Are Matthew, Mark and Luke the same book in different version? I always thought Matthew, Mark and Luke are different books originally were written by different people. But recently I was told that Matthew, Mark and Luke are originally the same book but in different versions. At the beginning there was one book only and then it was edited or adjusted by different people so at the end we left with three versions of the same book. Is it true?

Matthew, Mark, and Luke, aka the Synoptic Gospels, share common elements and parallels and were written by different people for different audiences. Your question has been (and still is) debated among Biblical scholars. My answer is, at best, a brief summary with some pointers to references that may be helpful and some encouragement for you.

Mark is believed by most scholars to be the earliest written account. There is evidence to suggest that Matthew and Luke borrowed from Mark. There is also evidence for a lost book of Jesus' sayings, known as Q, that influenced Matthew and Luke.

To say that they are different versions of the same original book does not address the historical origins of ancient manuscripts, oral traditions, the historical contexts for which they were written, and the editorial practices that created the manuscripts from which our modern translations were (and are) derived.

What you were told--that there was one original book--may be an attempt to support Biblical literalism and inerrancy and to say that there once was one original and perfect manuscript. This view is more commonly held within American evangelicalism.

Each Gospel stands on its own and has profound lessons for Christians. The study of scripture can be a rich and fulfilling activity.

A useful reference in studying the Synoptic Gospels, specifically the parallels among them, is "Gospel Parallels: a Comparison of the Synoptic Gospels" by Burton H. Throckmorton.
https://www.amazon.com/dp/0840774842/

Another book that covers the doctrines of Christian scripture is "Inspiration and Authority: Nature and Function of Christian Scripture" by Paul Achtemeier.
https://www.amazon.com/dp/0801045428/

For deeper study, the "New Interpreter's Bible Commentary" in 10 volumes is an excellent resource.
https://www.amazon.com//dp/1426739125/

Three distinctly different men each wrote their own gospel account of the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.  While many scholars think that Mark’s gospel was written first and that Matthew and Luke copied from it, this claim has been challenged.  There is evidence to support the view that Matthew wrote his gospel account first:

Historian and papyrologist Carsten Thiede proved (in 1994) that a papyrus kept in Oxford's Magdalen College was much younger than previously thought. He dated it to AD 65 at the latest, and possibly earlier than that. This papyrus was of the Gospel of Matthew, relating events on the last night before Jesus died. It turns out to be the oldest remains of a Christian book ever found.
In our time there's been a rise in claims that the biblical Gospels were not historical, eye-witness accounts but just unreliable folk-lore; stories about Jesus collected long after his death, cobbled together to meet the needs of a persecuted little band of Christians. Scholars tended to describe the Gospels as "community creations" - myths designed by a committee rather than vivid biographies. In 1993 a seminar of 100 experts declared that only 20% of the sayings attributed to Jesus in the Gospels were authentic or near approximations.
The Magdalene Papyrus proves that the Gospel of Matthew is authentic and was written within 30 years of Jesus' death, and written by those who had witnessed it. Matthew's account was circulating amongst the same generation of people who walked and talked with Jesus.  Significantly, that AD 65 manuscript reads EXACTLY the same as modern translations of Matthew’s Gospel.  Source: The Jesus Papyrus by Carsten Peter Thiede and Matthew d’Ancona (Weidenfeld & Nicolson 1996)

In his book Why Four Gospels? Dr. David Alan Black asserts that Matthew was the gospel written first. According to Black, the gospels, arranged in order from earliest to latest, are Matthew—Luke—Mark—John. The following points are a summary of Black’s view of this chronology:
• After Christ was resurrected from the dead and the Church was born (Acts 2), the believers realized the need for a written record of the account of Christ’s life. Matthew was selected for the task of producing that account, and, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, he penned his work before the Jerusalem believers were scattered from the persecution of Herod Agrippa I, which occurred in AD 42.
• Paul began his evangelistic work and found the need for a gospel account that spoke more to the Gentiles (Matthew’s gospel was written for a Jewish audience). Paul worked with Luke to produce his gospel, which was completed sometime between AD 58 and 60.
• During Paul’s detention in Rome (AD 60—62), he asked Peter to personally authorize Luke’s gospel, which he did. While in Rome, Peter delivered a number of testimonies about Christ’s life to an illustrious Roman audience. Those messages were recorded by John Mark, Peter’s secretary. After Peter was martyred, Mark’s work was published as a gospel in AD 66 or 67.
• John’s gospel was then written later and published while John lived in Ephesus. The completion of the Gospel of John rounded out the eyewitness accounts of Jesus’ life.

Support for Black’s timeline is found in the writings of the early church fathers. Referring to the Gospel of Matthew, Origen (AD 185—254) writes, “The first written was that according to the one-time tax collector but later apostle of Jesus Christ, Matthew, who published it for the believers from Judaism.”  Clement of Alexandria (AD 150—215), quoted by Eusebius, supports Origen and provides some details for Luke: “Clement has set down a tradition of the earliest elders about the order of the Gospels, and it has this form. He used to say that the earliest written gospels were those containing the genealogies [Matthew and Luke].”  Clement also speaks of Mark when he writes, “Peter was publicly preaching the gospel at Rome in the presence of some of Caesar’s knights and uttering many testimonies about Christ, [and] on their asking him to let them have a record of the things that had been said, wrote the gospel that is called the Gospel of Mark from the things said by Peter.”
While it is impossible to be certain about the order in which the gospels were written, the prevailing viewpoint seems to be that the order was Matthew, Luke, Mark, John.    https://www.gotquestions.org/which-gospel-written-first.html

It is possible that, whichever Gospel was written first, the other Gospel writers had access to it.  That does not mean that Matthew, Mark and Luke are simply different versions of one book.  It means that Matthew wrote his account (aimed specifically at a Jewish audience), Mark wrote his account (aimed specifically at non-Jews, or Gentiles) based on information from the apostle Peter, and Luke wrote his account after careful examination of eyewitness accounts:

Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. Therefore, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught (Luke 1:1-4).

As for the suggestion that Matthew and Luke were influenced by what is known as the “Q” document, be aware that no portion or fragment of such a document has ever been discovered. None of the early church fathers ever mentioned a Gospel “source” in their writings. “Q” is the invention of liberal “scholars” who deny the inspiration of the Bible. They believe the Bible to be nothing more than a work of literature, subject to the same criticism given to other works of literature. Again, there is no evidence whatsoever for a “Q” document—biblically, theologically, or historically.  Source: https://www.gotquestions.org/Q-Gospel.html
To conclude, Matthew, Mark and Luke are different books originally written by different people.  You only have to examine the context and styles of writing to establish that. There is no evidence to suggest that the first gospel written (probably Matthew’s gospel and not Mark’s) was edited and changed to produce three versions of the first, original book.


Are there any groups of Christians who believe that all loans made with their money should be made without the expectation of repayment? In Luke 6:35, Jesus says that Christians are to:

  "lend, expecting nothing in return"

Are there any denominations or groups in Christianity (past or present) which have taught and acted on the belief (and are known for this belief in a published source) that each and every loan made with their money - whether the loan was made by them directly or made through a 3rd party - is to be made without the expectation of repayment?

Note: Please exclude any Christian denomination or group which sanctions modern banking, as modern banking by its nature relies on making loans which expect something in return.

For further clarity, this is the only example I know of, which portrays the meaning I'm getting at.

Strict Eastern Orthodox Christian teaching requires this.

Although written in the 18th century, Counsels on the Particular Duties of Every Christian by Tikhon of Zadonsk is still considered by Orthodox Christians to be one of the most practical guides available for Christian living.  (It is available in an English translation of the Greek version entitled Journey to Heaven).  Tikhon writes:

  When a debtor comes to such destitution and poverty that he genuinely
  has nothing with which to pay back his creditor, Christian love
  demands that the creditor either be patient, or, what is better, even
  to forgive the debtor his debt.  Christian!  He who took a loan from
  you is truly your debtor, but you are God's debtor.  He is indebted to
  you for material things, but you are indebted to God for sins.  His
  debt is very small against your debt of sin, it is as though it were
  nothing.  Thus when you beg God to forgive you your ten thousand
  talents, forgive your neighbor his hundred pence.  Spare the poor that
  God may spare you.  Be a man merciful to men, that you may pray to God
  without pangs of conscience, God, be merciful to me a sinner! (Luke
  18:13).

Tikhon also taught that the taking of interest in loans was expressly forbidden by Luke 6:35.

  The holy word of God forbids the taking of interest.  Lend, hoping
  for nothing again, says the Lord.

  Interest or usury is considered to be among the greater sins as we see
  in the 14th Psalm, He hath not lent his money on usury.  Read this
  Psalm for yourself diligently, and you will see the truth.

  It is safer before the all-seeing God and before His just judgement
  not to take from those that do not have, than to take interest.  Then
  choose the safer course.

I think I should add that Tikhon also cautions those who decide to take a loan to be careful to pay back everything "lest you appear before Christ's Judgement in debt".

Usury - Yes many!  Usery was a sin historically for thousands of years, which is part of the reason why borrowing from Jewish lenders in historic Europe happened.  These values also come from many locations in the OT, where Jews were told not to charge interest to "their brothers."

Most if not all denominations have gone through a period where mutual aid, with no interest was attached to the plans to build a church, orphanage, etc. Modern Banking - with interest, begins in Italy, and other places, but also with more advanced math systems, and war funding.

You can also see inflation, house prices, and sizes grow with it...

The Catholic church history, as well as nearly every denomination I can think of was opposed to it.

The real answer may be when it become acceptable to take out loans? Make them?  Google for this term to learn more.

Generally, to lend to foreigners / non-believers - people outside the group, is acceptable.

Islamics are also opposed to profit via interest...

Side note: Jesus talks in a parable about the servant who should have put his money with the bankers who would have returned interest... so there is a positive view from Him.


Why would one literally eat the body of Christ, if it is literal? According to those who hold that the bread and wine do not merely represent the body and blood of Christ, but actually are those things, why are those things eaten?

Should they not be buried?

Why are we "eating" the flesh and blood of Christ?

