What are the requirements for godparents in the Roman Catholic Church? I talked to quite a few people today about Catholicism. I asked one couple questions about being godparents, because they were godparents for another child. However, this couple is not even Catholic. They also were not married in the Catholic Church. I was under the impression that godparents were required to be active members of the Catholic Church.

What are the requirements for godparents in the Catholic Church? Does the Catholic Church sometimes disregard the rules regarding godparents?

Disclaimer: Though I am a Catholic, I am not a canon lawyer, nor a theologian, nor a priest. I am reasonably certain that my answer is correct and in accordance with Church law; but if I am in error I will gladly receive correction.
Unfortunately, it appears that such a couple as you describe is not eligible to be godparents at a Catholic baptism.
The Code of Canon Law for the Latin Church has a whole chapter on godparents—"sponsors" is the technical term—but before we go there, let's talk about the Catholic theology of baptism.
The Catholic understanding of baptism differs from that of some Protestant denominations in that Catholics consider baptism as a necessary thing. The  Catechism of the Catholic Church calls baptism

the basis of the whole Christian life, the gateway to life in the Spirit ... and the door which gives access to the other sacraments. Through Baptism we are freed from sin and reborn as sons of God; we become members of Christ, are incorporated into the Church and made sharers in her mission.

(paragraph 1213)
Describing what the Sacrament of Baptism actually does, the Catechism explains:

it signifies and actually brings about the birth of water and the Spirit without which no one "can enter the kingdom of God." [cf. Titus 3:5, John 3:5]

(paragraph 1215; emphasis added)
This being the case, the Church reasons, why would one not want to baptize one's children at as early an age as possible?

Born with a fallen human nature and tainted by original sin, children also have need of the new birth in Baptism to be freed from the power of darkness and brought into the realm of the freedom of the children of God, to which all men are called. The sheer gratuitousness of the grace of salvation is particularly manifest in infant Baptism. The Church and the parents would deny a child the priceless grace of becoming a child of God were they not to confer Baptism shortly after birth.
Christian parents will recognize that this practice also accords with their role as nurturers of the life that God has entrusted to them.

(paragraphs 1250, 1251)
The Church therefore considers it very important to ensure both that children are baptized and that baptism is used as an introduction to and support for their Christian and Catholic life. To that end, they have several canons discussing baptism, who can be baptized, requirements for parents of children being baptized, and (importantly for our question) requirements for baptismal sponsors. These requirements are essentially the same in the Latin Church's Code of Canon Law as they are in the Code of Canons for the Eastern Churches, which governs the Eastern Catholic sui iuris churches. I'll review the Latin Church's rules.
The rules appear in Book IV, Part I, Title I, Chapter IV of the Code of Canon Law, "Of Sponsors".
The sponsor at an infant or child baptism has two functions: first, to stand as a witness for the parents' desire to have their child baptized; and second, to help the child grow up leading a Christian and Catholic life (cf. canon 872). With this in mind, the Church imposes restrictions on potential sponsors intended to ensure that they can appropriately fulfill this second function. The restrictions appear in canon 874, section 1. Each sponsor must:

be designated by the one to be baptized, by the parents or the person who takes their place, or in their absence by the pastor or minister and have the aptitude and intention of fulfilling this function;

This restriction makes sure that the sponsor is close enough to the family that they will be easily able to interact with the child, and that they are willing and able to do what a sponsor needs to do.

[They must] have completed the sixteenth year of age, unless the diocesan bishop has established another age, or the pastor or minister has granted an exception for a just cause;

This is to make sure that they are psychologically mature enough to ensure that the child does what a Catholic needs to do—even when it's not easy for the child, and when it's not easy for the sponsor.

[They must] be a Catholic who has been confirmed and has already received the most holy sacrament of the Eucharist and who leads a life of faith in keeping with the function to be taken on;

This is the restriction at the core of your question. The restriction here is to make sure that the sponsor understands what, exactly, is involved in leading a Catholic life, and in helping another to do so.

[They must] not be bound by any canonical penalty legitimately imposed or declared;

In other words, they have to be in good standing with the Church, and not be at risk of passing on any opinion to the child, or engendering any opinion in the child, which might not be congruent with Church doctrine.

[They must] not be the father or mother of the one to be baptized.

This is so that the child gets a "second chance" in the event that the parents are (or become) unable or unwilling to raise the child Catholic.
Because the couple you mention do not fulfill the requirements of part (3), they would unfortunately be ineligible to be godparents.
It may be possible for the priest to ask the bishop to dispense from that particular canon; I would imagine, given the importance the Catholic Church attaches to baptism, that a dispensation would probably not be granted even if it's possible.

I believe the catholic church does
disregard some of the requirements. I have baptized my godson ,but I am married,but not married  by the church.so i do believe they do disregard the being married by the church rerequirement. I was asked to baptize another child  in Mexico ,and the mother of the child was  told in the catholic Mexican church that the requirements are that the couple should be married by the church. Mmmm????  What's going on here the priest are not doing a very good job here in America .mm?? So I can not baptize cause I'm not married by the church. But then they told the mother at Mexico only one godparents can baptize the child if it's a boy child  then its my husband who is allowed to baptize, if it's a girl child then I can baptize her  . ??? So crazy . Who does these rules??? They won't allow my husband and I  to baptize cause we are not married by church. But they do allow one person to baptize a child . What's going on here???? I have been asked to baptize one child her in America and I have been allowed to do so . But not in Mexico what's going on here.!? I have baptized 5 children of my own here in America and the catholic church never told me that the requirements where to be  married by the catholic church and the godparents of my children where certainly not married by church. . Something is certainly wrong here.? If I can speak about myself my godparents are both my aunt and uncle ? Mmm!? They are certainly not a married couple how could this happen. My uncle and aunt godparents??? Leaves me in a lot of doubt?? About the catholic church here.


What does it mean that Jesus fulfilled the law but did not abolish it? We hear that we are no longer under the law.  It even says so in Galatians:

  Galatians 3:23-25
  Before the coming of this faith, we were held in custody under the law, locked up until the faith that was to come would be revealed.  So the law was our guardian until Christ came that we might be justified by faith. Now that this faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian.

It seems 1 Corinthians 10:23 also supports this.

But yet, Jesus said that he did not come to abolish the law:

  Matthew 5:17-18
  “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished."

What did Jesus mean that he did not come to abolish the law, but fulfill it, especially since it seems from later in the Bible that he did abolish the law.

I think part of the difficulty comes as a bit of confusion as to what is meant by the law and its application.

When the law was introduced, it was never intended to be the instrument by which man would save himself, but it was the instrument through which man was to be saved.   In a very real sense, man is saved through the fulfilment (keeping) of the law.   When Christ fulfilled the law, he earned the privilege of life.  Those who are in Christ, likewise, share in his righteousness and are delcared righteous right along side him.   In that sense, the law has always stood and and will continue to stand.

That being said, though, it's important to realize that we basically choose whether the law applies to us individually or not -- through grace, we can choose to be in Christ, or we can choose to stand on our own merits when we're judged.   In that sense, too, the law still stands.

Paul talks a good deal about this in the book of Romans, and the whole book gives a much more complete (and competent :) ) version of an explanation that I'm about to...

I think it's important to realize the role of the law.  I'm going to jump arount a bit, but if we start with Romans 7:7-12, I think we can make a little more sense of this (emphasis mine):

  Romans 7:7What then shall we say? That the law is sin? By no means!
  Yet if it had not been for the law, I would not have known sin. For I
  would not have known what it is to covet if the law had not said, "You
  shall not covet." 8But sin, seizing an opportunity through the
  commandment, produced in me all kinds of covetousness. For apart from
  the law, sin lies dead. 9I was once alive apart from the law, but when
  the commandment came, sin came alive and I died. 10The very
  commandment that promised life proved to be death to me. 11For sin,
  seizing an opportunity through the commandment, deceived me and
  through it killed me. 12So the law is holy, and the commandment is
  holy and righteous and good.

There's a certain bit of irony when the law is introduced to human nature.   Being rebellious and sinful that we are, we latch on to the specifics as a means to found outlet for our repressed frustrated rebellions.   The law was never meant to save man, but rather was a contrast between the holiness of God and the depravity of man. The law offered life through its fulfilment and death through its violation.   This is a subtle but significant key, I think we somehow overlook when discussing grace, as this seems to be exactly how Jesus came to be our savior offering us hope for life...He earned that right by fulfiling the law.

That being said, there's still hope for us wretched sinners:

  Romans 7:4Likewise, my brothers, you also have died to the law through
  the body of Christ, so that you may belong to another, to him who has
  been raised from the dead, in order that we may bear fruit for God.
  5For while we were living in the flesh, our sinful passions, aroused
  by the law, were at work in our members to bear fruit for death. 6But
  now we are released from the law, having died to that which held us
  captive, so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit and not in the
  old way of the written code.

Looking at the block starting with v.7 we see that the law is not bad (in fact it's good) just because we use it as a springboard for badness.   The law is good, and it's been fulfilled by Christ.   He was the one who fulfilled it; not us.

When we look on the Romams 8, Paul clarifies a bit more (Emphasis mine):

  Romans 8: 1 There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are
  in Christ Jesus. 2For the law of the Spirit of life has set you free
  in Christ Jesus from the law of sin and death. 3For God has done what
  the law, weakened by the flesh, could not do. By sending his own Son
  in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, he condemned sin in the
  flesh, 4in order that the righteous requirement of the law might be
  fulfilled in us, who walk not according to the flesh but according to
  the Spirit. 5For those who live according to the flesh set their minds
  on the things of the flesh, but those who live according to the Spirit
  set their minds on the things of the Spirit.

