What does "the saints are not keepers of the law, but legislators" mean? In a recent encyclical marking the 1700th anniversary of the Edict of Milan,  the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople, Bartholomew I, wrote:

  The Wisdom of God, the Lady Theotokos our Pammakaristos and Conciliation, St. Demetrios Kanavis, St. George the Trophy-bearer of the Phanar, and all the saints of our Church are not keepers of the law but legislators according to St. Symeon the New Theologian. The institution of the Church is charismatic, and the charismata of the saints function as institutional signposts for the faithful of the Church.

The Greek text seems to be basically word-for-word the same, except that "charismatic" is emphasised:

  Ἡ τοῦ Θεοῦ Σοφία, ἡ Κυρία Θεοτόκος ἡ Παμμακάριστος καί ἡ Παραμυθία, ὁ Ἅγιος Δημήτριος ὁ Κανάβης, ὁ Ἅγιος Γεώργιος ὁ Τροπαιοφόρος τοῦ Διπλοφαναρίου, οἱ Ἅγιοι συνολικῶς τῆς Ἐκκλησίας ἡμῶν δέν εἶναι φύλακες τοῦ νόμου, ἀλλά νομοθέται, κατά τό Ἅγιον Συμεών τόν Νέον Θεολόγον. Ὁ Θεσμός τῆς Ἐκκλησίας εἶναι  χ α ρ ι σ μ α τ ι κ ό ς καί τά χαρίσματα τῶν Ἁγίων λειτουργοῦν ὡς θεσμοί καθοδηγητικοί διά τό ἐκκλησιαστικόν πλήρωμα.

What does he mean by the statement that the saints are "not keepers of the law, but legislators", with reference to the Orthodox perspective on the nature of the Church? What significance is there to the particular saints (plus Wisdom) listed? What teaching of St Symeon is being referenced?

"The Wisdom of God, the Lady Theotokos our Pammakaristos and Conciliation, St. Demetrios Kanavis, St. George the Trophy-bearer of the Phanar, and all the saints of our Church are not keepers of the law but legislators according to St. Symeon the New Theologian."

This answer will be in keeping with Symeon’s perspective!  Symeon identifies himself with the saints contrasting himself (a legislator of the law) with his chief adversary, Archbishop Stephen who was a (keeper of the law).  Symeon’s views were born from an actual encounter with the Holy Spirit (charismatic) as opposed to Stephen’s views which were theoretical yet not personal.

Consider the Gospel of Luke 7:35 “wisdom is justified of all her children”.

“All the saints” are “children of wisdom”, “wisdom” is the Holy Spirit, which legislates the will of God the Father through the hearts of the saints.

When Gabriel prophesies to Zacharias about his son John the Baptist: Luke 1:16,7 And many of the children of Israel shall he turn to the Lord their God. And he shall go before him in the spirit and power of Elias, to turn the hearts of the fathers to the children, and the disobedient to the wisdom of the just; to make ready a people prepared for the Lord.

The "keepers of the law" are watchdogs of the law they are like those that sat in the marketplace claiming John the Baptist had a demon and Jesus was a drunkard:

Luke 7:31-35 And the Lord said, Whereunto then shall I liken the men of this generation? and to what are they like? They are like unto children sitting in the marketplace, and calling one to another, and saying, We have piped unto you, and ye have not danced; we have mourned to you, and ye have not wept. For John the Baptist came neither eating bread nor drinking wine; and ye say, He hath a devil. The Son of man is come eating and drinking; and ye say, Behold a gluttonous man, and a winebibber, a friend of publicans and sinners! But wisdom is justified of all her children.

The children of wisdom are the legislators of the law!

Phrase “the saints are not keepers of the law, but legislators” recalls me
Romans 2:13-15

  13 For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God’s sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous. 14 (Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law. 15 They show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts sometimes accusing them and at other times even defending them.)

So I think this means the saints are those who obey the law and not those who hear the law.


What, according to Jesus, is the primary purpose and objective of sending the Holy Spirit at Pentecost? After the Holy Spirit came at Pentecost and filled all those gathered together in that upper room in Jerusalem (Acts 1: 13-14), they were enabled to go forth and speak boldly about Jesus of Nazareth and how God raised him from the dead.  They spoke in tongues and performed miraculous healings (Acts chapter 2).
Is the primary objective of the Holy Spirit to imbue believers with the miraculous gifts of speaking in tongues, or of healing, or of prophecy?  Is the manifestation of those gifts of the Spirit in the believer proof that they are somehow superior to those who have never experienced such miraculous gifts?
What, according to Jesus, is the primary purpose and objective of sending the Holy Spirit at Pentecost?
EDIT for clarity: I'm looking for the words of Jesus, as found in the New Testament, which relate specifically to the purpose of sending the Holy Spirit at Pentecost.

The very words of Jesus on that matter are clear and are repeated below:

John 15:26-27: “When the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you
from the Father, the Spirit of truth who proceeds from the Father, he
shall testify of me. And you also shall bear witness, because you have
been with me from the beginning”.
John 16:8-14: “And when he is come, he will reprove the world of sin,
and of righteousness, and of judgment; of sin, because they believe
not on me; of righteousness, because I go to my Father, and you see me
no more; of judgment, because the prince of this world is judged...
when he, the Spirit of truth is come, he will guide you into all the
truth, for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear
shall he speak, and he will show you things to come.  He shall glory
me; for he shall receive of mine, and shall show it unto you.  All
things that the Father hath are mine.  Therefore said I, that he shall
take of mine, and shall show it unto you.”

The primary, foremost role of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost was NOT to imbue believers with miraculous gifts of a more spectacular nature than 'mundane' gifts of hospitality, administration etc., as if that would prove that those with spectacular gifts were somehow superior to those with 'mundane' gifts.  The words of Jesus show that the Holy Spirit does not speak of Himself - he points to, and glorifies, Christ.  Therefore, when the disciples at Pentecost found they could speak in other languages, they used that amazing gift to point thousands to the resurrected Christ. They preached Christ crucified and risen. They did not talk about themselves, but witnessed (testified to) having seen the resurrected Christ, and explaining how the prophecies about Messiah were fulfilled in Christ.
An illustration might be helpful. When thousands go to a sporting event in a huge outdoor stadium at night, and the flood-lights suddenly come on, does anybody turn around and admire the flood-lights?  Of course not!  The illumination is to enable them to see what is happening before their eyes.  So at Pentecost.  In that dark night of sin, when thousands gathered at Jerusalem to celebrate, the Holy Spirit suddenly flooded the city with the light of the gospel of Christ, so that all eyes were turned - not on the Holy Spirit - but on the disciples’ preaching, which was inspired by His power, for they could speak in other languages to reach those from other countries. They stood up and preached Christ crucified and risen in glory, and how the people could be delivered from their sin! They pointed to Christ, not to themselves or how wonderful their linguistic gifts were! All attention was drawn to the risen Christ.
Today, there are some who seem obsessed with having "the spirit", including power of spiritual gifts. But if any such ones promote self as exhibiting "the spirit", they cannot be denying self and pointing others to Christ. They have not learned the vital lesson of the Spirit bestowed at Pentecost - to work through saved believers to explain the gospel of Christ to others, so that those others might then be saved and experience the convicting power of the Holy Spirit, realising their sin and the need to repent and put all their faith in the risen Christ.

What, according to Jesus, is the primary purpose and objective of sending the Holy Spirit at Pentecost?
Primary task assigned to the Apostle by Jesus Christ in the Great Commission.

The Great Commission
…18Then Jesus came to them and said, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to Me. 19Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, 20and teaching them to obey all that I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, even to the end of the age.”…

Baptizing, preaching & witnessing are the primary task assigned by Jesus to the Apostles in the Great Commission. But, it is not the primary purpose of sending the Holy Spirit at Pentecost, the Holy Spirit is a "sanctifier".
In the birth of Jesus the Head of the Church, the Holy Spirit came down to sanctify the pure womb of Mary.

Gabriel Foretells Jesus' Birth
…34“How can this be,” Mary asked the angel, “since I am a virgin?” 35The angel replied, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. So the Holy One to be born will be called the Son of God.

Now, in the Upper Room, Mary again was pregnant, She is the Mother of the Church, as She conceived in Her sorrows the Mystical Body of Jesus Christ, the Church. Mary is the New Eve, and the punishment of Eve was reverse by Mary as the Church Fathers teaches.
What is the passage how Mary conceived in Her heart all the redeemed by Christ?

To the woman also he said: I will multiply thy sorrows, and thy conceptions: in sorrow shalt thou bring forth children, and thou shalt be under thy husband's power, and he shall have dominion over thee

Jesus introduces "A Woman in labor"

Amen, amen, I say to you, you will weep and mourn, while the world rejoices; you will grieve, but your grief will become joy.
When a woman is in labor, she is in anguish because her hour has arrived; but when she has given birth to a child, she no longer remembers the pain because of her joy that a child has been born into the world.

This the primary purpose of sending the Holy Spirit, the Woman is in labor, She is about to give birth to the Church the Mystical Body of Christ, and the Holy Spirit, the Sanctifier must come down again just like when She come down in the mystery of the incarnation of Jesus the Head of the Church.
PRIMARY PURPOSE

The Holy Spirit need to descend to sanctify the "Immaculate Heart of Mary" to give birth to the Church. This is the primary purpose of sending the Holy Spirit at Pentecost.

Other purposes
The secondary purpose is to finish Jesus work on the souls of the Apostles and Disciples, as written in this prayer.
Jesus also promised the Holy Spirit to all the Apostles because He knew after His redemptive mission is over, Jesus the Advocate to the Apostles will need "another Advocate" to continue to guide and console the Apostles in their mission. Since Jesus, is the Truth, the Holy Spirit the Spirit of Truth must be send to guide and teach all the Apostles on the Truth about who Jesus is, so that in their assigned mission of baptizing and proclaiming the gospel, the Spirit of Truth is an assurance that they will not err in teaching the faith.

