According to Reformed theology, why does God tell people to repent if they don't have the choice to do so, as in Exodus 10:3? This question is addressed to those who believe in the doctrine of Total Depravity.

In Exodus 10:3 God asks the Pharaoh for how long will he remain proud. Why does God ask such a question if the Pharaoh can't repent?

And why does God tell all people to repent/or to not sin if they don't have the choice to do so? It's like telling a blind person to see.

  "So Moses and Aaron went to Pharaoh and said to him, "This is what the LORD, the God of the Hebrews, says: 'How long will you refuse to humble yourself before me? Let my people go, so that they may worship me." (Exodus 10:3 (NIV))

This is a good question and usually the misunderstanding of people who are curious of the doctrine.

I am going to address the second question first. When asking this question you are making a mistake in terms of what total depravity is. You are assuming that the individuals who are not called don't have a choice to repent. This is not what is believed. The person who typically believes in total depravity believes that by birth the individual is sinful (Psalm 51:5) and hates God and therefore will not look for God (Romans 3:10-11). Total depravity is not a choice that is given or not given, it is the state of a mans heart at birth. That his heart hates God because he loves sin (Romans 1:21). Nobody says that they do not have the option to repent. Rather that the individual DOES have the option to repent but they lack the desire to repent. Therefore because they don't want to repent they wont repent.

What happens to the individual that does repent is that God gives some a heart as a new gift (Ezekial 36:26). He makes the individual a new creature (2 Corinthians 5:17). God gives them a new desire for him. A longing to be with him. So because they have a desire for God they repent and turn to him. God never restricts anyone's repentance. Simply put they don't want to repent, because they don't want God. The people who do repent want God. God is not under any obligation to change a mans heart. Although He can and does. Typically they appeal to the many instances when God changes a man in scriptures or sets them apart from birth.

In the example of pharaoh, they do believe pharaoh has the option to repent. In fact it is clear that God tells him to. So he has the option to, and God demonstrates to him that he should over and over. But pharaoh hates God and doesn't want to repent and God is under no obligation to change his heart to make him want to repent. Even if God calls him to repent, because pharaoh has the option to repent. God gave him that option, and calls him to repent but pharaoh simply does not want God, and does not want to repent.

Hope this helps!

I recently read the passage and had the same question, as it seems odd for God to "harden" Pharaoh's heart after each plague. I believe Moses does question God on this very topic.
My take is that humans can be influenced by spirit, and that though our "choice to do so" (free will) exists, sometimes spiritual influence wins out over our intended outcome, despite our choices.
In the case of Pharaoh, it was directly emotional influence, something God does even today. Christians believe the power of the Holy Spirit can convict them. That speaks of emotional influence. The same works for evil as well, since we see Gog and Magog attack after the millennial reign in Revelation.
A great spiritual leader of the Lord is intellectually influenced by God. Someone like Moses who convenes with God in a regular basis during his trips up the mountain of Mt. Sinai. Before that, Jacob and Abraham met the incarnation of God. Even today, many leaders (somewhat controversially) claim to have divine direction of sorts from feeling to hearing a voice.
Where leadership and divine direction have been separated into kings and prophets, there exist an influence of vision onto the prophets. Ezekiel comes to mind as one especially influenced by the vision of the spirit. Daniel too has visions, though quite symbolic, which the book of Revelation mirrors.
Dreams is another way God influences us. Joseph and people around him seemed to experience this form of divine revelation. The original "Inception" architect is God.
Another form of influence is by angels. Abraham, Elijah, Ezekiel, Mary's Joseph, just name a few, were visited.
None of this proves that you have no free will. The ability to have chosen otherwise is a logical paradox, a straw man to a philosophical determinist argument, since as soon as you have chosen something, history eliminates the other choices. Choice is therefore not an ability to choose otherwise but ability to reason for yourself. In other words, it is an expression of autonomy through the outcome of an option.
Looking at it from the perspective of choice as an option, there does exist more than one option for Pharaoh. In this particular case, God was quite adamant in making Egypt suffer for their betrayal of the Hebrews. He used His influence to accomplish this, but did not eliminate the option to let His people go. That was there the whole time.
Think of it like war. Each opponent has their own political ideals. They each exert their will onto their opponent, and the strongest or craftiest wins. The loser still had the choice to fight or surrender, but they were defeated. That does not mean that they had no choice to win. A country doesn't choose to be conquered, just as humans don't choose to be wrong. The loser chose to win, but lost. Choice existed but was overpowered.
In other words, it is not that Pharaoh had no free will, but only that God's was much stronger. God had better resources and a better strategy, because He is, in fact, God. So even though Pharaoh intends on letting the people go several times, God overcomes by delivering a simple emotion.


Does any church still provide a pension for widows? In 1 Timothy there is a passage that talks about widows receiving a pension from the church:

1 Timothy 5:9-16

  A widow is to be put on the list only if she is not less than sixty
  years old, having been the wife of one man, 10 having a reputation for
  good works; and if she has brought up children, if she has shown
  hospitality to strangers, if she has washed the saints’ feet, if she
  has assisted those in distress, and if she has devoted herself to
  every good work. 11 But refuse to put younger widows on the list, for
  when they feel sensual desires in disregard of Christ, they want to
  get married, 12 thus incurring condemnation, because they have set
  aside their previous pledge. 13 At the same time they also learn to be
  idle, as they go around from house to house; and not merely idle, but
  also gossips and busybodies, talking about things not proper to
  mention. 14 Therefore, I want younger widows to get married, bear
  children, keep house, and give the enemy no occasion for reproach;
  15 for some have already turned aside to follow Satan. 16 If any woman
  who is a believer has dependent widows, she must assist them and the
  church must not be burdened, so that it may assist those who are
  widows indeed

Is there a historical record of this practice in the church and do any modern churches still have a similar practice?

Let's start by remembering that we are living in very different times from those of the New Testament. 1 Timothy is a letter written by one pastor to another, and not all of it is intended as commandments to the entire church in all places down the millenia. Some of it is Paul giving Timothy good advice for the present circumstances (Sometimes we can deduce universal principles from that, but that's a different matter). So asking whether any church is  ministering to widows in the way specified should be a trivial and unimportant matter, and doesn't in any way make a statement about the church. You should also consider that nothing in 1 Timothy says that widows under the age of sixty shouldn't receive help in other ways if they need it. Let's also remember that providing financial assistance to the elderly is now the responsibility of the state, at least in the Western world.
Having said that, many churches provide financial assistance specifically aimed at Widows. Here are a couple of examples:

The Widows Program of the Rafiki Foundation gives African widows and impoverished women of the church a means of employment and artistic expression
The orphan and the widow are often forgotten, marginalized and in need. God longs to meet their needs through us, His Church. Africa Revolution is being used by God, not only to help meet these needs, but also to equip and empower local churches and community members to better serve this population with best practice solutions.
Widow Connection - Helping Widows in time of need.
The mission of the Women Of Grace Widows’ Fund is to enact and make real an ongoing structure to alleviate the extreme poverty faced by widows in Malawi by providing funding to meet basic food, shelter, and safety needs, while creating opportunities and resources that enable and empower widows to establish their own self-sufficiency and independence, regardless of religious affiliation.

That's just from the first two pages of Google.

It appears that the answer to the question you actually asked is, "No, there are no churches today that maintain a Widow's List in accordance with I Timothy 5."  Yes, there are all sorts of other programs but nothing like that described in I Timothy 5.


Where did Baptists get their name and what do they believe? Where and when did the Baptists get their name and what do they believe that sets them apart from the rest of Protestant denominations?

I realize there are different divisions among Baptists as well, so let's keep this limited to the issues that were relevant when the term Baptist first became used and that generally cover most Baptist denominations today but still specific enough to uniquely identify what makes Baptists different from the members of other denominations Protestant denominations.

The key difference is that in most other denominations (Anglicanism, Methodism, the United Reformed Church, etc) infant baptism is practised. Baptists believe that baptism is a public profession of personal faith - in other words, a public display of a decision someone has made themselves - and the notion of infant baptism is at odds with this.

Most new churches (emergent, or whichever word you prefer - churches that were established in the last few decades) profess to be non-denominational but tend to accord with Baptist theology, at least in the respect of baptism.

Technically, the Baptists were not a part of the Reformation because like those of Luther, Calvin and Zwingli, the Baptists were never a part of the Catholic church. They never left the Catholic church because they were never in it. They were around long before the Reformation. Originally, they were known as Montanist's. This was around 150 AD. The Montanists were persecuted by the Roman ruled regions, fed to the lions, ect. Then they were known as Novatians 200AD-305AD. Same thing here, because they believed in things like baptism for believers only, and only praying to Jesus, they were persecuted and killed. When the Catholic Church was founded by Emperor Constantine around 300AD, they started hunting down these "heresy" cult people for not following the new Church. In 306AD they changed again to the Dontanist and then a few hundred years later they were referred as Albigenses. In 1170AD they were called Waldensians. They were most popular at this time, but still were not accepted by mainstream. Through the "dark ages" they were hunted down and killed. Even Martin Luther took part in this after the Reformation. Around the time of the Reformation they were known as Ana-baptists. This is actually a slang term given to them by those of the Catholic church, including Luther.
When they were found, Luther and others would drown them, making fun of them because the had been "rebatized" You could search "third baptism drowning" and find out more on this.
They would be called as they are known now as the Baptist Church in 1638. Technically they were the original church of the Apostles around 300 years before the Catholic church was invented. The thought that the Baptist church is part of the protestant sect is way off and even the protestant faith clashes very much in doctrine from the Baptist church.
God Bless
http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Believer's%20Corner/why_baptists_are_not_protestants.htm
http://bible-truth.org/BaptistHistory.html#002


Atheism is the default position. Isn't the burden of proof on the Christian to assert that God exists? The title is a bit tongue in cheek, but according to Christianity, is it necessarily right to have to make arguments starting from atheism? It seems obvious to me that God exists. However, in both causal arguments, or public policy, this seems the default position ingrained in our culture and to make an argument otherwise is ridiculed.

Is this a legitimate premise (that atheism is the default position) to reason from? I think not, but what are the arguments against it? With what methods of reasoning does Christianity approach this issue?

Christian apologetics often employ a form of presuppositional logic. In fact, the wikipedia page for Presupposition (philosophy) specifically addresses this issue:

  A variety of Christian apologetics, called presuppositional apologetics, argues that the existence or non-existence of God is the basic presupposition of all human thought, and that all men arrive at a worldview which is ultimately determined by the theology they presuppose. Evidence and arguments are only marshalled after the fact in an attempt to justify the theological assumptions already made.

