Why was Martin Harris punished for revealing the Lost 116 pages? I am fully aware of the Messianic Secret in Mark, but I don't understand why Martin Harris would feel as though he should be punished for revealing the pages he recorded from Smith's translation of the Golden Plates.  After their loss, it is my understanding that Harris never again served as scribe. Furthermore, according to my tour guide, Smith also claimed responsibility for this loss, stating that "God had to humble him" by "giving into" Smith's desire to let Harris have the pages.

What was so sacred about these 116 pages that revealing them was so bad?  Was the theology contained therein of particular importance, or was the problem simply that Smith felt he should not have betrayed the command of the Angel?

Along these lines, I'm curious as to the theological significance of what he translated. What was in this material that needed to be protected?

The Lord had commanded Joseph Smith to reveal the manuscripts to no one who was not involved in the translation. Martin petitioned Joseph three times to show the manuscripts to his (Martin's) wife, and each time Joseph took the issue to the Lord.

The Harris family was wealthy, and Martin was helping pay for the publication of the Book of Mormon. His wife protested and wanted proof of the translation because of his involvement and probably because of the financial burden. Incidentally, she badgered him on the issue and demanded to see the plates -- or something convincing.

In response to Joseph's first two pleas, the Lord denied the request, and I believe He even said to trouble Him no more on the matter (See near the end of D&C 5). The third time, the Lord finally permitted it (kind of like the Parable of the Importunate Widow) -- but not without warning of the consequences for disobedience.

Joseph conceded to let Martin take the raw manuscript (but not the actual plates), being the 116 pages that had been translated. Later, Martin returned to Joseph and admitted that he had lost the pages. Joseph lost his gift to translate and was commanded to repent:

  5 Behold, you have been entrusted with these things, but how strict
  were your commandments; and remember also the promises which were made
  to you, if you did not transgress them.

  ...

  10 But remember, God is merciful; therefore, repent of that which
  thou hast done which is contrary to the commandment which I gave you,
  and thou art still chosen, and art again called to the work;

  11 Except thou do this, thou shalt be delivered up and become as
  other men, and have no more gift.

The pages consisted of what would be called, probably, the "Book of Lehi" -- writings at the beginning of the plates by Nephi's father, the same Nephi whose writing now starts the Book of Mormon record as we have it today.

In the Book of Mormon, we learn that Nephi was inspired to re-write at least some of what his father wrote, so that nothing too important was lost (see vs. 1-3 in linked scriptures for more context) -- emphasized parenthesis my own:

  3 And after I had made these plates by way of commandment, I, Nephi,
  received a commandment that the ministry and the prophecies, the more
  plain and precious parts of them (Lehi's writings), should be written upon these plates;
  and that the things which were written should be kept for the
  instruction of my people, who should possess the land, and also for
  other wise purposes, which purposes are known unto the Lord.

Now, the writings weren't so sacred that nobody could know what they said, but rather, they had to be carefully handled -- and understandably so. Imagine the frenzy if the translation of a record on "gold plates" was public while it was happening... especially during a major Christian excitement in the country!

So, the Lord warned Joseph to not re-translate the missing portion because evil men were plotting against them. From Doctrine and Covenants 10 (chapter heading):

  Revelation given to Joseph Smith the Prophet, at Harmony,
  Pennsylvania, in the summer of 1828 (see History of the Church,
  1:20–23). Herein the Lord informs Joseph of alterations made by wicked
  men in the 116 manuscript pages from the translation of the book of
  Lehi, in the Book of Mormon. These manuscript pages had been lost from
  the possession of Martin Harris, to whom the sheets had been
  temporarily entrusted. (See the heading to section 3.) The evil design
  was to await the expected retranslation of the matter covered by the
  stolen pages and then to discredit the translator by showing
  discrepancies created by the alterations. That this wicked purpose had
  been conceived by the evil one and was known to the Lord even while
  Mormon, the ancient Nephite historian, was making his abridgment of
  the accumulated plates, is shown in the Book of Mormon (see Words of
  Mormon 1:3–7).

The whole half of the 10th section is relevant here, but in particular:

  10 And, behold, Satan hath put it into their hearts to alter the words
  which you have caused to be written, or which you have translated,
  which have gone out of your hands.