1. Because Jesus commanded us to

In the institution of the Eucharist, Jesus explicitly commands us to eat the bread and drink the wine, saying "This do in remembrance of me." Indeed, as often as we do this, we do "proclaim the Lord's death until He come."

Indeed, John goes even further, recording Jesus in dialogue saying:

  52 The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?” 53 So Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54 Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day. 55 For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. 56 Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him. 57 As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so whoever feeds on me, he also will live because of me. 58 This is the bread that came down from heaven, not like the bread[c] the fathers ate, and died. Whoever feeds on this bread will live forever.” 59 Jesus[d] said these things in the synagogue, as he taught at Capernaum.

The fact that Christians "ate the body of Christ" and "drank his blood" led to the belief in ancient Rome that Christians were cannibals. This was one of the reasons they were persecuted. That said, the point was that Christians were completely identifying with Christ, and not just filling the belly.

2. Because Priests consume the sacrifice

1 Corinthians 5 says:

  For even Christ our passover is sacrificed for us: Therefore let us keep the feast.

This indicates that Christ, being the Passover, is the sacrifice.  As a "royal priesthood," the pattern would be to handle the sacrifice as was custom.  In Dueteronomy 18:1, we read of the Levites:

  “The Levitical priests, all the tribe of Levi, shall have no portion or inheritance with Israel. They shall eat the LORD’s food offerings as their inheritance.

Not being familiar with the teaching of transubstantiation, I can only refer you to Jesus' own words in this regard, as recorded in John 6:63. I'll include those words here and then comment on them.

"'It is the Spirit who gives life:  the flesh profits nothing; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and they are life."

Not only were Jesus' fellow Jews in the synagogue where He uttered the words about the necessity of eating His flesh and drinking His blood (see Affable Geek's block of text in yellow, above) offended, but

"many of His disciples, when they heard this [i.e., the teaching on His being the bread of life, of whose flesh we must partake] said, 'This is a difficult statement; who can listen to it?'" (v.60).

The offense taken by the Jews, and the grumbling evidenced by many of Jesus' disciples were triggered by their failure to realize Jesus was speaking in spiritual, not physical terms. Put differently, Jesus was speaking in metaphorical, not literal terms.
Jesus often used this tactic, if you will, for a number of reasons:

To get people's attention

To make people uncomfortable, to the point where they would clamor for clarity from Jesus

To expose the spiritual blindness and deafness in His critics and the "easy believers" among His disciples (see Matthew 13:13 NIV, where Jesus said,

"'This is why I speak to them in parables: 'Though seeing, they do not see; though hearing, they do not hear or understand'".

Just as Jesus' parables were designed both to offend people and to expose their unbelief, so also was His teaching on the bread of life, with its reference to eating His flesh and drinking His blood.
In conclusion, Jesus and His hearers were on different wavelengths, spiritually speaking, and Jesus used the hyperbole of His words to speak life into their lives. Again,

"'. . . the words I have spoken to you are spirit and are life'" (v.63).


Why is the fish often used as a symbol of Christ? In the United States, you've probably seen it.  Many Christians like to put a fish on their cars to show their faith.

What is the origin of this symbol?

The fish or "Ikthyus" is Greek, is a very ancient symbol.  In addition to the obvious parallels with Jesus commissioning the disciples as "fishers of men," there was another reason for using the fish.

The phrase -

Jesus
Christ
God('s)
Son
Savior

is in Greek

Ίησοῦς
Χριστός,
Θεοῦ
Υἱός,
Σωτήρ

ΊΧΘΥΣ (the first letter of each word, pronounced 'Ikthyus') also means fish.

Why is the fish often used as a symbol of Christ?
The word ichthus or fish in Greek is symbolic of Jesus.

Ichthus
In Hellenistic Greek, the word Ichthus (aka Ichthys or Ikhthus) means fish. It is composed of two intersecting arcs. One end of both arcs extends beyond the meeting point, creating the profile of a fish. The fish is a very significant symbol for Christians. Literally, the word Ikhthus means Jesus (I) Christ (KH), God’s (TH) son (U), Savior (S). More informally, it is known as the “sign of the fish”. Jesus Christ and His apostles were known as “fishers of men”.
The symbol is believed to have been used in earlier times as a secret symbol by which Christians knew they were in the company of a friend. For hundreds of years after Christ, it was dangerous to be a Christian because the pagan Roman Emperors persecuted them. When meeting a person for the first time, one would scratch half the image on a wall, a rock or on dirt and if the other person understood what it is, he/she would complete the symbol.

Shown here is a fragment from a third-century tombstone slab found in the catacombs of Rome. The fragment is inscribed with some of the earliest examples known of Christian symbols. The fish remains a symbol of Christianity to this day. "Ichthus," the Greek word for fish, is an acronym for the Greek words that mean "Jesus Christ, Son of God, Saviour." The anchor, positioned between the two fish, had long been a symbol of safety among sailors. Christians adopted it as a symbol of hope of a future life, and it is seen on many early Christian tombs. - Early Christian Symbols


According to Unitarians, to whom does the word הָאָדוֹן refer in Mal. 3:1? Regarding the word אֲדֹנִי (adoni) in Psa. 110:1 (actually prefixed with -ל, i.e. לַאדֹנִי), translated as “my lord,” a self-professed Unitarian website states,1

  Trinitarian commentators frequently argue that “my Lord” in this verse is the Hebrew word adonai, another name for God, and is therefore proof of the divinity of the Messiah. But not only is this not a valid argument, this verse is actually one of the great proofs of the complete humanity of the promised Messiah. The Hebrew word translated “my lord” is adoni (pronounced “Adon nee” 1 ) in the standard Hebrew texts. This word is always used in Scripture to describe human masters and lords, but never God. (emphasis mine)

Now, the Hebrew word אֲדֹנִי is simply the lemma or base form אָדוֹן2 with a 1st person singular pronominal suffix appended (i.e., “my”). The question, then, should not be limited to whether אֲדֹנִי is ever used in reference to Yahveh (God), but rather, whether אָדוֹן and any of its suffixed forms (including אֲדֹנִי) are ever used in reference to Yahveh. After all, couldn’t “lord,” “my lord,” “his lord,” “our lord,” and “their lord” all refer to the same “lord”?

The lord said to Abraham and Sarah,...
Abraham said to his lord,...
Sarah said to her lord,...
Sarah and Abraham spoke to their lord,...
Sarah and Abraham said, “Our lord...”
Abraham said, “My lord...”

In this context, the “lord” is the same person, regardless of the pronominal suffix. Hence, limiting the discussion to “my lord” is both arbitrary and disingenuous.

I encountered the word הָאָדוֹן in Mal. 3:1. This is simply אָדוֹן prefixed with the definite article הָ, meaning “the lord” (i.e., “the master”).

The Hebrew text of Mal. 3:1 states,

  הִנְנִ֤י שֹׁלֵחַ֙ מַלְאָכִ֔י וּפִנָּה־דֶ֖רֶךְ לְפָנָ֑י וּפִתְאֹם֩ יָבֹ֨וא אֶל־הֵיכָלֹ֜ו הָאָדֹ֣ון אֲשֶׁר־אַתֶּ֣ם מְבַקְשִׁ֗ים וּמַלְאַ֨ךְ הַבְּרִ֜ית אֲשֶׁר־אַתֶּ֤ם חֲפֵצִים֙ הִנֵּה־בָ֔א אָמַ֖ר יְהוָ֥ה צְבָאֹֽות׃

which is translated into English as,

  Behold, I am sending My messenger, and he shall prepare a way before Me, and the lord whom you are seeking shall suddenly come to His temple, and/even the messenger of the covenant whom you delight in. Behold, he comes," said Yahveh of hosts.

We note a couple of things during exegesis of Mal. 3:1:

Yahveh of hosts is the speaker.

“I am sending My messenger” evidently refers to Yahveh sending His messenger (cp. 2 Chr. 36:15-16; Isa. 42:19).
Thus, first-person pronouns refer to Yahveh, such as “My messenger,” “before Me,” etc.

However, note the acute analysis of Carl Friedrich Keil in his commentary on Mal. 3:1:

  “The Lord” ((hâ'âdōn)) is God; this is evident both from the fact that He comes to His temple, i.e., the temple of Jehovah, and also from the relative clause “whom ye seek,” which points back to the question, “Where is the God of judgment?” (Malachi 2:17).

The question: How do Unitarians refute the assertion that הָאָדוֹן (ha-adon) refers to Yahveh (God) in Mal. 3:1?

Footnotes

1 URL: http://www.biblicalunitarian.com/verses/psalm-110-1

2 meaning “master,” “lord,” “sir”

References

Keil, Carl Friedrich. Commentary on the Old Testament. 1900. Reprint. Trans. Martin, James. Vol. 10. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1988. (458)

You ask "How do Unitarians refute the assertion that הָאָדוֹן (ha-adon) refers to Yahveh (God) in Mal. 3:1?"
The question seems to hold the hidden assumption that Unitarians need to refute the Trinitarian position in order to be a valid belief.
It also seems to hold the hidden assumption that Unitarians generally don't think that הָאָדוֹן (ha-adon) refers to God in Mal. 3:1.
I think both these assumptions are wrong. And so the short answer could be: "They don't generally refute that assertion". As @Cannabijoy a Unitarian who provided the previous answer made clear.
A slightly longer answer would be that they don't need to be able to refute the Trinitarian position in order for their position to be a valid alternative position. They can just prefer it over the Trinitarian position which they might find un-intuitive and lead to unique interpretations where a person using a word that normally indicates a relationship to another is actually referring to their self. They might question how they could justify to God why they thought God would have expected them to make such novel interpretations.
Regarding the assertion that הָאָדוֹן (ha-adon) refers to God in Mal. 3:1 :
They accept that it does, but reject that הָאָדוֹן (ha-adon) is the messenger of the covenant. On the basis that a messenger is one that carries a message for another. They can view Jesus as the messenger of the covenant for example.
It seems to me that they could also reject that it does, but I don't understand the Hebrew grammar issues so could be mistaken here. But it seems to me they could think that those questioning where the God of Judgement in Malachi 2:17 meant it more in the sense of asking why hasn't God made himself apparent. And therefore weren't thinking it was a matter of seeking him. The Lord that the people seek הָאָדוֹן (ha-adon) in 3:1 was the Messiah, and the reason it states his temple is because the verse relates to 2:17 and the God of Judgement that hadn't seemed to make himself apparent. So that it could be read as something like "And the Lord, whom ye seek, Will suddenly come to the God of Judgement's temple".
Those not being the only interpretations of that verse that would be available to them.