It is difficult or impossible to coherently reason with someone who makes different presuppositions than you, and sometimes the best course is to first lay out your presuppositions. After you have a place to stand on, you can look back and defend those views.

The Biblical witness on this point is fairly straightforward. God exists. In addition to this testimony it claims that there is no possible excuse for men not knowing at least some basic facts about his identity.

  Romans 1:20-21 (ESV)
  20  For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. 21  For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened.

After asserting in verse 20 that there is clear evidence in the world pointing to some attributes of God, verse 21 goes on to state that all men knew God and that it is through willfully not honoring him As God that they become unable to reason properly. Without a worldview informed by the presupposition that God exists, as well as certain attributes about him, men are unable to see clear reason.

The writer C.S. Lewis applies this idea to practical belief and frames it in layman's terms rather graphically when he wrote:

  "I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen. Not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else."

To Christian reason, no further proof of God's existence is required but that, knowing he does exist, we can finally make sense out of the world around us.

I think from a theological perspective there can't be any doubt that Atheism is the default position. If belief and non-belief were on the same level that would degrade the incomprehensible wonder of Jesus' resurrection, that God let him die for us and that he came back and will come back!

Because there is no easy way out there is this old confession of faith:

  Credo, quia absurdum est (I believe because it is absurd)

It is important to see that Jesus himself endorses a critical stance.

Thomas the Apostle speaks (John, 20, 25):

  "I won't believe it unless I see the nail wounds in his hands, put my fingers into them, and place my hand into the wound in his side.

Jesus endorses this attitude and bothers to get back to Thomas to give him proof (John, 20, 27):

  Then he said to Thomas, “Put your finger here, and look at my hands. Put your hand into the wound in my side. Don’t be faithless any longer. Believe!

And finally (John, 20, 29):

  Then Jesus told him, “You believe because you have seen me.

So even the Bible makes it very clear that Jesus wants us to not just be gullible but to demand proof. Neither of the Apostles was prepared to believe without a proof and Jesus respected that and had this very story been incorporated into the Bible for us.

EDIT

But what about the phrase right after:

  blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed.

Isn't Christ himself saying to believe on faith?

You have to be very careful here: Jesus is saying this after he gave proof and he is saying this only unto him, i.e. Thomas, who believes already because he has the evidence right before his eyes; Jesus is not saying this unto us or to anybody else or in general!

So this part is one of the clearest and most unambiguous parts in the Bible. Christians have to take Jesus' word literally here and not try to interpret it as it seems convenient. I even think it is one of the most pivotal parts of the Bible!


According to YEC, did all plants and trees survive the Great Flood? If so, how? We read:

Genesis 6:17-21:

17 I am going to bring floodwaters on the earth to destroy all life under the heavens, every creature that has the breath of life in it. Everything on earth will perish. 18 But I will establish my covenant with you, and you will enter the ark—you and your sons and your wife and your sons’ wives with you. 19 You are to bring into the ark two of all living creatures, male and female, to keep them alive with you. 20 Two of every kind of bird, of every kind of animal and of every kind of creature that moves along the ground will come to you to be kept alive. 21 You are to take every kind of food that is to be eaten and store it away as food for you and for them.”

Genesis 7:1-4:

1 The Lord then said to Noah, “Go into the ark, you and your whole family, because I have found you righteous in this generation. 2 Take with you seven pairs of every kind of clean animal, a male and its mate, and one pair of every kind of unclean animal, a male and its mate, 3 and also seven pairs of every kind of bird, male and female, to keep their various kinds alive throughout the earth. 4 Seven days from now I will send rain on the earth for forty days and forty nights, and I will wipe from the face of the earth every living creature I have made.”

Genesis 7:14-16:

They had with them every wild animal according to its kind, all livestock according to their kinds, every creature that moves along the ground according to its kind and every bird according to its kind, everything with wings. 15 Pairs of all creatures that have the breath of life in them came to Noah and entered the ark. 16 The animals going in were male and female of every living thing, as God had commanded Noah. Then the Lord shut him in.

Genesis 7:20-23:

20 The waters rose and covered the mountains to a depth of more than fifteen cubits. 21 Every living thing that moved on land perished—birds, livestock, wild animals, all the creatures that swarm over the earth, and all mankind. 22 Everything on dry land that had the breath of life in its nostrils died. 23 Every living thing on the face of the earth was wiped out; people and animals and the creatures that move along the ground and the birds were wiped from the earth. Only Noah was left, and those with him in the ark.

I think it is quite reasonable to deduce from the above that God did not instruct Noah to bring plants and trees into the Ark. Furthermore, "every living thing on the face of the earth was wiped out". Now, even if the Jew did not consider plants to be living creatures, God knew that they are (because, well, they are). Thus, it is reasonable to think that if the Great Flood happened, all of the plants and trees died too. Even the aquatic plants died (presumably), because as the sea level rose, they were too far below it to capture sunlight to produce photosynthesis (plus the sky was covered in clouds). And yet, we read in Genesis 8:10-11, several days after the flood stopped:

10 He [Noah] waited seven more days and again sent out the dove from the ark. 11 When the dove returned to him in the evening, there in its beak was a freshly plucked olive leaf! Then Noah knew that the water had receded from the earth.

So, how come an olive tree did not die during the flood, if all the surface of the earth was under water for more than 40 days? Or is it that God repeated what He did in the third day of creation? Genesis 1:11:

Then he commanded, “Let the earth produce all kinds of plants, those that bear grain and those that bear fruit”—and it was done.

You are falling into a linguistic trap because of translation issues. The core of the problem is your statement "Now, even if the Jews did not consider plants to be living creatures, God knew that they are (because, well, they are)." The actual meaning of the passage is that all the living animals died, but not necessarily the plants.
You are assuming that when the Jews did not include plants in the term "living things" that was a mistake due to ignorance. That's not the case - instead it's about definitions.
Interestingly the KJV makes the meaning clearer than modern translations, saying that the flood will destroy "all flesh" rather than all living things.
The Jews used a specific word to describe animal life. It's defined in their language to include animal life, but not to include plant life. We translate it as 'living', because that's the closest word we have, but it doesn't change the meaning that the Jews assigned to it. The word is theirs, and just because our definition of 'living' doesn't quite match their definition of their word does not mean they are 'wrong', or cause a theological problem. The context makes it clear what the meaning of the original word is.
You might also note that the definition of 'living' is not as clear cut as you might think, even in our times. The question of whether viruses (for example) are 'living' is not definitely decided.

All the plants came from seed when the flood was over and the sun came out all seed germinated and grew from the ground as Jehovah said for them to do  in the beginning. All plant life died in the flood.


Besides the writings of John, what is the biblical evidence Jesus Christ is the Only-begotten Son of God? Apart from John's writings, what is the Biblical evidence that Jesus Christ is the only-begotten son of God?

John makes it clear (such as in John 1:18, 3:18), but other parts of the Bible refer to many "sons of God", in both the Old Testament and the New.

Can anyone help me understand this?

The term "only begotten" is a translation of the Greek word "monogenes".  "Mono" indicates one and "genes" indicates kind.  So, the very word itself indicates a meaning of "one of a kind".

In the Septuagint (the Greek translation of the Old Testament), the word was actually used of Isaac.  It should be noted that Isaac was not, in fact, the only son of Abraham.  He was neither the first nor the last, as Ishmael preceded him and the sons of Keturah came from Abraham's second marriage that followed the death of Sarah.  (Abraham did, indeed, "have many sons".)

Still, Isaac's "sonship" was wholly unlike all the others ("one of a kind") in that he was the son of the promise and came from a miraculous birth from a woman who was well past the age of childbearing.

As @Mike noted, followers of Jesus are called "sons and daughters of God".  However, this is quite different from the "sonship" of Jesus.  His "sonship" is wholly unlike any other, in that it is eternal.  Indeed, His birth into this world was miraculous as well.

So, Jesus is not the only "son" of God, but His "sonship" is unique, one-of-a-kind, and distinct from all others who are called sons and daughters of God.  He is literally the Monogenes--the One-of-a Kind--eternal Son of God.

Bible mentions "Son of God" by the Tons. It can be taught of as "Chosen person" and should not be taken literally.

In the book of Psalms 2:7 we find

  Jehovah had said onto me (David), thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee."

Here in this verse we see that God not only called David his "Son", but also had made him his begotten Son.

hence Clearly Jesus is not the only "begotten" son of God.

The Bible says,

  "And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli." (Luke3:23)

The Bible goes on to mention the supposed genealogy of Jesus Christ. At the end of this genealogy the Bible comes to Adam, and it says,

  "Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God." (Luke 3:38).

So Adam is also the son of God.


Why do Christian's associate Jesus as the son of God? Hi to the Christian community.

I've always wondered why Christian's associate Jesus as the son of God? Let me elaborate. I am Muslim, and in Islam we believe that God has no partner. He is alone.

  Praise be to Allah, Who hath not taken unto Himself a son, and Who hath no partner in the Sovereignty, nor hath He any protecting friend through dependence. And magnify Him with all magnificence. (Chapter (17) sūrat l-isrā (The Night Journey))

In Christianity Jesus is referred to as 'Son of God'. To have a son - God had to have some sort of sexual relation right? If Jesus is a human, what is God? Could someone please 'kindly' explain? Thanks and would appreciate any clarification.

Not all denominations of Christianity give the same answer to this question. But probably all Christians can agree that we believe Jesus to be the Son of God, because he said he was, and the Scriptures repeatedly tell us that's who he is:

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

See, "Jesus Christ, Divine Sonship" for many more scriptures.

Just as God created the universe, the angels and physical creatures he created Jesus. In Colossians 1:15 Jesus is called the

  "firstborn of all creation"

and in verse 16

  "For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth,
  visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or
  authorities-- all things have been created through Him and for Him"

so, Jesus was the first creation by God and he was his "master worker" as stated in Proverbs 8:30. So since he is the only creation directly made by God he is called the "Son of God". There are other reasons as well for calling him this but that could be really a really long comment.


What was Paul's "revelation" (mentioned in Galatians 2:2)? Then after an interval of fourteen years I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, taking Titus along also. It was because of a revelation that I went up; and I submitted to them the gospel which I preach among the Gentiles.  - Galatians 2:1-2, NASB

I am wondering what Paul's revelation was?  Do we have any scripture, tradition, or writings from church fathers which might help answer this?

