When did Mary and Joseph marry? They were only engaged when Mary was concieved by the Holy Spirit, correct?

They would have had to marry before Jesus' birth, correct? In order for him not to be considered a bastard born out of wedlock?

When were Joseph and Mary considered married?

Well, I am not going to say it was on January 23 in the year 4 BC. That much is sure!

The Catholic Church does however celebrate the a liturgical feast on the 23rd of January, known as the Espousals of the Blessed Virgin Mary or Marriage of the Virgin Mary (Desponsatio Beatae Mariae Virginis).

  A feast of the Latin Church. It is certain that a real matrimony was contracted by Joseph and Mary. Still Mary is called "espoused" to Joseph ("his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph", Matthew 1:18) because the matrimony was never consummated. The term spouse is applied to married people until their marriage is consummated (Colvenerius, Cal. Marian., 23 Jan.). - Espousals of the Blessed Virgin Mary

What is certain is that St. Joseph must have betrothed Mary prior to the Annunciation of the Angel Gabriel, that much is sure. However, since Mary and Joseph were dwelling together onlookers would assume the baby was conceived in wedlock. It seems that at this time in history only Our Lady and St. Joseph were aware of Jesus' divine origins.

  When the Archangel Gabriel visited Mary and declared unto her that she was called to be the Mother of God, as we see recorded in Luke 1, her response would become the cause of the spilling of a whole lot of ink over the centuries: “How shall this happen, since I know not man?”.

  For Catholics this is an indication of Mary’s vow of perpetual virginity. It’s really quite simple. If Mary and Joseph were just an ordinary couple embarking on a normal married life together, there would be no reason to ask the question. Mary would have known very well how it could be that the Angel was saying she would have a baby. As St. Augustine said it:

  Had she intended to know man, she would not have been amazed. Her amazement is a sign of the vow (Sermon 225, 2).

  But Protestants do not see it as quite so simple. Reformed Apologist James White gives us an example of the most common objection to our “Catholic” view of this text:

  Nothing about a vow is mentioned in Scripture. Mary’s response to the Angel was based upon the fact that it was obvious that the Angel was speaking about an immediate conception, and since Mary was at that time only engaged to Joseph, but not married, at that time she could not possibly conceive in a natural manner, since she did not “know a man” (Mary—Another Redeemer? p. 31.).

  Among the errors in just these two sentences there are two that stand out for our purpose here.

  Error #1: Mr. White claims Mary was engaged to St. Joseph.

  There was no such thing as engagement (as it is understood in modern Western culture) in ancient Israel. The text says Mary was “betrothed” or “espoused” (Gr.—emnesteumene), not engaged. Betrothal, in ancient Israel, would be akin to the ratification of a marriage (when a couple exchanges vows in the presence of an official witness of the Church) in Catholic theology. That ratified marriage is then consummated—in the normal course—on the couple’s wedding night. So when Luke 1:27 says Mary was betrothed, it means they were already married at the time of the annunciation. If this were an ordinary marriage, St. Joseph would then have had a husband’s right to the marriage bed—the consummation.

  This simple truth proves devastating to Mr. White’s (and the Protestant's) argument. If Joseph and Mary were married—and they were—and they were planning the normal course, Mary would have known full and well how she could and would have a baby. As St. Augustine said, the question reveals the fact that this was not just your average, ordinary marriage. They were not planning to consummate their union.

  Betrothed = Married?

  For those who are not convinced “betrothed” equals “married” for Mary and Joseph; fortunately, the Bible makes this quite clear. If we move forward in time from the “annunciation” of Luke 1 to Matthew 1 and St. Joseph’s discovery of Mary’s pregnancy, we find Matthew 1:18 clearly stating Mary and Joseph were still “betrothed.” Yet, when Joseph found out Mary was “with child,” he determined he would “send her away privately” (vs. 19). The Greek verb translated in the RSVCE to send away is apolusai, which means divorce. Why would Joseph have to divorce Mary if they were only engaged?

  Further, the Angel then tells Joseph:

  Do not fear to take Mary your wife, for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit . . . When Joseph woke from sleep, he did as the angel of the Lord commanded him; he took his wife (vss. 20-24).

  Notice, Joseph took Mary “his wife,” indicating both St. Matthew and an archangel considered this couple married even though they were said to be “betrothed.” “Betrothed” is obviously much more than “engaged.”

  Moreover, months later we find Joseph and Mary travelling together to Bethlehem to be enrolled as a family according to the decree of Caesar Augustus, just before Jesus would be born. They were obviously married; yet, even then, they were still said to be “betrothed” (see Luke 2:5).

  So let's recap what have we have uncovered. First, Joseph had already taken his espoused “wife” into his home and was caring for her. Second, Scripture reveals him to be her legal husband and to have travelled with Mary to be enrolled with her as a lawfully wedded couple and family. Third, she was called St. Joseph’s “wife” by the angel of the Lord… and yet, they were still referred to as betrothed.

  Referring to Mary and Joseph as “engaged” in the face of all of this evidence would be like calling a modern couple at their wedding reception “engaged” because they have yet to consummate their marriage.

  Once the fact that Mary and Joseph were already married at the time of the annunciation is understood, Mary’s “How shall this happen…” comes more into focus. Think about it: If you were a woman who had just been married (your marriage was “ratified,” but not consummated) and someone at your reception said—or “prophesied”—that you were going to have a baby—that would not really be all that much of a surprise. That is the normal course of events. You marry, consummate the union, and babies come along. You certainly would not ask the question, “Gee, how is this going to happen?”  It is in this context of Mary having been betrothed, then, that her question does not make sense… unless, of course, you understand she had a vow of virginity. Then, it makes perfect sense.

  Error #2: Mr. White claimed, “…it was obvious that the angel was speaking about an immediate conception.” And, closely related to this, Mr. White then claimed Mary asked the question, "How shall this happen...?" because she knew "at that time she could not conceive in a natural manner?"

  Really? It was obvious?

  There is not a single word in this text or anywhere else in Scripture that indicates Mary knew her conception was going to be immediate and via supernatural means. That’s why she asked the question, "How shall this happen...?" It appears she did not know the answer. How could she? Why would it ever enter into her mind? There would be no way apart from a revelation from God that she could have known. And most importantly, according to the text, the angel did not reveal the fact that Mary would conceive immediately and supernaturally until after Mary asked the question.

  But let's suppose Mary was "engaged" as Mr. White claims. There would be even less reason to believe the conception would be immediate and somehow supernatural then there would be if Mary had a vow of virginity (though there’s really no reason to think this in either scenario). An "engaged" woman would have naturally assumed that when she and St. Joseph would later consummate their marriage, they could expect a very special surprise from God. They were going to conceive the Messiah. There would be no reason to think anything else. And there would be no reason to ask the question.

  One final thought: When Mary asked the question, "How shall this happen, since I do not know man," the verb to be (Gr.-estai) is in the future tense. There is nothing here that would indicate she was thinking of the immediate. The future tense here most likely refers to… the future. The question was not how she could conceive immediately. The question was how she could conceive ever. The angel answered that question for her. - When Were Joseph and Mary Married?

Marriage of the Virgin by Raphael

  There are many old paintings and other works of art which portray St. Joseph and the Blessed Virgin Mary standing before a Jewish priest. Some of these are said to be depictions of their betrothal ceremony, while others are of the actual wedding. There are generally few differences in the depictions of the two ceremonies, and most of these works' titles (or, at least the English translations of their titles) indicate that they are of the wedding. - The Wedding of Joseph and Mary

Saint Joseph with the Flowering Rod, by Juspe de Ribera, early 1630s

  Some statues of Joseph depict his staff as topped with flowers, recalling the non-canonical Protoevangelion's account of how Mary's spouse was chosen by collecting the walking sticks of widowers in Palestine, and Joseph's alone bursting into flower, thus identifying him as divinely chosen. The Golden Legend, which derives its account from the much older Gospel of Pseudo-Matthew, tells a similar story, although it notes that all marriageable men of the Davidic line and not only widowers were ordered by the High Priest to present their rods at the Temple. Several Eastern Orthodox Nativity icons show Joseph tempted by the Devil (depicted as an old man with furled wings) to break off his betrothal, and how he resists that temptation. There are some paintings with him wearing a Jewish hat. - St. Joseph (Wikipedia)

I'm not a biblical scholar by any means, but my understanding is that in their culture at the time, what we would consider engaged was, in their culture, as binding as being married was. If you remember, in Matthew, when Joseph hears that Mary is pregnant, he thinks of divorcing her quietly so as not to publicly disgrace Mary but an angel tells him not to do that.

I don't know when they would have consummated the marriage, but I think a pregnant woman was considered "unclean", and would have been considered unclean for some time after delivery, so since Joseph would not have touched her until she was ceremonially clean or that would make him unclean.


Why does childbirth still hurt? I am wondering the following: In Genesis, 3.16, it is quite clear that God multiplies the pain of childbirth, in order to punish Eve (and all women) for eating the forbidden fruit.

So, yes, this explains that childbirth is a punishment for this sin Eve committed.

But then, Jesus dies for all sins of mankind, that is, all sins are forgiven.
He revoked a bunch of other stuff in the old testament (thou shall not eat shrimp).

However, if all sins are forgiven, why does childbirth still cause a lot of pain? Did Jesus forget this detail. Or is there another explanation?