The righteous requirement of the law has been fulfilled in us (those who are in Christ Jesus) by virutue of us being in Christ.   The law has been fulfilled, there is, therefore no condemnation for those who are clothed with Christ's righteousness, but we should remember that those who live according to the spirit set their minds on spiritual things and will see to live in accordance with God's moral law.  Romans 6:15 reminds us of this, but note, (Paul does suggest again that we're not under the law, per se):

  Romans 6:15What then? Are we to sin because we are not under law but
  under grace? By no means! 16Do you not know that if you present
  yourselves to anyone as obedient slaves, you are slaves of the one
  whom you obey, either of sin, which leads to death, or of obedience,
  which leads to righteousness? 17But thanks be to God, that you who
  were once slaves of sin have become obedient from the heart to the
  standard of teaching to which you were committed, 18and, having been
  set free from sin, have become slaves of righteousness. 19 I am
  speaking in human terms, because of your natural limitations. For just
  as you once presented your members as slaves to impurity and to
  lawlessness leading to more lawlessness, so now present your members
  as slaves to righteousness leading to sanctification.

With his blood, Jesus purchased us from death.   Jesus was the fulfilment of the law; not us.  Because of that, we are bound as slaves of righteousness.   We're not going to fulfill the law in our own lives, and we're not expected to; but lest we use this as an excuse to sin without rein, we are supposed to set our sights on righteousness out of gratitude and duty to our Savior.  Those who understand the Gospel (the goodness of God, the wickedness of sin, the graciousness of God to provide a savior) will, naturally seek to please the God who save them and whom they serve, and the best way we can know what this is it to look to the law He's given us.

ETA: TL;DR:

When Jesus came to fulfil the law (i.e. obedience leads to life; disobedience leads to death) he did just that.   Notice He didn't say, that old law's no good, don't worry about it (i.e. abolish it); what he did, instead, was to come saying the law is good, and he is the fulfulment of it.

Re "the OT laws are still in effect"? Well they have not been abolished have they? However the religious ceremonies associate to the OT laws do not resolve the offenses committed under this code. Sacrificing an animal in your place fails to produce a residual issue, but the sacrifice of a man in your place who just happens to be the only begotten son of the living God results in an entire different matter. For the OT code of laws do not allow any possibility of resolving that sin. What is Jesus illustrating regarding the wineskins? The new wine goes into a new wineskin, i.e. law, which does allow for the resolution of the sin of only one a man's murder. However it is only past sins that are forgivable. NOT having the faith to repent of the one sin of Jesus' crucifixion is in and of itself a sin by law and is the sin which is not forgivable. The grace of God is that by Jesus' crucifixion it was justifiable to make a change of the law in regard to what God had promised to his son.

  "And for Your lifeblood I will surely demand an accounting. I will demand an accounting from every animal. And from each man, too, I will demand an accounting for the life of his fellow man."

And Pal you ain't outside of the box this term of God, 'each man,too,' he has put your tail in, are you?

The law was fulfilled by making an addition to it.

See Isa. 2:3, Isa. 51:4b, Acts 7:53, Gal.3:19, Rom. 2:13, Rom. 5:20, Heb. 7:12
The OT law or written code was delivered at Sinai. The new law was delivered in Jerusalem.

Those who have the faith to obey it will be declared righteous by God. Those who refuse cut themselves off from obtaining the right to eternal life.

  "For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God's sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous." — Rom. 2:13


What is the significance of Eve being created as a "helper fit for [Adam]?" The Bible appears to indicate that there was a specific purpose in the creation of Eve, from Adam, to be a helper fit for him.  It seems, then, that the design of Adam and Eve may be distinct, while they both bear the image of God.

Then the LORD God said, "It is not good that the man should be alone;
I will make him a helper fit for him..."   But for Adam there was not
found a helper fit for him. So the LORD God caused a deep sleep to
fall upon the man, and while he slept took one of his ribs and closed
up its place with flesh. And the rib that the LORD God had taken from
the man he made into a woman and brought her to the man.  Then the man said,
"This at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called Woman,
because she was taken out of Man."  Genesis 2:18, 20b-23 ESV
So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him;
male and female he created them.  Genesis 1:27

So, what specifically is the significance of Eve's being created as "a helper fit for [Adam]" in the doctrines of Young-Earth Creationists, or those who take a literal interpretation of Genesis?  What does that mean about her specifically or the inner being of a woman?
I understand there can be some pretty emotional responses to this question, but I'm concerned with specific exegetical interpretations of this rather than reactionary or biased opinions.

The following is taken from a wonderful book called Our Father Abraham: Jewish Roots of the Christian Faith by Marvin R. Wilson. It explains that an understanding of early Jewish culture helps to understand how they understood scripture. With this understanding, some scripture takes on a different meaning than we would expect today. Just as some phrases we understand to mean certain things during our time, like “I can dig it,” “That’s groovy,” “That’s fly,” etc. may not be recognized, or translated, to have the same meaning they had in the ‘70s, 2,000 years from now.

“Genesis 2:18, 20 state that the woman is created to be ezer kenegdo. Rabbi David Freedman has pointed out that the word ezer, often translated “helper,” actually means “power” (or “strength”), as demonstrated by its use elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible. Furthermore, he takes kenegdo, an expression rendered “suitable for him” (NIV), as meaning one “equal to him,” a rendering based on later Mishnaic Hebrew. Thus, when God says he will make a “helper suitable for him (i.e., the man),” he likely means that woman is a power equal to a man; she is his match; she corresponds to him in every way. Indeed, “woman was not intended to be merely man’s helper. She was to be instead his partner.” Man and woman are symbolically matched to one another in a mutually dependent relationship — hence the expression “one flesh” (Genesis 2:24).”

I am not sure what you mean by significance of Eve being created “as a helper…” However, with an understanding of the original Hebrew text, the role of “helper” is significantly deeper than it seems on the surface. It appears, using the Hebrew text, that Eve was created to lift Adam up during times of weakness, or need, bringing him strength (or power), as an equal partner rather than taking the role of a servant as many interpret this passage today.

If “by the inner being of a woman” you are asking about her receiving the “breath of life”, or the ability to receive the Holy Spirit, I would have to respond that if she were not able to have full understanding, or receive these, then God would not have bothered to throw her out of the garden with Adam. She would have been treated like any other animal in creation. (You know, hit her with a rolled up newspaper, or something.)

I do accept literal interpretation (correct interpretation). I believe Eve was made a “power (or strength) equal to him” (ezer kenegdo).

Shes definitely subservient. It also appears elsewhere in the bible stating that man is the image of god, and women are the image of man. And that man should have authority over women.


What is the difference between holiness and righteousness? Both holiness and righteousness are used to describe God.  Additionally, we as Christians are called to be holy and righteous as well.  These are two distinct words, so they must have distinct meanings.

So, my question is what distinguishes holiness from righteousness?

  You shall be holy to me, for I the Lord am holy and have separated you
  from the peoples, that you should be mine.  Leviticus 20:26 ESV

  14 As obedient children, do not be conformed to the passions of your
  former ignorance, 15 but as he who called you is holy, you also be
  holy in all your conduct, 16 since it is written, “You shall be holy,
  for I am holy.”  1 Peter 1:14-16 ESV

  You are witnesses, and God also, how holy and righteous and blameless
  was our conduct toward you believers.  1 Thessalonians 2:10 ESV

  But that is not the way you learned Christ!— 21 assuming that you have
  heard about him and were taught in him, as the truth is in Jesus, 22
  to put off your old self,[f] which belongs to your former manner of
  life and is corrupt through deceitful desires, 23 and to be renewed in
  the spirit of your minds, 24 and to put on the new self, created after
  the likeness of God in true righteousness and holiness.  Ephesians
  4:20-24 ESV

"Holy" means "set apart", as in set aside for a particular purpose, and implies being "special" and acting accordingly. In particular it means "set aside for God's service".

"Righteous" means "made right" (justified), or "being right", not in the sense of "correct", but as in "not wrong" - being pure, honest, sinless. Perhaps a better way of putting it would be "not guilty" or "blameless".

The two should go hand in hand.

Holiness is the quality of being holy,a life that is full of godly character.Righteousness is to be upright in God, to be blamless.                A righteousness man is also a holy man,both of them works together.


Was there a war in Heaven? There seems to be an idea among some Christians of a metaphysical timeline that goes something like this:

All the angels are created sometime before or during the 7 days of creation in Genesis.
Satan desires to become like God, and starts a "war in heaven"
Satan loses the war and is cast out of Heaven along with many other angels before or during the time Adam and Eve reside in Eden.
Satan, fallen and cast out of Heaven, appears in Eden in the form of a serpent to tempt Eve, and Adam.
Satan continues to tempt, torment, and accuse mankind, as evident in Job.
Satan is bound for a time when the Messiah comes into power.
Satan is released from bondage and wages a final war upon Heaven with his fallen angels and many nations who follow him.
Satan is defeated and cast into the lake of fire, which is eternal destruction.

Was there a war in Heaven for which Satan was cast out that occurred before the fall of man?

What Biblical sources can be cited that describe the events that led to the exile of Satan from Heaven?

Yes, there was / is / will be a war in heaven, as described in Revelation 12:7-9:

  Then war broke out in heaven. Michael and his angels fought against the dragon, and the dragon and his angels fought back. But he was not strong enough, and they lost their place in heaven. The great dragon was hurled down – that ancient snake called the devil, or Satan, who leads the whole world astray. He was hurled to the earth, and his angels with him.