The revelation was most likely simply a directive from God to go up to Jerusalem to talk with the apostles. This is the most natural way to read the verse, and there would be nothing surprising about this conclusion on the basis of the rest of Paul's life, since he was an apostle.

An apostle had to be someone who had seen Christ directly with his eyes. This is evidenced in the choosing of a replacement for Judas. It is also shown in this chapter itself; Paul is arguing that he has apostolic authority on the basis of the fact that he has had a revelation of Jesus Christ (1:11-12). Thus, he is an apostle not because he was sent by men, nor even commissioned by (authorized) men on behalf of God (this is the usual interpretation of 1:1). See also 1:16. Thus Paul says of himself elsewhere, "Last of all, as though I had been born at the wrong time, I also saw him."

Other examples of specific revelations he received:

His conversion story, when he sees Christ face-to-face
His apparent reference to himself in the "I know a man who has caught up into third heaven" passage
His distinction in 1 Corinthians 7 between his own apostolic wisdom and the revelation he has directly from Jesus
The Spirit's revelation to him of his sufferings in Jerusalem
The Spirit's preventing him from going into Asia at one point (there may be a different interpretation of this)

Therefore, given that the Lord seems to have spoken to him not only at his conversion and not only to teach him doctrine, and given that the context is that he had been gone for fourteen years without seeing any need to go to Jerusalem (2:1), it seems extremely likely that the revelation was a specific direction that he ought to go up to Jerusalem and confer with the apostles, particularly James, Peter and John (2:9).

You clearly have missed this central revelation. It was all about the Gospel of the Grace of God that had been given in precise details to Paul which he had been proclaiming among the Gentiles. Which was that one could be justified before God by faith alone without observing the Law of Moses. Prior to Paul the Jerusalem apostles were teaching that one had to only believe that Jesus was the long promised Messiah plus they maintained keeping Law rituals. Paul went up to Jerusalem after 14 years to confer with the Jerusalem congregation showing them the Gospel he had been preaching by direct revelation of the risen Christ Jesus and to get their approval; right hand of fellowship (read Acts 15). As to Paul's Christ given Gospel of the Grace of God we all need to believe in (TRUST with the heart) for salvation he details it in:

1 Corinthians 15:1-4 KJV
Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand; [2] By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain. [3] For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; [4] And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:


Ezekiel on Egypt's 40 year desolation Does anyone have any more knowledge regarding Ezekiel's prophecy about Egypt becoming desolate for 40 years?
I know that Nebuchadnezzar ransacked much of Egypt and carried away booty as Ezekiel had stated, as well as the Egyptians being taken as captives by Nebuchadnezzar.
We know that Cyrus the Great deported the captives back to their original countries including Egypt, as what Ezekiel said; and that after the Egyptians returned Egypt became a lowly kingdom, as what Ezekiel had said.

Does anyone know how long the time span between Nebuchadnezzar taking the Egyptians as slaves to Cyrus releasing the Egyptians?  Was this 40 years, or a different time span?

I have found secular history's time lines to be problematic in several areas. But there is enough information to be able to rely upon the prophesy of the 40 year desolation of Egypt.
Adam Clarke's commentary on Ezekiel chap. 29 indicates a 40 year time span from the taking by Nebuchadnezzar to the release under Cyrus.
Introduction Chap. 29,

"and God is introduced denouncing, in plain terns, the most awful judgments against him and his nation, and declaring that the Egyptians should be subjected to the Babylonians till the fall of the Chaldean empire, Ezekiel 29:8-12. The prophet then foretells that Egypt, which was about to be devastated by the Babylonians, and many of the people carried into captivity, should again become a kingdom; but that it should never regain its ancient political importance; for, in the lapse of time, it should be even the Basest of the kingdoms, a circumstance in the prophecy most literally fulfilled, especially under the Christian dispensation, in its government by the Mameluke slaves, Ezekiel 29:13-16. The prophecy, beginning at the seventeenth verse, is connected with the foregoing, as it relates to the same subject, though delivered about seventeen years later. Nebuchadnezzar and his army, after the long siege of Tyre, which made every head bald by constantly wearing their helmets, and wore the skin of off every shoulder by carrying burdens to raise the fortifications, were disappointed of the spoil which they expected, by the retiring of the inhabitants to Carthage. God, therefore, promises him Egypt for his reward, Ezekiel 29:17-20. The chapter concludes with a prediction of the return of the Jews from the Babylonish captivity, Ezekiel 29:21."

Clarke's Commentary on verse 13,

"Will I gather the Egyptians - It is probable that Cyrus gave permission to the Egyptians brought to Babylon by Nebuchadnezzar, to return to their own country. And if we reckon from the commencement of the war against Pharaoh-hophra by Nebuchadnezzar, to the third or fourth year of Cyrus, the term will be about forty years."  Source: here.

Gill's Exposition on verse 13,

"Yet thus saith the Lord God, at the end of forty years,.... Reckoning from its devastation by Nebuchadnezzar to the taking of Babylon by Cyrus:
will I gather the Egyptians from the people whither they were scattered; from Babylon, and other places; Cyrus very probably being stirred up by the Lord to proclaim liberty to the Egyptians, as he did to the Jews, to return to their own land; and at the same time restored Amasis to the quiet possession of his kingdom, who must be still alive; since, according to Diodorus Siculus (w), he reigned fifty five years; though, according to Herodotus (x), he reigned but forty four years. "  Source: here.

Egypt's desolation was also prophesied by Jeremiah in chap. 46.
The indication by many commentators is that when Babylon fell to Cyrus, then Cyrus gave the Egyptians their freedom. But, determining the years from secular historical records is problematic.
Historians place the fall of Babylon about 539 BC.  This would put the fall of Egypt 40 years earlier in 579 BC.  This does not comport with the secular records of Nebuchadnezzar's invasion of Egypt in 568 BC.  The secular records are off.
Excerpt from Keil and Delitzsh OT Commentary on Verses 17-18,
The contents of the prophecy, namely, the assurance that God would give Egypt to Nebuchadnezzar as spoil in return for the hard labour which he and his army had performed at Tyre, point to the time immediately following the termination of the thirteen years' siege of Tyre by Nebuchadnezzar. If we compare with this the date given in Ezekiel 29:17, the siege was brought to a close in the twenty-seventh year of the captivity of Jehoiachin, i.e., b.c. 572, and must therefore have commenced in the year b.c. 586, or about two years after the destruction of Jerusalem, and with this the extract given by Josephus (c. Ap. i. 21) from the Tyrian annals agrees."  Source: here.
As another source places the Nebuchadnezzar's invasion of Egypt in 588 BC, with the end of their desolation in 548 BC.  And, that would mean that the fall of Babylon to Cyrus was about 9 years earlier than secular history records it.  See the info at "Jerusalem 607 BCE" here.

Note that Clarke, Gill and Keil and Delitzsch cited above wrote before archaeological work in Egypt and the Ancient Near East had got underway to any degree.

We have contemporary records of life continuing much as ever throughout the period leaving no room for any supposed depopulation.

See from page 4 of URL link at
A Chronological Survey of Precisely Dated Demotic and Abnormal Hieratic Sources
http://www.etana.org/node/10784

For more detail on what those records in the link above refer to see the post which begins "For what it's worth," by Leolaia on page 7 of the following thread
https://www.jehovahs-witness.com/topic/186163/ezekiel-29-12-prophecy-desolation-egypt-40-years?page=7

The following is a copy/paste of Leolaia's post. To avoid some head scratching I should note that the inserted comments were intended to rebutt Jehovah's Witness chronology which places the first temple destruction in Jerusalem in 607 BCE not 587 BCE.

"Year 1 of Amasis (570/569 BC)

BM 952 (Int. Inv. 803-081-730). Dated to Year 1, Month Phaophi, Day 1 (= February 12, 570 BC). This is a document from the east bank of the Nile south of el-Hibeh relating the donation of ten arourae of dray land in the district of Shakek to maintain a lamp in the temple of Horus at Hutnesu, granted to Djedtheotefankh son of Pediese.

Berlin 14998. Dated to Year 1, Month Phamenoth (= July/August 570 BC). This is a stele from the Western Delta relating the donation of land.

Elephantine Stele. Dated to the Year 4 but describes events from Year 1, Month Paoni (= October/November 570 BC), relating how Amasis in his palace at Sais was informed that Apries approached with boats filled with Greeks and how Amasis routed the opposition.

Louvre C. 298 (Int. Inv. 803-081-895). Dated to Year 1, Month Mesore, Day 1 (= December 9, 570 BC). This is a stele from Pharbaithos relating the donation of six arourae of land to Osiris of Ramehat (near Hurbeit).

Year 2 of Amasis (569/568 BC)

P John Rylands III. Dated to Year 2, Month Phaophi (?) (= February/March 569 BC). Demotic papyrus stating debts owed.

P John Rylands V. Dated to Year 2, Month Paoni (= October/November 569 BC). This document acknowledges the debt owed by Peftjauawykhonsu to the priest Nessematawy.

Year 3 of Amasis (568/567 BC)

P John Rylands VI. Dated to Year 3, Month Thoth (= January/February 568 BC). Sale of self as slave by Peftjauawykhonsu to the priest Nessematawy, in return for payment and actions performed "in Year 2 when I was dying" (P Rylands V).

P Louvre E. 7861. Dated to Year 3, Month Tobi (= May/June 568 BC). A demotic papyrus from Thebes in which Userertais discharges Djekhe son of Tesmont from a debt.

Cairo T. 14.2.25.2. Dated to Year 3. A land donation stele from Bubastis.

Year 4 of Amasis (567/566 BC)

BM 33041. Dated to Year 37 of Nebuchadnezzar (= 568/567 BC). This cuneiform tablet records that Nebuchadnezzar marched against Egypt in his Year 37, to which [Ama]-sis the king of Egypt responded by raising forces from Cyrene (i.e. Putu-iaman), the Mediterranean, and within Egypt. The result of the campaign is not stated on account of the fragmentary condition of the tablet.

Elephantine Stele. Dated to Year 4, Month Hathor, Day 8 (= March 22, 567 BC). This monumental inscription states that an Asiatic (i.e. Babylonian) invasion of Egypt by land and sea was defeated and that the deposed pharaoh Apries, accompanying the foreign army, did not survive and was buried with honors.