I think הָאָדוֹן refers to YHVH in Malachi 3:1. In Hebrew, it says:

הנני שלח מלאכי ופנה־דרך לפני ופתאם יבוא אל־היכלו האדון ׀ אשר־אתם מבקשים ומלאך הברית אשר־אתם חפצים הנה־בא אמר יהוה צבאות

Here is a literal translation, but I'll add punctuation:

"Behold! I send my messanger and he shall prepare the way before me. And shall suddenly come into his temple the Lord whom you seek; and the messanger of the covenant which you delight: behold, he shall come", saith YHVH of hosts.

I see two messangers in this verse. First, the messanger that prepares the way (John the Baptist). The second messanger is "the messanger of the covenant". This isn't John the Baptist because John did not deliver a message about a covenant.
Yeshua says:

"Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.
Then said the Jews, Forty and six years was this temple in building, and wilt thou rear it up in three days?
But he spake of the temple of his body." John 2:19-21

So the temple YHVH refers to is the body of Yeshua. This gives us:

"Behold! I (YHVH) send my messanger (John) and he (John) shall prepare the way before. And shall suddenly come into his (YHVH's) temple (Yeshua's body) the Lord (YHVH) whom you seek; and the messanger of the covenant (Yeshua) which you delight: behold, he (Yeshua) shall come", saith YHVH of hosts.

I don't know why that Unitarian site said adonai only applies to humans. Here are a few more occurrences that refer to YHVH:
http://biblehub.com/hebrew/haadon_113.htm
As far as this question "After all, doesn't "lord," "my lord," "his lord," "our lord," and "their lord" all refer to the same "lord"?" I would have to say no. Even David called Saul "lord":

"David also arose afterward, and went out of the cave, and cried after Saul, saying, My lord the king. And when Saul looked behind him, David stooped with his face to the earth, and bowed himself." 1 Samuel 24:8

So maybe David was talking about king Saul when he write Psalm 110. But I think it's pretty obvious that David meant a different human lord though.
To assert that "the lord" and "my lord" should refer to the same entity is understandable, but this can be refuted in a logical manner.
Here are a few examples:

My cake is delicious because my mom made the cake with chocolate

In this example, "my cake" and "the cake" probably refer to the same cake

The cake fell on my cake

In this example, we seem to be missing some information; but it's pretty obvious that "the cake" is a separate cake from "my cake" because "my cake" cannot fall on "my cake. Perhaps there was a large vanilla cake made for my birthday party, but my mom made a chocolate cake specifically for me. With this information, the sentence makes perfect sense.
However, these examples involve an inanimate object. A "lord", especially in Psalm 110, is definitely a living being. So here is a closer example:

The boss said to my boss, "Stick with me and you'll be running this whole company one day."

If you heard this, you might be confused for a minute. But once you learn that there is a single owner of the company, and he has a single manager over his store operations, then it becomes clear that "the boss" is the owner and "my boss" is the subservient manager.
If somebody said "Let me get this straight, you have a single boss that exists as three persons, and the first person of your triune boss said to the second person of your triune boss..." Well...I'm not really sure how I would respond to that.
Despite all of this, David makes it easy on us by saying:

YHVH said unto my Lord...

YHVH is the name of the only true God, so there really isn't any kind of issue. This is like if somebody said:

Bob said to my boss...

Conclusion
The author of that article is mistaken. Adonai is used throughout Scripture to refer to both man and YHVH. I have no idea what this has to do with Psalm 110:1, but this is my personal Unitarian interpretation of Malachi 3:1.


How and when did the water come into being? In Genesis 1:2, the Spirit of God is hovering over the face of the waters.

So this is before creation, so where does water come from? why it exist before the first day? And if there is face of water, there seems to me should be some gravity somewhere, what's the stage of universe at this time?

Well, you see, when two atoms of hydrogen love an atom of oxygen very much...

When I was a literalist (and it seems you are looking through those glasses) my interpretation was that when God created the heavens and the earth (Gen. 1:1, "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth."), that would have included the waters. Since the waters and the lands and the waters above the heavens and the waters on the earth were not separated yet, then it is a bit difficult to nail down the dimensionality of it all, but simply because we cannot conceive of a world where there is little boundary between gaseous and liquid state that does not means that it could not exist. Of course, fog exists, so it is quite possible that water was originally created as a liquid suspended in air.

You might be reading too much into "over". To say that God is literally and exclusively "over" something is as nonsensical as saying he is literally and exclusively "under" something. Time and space are never literal in such a context.

Most of the ancient creation myths have a record of primordial waters. This is seen in the Enûma Eliš (Apsû) and in several Egyptian creation myths. In the Egyptian myths, this water is deified as Nu.

Of course Genesis shares this same idea and imagery as you have already picked up on. Like the other creation stories in the Levant, Genesis also implies that the waters always were and that they acted as the medium from which creation was fashioned. The creation of man is most often compared to a potter fashioning a pot in ancient creation stories (and Genesis.) Since the potter does not create both the clay and the pot, it would make little sense for the creator of the world to create the vessel (mankind) and the creative medium (the waters). Just as the clay is simply there and need only be harvested by the creator before he begins fashioning the pot, the same is true of the waters - they are just simply there and need only be harvested before being used as a creative medium. While this may seem troublesome to modern readers, Creation ex nihilo is a modern novelty that came about in the 2nd century AD.

This is not to say that there was not some idea of Creation ex nihilo prior to the 2nd centruy in that Amun is though to have created Nu in one Egyptian creation myth. The logical extension of this is creation ex nihilo, but this is more coincidental than anything. This myth arose from an attempt to establish the supremacy of Amun in the New Kingdom period of Egypt, not out of a realization that matter had to have a beginning.  This was just not philosophically realized until the Greek philosophers got a hold of it. The earlier Mesopotamian writers just didn't think about this and the problem of time necesitating a beginning simply didn't matter to them. Attempting hermeneutic gymnastics to conclude that The Bible records the creation of these waters would be an exercise in eisegesis.


Biblical basis for two aspects of the Gap Theory According to the Gap Theory there was a large gap in time between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2. Two aspects of the theory are:

Rather than Genesis 1:1 being a summary for what follows, it is a distinct event in time, followed by another distinct event in time in Genesis 1:2ff.
Satan is thought to have sinned and fallen during the gap, which God judged through a cataclysmic flood (often called Lucifer's flood) that left the world in the empty and void state we read in Genesis 1:2.

What other verses in the Bible support these two propositions?

It is uncertain when Satan and the rebellious Angels rebelled against God or even how far the war had progressed before Satan and his Angels were ejected from Heaven.

According to Scriptures which is the basis for Pink's analogy.

  Genesis 1:1  In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

is simply a statement that God was the creator and:

  Genesis 1:2  And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

is descriptive of his creation at that time.

Pink apparently deduced from:

  Luke 10:18  And he said unto them, I beheld Satan as lightning fall from heaven.

and

  Revelation 12:9  And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.

That since Revelation says that he was cast into the Earth it had to be without form and void.

This would make more sense if as; some believe, that the Earth was created at the time of their being expelled from Heaven as a place of interment for Satan and his Angels. This also gives more meaning to the bottomless pit also spoken of in the Revelation.

As far as the gap theory goes it's basis in not between Genesis 1:1 and 2, but between verses 1 and 3, and some validity for this theory lies in:

  Genesis 1:5  And God called the light Day, and *the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

The darkness referred to in verse 5 can only be eternity preceding the creation of light, since God starts that first day with darkness, with the light being the second part of day one. This also gives reason to debate the 24 hour day theory for the creation, since the 24 hour day is based on the cycle of sunlight and darkness which does not come into play until:

  Genesis 1:16  And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.

This is of course depending upon whether or not Genesis chapter one is chronological, as you have stated in your question. The answer to that can only come from the numerology, that being that God divided his work of the Creation into days and broke it into successive numbers 1,2, and so on. The only logical reason for this is to delineate Chronology.

I can only give you the logic behind my answer to your question, you will have to determine for yourself what you choose to believe, since this is the most concrete evidence I know of and even that is subject to individual interpretation.

Hope this helps.

Referring to your second point: There are teachings on Ezekiel 28:11-19 and Isaiah 14:12-15 that say that they are actually metaphors for the fall of satan and only on the first sight about the king of Tyree and Babylon, respectively, especially when reading them in parallel.  Unfortunately, I don't have any sources for that in English.

Edit: excuse me if my answer is too unspecific or too unelaborated and that these passages might be too controversial, I just thought it might help. If it doesn't, feel free to downvote/delete the answer.


What do we know about the Council of Nicaea's ban of celebrating the Lord's Supper on the day before Passover? I was reading the wiki on Constantine the Great and was struck by this passage:

More significantly, in 325 he summoned the First Council of Nicaea, most known for its dealing with Arianism and for instituting the Nicene Creed. He enforced the council's prohibition against celebrating the Lord's Supper on the day before the Jewish Passover, which marked a definite break of Christianity from the Judaic tradition. From then on, the solar Julian Calendar was given precedence over the lunisolar Hebrew Calendar among the Christian churches of the Roman Empire.[232]

The footnote points to this source but it seems not to say anything about the "Lord's Supper" or Passover at all:
https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/25023.htm
Was there such an edict and if so, where might it be documented?

We know there was a conflict in the very early church about the 3-day observance of Christ's death, burial, and resurrection.  Some wanted to observe the 14th (Passover), which came to be called the Last Supper.  Others wanted to observe the resurrection, which came to be determined about Sunday sunrise.  The Council of Nicea met to discuss the issue, among other issues.  They decided that overlapping observances was to be avoided.  Constantine was the guarantee.  Here is his letter to the churches.