But the specifics of when that might be in relation to Earth history (or even if that makes sense from a heavenly perspective) is speculation, this side of eternity.

Some of the speculation includes:

During creation: see Bye's answer
During Jesus' earthly ministry: compare Revelation 12:9 with Luke 10:18
At some unspecified point in the future, taking the futurist interpretation of Revelation. (This interpretation implies that Satan is more active on Earth than currently, directly causing suffering to humans (see eg Revelation 13).

To your numbered points:

The Bible does not specify or even hint as to when the angels were created.
Isaiah 14:12-13 is believed by many Christians to hint that Satan wanted to be like God.
We know about the war but not when it was, see above.
This story is detailed in Genesis 3.
Job 1-2.
See Revelation 20:1-3. Many Christians believe in a literal 1000 year reign of Jesus on Earth during which Satan is bound (the Millennium).
Detailed a few verses later, Revelation 20:7-10.
See above passage.

Ok firstly how can anyone start a war in heaven against God,  If he is omnipotent then should he not have forseen this happening infact why would he let such a creation exist when he knew that the same creation would end up perishing for eternity?

Intrestingly Satan appears to be casual when talking with God as if this war never happened,  I would even go so far as to saying that they are friends or that Satan is not Gods Adversary.  He then makes a wager and God knowing the overall outcome allows satan to torture a family to prove a point for no reason whatsoever!

With regards to fellow Christians using Revelation lets be honest here that Book is very disputed in so much as we don’t even know that it’s the same God that John of Patamos talked about as the God of Abraham.

John also called Jesus the Bright Morning Star yet in other places we find Lucifer named the very same thing.


Is all the land in the universe called Earth? The other day, me and my friends were discussing about End times pertaining to Mat 24, and came across this verse

  "My words are always true and always here with you. Heaven and earth will pass away, but My words will never pass away"
  Mat 24:35

Which says, the earth will be destroyed and a new earth and heaven will be formed according to Rev 21:1. And how Isiah predicts the calamities can be read from this answer.

But I was thinking, maybe if this earth will have such problems, what they can be avoided by migrating to other planets?

Hence the question, do those verses mean only our Earth or the whole land in both Mat 24:35 and Gen 1???

I think there is no mention of other planets of this universe in the Bible.

So, when God was referring to "Earth" in Gen 1, could it be considered as all the land in this universe that God is referring to as Earth? or Should it be considered as he's being specific about only our planet "Earth"?

So, my question is in general How is "earth" interpreted. Could the word be applied to the land of the whole universe?

I request you to focus on the title "Is all the land in the universe called Earth?"

The only good answer to this is "We don't know". And we don't know because the people writing the book had no concept of 'land outside of our planet'. For them there were only three parts to creation: Heavens, Earth and the Underworld, floating on a cosmic ocean. It is completely impossible to definitively state whether their words were intended to include parts of creation they had no idea existed.

People have attempted to deduce more about the writer's intentions, but the deductions are all subject to interpretation. You can choose somebody's interpretation if you wish.

If the human race evolves to such a state that we can colonize other planets. In my opinion no land will be necessary. As the humans can create living space anywhere in space. We could create our own artificial planets (mother-ships) that would hold millions of people and actual 'Earth'(planet) will not be required.

I would suggest that all living space might be called Earth.

So if they say:

  the earth would get destroyed and a new earth and heaven will be
  formed

the heaven means everything in the universe.


What does "one another" mean in John 13:35? In John 13:35 it states:

  By this all people will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another.

which is very commonly put in sing-song format as:

  They will know we are Christians by our love.

My question is whether this verse is only concerning love for other disciples, or if it extends to everyone. Additionally, if it is only concerning love for other disciples, are there any additional verses that make it not a far stretch to claim that people will know we are Christians by our love for everyone?

To understand Jesus meaning it is important to consider verses 34 & 35 together...

“I am giving you a new commandment, that you love one another; just as I have loved you, you also love one another.  By this all will know that you are my disciples—if you have love among yourselves”

Jesus said he was giving a “new” commandment.  New in what sense?  Under the mosaic law, Gods people were were commanded to love their neighbors as themselves (Leviticus 19:18). In Jesus day the Jewish Religious leaders taught that the terms “friend” and “neighbor” applied only to Jews. Non-Jews were to be hated. Jesus explained the proper application of the law when someone asked him, “who really is my neighbor?”.  Jesus responded by relating a parable that described a Samaritan who came across a man, a Jew, who had been assaulted by robbers. The lesson? Our love of neighbor should extend to people other than those of our own race, nationality, or religion. (Luke 10:25-37)

However, Jesus command to his disciples was “new” in that it was to be expressed beyond neighborly love. His followers were to show love to one another “just as He had loved them”.

Jesus loved not by a few good deeds, but by feeding people spiritually and laying down his life for others, even for those who had not yet embraced his teachings.

Jesus words further  indicate that Christians would show a unique love, not only for those who are not yet believers, but especially toward those related in the faith.   So different, it would stand out as an identifying mark of true worship... “By this all will know you are my disciples-if you have love among yourselves”.

Regarding the second part of your question, “are there any other scriptures that show Christians would be identified by their love for everyone?” (roughly paraphrased), the 1st thing that comes to my mind is warfare.  Since Christians would not be confined to one nation, but would live globally in different nations, how would such love be displayed and identifiable in times of war?  What bible verses shed light on this?

Early History reports no Christian would kill another human being.
The Encyclopedia of Religion notes: “The early church fathers, including Tertullian and Origen, affirmed that Christians were constrained from taking human life, a principle that prevented them from participating in the Roman army.”

Bible verses that verify this...
Micah 4:1-5 gives a prophecy about the identifying marks of true worship in the last days. One aspect of the prophecy is that gods people would lay down their swords and learn war no more.

Matt 26:52...  when Peter used his sword to defend Jesus, Jesus said “return your sword to its place, for those who live by the sword will die by the sword”

2 Cor 10:3,4...”For though we walk in the flesh, we do not wage warfare according to what we are in the flesh.  For the weapons of our warfare are not fleshly, but powerful by God for overturning strongly entrenched things.

1 John 3:10-16....”the children of God and the children of the Devil are evident by this fact: whoever does not practice righteousness does not originate with God, nor does the one who does not love his brother...not like Cain, who originated with the wicked one and slaughtered his brother...everyone who hates his brother is a murderer, and no murderer has everlasting life remaining in him....we are under obligation to surrender our lives for our brothers”.

1 John 4:20,21...if anyone says “I love God,” and yet is hating his brother, he is a liar. For the one who does not love his brother whom he has seen, cannot love God, whom he has not seen.  And we have this commandment from him, that whoever loves God must also love his brother.

Rev 13:10...If anyone will kill with the sword, he must be killed with the sword.  This is where it calls for endurance and faith on the part of the holy ones. (Certainly it requires endurance and faith to take the consequences of laying down the sword during the emotional, patriotic frenzy of warfare.  Depending on the country you live in, it could mean imprisonment or death.)

For further reading on this subject....

https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1101993044?q=john+13%3A34%2C+35&p=par#h=23

https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/2014682#h=7:0-10:220

No, this very is specifically about the love the disciples have for one another. The Greek is as unambiguous as the English translation you cited. (Strictly, the words are addressed to the Eleven; exegesis won't decide for you whether it applies by extension to all Christians.)

There isn't another verse that teaches directly that the love Christians must have for all people (enemies, etc.) is a witness, though it's certainly to conclude that it is.


Why were Jehovah's Witnesses holding a Memorial Service for Jesus on Tuesday, March 26 2013? I was approached by two Jehovah's Witnesses who invited me to a memorial service for Jesus to be held on Tuesday, March 26th. The flier they gave me said that this is the anniversary of Jesus' death. Most Christians view Christ's death as taking place on Good Friday. Why are Jehovah's Witnesses saying it happened on a Tuesday?

Apparently, per Wikipedia, this date corresponds to Nisan 14, converting the date from the Hebrew Calendar to the Gregorian Calendar.

I don't believe they're saying it happened on a Tuesday.  In 2012, it was a Thursday.

“How Should We Remember Jesus’ Death?”, The Watchtower, March 1, 2012, his this to say:

  When should we commemorate Jesus’ death?

  Jesus’ death occurred on Passover, Nisan 14. A Jewish day begins at
  sundown. The evening before he died, Jesus ate the Passover meal with
  his apostles and then instituted a new memorial meal to commemorate
  his death.—Read Luke 22:14,15.

  Today, God’s people commemorate what God provided through Jesus to set
  the whole world free from sin and death. (Exodus 12:5-7, 13, 17) Just
  as the Passover was observed once a year, so the Memorial of Jesus’
  death is held once a year after sundown on Nisan 14 according to the
  Bible’s lunar calendar.—Read John 1:29.

You are invited to attend the Memorial.

Please view further information and collection of Witness publications on the Lord’s Evening Meal.


Why did Jesus get baptized? I have always been taught that Jesus got baptized as an example for us. If people were getting baptized before Jesus did, then why did he need to make that an example if people were already being baptized?

Since you did not ask for a particular denomination's viewpoint, please allow me to give a Catholic perspective to this question.

The Baptism of Jesus marked the beginning of His public ministry and the wanted the faithful to not only to have an example, but He also wish to share to all our humanity at the same time and show us the way to salvation. God also used this occasion to anoint Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit and power.