Jesus’ Departure; Coming of the Advocate.*
“I did not tell you this from the beginning, because I was with you.
But now I am going to the one who sent me, and not one of you asks me,* ‘Where are you going?’
But because I told you this, grief has filled your hearts.
But I tell you the truth, it is better for you that I go. For if I do not go, the Advocate will not come to you. But if I go, I will send him to you.
And when he comes he will convict the world in regard to sin and righteousness and condemnation:
sin, because they do not believe in me;
righteousness, because I am going to the Father and you will no longer see me;
condemnation, because the ruler of this world has been condemned.
“I have much more to tell you, but you cannot bear it now.
But when he comes, the Spirit of truth, he will guide you to all truth. He will not speak on his own, but he will speak what he hears, and will declare to you the things that are coming.
He will glorify me, because he will take from what is mine and declare it to you.
Everything that the Father has is mine; for this reason I told you that he will take from what is mine and declare it to you.

The Third Purpose of the Holy Spirit is to complete the works done by Christ thru His Church on every Christian.

Philippians 1:6; “being confident of this, that He who began a good work in you will carry it on to completion until the day of Christ Jesus.”

In closing, the Holy Spirit sanctifies the Woman, giving birth to the Church is the primary purpose of sending the Holy Spirit. Next, the Holy Spirit sanctifies the Apostles and Disciples to finish the work done by Christ on them, and to empower them in their mission.  Lastly, the Holy Spirit sanctifies all the baptized Christian empowering them to finish the work started by God for them to finish the race and receive the crown that all awaits them in Heaven.

I have fought the good fight, I have finished the race, I have kept the faith. 8From now on there is laid up for me the crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous Judge, will award to me on that day— and not only to me, but to all who crave His appearing.-2Timothy4:7-8


What is the Biblical Basis for saying that we "go to heaven"? I have found hundreds of Bible verses with heaven or heavens in them. But none of them said we "go to heaven".

We pray for the kingdom to come here.  Revelation has the new Jerusalem descending to earth. (Rev 21)

Why does anybody think we go to heaven? What is the Biblical Basis for this idea?

This is actually the dominant view of Christianity: the doctrine of an intermediate state after death and before the resurrection. "Going to heaven" means being with God in a non-bodied but conscious spiritual way after we die, before we experience resurrected bodily life in the New Heavens and New Earth. The main alternative view is that of Christian mortalism, often called "soul sleep", which says that we will not experience the time between our deaths and resurrections.

Many verses can be seen as indicating this view of the afterlife, including these:

Jesus now dwells in heaven:

  Acts 1:11: “Men of Galilee,” they said, “why do you stand here looking into the sky? This same Jesus, who has been taken from you into heaven, will come back in the same way you have seen him go into heaven.”

  Ephesians 1:19-20: ... That power is the same as the mighty strength he exerted when he raised Christ from the dead and seated him at his right hand in the heavenly realms,

  Hebrews 8:1-2: Now the main point of what we are saying is this: We do have such a high priest, who sat down at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in heaven, and who serves in the sanctuary, the true tabernacle set up by the Lord, not by a mere human being.

Jesus says to one of the criminals crucified with him that he will join him:

  Luke 23:43: Jesus answered him, “Truly I tell you, today you will be with me in paradise.”

Paul teaches that the alternative to this earthly life is to be with Christ:

  2 Corinthians 5:6-8: Therefore we are always confident and know that as long as we are at home in the body we are away from the Lord. For we live by faith, not by sight. We are confident, I say, and would prefer to be away from the body and at home with the Lord.

  Philippians 1:21-24:  For to me, to live is Christ and to die is gain. If I am to go on living in the body, this will mean fruitful labor for me. Yet what shall I choose? I do not know! I am torn between the two: I desire to depart and be with Christ, which is better by far; but it is more necessary for you that I remain in the body.

From Revelation, the people of God serve him before his heavenly throne:

  Revelation 7:9, 15: After this I looked, and there before me was a great multitude that no one could count, from every nation, tribe, people and language, standing before the throne and before the Lamb. They were wearing white robes and were holding palm branches in their hands. ... “they are before the throne of God
      and serve him day and night in his temple;
  and he who sits on the throne
      will shelter them with his presence.

And some verses suggest that when Jesus does come again to initiate his kingdom in the New Heavens and New Earth, that Christians who have died with come with him:

  Colossians 3:4: When Christ, who is your life, appears, then you also will appear with him in glory.

  1 Thessalonians 3:13: May he strengthen your hearts so that you will be blameless and holy in the presence of our God and Father when our Lord Jesus comes with all his holy ones.

  1 Thessalonians 4:14: For we believe that Jesus died and rose again, and so we believe that God will bring with Jesus those who have fallen asleep in him.

But I think most Christians who teach this view would agree that saying that salvation is about "going to heaven" is incomplete and unhelpful, and that it could lead to misunderstanding that humans being with Christ out of our bodies is natural rather than temporary and unnatural, and that our great hope is to go to heaven rather than to live with Christ in resurrected bodies on a restored and perfected earth. So it's not wrong, but it can be unhelpful.

There could be one another way in which people talking about "going to heaven" - having visions of heaven in this life. After several recent and unfortunately popular books this has been coined "Heaven Tourism" by its critics who consider it dangerous false teaching or false prophecy.

You can find biblical basis in John 14.

If you’re not sure where his Father is, see Mt 10:32 and many other verses where Jesus said ‘my Father which is in heaven’

If you’re not sure who his Father is, see Jn 8:54.

John 10:30 also will help.


Are mainline Protestants our Brothers in Christ by virtue of the Trinitarian Baptism? [Catholic] If I am not mistaken, water baptism is one of the 7 sacraments and it can be performed by laymen and must not necessarily involve clergy. In such a case, since Protestants have no apostolic succession unlike the Orthodox, are their baptisms valid in their own right?

  To be clear, belief in the Holy Trinity is a prerequisit that seems
  obvious and mainline Protestants do believe in the Holy Trinity. Some of the
  Reformers had a similar view of Catholics being their brothers by
  baptism, notably John Calvin.

EDIT : My question is different to certain others because it deals with the validity of the sacrement of baptism in Protestant circles instead of merely if God will have extraordinary mercy on Protestants as opposed to ordinary mercy with sacrements. If the mercy is extraordinary it almost pushes salvation in Protestantism to the level of salvation in for instance paganism, where there are no elements of the Church to draw life from like a source of water. However if Protestantism has ordinary significance then we can safely say that Protestants are Christians, and not simply hope that they are.

The answer is yes, the Catholic Church views Protestants as brothers by virtue of the baptismal formula of Father, Son, Spirit.

Wounds to unity
817 In fact, "in this one and only Church of God from its very beginnings there arose certain rifts, which the Apostle strongly censures as damnable. But in subsequent centuries much more serious dissensions appeared and large communities became separated from full communion with the Catholic Church - for which, often enough, men of both sides were to blame." The ruptures that wound the unity of Christ's Body - here we must distinguish heresy, apostasy, and schism - do not occur without human sin:
Where there are sins, there are also divisions, schisms, heresies, and disputes. Where there is virtue, however, there also are harmony and unity, from which arise the one heart and one soul of all believers.
818 "However, one cannot charge with the sin of the separation those who at present are born into these communities [that resulted from such separation] and in them are brought up in the faith of Christ, and the Catholic Church accepts them with respect and affection as brothers . . . . All who have been justified by faith in Baptism are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers in the Lord by the children of the Catholic Church."

PS. There are those of the Catholic Church who disagree with the Catholic Church called sedevancatists.

Although they might be validly baptized (anyone can baptize), they are not members of the Church because they do not believe the Catholic faith in its entirely.
As Pope Pius XII wrote in his encyclical Mystici Corporis Christi:

Actually only those are to be included as members of the Church who have

been baptized

and

profess the true faith,*

and

who have not been so unfortunate as to separate themselves from the unity of the Body, or been excluded by legitimate authority for grave faults committed.

“For in one spirit” says the Apostle, “were we all baptized into one Body, whether Jews or Gentiles, whether bond or free.” As therefore in the true Christian community there is only one Body, one Spirit, one Lord, and one Baptism, so there can be only one faith. And therefore if a man refuse to hear the Church let him be considered — so the Lord commands — as a heathen and a publican. It follows that those [who] are divided in faith or government [e.g., the Protestants] cannot be living in the unity of such a Body, nor can they be living the life of its one Divine Spirit.

*in its entirely; cf. Satis Cognitum
Protestants are at least material heretics; they do not hold the same faith as Catholics. They deny the papacy, a truth necessary for being a member of the Church. They do not even recognize the visible Church (its government). And, as Pope Leo XIII said in Satis Cognitum, an encyclical on the unity of the Church consisting in being “one in faith, in government, and in communion:”

The practice of the Church has always been the same, as is shown by the unanimous teaching of the Fathers, who were wont to hold as outside Catholic communion, and alien to the Church, whoever would recede in the least degree from any point of doctrine proposed by her authoritative Magisterium.

adapted from this answer; cf. also this answer


Was Jesus a Cynic (Greek philosophy)? Cynicism is a school of Greek philosophy. It taught that

  the purpose of life was to live in virtue, in agreement with nature. As reasoning creatures, people could gain happiness by rigorous training and by living in a way which was natural for humans, rejecting all conventional desires for wealth, power, sex, and fame. Instead, they were to lead a simple life free from all possessions. (Wikipedia)

Some scholars have suggested that Jesus shows signs of being influenced by Cynicism, such as Burton L. Mack and John Dominic Crossan of the Jesus Seminar. They say that Jesus was more heavily influenced by Greek ideas than Jewish prophetic traditions. What evidence is there that Jesus was influenced by Cynicism and taught in accordance with it?