When the question relative to the sacred festival of Easter arose, it was universally thought that it would be convenient that all should keep the feast on one day; for what could be more beautiful and more desirable, than to see this festival, through which we receive the hope of immortality, celebrated by all with one accord, and in the same manner?  It was declared to be particularly unworthy for this, the holiest of all festivals, to follow the custom [the calculation] of the Jews, who had soiled their hands with the most fearful of crimes, and whose minds were blinded.  In rejecting their custom,113 we may transmit to our descendants the legitimate mode of celebrating Easter, which we have observed from the time of the Saviour’s Passion to the present day [according to the day of the week].
https://ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214/npnf214.vii.x.html

So again, their goal was to observe a resurrection feast for all the churches on the same day.  At the same time, the goal was to avoid said feast on the same day as Passover or Unleavened Bread.  The difference would be to observe the feast on a day of the week (Sunday), rather than on a date as determined from Scripture (the 14th Passover).  The decision was made therefore to observe Easter on the first Sunday following the first full moon (the full moon was typically the first day of the Feast of Unleavened Bread) after the Spring Equinox.

Upon closer inspection it became evident that the discussion of "the Lord's Supper" is referred to in discussion under the term "Easter" because the Roman bishops and Constantine were intent on establishing Easter as a uniform Christian feast distinct from simply a redefinition of the Passover and to move from the OT Hebrew calendar to a date based on the solar Julian calendar. Eusebius' writings seethe with anti-Jewish ranting and drip with honeyed words about Constantine, and calls for complete obedience to orders from Rome:
Eusebius, in The Life of Constantine Book III reports (emphases via bolding mine):

Chapter 18. He speaks of their Unanimity respecting the Feast of Easter, and against the Practice of the Jews.
At this meeting the question concerning the most holy day of Easter was discussed, and it was resolved by the united judgment of all present, that this feast ought to be kept by all and in every place on one and the same day. For what can be more becoming or honorable to us than that this feast from which we date our hopes of immortality, should be observed unfailingly by all alike, according to one ascertained order and arrangement? And first of all, it appeared an unworthy thing that in the celebration of this most holy feast we should follow the practice of the Jews, who have impiously defiled their hands with enormous sin, and are, therefore, deservedly afflicted with blindness of soul. For we have it in our power, if we abandon their custom, to prolong the due observance of this ordinance to future ages, by a truer order, which we have preserved from the very day of the passion until the present time. Let us then have nothing in common with the detestable Jewish crowd; for we have received from our Saviour a different way. A course at once legitimate and honorable lies open to our most holy religion. Beloved brethren, let us with one consent adopt this course, and withdraw ourselves from all participation in their baseness. For their boast is absurd indeed, that it is not in our power without instruction from them to observe these things. For how should they be capable of forming a sound judgment, who, since their parricidal guilt in slaying their Lord, have been subject to the direction, not of reason, but of ungoverned passion, and are swayed by every impulse of the mad spirit that is in them? Hence it is that on this point as well as others they have no perception of the truth, so that, being altogether ignorant of the true adjustment of this question, they sometimes celebrate Easter twice in the same year. Why then should we follow those who are confessedly in grievous error? Surely we shall never consent to keep this feast a second time in the same year. But supposing these reasons were not of sufficient weight, still it would be incumbent on your Sagacities to strive and pray continually that the purity of your souls may not seem in anything to be sullied by fellowship with the customs of these most wicked men. We must consider, too, that a discordant judgment in a case of such importance, and respecting such religious festival, is wrong. For our Saviour has left us one feast in commemoration of the day of our deliverance, I mean the day of his most holy passion; and he has willed that his Catholic Church should be one, the members of which, however scattered in many and diverse places, are yet cherished by one pervading spirit, that is, by the will of God. And let your Holinesses' sagacity reflect how grievous and scandalous it is that on the self-same days some should be engaged in fasting, others in festive enjoyment; and again, that after the days of Easter some should be present at banquets and amusements, while others are fulfilling the appointed fasts. It is, then, plainly the will of Divine Providence (as I suppose you all clearly see), that this usage should receive fitting correction, and be reduced to one uniform rule.

Chapter 19. Exhortation to follow the Example of the Greater Part of the World.
Since, therefore, it was needful that this matter should be rectified, so that we might have nothing in common with that nation of parricides who slew their Lord: and since that arrangement is consistent with propriety which is observed by all the churches of the western, southern, and northern parts of the world, and by some of the eastern also: for these reasons all are unanimous on this present occasion in thinking it worthy of adoption. And I myself have undertaken that this decision should meet with the approval of your Sagacities, in the hope that your Wisdoms will gladly admit that practice which is observed at once in the city of Rome, and in Africa; throughout Italy, and in Egypt, in Spain, the Gauls, Britain, Libya, and the whole of Greece; in the dioceses of Asia and Pontus, and in Cilicia, with entire unity of judgment. And you will consider not only that the number of churches is far greater in the regions I have enumerated than in any other, but also that it is most fitting that all should unite in desiring that which sound reason appears to demand, and in avoiding all participation in the perjured conduct of the Jews. In fine, that I may express my meaning in as few words as possible, it has been determined by the common judgment of all, that the most holy feast of Easter should be kept on one and the same day. For on the one hand a discrepancy of opinion on so sacred a question is unbecoming, and on the other it is surely best to act on a decision which is free from strange folly and error.

Chapter 20. Exhortation to obey the Decrees of the Council.
Receive, then, with all willingness this truly Divine injunction, and regard it as in truth the gift of God. For whatever is determined in the holy assemblies of the bishops is to be regarded as indicative of the Divine will. As soon, therefore, as you have communicated these proceedings to all our beloved brethren, you are bound from that time forward to adopt for yourselves, and to enjoin on others the arrangement above mentioned, and the due observance of this most sacred day; that whenever I come into the presence of your love, which I have long desired, I may have it in my power to celebrate the holy feast with you on the same day, and may rejoice with you on all accounts, when I behold the cruel power of Satan removed by Divine aid through the agency of our endeavors, while your faith, and peace, and concord everywhere flourish. God preserve you, beloved brethren!

The emperor transmitted a faithful copy of this letter to every province, wherein they who read it might discern as in a mirror the pure sincerity of his thoughts, and of his piety toward God.

Of late there appears to be a great deal of interest in restoring the biblical calendar to Protestant and "Messianic Jewish" practices:
When is Passover - Learning Yahweh's Calendar - Assembly of Yawheh in North Alabama
Creator's Calendar - 119ministries.com
What remains an open question to me is when the annual Passover-based celebration of the Lord's Supper changed to one every Sunday. Apparently it was after the First Ecumenical Council of Nicaea, yes?


Are some people pursued by the "enemy" relatively more than others? My pastor made a general statement (or whole sermon;) and said something to the effect that the more the enemy knows you are in alignment with God the more he tries to knock us off course.

So, more specifically: does Christianity make any distinction, observation, mention, intention or concept that some people (anyone - believer, non-believer) may be pursued by the enemy more than others - and if so what are the conditions, in what way and how?

Thank You .

Much, nearly all, of the inner workings of the angelic and demonic beings are not disclosed in scripture. However, on this subject there are some things that indicate each individual is not always 'pursued' to the same degree, which by inference must make us conclude each person compared is not 'pursued' equally. The attacks seem proportionate to our faith but weak faith incurs the greater failure under our attacks, so the result of the battle is no indication of its intensity.
I prefer to use the word 'tempted' over 'pursued' as the second could imply running away (but I know that's not what you meant). There are many examples in scripture to prove we are not 'tempted' by the Devil equally every day, but their is an 'evil day' which we must be on guard for in order to 'resist' the Devil, so he will 'flee'.

Therefore put on the full armor of God, so that when the day of evil comes, you may be able to stand your ground, and after you have done everything, to stand. (Ephesians 6:13, NIV)
Submit yourselves, then, to God. Resist the devil, and he will flee from you. (James 4:7, NIV)

On these evil days it is not unreasonable to assume more powerful temptations, more powerful demons, will be used in the attack. Naturally the stronger faith of the believer the greater the temptation that is required to establish an assault not so easily shrugged off.  We can see this in the life of Christ. The Devil did not send just some weaker demon to tempt him, the Devil personally tempted Christ and took great interest in his every move. He was also interested in the twelve, wanting personally to 'sift' Peter (Luke 22:21) and 'posses' Judas. (John 13:27)
However in this conclusion we must not think, 'those poor strong Christians have a bigger fight' and therefore can engage in excuses for their failures and have a self-pity party as though others are not equally struggling. For since each God is infinite in power the Devil can't lift a finger against anyone without a kind of permission so that God ensures:

No temptation has overtaken you except what is common to mankind. And God is faithful; he will not let you be tempted beyond what you can bear. But when you are tempted, he will also provide a way out so that you can endure it. (1 Corinthians 10:13, NIV)

Also since we are only drawn into sin because of our own lusts under any given temptation, if we fall the failures is ours and ours alone.
Since God determines what measure of temptation is best for the refining of our faith and increasing of our strength (Col 1:11, Rom 5:4), in some ways the Devil's depth of 'temptation' becomes irrelevant and we may not notice his attacks have gained in strength because God is making us stronger from our previous vexing and struggles.

Satan has been condemned!  He wants to take as many with him as possible just out of spite.
He is a great example of beautiful on the outside but not inwardly.  Although, we get the idea that the outside has caught up wiuth the inner quality.  That free will gets you at times.  Too bad for Satan. Let us hope we all fair out better.


In consideration of Numbers 23:19, can God be a human? (Catholic perspective) In the King James Version of the Bible, it is mentioned in Num. 23:19 that God is not a human:

  19 God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do it? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good? KJV, 1769

Now we know that Jesus was a man, being the son of Mary. So, based on Num. 23:19, how can he also be God? I am requesting a Catholic perspective.

Numbers 23:19 doesn't say Yahweh cannot become a human, only that he isn't like humans, who do lie or fail to keep promises. Yahweh is essentially saying he can be trusted. A Catholic perspective teaches that Jesus is fully divine and fully human, and that these two natures are in hypostatic union.