These two inscriptions refer to the attack on Egypt predicted by Ezekiel (ch. 29). Ezekiel's oracle is dated to the Year 27 of Jehoiachin's exile (= 572/571 BC, with Jehoiachin taken captive after the fall of Jerusalem in March 16, 597 BC). Ezekiel thus wrote some 4-5 years prior to the campaign itself. The Elephantine Stele shows that the decisive battle between Nebuchadnezzar and Amasis occurred at the end of Nebuchadnezzar's Year 37, with the king of Babylon marching to Egypt for much of the latter half of that year. The Egyptian and Babylonian chronology thus match perfectly. The Elephantine Stele also shows that Nebuchadnezzar was not successful, contrary to Ezekiel's expectations. Nebuchadnezzar also was allied with the deposed Apries, so it is unlikely he would have turned around to betray Apries and carry the entire population into captivity should he win the campaign. Indeed it is difficult to imagine how the Babylonian army alone could have carried the entire Egyptian population (then at about 7.5 million) into captivity, something that had never occurred in all of Egypt's long history.

It is thus at this point where the supposed "40 year" hiatus should begin. Ezekiel expected that the Egyptian king would be killed and not be buried (29:5), Egypt would be left without any ruler (30:13), Tanis, Thebes, and other important cities would be razed (30:8, 14, 16), the land of Egypt would be completely depopulated without an inhabitant for the ensuing 40 years (29:10-11, 30:23), and all the surviving Egyptians would be scattered among the nations in captivity (29:12). It is thus significant if we find that Amasis was still king after his Year 4, that Thebes and other cities were still inhabited, and that life continued as usual without interruption.

Year 5 of Amasis (566/565 BC)

Louvre IM 4131. Relates the birth of the 5th Apis of the 26th Dynasty, dated to Year 5 of Amasis, Month Thoth, Day 7 (= January/February 566 BC), and then enthroned in the Apis temple at Memphis in Year 5, Month Paoni, Day 18 (= October/November 566 BC).

About a year after Nebuchadnezzar's campaign, a bull was born in Memphis and was designated as the official Apis nine months later. Life in Memphis continues unchanged.

Year 6 of Amasis (565/564 BC)

P Louvre E. 7860. Dated to Year 6, Month Phamenoth, Day 10 (= July 19, 565 BC). A land lease written in abnormal hieratic, on the leasing of six arourae of land for harvesting into Year 7.

Year 8 of Amasis (563/564 BC)

BM 1427. Dated to Year 8 of Amasis. This stele records the dedication of a temple and land to Neith and Horus at Sais.

P John Rylands VII. Dated to Year 8, Month Khoiak (= April/May 563 BC). This papyrus document renews the acknowledgement of servitude by Peftjauawykhonsu to Nessematawy, effective from Hathor 5 of Year 8 to same date in Year 9.

P John Rylands VIII. Dated to Year 8, Month Pakhons (= September/October 562 BC). This document from el-Hibeh is a receipt of a sale of a cow by Djeptahef'onkh son of Patiptah to Petiesi son of Nessematawy.

These documents show that Peftjauawykhonsu and Petiesi son of Nessematawy, residents of Thebes mentioned in documents from Years 2 and 3, were still in Thebes in Year 8. They were not carried off into captivity in Year 4; life was continuing as usual in Thebes without interruption.

Year 12 of Amasis (559/558 BC)

P Louvre E. 7855. Dated to Year 12, Month Hathor, Day 8 (= March/April 559 BC). This papyrus is a letter from Djefmin to Djekhe asking him to take care of Metertais and child.

P Louvre E. 7848. Double-dated to Year 12, Month Paoni, Day 13 according to the civil calendar (which is the usual calendar used for dates) and Year 12, Month Pakhons, Day 15 of the lunar calendar (= October 5, 559 BC). This document annuls a marriage contract made several years earlier.

The double-dating confirms the accuracy of the dating, as the lunar date is independent and fixed to the lunar phase of the moon. Because the two calendars are of different lengths, the coinciding of the two dates can occur only once every 25 years. This rules out the Watchtower chronology which moves conventional dates back by only 20 years.

P Louvre E. 7841. Dated to Year 12, Month Epiphi, Day 5 (= November 10, 559 BC). A papyrus land donation document.

Year 13 of Amasis (558/557 BC)

P Berlin 13616. Dated to Year 13. This demotic document reports on a strike by quarrymen in Elephantine, who went to the town and smashed up stones and statues.

Year 14 of Amasis (557/556 BC)

Leiden I 431. Dated to Year 14, Month Khoiak (= April/May 557 BC). Memorandum from Thebes written on a wooden tablet in abnormal hieratic.

Year 15 of Amasis (556/555 BC)

P Bruxelles E 6031. Dated to Year 15, Month Hathor (= March/April 556 BC). A demotic land contract from Thebes.

P Louvre E. 10935. Dated to Year 15, Month Hathor (= March/April 556 BC). A donation document in which Psammetik-menkhe gives ten arouras of land in the domain of Amun to Esamun waterpourer of the necropolis of Thebes, in charge of her funerary service.

BM 10432. Dated to Year 15, Month Mesore (= December 556 BC - January 555 BC). A lease from Thebes of land tracts sown with flax, leased to Thotorais son of Peteharpochrates and seven others.

Year 16 of Amasis (555/554 BC)

Leningrad Ermitage 18499. Monumental stele dating to Year 16 of Amasis.

P Louvre E. 7844. Dated to Year 16, Month Epiphi (November/December 555 BC). Land lease from Thebes for a tract for harvesting grain, leased to Esamonothes son of Petemnophis and Djekhe son of Tesmont.

Djekhe son of Tesmont previously appeared in P Louvre E. 7861, dated to Year 3. He lived in Thebes prior to Nebuchadnezzar's campaign, and he lived in Thebes many years after Nebuchadnezzar's campaign. Life continued in Thebes unchanged.

Year 17 of Amasis (554/553 BC)

P Louvre E. 7845 A. Dated to Year 17, month Phamenoth (= July/August 554 BC). Land lease from Thebes of a tract in the Southern District to the west of Thebes for harvesting grain in the following year, leased to Psammetichus son of Chapochrates son of Efau.

Year 19 of Amasis (552/551 BC)

P Louvre E. 7847. Dated to Year 19, Month Paoni, Day 25 (= October 29, 552 BC). A harvest receipt written in abnormal hieratic.

Year 21 of Amasis (550/549 BC)

Tanta Stele No. 259. Dated to Year 21 (?) of Amasis. A damaged donation tablet.

Year 22 of Amasis (549/548 BC)
P Louvre E. 7846. Dated to Year 22, Month Epiphi, Day 5 (= November 7, 549 BC). Marriage contract between water-pourer Ieturou son of Petiesi and Tshenkhnum daughter of Djeho son of Amenertais. This contract replaces a contract drawn up in Year 15.

Year 23 of Amasis (548/547 BC)

Berlin 2140. Dated to Year 23. A limestone dedication stele written in demotic.

Louvre IM 4131. Relates the death of the 5th Apis of the 26th Dynasty, dated to Year 23 of Amasis, Month Pakhons, Day 15 (= September/October 548 BC). The same stele states that the bull lived a total of 18 years and 6 months.

Since the same stele states that the bull was born on January/February 566 BC, this shows that the time period between Year 5 and Year 23 of Amasis was a continuous one.

Cairo CD 690. Dated to Year 23 of Amasis. This is the grave stele of Besmaut, and the inscription also states that he was born in Year 18 of Psammetichus I and lived for a total of 99 years.

This lifespan shows that there isn't any hidden 40-year hiatus between Year 4 and 5 of Amasis. The grave steles of the 3rd and 4th Apis of the 26th Dynasty show that 16 years and 7 months span between Year 53 of Psammetichus I, Month Mekhir (= July/August 612 BC) and Year 16 of Necho II, Month Phaophi (= February/March 595 BC) and 17 years and 6 months span between Year 16 of Necho II, Month Phaophi (= February/March 595 BC) and Year 12 of Apries, Month Pharmouthi (August/September 578 BC). Since the 4th Apis was born a day after the death of the 3rd Apis, this attests a continuous period of 34 years and 1 month between Year 53 of Psammetichus I and Year 12 of Apries. Besmaut was born in Year 18 of Psammetichus I, so Besmaut lived a total of 69 years between Year 18 of Psammetichus and Year 12 of Apries. This shows already that there could not have been an additional 40 years inserted between Years 4 and 5, since he lived to only age 99 and 23 years had already elapsed in Amasis' reign (69 + 23 + 40 = 132, a number not less than 99). We know from other grave stele that Apries reigned until Year 19, an additional 7 years after Year 12. This fits perfectly with this chronology (69 + 7 + 23 = 99). This proves that no additional 40 years are to be inserted between Year 4 and 5. Otherwise, Besmaut would have died at age 139, an impossible age at any rate, and an age that conflicts with what is written on the stele itself.

Pausanius, Graecae Descriptio 10.5.13, Herodotus, Historiae 2.180. According to Herodotus, Amasis generously gave donations to the citizens of Delphi when they came down to Egypt seeking financial assistance following the burning of their temple at Delphi. Pausanius states that the temple of Delphi burned down in Year 1 of the 58th Olympiad (= 548 BC) when Diognetus of Crotona was victorious at the Olympic Games, during the archonship of Erxicleides of Athens.

Here the entirely independent Greek Olympiad chronology matches perfectly with Egyptian chronology. The temple at Delphi thus burned down in Year 23 of Amasis. But if Nebuchadnezzar had depopulated Egypt in Year 4 of Amasis, there wouldn't have been anyone in Egypt to assist the Delphians.

Year 24 of Amasis (547/546 BC)

P Cairo 30657. Dated to Year 24, Month Mekhir (= June/July 547 BC). This is a contract concerning the safeguarding of property written in a hybrid of abnormal hieratic and demotic.

P Vindob 3873. Dated to Year 24. This papyrus relates the discovery of a replacement Apis to succeed the bull that died in Year 23. This Apis however would die before being installed.

Year 26 of Amasis (545/544 BC)

P Louvre E. 7854. Dated to the end of Amasis' reign but contains an older text dated to Year 26 of Amasis. This is a palimpsest from Thebes written in demotic script concerning an offer by Djedkhonswiuf'onkh to Petiesi son of Nessematawy, priest of Amun, to fulfill a debt as payment for manure.