  11 And behold, I say unto you, that because they have altered the
  words, they read contrary from that which you translated and caused to
  be written;

  12 And, on this wise, the devil has sought to lay a cunning plan,
  that he may destroy this work;

  13 For he hath put into their hearts to do this, that by lying they
  may say they have caught you in the words which you have pretended to
  translate.

  14 Verily, I say unto you, that I will not suffer that Satan shall
  accomplish his evil design in this thing.

Summary

In conclusion: The writings of Lehi were about as sacred as the rest of the Book of Mormon record, but it was vital that the work remain protected against those conspiring against it. And yes, Joseph and Martin both should have obeyed the Lord in this instance -- the first time. But the Lord saw it coming, so He prepared a way for us to still have the important parts of what Lehi wrote and allowed Joseph to repent and continue the translation (with a different scribe -- but Martin Harris still sacrificed in many ways, after losing the manuscript, to support the publication of the Book of Mormon and the Church).

The fact that Martin Harris showed the 116 pages to friends, relatives, and his wife was probably the cause for the loss or theft or destruction of the same.

The suspects in this case would be:

Lucy Harris or someone she knew.  She read these pages which were Joseph Smith's first attempt at writing and it showed.  The quality was probably poor and disorganized and later led to a much improved version of what Smith had in mind.  She may have destroyed the pages or one of her friends stole them and destroyed them.
Martin Harris or some he knew.  Harris is know to be a liar as evidenced by the two different accounts of the meeting with Professor Anthon.  The copy of the "caractors" shown in the 1945 edition of Fawn Brodie's book indicate "deformed English" and not some Mid-Eastern language.  Anthon would not have stated these to be an authentic translation and Harris knew it.  Harris was testing Smith to see what Smith would do.
Joseph Smith himself.  He may have realized that he did a poor job on his "Book of Lehi" and could do better on the next try and he had to have the 116 pages disappear so he hired or got someone else to steal these pages but that someone double-crossed him and never gave the pages back.  Perhaps that "someone" tried to extort him but Smith failed to pay the ransom but that "someone" could not come forth without exposing himself as a thief.

The fact is that the theft was never reported to the constable or sheriff certainly indicts one or more of these suspects.


Faith without reason? Many people claim that religion is just the unwarranted belief in things without evidence or reason, or that faith is antithetical to reason. If we do believe in God based on evidence, what would be the best way to convey these evidences to a secular world?

In other words, is there any evidence that God is real and that the bible is true?

A great many atheists / humanists are essentially applying scientific process, and science is adaptable; it is entirely willing to change, as new discovery and observation is made. All you need to do, then, is to provide some kind of tangible evidence that actually stands up for more than a few seconds in the face of the appropriate community (so, the science community if such proof is scientific, etc). Such evidence has never been forthcoming so far.

A very good example of this is the current speed of light claims. Now, general accepted wisdom is that the speed of light cannot be exceeded; however, some scientists have submitted interesting results, with decent explanation of their method and workings, and have invited the community for feedback. The scientific community did not say "pfff you're wrong", but rather (paraphrasing) - "wow; that's staggering; that challenges an awful lot of existing findings - but hey, your process is not without merit - let's look into that some more". Indeed, regardless of the outcome, the science will have progressed for the better.

(Reversing that, the problem with religious dogma is that it generally cannot be changed, even when it is outright contradicted by science).

So: in answer to your question: find evidence. Any evidence of actual merit, that can be inspected, discussed, and validated or disproved (any genuine theory must be refutable - otherwise it is simply not a theory in the way that science means).

As another example; I currently have no reason to believe that fairies exist. I am aware that some people do believe in fairies, but my default position (given a complete lack of reason-for, or evidence-of, their existence) is that : fairies do not exist. However! If you can find reasonable evidence of fairy-folk, I'll be surprised and shocked, but I'll seriously consider it (by which, I mean I should also evaluate the merit of the evidence too; photoshop is rather too good these days, for example). By the same token, homeopathy - it has proponents, but also has a lot of counter-evidence about the subject. In many ways, the argument here is alarmingly similar to religion. To paraphrase Tim Minchin (by removing the rude bits advisory)

  If you show me
  That, say, homeopathy works,
  Then I will change my mind
  I’ll spin on a (redacted) dime
  I’ll be embarrassed as (redacted),
  But I will run through the streets yelling
  It’s a miracle! Take physics and bin it!
  Water has memory!
  And while it’s memory of a long lost drop of onion juice seems Infinite
  It somehow forgets all the poo it’s had in it!