The sinful state would lead humans to sin, but Jesus' humanity can be thought of as Adam's before he disobeyed Yahweh. Thus, being the incarnation of the divine word, Jesus obeyed perfectly even up to his time of death.

It is very clear in Hosea, 11:9

  I will not execute the fierceness of mine anger, I will not return to destroy Ephraim: for I am God, and not man; the Holy One in the
  midst of thee: and I will not enter into the city.

God teaches that he is not a MAN unlike jesus christ who is a Man died in a cross.

John, 8:40

  But now ye seek to kill me, a man that hath told you the truth,
  which I have heard of God: this did not Abraham.


How does Protestant Church explain Luke 2:48? At Luke 2:48 we read of St. Mary's complaint to Jesus for `getting lost'at the Temple:

  His mother said to him, “Son, why have you treated us like this? Your father and I have been anxiously searching for you.”

Some denominations believe that Jesus had siblings on the earth.  I am therefore, curious to know why Mary did not mention the said brothers and sisters who would have definitely joined the parents in the search for their dear brother Jesus, who  was 12 years of age at that time . How does the Protestant  Church explain the said omission ?

If we accept the bible teaching that Mary/Joseph had children, then they would have been younger than Jesus.  In the question, the age of Jesus was 12.  The oldest sibling was probably no older than 10 at that time.

  Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James, and Joses, and of Juda, and Simon? and are not his sisters here with us? And they were offended at him. Mark 6:3

So there is no sense in saying, your father and me and your younger brothers or sisters are searching for you.  In other words, if you've "lost" one child, you're not going to send out an even younger child to do your searching for you.  Most likely when Mary/Joseph went back to Jerusalem after a few days to look, they would have left their other children with trusted relatives or neighbors.

  But they, supposing him to have been in the company, went a day's journey; and they sought him among their kinsfolk and acquaintance.  Luke 2:48

They wouldn't bring their other children on the journey back to Jerusalem from Nazareth.

How does Protestant Church explain Luke 2:48?

The link below are numerous Protestant commentaries on Luke2:48

  "And when they saw him, they were amazed: and his mother said to him, Son, why have you thus dealt with us? behold, your father and I have sought you sorrowing."
  https://biblehub.com/commentaries/luke/2-48.htm

  Verse-by-Verse Bible Commentary
  Luke 2:48
  https://www.ewtn.com/faith/teachings/maryc2.htm

To answer your other question;

Some denominations believe that Jesus had siblings on the earth. I am therefore, curious to know why Mary did not mention the said brothers and sisters who would have definitely joined the parents in the search for their dear brother Jesus, who was 12 years of age at that time . How does the Protestant Church explain the said omission ?

Some denominations believe that Jesus had siblings on the earth.

There are some denominations but this denominations interpretation contradicted the well-known Protestant Founders and Leaders in the 16th century who teaches that Mary had no other children other than Jesus;

  Protestant Reformers

  The protestant reformers affirmed their belief that Mary, while remaining every-virgin, was truly the Mother of God. Here are only a few examples:

  Martin Luther (1483-1546), On the Divine Motherhood of Mary, wrote:

  In this work whereby she was made the Mother of God, so many and such great good things were given her that no one can grasp them. ... Not only was Mary the mother of him who is born [in Bethlehem], but of him who, before the world, was eternally born of the Father, from a Mother in time and at the same time man and God. (Weimer's The Works of Luther, English translation by Pelikan, Concordia, St. Louis, v. 7, p. 572.)

  Luther wrote on the Virginity of Mary:

  It is an article of faith that Mary is Mother of the Lord and still a virgin. ... Christ, we believe, came forth from a womb left perfectly intact. (Weimer's The Works of Luther, English translation by Pelikan, Concordia, St. Louis, v. 11, pp. 319-320; v. 6. p. 510.)

  The French reformer John Calvin (1509-1564) also held that Mary was the Mother of God.

  It cannot be denied that God in choosing and destining Mary to be the Mother of his Son, granted her the highest honor. ... Elizabeth called Mary Mother of the Lord, because the unity of the person in the two natures of Christ was such that she could have said that the mortal man engendered in the womb of Mary as at the same time the eternal God. (Calvini Opera, Corpus Reformatorum, Braunschweig-Berlin, 1863-1900, v. 45, p. 348, 35.)

  Calvin also up held the perpetual virginity of Mary, as did the Swiss reformer, Ulrich Zwingli (1484-1531), who wrote:

  I firmly believe that Mary, according to the words of the gospel as a pure Virgin brought forth for us the Son of God and in childbirth and after childbirth forever remained a pure, intact Virgin. (Zwingli Opera, Corpus Reformatorum, Berlin, 1905, v. 1, p. 424.)

https://www.ewtn.com/faith/teachings/maryc2.htm

Your next question is;

I am therefore, curious to know why Mary did not mention the said brothers and sisters who would have definitely joined the parents in the search for their dear brother Jesus, who was 12 years of age at that time . How does the Protestant Church explain the said omission ?

Mary did not mentioned other brothers & sisters because they do not exist and the well-known Protestant Reformers upheld the teaching that Jesus had no other siblings.

How does the Protestant Church explain the said omission ?

If we follow the Protestant Reformers like Martin Luther, Zwingli, Calvin, etc teaching it is very clear that there's no ommision. But the New Protestant Reformers are the one introducing the novelty which Jesus solidly refuted in John19:26-27 when He entrusted His beloved Mother Mary to His beloved apostle St.John, erasing the confusions that Jesus had other siblings.

  “Woman, Behold Your Son…Behold Your Mother”(John19:26-27)


According to Old Testament, how long did Saul reign as king? According to Old Testament scripture, how long did reign Saul as king of Israel?
Various hebrew scholars list this time between 7 and 20 years.  Where does this variation come from?

The variation comes from missing digit(s) in the extant Hebrew manuscripts for 1 Sam 13:1.  Dr. Michael Heiser's 2008 blog article about it, 1 Samuel 13:1 – The Matter of Missing Words in the Bible, summarized the problem well:

The Masoretic Text (MT) literally says “Saul was a son of a year in his reigning and two years he reigned over Israel.” Obviously there are two errors in the Hebrew text as we have it today: (1) Saul was not one year old when he became king, and (2) he reigned more than two years.
The first error is obvious, since the book of 1 Samuel tells us plainly how Saul was chosen and anointed king — and he was a full grown man. The second error is plain when viewed against Acts 13:21 (and when reading the account of Saul’s kingship in the OT).
Now, in one regard, this is no different than any other text-critical problem. You detect the error in the present text, then work to find out how it came about, and consult other manuscripts of the Hebrew Bible for the solution. But there’s the rub — in the case of 1 Sam 13:1, there are no other reliable manuscript readings.

Unfortunately, none of the Dead Sea Scroll fragments related to the Book of Samuel has 1 Sam 13:1.  See 1984 paper Additions or Omissions in the Books of Samuel: The Significant Pluses and Minuses in the Massoretic, LXX and Qumran Texts by Stephen Pisano, S.J.
The entire verse was also missing from earlier copies of the Septuagint.  Some later copies have 30 but deemed as corruption and therefore modern translations of Septuagint omit this verse, such as Chapter 13 of the NETS Septuagint translation.  See Dr. Michael Heiser's blog article referred to above for more discussion on this, as well as this article.
To reflect the missing information some translations, such as the NRSV, render 1 Sam 13:1 as follows:

Saul was . . .  years old when he began to reign; and he reigned . . .  and two years over Israel.

with the footnote:

1 Samuel 13:1 The number is lacking in the Heb text (the verse is lacking in the Septuagint).

Another blog article Rereading 1 Samuel 13:1 by Claude Mariottini, a
Professor of Old Testament at Northern Baptist Seminary provides a good explanation why translations differ:

The different readings for the length of Saul’s reign in the translations are only possibilities.  Thus, if a translation says that Saul was 30, or 40, or 50 years old when he began to reign and then says that he reigned 42, 32, 22, or 2 years over Israel, that translation is not teaching biblical truth but educated possibilities.  The fact is, that since the numbers are contradictory, then one or all of the translations may not be presenting the right information.

In Acts 13:21 we have 40 years, see Acts 13:21, NRSV:

²⁰ ... After that he gave them judges until the time of the prophet Samuel. ²¹ Then they asked for a king; and God gave them Saul son of Kish, a man of the tribe of Benjamin, who reigned for forty years.

Possibly, St. Paul quoted a Septuagint manuscript that is no longer extant.  Or he may have relied on Josephus who said in Antiquities of the Jews — Book VI:

To this his end did Saul come, according to the prophecy of Samuel; because he disobeyed the commands of God about the Amalekites; and on the account of his destroying the family of Ahimelech, the High Priest, with Ahimelech himself; and the city of the High Priests. Now Saul, when he had reigned eighteen years,²² while Samuel was alive; and after his death two, [and twenty,] (35) ended his life in this manner.

Finally, yet another article tries to deduce the reign length of Saul from implications it has on other characters's ages: Judges: The reign-length of Saul.  The article recommends between 10-20 years and instead suggests one possibility: clause placement corruption in Acts 13:21 and that Paul meant it was David who reigned for 40 years.

Using David’s age at at ascension, 30, and the requirement of Moses that 20 years old was minimum age to engage as warrior then only 10 years elapsed from David slaying Goliath unto David becoming king. David was a man (12+ years old, likely 19 years) when he played for a rejected Saul. 1sam13:1 gives Saul time as King as 2 years from then Saul makes war against 1) Amalekites {when rejected and David appointed as court musician}, 2) philistines, 3) kings of Zobah, 4) Edom, 5) children of Ammon, 6) Moab, and as battles were pitched spring each year this is year 6; so 2+6+10=18 years as king?


Do Protestants believe that all sins are equal? I know that Protestants reject the Roman Catholic understanding of "mortal" and "venial" sins. I also know that there's biblical basis for seeing sins as both equal and different.

But how do Protestants explain this?  According to them, are sins equal or different?