A common Evangelical answer to your question would be that even though Christ's work on the cross was* to redeem mankind from the effects of the fall, there is a now-and-not-yet-ness in regard to the complete outworking of the victory won at Calvary (*ie 'was' is really 'was'/'is'/'will be') . In particular, the physical creation in general and our mortal bodies in particular will be amongst the last to experience full redemption from the effects of the fall, and will do so only upon Christ's return in glory:

Present Suffering and Future Glory
18 I consider that our present sufferings are not worth comparing with the glory that will be revealed in us. 19 For the creation waits in eager expectation for the children of God to be revealed. 20 For the creation was subjected to frustration, not by its own choice, but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope 21 that the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the freedom and glory of the children of God.
22 We know that the whole creation has been groaning as in the pains of childbirth right up to the present time. 23 Not only so, but we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for our adoption to sonship, the redemption of our bodies. 24 For in this hope we were saved. But hope that is seen is no hope at all. Who hopes for what they already have? 25 But if we hope for what we do not yet have, we wait for it patiently. - Romans 8:18-25 NIV

Paul seems to be saying here that because mankind fell and suffered the consequences of sin as a curse, the rest of creation (which had been committed to the stewardship of mankind) was subjected to 'frustration' in order that it's 'groans' could testify to the need for the redemption and glorification of it's fallen race of stewards - this is a theological rationale for the current imperfections in nature.
Compare also 1 Corinthians 15:51-55 which speaks of the Resurrection to come as an overcoming not just of death, but also of the 'perishable' or 'corruptible' nature of our bodies - new resurrected bodies will be imperishable and incorruptible; and further, in the New Jerusalem:

‘He will wipe every tear from their eyes. There will be no more death’ or mourning or crying or pain, for the old order of things has passed away. - Revelation 21:4 NIV

So a complete deliverance from pain awaits the passing away of the old order.
An alternative (currently minority) perspective, is that the benefits of Christ's work can largely be appropriated by faith in this present age as:

Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us, for it is written: “Cursed is everyone who is hung on a pole.” - Galatians 3:13 NIV
“He himself bore our sins” in his body on the cross, so that we might die to sins and live for righteousness; “by his wounds you have been healed.” - 1 Peter 2:24 NIV

Note that 'redeemed' and 'healed' are past tense, establishing a basis for belief that Christ's words on the cross of 'It is finished' can legitimately be given a broad application that would cover deliverance from all aspects of the curse, including the pains of childbirth. Under this framework, the Saints of God no longer 'die', but merely go 'to sleep' to awaken at the last trumpet.
Further, although it is part of a difficult passage to interpret, women are given hope that:

But she will be delivered through childbearing, if she continues in faith and love and holiness with self-control. 1 Timothy 2:15 NET

Could well include deliverance not just from death, but also the pain of the curse. If some regard that as a fanciful application of this particular scripture, perhaps they will be more reticent to deny that:

Everything is possible for one who believes. - Mark 9:23b NIV

Can be a legitimate basis for such a belief. In any event, there are many that have dared to believe such a thing and have subsequently testified to encountering God's deliverance in this manner.
PS Your talk of the Old Testament and shrimps is a bit of a red herring with regard to the substance of this question, but the point should be made that Jesus explicitly did not 'revoke' a 'bunch of other stuff in the Old Testament' - He came to fulfill the law perfectly. That laws expressly given to mark Israel, and subsequently the Jews, apart as the Covenant people the Messiah would come through were not mandated holus-bolus on Gentile converts does not constitute a 'revocation' and each law in the Old Testament should be understood in it's proper context and evaluated for utility as a guiding principle (not moral obligation that brings condemnation and judgment by it's transgression) in the life of a New Covenant believer. If Gentile converts had by and large followed the Jewish dietary laws (as a guiding principle for healthy living), particularly with regard to eating pork and shellfish, no doubt countless thousands of them would have experienced consequent benefit in extended and overall more healthy lives.

Presumably, before God cursed Eve with pain of childbirth, He had created her body in such a way to give birth without pain. And yet now childbirth is painful, therefore He changed the design of her body so that the physicality of her baby being delivered from her body is painful. Doesn't it have to do with the physical design of a woman's body- specifically God's design (re-worked? design) of her womb and birth canal that now she experiences pain? And therefore the design of woman is forever changed as long as we inhabit these earthly bodies? Our bodies did not physically revert back to the pre-fall time when Jesus was resurrected, but He did proclaim that by His wounds, we are healed- and further more He heals us from ALL diseases. Not that childbirth is a disease! Certainly it is not. But it can be concluded that we can believe in Christ's power and His miracle for ease in childbirth- otherwise we wouldn't feel empowered to pray for a woman to have an easy birth, free of complications and even free of excruciating pain. We are in fact empowered to pray for many physical maladies because we believe in the living power of Jesus to heal our physical bodies, while we are still on earth- just as He performed many miracles of physical healing when He walked the earth. And now He walks the earth IN us, His Holy Spirit in us!


How does Oneness Pentecostalism interpret Matthew 3:17? Matthew 3:16-17 NIV

16 As soon as Jesus was baptized, he went up out of the water. At that moment heaven was opened, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and alighting on him.
17 And a voice from heaven said, “This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased.”

If there is no distinction between the Father and the Son, as Oneness adherents believe, how do they explain the voice from heaven?

Interestingly, Oneness Pentecostals do not fail to see a distinction between Father and Son as many suppose.  The United Pentecostals explain the distinction of Father, Son and Holy Spirit as follows: "God is Father in creation, Son in redemption, and Holy Spirit in sanctification."  Note however, that the distinction is in what God is doing and how he is doing it, not in person-hood.

The doctrine of Oneness denotes that there is only one God who manifests/reveals/expresses Himself at various times in various ways. This is in contrast to Trinitarian doctrine which sees God as always having existed as three separate and distinct persons, though one God.

One United Pentecostal theologian, David Bernard, in his book, the Oneness of God, points out that Scripture uses the term Son when referring to Jesus' humanity, never His divinity.  Thus, they see a distinction between Father and Son in terms of humanity.  Jesus the Son says He is one with the Father, in the Father and the Father is in Him.  They therefore see one God existing simultaneously on Earth in the Son and in heaven as the Father.

Having established that background, in Matthew 3:16-17, God is in the Son, who is getting baptized.  God speaks from heaven as Father, addressing His Son.  God also alights upon  the Son, in the likeness of a dove.  But He is only one God simultaneously in three places, doing three things, in three different ways.

Bernard writes:

  With the
  omnipresence of God in mind we can understand the baptism of Christ
  very easily. It was not at all difficult for the Spirit of Jesus to
  speak from heaven and to send a manifestation of His Spirit in the
  form of a dove even while His human body was in the Jordan River.  The
  voice and the dove do not represent separate persons any  more than the
  voice of God from Sinai indicates that the  mountain was a separate
  intelligent person in the Godhead.

The rest of what he writes in regard to Jesus baptism is found on page 172-175 of his book, The Oneness of God.

There are various Oneness adherents, and even various Pentecostal Oneness groups.  I have answered based on the doctrines of the United Pentecostal Church.

See also my answer to a related question:
How do United Pentecostals and other Oneness groups interpret Hebrews 2:9?

I believe in the oneness doctrine, I am a former trinitarian baptist believer.
Before I am confused with that verse Matthew 3:16, and including Genesis 1:26.

First it doesn't demonstrate distinction of God, as God is only one. The dove is only a sign given to John the baptist by God that whosoever he baptized with the Spirit descending will be the Messiah.

See the testimony of John the Baptist here:
John 1:33 ~ And I knew him not: "BUT HE THAT SENT ME TO BAPTISE" with water, the same said unto me, Upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending, and remaining on him, the same is he which baptizeth with the Holy Ghost.

Matthew 3:16 is not confusing, Jesus as GOD the Father was in heaven, while as man he was baptized to FULFILL the scriptures and to give us an example.

Even the scriptures proves that the Messiah is the God the Father in flesh: Micah 5:2, Isaiah 9:6, 1 Tim 3:16,

Again Matthew 3:16 doesn't denote Trinity, its like how you (trinitarians) accept the fact that God is omnipresent. That Jesus as the Holy Spirit can go to thousand churches SIMULTANEOUSLY worldwide every Sunday. (Matthew 18:20).

My two cents. God bless!


Is the Hail Mary a prayer? The Hail Mary is very often called a 'prayer'.

Some Catholics like to distinguish between 'praying', which is only said to God, and 'asking' which is acceptable for the deceased saints.

So is the Hail Mary a prayer (even though it's offered to Mary) or something else? Answers from any perspective which uses the Hail Mary would be welcome.

According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church (in particular paragraphs #2673 through #2682 which explore the words of the Hail Mary) it seems as if the Hail Mary is considered a prayer. Here are a few excerpts:

"Beginning with Mary's unique cooperation with the working of the Holy Spirit, the Churches developed their prayer to the holy Mother of God, centering it on the person of Christ manifested in his mysteries..."
"Holy Mary, Mother of God...by entrusting ourselves to her prayer, we abandon ourselves to the will of God together with her: "Thy will be done."

Additionally, the Catechism calls Mary herself "the perfect prayer" and says that "when we pray to her, we are adhering with her to the plan of the Father, who sends his Son to save all men."

Catholics do not pray to Mary or any other saint. Instead, they venerate the saints and the Blessed Mother for their closeness to God and ask them to intercede for them with God. True prayer, or worship is reserved for God alone.


What Biblical justifications are used for having separate denominations? From my reading of the Bible, I have come to understand that unity among Christians is a good thing.