  You show me that it works and how it works, and when I've recovered from the shock
  I'll take a compass and carve "fancy that" on the side of my (redacted).

A common answer here is that religion is outside of things like science; that is an acceptable answer, but in that case do not engage science with logic. We can always agree to coexist without trying to convert each-other.

There is no defense against atheism because it's a religion of its own. If you try to tear it down on a logical level, you will always lose, because it's not a logical problem, but a spiritual one.

Instead, you need to attack the problem from the spiritual side. Paul teaches in Romans 1 that all people know there is a God. The person you're talking to is in denial for some reason. It is this problem that must be sussed out and dealt with through prayer and speaking the word instead of trying to convince someone that faith is really logical.


Why sleep next to an open Bible? Numerous times in my life I have heard vague references to leaving a Bible open, usually on a table near you, as you sleep.

Is this is a real practice? If so what is the purpose? Is it thought to offer some protection? Is it thought to revitalize the soul?

While doubtless some do actually sleep with the Good Book physically open by their bedsides, the bulk of the usage of this phrasing is idiomatic. At least in every context I've ever heard it, whether a Bible was physically open or not was not the point so much as that it was easily accessible and actively used: the last thing you were looking at each night and the first thing you would reach for in the morning.

Given that you say when you've heard it the references have been vague, I suspect what you've been hearing is also this idiomatic usage. To my knowledge none of the major branches of Christianity teach that this should literally happen. Again it's possible that some small groups here and there hold some eccentric view, but most English speaking Christians are less likely to mean this literally than idiomatically.

Sadly, everyone so far is misguided in theories. Yes, this is a common practice for people who originate from the deep south. You place your Bible set to which ever verse you need at the time. Proverbs for wisdom. Psalms for protection. Songs of Solomon for love...etc... just my input, if anyone has further intrest in this practice...


If a priest makes a major mistake during confession, can he later talk to the person to correct themselves? Say that a person comes to confession and the priest gives bad advice or otherwise makes a major mistake during confession. To give a very clear example, say that a confession went like this:

Penitent: Father, I've murdered someone.
Priest: That's not a sin, don't worry about it.
Penitent: Really? Thanks Father!

Only after reflection did the priest realize he misheard the penitent and didn't realize he was confessing a mortal sin. The dilemma here is that he is under the seal of confession, but he made a major mistake and now the person thinks that it's okay to commit a mortal sin.
A more subtle example might be a priest hearing a confession that he was unsure was sinful, but after reflection, research, and prayer, he realizes that his spur of the moment words was incorrect.
Would the priest be allowed to talk to the person after confession, or during future confessions, in order to correct himself?

Is a priest permitted to talk about a person's confession to the penitent after the penitent's sacramental confession?

There is a lack of general information on this subject, but the short answer is yes, but only after having received permission from the penitent himself to do so.

  A priest may ask the penitent for a release from the sacramental seal to discuss the confession with the person himself or others. For instance, if the penitent wants to discuss the subject matter of a previous confession a particular sin, fault, temptation, circumstance in a counseling session or in a conversation with the same priest, that priest will need the permission of the penitent to do so. For instance, especially with the advent of "face-to-face confession," I have had individuals come up to me and say, "Father, remember that problem I spoke to you about in confession?" I have to say, "Please refresh my memory," or "Do you give me permission to discuss this with you now?"

  Or if a priest needs guidance from a more experienced confessor to deal with a difficult case of conscience, he first must ask the permission of the penitent to discuss the matter. Even in this case, the priest must keep the identity of the person secret. - The Seal of the Confessional

While there are now apps such as Confession that can assist during the examination of conscience, you cannot receive sacramental absolution via the internet or on the phone.  Matters of conscience are forbidden by Rome over the phone, e-mail, internet and other forms of modern communication when the sacrament of confession is involved. This would apply to a priest talking to a penitent about any matter of conscience involving a past confession. The internet is never a safe place for such conversations.