Some scholars have also stated that Q, the hypothesised shared source of Matthew and Luke, has strong similarities with Cynicism. What in Q has been identified as Cynic teaching?

Your definition of cynicism includes
" rejecting all conventional desires for A. wealth, B. power, C. sex, and D. fame."

A. Regarding wealth-
His Father owns the cattle on a thousand hills- Proverbs and He miraculously fished a coin out of a fish's mouth. www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+17%3A24-27&version=CEV  Any possible possession he could need was available to him.  But as far as I can tell, he lived with little money, IMHO
i. to relate more closely to the poor.
ii. gave most of his money away
iii. demonstration of His dependence on Father and Holy Spirit

B. Power-
Similar to money he had all power one could possibly want, but chose to be a servant as demonstration of His love to us.  The name he most frequently used for himself was "Son of Man".  https://www.biblegateway.com/quicksearch/?qs_version=NASB&quicksearch=+%22son+of+man%22&startnumber=26&begin=47&end=50  This giving up of power culminated in the ultimate sacrifice on the cross.  After the cross, He is now seated on His throne & now has all the power in His own right.

C. Sex
Although He, Himself lived an entirely celibate life, he made clear sex is a good thing in marriage  "and the two shall become one flesh; so they are no longer two, but one flesh." https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark%2010&version=NASB
The term one flesh has several meanings one of which is making love.

D. Fame
There are times when he certainly avoided the spotlight.  He was confident & secure enough in His own identity to not seek it.  However, considering 2,000 years later, many or most people on the earth since then have heard His name, I would certainly say He is extremely famous.

One other point-
Can you clarify your definition of natural?  I'm going to take m
"living in a way which was natural for humans..."  For humans, rebellion, pride & selfishness are natural.  The goal is not self sufficiency, but dependency on Father.  He had none of these.  We don't teach those characteristics to children, but they exhibit them.  1 Corinthians 2:14 on the same site as above.

To summarize, Christ lived not seeking these but was confident His Father would provide them when the appropriate time came.

There's no evidence in the scriptures to suggest why Jesus, being a devout student of the law as well as the Creator of the Universe (see below or Collossians 1:13-20 ) would for any reason follow a philosophy created by sinful man. Who, being sinful, at their best are still above all self-centered probably a lot like the pharisees of Christ's day. The 6th Chapter of the Gospel of Matthew details several examples of how Jesus called the people who lived seemingly righteous and selfless lives were doing so to be esteemed by society.

  "13 Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath
  translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son: 14In whom we have
  redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins: 15Who is
  the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature: 16For
  by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in
  earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions,
  or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for
  him: 17And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.
  18And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning,
  the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the
  preeminence. 19For it pleased the Father that in him should all
  fulness dwell; 20And, having made peace through the blood of his
  cross, by him to reconcile all things unto himself; by him, I say,
  whether they be things in earth, or things in heaven." Collossians
  1:13-20

Now as so far as "Q" is concerned I have nothing for you. I don't put a lot of thought into claims like that as they are mostly human claims to discredit the Word of God.
Hope this helped some. God bless.


What did the early church believe about the "rapture"? There are a lot of differing opinions on when the rapture will take place (pre-tribulation, post-tribulation, or mid-tribulation). From my own attempts to research the topic and look at Scripture from outside my presuppositions, I have found good arguments for all sides of the issue.

What did the early church actually believe about the "rapture"?

Note: This question is (obviously) not a duplicate of the question "What view of eschatology did the early church believe?" — I wrote that question and, seeing that I needed to be more specific about the different aspects of eschatology, I wrote this question that specifically dealt with the "rapture."  The other question, by contrast, mentions nothing about the "rapture" in any of the answers.

Thanks to books like Left Behind, the English word rapture often conjures up images of bodies mysteriously disappearing into thin air, followed by several years of severe tribulation, leading up to the final judgment and resurrection.  Such a view is a product of dispensationalism, a relatively new theological framework, and not one that the church fathers espoused.
Does that mean that the church fathers did not believe in a rapture?  On the contrary: they did believe in it, though not in the same sense as the word is commonly understood today.
The word rapture comes from the Latin word raptus, meaning "a carrying off."  This idea is included in non-religious definitions of rapture:

a state or experience of being carried away by overwhelming emotion (MW)

A related Latin word, rapio, is used in the Latin Vulgate's translation of 1 Thessalonians 4:16–17:

For the Lord himself will descend from heaven with a cry of command, with the voice of an archangel, and with the sound of the trumpet of God. And the dead in Christ will rise first. 17 Then we who are alive, who are left, will be caught up [rapiemur] together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air, and so we will always be with the Lord. [ESV]

The rapture, then, is not a concept that suddenly appeared when dispensationalism came along.  The word was used in English and Latin long prior.  However, it was understood differently, so we need to examine what the church fathers wrote regarding this rapio or raptus: a) what is it, b) when does it occur and c) is it secret or visible.
What is the rapture?
Church fathers widely understand the rapture to be a future physical meeting of Christ and Christians in the air.
Origen gives no indication of a hidden meaning in Paul's words in 1 Thessalonians 4:17.  He simply writes that both the dead and alive in Christ will rise:

Those whom we spoke of as dead have special need of the resurrection, since not even those who are alive can be taken up in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air before the dead in Christ first rise. (Commentary on John, 20.233)

Rufinus of Aquileia clearly indicates a physical reunion with Christ in the sky:

And do not marvel that the flesh of the saints is to be changed into such a glorious condition at the resurrection as to be caught up to meet God, suspended in the clouds and borne in the air. (Commentary on the Apostles' Creed, 46)

Augustine says that living Christians will "both die and rise again at once while caught up into the air":

And why should it seem to us incredible that that multitude of bodies should be, as it were, sown in the air, and should in the air forthwith revive immortal and incorruptible, when we believe, on the testimony of the same apostle, that the resurrection shall take place in the twinkling of an eye, and that the dust of bodies long dead shall return with incomprehensible facility and swiftness to those members that are now to live endlessly? (City of God, 20.20)

When will the rapture occur?
Church fathers routinely associate the rapture with the physical resurrection of believers following the tribulation, and many see a close connection between the rapture and other eschatological events, such as the final judgment.
Hippolytus, one of the relatively few proponents of a premillennialist view (chiliasm), sees the rapture as following the tribulation and rule of the Antichrist:

These things, then, being to come to pass, beloved, and the one week being divided into two parts, and the abomination of desolation being manifested then, and the two prophets and forerunners of the Lord having finished their course, and the whole world finally approaching the consummation, what remains but the coming of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ from heaven, for whom we have looked in hope? (On Christ and Antichrist, 64)

Others connect even more prophecies with the rapture.  For example, Gregory of Nazianzus, using the language of 1 Thessalonians 4:17, writes:

I shall await the voice of the archangel, the last trumpet, the transformation of heaven, the change of earth, the freedom of the elements, the renewal of the universe.  Then shall I see Caesarius himself, no longer in exile, no longer being buried, no longer mourned, no longer pitied, but splendid, glorious, sublime. (Fathers of the Church, v22, p22)

Similarly, Augustine writes that this passage refers to both the taking up of believers as well as the final judgment:

These words of the apostle most distinctly proclaim the future resurrection of the dead, when the Lord Christ shall come to judge the quick and the dead. (City of God, 20.20)

Chrysostom and Jerome (quoted below) also connect the rapture with the final judgment.
Will the rapture be secret?
If the rapture corresponds with the defeat of the Antichrist and final judgment, it follows that it will not be secret.  Jerome says the "world shall howl" and "its peoples shall tremble," which is obviously not indicative of secrecy. (Letter 14.11)
Chrysostom uses the analogy of the entrance of a king into a city, arguing that honor is the purpose of this event, thus seeming to emphasize the visible nature of the rapture:

If He is about to descend, on what account shall we be caught up? For the sake of honor. For when a king drives into a city, those who are in honor go out to meet him; but the condemned await the judge within. [...] Seest thou how great is the honor? and as He descends, we go forth to meet Him, and, what is more blessed than all, so we shall be with Him. (Homily on 1 Thessalonians, VIII)

Summary
We must be careful not to impose our modern understanding of rapture on the church fathers: they believed that 1 Thessalonians 4 refers to a rapture in which living Christians will meet Christ in the sky and be transformed.  They saw this visible event as closely associated with at least the end of the tribulation and the defeat of the Antichrist, and often the final judgment itself.
Dispensational ideas like a "secret" rapture and significant gap in time between the rapture and final judgment are not expressed by the church fathers.  If we wish to say that the church fathers "believed in the rapture," we must be very careful to specify that we are using rapture in the traditional sense—a taking up, a carrying off—not the dispensational sense.

Yes there were early church writers who did believe in a Pre-Tribulational rapture.

1) Paul the Apostle. Read 1 Thessalonians 4:17, 2 Thessalonians 2:1-3, 1 Cor. 15:50-51. The challenge is not that the text doesn't say it, but whether you accept the plain language (literal translation), or accept the allegorical interpretation that Augustine, Origin, and Covenant Theologians that believe the Church has replaced Israel. In other words, your opinion heads to pre-tribulational rapture with a literal interpretation, or a post-tribulational/amillennial rapture if you lean towards an allegorical interpretation.

2) In 1844 at St. Catherine Monestary near the foot of Mt. Sinai a NT was found along with 2 other books. One, “The Shepherd of Hermes” (A.D. 110) indicates that there was an escape to Tribulation.

3). In A.D. 376, Ephraim the Syrian published a book called “Antichrist and the End of the World” which indicated the Rapture was before the Tribulation.

P.S. I don't need to know what the early church fathers thought about the rapture. I have the preserved Word of God and His Holy Spirit to teach me. If you're interested in a good and detailed eschatological read, pick up "Things to Come" by J. Dwight Pentecost. Awesome book!

God bless brothers!


