandated that holy Communion be received in the hand.

  “What is important is that we receive our Blessed Lord in holy Communion,” he said. “How we receive, while very personal to the individual communicant, is not crucial. … Receiving Communion in the hand is every bit as respectful as receiving on the tongue.”

  At the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, Msgr. J. Brian Bransfield, general secretary, March 3 requested in an email to staff that they “refrain, until further notice, from planning any new international travel.” - U.S. dioceses adopt wide-ranging plans to limit spread of coronavirus

Other countries have taken further measures for Mass and while at Catholic liturgies and customs, as seen by the following:

  Italy has become the center of Europe’s coronavirus outbreak and Catholic bishops there have responded by cancelling Mass and encouraging the faithful to watch services from home. The Vatican has temporarily closed the Italian catacombs.

  The changes to Catholic worship practices are overlapping with the observance of Lent, a 40-day period of reflection and renewal before Easter. Near the end of Lent, many Roman Catholics mark Jesus’ death on Good Friday by kneeling and kissing the cross.

  In the Philippines, bishops have advised parishioners to instead genuflect and bow to the cross on Good Friday. It remains to be seen if U.S. bishops will follow suit. - Catholic Churches Are Emptying Holy Water Fonts Over Coronavirus Concerns

Many people around the world have transmitted and contracted COVID-19 in physical Churches. Therefore, in-person Mass is cancelled until further notice.
Your local parish may have virtual Zoom services, so I recommend you visit your local parish's website during this quarantine period.


Why did God create us so that it is in our nature to sin? There are many questions that circle around the following question but the exact wording is important - therefore it is, to the best of my knowledge, not a duplicate!

In many of the answers given to similar questions the following is stated:

  God has perfect free will but He will never sin because it is not in
  His nature.

My question
Obviously we haven't defined our nature ourselves but we were created with a certain nature. Obviously it is in our nature to sin. When God created us in His image why did He take the free will-part but not the it is not in our nature to sin-part? The catastrophic consequences were clear to Him being omnipotent.

NB
I am not looking for speculative answers but answers that are firmly based on scripture.

NB 2
This question is being asked from a Protestant Christian perspective (sola scriptura).

"When God created us in His image" is in your question. Maybe "His image" means:
We have spirits, consciousness, emotions and use language, but does not mean we are uncreated, all knowing, or have any moral strength of our own separate from God. One can disagree with this definition but I suggest your question implies we all agree on some obvious meaning. Also the question does not, I think, show awareness of the following:

God made Adam.

God is perfect. Adam was made perfectly to fit God's purposes.

God's purpose was that only Jesus would fulfil the law.Mat 5v17 I did not come to destroy but to fulfil. [the Law].

Adam was not made capable of fulfilling the Law.

At first Adam had peace with God. In Gen 2v16 Adam is not ashamed to be in God's presence. But nothing had been required of him so far. [A car in a showroom with no brakes is not perfect but it only becomes a problem when it is driven]. Temptation exposed Adam's inability.

Rom 11v32 God has committed them all to disobedience that He might have mercy on all. [might=subjunctive=a possibility]. The possibility of having mercy on all, or any, is created by the necessary condition of all being trapped, or
committed to disobedience. The Greek word for trapped used here is the same as used in Luke 5v6 for fish enclosed. It is something done to fish, or men, and not something they initiate.

To blame [blame implies fault] God is not the way out of sin even though we have been made incapable of the holiness necessary to fulfil the Law. Admitting to God we are sinners and turning to Him for forgiveness is the way out of sin.

The key piece of the puzzle you are missing is love.  To quote you above:

God has perfect free will but He will never sin because it is not in His nature.

Why? Because God's very nature is self-sacrificing love.
Now why can't God create sinless creations with a nature incapable of sining? Because love is from God.

Beloved, let us love one another: for love is of God; and every one that loveth is born of God, and knoweth God. 1 John 4:7

To quote the prominent Protestant writer Ellen White:

God's wonderful purpose of grace, the mystery of redeeming love, is the theme into which "angels desire to look," and it will be their study throughout endless ages. Both the redeemed and the unfallen beings will find in the cross of Christ their science and their song. It will be seen that the glory shining in the face of Jesus is the glory of self-sacrificing love. In the light from Calvary it will be seen that the law of self-renouncing love is the law of life for earth and heaven; that the love which "seeketh not her own" has its source in the heart of God; (The Desire of Ages, Pg 19)
So in the heavenly courts, in His ministry for all created beings: through the beloved Son, the Father's life flows out to all; through the Son it returns, in praise and joyous service, a tide of love, to the great Source of all. And thus through Christ the circuit of beneficence is complete, representing the character of the great Giver, the law of life. (Desire of Ages, Pg 21)

Creations were made to receive God's self-renouncing love and to reflect it back to Him through praises and willful service. If God creates creations who are self-sustaining embodiments of love themselves, well, then God would have created Himself.

God is love. 1 John 4:8


Are any Greek or Roman gods mentioned by name in the Bible? Are any Greek or Roman gods mentioned by name in the Bible?

Also, are any Greek or Roman mythological characters or creatures mentioned in the Bible?

Yes, several different Romans and Greek gods are mentioned.  Artemis, Zeus, and Hermes are all Greek gods and Ashteroth was known as Astarte or Aphrodite to the Greeks.
Artemis was also known to the Romans as Diana and Ashteroth was known to them as Venus.

When they heard this they were enraged and were crying out, “Great is Artemis of the Ephesians!”  Acts 19:28 ESV
Barnabas they called Zeus, and Paul, Hermes, because he was the chief speaker.  Acts 14:12 ESV
After three months we set sail in a ship that had wintered in the island, a ship of Alexandria, with the twin gods as a figurehead.  Acts 28:11 ESV  [This apparently refers to Castor and Pollux.]
For Solomon went after Ashtoreth the goddess of the Sidonians, and after Milcom the abomination of the Ammonites.  1 Kings 11:5 ESV

List of false gods mentioned in the Bible.