1 Corinthians 1:10-13

  Now I exhort you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all agree and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be made complete in the same mind and in the same judgment. For I have been informed concerning you, my brethren, by Chloe’s people, that there are quarrels among you. Now I mean this, that each one of you is saying, “I am of Paul,” and “I of Apollos,” and “I of Cephas,” and “I of Christ.” Has Christ been divided? Paul was not crucified for you, was he? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?

Psalm 133:1

  Behold, how good and how pleasant it is  For brothers to dwell together in unity!

These, and other passages of scripture, seem to emphasize the importance of Christian unity and love while de-emphasizing the importance of distinctions.  In light of these passages, how do Christians justify separating themselves into so many different denominations?  Are there any Biblical justifications given for why having such division is preferred over unity?

Rather than answer all the questions I'm going to stick with the main question.

Q. What is the Biblical justification for different denominations?

A. What is the Biblical justification for one Church?

There should never have been different denominations (or branches of belief) but as Paul stated here in Eph 4:1-16.  There is only one body of believers, the Church.

...

  3 Endeavouring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.

  4 There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope
  of your calling;

  5 One Lord, one faith, one baptism,

  ...

  14 That we henceforth be no more
  children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of
  doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they
  lie in wait to deceive;

  15 But speaking the truth in love, may grow up
  into him in all things, which is the head, even Christ:

  16 From whom
  the whole body fitly joined together and compacted by that which every
  joint supplieth, according to the effectual working in the measure of
  every part, maketh increase of the body unto the edifying of itself in
  love.

Paul did grapple with the beginnings of denominations in his day too.  It was because the believers brought in traditions and beliefs from the old testament law that they thought were still required, such as circumcision.

Why did it occur? because of many reasons.  But you could say simply that it's because the people who have started these denominations haven't believed and followed the one who is to guide us into all truth.  So instead they have substituted it with corrupted understanding and taught this corruption to others who do not have the knowledge.

Another reason can be because of poor translating.  There are many words added in some translations that are not there in the original text.  These words are added to help clarify the text but sometimes they change the meaning.  At least the King James writers had the integrity to italicise added words.

Even with poor translation though, the Holy Spirit can still guide you into truth.  And the only way to be guided is to walk in the spirit as in Romans 8.   We need to study the text and ask the right questions. Did you not know that you can ask the Holy Spirit in you questions about what you're reading?  In the end it comes down to a relationship with Jesus. Not everyone in the church has a relationship.  This is why Jesus said in Matt 7:21-23 -

  21 Not every one that says unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the
  kingdom of heaven; but he that does the will of my Father who is in
  heaven.

  22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied
  in your name? and in your name have cast out demons? and in your name
  done many wonderful works?

  23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me,
  you that work iniquity.

It's because it's all about the relationship.

I think the key here is the word church. A church can mean a building (often it's a kind of temple with an later), or it can mean an group whose membership implies commitment to a particular creed and may involve an earthly authority over its members. The word church in the bible just means a group of believers who met together.

When the bible was first translated into English, the word "church" didn't occur in it: the word used was "congregation". The people who read it and understood it, wanted nothing to do with the Church.

In part, further divisions came about when new churches were formed and people wanted to separate themselves from what they saw as false teachings.  The biblical justification, and cause of division, I think is evident in:

  17 Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them.
  18 For they that are such serve not our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own belly; and by good words and fair speeches deceive the hearts of the simple.
  Romans 16:17-18

There is a difference between the unity of the Church, bringing people under a single earthly authority and doctrines that men teach for money, and the unity of Christians under Christ in the doctrine which is described in scripture and the Holy Spirit teaches.

There is plenty of relevant scripture especially in the later books of the New Testament. See for example 2 Peter.

If you continue reading until 1 Corinthians 3, you will see that division is a sign of immaturity. And as baby Christians, we need to grow, desiring the milk of the word. See 1 Peter 2:2


What are the differences between Roman Catholic and Irish Catholic? I've heard the terms Roman Catholic and Irish Catholic since I was little, but I have never understood what, if any, are the differences between the two.  Why the differentiation of the two?  What makes them seperate?  How did they come to be seperate?

Irish Catholic is just a cultural distinction.

There is an Anglican Church of Ireland which might consider itself truly Irish-Catholic in the sense that on England they'd call themselves Anglo-Catholic. But, that's not what people mean when they say Irish Catholic, they mean Roman Catholic or as Catholics prefer to say, Catholic.

There are other countries/regions where having Catholic after the name is actually indicative of being another Rite of the church.  Assyrian Catholic, Ethiopian Catholic etc... They are still in communion (subscribing to the same teachings) with the Church in Rome.

American Catholic, on the other hand, is a schismatic group that is not in communion with the Church in Rome.

O - Whilst I agree (partially) with your quote i.e. "There is no difference between Roman and Irish catholic. They are all the same."  Yes indeed - Irish Catholic is just a term or truncated way of saying "An Irish person who is of Roman Catholic faith".

However, here is where I beg to differ:  The 'catholic' church does not in fact refer solely to the Roman Catholic Church; the word 'catholic' meaning of broad or liberal scope; comprehensive.
In other words, the Catholic or catholic church also relates & applies to other Christian faiths, including Anglican and Protestant.  In a nutshell (if it is possible to do so) - all Christians are part of the catholic church but not all of them follow the Pope.


What is the Order of Special Full-Time Servants? The Order of Special Full-Time Servants appears to be a religious order of Jehovah's Witnesses. What is a religious order in the context of Witness theology? Is it theologically  meaningful at all? To what purpose do people join this order? When do they leave? (Do they leave?) How does the whole thing work?

The different types of full time servants among Jehovah's Witnesses are:

Regular pioneers usually spend 70 hours a month in the field ministry. Some serve in a congregation where the need is greater.

Special pioneers usually spend 130 hours a month in the field ministry. They are often assigned to a congregation where the need is greater.

Circuit overseers visit congregations to help them improve in their ministry and encourage them in other ways.

Bethel family members serve in a branch office or a translation office. They help provide literature and direction for the ministry in the territory that is supervised by the branch.

Missionaries are usually assigned to serve in another country. Many missionaries spend 130 hours a month in the field ministry

International servants and volunteers go to various countries to assist with the construction of branch offices, remote translation offices, Assembly Halls, and Kingdom Halls.

Kingdom Hall construction servants are trained to build Kingdom Halls and assist with other construction projects in their own country.

For additional information  see the following article from the September 2014 Watchtower:
https://www.jw.org/en/publications/magazines/ws201409/remember-those-in-full-time-service/#link0

As for the specific title of your question there is indeed a group  called the Worldwide  Order of Special Full Time Servants. According to the April 2017 Watchtower:

  Currently, there are some 67,000 members of the Worldwide Order of Special Full-Time Servants of Jehovah’s Witnesses. Some perform Bethel service, others engage in construction or in circuit work, serve as field instructors or special pioneers or missionaries or as Assembly Hall or Bible school facility servants. They are all bound by a “Vow of Obedience and Poverty,” with which they agree to do whatever is assigned to them in the advancement of Kingdom interests, to live a simple lifestyle, and to abstain from secular employment without permission. It is not the people but their assignments that are viewed as special. They realize the seriousness of humbly living up to their solemn vow for as long as they remain in special full-time service.

https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/2017365?q=special+order+of+full-time&p=par

Members of the Order take vows of obedience and poverty, eschew secular employment, and dedicate their lives to overseeing and directing the spiritual needs of Jehovah’s Witnesses.

The above statement, taken from an Origon tax court decision, is incorrect.
No one is asked to take any vow of poverty nor to “eschew” secular employment, nor do they “dedicate their lives to overseeing and directing the spiritual needs of Jehovah’s Witnesses.”
Source: The Watchtower, October 1st, 1973, p. 607, “Questions From Readers.”

It should also be noted that vows were something spontaneous, and hence unrequested, unsolicited. They were not something set forth as a general requirement for all who would enjoy a certain privilege or enter into a certain relationship. Hence, one’s becoming a disciple of Christ Jesus and fulfilling the requirements that are set for all persons, including repenting and turning around and making public declaration of one’s faith, and being baptized, do not involve a “vow” in the Scriptural sense.
Nor are Scriptural vows to be compared with the so-called ‘monastic vows’ that persons in later centuries were required to make in order to gain admittance into certain religious orders of church organizations. Those vows of ‘chastity, poverty and obedience’ placed those vowing under obligation to the religious orders and served those orders as a means of exercising control over their adherents. Higher church officials could absolve persons from certain types of vows, but with some vows release could be gained only through the titular head of the church, as in the papal arrangement. These, then, are not Scriptural vows, for Scriptural vows were entirely spontaneous and personal, between the individual and God. Furthermore, under the Law, although a woman’s vow might be disallowed by her husband, or father (within a certain time after being made), in other cases no human could grant one release from a Scriptural vow.—Num. 30:3-15.
From this it is apparent that many so-called “vows” of today are not really such in the Scriptural sense.

Their dedication is to Jehovah God.


Why did God not want man to have the knowledge of good and evil? When God created man, he created him with the fore knowledge that man would eat from the forbidden tree, and even with the knowledge that  man would bring sin into the World; God created the tree in the midst of the garden. God also created the tree of life in the garden, and told man that of every tree of the garden he could freely eat except that when he ate of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, that he would surely die.
All scriptures are quoted from the King James translation:
Genesis 2:16 and 17

And Jehovah God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

I have often wondered why; if God has the knowledge of good and Evil, why having that knowledge is so abhorrent that it is a death sentence to man.
God knew that man would choose to disobey him and eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, and he also knew that man would do so before eating from the tree of life.