What is significant about the title of "Son of David" that was attributed to Jesus? The Book of Matthew begins by identifying Jesus with the title of "Son of David":

  The record of the genealogy of Jesus the Messiah, the son of David, the son of Abraham.  Matthew 1:1 NAS

At one time, two blind men call Jesus by the same title:

  As Jesus went on from there, two blind men followed Him, crying out, “Have mercy on us, Son of David!”  Matthew 9:27 NAS

Later, Jesus' identity as the Son of David becomes a point of contention:

  But when the chief priests and the scribes saw the wonderful things that He had done, and the children who were shouting in the temple, “Hosanna to the Son of David,” they became indignant.  Matthew 21:15 NAS

So, what is the significance of the title "Son of David" being attributed to Jesus?

David, of course, was the second King of Israel (later just Judah) who had descendants also upon the throne. We see that Jesus was indeed descended in direct lineage from David through many generations. In some cases in the Bible, "son of" is used to refer to descendants rather than literal sons. Thus, Jesus could be called a "son of David".

But because of the prophecy to David in 2 Samuel 7:16,

  And your house and your kingdom shall be made sure forever before me. Your throne shall be established forever.

the Jewish people were looking for a King that would rule without end, many of course thinking that he would set up an earthly kingdom. Clearly this refers to David's descendants.

John 7:42 says that:

  Does not Scripture say that the Messiah will come from David's descendants and from Bethlehem, the town where David lived?

Referring to 2 Samuel 7 (the line from which he will come) and Micah 5:2 (specifically naming Bethlehem as his birthplace).

Jesus, of course was the fulfillment of the prophecy of Psalm 110:1

  A Psalm of David 1 The Lord says to my Lord: “Sit at my right hand, until I make your enemies your footstool.” (emphasis mine)

As we see in Mark 12:35-37, Jesus clearly states that this refers to him.

But perhaps most significantly and clearly is the prophecy in Isaiah 9:6-7:

  “For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace. Of the increase of his government and peace there shall be no end, upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom, to order it, and to establish it with judgment and with justice from henceforth even for ever. The zeal of the LORD of hosts will perform this.”

There is little doubt that the Jewish authorities of the day missed this prophecy, clearly stating that a son is given...name is mighty God...upon the throne of David. In short, his title of "son of David" was the declaration that he was the promised Messiah, and God himself.

Source 1, Source 2, Source 3

It is clear that Jesus has three roles: prophet, priest and king.

The question asks about His being King, which other answers correctly identify as 'Son of David'. While many see son of man, son of God and son of David as interchangeable, or somehow contriving their equivalence, I would like to offer some context: Here is a little background about the timing of Jesus three ministries:

He WAS a prophet, and is thus called Son of Man, the standard honorific of a prophet (In most of Ezekiel he - Ezekiel - is called 'son of man'). Much of what He said was prophetic.

He IS a priest, interceding AT PRESENT in heaven. In this role He is Son of God. His role on Earth was not that of a priest.

He WILL BE a king: He will be crowned King of Kings, Lord of Lords by 'the saints'. In this role he WILL BE Son of David. Only then will he fulfill the Kingly role the Jews have always expected of their Messiah.

To illustrate, when the woman wanted to eat the crumbs that fell from the children's table, she called Jesus 'Son of David', thinking him to be already in that role. He brushed her aside, the same as He did to the woman at the well. When they persisted, they changed how they addressed him, and when they grasped who He was AT THAT TIME then He responded to them.

HTH


Does God's omnipresence extend to hell? One of those attributes of God is his ability to be everywhere at all times.  I'm not debating that it is an attribute of his, I'm just wondering how we know that.

I ask, because I've been going through a question of my own recently - If God is omnipresent, how can hell exist?  After all, hell is by definition, that one place that God is not. But, if God is everywhere, how can there be a place that he is not?

My favorite answer to that question comes from C.S. Lewis' The Great Divorce, in which he describes hell not as a place of fire and brimstone, but rather an infinitely empty, substance-lacking smallness.  The journey from hell to heaven that his characters make is not from "down" to "up" from rather from "small" to "big" and "weak" to "strong."

I really like using that idea of hell, since it seemingly answers the idea that hell is merely a place that is, itself, so small and insubstantial that it isn't God's lack of presence, but rather its own insignificance that causes God's presence to feel so lacking.

In order to test that assertion, however, I want to make sure that I am correctly stating the postulate - namely that God really can be everywhere at all times. What is its biblical basis, and does God presence exist in hell?

In reading your question, I don't think the issue at hand is God's omnipresence at all. Frankly it's not a terribly important doctrine in the first place and while I think one could make a case for it from Scipture, I think it's a little forced. Much more importantly, the Scripture states the reverse quite plainly, that all things are in and held together by God/Christ.

  Colossians 1:16-17 (ESV)
  16  For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things were created through him and for him. 17  And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together.

This includes hell. The problem with your question is not the doctrine of omnipresence, but the doctrine of hell. You state:

  After all, hell is by definition, that one place that God is not.

But where does that idea come from in the Bible? The problem with hell is that God is there! It is where God pours out his eternal judgement on all things evil. This is a part of his nature and God's wrath will be a very present reality of hell for all eternity. While we can't paint an exact picture of hell, we do have have some fairly vivid and specific descriptions of the way God is involved in punishment:

  Revelation 14:9-11 (ESV)
  9  And another angel, a third, followed them, saying with a loud voice, “If anyone worships the beast and its image and receives a mark on his forehead or on his hand, 10  he also will drink the wine of God's wrath, poured full strength into the cup of his anger, and he will be tormented with fire and sulfur in the presence of the holy angels and in the presence of the Lamb. 11  And the smoke of their torment goes up forever and ever, and they have no rest, day or night, these worshipers of the beast and its image, and whoever receives the mark of its name.”

What is different about it there is that it is a place separated from his grace. Neither the general grace that rains on the just and the unjust alike on this earth nor his specific graces experienced by believers will be experienced there. Folks will be separated from those aspects of God. He is only holding back his hand for a time.

I'd agree with Caleb here.  God exists even in hell.  Theologically I am not sure how God is able to be omnipresent, just that it is one of God's attributes.

Scientifically, one theory that holds promise is String Theory which implies that all in the past, present and future may exist at once.  And God may be able to exist not only everywhere but at all times!  I realize I am possibly muddling things up by bringing science in here, but so be it :)


What is the basis for the idea that God is highly involved in human lives? A few days ago a family member who is religious told me about an event in her life that she thinks is a miracle. She witnessed a car wreck in front of her, and believes that it is a miracle that it was not them because they had stopped to pray beforehand. The details are not particularly important to this question.

I know many people of various religions, but I've only heard similar statements from Christians. I live in the USA so I'm wondering if this is something that is largely cultural (being the most popular religion here) or if there is something particular about Christianity that encourages this?

Are there any verses in the Bible which support this kind of hyper-involvement in your life by God?

And is there a specific movement or denomination that is particularly supportive of this idea?

Many Christians, and I am one of those; who believe that God knows everything, controls everything, and is everywhere simultaneously. This idea is commonly known as God being omniscient, omnipotent, and Omnipresent. To most of us that simply means that God is with his people at all times, that God knows everything and every circumstance that will take place right up until the end of time; and that he directs circumstances in order that things will happen exactly the way he wants them to right up until the end of days.

There are innumerable concepts as to how much control God uses to accomplish his goals. They range from superficial management, all the way to micro management.

Those who are prone to believe that God micro manages base that belief on:

  Matthew 10:29 through 31 NKJV  Are not two sparrows sold for a copper coin? And not one of them falls to the ground apart from your Father's will. 30  But the very hairs of your head are all numbered. 31  Do not fear therefore; you are of more value than many sparrows.

However; to think that God micro manages everything, every incident, and all events; would appear to my simple mind to take away a free will.

There are however; some incidents in which it would appear that only holy intervention could have caused some result.

To this end I will cite this incident.

I have a close friend, who was diagnosed with terminal cancer. He was given only a few months of life by several doctors. After many prayer sessions, by both he and others in the church; he returned to the doctor who originally diagnosed him with the cancer. On that visit there was no sign of cancer left, and today 10 years later he is still praising God for that healing.

Although I cannot say that I know beyond a doubt that his healing was God's work, I do believe that there is no other explanation.

Christianity, is known as faith for a reason;

Faith according to Merriam Webster; is. Latin: to trust; Greek: to persuade, to draw towards any thing, to conciliate; to believe, to obey. Belief; the assent of the mind to the truth of what is declared by another, resting on his authority and veracity, without other evidence; the judgment that what another states or testifies is the truth.

I have abbreviated this definition because it was extremely long; however; it still contains the main idea which I want to convey. That idea is that faith and free will are almost the same thing as far as Christians are concerned. One can either choose to believe or not believe. Just as one can choose to believe or not believe things that are written in the history books are other similar publications. And the depth of that belief can have a wide range.

Hope this helps.

God certainly is involved in every single detail. And we are called to not only acknowledge and praise Him for that fact, but to seek His intervention in every circumstance no matter how big or small.

  "In all your ways acknowledge Him,
  And He shall direct your paths."
  - Proverbs 3:6

  "Do not be anxious about anything. Instead, in every situation, through prayer and petition with thanksgiving, tell your requests to God."
  - Phillippians 4:6

  "Rejoice always,pray without ceasing, give thanks in all circumstances; for this is the will of God in Christ Jesus for you." - 1 Thessalonians 5:16-18

I wonder, if you were truly a Christian and not just someone who used to profess to be one, then why have you forgotten the miracles that God performed in your life when He saved you? The real Christian experiences the real Spirit of God, and while it is faith, it is a tangible faith that proves itself to the born-again believer. If you have never experienced that, then do not write off Christ. Seek Him if you desire God.


Are Christians supposed to be like-minded? Brotherly love is a commandment: 1 John 4:20,21 …and this commandment have we from him, That he who loveth God love his brother also.

Brotherly love is a Christian trademark: John 13:35 By this shall all [men] know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another.