Thanatos, Hades, and Tartarus are mentioned too, though more in relation to the places (though they are anthropomorphized).

Thanatos (Death) is described as the last enemy that is destroyed.

The bible also says that all the "gods" of the Gentiles are in fact demons.


What did God make the universe from? What did God make the universe from? It seems Himself, since before Creation, only God is.

This seems to me to be the most important question for Christianity. NOT why, how, where or who, but what. From what outside or within Himself, could God have made the universe?

As science suggests, the physical universe of time, space, and matter is not eternal.  It had a beginning.  Thus it was created.  It was not arranged or mixed or reassembled, but created out of nothing.

Genesis 1 repeatedly uses the phrase, "God said, 'Let there be...', and there was...".  God spoke, and what previously did not exist began to exist.  So, specifically, God did not make the universe from anything at all.

Indeed, God did not make the physical universe from Himself, because He Himself is outside the physical universe.  In fact, God is spirit.  This is in contrast to the idea of pantheism.

In the 11th chapter of Hebrews, we read this:

  By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God’s command,
  so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible.

This ex nihilo power is reserved to God alone.  All other creations that mankind does is simply to take what is already made and rearrange it into another form.  We never really "make a cake"--we merely assemble ingredients into a different form.

One can draw a distinction between creatio ex nihilo (creation from nothing) vs. creatio ex se (creation from Himself)? The later seems to be what you are suggesting.

I can say that traditional Christian (i.e. Catholic/Protestant/Eastern) doctrine certainly favours the former - but there is nothing in the Bible which contradicts the latter. Creatio ex se would imply a form of pan(en)theism - that humanity and divinity are not ultimately separate, but rather that humanity is some kind of lessened state of the divine, but with the potential to return to its original divinity. As Lorenzo Snow, fifth President of the LDS Church said: "As man is God once was, as God is man may be." If all humanity once was part of God, then through Christ all humanity can become God again - and Christ is our forerunner and example in our journey to Godhood.


The Dead Sea Scrolls and Protestant canon Has the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls had any effect on which Old Testament books should be considered canonical by Protestants?  I didn't know this until yesterday, but the dead sea scrolls contained every book of the Bible in Hebrew, including fragments of Deuterocanonical books (except Esther, although most of that is in the Protestant Bible anyway)

I may be operating under the hazy assumption that Protestants only discount the Septuagint because it has its basis in Greek instead of having its basis in Hebrew so correct me if I'm wrong.

  That Sirach was originally written in Hebrew may be of some significance for the biblical canon. The book was accepted into the canon of the Old Testament/Hebrew Bible by Catholicism and Eastern Orthdoxy but not by Judaism or Protestantism, apparently on the basis that no Hebrew original was thought to exist at the time the Jewish Canon was closed

Wikipedia - Sirach

I just wonder if this is a source of consternation for any Protestant groups or how/if they justify the texts with their own assumptions and scholarship into what the Jews themselves considered scripture at the time of Christ.

I'd hope that an answer would include a scholarly refutation of the idea that the original books (at least Sirach and Tobit), being composed in Greek, lacked canonical authority for that reason and no other reason.

No, the Dead Sea Scrolls have no effect on the Protestant view of Old Testament canon.

Let's take a look at what different books are included:

Old Testament (protocanonical) books

Genesis, Psalms, Isaiah etc.

Deuterocanonical books

Letter of Jeremiah, Wisdom of Sirach etc.

Other writings

Book of Noah
Book of Giants
Testament of Naphtali
Community Rule
War Scroll
Genesis Apocryphon
Cairo Geniza Testament of Levi
Book of Jubilees
Words of Moses
Rule of the Congregation
and many, many more.

Considering that the Dead Sea Scrolls include a very random selection of books, nothing about canonicity can be reliably deducted from them.

No, the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls hasn't had an effect on the Protestant view of the Old Testament canon yet - but it should!

Even though the Dead Sea Scrolls were found several decades ago, some of the most impactful scholarship resulting from their discovery was only posted in the early 2000s and hasn't really made its way around yet.

The argument for the Protestant canon is based primarily on Jerome's Helmeted Preface:

  Jerome, in his Prologue to the Books of the Kings

  This preface to the Scriptures may serve as a helmeted [i.e. defensive] introduction to all the books which we turn from Hebrew into Latin, so that we may be assured that what is outside of them must be placed aside among the Apocryphal writings. Wisdom, therefore, which generally bears the name of Solomon, and the book of Jesus the Son of Sirach, and Judith, and Tobias, and the Shepherd [of Hermes?] are not in the canon. The first book of Maccabees is found in Hebrew, but the second is Greek, as can be proved from the very style.

How did Jerome arrive at this conclusion?

First, he obtained the Hebrew scriptures from the Jews of his day (late fourth century) at great cost.

  Jerome, in his Apology Against Rufinus, Book II, Section 35

  ...my own familiar friend should frankly accept from a Christian and a friend what he has taken great pains to obtain from the Jews and has written down for him at great cost.

He compared these Hebrew scriptures he obtained (an ancestor of the Masoretic text) to the Septuagint (Greek translation of the Old Testament) which was used throughout the Christian Churches.

In this comparison, Jerome found numerous differences. He reasoned that the Jewish copy must be the more accurate of the two, as the Jewish copy was written in Hebrew just like the original Old Testament, while the Septuagint was a translation - and in translating, errors can crop up.

  Jerome, in his Preface to Pentateuch

  Hear, therefore, O rival; listen, O detractor! I do not condemn, I do not censure the Seventy, but I confidently prefer the Apostles to all of them. Christ speaks to me through their mouth, who I read were placed before the prophets among the Spiritual gifts, among which interpreters hold almost the last place.

This belief that the Septuagint was a poor translation of the Jewish scripture led him to believe that the Septuagint could also have been mistaken in its collection of scriptures - causing Jerome to prefer the shortened Jewish canon over the expanded Septuagint canon.

The Protestant fathers of the reformation followed Jerome's teaching on this matter.