Gen 3:22  And Jehovah God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil; and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever -
Gen 3:24  So he drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden the Cherubim, and the flame of a sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life.

Perhaps there is a difference between the eating of  such evil knowledge and knowing of such evil knowledge.

If two con artists wish to steal the life's savings from the elderly, and one of the two con artists changes his ways and tries to inform the elderly of how they were about to be deceived by the other con artist, it would not be logical for a priest to then do everything he can to prevent the elderly from knowing how they could be deceived, and do so by preventing them from knowing of the evil knowledge of the con artists decetfulness.

A priest would not dive between the informer and the elderly.

Thus it would be the knowing and practicing of such evil knowledge that is of the wrong.

God gave us free will and the image of His likeness for fellowship, relationship and family... Not Independance... The Power to choose is the "The Tree Of Knowledge Of Good An Evil"... The love of the fellowship, relationship and family was to NOT eat of that tree... We love to have children... Even though they don't listen... We don't not have children for fear they won't listen... We burn for family, fellowship, relationship... So does Dad... No Doubt we were made in His image...


Has the prohibition against construction and veneration of statues and images been abrogated? I'm Catholic, so I subscribe to the idea that constructing and venerating images and statues is permissible and encouraged as a matter of Church dogma. However I must admit that I find it hard to square this position with the explicit command NOT to construct and venerate statues found in scripture.

  4 “You shall not make for yourself a graven image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; 5 you shall not bow down to them or serve them; for I the Lord your God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children to the third and the fourth generation of those who hate me, 6 but showing steadfast love to thousands of those who love me and keep my commandments.

I understand that Christ "fulfilled the law" and as such there are large portions of the law which no longer apply (for example the dietary laws, sacrifice laws, ritual cleanliness laws) while other parts of the law still apply (ie, the moral component of the law).

Does the prohibition against constructing and venerating images fall under the "abrogated" category of the law, or the still in force "moral" component of the law?

I've heard many arguments in defence of venerating images and statues, and I reckon they are all great arguments with much merit and insight, nevertheless I still get the feeling that they can all be easily shot down in one go with a quick quote of the proof text above. It's causing me some annoying cognitive dissonance which I would love to resolve...

Stuff which is great but doesn't really answer my question:

Constructing images of angels, saints and Christ is permissible due
to the incarnation. Christ is the perfect image of God/Christ is a
"living icon" of God. Therefore by becoming man God demonstrated
that it is ok to make images of Divine things. That's all well and
good, but it just results in a contradiction with the above
scripture quote, unless Christ abrogated that particular
commandment.
When we pray to statues, we are not worshipping the statue, we are
merely venerating what the statue represents: in other words
"veneration given to an image travels to the prototype". Again, I
follow the logic, but it still doesn't explain why we are allowed to
construct these images in the first place, in light of the explicit
prohibition in the 10 commandments.
Elsewhere in scripture God explicitly commands us to construct
religious statues. Eg the bronze serpent, the Cherubim on the Ark of
the covenant. Therefore the prohibition against statues can't be
absolute. That's great, but these things seem to be very specific
exceptions to a general rule, and the general rule forbids us from
constructing and venerating images.
"Statues of Jesus and Mary are just like having a photograph of your
spouse and Children in your wallet. They help you to remember them
and keep them in mind". Again I follow the argument and agree in
principle, however I still don't understand how we can construct
these images in the first place considering we have been explicitly
forbidden from doing so, even if the reason for constructing them is
as benevolent as desiring a visual reminder of our Lord and Lady.

The only way I can find to square this scripture quote with the Catholic/Orthodox use of images and statues is to assume that this particular commandment was abrogated by Christ after he fulfilled the law. Is that right?

This is about correct teaching and the meanings of latria and worship.

TL;DR(1): if the bishops do not ensure proper teaching regarding
religious images, they let the faithful down.  That's where the problem started both during the Iconoclast Movements and during the Reformation where some of your points were raised.
TL;DR(2): was a commandment abrogated?  Yes and no. (See below).
Per the Catholicism tag, answered from that PoV.  This is an example of
a question where teachings between denominations varies considerably.

The crux of the matter, as far back as the Second Ecumenical Council in Nicaea, was whether proper teaching was getting to the faithful.  In some places, it was not since the Iconoclast movement was a response to a trend toward syncretism with pagan Greek religions.  That "getting the teaching across effectively" isn't as easy as it sounds.  Even after the second council of Nicaea, up to the 11th Century France for example, there was difficulty in effectively communicating the teaching that derived from that Ecumenical Council.   (Of course, the Reformation gave two fingers to the teaching, in arguments that resemble your four points).

This question was answered about 1300 years ago.

The Seventh Ecumenical Council at Nicaea in 787 was convened as a direct response to the Iconoclast movement and the destruction of images in the Eastern Roman Empire.

The Council's Proclamation

  "We define that the holy icons, whether in color, mosaic, or some
  other material, should be exhibited in the holy churches of God, on
  the sacred vessels and liturgical vestments, on the walls,
  furnishings, and in houses and along the roads, namely the icons of
  our Lord God and Savior Jesus Christ, that of our Lady the Theotokos,
  those of the venerable angels and those of all saintly people.
  Whenever these representations are contemplated, they will cause those
  who look at them to commemorate and love their prototype. We define
  also that they should be kissed and that they are an object of
  veneration and honor (timitiki proskynisis), but not of real worship
  (latreia), which is reserved for Him Who is the subject of our faith
  and is proper for the divine nature, ... which is in effect
  transmitted to the prototype; he who venerates the icon, venerated in
  it the reality for which it stands."

For more on the Iconoclast Movement, the Catholic Encyclopedia has an extensive entry.

Confirmed at the Council of Trent, where some of your points were addressed.

From the Council of Trent(page 170 of that link)

  The holy Synod enjoins on all bishops, and others who sustain the
  office and charge of teaching, that, agreeably to the usage of the
  Catholic and Apostolic Church, received from the primitive times of
  the Christian religion, and agreeably to the consent of the holy
  Fathers, and to the decrees of sacred Councils, they especially
  instruct the faithful diligently concerning the intercession and
  invocation of saints; the honour (paid) to [Page 234] relics; and
  the legitimate use of images: teaching them, that the saints, who reign together with Christ, offer up their own prayers to God for men;
  that it is good and useful suppliantly to invoke them, and to have
  recourse to their prayers, aid, (and) help for obtaining benefits from
  God, through His Son, Jesus Christ our Lord, who is our alone Redeemer
  and Saviour; but that they think impiously, who deny that the saints,
  who enjoy eternal happiness in heaven, are to be invocated; or who
  assert either that they do not pray for men; or, that the invocation
  of them to pray for each of us even in particular, is idolatry; or,
  that it is repugnant to the word of God; and is opposed to the honour
  of the one mediator of God and men, Christ Jesus; or, that it is
  foolish to supplicate, vocally, or mentally, those who reign in
  heaven. Also, that the holy bodies of holy martyrs, and of others now
  living with Christ,-which bodies were the living members of Christ,
  and the temple of the Holy Ghost, and which are by Him to be raised
  unto eternal life, and to be glorified,--are to be venerated by the
  faithful; through which (bodies) many benefits are bestowed by God on
  men; so that they who affirm that veneration and honour are not due to
  the relics of saints; or, that these, and other sacred monuments, are
  uselessly honoured by the faithful; and that the places dedicated to
  the memories of the saints are in vain visited with the view of
  obtaining their aid; are wholly to be condemned, as the Church has
  already long since condemned, and now also condemns them.

  Moreover, that the images of Christ, of the Virgin Mother of God, and
  of the other saints, are to be had and retained particularly in
  temples, and that due honour and veneration are to be given them;
  not that any divinity, or virtue, is believed to be in them, on
  account of which they are to be worshipped; or that anything is to be
  asked of them; or, that trust is to be reposed in images, as was of
  old done by the Gentiles who placed [Page 235] their hope in idols;
  but because the honour which is shown them is referred to the
  prototypes which those images represent; in such wise that by the
  images which we kiss, and before which we uncover the head, and
  prostrate ourselves, we adore Christ; and we venerate the saints,
  whose similitude they bear: as, by the decrees of Councils, and
  especially of the second Synod of Nicaea, has been defined against the
  opponents of images.

  And the bishops shall carefully teach this,-that, by means of the histories of the mysteries of our Redemption, portrayed by paintings
  or other representations, the people is instructed, and confirmed in
  (the habit of) remembering, and continually revolving in mind the
  articles of faith; as also that great profit is derived from all
  sacred images, not only because the people are thereby admonished of
  the benefits and gifts bestowed upon them by Christ, but also because
  the miracles which God has performed by means of the saints, and their
  salutary examples, are set before the eyes of the faithful; that so
  they may give God thanks for those things; may order their own lives
  and manners in imitation of the saints; and may be excited to adore
  and love God, and to cultivate piety. But if any one shall teach, or
  entertain sentiments, contrary to these decrees; let him be
  anathema.

The Council recognized the problem of incorrect usage, and incorrect teaching, and declared that it was a serious error to teach it wrong, and to do it wrong.