The early church coexisted predominantly in harmony while under great threat of physical harm: Throughout the book of Acts (1:14; 2:1; 2:46; 4:24; 5:12; 7:57; 8:6; 12:20; 15:25; 18:12; 19:29) the early Church is said to be in “one accord”.  Paul in Romans 15:6 admonishes his followers: “That ye may with one mind [and] one mouth glorify God, even the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ”.

There was a oneness of “Spirit”: 1Corinthians 12:13 For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether [we be] Jews or Gentiles, whether [we be] bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit.  Also see: (1Corinthians 4:12; Ephesians 2:8; Ephesians 4:4; Philippians 2:2)

Today there are some 41,000 Christian Denominations in the World according to: http://christianity.about.com/od/denominations/p/christiantoday.htm.

Has their ever been any significant historical movements within Christianity to reverse the splintering?

Modern Christians seem to accept that a oneness of Spirit is an impossibility, are there any current movements within Christianity towards reconciliation and a common accord?

Most Christians await the return of Jesus Christ, are there any denominations that are concerned about His reaction to what He finds?

It is obviously the will of Jesus Christ, the builder of the Church, that Christians should live in one accord. However, if we can belief that everything is controlled and monitored by God, then I do not think we should take our present splintering situation negatively. This might be the will of God, who knows?
There are some reasons why new denominations are born.

The mother church goes off the right track.
Disagreement in political or management inside the church.
Commotion among the members.
Disagreement in specific doctrines.
etc.

When the mother church is clearly in the wrong and is not in a position to repent, there is no choice but to form a new group. Sometimes, political disagreement is the will of God to extend His kingdom as in the case of Paul and Barnabas, who splitted party which in fact was God's plan to reach out to Gentiles in Macedonia, for a greater ministry. It is also the work of Satan to divide the church by stirring the members to fight among themselves. Disagreement in doctrine is a serious issue where the power of Satan is usually at work. Satan brings confusion and doubt to the truth.
There is no doubt that some denominations are planted by the Devil as we see in  the parable of the Weeds. But God allow the true and false church to grow together.

Matthew 13:30 Let both grow together until the harvest. At that time I will tell
the harvesters: First collect the weeds and tie them in bundles to be
burned; then gather the wheat and bring it into my barn.’”

Everything is in God's hand. We must trust in Him.
There are some preachers who try bring denominations together and deliver good sermons towards unity in Christianity. Also, these days we have many non-denominational christians, who takes less interest in denominations but focus more on ministry and unification.
Actually, we are not that different from each other. Each of us are but a single organ in the Body of Christ and Christ is the Head of us all.

This is from an ACC perspective: Brotherly love is essential to be called a disciple of The Lord. That is: brethren of The Lord, are to love one another as He has loved them. And The Master defines His Brethren as those who do the will of my Father

So, we are called to love those who do the Will of the Father - who are consequently like-minded.

Protestant denominations are devisive. There has been no real progress in bringing them together. Too many "rice bowls" would have to be broken.

The splintering of the Episcopal Church since the 70's until today is an example of how new denominations are created - a difference of opinion on which text to be used in the liturgy, and of the spiritual meaning of the text. There is no central authority to interpret the text in the Episcopal Church, just as there is none in Protestant organizations. Everyone seems to be free to interpret God's Word as they see fit - even to change God's Word to fit their cause.

Among the Catholic Churches, East and West, Roman, Orthodox and Anglican, there have been and are ongoing discussion to heal the loss of Communion between them. We see some progress in agreements between the Latin and Greek theology but still no agreement on Holy Orders (credentialing of clergy,) with a few exceptions. Mostly the divisions are caused by misunderstanding of each other's language. The Latin theological terms are not easy to translate into Greek theological terms. The English clergy always have been trained in theological Latin, and the disagreements here are rather about Church hierarchy (who is in charge,) celibacy of clergy, and the infallibility of the Church to interpret scripture. The English Church split with the Roman Church on these issues while retaining the Apostolic traditions and the doctrine of the Church up to the 6th. cent. or so.

Of course Protestant churches, for the main, have ignored the teaching of the Church Fathers, discarded tradition, and rejected any central authority for the interpretation of scripture. Do you see a connection between these decisions and the fragmentation of the churches?

The Son of God knows what is happening always, there will be no surprise.


Does the Bible forbid a man from dressing like a woman? Are there any verses in the Old or New Testaments that forbid a man from dressing like a woman?

My question was prompted by this news article about the Harvest Crusade event and the comments that followed.

In the Mosaic Law, God strictly forbids this:

  A woman shall not wear man’s clothing, nor shall a man put on a woman’s clothing; for whoever does these things is an abomination to the Lord your God.  Deuteronomy 22:5 NASB

It must be stated, however, that this was specifically in the Mosaic Law, so it cannot necessarily be extended outside of the Jewish people and that covenant.  In this case, however, it does not seem to be an issue of covenant, but an actual abomination to God.

Deuteronomy 22:5. The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman's garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the LORD thy God.

I Corinthians 6:9. 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,

The Greek words there are malachoi for effeminate and arsenokoitae for “abusers of themselves with mankind”. A better translation of arsenokoitae would be sodomite; a moral literal one would be “man bedder”.


What is the Orthodox teaching about touching Jesus' body? I was reading answers to a question about Thomas touching Jesus. An answer came from an Orthodox person which said that Thomas was granted special permission to touch his body/wound. That person further said that it was why Jesus warned Mary Magdalene not to touch him. I would like to ask, from the orthodox perspective, who said touching Jesus was dangerous, and that Thomas was granted an exception. My question is: Is this also your position (Jesus granting exceptions) when the two women (Lazarus' sister and a prostitute) touched his feet while putting oil on them?

Jesus didn't want Mary (and others) touching him as they had before the crucifixion, because he would no longer be with them as he had been. John Chrysostom explains this in his Homilies on the Gospel of St. John. [emphasis mine]

  Some assert, that she asked for spiritual grace, because she had heard Him when with the disciples say, “If I go to the Father, ‘I will ask Him, and He shall give you another Comforter.’” But how could she who was not present with the disciples have heard this? Besides, such an imagination is far from the meaning here. And how should she ask, when He had not yet gone to the Father? What then is the sense? Methinks that she wished still to converse with Him as before, and that in her joy she perceived nothing great in Him, although He had become far more excellent in the Flesh.

  To lead her therefore from this idea, and that she might speak to Him with much awe, (for neither with the disciples doth He henceforth appear so familiar as before,) He raiseth her thoughts, that she should give more reverent heed to Him. To have said, “Approach Me not as ye did before, for matters are not in the same state, nor shall I henceforth be with you in the same way,” would have been harsh and high-sounding; but the saying, “I am not yet ascended to the Father,” though not painful to hear, was the saying of One declaring the same thing.

  For by saying, “I am not yet ascended,” He showeth that He hasteth and presseth thither; and that it was not meet that One about to depart thither, and no longer to converse with men, should be looked on with the same feelings as before. And the sequel shows that this is the case.
  “Go and say unto the brethren, that I go unto My Father, and your Father, unto My God and your God.”

With Thomas it was another matter. When Jesus let Thomas touch him, it was a form of rebuke for Thomas' disbelief. Chrysostom again:

  Jesus again presenteth himself to them, and waiteth not to be requested by Thomas, nor to hear any such thing, but before he had spoken, Himself prevented him, and fulfilled his desire; showing that even when he spake those words to the disciples, He was present. For He used the same words, and in a manner conveying a sharp rebuke, and instruction for the future.

  For having said,
  “Reach hither thy finger, and behold My hands; and reach hither thy hand, and thrust it into My side”; He added,
  “And be not faithless, but believing.” Seest thou that his doubt proceeded from unbelief? But it was before he had received the Spirit; after that, it was no longer so, but, for the future, they were perfected.

  And not in this way only did Jesus rebuke him, but also by what follows; for when he, being fully satisfied, breathed again, and cried aloud,
   “My Lord, and my God,” He saith,
   “Because thou hast seen Me, thou hast believed; blessed are they who have not seen, and yet have believed.”

The person may have identified as 'Orthodox' but their doctrine was not orthodox (and therefore, more explicitly not actually reflective of Eastern Orthodox doctrine*) as it denies the clear sense of:

  36 As they were talking about these things, Jesus himself stood among them, and said to them, “Peace to you!” 37 But they were startled and frightened and thought they saw a spirit. 38 And he said to them, “Why are you troubled, and why do doubts arise in your hearts? 39 See my hands and my feet, that it is I myself. Touch me, and see. For a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see that I have.” - Luke 24:36-39 ESV (emphasis added)

In order to harmonise the sense of John 20:17 with John 20:24, Luke 24:39 it is commonly theorised that there were (at least) two ascensions - one immediately subsequent to Mary's encounter and another 40 days later detailed in Luke 24:51 & Acts 1:9.

*As the Eastern Orthodox churches do not as a general rule produce doctrines that blatantly contradict scripture.


Can we know anything about Jesus' appearance from the Bible? We know something about Jesus' clothes, that He wore sandals and that He wore a seamless undergarment.

Are there any other clues in the Bible as to His physical appearance?

There isn't much, and that itself is telling.  Isaiah mentions a couple of things prophetically--first, that His appearance was not going to be particularly special:

  For he grew up before him like a young plant, and like a root out
  of dry ground;  he had no form or majesty that we should look at him,
  and no beauty that we should desire him.  3 He was despised and
  rejected by men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with
  grief; and as one from whom men hide their faces he was
  despised, and we esteemed him not.  Isaiah 53:2-3 ESV

and secondly, that He would become pretty marred, which is understood to have occurred at His scourging prior to the crucifixion:

  As many were astonished at you—his appearance was so marred, beyond
  human semblance, and his form beyond that of the children of mankind
  Isaiah 52:14 ESV

Aside from these prophecies, there is nothing that really indicates what He looked like.  We do know that children wanted to come to Him, so He likely looked normal enough.  The fact that there isn't anything mentioned about His appearance is an indication that there probably wasn't anything out of the ordinary.