  “It is essential to understand well the sacrament of penitence requires the personal dialogue between the penitent and the confessor and the absolution by the confessor,” Vatican spokesman Federico Lombardi told reporters on Wednesday. “This cannot in any way be substituted by a technology application.”

  “One cannot talk in any way about a ‘confession via iPhone,’ ” Lombardi said. - Vatican issues warning for new Confession app

Have a look at Luke 16:28-31  (NRSVCE) in which the rich man in hell pleads with Abraham:

".. for I have five brothers—that he may warn them, so that they will not also come into this place of torment.’  Abraham replied, ‘They have Moses and the prophets; they should listen to them.’  He said, ‘No, father Abraham; but if someone goes to them from the dead, they will repent.’  He said to him, ‘If they do not listen to Moses and the prophets, neither will they be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.’”

The sinner comes to confession after reprenting on his sins, and is quite aware that he has broken the Commandment of God. He will not, and should not, take the inadvertent remark of the confessor, which cannot stand the test of the law, as a licence to kill again. Suppose the confessor dies just after hearing the confesion, and does not get a chance to correct himself .  Will his pre-mortem advice supersede what is in the commandments of God ? No way .

Now, if the confessor is really worried about the future of the person whose confession he had heard, he has all the means of one-to-one communication like phone , e--mail or SMS provided he does not break the covenant of the confession .


Dating the sacerdotal hierarchy What is the earliest generally accepted date for the sacerdotal hierarchy of the Christian Church?  My own best guess is that it cannot be much later than the destruction of the Temple, though I realize that there are questions concerning the usage of certain terms such as "presbyter" which concern the threefold hierarchy of deacon, priest, and bishop.  However, bishops are mentioned in the "Didache" as well as by St. Ignatius of Antioch.

The question concerns Protestant contentions that the sacerdotal hierarchy is a later Catholic/Orthodox distortion of the New Testament community.  This seems simply historically untenable to me since, if evidence of the hierarchy exists from the first century, a principle of historical continuity can be invoked to bring the institution quite near the earliest community, antedating the possible dates of composition of certain New Testament documents.

To trace the evolution of church institutions, as well as where Catholics and Protestants disagree about them, one will find that they agree on the facts but disagree on their meaning. There is nothing in the ‘facts’ that cause dispute, but as in all never-ending disputes, it is the prior assumptions that divide us. The cause in this subject is probably attributed to the mentality of either fully trusting or easily doubting ‘tradition’. However, to answer the question and to fix a date in history where Catholics and Protestants will generally divide over the interpretation of the facts regarding the development of Church institutions, it is not that difficult to do. All we have to do is locate at what date ‘additional titles’ of church officers, not found in scripture, became widely used in the Christian world.

As Protestants put all church traditions below authority of scripture there is generally no dispute in the basic primitive officers within a local church, such as a deacon or a bishop; the bishop, acting as a spiritual overseer and a deacon acting more administratively. Although even here we should mention that the title ‘deacon’ or ‘bishop’ mean varying things, based on one’s own tradition or interpretation of scripture. Yet as at least these titles themselves seem to exists from the times of the Apostles into the period of the council of Nicea, at which point we have certainly already passed the date were are looking for, we can disregard the evolution of those titles.

A practical date can be more or less equated with this question: ‘When did the term ‘arch-bishop’ and ‘arch-deacon’ first become widely used?’ This is a valuable data point because although a protestant might not oppose these offices (high Anglican), at a minimum, these terms are not found in scripture and indicate a development in church institutions. In addition, as Protestants generally believe in the separation of church and state, or at least a distrust of the state as a legitimate influence in church decisions and structure, this question also points to roughly the same date: ‘When did the primitive church lose it’s independence from the state and receive influence from the state onto the evolution of its subsequent church institutions?’.