  Calvin, in his Acts of the Council of Trent with the Antidote, ON THE FOURTH SESSION

  Of their admitting all the Books promiscuously into the Canon, I say nothing more than it is done against the consent of the primitive Church. It is well known what Jerome states as the common opinion of earlier times. And Ruffinus, speaking of the matter as not at all controverted, declares with Jerome that Ecclesiasticus, the Wisdom of Solomon, Tobit, Judith, and the history of the Maccabees, were called by the Fathers not canonical but ecclesiastical books, which might indeed be read to the people, but were not entitled to establish doctrine.

How do the Dead Sea Scrolls come into this?

We discovered that instead of the Greek Septuagint being a bad translation of the Hebrew Proto-Masoretic text, it was a good translation of the Hebrew Pre-Septuagint text. It was discovered that there were multiple Hebrew text traditions at the time of the Dead Sea Scrolls!

  From Wikipedia

  The Biblical manuscripts found in Qumran, commonly known as the Dead Sea Scrolls (DSS), have prompted comparisons of the various texts associated with the Hebrew Bible, including the Septuagint. Peter Flint cites Emanuel Tov, the chief editor of the scrolls, who identifies five broad variation categories of DSS texts:

  1) Proto-Masoretic: This consists of a stable text and numerous and distinctive agreements with the Masoretic text. About 60% of the Biblical scrolls fall into this category (e.g. 1QIsa-b)

  2) Pre-Septuagint: These are the manuscripts which have distinctive affinities with the Greek Bible. These number only about 5% of the Biblical scrolls, for example, 4QDeut-q, 4QSam-a, and 4QJer-b, 4QJer-d. In addition to these manuscripts, several others share distinctive individual readings with the Septuagint, although they do not fall in this category.

  3) The Qumran "Living Bible": These are the manuscripts which, according to Tov, were copied in accordance with the "Qumran practice" (i.e. with distinctive long orthography and morphology, frequent errors and corrections, and a free approach to the text. Such scrolls comprise about 20% of the Biblical corpus, including the Great Isaiah Scroll (1QIsa-a)

  4) Pre-Samaritan: These are DSS manuscripts which reflect the textual form found in the Samaritan Pentateuch, although the Samaritan Bible itself is later and contains information not found in these earlier scrolls, (e.g. God's holy mountain at Shechem rather than Jerusalem). The Qumran witnesses—which are characterized by orthographic corrections and harmonizations with parallel texts elsewhere in the Pentateuch—comprise about 5% of the Biblical scrolls. (e.g. 4QpaleoExod-m)

  5) Non-Aligned: This is a category which shows no consistent alignment with any of the other four text-types. These number approximately 10% of the Biblical scrolls, and include 4QDeut-b, 4QDeut-c, 4QDeut-h, 4QIsa-c, and 4QDan-a.

  The same information, along with more thoughts on the Pre-Septuagint, can be found in Emanuel Tov's "Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible" (Third Edition, page 107).

This makes us need to re-examine history! Catholicism largely followed the canon of the Septuagint, while Protestantism has largely followed the canon of the Masoretic text. Jerome's argument for the superiority of the Hebrew Scriptures (and thus the Masoretic text) was the main Protestant defense of using its canon.

With that argument nullified (due to the Septuagint being a good translation of a different ancient Hebrew text), Protestants should reconsider their rejection of the Septuagint's canon. Indeed, it may be time to review the statements made by Justin Martyr (~160 AD), Origen (~240 AD), Augustine (~400 AD), and Isidore (~600 AD) that the Jews after the time of Jesus, who denied that Jesus was the Christ, had removed books from scripture. After all, do these Jews after the time of Christ, who rejected both Jesus as Christ and the New Testament as inspired, have the authority to declare the Old Testament canon for Christians? References available  here.


Are some people created to go to Hell? This answer presents the following statement:

  God is in control and I believe that His will has always been done. So to say that He's never failed.

So, are some people are destined to go to hell?

I probably have this kind of thinking from some stories in the bible about God harden some people's heart so everything will go as He planned. i.e : Pharaoh and the religious leaders of Israel during Jesus time.

Quite frankly Yes. Some people are created to go to hell. However you are looking at this the wrong way.

Everyone is going to hell without the intervention of a benevolent God (This is known as Total Depravity). Thankfully God has chosen some people to be his children (Unconditional Election). The number of these people is limited. Christ's death was sufficient for everyone however it is only efficient for the Elect (Limited Atonement). God draws us to himself and we do not come to him under our own power (Irresistible Grace). Finally once we are his nothing we do or anyone else does can take us from him (Perseverance of the Saints).

Now that my statement of faith has been laid out let me give the scriptural proof for each element:

Total Depravity: Mark 7:21-23 (NIV)

  For it is from within, out of a person’s heart, that evil thoughts come—sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, greed, malice, deceit, lewdness, envy, slander, arrogance and folly. All these evils come from inside and defile a person.

Unconditional Election: Romans 9:11 (NIV)

  Yet, before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad—in order that God’s purpose in election might stand:

Limited Atonement: John 10:11 (NIV)

  “I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep.

Irresistible Grace: Phillipians 2:12-13 (NIV)

  Therefore, my dear friends, as you have always obeyed—not only in my presence, but now much more in my absence—continue to work out your salvation with fear and trembling, for it is God who works in you to will and to act in order to fulfill his good purpose.

Perseverance of the Saints John 10:27-28

  My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me. I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no one will snatch them out of my hand.

These are just some of many verses that support this particular position (these are the Reformed counter points to the 5 points of Aremenianism and tend to the points of differentiation between them) There are plenty more here.

All of this to basically say the following

There are some people who are chosen and some who aren't
We don't know the difference just from looking at someone so it really shouldn't effect  how we live our lives.
Its only by grace that any of us are elected

No.  God created each of us, and loves each of us individually. (He doesn't love what we do, necessarily, but he loves us just the same.)

Everyone who has been created by God (I think that covers everyone) will have the opportunity to accept Christ and His atoning sacrifice at some point.