King Saul was head and shoulders above everyone else, and that was notable.  Nothing like this is mentioned about Jesus.

Neither Mary Magdalene at the tomb J20 1-16, his friends by the sea J21 1-14, nor his companions on the road to Erasmus recognized Jesus after the resurrection L24 13-35 indicating he was somewhat disfigured and maybe hard to look at after the beating, torture and plucking of his beard prior to execution.


According to Roman Catholic orthodoxy, is Jesus Christ a human person, a divine person, both, or none? I'll give you an example of a divine person: God the Father.
I'll give you an example of a human person: the apostle Paul.

According to Roman Catholic orthodoxy (note: cite it), is Jesus Christ a human person, a divine person, both, or none?

According to Chalcedonian Doctrine (that is shared by Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholics and Protestant churches) Christ is fully God and fully human.

Christ is however one person which is both God and human. He isn't a person of God that dwelled in a separate human person (which is the teaching of nestorianism).

The Oriental Orthodox (e.g. Coptic) churches reject the teaching of Chalcedonian Council, however they mostly declare, they are not monophysitic. The argument here is partly about the meaning of the work 'nature'.

My dear friends, the nature of Jesus, the Son of God, the Word that is the beginning of all things that exist and the Word that became "flesh" is 'Divine-Human'. His nature are inseparable. He revealed Himself for us in order for us to see the face of God. Moses saw the back of God, but He is the only-begotten Son who knows the Father and He and the Father is, therefore through Him we have been given the grace to know and see the Father.


Have any noteworthy church councils denounced Full Preterism as heresy? Full preterists believe that all prophecies in the Bible have already been fulfilled, including those related to the final resurrection, the Second Coming of Christ, and the Final Judgment.

I have met some Protestant preterists who believe that their beliefs are in accord with the ecumenical creeds, despite language in the creeds that seems to imply that the Second Coming and other eschatological events are yet to come.

Do any Roman Catholic or Protestant councils or creeds specifically state that full preterist beliefs are heretical?

I'm not sure if this is helpful or not, but there is no evidence of condemnation from the Catholic Church in a council of Preterism. Lists like this one or this one, and books dedicated to the subject, like this one, this one, and this classic make no mention of it. The Catholic Encyclopedia makes no mention of this doctrine either.

My understanding however is that the Catholic Church does not stand with preterism. The creeds clearly state that we are still waiting for the Second Coming. So many texts (e.g. here), including in the Catechism, takes this same tone. From the later (which is official doctrine, i.e. infallible), point 1040 reads:

  The Last Judgment will come when Christ returns in glory. Only the Father knows the day and the hour; only he determines the moment of its coming. Then through his Son Jesus Christ he will pronounce the final word on all history. We shall know the ultimate meaning of the whole work of creation and of the entire economy of salvation and understand the marvelous ways by which his Providence led everything towards its final end. The Last Judgment will reveal that God's justice triumphs over all the injustices committed by his creatures and that God's love is stronger than death.

Surrounding points have the same tone, i.e. an event to come.

So, even if the Catholic Church has not officially declared preterism as a heresy, some of its tenets are clearly heretic (from the Catholic point of view).

I'm not aware of any denominations that have written statements denouncing Preterism as heretical.

Tim Lahaye, Thomas Ice, and many of the other "big shots" have made individual statements in the past concerned and trying to attach those who believe in the time statements and prophecies related to the first century as heretics.

Apologists and theologians like N.T. Wright, R.C. Sproul and Hank Hanegraaff have somewhat defended the hermeneutics of Preterist interpretation as being within reason.  Sproul and Hanegraaf have at times identified as being Partial Preterists.

Claiming to be "Orthodox" does not automatically identify one as believing the creeds and councils as being above error; it merely identifies one as relating to the first century statements about Yeshua's "soon" return which pre-dates the councils.

(I could be wrong on the source of this quote) I believe Martin Luther said:

  Where the Father's depart from Scripture, I depart from the Fathers.

Being this was Martin's quote, the Father of the Reformation certainly performed an act more egregious than the believer who doesn't agree with every tenet of the Catechisms and Creeds.

If Luther did not say this, then his actions certainly did hold the Church of 1400 years in contempt as he was a lone voice questioning the authority and decisions of the establishment.  No less insulting as the Protestant Church is towards the Preterist.


How does the Bible differentiate between sickness and sin? Jay Adams is probably the most pre-eminent Christian counselor who is still living. His nouthetic style of counseling, as explored in books such as Competent to Counsel, The Christian Counselor's Handbook and others makes him very well known and respected in the Christian Counseling community.

In his book Solving Marriage Problems, he makes an interesting claim:

  Calling drunkenness a "disease" or a "sickness" rather than a "sin" may seem to thema gracious act, but it is just the opposite. You cannot be more gracious than God. To call drunkenness a "sickness" is to take away hope; there is no pull that will cure such a "disease". But if, as the Bible says, drunkenness is a sin, then there is real hope, because Christ Jesus came not only to free us from the penalty but also from the power of sin. (Solving Marriage Problems, p14)

This strikes me as contrary to worldly ways of thinking to say the least - namely there seems to be an implicit assumption of mine that is challenged here.

I've long held alcoholism - or at least the genetic predisposition towards it - to be a disease. As a disease of the body, I see this as somehow "less than sin" because, in fact, it is a biological process put in place by God. In the same way that just about every Christian more mature than Fred Phelps doesn't view "blackness" as a sin, I've always assumed that any biological function is simply a fact, and not a "sin."

Interestingly, Adams seems to then fight his own hypothesis, though, saying:

  When, however, there may be an organic reason for any problem, the counselor should always advise the counselee to have a thorough medical evaluation. ... Because organic problems, which result from Adam's sin and the subsequent curse, are not themselves sin, Christian counselors must become thoroughly acquainted with their symptoms and advise counselees accordingly.

But therein lies the rub - Adams has made and I have made an assumption that a thing cannot be both a disease and a sin.  It is definitely my gut feeling, but I don't know how I could biblically prove that point.

So, here's the question - What biblical texts or traditions would bear on the proposition that "Diseases and sins are separate things."  In other words, how could I make either the claim that "If something is a disease, it is not at the same moral level as sin" or "Just because something is a disease, doesn't mean it's a sin."

The full context of Adam's claims are obviously hidden from us here. However, addressing the visible claims from a lay Catholic perspective, I'd say he's simply off the mark with a few premises.

The First Faulty Premise

  To call drunkenness a "sickness" is to take away hope; there is no
  pull that will cure such a "disease".

If secular medicine and psychology aren't enough to convince us that disease is not a hopeless state, we can open any one of the gospels and take a peek at almost any page to find healing upon healing upon healing. And these healings always denote the forgiveness of sin and the purifying power to go forward and "sin no more."

See Matthew 4:24, which gives us a short list of diseases Jesus cures. This items on this list are very important and relevant, mind you -- they're all conditions that directly inhibit our ability to perform God's will.

  His fame spread to all of Syria, and they brought to him all who were
  sick with various diseases and racked with pain, those who were
  possessed, lunatics, and paralytics, and he cured them.

Or refer to Matthew 8:1-17, in which healing the diseased is portrayed again as routine operation for Christ. Even more astounding, note how final verse in the list of healings ends.

  When it was evening, they brought him many who were possessed by
  demons, and he drove out the spirits by a word and cured all the sick,
  to fulfill what had been said by Isaiah the prophet: He took away our
  infirmities and bore our diseases.

One of Christ's missions and trademarks, as explicitly stated in scripture, is to cure the sick, take away our infirmities, and bear our diseases. Thus, I'd submit that hopelessness in the shadow of disease is sin; it rejects Christ's power and mission to heal.

The Second Faulty Premise

  Adams has made and I have made an assumption that a thing cannot be
  both a disease and a sin.

I'm not sure this statement of yours matches Adam's exactly:

  Because organic problems, which result from Adam's sin and the
  subsequent curse, are not themselves sin

From what I can see in your citations, Adam's seems to leave room for the interpretation that the organic roots of sinful behavior are not sinful, but that the resulting actions may still be sinful.

But, giving you the benefit of the doubt, since I'm not familiar with Adam's or his book(s), one passage in particular comes to mind. See Mark 9:42-48.

  42 “Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe [in me] to
  sin, it would be better for him if a great millstone were put around
  his neck and he were thrown into the sea. 43 If your hand causes you
  to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter into life maimed
  than with two hands to go into Gehenna, into the unquenchable fire. 44
  45 And if your foot causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for
  you to enter into life crippled than with two feet to be thrown into
  Gehenna. 47 And if your eye causes you to sin, pluck it out. Better
  for you to enter into the kingdom of God with one eye than with two
  eyes to be thrown into Gehenna, 48 where ‘their worm does not die, and
  the fire is not quenched.’

In this segment, Christ is not necessarily addressing diseases, but He is very clearly addressing biological causes for sin. And in doing so, He makes it very clear that the sins resulting from these biological causes do condemn us. And while we tend to believe He's speaking in hyperbole here, the importance of earnestly trying to cut oneself off from any and all sources of sin, even those ingrained in our own body, is very important to our salvation.

In Summary

We can certainly distinguish between disease (or any biological cause) and the resulting actions, be they sinful or not. However, a biological cause is neither a hopeless condition nor a judgement free condition. For, if the biological causes for sin left us guiltless, Christ would neither warn us against them, nor spend His time healing us and "bearing our diseases." Bearing our diseases is a large part to Christ's mission. So, we're definitely not left hopeless.

Catholic doctrine teaches that our guilt is diminished to the extent our actions are beyond our direct control. However, sinful actions are still sinful even when we are guiltless in performing them. Thus, if we are complacent in our diseases or sins, I would argue I think with the support of Catholic doctrine, that we regain the guilt of those sins!