Related: How do Protestants understand the "unforgivable" sin?

The consensus among Protestants is that some sins are worse than others, but even the smallest sin deserves God's wrath.  Or, put another way, sins are equally damning, but not equally heinous.  The Westminster Shorter Catechism puts it succinctly:

Every sin deserves God's wrath and curse, both in this life, and that which is to come. (Answer 84)
Some sins [...] are more heinous in the sight of God than others. (Answer 83)

Reformed theologians like Louis Berkhof1 and John Frame2  follow this framework.  So do Baptists like A. H. Strong3 and Wayne Grudem.4  Grudem explains:

In terms of our legal standing before God, any one sin, even what may seem to be a very small one, makes us legally guilty before God and therefore worthy of eternal punishment.
On the other hand, some sins are worse than others in that they have more harmful consequences in our lives and in the lives of others, and, in terms of our personal relationship to God as Father, they arouse his displeasure more and bring more serious disruption to our fellowship with him.

Arminian theologian H. Orton Wiley5 similarly holds that the penalty of sin is "death physical, temporal and eternal," but that the term "penalty [...] must be made to include the consequences of all the various evils included in sin."  He thus describes "degrees of both guilt and penalty as in the case of sins of ignorance or infirmity as over against sins of knowledge."
Anglican W. H. Griffith Thomas6 explains that "[a]ll sin is deadly in that it tends toward death, but there are sins which because they are deliberately committed against light are obviously more injurious to the soul."
Lutheran theologian John Mueller, condensing Franz Pieper's work,7 likewise writes:

Every transgression of the divine Law is rebellion against God and therefore damnable, Gal. 3, 10.  From the viewpoint of damnability therefore we cannot speak of "smaller" and "greater" sins.  Still Scripture itself distinguishes degrees in sinning [....] [and] degrees also in the eternal punishment which the damned will suffer.

References

Berkhof, Systematic Theology, 2.2.4, p252
Frame, Systematic Theology, Chapter 36, p851.
Strong, Systematic Theology, Volume 2, Part V, Chapter VI, pages 656 and 648-650
Grudem, Systematic Theology, Chapter 24, D-4, p501.
Wiley, Christian Theology, Chapter 18
Thomas, Principles of Theology, p230-31
Mueller, Christian Dogmatics, p230

Bible says all sins are not alike;

There are two types of sins

Sins which are leading to death
Sins those are not leading to death

1 John 5:16-17 bible says

"If anyone sees his brother committing a sin not leading to death, he shall ask and God will for him give life to those who commit sin not leading to death. There is a sin leading to death; I do not say that he should make request for this. 17All unrighteousness is sin, and there is a sin not leading to death. "

As a protestant, i believe in this.


What is the biblical basis against polygamy in the New Covenant? Assuming the Old Covenant is obsolete and fulfilled (Heb 7:18-19), what is the biblical argument against allowing the practice of polygamy?

God's Standard Should Be Our Standard
The biblical standard regarding marriage, from Genesis to Revelation is

One groom, one bride, what e'er betide.

Or in slightly less old fashioned verbiage:

One husband, one wife, for life.

God never sanctioned polygyny in the Tanakh, nor did Jesus sanction it in the New Covenant. God's design from the beginning was stated in Genesis 2:24-25 and reiterated by Jesus in Matthew 19:3-12 and Mark 10:2-12. I teased the following statements from Genesis, Matthew, and Mark:

Marriage between one woman and one man was instituted by God.

The man and woman who marry are fully equal in the eyes of God, but they are different in significant ways. There are obvious similarities and differences, but the differences, in particular, complement each other.

Marriage involves two families, but it is the basis of a third family in its own right. In other words, there is a leaving and a cleaving and a conceiving (though not always).

God joins together two people, one man and one woman, and the two--not three or four or more--become one flesh.

Jesus sanctioned divorce when adultery violates the oneness of the marital relationship, but by the same token Jesus did not command divorce when either husband and/or wife commits adultery. In other words, he held out for the possibility of confession, forgiveness, and restoration of the relationship. Serial monogamy is not the biblical ideal, though Jesus obviously sanctioned (but did not command) remarriage after the death of one's spouse.

Jesus' emphasis on Moses in his discussion with the Pharisees who came to Jesus to test him with their question is significant. According to Jesus, "Moses permitted divorce" because of the hardness of the Israelis' hearts, neither because God had made provision for it in his original plan nor because it was legislated in the Mosaic law.

Is There Any Wiggle Room?
No.

The levirate spoken of in Deuteronomy 25:5-10 (levirate comes from the Latin word for brother-in-law) may seem like an exception to the "one husband, one wife, for life" rule, but it is not. As Constable noted in his explanation of this passage in the NET Bible "Notes":

"The Israelites were to practice levirate marriage only in cases where the brothers had lived together (v. 5) and the remaining brother was not already married. Living together meant living in the same area, not necessarily residing under the same roof.[286] When another kinsman voluntarily assumed the responsibility of the surviving brother, that brother was apparently under no obligation to marry his sister-in-law (cf. Ruth 4). [my emphasis]
"There were several reasons for this provision. These reasons were the importance of descendants in God’s purposes for Israel, the welfare of the widow, and the demonstration of love for one’s brother (cf. Gen. 38).[287]"

Paul's insistence that a church elder or church deacon must be "the husband of but one
wife," or as some folks interpret it, "a one-woman man," cannot be an argument from silence that it's OK for men who do not aspire to be leaders in the local church to have multiple wives. Furthermore, the decision of the polygynous man either to keep or separate from a second or third, or more wives, would be up to the husband, his wives, and the leadership of the local church, with each case judged and ruled upon based on its merits on a case by case basis (see 1 Timothy 2:1 ff.).

A Legitimate Inference Based on Every Example of Polygyny in the Bible
I feel confident in presenting this challenge to any reader of my answer to cite a Scripture passage (not the LDS Scripture, however, as I am not a Mormon) or give me an instance in the Bible in which polygyny was not characterized by familial infighting, deceit, jealousy, strife, violence, resentment, long-standing feuds, favoritism, hurt feelings, spiritual backsliding, or any one of a host of other negative aspects and consequences. There is simply not one instance.
What can we legitimately infer from the overwhelming evidence of negative consequences based on the instances of polygyny in the Bible? The only reasonable answer, at least in my opinion, is that God does not approve of it, and to flaunt God's standards regarding marriage is to court disaster. You can count on it!

The answer is no, there is no Biblical basis in the New Testament for polygyny, or plural wives. But it is important to understand that while the old law has been fulfilled, it is only obsolete in that it has been superseded by a new law. The old law is of a lesser priesthood, and the new is of a higher priesthood.

  "For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change
  also of the law." (Hebrews 7:12)

The lesser–Levitical, or Aaronic Priesthood is an appendage of the greater, or Melchizedek Priesthood. We live the higher law under the administration of the Melchizedek Priesthood, but the duties of the Aaronic Priesthood are not done away with.

From an LDS perspective, it is lawful for a man to have only one wife, unless the Lord commands otherwise by revelation.

  "Wherefore, my brethren, hear me, and hearken to the word of the Lord:
  For there shall not any man among you have save it be one wife; and
  concubines he shall have none; For I, the Lord God, delight in the
  chastity of women. And whoredoms are an abomination before me; thus
  saith the Lord of Hosts. Wherefore, this people shall keep my
  commandments, saith the Lord of Hosts, or cursed be the land for their
  sakes. For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me,
  I will command my people; otherwise they shall hearken unto these
  things." (Jacob 2:27–30).

By revelation, plural marriage was practiced in Old Testament times and in the early days of the restored Church by the direction of the prophet who held the priesthood keys (D&C 132:34–40, 45). It is no longer practiced in the Church (D&C OD—1); today, having more than one wife is incompatible with membership in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

The only time polygamy, or more specifically polygyny is allowed, is when the Lord commands it. The law of Moses is an example of when the Lord commanded it. Christ fulfilled the law of Moses, but did not make every ordinance belonging to the priesthood obsolete. There will be a time when all the ordinances of the priesthood, like sacrifice, and possibly plural marriage, will be restored:

  “These sacrifices, as well as every ordinance belonging to the
  Priesthood, will, when the Temple of the Lord shall be built, and the
  sons of Levi be purified, be fully restored and attended to in all
  their powers, ramifications, and blessings. This ever did and ever
  will exist when the powers of the Melchizedek Priesthood are
  sufficiently manifest; else how can the restitution of all things
  spoken of by the Holy Prophets be brought to pass. It is not to be
  understood that the law of Moses will be established again with all
  its rites and variety of ceremonies; this has never been spoken of by
  the prophets; but those things which existed prior to Moses’ day,
  namely, sacrifice, will be continued.” (Teachings, pp. 172–73.)


How do proponents of Apokatastasis deal with the "Everlasting punishment" texts in scripture? For those who don't know, the doctrine of Apokatastasis is an ancient form of Universalism which states that everything God has ever created will be saved and glorified, including the Devil and his demons. The existence of Hell is affirmed, but the punishment is held to be correctional and purgative rather than retributive, and it doesn't last forever, instead only lasting for as long as a soul refuses to repent. This makes the Universalist idea of Hell more like a "Universal Purgatory".

I find this doctrine very interesting and appealing. It seems to make the most sense of the biblical data and the Loving+Just character of God in my mind. Nevertheless there are some problematic passages in scripture which seem to contradict it at first glance.

The main one that troubles me is Revelation 20:10:

  10 and the devil who had deceived them was thrown into the lake of
  fire and brimstone where the beast and the false prophet were, and
  they will be tormented day and night for ever and ever.

This passage seems to completely rule out Apokatastasis and come down strongly in favour of the more traditional "everlasting punishment of sinners and the Devil" view.

How would a proponent of Apokatastasis interpret this passage?