What does the Gospel tell us about this event:

  Then Jesus came from Galilee to John at the Jordan, to be baptized by him. John would have prevented him, saying, "I need to be baptized by you, and do you come to me?" But Jesus answered him, "Let it be so now; for it is proper for us in this way to fulfill all righteousness." Then he consented. And when Jesus had been baptized, just as he came up from the water, suddenly the heavens were opened to him and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and alighting on him. And a voice from heaven said, "This is my Son, the Beloved, with whom I am well pleased." - Matthew 3:13-17

Now let us see what St. Thomas has to say on thi subject.

  St. Thomas Aquinas, in the Summa Theologica (see ST 3, 39, 1-8), listed a number of objections, including, “It would seem that it was not fitting for Christ to be baptized. For to be baptized is to be washed. But it was not fitting for Christ to be washed, since there was no uncleanness in Him. Therefore it seems unfitting for Christ to be baptized.” His answer draws upon both Scripture and the Church Fathers: “I answer that, It was fitting for Christ to be baptized. First, because, as Ambrose says on Luke 3:21: ‘Our Lord was baptized because He wished, not to be cleansed, but to cleanse the waters, that, being purified by the flesh of Christ that knew no sin, they might have the virtue of baptism’.”

  He also quoted St. Gregory Nazianzen, who had written, “Christ was baptized that He might plunge the old Adam entirely in the water.” He further noted that Jesus, in being baptized, was setting an example for everyone who would follow him and take up the cross of discipleship. After all, if the sinless Son of God would willingly enter the waters of baptism, how much more urgent is it that we sinners are washed in the waters of regeneration?

  There are other reasons given, including one implicit in the sermon of St. Peter to the first Gentile convert, Cornelius, heard in today’s reading from the Acts of the Apostles: “You know the word that [God] sent to the Israelites as he proclaimed peace through Jesus Christ, who is Lord of all, what has happened all over Judea, beginning in Galilee after the baptism that John preached, how God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit and power.”

  Here the emphasis is on the anointing; the Greek word is echrisen (ἔχρισεν) and the root word is chrió, from which comes the word “Christ”. And the title “Christ” is itself the Greek translation of the Hebrew word, “Messiah”, which means “anointed”. The Catechism explains that this is “the name proper to Jesus only because he accomplished perfectly the divine mission that ‘Christ’ signifies. In effect, in Israel those consecrated to God for a mission that he gave were anointed in his name. This was the case for kings, for priests and, in rare instances, for prophets. This had to be the case all the more so for the Messiah whom God would send to inaugurate his kingdom definitively” (par. 436). Jesus was anointed by the Holy Spirit and presented as uniquely fulfilling the threefold office of prophet, priest, and king. - Was it fitting and necessary for Jesus to be baptized?

Christ Jesus was baptized to "fulfill all righteousness".  What this means is He did not appoint Himself as high priest; He did not take this honor by Himself.
Rather, like Aaron, God appointed Him.

And Jesus answering said unto him [John the baptist], Suffer it to be so now: for thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness. Then he suffered him.  Mt. 3:15
And no man taketh this honour unto himself, but he that is called of God, as ]was Aaron. Heb. 5:4
Jesus answered, If I honour myself, my honour is nothing: it is my Father that honoureth me; of whom ye say, that he is your God: John 8:54
So also Christ glorified not himself to be made an high priest; but he that said unto him, Thou art my Son, to day have I begotten thee. Heb. 5:5
And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased. Mt. 3:17

Back in Exodus when the Israelites were in Egypt about to be set free, God called Moses.  After the Israelites rejected to hear the voice of God (Ex. 20:18-19), God then told Moses to call Aaron and his sons.  They would be priests in the Levitical order to stand before God in the stead of the children of Israel.  To appoint them publicly, Moses was to wash (baptize) them.

And Aaron and his sons thou shalt bring unto the door of the tabernacle of the congregation, and shalt wash them with water.  Ex. 29:4

That OT example of a calling by God was the pattern for the NT reality whereby John the baptist washed (baptized) Christ, thus appointing Him as high priest of the Melchizedek order.
Moses >>> Aaron >>> high priest >>> Levitical
John >>> Jesus >>> high priest >>> Melchizedek
That is why Jesus Christ was baptized.


Are some people born without hope? While reading 2 Thessalonians 2:1-12 NASB

  1Now we request you, brethren, with regard to the coming of our
  Lord Jesus Christ and our gathering together to Him, 2that you not
  be quickly shaken from your composure or be disturbed either by a
  spirit or a message or a letter as if from us, to the effect that the
  day of the Lord has come. 3Let no one in any way deceive you, for
  it will not come unless the apostasy comes first, and the man of
  lawlessness is revealed, the son of destruction, 4who opposes and
  exalts himself above every so-called god or object of worship, so that
  he takes his seat in the temple of God, displaying himself as being
  God. 5Do you not remember that while I was still with you, I was
  telling you these things? 6And you know what restrains him now, so
  that in his time he will be revealed. 7For the mystery of
  lawlessness is already at work; only he who now restrains will do so
  until he is taken out of the way. 8Then that lawless one will be
  revealed whom the Lord will slay with the breath of His mouth and
  bring to an end by the appearance of His coming; 9that is, the one
  whose coming is in accord with the activity of Satan, with all power
  and signs and false wonders, 10and with all the deception of
  wickedness for those who perish, because they did not receive the love
  of the truth so as to be saved. 11For this reason God will send
  upon them a deluding influence so that they will believe what is
  false, 12in order that they all may be judged who did not believe
  the truth, but took pleasure in wickedness.

I was struggling with these terms (the ones in bold):

1) Verse 10 may be talking about unbelievers or apostates that did not receive properly the love of the truth by xtians.

2) Verse 12 the unbelievers or apostates took pleasure in wickedness instead. Possibly right after having a taste for it. As if being born with the pleasure for wickedness.

Am I understanding that some are born with such a selfish ambition that have no obedience to Christ. No hope. No matter how much love is shown to them.

Or, they never had a chance because the Christians around did a bad job showing them true love.

I mean I'm always thinking that the people that don't love me are ones that don't talk to me or see me when I walk on the street or ride the bus. The one that said hi to me loved me. Even the one that was rude to me. I mean hate and love are the same thing right? And then [Matthew Henry][1] wrote on his commentary about 2 Thessalonians 2:5-12, "God leaves them to themselves". I think he meant to say they were hopeless.

Does 2 Thessalonians 2:1-12 confirm that some are born with a nature to disobey, thus cannot be saved?

Like the narrow gate and the broad road?

In order to understand those passages, we have to take several other things into mind. Paul was writing this letter to the Thessalonians after having gotten word back from them following his first letter.

Also remember in Acts where everyone was getting together selling their possessions and living in a communal group, the reason for that was that those people expected Christ to return for them right away. Paul especially thought that Jesus return would be during his lifetime.

After years had passed and Christ had not returned as most of his disciples expected, many rumors began to circulate and among them were some which declared that Jesus had returned already.

Paul's second letter to the church in Thessalonica is a plea to not listen to those rumors. So let's break down his letter and see what we can extract from it.

  Now we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our gathering together unto him,

Here Paul is referring to the rapture of the church as described in his first letter to them.

  That ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand.

Here Paul is saying don't pay any attention to all these rumors.

  Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;

Or; don't let people fool you, remember that before Christ returns the prophesy of:

Daniel 11:31 and 32

  And arms shall stand on his part, and they shall pollute the sanctuary of strength, and shall take away the daily sacrifice, and they shall place the abomination that maketh desolate.  And such as do wickedly against the covenant shall he corrupt by flatteries: but the people that do know their God shall be strong, and do exploits.

Must be fulfilled, (This same event is referred to in Revelation and is the beginning of the great tribulation)

  Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God.

This is the Antichrist.

  Remember ye not, that, when I was yet with you, I told you these things? And now ye know what withholdeth that he might be revealed in his time.

Don't you remember me explaining these things to you, so now you know why there is a delay.

  For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way. And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming: Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders,

And see it is already started, and God will let these things continue even including the coming of the Antichrist, who will even perform miracles.

So now let's take a look at where you where you have your trouble understanding.

  And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.

I believe where your confusion comes, is because you need some clarification on predestination:

  Predestination is the concept that some people are predestined by God to not receive Salvation and receive eternal damnation.

Predestination is greatly misunderstood; That some will be eternally damned is not the will of God.

  Matthew 18:14  Even so it is not the will of your Father which is in heaven, that one of these little ones should perish.

Predestination is based on the fact that God is All Knowing.
Or in other words God knew even before Creation who would and who would not accept Salvation. And based on that fore knowledge during the Great Tribulation, God will allow those who you indicated to be deceived by the Antichrist, since Satan does not really have any power, to accomplish anything unless God permits it.

Predestination is a Choice of God to elect many not all people foremost in his kingdom without the will of their choice..Many are predestined to call but only few are chosen..All the prophets in the old testament were predestined down the generation of Noah to serve God...All the prophets in the old testament had a special calling from the Lord through the generations of God's Chosen family..The apostles in the new testament are called to serve the lord..The 12 pack...But only a few were chosen by grace not by works unless you can boast on your good deeds and arrogance...Predestination is really the same as his ELECTION of people in whom God have his highest interest but i'm sure others will be saves again by God's grace..Paul being a murderer of Christians was chosen by God to serve out of all other people in that area ..Heavenly father is simuliar to humans as well , we all have our picks and choosing..There is nowhere in the bible thats says how we get to chose to get to heaven and Jesus says no one can come to the son unless the father draws HIM..Thats your heavenly ticket..Peace


Why does the Catholic church not sanction the KJV translation? One of my favorite Bible translations has always been the King James (I suppose because of the medieval feel), but I have always been fascinated by the much longer history of the Catholic Church and I recently was informed that the KJV is not considered a valid translation in Catholic canon.
This sparked curiosity on my part I was wondering in what ways the KJV was different from a traditional Catholic translation, and can the differences be chalked up to slightly different translations of ancient Greek? Or was it fundamentally changed to fit a Protestant perspective?