References:

God judges our hearts:

  7 But the Lord said unto Samuel, Look not on his countenance, or on
  the height of his stature; because I have refused him: for the Lord
  seeth not as man seeth; for man looketh on the outward appearance, but
  the Lord looketh on the heart. -- 1 Samuel 16:7

which is applied to this topic in these verses:

  7 Thus came the voice of the Lord unto me, saying: All who have died without a knowledge of this gospel, who would have received it if they
  had been permitted to tarry, shall be heirs of the celestial kingdom
  of God;

  8 Also all that shall die henceforth without a knowledge of it, who
  would have received it with all their hearts, shall be heirs of that
  kingdom;

  9 For I, the Lord, will judge all men according to their works,
  according to the desire of their hearts.

  10 And I also beheld that all children who die before they arrive at
  the years of accountability are saved in the celestial kingdom of
  heaven.  -- Doctrine & Covenants 137:7-10

Everyone has an opportunity:

  18 For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the
  unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the
  flesh, but quickened by the Spirit:

  19 By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison;

  20 Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of
  God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein
  few, that is, eight souls were saved by water.  1 Peter 3:18-20

which is discussed in more detail here...

  25 I marveled, for I understood that the Savior spent about three
  years in his ministry among the Jews and those of the house of Israel,
  endeavoring to teach them the everlasting gospel and call them unto
  repentance;

  26 And yet, notwithstanding his mighty works, and miracles, and
  proclamation of the truth, in great power and authority, there were
  but few who hearkened to his voice, and rejoiced in his presence, and
  received salvation at his hands.

  27 But his ministry among those who were dead was limited to the
  brief time intervening between the crucifixion and his resurrection;

  28 And I wondered at the words of Peter—wherein he said that the Son
  of God preached unto the spirits in prison, who sometime were
  disobedient, when once the long-suffering of God waited in the days of
  Noah—and how it was possible for him to preach to those spirits and
  perform the necessary labor among them in so short a time.

  29 And as I wondered, my eyes were opened, and my understanding
  quickened, and I perceived that the Lord went not in person among the
  wicked and the disobedient who had rejected the truth, to teach them;

  30 But behold, from among the righteous, he organized his forces and
  appointed messengers, clothed with power and authority, and
  commissioned them to go forth and carry the light of the gospel to
  them that were in darkness, even to all the spirits of men; and thus
  was the gospel preached to the dead.

  31 And the chosen messengers went forth to declare the acceptable day
  of the Lord and proclaim liberty to the captives who were bound, even
  unto all who would repent of their sins and receive the gospel.

  32 Thus was the gospel preached to those who had died in their sins,
  without a knowledge of the truth, or in transgression, having rejected
  the prophets.

  33 These were taught faith in God, repentance from sin, vicarious
  baptism for the remission of sins, the gift of the Holy Ghost by the
  laying on of hands,

  34 And all other principles of the gospel that were necessary for
  them to know in order to qualify themselves that they might be judged
  according to men in the flesh, but live according to God in the
  spirit.

  35 And so it was made known among the dead, both small and great, the
  unrighteous as well as the faithful, that redemption had been wrought
  through the sacrifice of the Son of God upon the cross.

  36 Thus was it made known that our Redeemer spent his time during his
  sojourn in the world of spirits, instructing and preparing the
  faithful spirits of the prophets who had testified of him in the
  flesh;

  37 That they might carry the message of redemption unto all the dead,
  unto whom he could not go personally, because of their rebellion and
  transgression, that they through the ministration of his servants
  might also hear his words.  -- Doctrine & Covenants 138:25-37

God's stated purpose:

  And the Lord God spake unto Moses, saying...For behold, this is my
  work and my glory—to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of
  man.  -- Moses 1:37-39 from the Pearl of Great Price

He creates us, He loves us, He sent his Only Begotten Son to save and redeem us.  He does not wish to see anyone cast into hell.  And like any parent, he grieves and is angry when we choose to disobey.  (if this last paragraph needs citations, I'll look them up.)


What are the theological reasons some Protestants are Zionists? Zionism, founded by Theodor Herzl, is a movement for reestablishing a political nation for the Jewish people. Thus, what are the theological reasons why some Protestants are Zionists, especially in the U.S.?

(cf. this question)

It would be wrong to think that a majority of Protestants are Zionists, but Christian Zionism is nevertheless a substantial movement, especially in the United States. There is a belief among some Christians that the return of the Jews to the Holy Land, and the establishment of the State of Israel in 1948, is in accordance with Biblical prophecy. The idea that Christians should actively support a Jewish return to the Land of Israel, along with the parallel idea that the Jews ought to be encouraged to become Christians, as a means of fulfilling a Biblical prophecy has been common in Protestant circles since the Reformation.

Some Christian Zionists believe that the gathering of the Jews in Israel is a prerequisite for the Second Coming of Jesus. This belief is primarily, although not exclusively, associated with Dispensationalism, a movement begun by John Nelson Darby in the 1830s. For those who eagerly await the coming of Jesus, it is important to accomplish the return to Israel as quickly and as thoroughly as possible so that Jesus can return and establish his kingdom on earth.

Barbara R. Rossing says, in The Rapture Exposed, page 23, that Darby  invented 'dispensations' – intervals of time ordering God's grand timetable for world events. She says (pages 55-56) the dispensationalist's script ca1ls “these things” absolutely necessary for Jesus to come again to reign on earth:

The rebirth of the nation of Israel;
The Rapture of born-again Christians off the earth;
The emergence of an evil Antichrist (and his one-world currency),
probably from Europe;
The Antichrist signs a seven-year peace treaty with Israel, setting
in motion the seven years of tribulation – but the Antichrist will
break the treaty after three and one half years;
The rebuilding of the temple in Jerusalem and resumption of animal
sacrifices there;
The desecration of the temple by the evil Antichrist, followed by the
second half of the seven-year period of tribulation;
Jesus' return in the "Glorious Appearing" exactly seven years after
the Rapture, beginning with his touch-down on the Mount of Olives,
which will split the mountain into two.