With this approach we can take our best approximate date to be after the Edict of Milan (313AD) and prior to the Council of Nicea (AD 325).  This might seem like too narrow of a guess but there are two striking facts to support this narrow window. First, one can’t overestimate the impact of Constantine, the most powerful person in the world, becoming a Christian and actually intervening in church disputes eventually calling for all Christian leaders to convene a council in order to settle the debate over the nature of Christ. As wonderful as his conversion was to the Christian world in ending persecution and elevating the church into levels of honour never imagined just a few years before, the worldly exaltation and adjoining of state with church would naturally have an impact on it’s institutions for it’s officers would, in one way or another begin to report to the state and be determined by the state going forward.

Second the use of new ‘arch-’ terms did not appear in any historical documents until (as coincidence would have it?) this very same century.  Naturally these new titles would help increase the official level of bureaucracy in the church, as it ascended in political power, in order to help organize the state and the church together under a brand new and totally unexpected era!  Any large organisation under one powerful state, naturally needs auxiliary offices as compared to a simple ‘home church’ one might find in the New Testament or found during the very recent previous persecution of the Roman government. As later early history would show, this organization became especially important to any 'ambitious' bishop as it facilitated the administration of church offerings, with ‘city’ bishops collecting ¼ of all tithes and by the 8th century actually having power even over the collection of ‘rural’ assemblies revenue, increasing an ever growing luxury.

  "All offerings to the Church were originally in the disposition of the bishop, who was bound to dispense them to all who were on the list of the needy, whether they were clergy, widows, strangers, or poor. The earliest general rule is that of the Council of Antioch in 341 (c. 25), which is a general regulation for all Church property....The earliest regulation is that of Pope Simplicius in 475. It rules that of all the revenues of the Church and offerings of the faithful, one fourth is to go to the bishop; one fourth is to be divided among the clergy according to their several deserts; two fourths are to go to the fabrics of the churches, and to the maintenance of strangers and the poor. The regulation was recognised in later times by being incorporated in the body of Canon Law (c. 28, C. XII., qu. ii). (THE GROWTH OF CHURCH INSTITUTIONS by the rev EDWIN HATCH, p108)

and

  "The regulation took the form of requiring that baptisteries should only exist in places in which the bishop appointed them. It was first made in one of the earliest councils of the Carlovingian Reformation, that which was held by Pippin at Vernon, in Normandy, in 755. The regulation had the effect of dividing all churches outside the bishop’s own church into two classes, those in which baptisms could be performed and those in which they could not....It is evident that baptismal churches claimed a superior importance over the other country churches; it is also evident that they claimed a share in the newly sanctioned payment of tithes. (THE GROWTH OF CHURCH INSTITUTIONS by the rev EDWIN HATCH, p86)

This state-church organisation eventually led to national boundaries as would seem inevitable. The struggle over power in this new found world of luxury split the Eastern Churches from the Western with both claiming to be the only churches remaining that have always followed the traditions of the Apostles.

Having noted the date of the rapid change upon church structure as a natural result of the conversion of the Roman emperor, one must not think the Protestant Reformation immediately returned perfectly to the primitive structure of the New Testament, or even uniformly believes that it’s the right thing to do today. However one can see the main cord cut with Luther. Although separation of church and state would not really become a necessity until various denominations would settle in America with the need to live together, Luther paved the way for this eventual development by rejecting a more fundamental structure, namely the decisions made by ‘church councils’. Luther heartily rejected aspects of the first council recorded in ACTS (as did every other Christian) and also various parts of the next major council of Nicea. Following Luther's line of thought, 'if many decisions' made by church councils can be rejected, then the 'church institutions' that they establish or support can also be rejected. So the scarcity of such complicated hierarchies is no longer recognised.

No complex organizational structure can be maintained without group ‘councils’. Luther’s basic argument was that the council in Jerusalem as recorded in ACTS (ACTS 15:39) establish temporary rules about eating blood, etc. which was only applicable when Jewish traditions were slowly being put to death. These temporary rules were a kind of mercy to 'weaker brethren' who had grown up with them from the womb and found them too offensive to overcome when beginning to fellowship with Gentiles. Therefore, since nobody followed everything from the first council, there is no need to follow everything from any council. Luther then reviews the Council of Nicea and although fully supporting the main purpose for which the Emperor called the meeting, namely to defeat the Arian heresy, he notes the many embarrassing squabbles that the bishops added, over church institutions etc. He notes that this was added to the agenda the following day after the Empower had left and thinks the emperor would have never had enough patience to listen to such childish squabbles.