Both councils are cited as sources in CCC 2132

  2132 The Christian veneration of images is not contrary to the first
  commandment which proscribes idols. Indeed, "the honor rendered to an
  image passes to its prototype," and "whoever venerates an image
  venerates the person portrayed in it." The honor paid to sacred
  images is a "respectful veneration," not the adoration due to God
  alone:

  Religious worship is not directed to images in themselves, considered
  as mere things, but under their distinctive aspect as images leading
  us on to God incarnate. the movement toward the image does not
  terminate in it as image, but tends toward that whose image it is.

The distinction between "latria" and other "worship" or rendering of honor and veneration

From St Thomas Aquinas:  (Question 94)

  Reply to Objection 1. Neither in the Tabernacle or Temple of the Old
  Law, nor again now in the Church are images set up that the worship of
  latria may be paid to them, but for the purpose of signification, in
  order that belief in the excellence of angels and saints may be
  impressed and confirmed in the mind of man.

St Thomas Aquinas, question 81 (cited in the Catechsim (2132) as a source for that article)

  Objection 3. Further, seemingly "latria" pertains to religion. Now
  "latria signifies servitude," as Augustine states (De Civ. Dei x, 1).
  And we are bound to serve not only God, but also our neighbor,
  according to Galatians 5:13, "By charity of the spirit serve one
  another." Therefore religion includes a relation to one's neighbor
  also.

  Reply to Objection 3. Since servant implies relation to a lord,
  wherever there is a special kind of lordship there must needs be a
  special kind of service. Now it is evident that lordship belongs to
  God in a special and singular way, because He made all things, and has
  supreme dominion over all. Consequently a special kind of service is
  due to Him, which is known as "latria" in Greek; and therefore it
  belongs to religion.

All of the above boils down to the following: there is a correct and incorrect use of religious images.  Bishops, and the Church in general, must ensure correct teaching or people (as in the olden days) may well pay more respect than is due to something other than God.  That can lead to sin, which in the case of teachers falls into "an act of omission" which may lead the faithful into sin via "acts of commission."  (St Thomas Aquinas provides commentary of idolatry as superstition and sin in the Summa Theologica). It's a serious matter for the Church to teach the faithful properly.

The key: true worship, latria, is to be reserved for God.

Offering true worship to anything or anyone else violates the Commandment.  In that regard, it appears that the Greek Orthodox, the Catholics, and the Reformation descended churches are in general accord.

A commandment abrogated?  Yes and no.

As noted in this Catholic Encyclopedia article, the Old testament holds multiple examples of images and physical items associated with worship, referred to by St Thomas Aquinas above, so your dismissal of that factor in point 3 represents a dismissal of 1300 years of Catholic teaching.  (No few of the faithful have difficulty with any number of catholic teachings, so you are not alone).  The position taken is that the "natural law" was not abrogated in the New Covenant, but the "positive law" was abrogated by the New Covenant.

  We note in the first place that the First Commandment (except inasmuch
  as it forbids adoration and service of images) does not affect us at
  all. The Old Law — including the ten commandments — as far as it only
  promulgates natural law is of course eternal. No possible
  circumstances can ever abrogate, for instance the Fifth, Sixth, and
  Seventh Commandments.  On the other hand, as far as it is positive law,
  it was once for all abrogated by the promulgation of the Gospel
  (Romans 8:1-2; Galatians 3:23-5, etc.; Acts 15:28-9).

  Christians are not bound to circumcise, to abstain from levitically unclean food and so on.

  The Third Commandment that ordered the Jews to keep Saturday
  holy is a typical case of a positive law abrogated and replaced by
  another by the Christian Church.  So in the First Commandment we must
  distinguish the clauses — "Thou shalt not have strange gods before
  me", "Thou shall not adore them nor serve them" — which are eternal
  natural law (prohibitum quia malum), from the clause: "Thou shalt not
  make to thyself any graven image", etc.  In whatever sense the
  archaeologist may understand this, it is clearly not natural law, nor
  can anyone prove the inherent wickedness of making a graven thing;
  therefore it is Divine positive law (malum quia prohibitum) of the Old
  Dispensation that no more applies to Christians than the law of
  marrying one's brother's widow.

  Since there is no Divine positive law in the New Testament on the
  subject, Christians are bound firstly by the natural law that forbids
  us to give to any creature the honour due to God alone, and forbids
  the obvious absurdity of addressing prayers or any sort of absolute
  worship to a manufactured image; secondly, by whatever ecclesiastical
  laws may have been made on this subject by the authority of the Church
  The situation was defined quite clearly by the Second Council of
  Nicaea in 787. In its seventh session the Fathers drew up the
  essential decision (horos) of the synod. In this, after repeating the
  Nicene Creed and the condemnation of former heretics, they come to the
  burning question of the treatment of holy images. They speak of real
  adoration, supreme worship paid to a being for its own sake only,
  acknowledgment of absolute dependence on some one who can grant
  favours without reference to any one else. This is what they mean by
  latreia and they declare emphatically that this kind of worship must
  be given to God only. It is sheer idolatry to pay latreia to any
  creature at all. In Latin, adoratio is generally (though not always;
  see e.g. in the Vulgate, 2 Samuel 1:2, etc.) used in this sense. Since
  the council especially there is a tendency to restrict it to this
  sense only, so that adorare sanctos certainly now sounds scandalous.
  So in English by adoration we now always understand the latreia of the
  Fathers of the Second Nicaean Council.

The commandment in the natural law sense is not abrogated, but old law in the other sense about images (positive law) is abrogated in accordance with the New Covenant established by Christ.   Part of the issue here is that the Catholics have that as all one commandment, while some of the Protestant traditions break it into two and roll the "covets" into one.  (If you look at the table here, Greek Orthodox and Reformed break it into 2, while Catholic leaves it as one).  This underlines why this question is denomination dependent for the answer.

Note: latreia and latria are Latin forms of Greek (λατρεία).

Experience with this teaching

In the RCIA ministry, we often encountered people whose cultural upbringing was informed by over four centuries of syncretism in Mexico.  (I live in Texas).  The dialogue typically went like this.

RCIA: It is appropriate to show veneration to the saints, with or without
the presence of a picture or a statue.  {Apostle's Creed, belief in the communion of saints, intercessory prayers, etc}.  Worship {in the latria sense}
is reserved for God {the Holy Trinity}.
Candidate: But I was raised to worship the Virgin.
RCIA: We have told you the teaching of the Church.  What you actually do,
in your heart and in your prayers, is between you and God.  We encourage you to follow the teachings of the church.

At this point, our deacon would usually follow up with this (paraphrased)

  When you pray, and when you go to confession, you should speak from
  the heart.  In your heart there is truth between you and God.  If you
  go to confession, and you try to be untruthful to God ... good luck
  with that.  God knows the truth in our heart.

So what's a Catholic to do?

Reserve true worship, latria, for God (The Holy Trinity).  If an image or a statue inspires you to contemplate on the divine, that's fine.  Just remember that the image isn't worthy of true worship, only God is.

I recommend reading the extended treatment of "Veneration of Images" at the Catholic Encyclopedia online.

I had brought to my attention by @anonymouswho in comments on another question that the rendering of various Greek terms into 'worship' isn't as simple as I've presented it, and that the Greek proskuneó is a related term for this element of the answer regarding latria.

  proskuneós means to bow (properly, to kiss or to do obeisance to), like the Israelites did to YHVH and King David in 1 Chronicles 29:20.  Latria is the Latin form of the Greek (λατρεία)(latreuó / latreia) meaing to serve. Like in Luke 4:8

  "And Jesus answered and said unto him, Get thee behind me, Satan: for
  it is written, Thou shalt worship (proskuneó) the Lord thy God, and
  him only shalt thou serve (latreuó)."

Let us answer this question, that was tearing me apart until recently, with simple reason-

The law regarding the creation of images was abrogated by Christ Himself. Insofar as he was GOD, by becoming man, he made himself visible to the eye of man. He, God, depicted himself- not in the privacy of one man's dream, nor to a select group, but to the world, publicly and without reservation. He engraved himself in our flesh. Having been made incarnate, he set aside the commandment against graven images, which is lawful for him since he is the lawgiver, and the lawgiver is not bound by the law.

Therefore, to depict Christ according to his humanity is lawful and not a violation of the commandment, for it is to imitate HIM, who made himself visible and tangible and memorable to humanity. If Christ condemns images of himself, then he must condemn himself for being made man, for he violated the law insofar as he made God visible by means of a creaturely medium- the flesh.


Is "Rapture" mentioned in the Book of Revelation? In 1st Thessalonians Paul describes the Rapture:
1Th 4:13 through 17   KJV

13  But I would not have you to be ignorant, brethren, concerning them which are asleep, that ye sorrow not, even as others which have no hope.
14  For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so them also which sleep in Jesus will God bring with him.
15  For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not prevent them which are asleep.
16  For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first:
17  Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord.

Do any Denominations hold a consensus as to where in the Book of Revelation, this "Rapture" spoken by Paul is mentioned?

This is the LCMS answer to questions concerning the Rapture:

The short answer is: On the Last Day.

When is the Last Day? We don't know. The last day will come "like a thief in the night," bringing destruction to unbelievers but salvation to believers (1 Thess. 5:1 - 10).

  Q:  Does The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod believe in the rapture?

  A:  The answer to your question depends on what you mean by "the
  rapture." The English word "rapture" is derived from the Latin
  translation of the verb "caught up" in 1 Thess. 4:17 (rapiemur).
  Lutherans certainly believe what Paul teaches in this passage, namely,
  that those who are still living on earth when Christ returns visibly
  on the last day "will be caught up" ("raptured") together with "the
  dead in Christ" to "meet the Lord in the air."