One of the resolutions adopted during a series of Bible and Prophetic Conferences held across North America beginning in 1868 states:

  We believe that the world will not be converted during the present dispensation, but is fast ripening for judgment, while there will be fearful apostasy in the professing Christian body; and hence that the Lord Jesus will come in person to introduce the millennial age, when Israel shall be restored to their own land, and the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the Lord; and that this personal and premillennial advent is the blessed hope set before us in the Gospel for which we should be constantly looking.

It's not about being a Zionist.

It's about an (everlasting Promise) made to his friend Abraham. Just because Christians support Israel does not make them a zionist.

I support Israel because my God our Father is not a liar! He is not unfaithful to the promises he makes. He is always faithful to those that he loves and considers a friend.

Why was the Land of Canaan was renamed Israel?  Because that was the Land he Chose for Abraham and his descendants through Isaac.  Jacob was renamed  Israel because God's plan was to show the World that His Word never fails. If you keep reading the story of Jacob being renamed Israel, you will see that God promised Israel that he would become a Great Nation and that this promise will be fulfilled in the land he gave Abraham and Isaac as the blessing for the nation we would come to know as Israel.

How was God able to cement his promise as an everlasting promise?

Was it the Temple of Solomon? No!
Was it the 10 commandments? No!
Was it due to the efforts of former King of Israel David son of Jessi? No!
Was it all the Prophets who Fought for the Nation of Israel? No!
Was God merely just speaking words for no reason? No.

The everlasting promise given to Abraham, Isaac and Israel was fulfilled by the blood of Jesus Christ.

The Nation of Israel is where Christianity was born. It is the nation where the Message of our Messiah was first taught.

The Nation of Israel were the only people that God sent Jesus Christ to save. Jesus Christ said this himself in Matthew 15:24

  He answered, “I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel."

But the Jews/Israelites failed to recognize their Messiah and with the Help of the Gentiles crucified our Savior. And with this, fulfilled the prophecy that through the Blood of Jesus Christ and his Resurrection, Sin(Death) has no power over man any longer, and that we now have a way to the Father.

The Nation of Israel is very important to Christians who acknowledge the importance of the Old Testament. It is our way of remembering the history of our God. The God of Israel the True Living God. Without this. We will never understand why The Nation of Israel is very important to us.

Simply put, Israel exists because our God is not a liar, and our God has kept his promise to Abraham,Isaac and Israel.

Israel one day will be saved by Jesus Christ and all of the tribes of Israel will know that Jesus Christ was the one whom they pierced. They will mourn just as the Scriptures say.

And the Zionist never established the Nation of Israel.

How can a Nation not exist yet Her people exist. How can man say these people established the Nation of Israel when the Jews/Israelites continued to live throughout the World! And if they continued to live throughout the World than the Nation of Israel was always Alive.

Geremia. I am 100% Supporter of the Nation of Israel. My God our Father the God of Israel the True Living God is not a God of Confusion.

He is not looking for Believers who are easily hooked in to lies fed by the world to the Churches. Like Jesus Christ has created a New Israel. Tell me where in the Bible does God say Jesus Christ will create a New Israel? If God say's he is a Faithful God. Than how can God go back on his Promises to Abraham? How can he be Unfaithful? That's why I Believe that Jesus Christ is the Reason why Israel still exist.

I look at it this way. When Jesus Christ died their was sign that not even the People in his time understood.

It was a Title that God alone gave his Son regarding the Nation of Israel. A Title that the Jews/Israelites and Gentiles of that time were witnesses to. But did not understand the full meaning behind it. A title that would Be the Reason why the Nation of Israel would continue to exist.

And that Title is Yeshua Hamashiac (King of the Jews, King of Israel)

So now you understand why I am a supporter of The Nation of Israel. Because my God our Father is not a liar. What he day's is True and as long as the Nation of Israel exist than the world can never say that the God of the Christians does not exist why? Cause God himself said. I Am the God of Israel the True Living God :)


How do Protestants interpret Malachi 1:11 and Isaiah 66:20-21? For from the rising of the sun even unto the going down of the same
  My name shall be great among the Gentiles;

  And in every place incense shall be offered unto my name, and a pure offering:
  For my name shall be great among the heathen, Saith the Lord of hosts.

  Malachi 1:11 (KJV)

I have been looking for Protestant explanation of this and how it is fulfilled in Christ.  The only one that I have found suggests that the incense that is offered to God represents prayers and the pure offering is also those prayers.  My problem with this interpretation is the Hebrew.  It clearly suggests two distinct offerings, incense and a pure offering.  Some translations suggest it as a grain offering but the Hebrew text does not support that.

Supporting this offering which is sacrificial in nature is Isaiah 66:21 (KJV), which must be read in the context of the rest of Isaiah 66.

  And they shall bring all your brethren for an offering unto the LORD out of all nations upon horses, and in chariots, and in litters, and upon mules, and upon swift beasts, to my holy mountain Jerusalem, saith the LORD, as the children of Israel bring an offering in a clean vessel into the house of the LORD.

Are the Levites something other than ministerial priests who make sacrificial offering to the Lord for the people?

What is the pure offering if not the offering of Christ on the Cross re-presented daily all over the world in the Catholic Church?  What is the Protestant version?  What is the reference to Priests and Levites if not that of the "priesthood of believers" and "a sacrificial ministerial priesthood" (Catholic Clergy) taken for the first time after the Cross--from outside the Jewish Rabbinical traditions?

How do Protestants say these prophecies have been fulfilled in their churches?

Unlike in Catholicism, there is no unified and singular Protestant body of doctrine, so a “Protestant answer” to your question cannot be given. I can, however, provide an answer given by the popular Protestant theologian, scholar, and commentator Matthew Henry who in his commentary of Malachi 1, says:

  In these verses, they are charged with ingratitude, in that they were not duly sensible of God’s distinguishing goodness to them; and such a charge as this may well be called a burden, for it is a heavy one. God asserts the great kindness he had, and had often expressed, for them (Mal. 1:2): I have loved you, saith the Lord. Thus abruptly does the sermon begin, as if God intended, whatever reproofs should be given them, to reconcile them to his love, and to take care that they should still have good thoughts of him. As many as I love I rebuke and chasten. Thus kindly does the sermon begin. God will have his people satisfied that he loves them and is ever mindful of his love.