(And by "guilt" I mean some measure by which we may be condemned.)

Disease and sins are not separated.
The man having infirmity 38 years heard from God:

  sin no more, lest a worse thing come unto thee. (John 5:14)

Disease comes always as consequences of sins, because:

  God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good (Genesis 1:31)
  by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin (Romans 5:12)

Sometimes, the connection between sins and disease are not obvious because the sins are inherited from ancestors:

  your children shall wander in the wilderness forty years, and bear your whoredoms (Numbers 14:33)
  For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God (Romans 3:23)

because the human nature can carry across generations, from one person to another, not only the sins (from Adam), also the virtutes, also the knowledges, also the blessings and cure(from Lord Jesus Christ).

  our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin. For he that is dead is freed from sin. (Romans 6:6-7)

The root of sins are localizable in the human souls, and the diseases in the human bodies.
This is why, medical science cannot address sins, because the soul is not subject of science, or it uses a wrong definition of the soul (in psychology or psychiatry). At most it can record patological manifestations of the sin at the body level, and make statistics, but cannot administer real cures.

Only a true christian can have a complete view of human anatomy, and can address the true cause of the diseases: the sin.


Music Ministry in Evangelical Free Church of America I have a desire to start a Music Ministry in an EFCA local assembly that sings to recorded Contemporary Praise and Worship music. How long should I be committed to this assembly before being allowed to exercise my gift?

Short answer: ask the pastor and/or worship leader in your local church.

Long answer: The Evangelical Free Church is an association of churches, which is less binding than a true denomination.  As such, each individual church has a great deal of autonomy in the everyday workings of the local church.

My brother and my father are both pastors at EFCA churches. I have been a worship pastor at an EFCA church.

In the church where my brother and father serve, they have an extremely talented group of musicians. The pianist has a Master's degree in music. The bassist plays in a professional jazz band. The guitarist spent the first half of his life as a performing musician in a couple of well known mainstream bands.  At that church, it would be difficult to join the worship team in those positions - not because of your longevity in the church, but because the existing musicians are extremely talented and consistent.

I served as worship pastor in a much smaller church. If someone came to visit who had reasonable musical skill and was willing to play, I would bring them onto the worship team as early as the very next week.

In general, the larger the church, the more difficult it will be to join the worship team. Still, this is more of a function of your relative skill in your instrument than a function of how long you have been attending.

Also, a church will be more willing to give you a leadership position if they believe you are willing to stick around. When I moved to a new city, I began attending church immediately. I sat down with the pastor, explained my experience and why I had moved churches (because I moved for work) and was invited to join the worship team that next week.

Hope this helps!

God has given every Christians gifts to return to the church for the benefit of other church members. To go looking for a local church in order to start some specific ministry does not reflect that - it's the wrong way round!

Instead, join a church were God is honoured and the gospel proclaimed, where people are loved and where you can serve people in a general sense. Then see what activities that church does, or would like to begin doing. If you have a passion for music it's likely that the church will have some sort of music ministry already - most churches do. But you may discover that the church has other more pressing needs, and you may discover that you have been gifted to serve the church in other ways.


How do reformed theologians reconcile John 15:2 with “once saved always saved"? Every branch in me (εν έμοι ) that beareth not fruit, he taketh it away: and every branch that beareth fruit, he [the Father, v1] cleanseth it, that it may bear more fruit. (John 15:2, ASV)

Some reformed  like James White say that once someone is “in Christ” [1] they are eternally saved.   But Jesus said that some branches in him that don't bear fruit will be removed from him and burned. (15:5)

How do reformed theologians reconcile John 15:2 with the doctrine of “once saved always saved"?

[1] 3) the phrase en Christo (in Christ) or its equivalent in Him, is central to Paul’s thought. All of salvation takes place only “in Christ.” (https://reformedspirit.blogspot.com/2015/08/god-is-redeeming-for-himself-people-and.html?m=1)

Within that sentence are two statements.  The first is that the Father (who is the vine-dresser) will take away the branch that does not bear fruit.  The second is that the Father will prune the branch that does bear fruit so that it may bear more fruit.
If this parable was the only place in the New Testament to address the issue of eternal security, then there would be every reason to fear that a lack of “fruit” would result in the loss of salvation.  But it isn’t.  Please read John 6:39-40:

“And this is the will of him who sent me that I should lose nothing of all that he has given me, but raise it up on the last day. For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who looks on the Son and believes in him should have eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.”

Given that John 15 is a metaphor or an allegory, then we do well to consider it in the light of other passages that speak clearly about the assurance of salvation given to those who have come to saving faith in Christ Jesus.  It would be foolish to take three verses alone to support a view, one way or the other.
Isaiah 5:1-7 is a striking Old Testament image of Israel being likened to an unproductive vineyard that is rejected by God and made into a wasteland.  Here, God is rejecting his people because they have rejected his law.  No doubt, Jesus’ audience were familiar with the illustration.  But God has never entirely abandoned his people, and even in the future, all of Israel will be reconciled to God.  Yes, there is a dire warning against any person who claims to belong to God yet proves by their actions (or lack of actions) they have only an outward profession of faith.
In Matthew 13 Jesus gave a parable about seed that fell into different types of soil.  Some plants start to grow but then wither away.  Does that mean the person who has been adopted into God's family has no security, that they must constantly strive to do good works?  No.  If a branch is not receiving the life-giving nourishment it needs from the roots, then it will not produce fruit.  If a person is not genuinely abiding in Christ and living their life to the glory of God but is simply pretending to be a Christian, then they too will wither away like the seed that fell onto stony ground.  Jesus will say to them, “I never knew you.”  If a person does not obey Jesus then they are not a part of the one, true vine.
You ask, does John 15:2 disprove “once saved always saved?”   Frankly, that expression is so misleading I reject it because it gives entirely the wrong idea about the grace of God and the doctrine of salvation.  I put it to you that John 15:2 neither proves nor disproves any false assumption that a person can make a claim to be a Christian without producing evidence of a transformed life, a life that produces the fruit of the Spirit.  Only those who are indwelt by the Spirit will mature and grow in their Christian walk, producing the fruit that brings honour to our Lord and Saviour.  All I can say is it’s a good job Jesus knows who belong to him.
EDIT: Given the extended and currently revived comments that follow my answer, can someone please place these comments into a chat room?  I don't know how to do that.  Thanks.

Reformed Christians believe that fruit ("good works") are an inevitable consequence of faith. One consequence of faith is salvation. The other, fruit.  There is no such thing as a "believer" that does not bear fruit. The statement is redundant, as stated by Jesus in verse 5 of the same passage:

  he who abides in Me and I in him, he bears much fruit

The ones that are in Him will not be cut off, because they bear fruit, because of the work of God in them who is the author and finisher of our faith.

When Jesus speaks about branches "in Him" that do not bear fruit, he must be talking about "in Him" in a different sense than the way that he guarantees to bear fruit, otherwise he would be contradicting Himself.

This other, unfruitful way to be in Christ is generally believed to be part of the Church outwardly, but not have saving faith. The ones that are in Christ in truth, by faith, will bear fruit - which is not a condition of salvation, but a consequence.


Is the OT translation in "The Apostolic Bible - Polyglot" based strictly on the LXX or MT text? In reference to the answer given to Are there any English Bible translations whose primary text for the OT is the Septuagint? some further issues arise:

There's a rather interesting translation called, "The Apostolic Bible - Polyglot" by Charles Van der Pool, published in 2006 by The Apostolic Press. Does anyone know if it's based strictly on the Greek Old Testament (Septuagint)?

Concerning the other possible sources, mentioned elsewhere on this site, "The Holy Bible containing the Old and New Covenant, by Charles Thomson in 1808" is not currently available for purchase ...

And, the revised translation of it, "The Septuagint Bible," by C.A. Muses is not what it claims to be; that is, its a heavily edited version that bears more resemblance to the KJV than the LXX! Changing the accurate rendering of the Greek scriptures to agree with the Hebrew has corrupted the validity of the translation, and made it useless for the purpose of studying the Septuagint.

As for "The Orthodox Study Bible," it uses the New King James Version text in the places where the translation of the LXX would match that of the Hebrew Masoretic text, so, it's questionable if this is really a strict translation of the LXX?

That's more than one question, sorry, but they are directly related.

Charles Van der Pool does not specify in the introduction whether his translation included Masoretic influences, but from what he does say, it is doubtful. He makes a concerted effort throughout the introduction to express that there is value in the Greek Old Testament that cannot be had with any other translation. I've included his words below from page v of the second edition. Emphasis is the author's, strong text is mine.

With the incorporation of the Greek Old Testament Scriptures into the Greek New Testament via quotes, surely this puts the Greek New Testament in a unique position, as these Greek Old Testament words have become engrafted into the Divine Word of the New Testament. For hundreds of years after the Christ, during the formation of the apostolic age, the Greek Scriptures were consistently read and quoted by the Church Fathers. These all-Greek Scriptures are still in use in Eastern Christendom today, although the Canon is different. The Apostolic Bible continues this tradition of The Apostolic Age Greek Scriptures, and is this named the Apostolic Bible.
With the fact of the Greek Old Testament partly being grafted into the  "inspired" Greek New Testament, it is inconceivable to think one can truly understand the deep meanings of the Greek New Testament without first having knowledge of the Greek Old Testament. For example, consider the following passage in the King James Bible, "he hath made him to be sin for us..." 2 Corinthians 5:31. The word for "sin" is #266 "ἁμαρτία," where in Numbers 6:14, and many other places in the Greek Old Testament, is translated "sin offering." "Offering" denoted by the Italics, is implied by the context, as it was talking of animals as a sacrifice for sin. Jesus becoming the "sin offering" opens a whole new aspect of understanding for this verse. That the Greek Scriptures were designed for the Church is a strong argument, but this is not to demean the Hebrew Scriptures of the autographs. Seeing that God saw fit to communicate mainly through the written Word, it ts to one's advantage to diligently search both the Hebrew and Greek Scriptures.