Those who believe in Apokatastasis believe Revelation 20:10 is grossly misunderstood. The Greek says:

καὶ ὁ διάβολος ὁ πλανῶν αὐτοὺς ἐβλήθη εἰς τὴν λίμνην τοῦ πυρὸς καὶ θείου, ὅπου καὶ τὸ θηρίον καὶ ὁ ψευδοπροφήτης, καὶ βασανισθήσονται ἡμέρας καὶ νυκτὸς εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων.
And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever- KJV

The Lake of Fire
The first thing that's significant is the Lake of Fire. A lake is a body of water. Water extinguishes fire, so this doesn't make sense. Therefore, we would interpret this metaphorically. Water cleanses and fire purifies. Yeshua says:

"For every one shall be salted with fire, and every sacrifice shall be salted with salt." Mark 9:49

Other examples include:

"That the trial of your faith, being much more precious than of gold that perisheth, though it be tried with fire, might be found unto praise and honour and glory at the appearing of Jesus Christ" 1 Peter 1:7
"Behold, I have refined thee, but not with silver; I have chosen thee in the furnace of affliction." Isaiah 48:10
"But who may abide the day of his coming? and who shall stand when he appeareth? for he is like a refiner's fire, and like fullers' soap: And he shall sit as a refiner and purifier of silver: and he shall purify the sons of Levi, and purge them as gold and silver, that they may offer unto YHVH an offering in righteousness." Malachi 3:2
"And the sight of the glory of YHVH was like devouring fire on the top of the mount in the eyes of the children of Israel." Exodus 24:17
"For our God is a consuming fire." Hebrews 12:49

θείου
θείου means "brimstone". According to Thayer's Greek Lexicon:

θεῖον, θείου, τό (apparently the neuter of the adjective θεῖος equivalent to divine incense, because burning brimstone was regarded as having power to purify, and to ward off contagion (but Curtius, § 320 allies it with θύω; cf. Latinfumus, English dust)), brimstone: Luke 17:29; Revelation 9:17; Revelation 14:10; Revelation 19:20; (); . (Genesis 19:24; Psalm 10:6 (); Ezekiel 38:22; Homer, Iliad 16, 228; Odyssey 22, 481, 493; (Plato) Tim. Locr., p. 99 c.; Aelian v. h. 13, 15 (16); Herodian, 8, 4, 26 (9 edition, Bekker).)

So brimstone was believed to have the power to purify.
βασανίζω
The next word is βασανίζω. Thayer's Greek Lexicon says the very first definition is:

properly, to test (metals) by the touchstone.

βασανίζω means to test, examine, or to cause distress. The only sort of "torment" associated with this word in the NT is mental torment, and it definitely does not mean "torture". Here are some more examples of this word, and hopefully this will paint a clearer picture of what it means:

But the ship was now in the midst of the sea, tossed (βασανιζόμενον) with waves: for the wind was contrary. Matthew 14:24

How is it that a ship was "tortured"? However, if the waves were testing the strength and endurance of the ship, causing it distress, it is understandable why Matthew would use βασανιζόμενον here. Robert Young (Young's Literal Transaltion) understood this, and translates:

and the boat was now in the midst of the sea, distressed by the waves, for the wind was contrary.

Mark uses this same word to describe this same event, but uses it a bit differently:

"And he saw them toiling (βασανιζομένους) in rowing; for the wind was contrary unto them: and about the fourth watch of the night he cometh unto them, walking upon the sea, and would have passed by them." Mark 6:48

Instead of the boat, it is the disciples who are having βασανίζω acted upon then. The American Standard Version says:

And seeing them distressed in rowing, for the wind was contrary unto them, about the fourth watch of the night he cometh unto them, walking on the sea; and he would have passed by them

αἰών
The last word is αἰών and it is probably the most debated word in the bible. This word means "age". It always means age, and there is no reason to translate it any other way. For example:

"And the cares of this world (αἰών), and the deceitfulness of riches, and the lusts of other things entering in, choke the word, and it becometh unfruitful." Mark 4:19

The KJV chose the word "world", which is a bit deceitful because Greek already has a word for world...κόσμος. If we say "the cares of this forever choke the word", that doesn't make a lot of sense. Here is every instance of αἰών in the NT. Replace each word with "age" and it makes perfect sense everytime. Actually, the interlinear does it for you, because it's a literal translation and they know αἰών means age.
Conclusion
Those who believe in Apokatastasis would interpret Revelation 20:10 to be:

"and the devil, the [one] deceiving them, was cast into the lake of the fire and of brimstone (to be purified), where also the beast and the false prophet [are], and they will be examined/tested night and day for the ages of the ages"- very literal translation

C.S. Lewis and many others believe that a person who is lost, is lost because he doesn't want to spend eternity with God in a heaven like the heaven in the Bible.  To believe that eventually all will be saved, is to believe a loving God will eventually condemn the unwilling to an eternity in a heaven they would find tormenting.  Dante, the Inferno.  No one wants to leave.


Do any Christian groups sell all their possessions as it seems the Early Church did? In Luke 12:33 (NIV) Jesus says:

  Sell your possessions and give to the poor. Provide purses for yourselves that will not wear out, a treasure in heaven that will never fail, where no thief comes near and no moth destroys.

He doesn't say "all" possessions here, but that seems to be what he told the rich ruler in Luke 18:22 (NIV):

  When Jesus heard this, he said to him, "You still lack one thing. Sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me."

In Acts 4:32-35 (NIV) it looks like that's what the Early Church did as well:

  All the believers were one in heart and mind. No one claimed that any of their possessions was their own, but they shared everything they had. With great power the apostles continued to testify to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus. And God's grace was so powerfully at work in them all that there were no needy persons among them. For from time to time those who owned land or houses sold them, brought the money from the sales and put it at the apostles' feet, and it was distributed to anyone who had need.

Are there any denominations or other groups in the world where the congregation (not monks, nuns etc.) actually does this? If so, can you please give some details on how the practical aspects work (sharing homes etc.).

I don't know if there are any denominational-scale organizations that practice this, but there are certainly churches and other Christian organizations that practice this.

The Bruderhof may be a good example of this. My family lived in a Bruderhof community for a few months when I was growing up, as my father was doing some work (writing a book) for them.

Later, a Mennonite church I used to attend had previously lived like this, in community, requiring all members to donate all of their earnings to the church, which in turn provided the bare essentials for living (home, groceries, etc), and gave the rest away.

They eventually gave up that practice for legal and tax reasons, and reverted to individual ownership, but with a spirit of giving.

In both cases, the church/community owned shared property, and was responsible for providing for the needs of the church members. In the case of the Bruderhof, the church also owned land for growing crops, a furniture factory, and perhaps other businesses, which were then used to sell goods to the general public, and provide for the needs of the community.

I think it won't be hard to find examples of Christian communes living in a spirit of "complete giving" in various parts of the world.

A google search for "Intentional Christian Community" finds various resources on this type of living, and may help you further in your search.

The answer to this question can really, literally, only be answered with "it depends on who you ask". Before throwing a downvote at me, read on though:
We see in Acts 2:45 one of the reasons they gave to the poor - they had need - which reflects Christ teaching throughout the Gospels (as well as many OT passages) to fulfill the needs of those in need:

And sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need. - Acts 2:45
“If a man shuts his ears to the cry of the poor, he too will cry out and not be answered.” - Proverbs 21:13

In 1 John 3:17 we see the same reflected

“If anyone has material possessions and sees his brother in need but has no pity on him, how can the love of God be in him?”

And in Job

“I rescued the poor who cried for help, and the fatherless who had none to assist them” (Job 29:12)

So we see it one of two ways, really:
either a) no, (to my knowledge) no denomination actively sells their possessions. I had asked a pastor this before, and in his opinion this was because of the incident with Jesus and the scourge in the temple in John 2. Since selling implies the exchange of money (at least, again, in his opinion).
or b) if you consider regular charity, giving to those in need, and fundraising to be fulfilling of the verses quoted in your question, then there are many that actively do this. Sometimes these are personal possessions, sometimes they are possessions given to them by the community.


What is the definition of sons of God in Job 2:1? Job 2

  Again there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the Lord

Multiple sons of God are mentioned in Job 2:1. What definition would entail the title 'Sons of God'.

Is it:

God in essence.
A special servant of God.
Biological son (as in begotten).
Other than the above

What evidence would denote a definition for 'sons of God' in Job 2:1?

Luke 6:35

  Then your reward will be great, and you will be children of the Most High

Children of The Most High, sons of God... a status to be achieved?

A second question would be (for another day): Is the hebrew 'son of god' equivalent to the Greek 'son of god' like in Mathew 4:3

  And the tempter came and said to Him, "If You are the Son of God, command that these stones become bread."

What is the definition of son of God in Job 2:1?

For the Chosen People, it usually refers to the Hebrew nation or people in general.

  Although references to "sons of God", "son of God" and "son of the LORD" are occasionally found in Jewish literature, they never refer to physical descent from God. There are two instances where Jewish kings are figuratively referred to as a god. The king is likened to the supreme king God. These terms are often used in the general sense in which the Jewish people were referred to as "children of the LORD your God".

  When used by the rabbis, the term referred to Israel or to human beings in general, and not as a reference to the Jewish mashiach. In Judaism the term mashiach has a broader meaning and usage and can refer to a wide range of people and objects, not necessarily related to the Jewish eschaton. - Son of God

This may also help:

  Sons of the God (Hebrew: בני האלהים) literally: "sons of the Gods") is a phrase used in the Hebrew Bible and apocrypha. The phrase is also used in Kabbalah where bene elohim are part of different Jewish angelic hierarchies.

  Hebrew Bible

  Genesis 6

  And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them, That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose. And the LORD said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years. There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown. — Genesis 6:1–4, KJV

  The first mention of "sons of God" in the Hebrew Bible occurs at Genesis 6:1–4. In terms of literary-historical origin, this phrase is typically associated with the Jahwist tradition.3

  This passage has had two interpretations in Judaism:

  Offspring of Seth: The first references to the offspring of Seth rebelling from God and mingling with the daughters of Cain are found in Christian and rabbinic literature from the second century CE onwards e.g. Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai, Augustine of Hippo, Julius Africanus, and the Letters attributed to St. Clement. It is also the view expressed in the modern canonical Amharic Ethiopian Orthodox Bible. In Judaism "Sons of God" usually refers to the righteous, i.e. the children of Seth.
  Angels: All of the earliest sources interpret the "sons of God" as angels. From the third century BCE onwards, are  references are found in the Enochic literature, the Dead Sea Scrolls the (Genesis Apocryphon, the Damascus Document, 4Q180), Jubilees, the Testament of Reuben, 2 Baruch, Josephus, and the book of Jude (compare with 2 Peter 2). This is also the meaning of the only two identical occurrences of bene ha elohim in the Hebrew Bible (Job 1:6 and 2:1), and of the most closely related expressions (refer to the list above). In the Septuagint, the interpretive reading "angels" is found in Codex Alexandrinus, one of four main witnesses to the Greek text.