Malachi prophesied to the Priests of Israel. The priesthood of the Levites is important; it is a type that precedes the priesthood of the Church in Messiah, the priestly nation. Where the priesthood of the Levites was from patronage and has ended, the priesthood of the Church is from God and lasts forever. As in all things, the priesthood according to the law has passed away, and the priesthood that comes by faith endures, in the same way that Messiah is not a priest in the order of Levi, as he is not a descendant of Levi but of Judah and indeed a priest forever in the order of Melchizedek. The Lord was rebuking the priests for the disdain with which they carried out their duties that God gave them as a blessing to them; it was their allotted inheritance.

  They question his love, and diminish the instances of it, and seem to quarrel with him for telling them of it: Yet you say, Wherein hast thou loved us? As God traces up all his favours to them to the fountain, which was his love, so he traces up all their sins against him to the fountain, which was their contempt of his love. Instead of acknowledging his kindness, and studying what they shall render, they scorn to own that they have been beholden to him, challenge him to produce proofs of his love that are material, and think and speak very slightly of the instances they have had of his kindness, as if they were so few, so small, as not to be worth taking notice of, and no more than what they had sufficiently made returns for, or at least than he had sufficiently balanced with instances of his wrath.

Henry continues to make his point, which is what I believe you are after here:

  He declares his resolution both to secure the glory of his own name and to reckon with those who profane it. Those who put contempt upon God and religion, and think to run down sacred things, let them know that they shall not gain their point. God will magnify his law and make it honourable, though they [the priests to whom Malachi prophesies] vilify it and make it contemptible; for (Mal. 1:11) from the rising of the sun to the going down of the same my name shall be great among the Gentiles.

And so The Lord in this prophecy contrasts the contentious priests who are sons of Abraham with the Church, that is the Church of Messiah that is later to come, who are not even sons of Abraham by birth and will yet honor him in the way the he desires. This is how the prophecy is fulfilled in Christ. Malachi is saying to the Levitical priests who will not carry out their allotted inheritance that the Church of Messiah, made up of all the nations, will be faithful in theirs.

Isaiah.
Levites were consecrated to God from birth. Num_3:12  And I, behold, I have taken the Levites from among the children of Israel instead of all the firstborn that opens the matrix among the children of Israel: therefore the Levites shall be mine;
They were ministers of the tabernacle Numbers 7:5 Num_18:6  And I, behold, I have taken your brethren the Levites from among the children of Israel: to you they are given as a gift for the LORD, to do the service of the tabernacle of the congregation.
Many verses state that Levites were appointed to praise the Lord.
1Ch_16:4  And he appointed certain of the Levites to minister before the ark of the LORD, and to record, and to thank and praise the LORD God of Israel:
2Ch_7:6  And the priests waited on their offices: the Levites also with instruments of musick of the LORD, which David the king had made to praise the LORD, because his mercy endureth for ever, when David praised by their ministry; and the priests sounded trumpets before them, and all Israel stood. Ch_20:19  And the Levites, of the children of the Kohathites, and of the children of the Korhites, stood up to praise the LORD God of Israel with a loud voice on high. 2Ch_29:30  Moreover Hezekiah the king and the princes commanded the Levites to sing praise unto the LORD with the words of David, and of Asaph the seer. And they sang praises with gladness, and they bowed their heads and worshipped.
2Ch_31:2  And Hezekiah appointed the courses of the priests and the Levites after their courses, every man according to his service, the priests and Levites for burnt offerings and for peace offerings, to minister, and to give thanks, and to praise in the gates of the tents of the LORD.
Ezr_3:10  And when the builders laid the foundation of the temple of the LORD, they set the priests in their apparel with trumpets, and the Levites the sons of Asaph with cymbals, to praise the LORD, after the ordinance of David king of Israel.
Neh_9:5  Then the Levites, Jeshua, and Kadmiel, Bani, Hashabniah, Sherebiah, Hodijah, Shebaniah, and Pethahiah, said, Stand up and bless the LORD your God for ever and ever: and blessed be thy glorious name, which is exalted above all blessing and praise.
Neh_12:24  And the chief of the Levites: Hashabiah, Sherebiah, and Jeshua the son of Kadmiel, with their brethren over against them, to praise and to give thanks, according to the commandment of David the man of God, ward over against ward.

Everything in the old covenant is a physical representation of a spiritual truth.The levitical priest ground the spices and then put them on the fire to make an incense offering to the Lord. So when Christians suffer through things in life that would grind them to powder, and when they go thru the fire of trials and tribulations all the time still praising God. That is like sweet incense to the Lord

In Rev_8:3  And another angel came and stood at the altar, having a golden censer; and there was given unto him much incense, that he should offer it with the prayers of all saints upon the golden altar which was before the throne.
Rev_8:4  And the smoke of the incense, which came with the prayers of the saints, ascended up before God out of the angel's hand.
.
This offering would not be for sin but  probably a praise offering which is like incense to the Lord.

Heb_10:10  By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.
Heb_10:11  And every priest stands daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins:
Heb_10:14  For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified.
Heb_10:18  Now where remission of these is, there is no more offering for sin.

Also with respect I don't see how having Roman Catholic priests are scriptural. Having a priest to get to God is old covenant. The old covenant is about having priests between man and God. The new covenant is about direct access to God. That is what is symbolized by the veil in the temple being rent in two signifying a new and living way.
 Heb_10:20  By a new and living way, which he hath consecrated for us, through the veil, that is to say, his flesh;
   At Sanai Israel was offered to be kings and priests of the Melchisedec order like Abraham and David. God wanted them to have a personal relationship with him like he had with Moses and Abraham. But they were rebellious and were afraid to talk to God directly and they wanted to be like other nations having ceremonies and priests. Later they did not want God as their king and they wanted a human king. God allowed this because he allws free will and so people will realize that getting what they want is not always a good thing.  So they were burdened down by both ceremonies and taxes.
The old covenant did serve as symbols of the spiritual concepts of the new covenant.