The priest Petiesi son of Nessematawy was previously mentioned in documents dating to Years 2, 3, and 8. He is still active in Thebes in Year 26. This shows that life continues unchanged in Thebes.

Year 27 of Amasis (544/543 BC)

P Cairo 30665. Dated to Year 27, Month Khoiak (= April/May 544 BC). A divorce contract written in demotic.

Leiden AP 57-58 (Int. Inv. 803-072-200, 201). Dated to Year 27, Month Pharmouthi, Day 28 (= August/September 544 BC). These are two grave stelae of a priest named Psammetichus who died in Parmouthi of Year 27. The same stelae state that he was born in Year 1 of Necho II, Month Epiphi, Day 1 (= November/December 610 BC) and lived a total of 65 years, 10 months, and 2 days.

This again establishes that no hiatus of 40 years could be squeezed between Years 4 and 5 of Amasis' reign. The other stelae show that the span between Year 1 of Necho II (in November/December) and Year 23 of Amasis (in August/September) was a few days shy of 61 years and 10 months. These later stelae are dated to Year 27, 4 years later. A date in August/September 544 BC fits with an age of 65 years and 10 months.

Louvre IM 4133. Relates the birth of the 6th Apis of the 26th Dynasty in Year 27 of Amasis. This is the bull's grave stele, dated to Year 6 of Cambyses, Month 11 (= October/November 524 BC), the date when the bull was buried. The next Apis was born in Year 5 of Cambyses, Month Tobi, Day 29 (= May 29, 525 BC), as Louvre IM 4187 states. These two stelae together prove that Cambyses did not murder the Apis at Memphis in his conquest of Egypt, as related by Herodotus (Historiae 3.27), as the two bulls could not have been alive at the same time.

Year 28 of Amasis (543/542 BC)

P Cairo 50058. Dated to Year 28, Month Phaophi (= February/March 543 BC). A demotic document from Siut, the capital of the 13th nome, concerning the division of property belonging to a priest.

Year 29 of Amasis (542/541 BC)

BM 10117. Dated Year 29, Month Thoth (= January/February 542 BC). A demotic contract on the sale of land in Thebes.

Year 31 of Amasis (540/539 BC)

BM [P. Notice 88]. Dated to Year 31, Month Hathor, Day 2 (= March 7, 540 BC). A papyrus letter written in demotic.

P Louvre E. 7842. Dated to Year 31, Month Tobi (= May/June 540 BC). A demotic receipt for tax paid from the harvesting of land.

P Cairo 31053. Dated to Year 31, Month Mesore, Day 8 (= December 8, 540 BC). A demotic contract found in the tomb of Ptahhotep in Saqqara.

Year 32 of Amasis (539/538 BC)

P Louvre E. 7832. Dated to Year 32, Month Hathor (= March/April 539 BC). Sale of self as slave by Hor to the waterpourer Ieturoz at Thebes.

Berlin 8439. Dated to Year 32. Foundation stele by Amasis for a temple at Bubastis.

According to the Nabonidus Chronicle, Babylon fell to Cyrus on October 12, 539 BC. Thus this would have occurred during Year 32 of Amasis. Prior to his defeat, Nabonidus had formed a coalition with Amasis and Croesus of Lydia to counter the Persian threat. But if a 40-year hiatus followed Year 4 of Amasis, there would have been no Egyptian king for Nabonidus to form an alliance with. Inserting 40 years between Years 4 and 5 is also prohibited by the evidence above (such as Cairo CD 690 and Leiden AP 57-58).

Year 33 of Amasis (538/537 BC)

P Louvre E. 7840. Dated to Year 33, Month Phamenoth (= July/August 538 BC). A demotic ledger of deliveries in food and wine from Thebes.

Year 34 of Amasis (537/536 BC)

P Louvre E. 7835. Dated to Year 34, Month Phamenoth (= July/August 537 BC). A receipt for tax for land in the domain of Amun in the field of Pahi.

P Berlin 13614. Dated to Year 34. Contract to protect the interests of Tshenyah's children by Haptertais.

Year 35 of Amasis (536/535 BC)

Florence Psammetichus Stele. Dated to Year 35 of Amasis, Month Pahophi, Day 6 (= February/March 536 BC). This is a grave stele for a man named Psammetichus, son of a woman named Fekrot. The same monument states that Psammetichus was born in Year 3 of Necho II, Month Paoni (= October/November 608 BC) and that he lived for a total of 71 years, 4 months, and 6 days.

This is yet another document proving that an extra 40 years cannot be inserted between Years 4 and 5 of Amasis. We already know from the other grave stelae that Year 3 of Necho II is 72 years prior to Year 35 of Amasis. With Psammetichus' birth occurring at the end of Year 3 of Necho II, there would have been 71 complete years until October/November of Year 34 of Amasis, and then 4 months from October/November 537 BC to February/March 536 BC. This shows that there was no room for another 40 years in the 71 years that Psammetichus lived. Adding this span as a hiatus within the reign of Amasis also extends the lifespan of Psammetichus to an improbable age of 111 which also contradicts what is written on the stele itself.

P Louvre E. 7834. Dated to Year 35, Month Tobi (= May/June 536 BC). A receipt for tax for the previous year.

P Louvre E. 7838. Dated to Year 35, Month Tobi (= May/June 536 BC). A receipt for tax for the previous year.

P Louvre E. 7836. Dated to Year 35, Month Epiphi (= October/November 536 BC). A sharecropping contract from Thebes with herdsman of Mont Petemont son of Puhamon to cultivate a farm for Teturoz.

P Louvre E. 7843. Dated to Year 35, Month Mesore (= December 536 BC - January 535 BC). A demotic contract for a partnership.

Year 36 of Amasis (535/534 BC)

P Louvre E. 7833. Dated to Year 36, Month Pakhons (= September 535 BC). A land lease from Thebes of tracts in the Coptos district in the west of the highland for harvest the following year, leased to Mont Petemont son of Puhamon.
P Louvre E. 7450. Dated to Year 36, Month Pakhons (= September 535 BC). A similar land lease from Thebes.

Year 37 of Amasis (534/533 BC)

Mother of Apis Stele 72/1 + N. Dated to Year 37, Month Phaophi, Day 24 (= February 26, 534 BC). A demotic stele of the mother of the installed Apis bull at the serapeum at North Saqqara.

P Louvre E. 7839. Dated to Year 37, Month Mekhir (June/July 534 BC). A Theban land lease for tracts for harvest the following year to Petetum son of Petenephotes.

Year 38 of Amasis (533/532 BC)

P Louvre E. 7850. Dated to Year 38, Month Mesore (November/December 533 BC). A demotic receipt of the sale of a bull to pay for a burial at a necropolis.

Eusebius, Chronice Canones (Latin translation of Jerome), Bodlein MS, Thucydides, Historiae 1.13.6, Herodotus, Historiae 3.39-45. According to Eusebius, Polycrates became the tyrant of Samos in the 4th year of the 61st Olympiad, (= 533/532 BC). This is double-dated in the Armenian translation to ab Abramo 1484 (= 533/532 BC). Thus Polycrates assumed power in Year 38 of Amasis. Herodotus relates that during Polycrates' rule, Amasis sought an alliance with Polycrates on account of the threat posed by the Persians. Polycrates could provide naval forces to protect the Way of Horus, the main thoroughfare along the coast. The alliance later fell apart when Polycrates threw his support to Cambyses after he became king (i.e. after August 530 BC).

This synchronism between Polycrates and Amasis in the backdrop of the Persian threat is consistent with the independent Egyptian chronology and Achaemenid chronology. There wouldn't have been an Amasis in Egypt at that time if he remained in captivity for 40 years following his Year 4.

Year 40 of Amasis (531/530 BC)

Pennsylvania E 16339. Dated to Year 40, Month Tobi, Day 14 (= May 16, 531 BC). A demotic letter from el-Hiba.

Year 41 of Amasis (530/529 BC)

BM 10710. Dated to Year 41 of Amasis. A demotic palimpsest giving an accounting of building materials.

P Berlin 13615 + 13606 + 15824. Dated to Year 41, Month Khoiak (= April/May 530 BC). This is a demotic palimpsest listing the members of an army sent to Nubia in a military expedition.

It is worth noting that Amasis first appears in the historical record as a general in the military campaign against Nubia in Year 3 of Psammetichus II (c. 592 BC). This military expedition is mentioned in Herodotus and there is an inscription of Amasis on a statuette from this event. The Letter of Aristeas 13 also states that Jews were included in the military forces sent to Nubia. If Amasis were 20 years old in Year 3 of Psammetichus II (and probably somewhat older), he would have been at least 82 years old in his Year 41 and 85 years old when he died in his Year 44. He would have been in his 90s if he served as a general in his 30s back in the reign of Psammetichus II. If we insert another 40 years into his reign as a hiatus, this would put him in his 120s or 130s when he died, which is again an impossible age.

Year 42 of Amasis (529/528 BC)

Heliopolis Stele. Dated to Year 42 of Amasis (= 529 BC). Monument of Djedatumiwef'ankh on building activity in Heliopolis.

Year 43 of Amasis (528/527 BC)

P Berlin 13617 + 23676. A demotic contract for a land lease in Elephantine.

Year 44 of Amasis (527/526 BC)

Bodleian Library MS. Egypt. a. 40. Dated to Year 44. A marriage contract written in demotic.

P Rylands IX. Dated to Year 9 of Darius (= 513 BC), but mentions that Psammetkmenempe from the Delta sent an envoy to obtain his stipend each year until Year 44 of Amasis.

The mention of Year 44 as a terminus in P Rylands IX suggest that Year 44 was Amasis' last full year. Similarly the Demotic Chronicle (P No. 215) states that in Year 3 of Darius, the king ordered the Egyptian satrap Aryandes to codify the legal system that had been in use in Egypt until Year 44 of Amasis. Amasis was followed by Psammetichus III, who reigned only for 6 months according to Herodotus, whose reign came to an end with the invasion of Cambyses in May/June 525 BC. The latter date is universally accepted and widely attested (cf. Diodorus Siculus who stated that Cambyses invaded Egypt in the third year of the 63rd Olympiad, which ended in the summer of 525 BC). Herodotus and Manetho, the two most reliable authorities, gave 44 years for the reign of Amasis. There are three papyri dated to Year 2 of Psammeticus III's reign, to the months of Hathor (March 525 BC), Khoiak (April 525 BC), and Tobi (May 525 BC). The first document dated to Cambyses is Cairo 50060, dated to Year 5 of Cambyses, Month Pakhons, Day 17 (= September 14, 525 BC). The apparent discrepensy between Herodotus/Manetho and the papyri is resolved by supposing that the aged Amasis had a prolonged illness prior to his death and was unable to rule, with Psammetichus becoming co-ruler during what would have been Year 45 of Amasis (526/525 BC). Psammetichus ruled as pharaoh early in 526 BC but Amasis did not die until around December of that year. Thus contemporary documents treated what would have been Year 35 of Amasis as Year 1 of Psammetichus III, while Herodotus gave Psammetichus III a six-month reign because he counted only his reign from the time Amasis had died."