Luther’s effort in showing the greed and childish behaviour of many bishops at the council of Nicea leads to the original cause of why the church institutions developed into a power structure, why it lead to a split between east and west and why eventually Protestantism was brave enough to lead the path towards ultimate separation of church and state in the America.

  "The same council (Nicea) likewise decreed that the Roman bishop should, in accordance with an old custom, take charge of the suburbicarian churches, just as the bishop in Alexandria had charge of those in Egypt. I cannot and will not explain the word suburbicariae because it is not my word; but it seems to mean the churches located up to that time in Italy around the Roman churches, just as the churches in Egypt were adjacent to the churches in Alexandria. Let whoever wants to interpret it do so, but I still understand it to mean that this council gave the bishop of Rome no dominion over his surrounding churches, but entrusted them to his care; and it did not do it as though it had to be done “by divine right,” but because of an old custom. Custom, however, does not mean scriptura sancta or God’s word. Furthermore, it took the churches of Egypt (also in keep keeping with an old custom) away from the bishop of Rome and entrusted them to the bishop of Alexandria. Likewise, it is to be assumed that the churches in Syria were entrusted to the bishop of Antioch or Jerusalem, since they are farther away from Rome than Alexandria or Egypt.
  Now if this council is to be valid in our churches and go into effect, we must first condemn the bishop of Rome as a tyrant and burn all his bulls and decretals. There is no bull or decretal in which he does not boast vociferously and menacingly that he is the supreme head and lord of all the churches on earth, to whom everyone on earth must be subject, if they wish to be saved. This is exactly as much as saying, “The Council of Nicaea is false, accursed, and damned for taking from me domination over all things and for making the bishop of Alexandria my peer.” (Luther's Works Vol 41 p41)

In conclusion, the subject is massive but actually pivots on a few simple ideas in history in the fourth century. Catholics interpret them in such a way as to secure the 'infallible leadership of the Pope', tracing it to the New Testament itself under Peter. Eastern Orthodox interpret them in such a way as to retain the claim of original tradition also, however without the aggression that it claims the Catholic Roman Bishop tried to wield causing the split. Protestants, generally interpret the scriptures themselves to predict a very early falling away of the true traditions of the Apostles as people were predicted to begin to focus on ‘external rites’ and superstitions or harsh disciplines, in contrast to the inward evangelical realities of the gospel (e.g., 1 Tim 4:1-3). In addition Protestants commonly see St. Augustine’s focus on a real and ‘elect’ church, versus a mere external church, as a natural result of the joining of church and state, whereby so many 'insincere confessors' were politically manipulated to gather into its walls. Thus a kind of church within a church was dormant under St Augustine influence until the time of the reformation, at which point it largely came out under various national organization structures of the reformation.  Thus history seems to provide all three major Christian groups very confident positions from the mere facts. The real issue of contention is that all three groups claim that anyone who merely believes in Christ is a Christian 'without any doubt!', but both the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox essentially mean …and belong to our external body as proof of such faith (or for the ignorant have a disposition to become part of our external body if sufficiently instructed in the light of their traditions).  This is the main point that divides the three groups.

I'd like to point out respectfully that, from some perspectives, this question is based on a false assumption: "... if evidence of the hierarchy exists from the first century, a principle of historical continuity can be invoked to bring the institution quite near the earliest community." This assumes that the earliest community of organized Christianity was close to the first century.

Latter-day Saints (Mormons) believe that God has revealed His organization of priesthood offices since the creation of Adam, in many times, and to many people whom He set apart to restore and lead His Church: Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses, and others were all given the same plan, for the same church organization and teachings. These dispensations of the gospel and the priesthood generally followed the same trend. The full gospel was given and the church was organized; many people believed and lived the gospel under the direction of priesthood holders; they lived faithfully for some generations; and, sadly, they eventually fell into periods of apostasy as divisions arose or wickedness gained popularity.