A brief history of events leading up to the publication of the King James Authorised version of the Bible may help to explain why the Catholic Church does not sanction this translation.
Mary Queen of Scots gave birth to her son James in 1566 in Scotland. In June 1567 the Protestant lords rebelled against their queen. They arrested and imprisoned Mary in Loch Leven Castle, where she was forced to abdicate the throne of Scotland. James was only a year old when he became James VI, King of Scotland, in 1567. In spite of his mother’s Catholic faith, James was brought up in the Protestant religion. He was educated by men who had empathy for the Presbyterian Church.  It was not until 1603, upon the death of Queen Elizabeth I, that the kingdoms of Scotland and England were united and James became King James I of England, the first of the Stuart line.
King James often wrote against the power of the pope and against Catholicism’s meddling in affairs of state. In his opposition to the pope’s power, James promoted the divine right of kings—the idea that kings are accountable to God and no one else. In 1605, a group of Catholics attempted to assassinate James and his wife and son and to blow up Parliament; however, the Gunpowder Plot was foiled. That incident is remembered today as Guy Fawkes Day.
The Puritans and Scottish Presbyterians wanted a new Bible that would get as far away as possible from the structure of the Bishops’ Bible of the Anglican Church. The Bishops' Bible was an English translation of the Bible produced under the authority of the Church of England in 1568, whose bishops were offended by the Geneva Bible, the notes of which were decidedly Calvinistic in tone. The Great Bible was considered deficient because it was translated from the Latin Vulgate, and so a new translation was authorized by the Anglican bishops and came to be known as the Bishops’ Bible.
The idea of a new translation of the Bible was first proposed at a religious conference in Aberdour, Fife. King James was in favour of a new translation. He didn’t care for Tyndale’s translation of Matthew 16:18, which said Christ would build His “congregation” on Peter (James much preferred “church” from ekklesia). The only other alternative at the time was the 1560s Geneva Bible, but King James objected to a “treasonable annotation” on Matthew 2:20 that suggested that kings are tyrants.

King James Version - Translation method: “The King James translation was done by 47 scholars, all of whom were members of the Church of England. In common with most other translations of the period, the New Testament was translated from the Textus Receptus (Received Text) series of the Greek texts. The Old Testament was translated from the Masoretic Hebrew text, while the Apocrypha was translated from the Greek Septuagint (LXX), except for 2 Esdras, which was translated from the Latin Vulgate. In 1769, the Oxford edition, which excluded the Apocrypha, became the standard text and is the text which is reproduced almost unchanged in most current printings.” Source: What is the King James Version (KJV)?

Reason 1: King James VI of Scotland and 1 of England opposed the power of the Pope and claimed the divine right of Kings
Reason 2: The 1769 Oxford edition of the King James Authorised Version excluded the Apocrypha
Reason 3: King James VI of Scotland and 1 of England and the 47 translators were Protestants
There may be other reasons, but those are the main ones I found when doing research into this subject a few years ago.  My sources were taken from a wide variety of historical and theological articles.

First, remember that the lack of authorisation does not mean that you are not allowed to read (or enjoy!) the translation. It means that it is not officially authorised, and therefore cannot be used in liturgy, or in official church documents.

That said, there is a significant division between Catholic and Protestant bibles. They are not just different translations: they contain (to some extent) different content. For example, the Book of Esther. The entire book is presented as one in a Catholic bible, but it is presented in two parts (the Hebrew part and, separately, the Greek-only part) in Protestant bibles. (If, that is, the Greek part is given at all. It was part of the original KJV translation, but it has frequently been omitted in the intervening centuries.) This is true of various other parts of the Old Testament.

There is also the question of accuracy. The KJV is old. It was translated in 1611, and has not been updated. (Though since the late 19th century there have been various successor translations: the RV, ASV, RSV, and NRSV, along with Catholic editions of the last two. These Catholic editions are approved, though you will find that they don't include the Tudor language.) In the intervening 400 years, there have been many further discoveries of biblical manuscripts, and much work has gone on to better determine the original text and its meaning. The KJV in various places is colossally out of date.

The final point is translation philosophy. The KJV was a pretty good translation for the standards of the day, but it was not without


What is the Biblical basis for saying one won't be healed if they lack sufficient faith? I've heard it said in discussion with teachers in a Pentecostal church, "If you pray and believe, God will heal you." The teaching seems especially motivated by passages like Mark 5:34 and Mark 10:52 that quote Jesus saying, "Your faith has healed you." One member of the church was even later heard saying, "I prayed for healing, but I wasn't healed because I didn't have enough faith."

What is the Biblical basis for the proposition, "If you don't have enough faith that God will heal you, then he will not heal you"?

Great question. I found a few scriptures that partially satisfy your parameters, but the only one that really suggests that miracles/healing were adversely affected by a lack of faith is below:

And when the sabbath day was come, he began to teach in the synagogue: and many hearing him were astonished, saying, From whence hath this man these things? and what wisdom is this which is given unto him, that even such mighty works are wrought by his hands?
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.
But Jesus said unto them, A prophet is not without honour, but in his own country, and among his own kin, and in his own house.
And he could there do no mighty work, save that he laid his hands upon a few sick folk, and healed them.
And he marvelled because of their unbelief. And he went round about the villages, teaching. (Mark 6:2–6 KJV)

Consider the Tree of Life and the Tree of the Knowledge of Function and Dysfunction

but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die.” (Genesis 2:17 NKJV)
and~from~TREE the~DISCERNMENT FUNCTIONAL and~DYSFUNCTIONAL NOT you~will~EAT FROM~him GIVEN.THAT in~DAY you~EAT FROM~him >~DIE you~will~DIE (Genesis 2:17 Mechanical Translation of the Torah)

You will know what Tree of Thought the person eats from by their fruits.

“Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves. 16 You will know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes from thornbushes or figs from thistles? 17 Even so, every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. 18 A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit. 19 Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20 Therefore by their fruits you will know them. (Matthew 7:15-20 NKJV)

Defining the Fruits of the Tree of Life

But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, 23 gentleness, self-control. Against such there is no law. (Galatians 5:22-23 NKJV)

Defining the Fruits of the Tree of the Knowledge of Function and Dysfunction

Now the works of the flesh are evident, which are: adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lewdness, 20 idolatry, sorcery, hatred, contentions, jealousies, outbursts of wrath, selfish ambitions, dissensions, heresies, 21 envy, murders, drunkenness, revelries, and the like; of which I tell you beforehand, just as I also told you in time past, that those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God. (Galatians 5:19-21 NKJV)

We are called to bear the good fruits

Therefore bear fruits worthy of repentance. (Matthew 3:8 NKJV)

Those without faith continue to bear fruits of Discerning Function and Dysfunction. All that do this will die. Only when one repents(stops discerning function and dysfunction and has faith in God) can be healed.

so that ‘Seeing they may see and not perceive, And hearing they may hear and not understand; Lest they should turn, And their sins be forgiven them.’ (Mark 4:12 NKJV)
But he who doubts is condemned if he eats, because he does not eat from faith; for whatever is not from faith is sin. (Romans 14:23 NKJV)[Note: This is a bit out of context yet the principle concept still applies, Paul is actually talking about meat at this point of Romans.]

Example of one that will be forgiven and healed
Upon receiving the knowledge that the car has broken down, so the function {going to grandmas} is threatened. Believes that God will find a way to continue to get em to grandmas. So the display of their tree remain peaceful, loving, or joyful.
Example of one that will not be forgiven and healed
Upon receiving the knowledge that the car has broken down, judges the situation as dysfunctional. Immediately display some form of anger, depression, anxiety, blaming others for the situation, cursing creation, etc. During this change of spirit these receive their punishment and call to death until they repent.
For all can be given the Holy Spirit through Faith yet are called to remain

Abide in Me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, unless it abides in the vine, neither can you, unless you abide in Me. 5 “I am the vine, you are the branches. He who abides in Me, and I in him, bears much fruit; for without Me you can do nothing. (John 15:4-5 NKJV)

All those that do not remain in faith are taken away to receive punishment

Every branch in Me that does not bear fruit He takes away; and every branch that bears fruit He prunes, that it may bear more fruit. (John 15:2 NKJV)
If anyone does not abide in Me, he is cast out as a branch and is withered; and they gather them and throw them into the fire, and they are burned. (John 15:6 NKJV)

Conclusion
One won't be healed if they lack sufficient faith. Instead they are thrown into the fire and burned.


Should Christians be against the death penalty? Christians go to great lengths to get the government to outlaw abortion--something that I personally would support. Though I see support from Christianity against abortion almost as unwavering, the support of death row inmates right to live seems to be a more contentious issue.

So my question is if Christianity holds human life to have intrinsic human value should this not apply to the death row inmate as well as the unborn baby?

While many Christians are against the death penalty, there is also biblical sanction for it. Genesis 9:6 commands the killing of those who commit murder-

  He who sheds a man's blood, by man shall shall his blood be shed.

For many fundamentalists, such a clear case for the death penalty means that the death penalty should thus be supported.

The key question, however, is whether this is to Noah or for all time.

The Catholic Church in particular has done a great job of cultivating a "culture of life" within the church, and has thus found this scripture to be primarily about the sanctity of the life taken. Stances against abortion and euthanasia are harmonized with the death penalty, reflecting what Catholics declare us the nature of God- the creator and sustainer of life.  Governments are thus authorized, but not compelled to take action. (And, in any case, the death penalty is usually restricted to certain kinds if murder now)

In Romans 13:4, Paul says:

  But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he [government] beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.