If the Sacrament of Confirmation gives the gift of fortitude, why are we still afraid to do the right thing? If the Sacrament of Confirmation gives all the Gifts of the Holy Spirit, including the gift of fortitude, why are we still afraid to do the right thing?

If the Sacrament of Confirmation gives the gift of fortitude, why are we still afraid to do the right thing?

The short answer is that our human nature is still damaged because of sin, both original sin and actual sins.

Before getting into more details of this question, let us see what the Catechism of the Catholic Church has to say on the effects of confirmation.

  The Effects of Confirmation

  1302 It is evident from its celebration that the effect of the sacrament of Confirmation is the full outpouring of the Holy Spirit as once granted to the apostles on the day of Pentecost.

  1303 From this fact, Confirmation brings an increase and deepening of baptismal grace:

  it roots us more deeply in the divine filiation which makes us cry, "Abba! Father!";115
  it unites us more firmly to Christ;
  it increases the gifts of the Holy Spirit in us;
  it renders our bond with the Church more perfect;116
  it gives us a special strength of the Holy Spirit to spread and defend the faith by word and action as true witnesses of Christ, to confess the name of Christ boldly, and never to be ashamed of the Cross:117

  Recall then that you have received the spiritual seal, the spirit of wisdom and understanding, the spirit of right judgment and courage, the spirit of knowledge and reverence, the spirit of holy fear in God's presence. Guard what you have received. God the Father has marked you with his sign; Christ the Lord has confirmed you and has placed his pledge, the Spirit, in your hearts.118

  1304 Like Baptism which it completes, Confirmation is given only once, for it too imprints on the soul an indelible spiritual mark, the "character," which is the sign that Jesus Christ has marked a Christian with the seal of his Spirit by clothing him with power from on high so that he may be his witness.119

  1305 This "character" perfects the common priesthood of the faithful, received in Baptism, and "the confirmed person receives the power to profess faith in Christ publicly and as it were officially (quasi ex officio)."120

This sacrament completes that of baptism and confirms us in grace.

Original sin and actual mortal sin destroys sanctifying grace in our souls. Baptism restores sanctifying grace to the souls. However our human nature remains damaged due to original sin and actual sin.

  Concupiscence.- This rebellion of the lower appetite transmitted to us by Adam is an occasion of sin and in that sense comes nearer to moral evil. However, the occasion of a fault is not necessarily a fault, and whilst original sin is effaced by baptism concupiscence still remains in the person baptized; therefore original sin and concupiscence cannot be one and the same thing, as was held by the early Protestants (see Council of Trent, Sess. V, can. v).

Thus actual sins weaken our abilities to resist future evils and temptations and induces us to commit greater sins; thus making it harder to stay in the state of sanctifying grace.

Although sanctifying grace has been restored to our souls through the sacrament of baptism and we are strengthened through the graces received in the sacrament of confirmation, we must still work out our individual salvation. The sacrament aid us in becoming saints, but we must still do our part in fortifying our souls through all means the Church places at our disposal, such as the sacraments of the Eucharist and Confession.

Sin is terrible and continuously weekends our human nature while the sacraments do the opposite. The Catechism of the Catholic Church can shed some light on this:

  1714 Man, having been wounded in his nature by original sin, is subject to error and inclined to evil in exercising his freedom.

  1854 Sins are rightly evaluated according to their gravity. The distinction between mortal and venial sin, already evident in Scripture,129 became part of the tradition of the Church. It is corroborated by human experience.

  1855 Mortal sin destroys charity in the heart of man by a grave violation of God's law; it turns man away from God, who is his ultimate end and his beatitude, by preferring an inferior good to him.

  Venial sin allows charity to subsist, even though it offends and wounds it.

  1856 Mortal sin, by attacking the vital principle within us - that is, charity - necessitates a new initiative of God's mercy and a conversion of heart which is normally accomplished within the setting of the sacrament of reconciliation:

  When the will sets itself upon something that is of its nature incompatible with the charity that orients man toward his ultimate end, then the sin is mortal by its very object . . . whether it contradicts the love of God, such as blasphemy or perjury, or the love of neighbor, such as homicide or adultery. . . . But when the sinner's will is set upon something that of its nature involves a disorder, but is not opposed to the love of God and neighbor, such as thoughtless chatter or immoderate laughter and the like, such sins are venial.

  1872 Sin is an act contrary to reason. It wounds man's nature and injures human solidarity.

The sacrament of confirmation helps us to live our lives as saints, but we must at the same time cooperate with those very same graces received on the day we were confirmed by our local ordinaries (bishops).

  Actual sin primarily consists in a voluntary act repugnant to the order of right reason. The act passes, but the soul of the sinner remains stained, deprived of grace, in a state of sin, until the disturbance of order has been restored by penance. This state is called habitual sin, macula peccati. reatus culpæ (I-II:87:6).

Since our human nature has been damaged by original sin and actual sin; the sacraments of baptism and confirmation are there to restore us to God’s sanctifying grace and to give us the graces necessary to remain holy. We must strive to do our part and be docile to the Spirit of Holiness and cooperate with the graces infused into our soul by the Holy Spirit in the sacrament of confirmation.

In closing, we must also keep in mind that the Devil is always seeking way to make us fall, whether that be or through fear of some other motivation.

If the Sacrament of Confirmation gives the gift of fortitude, why are we still afraid to do the right thing?

ANSWER

This can be more clearly explain by examples using the life of Adam, Jesus and Mary but all this people have perfect nature and do not have wounded nature, so we need St.Paul as a perfect example to answer your specific question "why are we still afraid to do the right thing?

Adam has a perfect human nature and received the gifts of the Holy Spirit just like the Sacrament of Confirmation bestowed upon all of us. But, Adam has an advantage over us because his nature is not wounded.
Did Adam having perfect nature and having the gifts of original holiness and original justice able to do the right thing? The answer is NO!, Adam fall and did not do the right thing which is to obey God's Will having known fully God's Word thru His clear commandment "Do not eat the fruit of TOKAGE".
Jesus also, having a perfect human nature in the order of grace and having a sinless body like Adam, and received the fullness of the seven gifts of the Holy Spirit in the Baptism in the Jordan River, had shown that even a perfect human "struggled" to do the right thing esp. in very difficult moments.
How about Mary, also having a sinless body and a human nature that was healed in the order of grace, did Mary "struggled" like Jesus to do the right thing? In the mystery of the Incarnation it seems that there was no struggle to do the right thing, Mary only was "troubled" in the angel's greeting and was a little confused about how can She conceived a child without knowing a man. Mary after an Archangel visited Her confirming that She was "full of grace". Mary having the fullness of the seven gifts of the Holy Spirit like the Sacrament of Confirmation, had uttered Her famous Fiat and did the right thing because of "trusting faith" in the love,mercy and goodness of the Abba Father as evident in Her Magnificat.
So, where can we Adam's descendant identifies more clearly in the question "why are we still afraid to do the right thing?
St.Paul is a perfect model for us because St.Paul was baptized and received the Sacrament of Confirmation like us and the most important thing of all is, St.Paul had a wounded nature like us.

Did St.Paul able to do the right thing all the time having received the gifts of the Holy Spirit? St.Paul humble admission showed No, St.Paul did not do the right thing all the time.

  Romans 7:15-20 New International Version (NIV)
  15 I do not understand what I do. For what I want to do I do not do, but what I hate I do. 16 And if I do what I do not want to do, I agree that the law is good. 17 As it is, it is no longer I myself who do it, but it is sin living in me. 18 For I know that good itself does not dwell in me, that is, in my sinful nature.[a] For I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it out. 19 For I do not do the good I want to do, but the evil I do not want to do—this I keep on doing. 20 Now if I do what I do not want to do, it is no longer I who do it, but it is sin living in me that does it.

So, St.Paul personal experienced and humble admission is the direct answer to your question "If the Sacrament of Confirmation gives the gift of fortitude, why are we still afraid to do the right thing?

  Romans7:15-20 is the answer to your question.

To help us understand, how can we do the right things like Jesus and Mary was able to do "all the time" even if we are confused, troubled and deeply struggling because the struggles & difficulties involves sacrificing our very own life thru humiliation,persecutions,passions, crucifixion and even death.
Jesus had shown every baptized believer who received the Sacrament of Confirmation or the seven gifts of the Holy Spirit including "fortitude".

The answer can be found in Jesus Christ in the Temptation in the Desert, and magnified in the Garden of Gethsemane.

Temptation in the Desert

After Jesus received the anointing of the Holy Spirit, the fullness of the gifts, the Holy Spirit led Jesus in the desert.

  Jesus Is Tested in the Wilderness(Luke4:1-13)

  4 Jesus, full of the Holy Spirit, left the Jordan and was led by the Spirit into the wilderness, 2 where for forty days he was tempted[a] by the devil. He ate nothing during those days, and at the end of them he was hungry.

  3 The devil said to him, “If you are the Son of God, tell this stone to become bread.”

  4 Jesus answered, “It is written: ‘Man shall not live on bread alone.’[b]”

  5 The devil led him up to a high place and showed him in an instant all the kingdoms of the world. 6 And he said to him, “I will give you all their authority and splendor; it has been given to me, and I can give it to anyone I want to. 7 If you worship me, it will all be yours.”

  8 Jesus answered, “It is written: ‘Worship the Lord your God and serve him only.’[c]”

  9 The devil led him to Jerusalem and had him stand on the highest point of the temple. “If you are the Son of God,” he said, “throw yourself down from here. 10 For it is written:

  “‘He will command his angels concerning you
      to guard you carefully;
  11 they will lift you up in their hands,
      so that you will not strike your foot against a stone.’[d]”

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

  13 When the devil had finished all this tempting, he left him until an opportune time.

We can see in this passages, that Jesus having all the gifts of the Holy Spirit "did the right thing" because He knows the "word of God".