He also states on page xiii that "The translation was done by one person, rather than a group of individuals." This clarifies that this work is his own translation, not another translation printed alongside the Greek OT. He goes on to say that "...a continuity of the English words is attained when one individual is doing the translating of the whole, as compared to a group of individuals in which each may be translating only one book of the Bible."

I read a dozen of psalms and they are as used in the Greek Orthodox Church, so it is the LXX text for sure. There is no difference. However their numbering is the MT one, but no big deal with this.


Can seeking arguments against Christianity strengthen Christianity? Some take the position that some knowledge is the work of Satan.  Some take the position that critical analysis can strengthen good ideas and weaken bad ones.  Should Christians seek out information that is antithetical to their faith?

If I may, here is my idea of the scientific view: yes, it can. If you look for arguments against Christianity, thinking that you may find some, but you don't find any, this is evidence in favor of Christianity.

Evidence, you see, is all about correlation. Whether or not your shoes are untied is strongly correlated to whether or not they appear to be untied. So, when you see that your shoes appear to be untied, you can conclude, with great certainty, that they actually are untied.

Likewise, Christianity is correlated with arguments. Whether or not Christianity is true is correlated with whether or not there are good arguments against it. If there are good arguments against it, this is evidence that it is false; if there are not good arguments against it, this is evidence that it is true.

Proverbs advises to "seek wisdom". Knowledge as Wisdom is not "of the Devil". But it does suggest a practicality or a direction to that knowledge, in developing us as a mature disciple.

Proverbs 26 also gives two counsels about arguments with fools. It says both argue a fool on their own terms to show them their folly, and don't argue a fool on their own terms to avoid becoming as big a fool. This is not the textbook "contradiction" atheists make it out to be but illustrative of a tension on the principle upon which you should decide these things. You need the wisdom to know what end you're likely to achieve and to assess the pitfalls. And you have to be wise enough to know the gain and the risk of doing so.

If you over-judge your capacity to solve the God-level complex issues, you may be as big a fool. "Lean not unto your own understanding" is not counsel to not try to understand anything, but to not rely on your own capacity to know how successful an argument is. Regardless of which way you go, you will have expressed your character in humility or pride in honest assessment or overstepping.

God created the Tree of Knowledge; God holds all knowledge and wished not to burden us with the knowledge of Evil. I don't respect the reading ability of anybody who says that the Bible says knowledge is Evil. They're just people who find the lack of tensions simpler.

All that said, I have found it very valuable to find out what opponents of Christ say against Christianity, and I have either found godly rebuke or arguments to tear down strongholds. But if God has not given you those tools, be at peace. The richness of the Spirit means that not everybody has to have the same analytical capacity. That everybody needs the capacity to answer for their beliefs is an idol from the atheists of the world.

Remember that everything is permissible, but not everything is profitable. Don't fear "knowledge", just realize that what can be regarded as "knowledge" does not necessarily get you to your destination.


What is the biblical basis for baptism by sprinkling? As noted in the other question, there are two modes of water baptism of which I am familiar--immersion and sprinkling. As far as I know Catholics practice sprinkling along with many Protestant traditions, although many other Protestant traditions practice immersion.

What is the biblical basis for baptism by sprinkling according to those who have a literal interpretation of the Bible?

There seems to be a basis for sprinkling.

Ezekiel 36:25-27. " I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you will become clean; I will cleanse you from all your uncleanness and from all your disgusting idols. 26 I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit inside you. I will remove the heart of stone from your body and give you a heart of flesh. 27 I will put my spirit inside you, and I will cause you to walk in my regulations, and you will observe and carry out my judicial decisions."

Sprinkling or pouring is a standard Old Testament practice associated with cleansing and anointing. Immersion would have been foreign to the Jews, who were familiar with Old Testament practices.


Can humans become angels in Heaven? Possible Duplicate:
  Can Humans become Angels?

I have always wondered if in the afterlife humans can decide to become angels, and I have always wondered what is the difference between an archangel and an angel?

I have always wondered if in the afterlife humans can decide to become
  angels

No.  Angels are entirely different than humans, created for a different purpose.

  what is the difference between an archangel and an angel

Archangels are simply angels with a higher rank.

Depends on how close you follow Scripture.

Enoch is said to have became 'Metatron' which is a type of Archangel?  So I guess depending on weather your believe the Bible is the only valid book or weather you know these choices were made by men and thus subject to mistakes.

Jude quotes directly from the Book of Enoch so I am going to assume even if this book is not divinely inspired as others are this book should carry some weight.

I know I should not quote Wiki put anyway:  Metatron


In Catholicism, what are the different kinds of sins? I have heard various persons refer to different 'kinds' of sins on this site and in other places.

I have heard of

mortal sin
grave sin
venial sin

Are there others? What is a basic definition of each? If all sins are bad and have the potential to damn why are they classified?

Let me know if this is too broad

The most authoritative answers can be found in Article 8: Sin of the Catechism of the Catholic Church. It is carefully worded and addresses the questions asked. The following is an attempt at a supplement. Other sources include the Catholic Encyclopedia and the Baltimore Catechism.

This is about actual sin (as in "act-ual", from Latin actus) having to do with acts, and not Original Sin. Acts include willful deeds, failures to act (omissions), utterances (speech), desires, and thoughts.

Terminology

The major distinction is between venial and mortal sins: something very serious accompanies every mortal sin, so mortal sins are set apart.

Sin is any act contrary to the eternal law. A sin is a willful act contrary to reason and the moral law inscribed into the conscience of every person.

The object of a sin has to do with the objective (object-ive) elements of the sin, circumstances, etc.

Grave matter is specified by the Ten Commandments. Grave sin is sin whose object is grave matter
Mortal sin is sin whose object is grave matter (a grave sin), and which is committed with full knowledge (on the part of the intellect) and deliberate consent (on the part of the will).

  1859 Mortal sin requires full knowledge and complete consent. It presupposes knowledge of the sinful character of the act, of its opposition to God's law. It also implies a consent sufficiently deliberate to be a personal choice. Feigned ignorance and hardness of heart do not diminish, but rather increase, the voluntary character of a sin.

Venial sin is any sin that is not a mortal sin:

  1862 One commits venial sin when, in a less serious matter, he does not observe the standard prescribed by the moral law, or when he disobeys the moral law in a grave matter, but without full knowledge or without complete consent.

The reason we talk about grave sins is that we cannot know if another person truly committed a moral sin without knowing if they acted with knowledge and consent. But we can know on the basis of certain objective qualities that it was a grave sin, so we are able to call it that. There isn't always a clear distinction between grave and light matter. Objectively, some sins "admit of no lightness of matter", such as blasphemy or hatred of God. Other sins admit lightness. For example, intentional theft is sometimes only venial, such as when one wilfully steals paperclips from the office. It is especially difficult for a person to self-evaluate the gravity of one's own sins, which is why the Church trains priests to recognize the gravity of sins during Confession.

Diagram

                         Grave
    SIN:                Matter
           ┌─ ─ ─ ─ ┴ ─ ─ ─ ─┐
           │          venial │
           ┤        ╔ ═ ═ ═ ═╗
 Knowledge │ venial ║ Mortal ║ ⬅"deliberate
 & Consent └─ ─ ─ ──╚═ ═ ═ ═ ╝   sins"
                        ⬆
                   "Grave sins"

  In other words:knowledge and consent + grave matter = Mortal Sin

Effects

From the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

  Mortal sin destroys charity in the heart of man by a grave violation of God's law; it turns man away from God, who is his ultimate end and his beatitude, by preferring an inferior good to him. [... Mortal sin] necessitates a new initiative of God's mercy and a conversion of heart which is normally accomplished within the setting of the sacrament of reconciliation. [...] Unrepented, it brings eternal death.

  Venial sin allows charity to subsist, even though it offends and wounds it. [...] Venial sin constitutes a moral disorder that is reparable by charity, which it allows to subsist in us.

From the Baltimore Catechism:

  This sin is called mortal because it deprives us of spiritual life, which is sanctifying grace, and brings everlasting death and damnation on the soul.

  The effects of venial sin are the lessening of the love of God in our heart, the making us less worthy of His help, and the weakening of the power to resist mortal sin.

There are also capital sins (vices), material and formal sins, and internal sins. For example, mortal or venial sins might be internal. But all that's another question. The major distinction is between mortal and venial sins.

Mortal Sin and Grave Sin are the same thing.  A mortal sin requires sufficient reflection, grave matter and consent of the will.  A mortal sin merits Eternal Damnation and must be absolved by a valid priest in the sacrament of confession or absolved by perfect contrition to restore Justification.  A venial sin offends God but does not merit Damnation just some time in Purgatory.

Some mortal sins include: murder, fornication, lying, drunkenness, consenting to impure thoughts, masturbation, looking at pornography, adultery, cheating, taking God’s name in vain, birth control or artificial contraception, assisting the propagation of heresy, funding heretics, dishonoring the Sabbath, breaking the commandments.

Baltimore Catechism:

  Q. 282. How many things are necessary to make a
  sin mortal?

  A. To make a sin mortal, three things are necessary: 1.a grievous
  matter, sufficient reflection, and full consent of the will.

  Q. 283. What do we mean by "grievous matter" with regard to sin?

  A. By "grievous matter" with regard to sin we mean that the thought,
  word or deed by which mortal sin is committed must be either very bad
  in itself or severely prohibited, and therefore sufficient to make a
  mortal sin if we deliberately yield to it.

  Q. 284. What does "sufficient reflection and full consent of the will"
  mean?

  A. "Sufficient reflection" means that we must know the thought, word
  or deed to be sinful at the time we are guilty of it; and "full
  consent of the will" means that we must fully and willfully yield to
  it.