The government is thinking of the good of its population when executing capital punishment.  This is supported with statistics as well:  About 71 lives are saved for the execution of every murderer during the year (I read this in a paper--the source was Kirchgässner, Gebhard. Econometric Estimates of Deterrence of the Death Penalty: Facts or Ideology?, p. 448).

Capital punishment actually saves lives--the way God intended.


Why is the matter of women's authority determined by Eve's acts in her life? 1st Timothy 2:12-14 (NIV):

  I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man;
  she must be quiet. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was
  not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a
  sinner.

I don't quite get Paul's logic here. Why does the fact that Eve was not created first and was the one deceived serve as the basis (= the valid reason) for women not to be allowed to teach or to assume authority?

Could it be so that Paul was simply following the lines of how it was with God-created humans before their fall? I mean, in the Old Testament Paul could see only two people that were shown in their pure God-designed pre-fall state - Adam and Eve. Paul must have thought, "So, if with the two humans that have just been created by God and who have not yet fallen things were such that the woman was somehow minor to man and was more prone to make a mistake and that was exactly how God had created them, then in the Church of God this God-preordained order of things should be restored and kept" No?

Why is the matter of women's authority determined by Eve's acts in her life?

  1 Timothy 2:14  And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being
  deceived was in the transgression.

Paul is not describing a penalty on women in general because of something the first woman did.

Paul is using Eve as an example of one of the the differences between men and women.

Paul is saying that women are more susceptible to deception than men. This is not very acceptable in an age when so much political effort is spent declaring that there are no differences between men and women.

However, if one sees in women that which is trusting and accepting, one has to consider that such a nature can be both a valuable contribution to a marriage and a vulnerability otherwise.

The idea that it is this character of women that is being described can be further supported by;

  1 Timothy 2:13  For Adam was first formed, then Eve.

Here it is not just primacy that is indicated, but that Eve was created for Adam and not the reverse. The implication here is there is that in women that make them adept in being supportive and suited to helping. This is stated as also making them susceptible to deception and thus not reliable as teachers.

Paul is giving his own reasoning for what he allows and does not allow personally. It is plain from the reading of this passage that this is the policy which he follows and instructs others, but note that he is not presenting this as settled church teaching. Please also note that while in other passages, Paul makes it clear that he is speaking on behalf of the Lord, but in this case he does not. In this case, it is entirely possible that Paul is reasoning from his own training as a Pharisee and from within his own historical and cultural context as an Israelite in the ancient Near East, as references by another answer that has been given.

Remember that in the early church, there are many matters that are not fully settled, including crucial issues such as the Trinity, the nature of Christ's humanity and divinity, the role and inclusion of Gentiles in the church, and whether Jewish sacrificial law should continue to be followed. Since we trust that the Holy Spirit leads the church "into all truth" as Jesus has told us (John 16), we can rely on the decisions reached by Apostles and the church fathers in the Ecumenical councils held first in Jerusalem and then subsequently elsewhere, and we can see that the church's understanding of these key issues is clarified and confirmed over time. Please note here that the church has always taught that while the message given to us in Scripture does not change, our understanding of it develops over time as we seek deeper understanding of what God has revealed.

Please also note that there are many instances in Scripture where people say or do things that don't necessarily reflect the fullness of truth. Sometimes, we are given examples of bad behavior, and sometimes, people are walking by the light they have at the time. Just because Scripture presents a statement or a story to us does not mean that we are being taught that we should do this as well. This is where it can become helpful to us to have a trustworthy church authority that helps us understand what Scripture teaches (as distinct from what it merely presents to us as examples), and what God is asking us to do.

As a parallel example that may be helpful, I would suggest reading the progression of Peter in the book of Acts on how God sees the Gentiles (especially Acts 10, Acts 15, Galatians 2). At first, he is in opposition to God's view of the Gentiles, and is opposed on this point by Paul. However, when he receives the vision ("call nothing unclean which God has made", a reference to the Gentiles, not only foods not allowed to Jews), and the mission to go baptize Cornelius, where he sees the Holy Spirit come upon the Gentiles, he allows God to convince him that he is wrong on the subject, and later preaches a very different message at the council of Jerusalem. Finally, with Paul, Peter, and James in agreement, the council affirms what God has revealed to them and writes a letter to the non-Jewish believers.

This understanding of how church teaching develops under the superintention of the Holy Spirit as expressed through the legitimate authority of the Apostles and their successors is a big part of the reason why a number of ancient church traditions, including mine, do have women as teachers, and yet do not violate what the Scriptures assert.

Please note that I am not saying that Paul is "wrong" here. I am simply suggesting that he, as well as the entire church, are still working out what the role of women, Gentiles, etc. looks like in Christianity, and how to approach this from a practical and pastoral perspective that also does not lead to scandal or confusion among the Jews and Gentiles in the church.


The uniqueness of Christ's suffering I volunteer at a soup kitchen which is run by a pastor with a Born Again style.  Each meal is preceded by a sermon and attendees are encouraged to come to Jesus.

I had a come-to-Jesus conversation with the pastor.  He summarized his beliefs, including the idea that God gave Jesus to suffer for all of us.  On this I noted that the punishment suffered by Jesus was not unique: 2000 years later, people are still crucifed and suffer even worse forms of individualized cruelty, in what was and remains a very dangerous place.

Since then, in several visits to the soup kitchen, the pastor has avoided making eye contact with me.   I feel certain that I am among the damned.

Question: Is there a name for my heresy?  I'm sure I'm not the first person to come up with the observation that the suffering of Jesus does not make him unique (in that regard).  I imagine that there is a line of Jesuit thinking or something somewhere that already has a name for this particular observation and the consequences that come from it.

The suffering caused by the physical cross and by the soldiers was only a tiny portion of Christ's suffering.  His suffering and death was vicarious, meaning, he suffered in our place, Christ died for our sins.  God poured out upon His Son the wrath that was due to us.  The wrath of God against sin is very great.  Sinners will spend an eternity in Hell for the sins of just one life.  Even one sin is enough to condemn to hell forever.  How much then must be the punishment of Christ who bore the torment for all the sins of his people?

  The LORD has laid on him the iniquity of us all, (Isaiah 53:6).

He was made a curse for us, (Galatians 3:13).

The punishment, then, was incomparably the worst punishment anyone has ever endured, and if he had not been God as well as a man He would not have been able to endure it.

When He was suffering on the cross there was darkness for the space of three hours.  The intimation is that even if we had been there as a bystander we would not have been able to see the depth of his suffering.  It would have been pointless to stand and watch him suffer because you would not have been able to see it: so God gave a curtain of darkness to demonstrate the pointlessness of trying to see all his suffering.

His sufferings of mind are described in Psalm 69, which is clearly associated with the cross in verse 21, "in my thirst they gave me vinegar to drink".

I think your  pastor should focus more on his soup than preaching.He might win more souls.

Seriously ,to die via "crucifixion is awful.Even as I understand it  most  Romans citizens were not subjected to it.

Today the majority don't die that way.

Jesus certainly bore ours sins at at his death.

You need to accept him.John chapter  3 especially verse16.

Suggest to start with the Gospel of John.KJV

It was stated that :" Since then in several visits to the soup kitchen, the pastor has avoided making eye contact with me".
Is that 'love and Grace. Would Jesus avoid eye contact?  - Is this man a true pastor .A shepherd of the sheep.All 100.,not just 99.
Here to help - not to hinder.
Also I do respect what happens in the Middle East and I do understand what you are saying with deaths there.


What is the Biblical basis for Universal salvation? Universal salvation, or universal reconciliation is the belief that God will eventually reconcile Himself with every immortal soul. That is, everyone will be saved. This doctrine has a long history. It's always been a minority view, but there have been proponents since, at least, the third century.

It seems to me that this belief quite clearly contradicts the teaching of the Bible. For example, reading 2 Thess 1:7-9 (NLT):

  And God will provide rest for you who are being persecuted and also for us when the Lord Jesus appears from heaven. He will come with his mighty angels, in flaming fire, bringing judgment on those who don’t know God and on those who refuse to obey the Good News of our Lord Jesus. They will be punished with eternal destruction, forever separated from the Lord and from his glorious power.

Now, clearly it can't be this simple, since there have been a lot of people that believed in Universal salvation. Origen, for example, probably knew the scripture quite well.

What are the Biblical arguments for Universal salvation?

Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men. —Romans 5:18

For in him all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell, and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, making peace by the blood of his cross. —Colossians 1:19-20

so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. —Philippians 2:10-11

For God has consigned all to disobedience, that he may have mercy on all. —Romans 11:32

English Standard Version (ESV)

Also see "St. Paul's Universalism".  This is the fifth chapter of The Inescapable Love of God by eminent Christian Universalist and Philosopher Tom Talbott.  In this chapter, he makes a case for Universalism from Paul's writings, especially Romans.
You can find more free chapters from Talbott's book here (scroll to the bottom).
As for 2 Thessalonians 1:9, a universalist would probably translate it:

They will be punished with destruction of the age to come — destruction from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his might.