How about in the Garden of Gethsemane?

  Gethsemane(Matthew26-36-39)

  36 Then Jesus went with his disciples to a place called Gethsemane, and he said to them, “Sit here while I go over there and pray.” 37 He took Peter and the two sons of Zebedee along with him, and he began to be sorrowful and troubled. 38 Then he said to them, “My soul is overwhelmed with sorrow to the point of death. Stay here and keep watch with me.”

  39 Going a little farther, he fell with his face to the ground and prayed, “My Father, if it is possible, may this cup be taken from me. Yet not as I will, but as you will.”

Jesus Christ in this passage was struggling "to do the right thing" which is to follow the Will of the Father.

Did Jesus was able to "do the right thing" ? Yes! Jesus was deeply struggling to do the right thing eventhough He was full of the gifts of the Holy Spirit. But Jesus like His beloved Mother Mary "trusted" the Abba Father, His "trusting faith", that the Will of the Father must prevails over his human will is the "right thing to do". Jesus like the Blessed Virgin Mary uttered a Fiat.

In closing, St.Paul Romans7:15-20 had shown us why we cannot do the right thing all the time. But Jesus Christ had shown thru His life that receiving the "gifts of the Holy Spirit" is not enough, we must study and know the "word of God"and in our deepest trial must surrender our will by trusting the Will of the Father is the right thing to do.

To do the right thing "all the time" we need to study and ponder the life of Jesus and Mary, and the perfect way to do it is, to follow the Will of the Father  John6:40 by "Beholding the Son" and following the command of Jesus agonizing at the Foot of the Cross, saying "Son, Behold your Mother" (John19:27).


Can I have my marriage blessed in the Roman Catholic Church? I married a Catholic divorcee in a non-Catholic church.

Can I have my marriage blessed in the Catholic Church?

If you have already married this Catholic in a non-Catholic church, then if you wish for the Church to recognize your marriage as valid(and thus sacramental) she first needs to apply for and receive a declaration of nullity regarding the previous marriage, and then you both need to go through a process called convalidation. (Code of Canon Law 1156-1160).

Note: As far as the Church is concerned, the Catholic is the one upon
whom the responsibility of "doing it right" is placed when marrying a non Catholic, but that's water under the bridge at this point in your case.  My wife (my then fiancé, Catholic, while I was not) took the trouble to get our "doing it right" process begun before we were married, to include various dispensations requested, our pastoral counselling together with the priest, pre cana, and all that.  (I later came into the Church).

The first step to arriving at a convalidation of your marriage is to meet with a local Catholic priest, or someone in the chancery at the nearest Catholic diocese, and discuss the details of the previous marriage(s) and your current marriage to see what the process is.  Each situation has its own nuances.

Important Note: a declaration of nullity is not the same thing as a divorce.

If the Catholic's previous marriage was already annulled ("declaration of nullity" was issued for that marriage), then efforts at convalidation will take a different course and a lot less time.

How do I know this?

Six years in the RCIA ministry working with this issue, among others.

Related question here

See also this question

What is an annulment?

  "Annulment" is an unfortunate word that is sometimes used to refer to
  a Catholic "declaration of nullity." Actually, nothing is made null
  through the process. Rather, a Church tribunal (a Catholic Church
  court) declares that a marriage thought to be valid according to
  Church law actually fell short of at least one of the essential
  elements required for a binding union.

Sure!
A Catholic Wedding Ceremony Without Mass is what you need.

There are many reasons why a Catholic Wedding Ceremony happens without Mass. One of the main reasons is that the Catholic person marries a non-Catholic Christian than the wedding takes place without a mass.  However, the couple can marry within Mass if they request this from the bishop, and if the bishop gives permission.
Also, if the several members on the guest list are not Catholic, then also the Catholic Wedding can take place without a Mass.  If a deacon, rather than a priest, is doing the wedding then it won't be a Mass. More Info.


How do you explain the Christian Message to people who have no Christian vocabulary or context? Original Question: Is it possible to give some brief description of Christian faith to non-believing listeners without exposing them to context requiring faith?

If yes, can you provide one? Any term requiring faith (like God, prayer, sermon) should be clarified in the answer using terms clear to non-believers (like love or selfishnes).

By brief I mean to be able to say it under 1 minute in normal speed speech.

This was the original point of "The Four Spiritual Laws. In that scheme:
1. Sin separates us from God
2. We cannot pay for our sin
3. Jesus did pay for that sin by dying on the cross
4. If we trust him, he will take us to heaven.

Even that assessment, however, (substitutionary atonement at its best!) is a bit technical and theological  Below is how I would relate the Gospel to a "newbie" (And note, I am not using them exactly as stated)

You were created to be a good thing, but like all all of us, you haven't lived up to that full potential. None of us is good enough to be what it is that God (the Supreme Being and Creator of all that is) designed us to be. (Gen 1:27, ISA 53:6, Eph 2:10)
Because we are not living up to what God would have us be, there is a penalty- an inability to be with God. Justice demands that as people who fall short of God's glory, we cannot stand in God's presence. (Because God is perfect, and we are not, how could we truly stand to be with someone totally holy? It's like when all those Nazis looked into the Ark of the Covenant and saw the angel of the Lord!  We just aren't strong enough or pure enough to look upon absolute pure holiness. ) (Ex 34:2, Mal 3:2, Rom 3:23, rom 6 &7)
Because of that gap, God realized that he had to make the first step- and here is that good news: that God so loved the world, that even though he was God, he chose to empty himself of being God, in order to find a way that he could both pay that for that penalty, and show us how to live with Him once he returned to his full God-like nature. (John 1, 3:16, Phil 2:5-12)
If we are simply willing to completely trust Him, he is willing to make us fit to stand in his presence, blameless, with great joy! (Prov 3:5-6, Jude 24, 25)
He will cause us to suffer, he will discipline us, and he will command us to do all sorts of things completely contrary to what our"common sense" will tell us to do- but if we completely trust him- if we take Him at his word, we will become his children- heirs in a legal sense. He talks to us through the Bible, through prayer, and by causing things to happen in our lives that force us to learn how to discern his will and lean on him for the strength to do what he would have us do. (Heb 12:1-6, James, Rom 8)
The primary thing that God would have us be is loving. God is love. God desires what is best for us, even if it is not the thing that gives us the most pleasure. He trains us to do the same thing- to love others in the way that he loved us. (Heb 12:1-6, (1 John, 1 Cor 13)

Jan, you're on a wrong and very dangerous path. This is the road that leads to watering down the truth in order to cater to unbelievers. Can you show me one instance where Jesus or His apostles ever attempted to do what you're asking? Why don't you follow in the footsteps of the apostle Paul and not be ashamed of the gospel?

  Romans 1:16  For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes...

Notice how it says it is the power of God to everyone who..."believes." If people won't believe, they are condemned already (John 3:18). If they won't believe, we are to shake the dust off our feet and move on:

  Matthew 10:14 Jesus said, "Whoever does not receive you, nor heed your words, as you go out of that house or that city, shake the dust off your feet."

If they won't believe then they are doomed. It is impossible to please God without faith. It is not our job to "get" them to believe...God does that. Our job is to be faithful in preaching the unadulterated truth.

Read Ezekiel 37. How do the dead bones live?


What is the difference in original sin and our nature to sin from a Reformed or Calvinist view? There is another question like this on the CSE but seems to be answered with the Catholic view in mind.  As a Calvinist, I have become quite confused or I am just not properly understanding the difference in my studies.  In other words I have been unable to grasp or get the whole concept of the differences of original sin and my sin nature.

My problem doesn't lie with original sin but how and when my sin nature fits.  It would seem that if I am a sinner at conception and I am bent towards sin or totally depraved from the beginning what is my sin nature?  Is there a difference?

I would like a reformed/Calvinist answers in simple terms that may give me a basic understanding.

I appreciate your time and consideration

The sin nature is an aspect of the doctrine of "original sin," but not the entire story.

Louis Berkhof's highly regarded Systematic Theology introduces the topic of Original Sin by calling it simply "the sinful state and condition in which men are born."

The Westminster Larger Catechism, answer 25, identifies three key components of original sin:

The guilt of Adam's sin
The lack of inherent righteousness
The corruption of man's nature

The first of these isn't normally part of what we consider to be the "sin nature."  Berkhof calls this original guilt, and distinguishes it from original pollution. The former expresses the state of mankind in relation to the law – guilty:

  The guilt of Adam's sin, committed by him as the federal head of the human race, is imputed to all his descendants.

The latter, original pollution, includes the concepts of total depravity and total inability, which typically come to mind when considering the "sin nature."  These refer to the inherent corruption of of man's nature, a lack of anything spiritually good in man, an inability to act in a way that meets the requirements of God's law, and an inability to come to love God on one's own.

So the simple answer to your question is that Original Sin is a broader term that includes the idea of the "sin nature," but it also includes the concept of "original guilt."  Thus they are not synonyms.

As an aside, sometimes the word "original" can be confusing and lead to incorrect assumptions that it exclusively refers to the sin of Adam and Eve.  Berkhof explains:

  This sin is called "original sin," (1) because it is derived from the original root of the human race; (2) because it is present in the life of every individual from the time of his birth, and therefore cannot be regarded as the result of imitation; and (3) because it is the inward root of all the actual sins that defile the life of man. (2.2.4)

Thus the word "original" here should not be exclusively understood as referring to the first sin in history, but also to the "original" state of post-fall individuals before they have committed any actual sins.

When the peoples of earth do not understand the third chapter of Genesis, the story of Adam and Eve, and the sin that was forbidden for each and every one of us we cannot understand God, goodness, holiness, or the rest of the Bible.
Departing from God and following the ways of Satan is established in Genesis and revisited throughout every story in scripture. In the Garden there are only two powers available for man to serve. And today, as it has been since Eden, there are only two powers – God or Satan. This truth is restated in the story of Noah and those in the flood – the population of the earth divided into two groups. If Adam and Eve were placed in the story of Noah, they would not be in the Ark with righteous Noah. Adam and Eve would be in the water. Their sin was sexual for it was a sexually perverse generation in the water at that time and so it is today. Then the land was filled with violence as our land is today. Check out the author article about Original Sin. Hope this will also help. Thanks.


According to Catholic teaching, was Joseph and Mary's marriage a true marriage? Well, I've read in several articles, and if not mistaken also in canon law, for a marriage to be valid, there has to be consummation (intercourse). However, since, if I'm not mistaken, by Catholic teaching (Virgin) Mary and St. Joseph never had intercourse, then the question of the validity of their marriage poses itself.