  Rabbinic Judaism traditionally adheres to the first interpretation, with some exceptions, and modern Jewish translations may translate bnei elohim as "sons of rulers" rather than "sons of God". Regardless, the second interpretation (sons of angels or other divine beings) is nonexistent in modern Judaism. This is reflected by the rejection of Enoch and other Apocrypha supporting the second interpretation from the Hebrew Bible Canon.

Using Scripture to interpret Scripture is a very common practice in our day and as such the New Testament in the person of St. Luke shows us that the Sons of God were the descendants of Adam.

According to Scripture “sons of God” means “persons who are begotten independently of any creature’s decision”. All angels can appropriately be called “sons of God”, but not all characters called “sons of God” in the Bible can appropriately be considered angels. The “sons of God” in Genesis 6:1-4 are undoubtedly human, and it is fitting to consider that they were created directly by God through transformation of human-like animals into persons.

  Who was the son of Enos, who was the son of Seth, who was the son of Adam, who was the son of God. - Luke 3:38

Jesus defines the idea of 'divine lineage' in John 10:34, Jesus answered them, “Is it not written in your Law, ‘I have said you are 'gods'? 35 If he called them ‘gods,’ to whom the word of God came—and Scripture cannot be set aside— 36 what about the one whom the Father set apart as his very own and sent into the world? Why then do you accuse me of blasphemy because I said, ‘I am God’s Son’?
Jesus is referring to Psalm 82:6 “I said,‘You are “gods”; you are all sons of the Most High.’" (NIV)
Jesus defines this divine lineage as 'those to whom the word of God was given.' Jesus is Himself that transcendent Word...; the One whom the Father set apart....
The operative idea here is that there does exist moral beings who have the capacity to know God; to observe, to understand, to value, to agree, to involve themselves; or not...; to receive the Word of God. (i.e. men and angels) When man agrees with God, and participates in what God is revealing, what God is doing (faithfulness and Faithfulness...), the Righteousness of God resides in man's faithfulness. Therein man is a son of God.... The 'Word' of God resonates in the faithfulness of the 'Son's of God'.
The capacity to 'know' God and agree with God is 'integrity'. Sons of God have integrity. Integrity is a key idea in the book of Job. Job did not create integrity, he did not develop it or perfect it, he 'maintained' it (2:3). God has created in mankind the capacity to know that He is Lord...; therein man is a son of God. However, if man disagrees with God and lives contrary to God's will, therein is iniquity; sin and separation from God, adversity, the 'son of perdition' (John 17:12; 2 Thes 2:3; important contrast with the 'son of God'). In the book of Job, God brings together the two greatest created moral beings, Satan and Job, before angels and before mankind. God explicitly describes Job's integrity: perfect, blameless, innocent (not sinless, Job is a sinner...yet blameless in the Sin Offering and repentance). Satan's iniquity is conspicuous. (Iniquity is translated 27 times in Job, in the KJV.)
The 'sons of God' in the book of Job are heavenly beings. They are are listening intently to the argument involving Satan and God. God is indicting Satan for his iniquity, and Satan is attacking the character of God and the integrity of man (Job). In Job, God demonstrates the capacity He has Created in mankind and angels to 'know Him...', to agree with Him, to be involved with His Righteousness.... The greatest man, Job, blesses God.... And the least man, destitute Job, blesses God. Therein everyman has the capacity to bless God; to know God...; and mankind, and angels, and Satan are without excuse. Destitute Job will not withdraw his 'blessing' with a 'curse'. Job 1:21 "..the LORD gave, and the LORD hath taken away; blessed be the name of the LORD." The book of Job is actually about Blessings and blessings; Faithfulness and faithfulness; Righteousness and righteousness....
Sons of God are those in whom the Word of God dwells....
Nasir's question: "Luke: 'Then your reward will be great, and you will be children of the Most High'. Children of The Most High, sons of God... a status to be achieved?" Rather than a status to be achieved, finished or completed, 'sonship' is a sanctification to be lived; dynamic, growing, day-by-day, wondering, worshiping, repenting.... Job 42:1-5


Why is Mary Magdalene the patron saint of hairdressers? Why is Mary Magdalene the patron saint of hairdressers and when was the first time she was assigned this role?
From Wikipedia:

Patronage
Apothecaries; Kawit, Cavite; Atrani, Italy; Casamicciola Terme, Ischia; contemplative life; converts; glove makers; hairdressers; penitent sinners; people ridiculed for their piety; perfumeries; pharmacists; reformed prostitutes; sexual temptation; tanners; women

To answer the "when" question, the exact date is unknown (patron saint assignments were not decided by official decree, but rather were adopted by people over time), but the association dates back to at least the Middle Ages.
As alluded to by previous answers, there are two theories on "why" question.
Theory 1: anointing Jesus' feet
The first is that the association derives from the Gospel of Luke.  Pope Gregory (reigned 590-604) popularized the idea that three women described in the Gospels - Mary Magdalene (Matthew 27:56, 61; 28:1; Mark 15:40, 47; 16:1-19; Luke 8:2; 24:10; John 19:25; 20:1-18), Mary, the sister of Martha and Lazarus (Luke 10:38-42), and the unnamed woman who anointed Jesus' feet (Luke 7:36-50) - were all the same person.   (Later the story of the adulteress saved from stoning by Jesus [John 7:53-8:11] also came to be associated with Mary Magdalene.)
Because of this association, Mary was usually depicted as having long hair in medieval art.  Naturally, a woman always depicted with long, flowing hair is a good choice for hairdressers to adopt as a patron saint.

A 14th century depiction of Mary Magdalene at the cross of Jesus
A medieval legend reinforces the idea that her hair had become to be seen as her key trait.  In the legend, Mary, Martha, and Lazarus bring the Gospel to France.  After spreading the Gospel, Mary retires to a cave to pursue a contemplative, solitary life.  Over time, her clothes wear out but miraculous her hair grows to cover her entire body, preserving her modesty.

Mary, covered in hair, being lifted up by angels
Theory 2: actual hairdresser
An alternate theory is that Mary Magdelene's actual profession was that of a hairdresser, or at least that she was associated with the profession from a very early date.  There are two references in the Talmud to a Miriam megaddelah nashaia (Mary, the plaiter of women’s hair).  While it is debated whether this Miriam (Mary) is actually the same person as Mary Magdelene, it does raise the interesting possibility that "Magdelena" does not refer to a place name, Magdala, as traditionally thought, but rather a profession, megaddelah.  Since surnames weren't in use yet in the first century, people were often given nicknames to distinguish them from others with the same name.   Such nicknames could refer to a place of origin, but could also refer to a profession (among other things), so the theory is at least plausible.
Certainly it would a funny coincidence if Mary's nickname just happened to resemble a word she later came associated with for completely unrelated reasons.

Probably because St. Mary Magdalene is thought to be the "woman," "a sinner" of Luke 7:37-38:

  And behold a woman that was in the city, a sinner, as she knew that he was set down in the Pharisee's house, she brought an alabaster box of ointment:
  And standing behind beside his feet, she began to water his feet with tears, and wiped them with the hairs of her head, and kissed his feet, and anointed them with the ointment.


What does Jesus mean by saying, "Why do you call me good?" Luke 18:19 (NKJV)
  So Jesus said to him, “Why do you call Me good? No one is good but One, that is, God.

My question is: is this contradictory? What does Jesus mean by this statement?

This passage is often used to bolster the claim that Jesus is not God.  The usual misinterpretation is that Jesus is saying that He isn't good, because He isn't God.
The opposite is true.  In this passage, Jesus is establishing His deity.  The Answering Islam site offers a fairly good explanation.

Excerpt:

  In the central passage of chapter 10, Jesus makes the statement:

  I am the good shepherd. (John 10:14)  This establishes his claim to
  deity in a double way. First, because of the criterion above, since he
  calls himself good, and this not only in a general way as "a good
  shepherd" (one of many) but as "the good shepherd".

  It is a simple syllogism:

    No-one except God is good  and      Jesus is good  therefore      Jesus is God

  Somebody might want to argue that here "good" is only qualifying
  something else (i.e. "shepherd"), but we simply observe that in the
  original passage (Luke 18:18 above), it was qualifying "teacher". So,
  the situation is indeed parallel, and the argument applies.

  Second, Jesus calls himself not only "good", but he claims the title
  "shepherd". This is a clear reference back to Psalm 23 and, even more
  important, Ezekiel 34, where God himself is the shepherd of Israel
  (see this discussion). Thus, with this statement Jesus takes upon
  himself yet another title of God.

  Why do we call him good? Because he is - AND he is the Lord God.

A more succinct answer (with the same outcome) can be found on this article about WJD at Heartlight.

  Jesus is challenging the religious leader to wake up and understand
  the truth that stands right in front of him. If he is calling Jesus
  "good," then he must come to understand that Jesus is God and not play
  religious games, but come to truly believe. Jesus isn't denying that
  he is God; Jesus is affirming that he is God and that man truly needs
  to acknowledge that he is. Eternal questions are not simply religious
  speculation, but the core questions of the human soul. Only God can
  answer those questions. So if he is going to ask Jesus this question,
  he needs to pay attention and place his faith in Jesus' answer. So do
  we!

‘Why do you call me good?’ Jesus answered. ‘No one is good – except God alone... it is simple, Jesus is saying He is not God.  to allow a different interpretation of this, is allow a different interpretation of everything.