The word for "from" here (apo) is ambiguous.  It can mean that those punished are punished away from the Lord, or simply that the punishment comes from the Lord; that is, it is administered by Him.
There has been some controversy over the meaning of the terms translated as "eternal punishment" (aionios kolasin).  For this I would point you here. In summary, the terms used by the biblical authors to describe eschatological punishment are different from the terms used by those who believed in never-ending torment/imprisonment (the pharisees).  There is a discussion of the contemporary usage of aionios and kolasin.  Aionios is often used to describe a period of time of finite length (though it could be very long), and kolasin is typically used to describe punishments administered for corrective purposes.
EDIT: I just noticed that the word used in the 2 Thessalonians verse is olethron.  Kolasin is used elsewhere, like in the parable of the sheep and the goats.
One last thing. Pithy arguments posted on a Q&A site hardly do an entire theological viewpoint justice, so you should probably look into reading a book.
And if you are looking to buy just one book on biblical universalism, I would highly recommend Gregory MacDonald(a.k.a. Robin Parry)'s The Evangelical Universalist, which gives a universalistic exegesis of the Bible as a whole. And it has a whole chapter on Revelation!  Unfortunately, it doesn't have free chapters like Talbott's book (which I consider second best choice), but you can read reviews here (Also see Amazon sneak peek).
(I am not affiliated with any of the books I have referenced/recommended here)

I, too, have come to believe in universal reconciliation based on the scriptures already quoted and on the issue of why God created humanity. It seems to me that it is surely very unfortunate that most of our modern Bible versions are (so called) translations that simply mimic the King James Version with all its contradictions. When one reads the Concordant Literal Version a number of contradictions are cleared up: we are saved by the faith of Jesus Christ, rather than by our faith in Him (Romans 3:22). If God is to indeed be the one and only God, and totally in control of His creation, as Isaiah clearly teaches, then God has a good plan for his creation in general, and for humans in particular, and no one or no thing can thwart that plan. The way I see it, anyway.


What is the biblical basis for the belief that God likes or feels affection toward us? To some people, and even to Christians at times, it seems difficult to believe that the all-powerful Creator of the Cosmos likes or feels affection for humans personally. This was the topic of a recent question addressed to the Catholic perspective. I would specifically like to ask: what is the biblical basis for the belief that God's love for people includes a genuine individual affection?

John 3:16:

  For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

Romans 8:16-17:

  The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God:
  And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together.
  For I reckon that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory which shall be revealed in us.

There are also many, many instances of angelic messengers and servants of God being sent to serve, protect, and teach people, identified as individuals, and not just as groups or important leaders. See Genesis 31; 1 Kings 17; and Daniel 3 for a few.

Aside from the examples above, the New Testament is also replete with examples of God's love for us as His children. The recorded miracles performed by Jesus Christ were almost always done for individuals of apparently little or no great fame or reputation. The Messiah, sent to save all mankind, frequently spent His precious, limited time ministering to individuals.

Your question is specifically about the Bible, but I'd also like to add that the Book of Mormon has many plain, beautiful examples and explanations of the love of God. 2 Nephi 2-4, Enos 1, and Mosiah 27 contain a few of my favorites.

The best answer to your question was given in the answer by Michael Hoffman. That being John 3:16 Why would God sacrifice his only son to save us from the eternal torture unless he loved us as much as he loves Jesus. We are created in the image of God, that does not mean the physical, but the Spiritual image;

  Genesis 1:27 KJV  So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

Jesus himself told us that God is Spirit.

  John 4:24 KJV  God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.

Therefore, if our Spirit is in the Image of the Spirit God then our love for our children must somewhat mirror God's love for his son.

But there are also other Scriptures which show God's love for all of his creation, of which we are a part. but God's special love for Mankind is spread throughout the Scriptures. God gave man dominion over all the animals;

  Genesis 1:28 KJV  And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.

I could quote Scripture after Scripture showing God's love for man, but Jesus himself said it best when he said;

  Matthew 18:14 KJV  Even so it is not the will of your Father which is in heaven, that one of these little ones should perish.

On the surface this may not seem to be much of a statement until we understand that Jesus knew all of the circumstance of his death as he said this. He knew at that time the pain and suffering ahead of him which he did not deserve. We must also take into consideration that he also knew that many of those for whom he would sacrifice would reject him and even denigrate his sacrifice. We also need to know that God the father was aware of these things, yet he would sacrifice his son anyway. Jesus also gave his life willingly for us:

  Matthew 26:53 KJV  Thinkest thou that I cannot now pray to my Father, and he shall presently give me more than twelve legions of angels?

Finally God Not only loves , but God is love.

  1st John 4:16 and 17 KJV  And we have known and believed the love that God hath to us. God is love; and he that dwelleth in love dwelleth in God, and God in him. 17  Herein is our love made perfect, that we may have boldness in the day of judgment: because as he is, so are we in this world.

Should you need more Scriptures which show the Love of God I suggest you read the Holy Bible from Genesis through Revelation, and underline those that you find. Be forewarned that you are going to need several pens.


What is the biblical basis for the claim that abortion is immoral? The Catholic Church, as well as many other Christians, believes that abortion is inherently immoral, based on the belief that life begins at conception.

What is the biblical basis for this position?

I'm interested in the perspective of those who are Biblical literalists, whether Protestant, Catholic, or others.

One of the most important passages regarding this is found in the Mosaic Law which God gave to Israel to be used in governance:

  "When men strive together and hit a pregnant woman, so that her
  children come out, but there is no harm, the one who hit her shall
  surely be fined, as the woman’s husband shall impose on him, and he
  shall pay as the judges determine. But if there is harm, then you
  shall pay life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand,
  foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.
  Exodus 21:22-25 ESV

So, if the child (and this is what it is called) is born but is unharmed, then the man is guilty of assault, which did not carry the death penalty.  However, if the child IS harmed, then the man's punishment should be the same as that which was suffered by the child while still in the womb.

From a biblical perspective, then, the taking of the life of an unborn child was considered murder and would receive capital punishment, accordingly.

In addition to this, John the Baptist responded the presence of God Incarnate when Mary visited his mother Elizabeth while both of them were still in the womb:

  In those days Mary arose and went with haste into the hill country, to
  a town in Judah, and she entered the house of Zechariah and greeted
  Elizabeth. And when Elizabeth heard the greeting of Mary, the baby
  leaped in her womb. And Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit,
  and she exclaimed with a loud cry, "Blessed are you among women, and
  blessed is the fruit of your womb! And why is this granted to me that
  the mother of my Lord should come to me? For behold, when the sound of
  your greeting came to my ears, the baby in my womb leaped for joy. And
  blessed is she who believed that there would be a fulfillment of what
  was spoken to her from the Lord."  Luke 1:39-45 ESV

Before this, the angel told Zechariah the his son John (the Baptist) would be filled with the Holy Spirit even while in the womb of Elizabeth.

  for he will be great before the Lord. And he must not drink wine or
  strong drink, and he will be filled with the Holy Spirit, even from
  his mother’s womb.  Luke 1:15 ESV

Psalm 139 also speaks of life in the womb:

  For you formed my inward parts; you knitted me together in my mother’s womb. Psalm 139:13 ESV

Not only does life exist in the womb, but God is active in the creation of that life.

Summary

So, God gave Israel instructions to punish anyone who killed or harmed an unborn child, and the Bible strongly supports the position that life begins at conception and is in the image of God at that point, with a body, soul, and spirit.

Please see Vaikra (Leviticus) 15:31 and Bemidbar (Numbers)  19:13. It is being implied there.

31 Thus shall ye separate the children of Israel from their uncleanness; that they die not in their uncleanness, when they defile My tabernacle that is in the midst of them.
13 Whosoever toucheth the dead, even the body of any man that is dead, and purifieth not himself--he hath defiled the tabernacle of the LORD--that soul shall be cut off from Israel; because the water of sprinkling was not dashed against him, he shall be unclean; his uncleanness is yet upon him.

This tells us that the the body is the temple of Hashem/God.
Rabbis and Sages have been teaching for thousands of years that The first five commandments go together with the five last.1 and 6,2 and 7 and so on?
And this explains the commandments:

1 You shall have no other gods before Me.
...
6.You shall not murder.

The rabbis also talk about how the soul travel
into the mother and how she is build to receive a soul.


What are the biblical arguments against the papacy and papal succession? The Catholic Church teaches that Peter was the first pope and that papal succession continued down through history to the present day.  However, neither the Orthodox nor the Protestant churches recognize this.

So, what are the biblical arguments (Protestant or Orthodox) against the papacy and papal succession?

This is a broad question, but in many ways, it boils down to the antecedent of "this" in Matthew 16:18.  After Peter tells Jesus, "You are the Christ," Jesus answers something like:

"And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." (English Standard Version)

The question is, what is this rock?  Is it Peter or his confession?

Obviously, Protestants tend to favor the "confession" interpretation, and emphasize our equality before God.

In simple English, the belief of papal succession includes with it the power of appointing all ‘true officers’ of the ‘true church’. In other words, in practice it is simply the Roman Catholic means of doctrinally excluding all other Christian churches. More to the point it makes any persons personal salvation outside her physical ordained network- 'doubtful to none'.  'Doubtful' if they are not properly introduced to Catholic authority, 'none' if they are and yet adamantly reject it, like most Protestant teachers and pastors.

Note: To post an answer that respects current Roman Catholic beliefs, I actually had to have something critical clarified in my own mind. I raised this post to really understand the ultimate impact of belief in papal succession: Do Catholics officially recognize Protestants as Christians?

I have not encountered ‘the’ biblical argument against papal succession but I have run across several versions. The points of argument that have made the biggest impact for me as a Protestant are:

There is no biblical argument for papal succession anywhere to be found in the Bible.  Any attempts that Catholicism tries to make for  an argument seems to be blatant dishonest use of the scripture.
The implication of papal succession is that by it, it denies faith in 'Christ alone' as sufficient for salvation. This is actually a rejection of Christ and his only catholic church invisible.