  Some Christians teach, however, that the "rapture" will take place not
  on the last day but in connection with an "invisible" coming of Christ
  occurring before a seven-year period of "tribulation" on earth,
  allowing Christians to "escape" this tribulation and then later return
  to earth for a literal "1,000 year reign of Christ."

  Lutherans do not believe that these teachings are based on a proper
  understanding of Scripture. Scripture teaches that all Christians will
  endure varying degrees of "tribulation" until the last day, that
  Christ will return only once (visibly) to "catch up" ("rapture") all
  believers, living and dead, into heaven, and that all believers will
  reign forever with him in heaven. Lutherans understand the "1000
  years" of Rev. 20:11-15 to be a figurative reference to Christ's reign
  here and now in the hearts and lives of believers, which will
  culminate in our reigning with Christ forever in heaven following his
  return on the last day.

  For more information, you may want to read the Synod's theological
  commission report titled The End Times: A Study of Eschatology and
  Millennialism.

Harvest of the Earth is the Rapture

Many scholars believe that the Harvest of the Earth in Revelation 14 is the Rapture of the Church.

  Revelation 14:14-16, NIV

  I looked, and there before me was a white cloud, and seated on the
  cloud was one like a son of man with a crown of gold on his head and a
  sharp sickle in his hand. Then another angel came out of the temple
  and called in a loud voice to him who was sitting on the cloud, “Take
  your sickle and reap, because the time to reap has come, for the
  harvest of the earth is ripe.” So he who was seated on the cloud swung
  his sickle over the earth, and the earth was harvested.

From The People's New Testament (1891) by B. W. Johnson

  14:14 Upon the cloud one sat like the Son of Man. Jesus has himself
  said that the Son of man shall be seen coming upon the clouds of
  heaven (Mt 24:30). John here sees the Son of Man sitting upon a white
  cloud. The Savior said that his coming shall be with great power and
  glory (Mt 24:30). John now sees upon the head of the Son of man a
  golden crown. The Savior said that he will send his angels to gather
  the elect (Mt 24:31). John hears an angel bid him who sat upon the
  cloud, to reap the earth, for its harvest was ripe.

  14:15 Thrust in thy sickle, and reap. There is gathered first the
  ripened harvest of the elect of God. It is an angel that came out of
  the temple of God as a messenger of God, carrying to the Son the
  Father's command to gather the elect from the four corners of the
  earth. Then a longing, waiting Church, loving the appearing of the Son
  of man (2Ti 4:8), shall first be gathered into the heavenly garner.
  The ripe sheaves are gathered.

  14:16 And the earth was reaped. The harvest of souls is ended forever.
  But those who are upon the earth shall not be taken before them that
  are asleep (1Th 4:15). At the voice of the archangel the dead shall
  wake from their long sleep in the embrace of earth. Death shall be
  swallowed up in victory (1Co 15:54). See also Re 14:13.

The sample pictures will give a better idea of how it would look like.

Important points from Apostle John's vision:

The Son of man represents Jesus Christ

  “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.” (Matthew 26:64, NIV)

Jesus was sitting on the cloud: Jesus did not set his foot on the earth but was sitting on the cloud and swung his sickle over the earth. This would indicate that Jesus did not come to judge the earth(Second Coming) but only to take away the believers (Rapture) to meet with Jesus on the clouds. Only those who are harvested will witness this.
Jesus wore only one crown: This would mean that Jesus was not in all his glory. Compare this with Revelation 19:12 where the rider on the white horse (Jesus) wore many crowns, which would mean "with all his glory". Hence, the harvest and the rider on the white horse are two different events. This would mean that the Rapture(Harvest) comes first and then the Second Coming.

The sequence of events would be

The Anti-Christ (Revelation 13)
The 144,000 Israelites (Revelation 14:1-5)
The Harvest or Rapture (Revelation 14:14-16)
The wrath of God (Revelation 15,16)
The fall of Babylon (Revelation 17,18)
The Second Coming (Revelation 19)
The Millennium (Revelation 20:1-6)
The Judgement Day (Revelation 20:7-15)
The New Earth (Revelation 21)


Does believing in Jesus Christ save me, or do I have to do something more? James 2:17 says that faith is not enough. Does that apply to salvation? Is belief (or faith) in Jesus Christ enough to be saved, or is one expected to act on that faith? If works are required for salvation, what is the threshold of that action. Does this threshold vary by denomination?

This question cuts to the core of an apparent conflict between the teachings of James and Paul. Here's some of the relevant scripture:

James 2:17-18, 24 (NIV)

  17 In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by
  action, is dead. 18 But someone will say, “You have faith; I have
  deeds.” Show me your faith without deeds, and I will show you my faith
  by my deeds. 24 You see that a person is considered righteous by what
  they do and not by faith alone.

Ephesians 2:8-9 (NIV)

  8 For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is
  not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— 9 not by works, so that no
  one can boast.

On the surface, it seems that James states that it is works, not faith that is the ultimate source of imparted righteousness. while Paul clearly states that works are useless and only through faith is righteousness and salvation attained.

The key is to put these writings in their proper context.

Paul in many of his writings is addressing Jewish Christians, those who came from a fairly orthodox religious background. Orthodox Judaism is highly legalistic and works-oriented, believing that salvation is achieved through strict adherence to the law. When Paul is talking about "works", he is referring to the legalistic code of Old Testament laws that continued to be a stumbling block to early Jewish Christians. And he is clear that adherence to the law is not a path to salvation. Only faith in Jesus Christ, who fulfilled the OT law with His death and resurrection, leads to salvation. Jesus' freed us from the bondage of sin as laid out in the law.

James on the other hand is addressing a different audience... he is addressing Christians who have faith in Christ and yet have taken their freedom from the law to the extreme. They are claiming that because of their faith in Jesus Christ, they have no need of any law and can behave any way they wish without fear for their salvation for their faith is sufficient.

Jesus clear on the matter of how we should live lives of faith:

John 15:5 (NIV)

  5 “I am the vine; you are the branches. If you remain in me and I in
  you, you will bear much fruit; apart from me you can do nothing.

Christ dwells in us through the Holy Spirit, and the "fruit" of the Spirit is "love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, meekness, temperance" (Galatians 5:22-23). These fruits are "works", not works that garner righteousness or salvation, but works that grow properly out of a life strongly rooted in faith.

And so you see there is no conflict between Paul and James. Paul is teaching legalistic Christians that salvation is only achieved through faith, while James is teaching Christians who use their faith to justify living sinful lives.

The proper life of faith (living branches of Christ's vine) will naturally tend towards good works (bearing fruit) and that if you don't see these works, you have to question whether their faith is authentic.

As a Gentile, Jesus Christ saves you from what exactly? You were never given a Law to keep, so you are not guilty of violating it.

I am not guilty of breaking the French law, since I am not and never have been a French citizen.

As for the Jews, it's stated repeatedly in the Law of Moses that this law is eternal. Which means: it's eternal, not to be changed. Ever. No matter what. It cannot be replaced by believing in Jesus. Unless you assume God is schizophrenic. For example, see Leviticus 23:31 "Ye shall do no manner of work; it is a statute for ever throughout your generations in all your dwellings.".

And no, linguistic gyrations such as, "Okay, I guess the law is eternal, only now it's kept through believing in Jesus" don't really work. They are not supported at all by anything in the text. It's like saying, "I don't cheat on my wife, I love her just the same, only through sleeping with my co-worker."


Does The Revelation chapter 20 tell us that the Rapture will take place after the millennial reign of Christ? 1st Thessalonians 4:16  says that those Christians who have already died when Christ returns, will rise first

  For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first:

In the Revelation 20:4 and 5 it tells us that that will not take place until after the thousand year reign, if I understand it correctly;

Verse 4 as I read it says that those who were martyred for Christ will resurrect and reign with him, but the rest of us will not resurrect until after the thousand years.

Or am I misreading 1st Thessalonians, and it is referring to only the martyrs?

Revelation KJV

  20:4  And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years.

  20:5  But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection.

  20:6  Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years.

A premillenialist would say, "No."

Tim LaHaye, co-author of the best-selling Left Behind series of novels, wrote a book called Revelation Unveiled, a commentary on the book of Revelation from a premillenial, pre-tribulation viewpoint.  The book essentially provides a scriptural basis for the Left Behind series.

There are several chapters in the book devoted to the first few verses in Revelation 20, discussing different viewpoints and defending the premillennial view.  In a chapter titled "The First Resurrection," he talks about this "believer's resurrection" occurring in three phases.

Phase 1 is the resurrection of the church age saints.  These are Christians who have died from the time of Jesus through the time of the Rapture (which he places before the tribulation).  This is the resurrection described in 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18, with the Rapture happening immediately after.

Phase 2 is the resurrection of the Old Testament saints: those who were servants of God before the time of Jesus.  Based on Daniel 12:1-2, he places this resurrection at the end of the tribulation (still before the millennium).

Phase 3 is the resurrection of the tribulation saints.  These are the people described in Revelation 20:4: those that had lived during the tribulation, but were martyred and did not worship the beast.  This occurs shortly after Phase 2.

These three groups, which together make up all believers of all time, are all considered part of the "first resurrection" described in Revelation 20:6.  Mr. LaHaye places the timing of all of these within a 7 year period.

The "rest of the dead" mentioned in Revelation 20:5 are the unbelievers of all ages.  They are not resurrected until after the millennium, when they are judged (Revelation 20:11-15).