The organization including Apostles, bishops, deacons, and other offices that Christ established during His mortal ministry followed the same pattern as He had given in previous dispensations. Although many titles and approximations of their functions have been propagated by both tradition and scripture, we believe that, just as in previous dispensations- more quickly, even- divisions and false teachings arose, and the world again entered a period of apostasy where key truths of the gospel, and authority to lead the church were not present.

This great apostasy lasted until the gospel of Jesus Christ and the authority to administer in its ordinances were again restored, for the final time, to Joseph Smith in the 1800s. As with all prophets, he was given many things to teach the world to bring them to a correct understanding of God.

Among these truths are the specific responsibilities of priesthood offices; the correct modes of ministering and administering in the priesthood; the requirements for holding priesthood offices; the procedures for conferring priesthood authority; and more detailed histories of several dispensations of the priesthood, including those recorded in the Book of Mormon.

Many of these teachings are found in the Doctrine and Covenants as writings or narrations of Joseph Smith, and many additional explanations and clarifications have been given by subsequent prophets in this dispensation.

For a good starting point for further reading, see:

https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bd/dispensations (see the references, especially in the last paragraph)

https://www.lds.org/broadcasts/article/ces-devotionals/2014/01/what-is-the-blueprint-of-christs-church?lang=eng

https://www.lds.org/scriptures/tg/priesthood-history-of?lang=eng&letter=p


Who resurrected Jesus - the Father, the Son, or the Holy Spirit In John 2:19-22 Jesus tells the Jews that he will perform a miraculous sign by raising the temple of his body in three days.
In John 10:18 Jesus says he has authority to lay down his life and authority to take it up again.
Yet in Acts 2:24 it says that God raised Jesus from the dead.
This is confirmed in Romans 6:4 which says Jesus was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father.
Yet Romans 1:4 says that Jesus, who through the Spirit of holiness was declared with power to be the Son of God by his resurrection from the dead.
And 1 Peter 3:18 says Jesus was put to death in the body but made alive by the Spirit.
How do Trinitarian Christians explain this to people who neither understand nor believe the Trinity?

Discussing "Whether Christ was the cause of His own Resurrection?" (Summa Theologica III q. 53 a. 4), St. Thomas Aquinas writes (co.):

in consequence of death Christ's Godhead was not separated from His soul, nor from His flesh. Consequently, both the soul and the flesh of the dead Christ can be considered in two respects: (1) in respect of His Godhead; (2) in respect of His created nature. Therefore,

according to the virtue of the Godhead united to it, the body took back again the soul which it had laid aside, and the soul took back again the body which it had abandoned: and thus Christ rose by His own power. And this is precisely what is written (2 Cor. 13:4): "For although He was crucified through" our "weakness, yet He liveth by the power of God."
But if we consider the body and soul of the dead Christ according to the power of created nature, they could not thus be reunited, but it was necessary for Christ to be raised up by God.

Responding to the objection that Christ was raised by another (e.g., by the Father or the Holy Ghost), St. Thomas writes (ibid. ad 1):

The Divine power is the same thing as the operation of the Father and the Son; accordingly these two things are mutually consequent, that Christ was raised up by the Divine power of the Father, and by His own power.

There is no need for confusion or doubt regarding this if we let the text speak to us and not read things into it.
It is also clear that Jesus did not raise himself - he was dead.
There are over 20 verses explaining that God Raised Jesus from the dead. (Note 1)
There are another 3 (at least) that specify the Father.
There are no verses suggesting the Spirit raised Jesus.
Let's see how this works from the text.

Jesus, when born in the flesh, was mortal. When he died, he was dead until his Father raised him.

Romans 6:9 ‘knowing that Christ, having been raised from the dead, is
never to die again, death no longer is master over Him’

We see here that Jesus did die and that he cannot die again (now immortal - obviously he wasn't before his death)
We see Jesus was raised to a new spirit life 1 Peter 3:18.

...having been put to death in the flesh, but made alive IN (not by) the spirit.

This is referring to the new spirit life that Jesus now has in him - immortality.
Jesus is not a 'spirit'

Luke 24:36-9 Jesus explained, ‘See my hands and my feet, that it is I
myself; touch me and see, for a spirit does not have flesh and bones
as you see that I have.’
Acts 2:33 ‘Exalted to the right hand of God (at his resurrection), he has received from the
Father the promised Holy Spirit'

If he was clearly mortal - and not a spirit - how could he raise himself anyway?