Was it valid?

Yes; Catholicism teaches that Joseph and Mary had a true marriage.
In the first place, consummation is not required for a marriage to be valid in the Catholic Church. What is necessary is (more or less) that the man and woman vow to be with each other, as one, forever; and that they intend to be together for the purpose of having and raising children. In fact, canon law distinguishes between consummated and non-consummated valid marriages:

A valid marriage between the baptized is called ratum tantum [that is "sufficiently established"] if it has not been consummated; it is called ratum et consummatum ["established and consummated"] if the spouses have performed between themselves in a human fashion a conjugal act which is suitable in itself for the procreation of offspring, to which marriage is ordered by its nature and by which the spouses become one flesh.

(Canon 1061, section 1)
I don't see a discussion of the question in the Catechism; that's really not the point of the Catechism. But Aquinas answers this very question, in the Third Part of his Summa Theologica:

Marriage or wedlock is said to be true by reason of its attaining its perfection. Now perfection of anything is twofold; first, and second. The first perfection of a thing consists in its very form, from which it receives its species; while the second perfection of a thing consists in its operation, by which in some way a thing attains its end. Now the form of matrimony consists in a certain inseparable union of souls, by which husband and wife are pledged by a bond of mutual affection that cannot be sundered. And the end of matrimony is the begetting and upbringing of children: the first of which is attained by conjugal intercourse; the second by the other duties of husband and wife, by which they help one another in rearing their offspring.
Thus we may say, as to the first perfection, that the marriage of the Virgin Mother of God and Joseph was absolutely true: because both consented to the nuptial bond, but not expressly to the bond of the flesh, save on the condition that it was pleasing to God. For this reason the angel calls Mary the wife of Joseph, saying to him (Mat. 1:20): "Fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife": on which words Augustine says (De Nup. et Concup. i): "She is called his wife from the first promise of her espousals, whom he had not known nor ever was to know by carnal intercourse."
But as to the second perfection which is attained by the marriage act, if this be referred to carnal intercourse, by which children are begotten; thus this marriage was not consummated. Wherefore Ambrose says on Lk. 1:26,27: "Be not surprised that Scripture calls Mary a wife. The fact of her marriage is declared, not to insinuate the loss of virginity, but to witness to the reality of the union." Nevertheless, this marriage had the second perfection, as to upbringing of the child. Thus Augustine says (De Nup. et Concup. i): "All the nuptial blessings are fulfilled in the marriage of Christ's parents, offspring, faith and sacrament. The offspring we know to have been the Lord Jesus; faith, for there was no adultery: sacrament, since there was no divorce. Carnal intercourse alone there was none."

(Question 29, Article 2)
That is: the point of marriage is for the man and the woman to come together, for all time, for the purpose of (having and) raising children. And indeed, in Catholic teaching, Mary and Joseph did come together, and stay together for the rest of their lives, and raise a child whom they appeared to treat and understand as "their child". The only thing they didn't do is consummate the marriage—which of course is usually required in order to have one's own children, but not in their case.

They would be considered at least in the first stages of marriage.  Which is not like an engagement, but the first part of a two step process to become fully married (but just the first step means that you're married).  To directly answer your question, they were married - a true marriage.  However I assume that the Catholic church believes that the second stage was never completed.  This does not negate the marriage.

To find out more about the process of marriage in early Judaism please follow this link - I have included part of it below.

  Kichah ("taking," the formal acquisition) approximates the economic
  term kinyan and seals the marriage. Because this is the first stage in
  the process of creating a covenant of partnership, unions that are
  prohibited and void, such as incest, are never referred to in the
  Torah by the term kichah, but as she'khivah (sleeping together). In
  regard to almost all valid marriages, even those that are prohibited,
  the Torah makes specific reference to kichah.

  This first stage of marriage is not a preliminary agreement to
  contract a marriage at a future date (like the western concept of
  engagement), but an integral component of the two-step marriage
  process. The betrothal portion is a sort of inchoate marriage; from
  that point onward, the couple is considered married. Until the second
  step is taken, however, the bride may not cohabit with the groom (or
  any other man). In this social suspension that marks the difficult
  transition from the single life to the married state, the couple is
  together yet apart. Until the twelfth century, this first stage of
  marriage lasted up to one year in order to make preparations for the
  final step. The second stage of the marriage process is the
  consummation. It is alternatively termed nissuin, meaning elevation of
  status, from nassa, coming by carriage from the father's home to the
  groom's; or chuppah, wedding canopy.

You must consider that females were often married at a very young age - too young to complete the second part of the marriage.  It may be years before the wife was ready for the second stage. Even though the article says "up to one year".


What is the biblical basis for the forgiveness of sins for very evil persons? LDC asked this question before; it was down voted 8 times before it was closed, probably because of a provocative title and lack of a specific question. My editing of his question is: what are the biblical bases for forgiveness of sins and heaven available to evil persons such as Hitler, serial killers and ISIS terrorists? Is it as simple as just asking for forgiveness only? Thank you for you patient answer.

Yes, the bible says that some sins are not forgiven. There are three sins that I know of:

the Blasphemy of the Holy Spirit (Matthew 12:31), which many scholars simply consider to be a lack of saving faith in Jesus;

refusing to forgive, or not valuing the forgiveness offered to you freely (Matthew 6:15); and,

"backsliding" (Hebrews 6:6), which is again, apparently, despising the forgiveness offered by Jesus on the cross.

I remember a story about a famous prison minister (I think it was Chuck  ?    of the Watergate scandal) who said that he was suprised by the reaction of Christians when he told them that an infamous serial killer (I think it was the Son of Sam) had confessed and become a Christian before his execution.  But Christians should remember that we have all sinned, and Jesus' Easter sacrifice is cheapened if it only covers some of the our sins.  I know that there is the possibility for murderers (e.g. one of the thieves on the cross next to Jesus) and even mass murderers can be saved, but as with any sin, it is very difficult to become sincere about your sorrow (see post above) if you have expected to use God's forgiveness as an escape clause just before you die.  One possible test of sincerity of the deathbed confession is this; if you somehow don't die (e.g. the Governor pardons you), will you change your life?

This is not that hard of a question to answer, but before properly doing so we must correct the English translation of Jesus' words.

In the English we are told that Jesus stated to "repent", but the English word repent is mainly to feel sorry for ones actions, while the word Jesus used, means: "to exercise the mind" "accompanying" (Reference is the Strong's concordance for the Greek word (μετανοέω
metanoeō met-an-o-eh'-o) translated "repent") the new thinking being taught. It actually has nothing to do with feelings, but strictly has to do with a change of thinking and thus then actions.

Jesus came out of the wilderness teachings the gospel of the kingdom, that message was taught in his teachings of loving your enemies, doing good to those who hate you, etc. He wasn't going around and saying repent, without telling them what to do. Jesus' teachings are his message of what to do and they are what he was telling them to exercise their minds towards and accompany them in the lives they live.

So to answer your question: repentance has nothing to do with feelings sorry for your actions, but rather it has to do with changing your thinking and actions and it is on this bases that forgiveness is taught to be granted by Jesus in his teachings.


Does Jesus call himself divine in the synoptic gospels? John's Gospel teaches clearly that Jesus is divine.

  And he was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not. (John 1:10)

The Jesus depicted by that Gospel appears to believe this.

  Philip saith unto him, Lord, show us the Father, and it sufficeth us.
  Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Show us the Father? (John 14:8-9).

Are there any places at all in the other three Gospels where Jesus claims divine status in this unambiguous fashion?

In the Synoptics, Jesus showed his divinity by his words and actions.

Jesus equating himself with God:

  Luke 8:39 (NASB)

  "Return to your house and describe what great things God has done for
  you." So he went away, proclaiming throughout the whole city what
  great things Jesus had done for him.

  Mark 5:19 (NASB)

  And He did not let him, but He said to him, "Go home to your people
  and report to them what great things the Lord has done for you, and
  how He had mercy on you."

Jesus spoke of his divine name and spoke of himself as the divine Son of Man in Daniel 7:

  Mark 14:62 (NIV)

  "I am," said Jesus. "And you will see the Son of Man sitting at the
  right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven."

  Matthew 26:64 (NIV)

  "You have said so," Jesus replied. "But I say to all of you: From now
  on you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty
  One and coming on the clouds of heaven."

Jesus equating himself with the other two persons in the Trinity:

  Matthew 28:19 ( NIV)

  Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in
  the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,

Luke equated Jesus ( the Sunrise from on high) with the God of Israel:

  Luke 1:78 (NASB)

  Because of the tender mercy of our God, With which the Sunrise from
  on high will visit us,

  Luke 1:68 (NASB)

  "Blessed be the Lord God of Israel, For He has visited us and
  accomplished redemption for His people,

  Luke 7:16 (NASB)

  Fear gripped them all, and they began glorifying God, saying, "A great
  prophet has arisen among us!" and, "God has visited His people!"

Mark equates Christ with Yahweh in terms of ability:

  Mark 4:41 (NASB)

  41 They became very much afraid and said to one another, “Who then
  is this, that even the wind and the sea obey Him?”

  Psalm 107:29 (NASB)

  He caused the storm to be still, So that the waves of the sea were hushed.

The first gospel to be written was Mark, which takes a cautious approach more applicable to an earlier period in Christianity. Jesus never refers to himself as the Son of God. Instead, he uses terms such as "Son of man." Even the disciples never call Jesus the Son of God. However, outsiders such as demons, the high priest and the centurion do make this claim. On two occasions, God himself announces that Jesus is his beloved son, in whom he is well pleased. In Mark 10:18, Jesus clarifies his lack or divine status, saying (KJV): "Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God." In this gospel (Mark 8:29-30), Peter only says that Jesus is the Messiah, and Jesus warns the disciples to say nothing of even this.

Matthew's Gospel was written somewhat later than Mark and (Matthew 16:16-17) Peter can say that Jesus is the Messiah, son of the living God, to which Jesus responds with "...my Father which is in heaven." Here we are getting closer to a direct claim to divinity.

The fourth gospel clearly teaches that Jesus is divine. John 18:5-6 has Jesus state 'I am", and they fell back. Greek readers understood "I am" as a synonym for God (Some English Bibles translate this as "I am he," but the word 'he' is not in the original Greek), which scholars say is why they fell back when Jesus said this.