*The title asks: Does The Revelation chapter 20 tell us that the Rapture will take place after the millennial reign of Christ?

*The answer is YES.

*Revelation 20:9 (KJV) reads AFTER the 1,000 years: And they (the bad guys) went up on the breadth of the earth, and compassed the camp of the saints (the good guys) about, and the beloved city: and fire came down from God out of heaven, and devoured them (the bad guys).

*Fill in the blank. What happens to the living saints?

*There are 3 choices: a) The bad guys kill all the Saints; b) The Saints are burnt up with the bad guys; c) God evacuates the living Saints just before the earth is destroyed by fire.

*The Evacuation has been misnamed the Rapture.

*Why don't you hear this from the pulpit? It is still a mystery to them (1 Cor. 15:51)

*More on this subject can be found at my website.


What happened to Joseph, Jesus' father? What happened to Joseph, the father of Jesus, given that the last time he was mentioned in the story of Jesus was "Jesus' finding in the temple" (Luke 2:41-52) after which he is never mentioned again right up to the death of Jesus Christ?

So I want to ask, was he dead before then, or did the Bible just exclude him from the whole story, because I've not found any verse in the Bible that talks about his death or anything after Jesus' finding in the temple?

Scholars tend to agree that Joseph had died prior to Christ's ministry. Catholic tradition represents Mary as a widow during the adult ministry of Christ. Joseph is not mentioned as being present at the Wedding at Cana at the beginning of Jesus' mission, nor at Golgotha. If he had been present at the Crucifixion, he would under Jewish custom have been expected to take charge of Jesus' body, but this role is instead performed by Joseph of Arimathea (see Luke 23:50-53). Nor would Jesus have entrusted his mother to John's care had her husband been alive (see John 19:27).

One explanation given for his death is given in the apocryphal Gospel of James (written ~145AD), supposed to be authored by, or a protoevangelium of James—Jesus brother—which claims that James was actually Joseph's son from a previous marriage. The canon gospels never mention Joseph's age, but this account of James presents Joseph as an old man who was called of God to look after the virgin Mary. If this account is accurate, then the explanation for Joseph's absence later in in Christ's life would be attributed to him passing from old age.

The life of Joseph actually has its own field of study called Josephology. Records of devotions to Saint Joseph go back to the year 800AD and Doctors of the Catholic Church since Saint Thomas Aquinas have written on the subject. With the growth of Mariology, the theological study of Saint Joseph also grew and several centers of study were formed in the 1950s specifically for study of Joseph—Husband of Mary. The modern study of the theology of Saint Joseph is one of the most recent theological disciplines.

Many sources say that Joseph is about 50 years old when Jesus was born. Mary is most likely 12. This may seem to make Joseph a pedophile. However, in ancient time that is "typical" marriage age.

Some sources:
How old were Joseph & Mary when they marrried?

  Now there was among the rest Joseph, of the house and family of
  David, a man of great age:

  which isn't very specific, but I'd imagine it's over 50 at the
  youngest.

  Now, I don't like to think of Joseph as an old man, but it's an old
  tradition and can't be readily discounted. It's not necessary that
  James and Jude be half-foster-brothers of Jesus. They could also have
  been sons of Clophas

ancient cultures are polygamists. In polygamists society, like arab, women are scarce because a few man get many. That means women marry young. Also, only a man with sufficient wealth, that usually come with age, get married.

Most polygamist society have ways to "channel" surplus males. The young are usually expendable and die in battle. It's like arab countries.

If Joseph was 50 years old when Jesus was born and Jesus were 30, that means Joseph would have been 80 years when Jesus start practicing messianicism (or whatever we can call His occupation is).

Life expectancy in ancient time is around 40. So Joseph is most likely death.

James is probably Jesus' little bro.


How can Christians reconcile the request to prohibit same-sex marriage and the lawfulness of homosexuality itself? Assuming one believes that the bible is the word of god, believes that the bible says homossexuality is wrong (or commonly quoted, an abomination), and because of that gays should not marry, how come one says same-sex marriage should be unlawful and homosexuality itself should not? In other words, if one wants to prohibit same-gender marriages because homosexuality is an abomination, shouldn't one be proposing to make it unlawful just to be gay or act upon homosexuality such as build a household or simply have sex with someone of the same gender?

Edit: I would like to clarify the point of my question a little better. I am not really interested in if Gay Marriage should be outlawed or not (I personally believe it should not, but that's besides the point). Of course I am also not suggesting the viability of attempting to outlaw homosexuality itself, which is absurd in our society.
My point is that I see people DEFENDING certain rights of homosexuals' such as the right to have homosexual relationships, public display of affection, the right to constitute a family, adopt, etc, and at the same time say their marriage should be banned because homosexuality is a sin/abomination. That is the disconnect I am trying to understand.

I don't know anyone who says that he believes homosexual marriage is bad but homosexual sex in general is okay. The nature of the current legal debate is that homosexuals are demanding a change in the laws regarding marriage, which some who believe homosexuality to be a sin are opposing. If I understand you correctly, you are saying that you see an inconsistency if someone opposes gay marriage but does not at the same time campaign to make gay sex in general illegal.

But that's the nature of political debate, isn't it? You can't deal with every possible issue at the same time. It's not inconsistent to fight for or against one particular law without simultaneously campaigning for or against every other law that exists on any related topic, plus every law that you can imagine that might be passed. You can't deal with everything at once. You can only fight so many battles at one time.

Suppose during the 1950s someone campaigned against racially segregated schools. Would you say that he is "inconsistent" because he does not also campaign against job discrimination? Maybe he doesn't have the time or resources to conduct both campaigns. You have to pick your battles.

There's also the whole big question of the relationship between law, morality, and religion. Should Christians work to make everything that the Bible calls a sin made illegal? Or, even assuming that that was politically possible, would that be an inappropriate role for government?

I think a case could be made that the government should have laws defining and regulating marriage, because these are relevant to taxation, inheritance, and other things that are routinely considered legitimate functions of government. And if the government must define it, then it cannot escape the question of whether a gay couple can or cannot be considered married. But what gay people do in their own homes does not necessarily impinge on legitimate functions of government. (Personally, I'm not really convinced by this argument, but I think it's reasonable.)

Homosexuality is the punishment for idolatry.
Romans 1:24-27 NKJV

24 Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness, in the lusts of their hearts, to dishonor their bodies among themselves, 25 who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.
26 For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. 27 Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due.

God delivers death penalties now.
Matthew 5:17 NKJV

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

Acts 23:3 NKJV

Then Paul said to him, “God will strike you, you whitewashed wall! For you sit to judge me according to the law, and do you command me to be struck contrary to the law?”

John 8:7 NKJV

So when they continued asking Him, He raised Himself up and said to them, “He who is without sin among you, let him throw a stone at her first.”

The death penalty is prescribed for homosexuality.
Leviticus 20:13 NKJV

If a man lies with a male as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination. They shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them.

Therefore God will kill homosexuals, and by believers having faith that God will fulfill the law, we are no longer required to kill them. Yet a punishment has been prescribed for idolatry and since that punishment is homosexuality then homosexuality should be allowed to occur.
Romans 13:1 NKJV

Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God.

Therefore if God is in charge of Governing Authorities, and God has prescribed homosexuality as a punishment to idolatry, and God also has the say on when the death penalty will take place. Then the Governments stand on homosexuality is correct, and reflects both God's opinion and mercy.
Yet the body of Christ can request to prohibit same sex marriage. For what wife cannot ask of her husband?


Why is Jesus called the Truth? Multiple times in the Bible Jesus declares that He is the Truth, or that He is on the side of Truth.

  John 14:6 NIV

  Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes
  to the Father except through me.

  John 18:37

  “You are a king, then!” said Pilate. Jesus answered, “You say that I
  am a king. In fact, the reason I was born and came into the world is
  to testify to the truth. Everyone on the side of truth listens to me.”

What is Jesus referring to with this word, Truth? Pilate then asks Jesus this same question. But I don't think that Pilate was actually looking for an answer, this is more of a sarcastic rhetorical question to in my opinion.

  John 18:38

  “What is truth?” retorted Pilate. With this he went out again to the
  Jews gathered there and said, “I find no basis for a charge against
  him.

Can you answer that for me?

A partial answer is that I understand that the Greek word for truth is also the same as reality. So Jesus is making a profound statement similar to Paul's:

Acts 17:28
‘For in him we live and move and have our being.’

Paul is referring to God. When Jesus (earlier) referred to Himself as Truth / Reality, it was probably to His listeners a claim to divinity.
So, He claimed to be The Way, The Truth and The Life. In other words, He said, "I'm the Path to God, I'm God and I'm what you experience when you're with God."
Footnote: He is certainly not claiming to be just a moral teacher...

I BELIEVE WE KNOW VERY LITTLE ABOUT "TRUTH" AS  FOR THE MOSTPART WE DON'T LIVE BY IT, WE DON'T WALK IN IT, MAYBE IT'S BECAUSE THE "TRUTH" HURTS IT MAKES US FEEL UNCOMFORTABLE, WHY? I THINK THE ANSWER IS OUR SINFUL NATURE AS SIN AND TRUTH ARE INCOMPATIBLE THROUGH OUR HUMAN NATURE. THE ANSWER IS DEATH TO SELF, AND LIFE IN [JESUS CHRIST]. VERILY, VERILY, (A SOLEMN PRONOUNCEMENT) I SAY UNTO YOU, EXCEPT YE EAT THE FLESH OF THE SON OF MAN, AND DRINK HIS BLOOD, YE HAVE NO LIFE IN YOU.
THEREFORE IF WE ARE NOT WALKING IN LIFE, ARE WE WALKING IN DEATH?  (JOHN 6:53).