Heb 8:3  For every high priest is ordained to offer gifts and sacrifices: wherefore it is of necessity that this man have somewhat also to offer.
Heb 8:4  For if he were on earth, he should not be a priest, seeing that there are priests that offer gifts according to the law:
Heb 8:5  Who serve unto the example and shadow of heavenly things, as Moses was admonished of God when he was about to make the tabernacle: for, See, saith he, that thou make all things according to the pattern shewed to thee in the mount.
Heb 8:6  But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises.
Heb 8:7  For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second.
Heb 8:8  For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah:
Heb 8:9  Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord.
Heb 8:10  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:
Heb 8:11  And they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest.
Heb 8:12  For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more.
Heb 8:13  In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.

To go to a man to get to God is so old covenant. Christ died so we could have access to God right in the Holy of Holies.

Also I don't understand how going to the Roman Catholic church  which worship idols and who worships the queen of heaven could possibly represent a pure offering.
People all over the world worship the Queen of heaven which is an abomination to God.
Constantine wanted to have better control over the masses so he blended the queen of heaven worship with Chrisitanity to consolidate the people together. Thus the Roman Catholic church was born. The people still  kept coming to worship their pagan idols but they changed the names from pagan queen of heaven to Mary. That is why you see depictions similar to Isis in RC churches.

Jer 7:16  Therefore pray not thou for this people, neither lift up cry nor prayer for them, neither make intercession to me: for I will not hear thee.
Jer 7:17  See thou not what they do in the cities of Judah and in the streets of Jerusalem?
Jer 7:18  The children gather wood, and the fathers kindle the fire, and the women knead their dough, to make cakes to the queen of heaven, and to pour out drink offerings unto other gods, that they may provoke me to anger.
Jer 7:19  Do they provoke me to anger? says the LORD: do they not provoke themselves to the confusion of their own faces?

We see in the Old testament Solomon worshiped Ashtoreth
"Astarte ... a Semitic goddess of fertility and sexual love, worshiped by the Phoenicians and others: see also ASHTORETH, ISHTAR."
"Ashtoreth ... the ancient Phoenician and Syrian goddess of love and fertility: identified with ASTARTE."
"Ishtar ... see ASHTORETH ... the goddess of love, fertility, and war."
 From whom the RC church gets Easter.

I will rend the kingdom out of the hand of Solomon, and will give ten tribes to thee:
1Ki 11:32  (But he shall have one tribe for my servant David's sake, and for Jerusalem's sake, the city which I have chosen out of all the tribes of Israel:)
1Ki 11:33  Because that they have forsaken me, and have worshipped Ashtoreth the goddess of the Zidonians, ...and have not walked in my ways, to do that which is right in mine eyes, and to keep my statutes and my judgments, as did David his father.

There are many scripture against the worship of Ashtoreth and Baal
God hates mixtures so how could the RC church with it's mix of pagan and Christian  practices ever provide a pure offering?


Does God will the diversity of religion? According to this article: Pope Francis signed a document stating:

  The pluralism and the diversity of religions, colour, sex, race and
  language are willed by God in His wisdom, through which He created
  human beings,

The article says:

  theologian says it must be read in the proper context

The context is:

  Catholics, Muslims and all who believe in God must work together to
  build a culture of love, peace and human fraternity

My question is how does the Catholic Church understand it within the context of the first commandment? Is this the teaching of the Catholic Church that diversity of religion is the will of God?

  I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out
  of the house of bondage. You shall have no other gods before me. You
  shall not make for yourself a graven image, or any likeness of
  anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or
  that is in the water under the earth; you shall not bow down to them
  or serve them.3 It is written: "You shall worship the Lord your God
  and him only shall you serve."4 Catechism

No, the diversity of sects is due to the sin of man.

  2 Peter 2:1But there were also false prophets among the people, even as there shall be among you lying teachers who shall bring in sects of perdition (αιρέσεις απωλείας) [lit. "heresies of perdition", false religions] and deny the Lord who bought them: bringing upon themselves swift destruction.

All false religions begin with false teachings. For example: Judaism denies Christ is the Messias. Islam denies Christ's divinity and thus also the Trinity. Protestantism denies the visibility of the Church, the ministerial priesthood, the transubstantiation, and that the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is truly a propitiatory sacrifice.

God does not will that believers mingle with non-believers:

  2 Cor 6:14-16Bear not the yoke with unbelievers. For what participation hath justice with injustice? Or what fellowship hath light with darkness? And what concord hath Christ with Belial? Or what part hath the faithful with the unbeliever? And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? For you are the temple of the living God: as God saith: I will dwell in them and walk among them. And I will be their God: and they shall be my people.

See also "The Church's Constant Teaching on our dealings with Non-Catholics."

Religious indifferentism and liberty of conscience is a heresy. Bl. Pope Pius IX condemned the following proposition in his Syllabus of Errors:

  Every man is free to embrace and profess that religion which, guided by the light of reason, he shall consider true.

In 1 Corinthians 11:18-19 (NIV), it is written:

  In the first place, I hear that when you come together as a church,
  there are divisions among you, and to some extent I believe it. No
  doubt there have to be differences among you to show which of you have
  God’s approval.

Yes, God wills that there be different factions among Christians, and by extension, different religions. It is His will that the different beliefs, manifesting themselves in different outcomes, shine a light on the path leading to the truth. False belief leads to ungodly behavior, disunity, violence, and death. True beliefs lead to the fruit of the Spirit, to godliness, unity, peace and life.


Why is it hard for a rich man to go to heaven? Jesus said that it was easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to go to heaven. Why would this be?

Does this mean that it will be hard for e.g. Warren Buffett to go to heaven? Can a rich man go to heaven only by giving away all of his goods to the poor, as Jesus advised one young rich man? And could this be why Warren Buffett set up a charitable foundation?