Often the biggest argument against something is that there is no supporting argument for it. The scripture gives tradition no real respect, for it affirms that it was by the tradition of the church that the Jews found reason to reject Christ. This argument, absence of teaching denies its truth,  is only reasonable when the subject has significant impact on church life and would essentially imply God was irresponsible not to inform his children of such an essential matter through scripture. Scripture is what confirms if any tradition should be upheld or condemned. As papal succession is such an important doctrine, which the actual  salvation of souls does depend, and which is possibly the most central teaching of Catholicism, has absolutely no mention of in the scripture,   immediately points to its obvious and most critical error. It is from this ground that many Protestant theologians think of the Catholic external organization as a systematic form of an anti-Christ, if not the anti- Christ for its chief aim is at replacing Christ with a visible church and transferring the authority of Christ to the Pope.

This one point for most Protestants actually ends the investigation and is sufficient for its full dismissal with full prejudice. However, there are some further points that may be considered from the biblical context.

Leaving the obvious error of this teaching we turn to God's word for what is a Christian:

The single definition within the scripture that determines if a visible person should be considered part of the invisible church, is their sincere confession of faith in 'Christ alone' for the forgiveness  of their sins. There visible membership to a church organization counts is merely dust on the scales.

  because, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For with the heart one believes and is justified, and with the mouth one confesses and is saved. For the Scripture says, “Everyone who believes in him will not be put to shame.” For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; for the same Lord is Lord of all, bestowing his riches on all who call on him. For “everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.” (Romans 10:9-13, ESV)

Under the error of papal succession the scripture is grossly and blasphemously perverted into saying,  'whoever believes in Christ...and [put your idol here].  The idol in this case is respect of the physical organization of the papacy. With the second idol, post initiation, as possibly the worship of Mary.

A man's own personal faith directly in Christ and not directly Christ’s ministers or institutions, is the basis of all genuine faith in God. Therefore faith in Christ has the implication of putting all believers under a duty of condemning anyone who preaches a different faith, that is 'faith AND' [put your idol here]. Even if it if an apostle, Pope, or even an angel of God:

  But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed. As we have said before, so now I say again: If anyone is preaching to you a gospel contrary to the one you received, let him be accursed. (Galatians 1:8-9, ESV)

Therefore the authority of the Apostles was not physically held by them so that they could pass it on, rather their authority was in proclaiming Christ AND NOTHING. If they, Peter, Paul, or whoever no longer preached this, they were to be absolutely condemned.

The result with respect to papal succession was the reformation largely lead by Martin Luther. This is how the invisible church was restored to the authority of Christ under his word.

It is on the foundational doctrine of Christ, that he will build his church upon himself as the rock, not upon the pope and his pretenders, which Peter’s confession is to be understood. Peter's faith in Christ alone, just as any believers was a 'little rock' upon which all believers are built into the temple of God. This temple is built on this precise gospel teaching that was laid by the Apostles. It here that Protestants and Catholics divide as far as the east of from the west.  Papal succession seizes on the potential confusion that the English translation of this Greek sentence and tries to create an idol out of Peter which will an anchor and protect all their pretended authority over every other Christian body of believers.


Do Christians believe that Jews must still follow the Mosaic law? Deuteronomy 13:1-4 states:

All this word which I command you, that shall ye observe to do; thou shalt not add thereto, nor diminish from it.

If there arise in the midst of thee a prophet, or a dreamer of dreams--and he give thee a sign or a wonder,

and the sign or the wonder come to pass, whereof he spoke unto thee--saying: 'Let us go after other gods, which thou hast not known, and let us serve them';

thou shalt not hearken unto the words of that prophet, or unto that dreamer of dreams; for the LORD your God putteth you to proof, to know whether ye do love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul.

The above passage seems to state that one may not subtract commandments from the Law of Moses which the Jewish people were commanded to obey, and  seems to imply that a true prophet will not do so. Do Christians believe that Jews must still obey the Mosaic Law, and if not, how is that consistent with the above passage?

It's a fundamental belief of Christianity that the coming of Jesus fulfils the Old Testament law. In other words that the Law was only ever intended to be until the coming of Messiah. Jesus did not therefore abolish or diminish the law. His coming simply marked the end of its original intended purpose. Jesus says as much in Matthew chapter 5 verse 17.

  “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.

Because of this Christians believe that nobody should be following the Law, Jews or non-Jews. A better way is available to them, namely following Jesus.

There are a relatively small number of Christians who believe that a way of salvation is open to the Jews who continue to follow the law, instead of Jesus, but it is a minority.

Messianic Jews do.  These are Jews who are Christians.  A Jew does not stop being a Jew, even if he becomes a Christian.  The Messianic Jews follow Jewish laws in addition to receiving the Christian Gospel and accepting Christ as their Messiah/Saviour.

Christians are called to use good judgement, but not to be judgmental.  We also believe we have been grafted in to the Jewish vine, but as Gentile Christians we only need to follow the Noahic law.  This is what the first counsel in Jerusalem was basically about.  It said a Gentile did not have to become a Jew to be a Christian, I do not think it was stated the other way around, but that is not for me to say.

Let me point something else out.  Jesus lives and Jesus IS a Jew, not was but is.

The grafting of the Gentiles into the Jewish vine did not kill that vine, but it fulfilled it.  The Jews have always been charged with the salvation of the world and "the nations" meaning the non-Jews.  Jesus fulfilled this, but not by losing His "Jewishness"  Jesus is a Jew.  He said "Salvation is of the Jews"


What problems, if any, do Swedenborgians have with the Apostles' Creed? As a follow-up to previous questions, I'd like to know: Do Swedenborgians disagree with or "reinterpret" any phrases in the Apostles' Creed?

Here's the context: I'm listening to an audio series in which the Apostles' Creed is used as the framework for "Christian theology," implying that those who believe the Apostles' Creed are orthodox.  But in this series, non-trinitarians are not considered orthodox.

This makes me wonder – how do certain non-trinitarian groups understand the Apostles' Creed?  Do they accept it as written, or simply reject it?  Or perhaps they accept it, but interpret particular phrases in ways that trinitarians don't?

Here, I'm most interested in how Swedenborg himself viewed the creed.  If he did not address the Apostles' Creed in his writings, I'd be interested in the analysis of prominent Swedenborgian theologians (in overview style, if there is disagreement).

Related: Same question for Christadelphians, Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons, and Oneness Pentecostals.

Swedenborg himself had no problems with the Apostles' Creed and he did address it in his writings.

  It is to be observed, that in the Apostles’ Creed it is said, “I
  believe in God the Father, in Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Spirit”;
  in the Nicene Creed, “I believe in one God, the Father, in one Lord
  Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Spirit,” thus only in one God; ... 1

It is the Athanasian Creed with which he had a problem.

  ... but in the Athanasian Creed it is, “In God the Father, God the Son,
  and God the Holy Spirit,” thus in three Gods. But whereas the authors
  and favorers of this creed clearly saw that an idea of three Gods
  would unavoidably result from the expressions therein used, therefore,
  in order to remedy this, they asserted that one substance or essence
  belongs to the three; but still there arises from thence no other
  ideas, than that there are three Gods unanimous and agreeing together:
  for when it is said of the three that their substance or essence is
  one and indivisible, it does not remove the idea of three, but
  confounds it, because the expression is a metaphysical, and the
  science of metaphysics, with all its ingenuity, cannot of three
  Persons, each whereof is God, make one; it may need make of them one
  in the mouth, but never in idea. 1

You can find many of his views concerning creeds and trinity in Canons (1769).

Here's just one statement summary therein.

  Chapter V. The trinity of persons in the divinity is from the council
  of Nice, and was derived thence into the catholic church and [the
  churches] after it, and is therefore to be called the Nicene Trinity.
  But the trinity of God in one person, the Lord God the Saviour, is
  from Christ himself, and was thence in the Apostolic Church, and
  therefore is to be called the Christian Trinity; and this trinity of
  God is the Trinity of the new church. 2 (emphasis added)

1. The Teachings of Emanuel Swedenborg, Volume 2 by Emanuel Swedenborg (Simon and Schuster, Feb 4, 2013)
2. Canons by Emanuel Swedenborg, (1769) tr. by John Whitehead (1914)

I fear I am unable to locate material on how Swedenborg himself viewed the Apostles' Creed or any analysis by prominent Swedenborgian theologians.  However, from the information I did find, I believe they have major disagreements with the Apostles' Creed

Swedenborg's writings include teachings such as the Holy Spirit is not God and the Trinity does not exist.

I sincerely hope someone better informed will respond and answer your question.  In the meantime, I shall do some more research.


Did Paul write other letters that are not in the Bible? I've heard it said that Paul wrote other letters that didn't make it into the Bible, including at least one more letter to the church at Corinth, and a letter to the church at Laodicea. What is the source for these claims, and what might have happened to these letters?

Paul certainly wrote other letters, but they were either lost or were not theological. For example, 1 Corinthians 16:3:

  Then, when I arrive, I will give letters of introduction to the men you approve and send them with your gift to Jerusalem.

Regarding one more letter to Corinth, that is the implication in 1 Corinthians 5:9 when he refers to an earlier letter:

  I wrote to you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people.

Finally, it is worth noting that all genuine letters by Paul could be identified by people at the time as he ended them in his own writing (rather than dictating). 2 Thessalonians 3:17 says:

  I, Paul, write this greeting in my own hand, which is the distinguishing mark in all my letters. This is how I write.

If he did, it would probably have been listed on newadvent's Patristic writing's page alongside:

The Apocalypse of Paul
The Acts of Paul and Thecla
The Acts of Peter and Paul