What is the nature of eternal security? Jon Ericson made a statement in this answer that is fascinating to me:

In other words, we aren't secure in our salvation because of the nature of salvation, but because of the nature of Jesus.

This is something that I've wondered about, but have never really formulated.  Among those who hold the doctrine of eternal security, what is considered the nature, or origin, of that security?
Some possible viewpoints that I see are:

Salvation is eternal in its very nature.  This implies that abiding in Christ is evidence of salvation
Salvation is not eternal in nature, but is eternal in practice because of God's keeping power.  In other words, though theoretically possible to forsake Christ and thus forsake salvation, God promises to keep us, never allowing us to do so.  This would seem to imply that abiding in Christ is the cause, or medium, of salvation, but the work behind that cause is performed by God.

What are the Biblical arguments for or against these viewpoints?

While there are probably an infinite number of aspects in regards to eternal security, I would like to discuss it from a stance of imputed righteousness.

  Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, 10 nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.

  1 Corinthians 6:9-10 (ESV)

If we look at this verse as a condemning statement we would all fall under one or more of these classifications that will not inherit the kingdom of God.  (our sinful nature implies that we all have idolatrous hearts)  I think that is the reason why this passage is often preached as a sermon on making changes in your life and doing works.  But, the pivotal point of these verses is that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God.

This leads me to the main point that I am trying to make.  When we accept Jesus Christ as our savior we inherit his righteousness and are consider justified in eyes of God.  It is a common misconception that God "forgets" our sins when we accept Jesus as our savior.  If that were true then God would not be omniscient.  Instead God chooses to not remember our sins.  In the same sense that God remembered his covenant with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.  Instead, our sins are paid for with Jesus's righteousness, and the only way to obtain righteousness is through Jesus.

  I do not nullify the grace of God, for if righteousness were through the law, then Christ died for no purpose.

  Galatians 2:21

So, logically we can say that we are eternally secure because:
1. The righteous will inherit the kingdom of God.
2. We have imputed righteousness at the time of salvation.

Romans 8:35:

  Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword (KJV)

This passage suggests that nothing will separate us from the Love of Christ, this is something that is assured, this is something that even sin cannot prevent us from receiving, Christ's Love and forgiveness.  Nothing can separate us from it, not even our Sin, He loves us regardless of our sin.  If we read the passage closely however, we see a few things that stand out.  One, the attributes listed in this passage are not sinful actions but things outside of our control, things that may and certainly do happen to Christians in the course of their lives those are persecutions and hardships fallowing in Christ’s footsteps  Also, the passage before...

Romans 8:34:

  It is Christ that died, yea rather, that is risen again, who is even at the right hand of God, who also maketh intercession for us

Paul is speaking to believers, and suggests that Christs death on the cross did not complete our salvation, rather Christ, who continually intercedes for us as a slaughtered lamb, does so even after conversion, his love for us even in our sin will not falter, he will not divorce us and put us away from his Grace, he wants to know us, he wants us to repent continually and offer himself before the father for that salvation we are promised by our obedience of faith.

So now when we do read 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 we see that it is not Christ whose love is separated from us, but our love that is separated us from Christ and the father by Sin.

1 Cor 6:9-11:

  Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortionist, shall inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God

Now we have a list that does separate us from the Kingdom of God (Salvation) this list is not one of persecutions and hardships listed as things that do not separate us from the love of Christ, but things that WE DO that separates us from the Christ sacrifice.  It is these actions that we choose with our free will that separate us from the free gift, the Grace.

The Nature of eternal security is that we are Completely saved, Sanctified, Justified 100% by Christ’s sacrifice on the Cross.  There is nothing that we could have done to merit such a Grace; it is all God through his Son.  Having been so sanctified and Justified, An action completed by uniting ourselves to Christ by Repentance through Baptism (of some sort) and Faith (if we are old enough to manifest it).  We are now  “IN CHRIST JESUS” responsible to stay in that Grace, to abide in Christ,  to be his Covenant People, which means to be obedient to his ordinances and walk in his statutes.  At the one and only Judgment, Christ, sitting on the right hand of God, will look down at us and say as in Mathew 7:21-23:

  Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? And in thy name have cast out devils? And in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity

The words that the apostle Paul uses when speaking of eternal security are "Hope" and "May"  with provisions usually concerning our "Abiding" in Christ, not being separating ourselves  from the Root.  If God's Chosen people can be separated from the Root, be Assured, so once attached to the loving mercy of our lord Jesus Christ, our actions listed plainly in the commandments can and will, without the sacrament of Reconciliation or other Graces known only to God the Father, will indeed separate us from the "Joy of His Salvation".  (Psalm 51:12)


What is the scientific effectiveness of "street preaching" as a method of evangelization? I've been looking around for hard facts on the efficacy of street preaching but can't find any. Are there any hard numbers on the number of people who come to faith through this kind of evangelism? Has its efficacy changed over time? In Acts 2 Peter seems to use the same kind of technique with quite some effect. In my experience street preachers seem to be mostly met with either indifference or derision however that is entirely anecdotal.

So, scientifically, how effective is street preaching as a method evangelism?

Since I know of no studies I cannot define exactly what "efficacy" and other terms are in this instance, but I leave that to any studies if they exist.

In addition to Ken Graham’s excellent answer to this question, let me expand on the itinerant Protestant preachers who boldly declared the word of God in the open air, in fields and in public places, even when to do so would result in persecution.   From 1660 and the restoration of the English Monarchy, non-conformists were forbidden to preach anywhere unless they were ordained by an Anglican bishop.  John Bunyan, who wrote The Pilgrim’s Progress, was twice imprisoned for his failure to comply.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Bunyan#Imprisonment
Other Protestant preachers who engaged in open air preaching include:

John Wesley, founder of Methodism declared, "I am well assured that I did far more good to my Lincolnshire parishioners by preaching three days on my father's tomb than I did by preaching three years in his pulpit ... To this day field preaching is a cross to me, but I know my commission and see no other way of preaching the gospel to every creature."

Wesley's contemporary, Anglican preacher George Whitefield stated: "I believe I never was more acceptable to my Master than when I was standing to teach those hearers in the open fields ... I now preach to ten times more people than I should, if had been confined to the churches."

It was said that one of the regular practices of America evangelist Dwight L. Moody in the late 1860s "was to exhort the passers-by in the evenings from the steps of the court house. Often these impromptu gathering drew as many hecklers as supporters."

Charles Spurgeon, the famous open-air Baptist preacher of England, believed that open-air preaching was instrumental in getting people to hear the gospel who might otherwise never hear it and many open-air preachers today believe that it reaches many more people at once than other approaches to evangelism do.

Groups such as Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons are famous in particular for spreading their beliefs by door to door evangelism at people's homes, often in pairs or small groups.  Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Approaches_to_evangelism

Back in the 1960’s Jehovah’s Witnesses expected their ‘Special Pioneers’ to spend 150 hours every month (1,800 hours a year) going from door to door, and ‘Regular Pioneers’ did 100 hours every month (1,200 hours a year).  A Jehovah’s Witness relative remembers engaging in street preaching back in the 1950’s, using placards and engaging in conversation with people in the High Street.
These days outdoor preaching, such as addressing crowds of people in parks or in other public places, seems to have ground to a halt because of the Covid pandemic.  However, the U.K. Baptist church I attend held “drive-in” services in the town centre public car park.  Anybody could turn up, sit in their vehicles with the windows down and hear the sermon and sing along to the hymns courtesy of a P.A. system.  Several visitors to the town and people who did not belong to our church stayed to listen.  There is no way to know whether anybody was converted to Christianity as a direct result, but historically many people have turned to Christ in faith after hearing the Gospel preached in some open-air or public venue.
What is the scientific effectiveness of street preaching as a method of evangelism?  Pew Research is my "go-to" source of information for statistics on Christianity, but I drew a blank on this one.  Back in the days of Bunyan, Wesley and Spurgeon, I doubt anybody stood with a note-book and pen to take names and addresses of people listening to an open-air preacher and then followed up six months later to enquire if said person was now a Christian.  Fast-forward to the 21st century and our age of digital data overload, legislation now exists to prevent proselytisers from recording personal details of people they contact.  Data protection legislation prohibits keeping such information on personal computers.
Some denominations keep detailed statistics on how much time they spend on speaking to members of the public outdoors, or speaking to them on their doorsteps, or how many pieces of literature they hand out.  They also keep statistics on how many people are baptised by them each year - although I have never seen any breakdown on how many baptisms were genuinely new converts as opposed to how many were brought up in that faith and were then baptised later in life.
I suppose an organisation such as Pew Research could poll Christians to ask if their conversion was a direct response to hearing a street preacher.  Whether that would be "scientific" or not I couldn't say.

Scientifically speaking, street-preaching, like all other preaching and teaching and all other means of evangelism, is zero percent effective.  Conversion is a miracle and requires much more than street-preaching or any other kind of human effort.  Asking such a question is like asking how effective it is to pour water into a container if you want to turn it into wine.
The street preacher prays for God's blessing, has Scriptural precedent since at least the time of Jonah, and the command to go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature.  He leaves the outcome with God.
The wind blows where it wills and no one can tell where it is coming from or where it is going... so it is with those born of the Spirit.