  And Jesus looked around and said to his disciples, “How difficult it will be for those who have wealth to enter the kingdom of God!” 24 And the disciples were amazed at his words. But Jesus said to them again, “Children, how difficult it is to enter the kingdom of God! 25 It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich person to enter the kingdom of God.” 26 And they were exceedingly astonished, and said to him, “Then who can be saved?” 27 Jesus looked at them and said, “With man it is impossible, but not with God. For all things are possible with God.”  Mark 11:23-27 ESV

As already mentioned, it is entirely possible for a rich man to go to heaven. The problem is that a rich man can more easily trust in his own merits or wealth. There are many proverbs that talk about that, like Proverbs 11:28 (ESV):

  Whoever trusts in his riches will fall, but the righteous will flourish like a green leaf.

When we trust in ourselves and don't rely on Jesus and his death and resurrection for our salvation, then we cannot enter the kingdom of heaven. When Jesus told the rich man to go sell everything he was testing him to see whether his trust and security was in Jesus or in his riches (himself).

I think Jesus was not thinking that the rich man would make a giant blender and liquidize the camel to put it through the eye of a needle. I think he was making a joke and the answer is it is impossible. How improbable is it that a camel could walk through the eye of a needle? Even in the Bible, with all the miracles (burning bush, water into wine, raising Lazarus, resurrection of Christ) I think seeing a camel walk through the eye of a needle would be the best miracle. Rich people (or even middle class by our standards) probably can't get into heaven.


What is Young-Earth Creationism, and how is it argued for? What is Young-Earth Creationism, and the Biblical basis for it?

Young Earth Creationism, abbreviated YEC, is the idea that the earth is relatively young (several thousand years old) compared to Old Earth Creationism (OEC) which agree with secular science that currently claims the earth is 4.55 Billion years old.

While there is a lot of good physical evidence for YEC discussed elsewhere the question at hand is what is the Biblical basis for it.

Here is my opinion on the Biblical basis:

If the earth was old that puts death in the world before sin.1
Genesis was as explicit as possible in putting the term day as we mean it without going to the absurd length to have to specify exactly 24 hours.2
Contrary to popular belief the bible does not state that the earth was flooded from rain alone, but instead states that the fountains of the deep broke open AND it rained for 40 days. which is the only way that it could have happened, and if truly global it explains quite a bit about geology.3
In the 10 commandments in Exodus it is explained why the Sabbath is holy: 'In six days did the Lord God create the heavens and earth, and all that is within them and on the seventh day He rested'. Exodus 20:11
2 Peter 3, talks about scoffers in the last days who are willingly ignorant about the flood destroying the whole world. and talks about how the world will be destroyed again in fire (so if you claim the flood was local, then you would have to conclude that God destroying the world in fire at the end will also be local somehow too). It also warns about people twisting the scriptures, which is what it looks to me OEC's do when they try to get millions of years out of "There was evening, there was morning, Day 1"2
Mark 10:6, Jesus himself said 'From the beginning of creation, God made them male and female'.

The bottom line is to get an Old Earth View, you have to change the standard interpretation of much of the scripture and take many words out individually nit picking at what their meaning could be, instead of looking at the passage as a whole. Also the main proponents of OEC such as Hugh Ross, for an example, have come from first from a secular background and tried to reconcile what they already believed with the bible. Look at his bio; he states clearly that he went looking for a religion that fit what he understood to be true about science. Instead of coming to Christ and trying to find out what is truth, they do the opposite; they say, "This is true, now how can we make christianity agree with it?"

1 Romans 5:12 states that death entered the world because of the sin of Adam.  Now some YEC's taken that to an extreme and say that the 2nd law of thermodynamics entered the world at that time, and that's a big stumbling block for OEC's like Hugh Ross. I don't make that claim and don't think the bible makes the claim that entropy = death. In fact in there is allot of chaos in genesis before man shows up. But while some will claim there is no biblical support for the idea that death means anything other than human death, I think it's very clear if you look throughout the bible you see the ideal that man's sin is the cause for animal suffering.

God killed animals right after Adam sinned to cover his nakedness.
God didn't tell Adam he could eat animals before he sinned.
God instituted animal sacrifices because 'without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sins'.

2 It's true the Hebrew word YOHM can mean anything from 12 hours to an indeterminate period, but so can our own English word day, but it's rare to mean something other than 24 hours. While there are other Hebrew words that only mean long periods of time that could have been used instead. God says he is not the author of confusion, so why would he say there was evening and morning, day 1(which OEC's claim should mean "the was the dawn of an age, and a close of an age, age 1") when he could have just said this was the first age.

3 as stated in many arguments against a global flood, if it rained for 40 days enough to cover the current topography of earth it would rain so hard that the friction from the water would burn the atmosphere and also the rain would so much force as to brake the ark itself. But instead of saying the rain caused the flood it says he broke open the fountains of the deep, AND it rained.

Young Earth Creationism (YEC) is the view that the world was created by God in a 6 day period only a few thousand years ago. Surprisingly, it requires a non-literal reading of the Bible.

The biblical account in Genesis 1:1-2:4a is straight-forward enough in telling us that creation took just six days, but what it does not tell us is how long ago those six days were. For this we need to harmonise the first creation account (Genesis 1:1-2:4a) with the second account (Genesis 2:4b-25). The second account tells us of the creation of Adam, and then a biblical genealogy, from Adam onwards, tells us that Adam was created around six thousand years ago.

However, a careful reading of Genesis tells us that the two stories are independent of each other and, when read in the Hebrew language, do not even appear to have been written by the same author.  Leon R. Kass says in The Beginning of Wisdom, page 56, that once we recognise the independence of the two creation stories, we must scrupulously avoid reading into the second story any facts or notions taken from the first, and vice versa.  Young Earth Creationism suffers from the restriction that without the assumed link between the first story and the second, it is only possible to say when the life on earth was created, but not when the earth itself was created.