God raised him. Rom 10:9, Col 2:12, Acts 2:24, 5:30, 4:10, 10:40, 13:30 etc 1 Cor 6:14 'God raised the Lord and will also raise us up by his power'

Romans 8:11 If the Spirit of Him who raised Jesus from the dead
dwells in you...

This is the spirit of God - God raised him - BY His spirit.

The Father raised him - Rom 6:4, Gal 1:1, Eph 1:20

So we can see that there are only two explanations of who raised Jesus - God and the Father - showing that they are the same - God IS the Father  and the Father is God.

Those verses that say Jesus 'took' up his life. (none of which speak of 'raising from the dead' except in couched terms in the form of analogy or type, i.e. 'destroy the temple' story)

John 10:17-18 For this reason the Father loves me, because I lay down
my life that I may take it up again. No one takes it from me, but I
lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down, and I
have authority to take it up again. This charge I have received from
my Father.”

His authority was given him. Why? Simply because he had qualified to live again by remaining sinless in the flesh as a man. Which is why we read in Rom 6:9 that death was 'master over him' during that time.
While in the flesh, if Jesus has sinned just once he would forfeit his new spirit eternal life that the Father would give him.
And so we read about his earnest request to his father to save him from death.

Heb 5:7 ‘In the days of His flesh, He offered up both prayers and
supplications with loud crying and tears to the One able to save Him
from death’.

This is NOT death on the cross, but the death he would die if he slipped up and put his will before the Father's.
Jesus was within his rights to 'expect' the Father to raise him - he had succeeded in his mission perfectly - 'It is finished!'
Death could not hold him - legally. Yet he still waited for the Father to raise him at the appointed time.

Note 1. God raised Jesus, not Jesus, not the spirit - according to the bible anyway. I wont show the text, there are too many. Rom 10:9,8:11 (spirit OF Him) Acts 3:15, 2:32, 17:31,5:30, 10:40, 13:30, 33,34,37, 4:10,  Eph 1:20, 2 Cor 13:4,4:14, 1Cor 6:14, Col 2:12, plus a few others that are not as bluntly repetitious.


How have Eastern liturgies changed in the past century? In the Latin Church, the Liturgical Movement and the Second Vatican Council resulted in broad liturgical changes.
To what extent has liturgy changed in the Eastern churches during the past 50 to 100 years? I am interested in any or all of Eastern Orthodoxy, Oriental Orthodoxy, and Eastern Catholic.

If we take liturgy, the customary public worship performed by a religious group, to include public worship practices originating in the laity in stead of the clergy, then in Russian Orthodoxy the most similarly obvious and controversial change in liturgy would be the popular worship and iconography of Stalin.

The Bolsheviks oppressed the Orthodox Church after seizing power in Russia in 1917. In 1943, during WWII, Stalin met with three chief hierarchs of the Russian Orthodox Church, allowed the clergy to perform religious services, celebrate Easter and Christmas, and even promised to give the church back some of its monasteries (confiscated after 1917) and release imprisoned priests.
The three hierarchs, led by Sergius Stragorodsky, thanked Stalin after their meeting in a letter:

“In each of your words… we felt the heart that burns with paternal
love for all his children... The Russian Orthodox Church venerates you
feeling with your heart that it lives together with all Russian
people, by the will to victory and sacred duty to sacrifice anything
for the sake of the Motherland. God save you for years to come, dear
Iosif Vissaronovich.”

The reason underlying Stalin's actions was the invading Nazi army, who in an attempt to gain support with the population, re-opened churches that were closed by the Bolsheviks, is obvious: the only way to keep the nation united against the Nazis was to do the same.
This act of "re-legalization" made the dictator immensely popular with the laity, resulting in religious iconography, calendars and hero worship that permeates to this day. The last petition to declare Stalin a saint dates from 2015. It was rejected by the church patriarchs. Since the fall of the USSR, the Russian Orthodox leaders have vehemently denounced Stalin and other Bolsheviks, but the laity to this day retains the practice of iconic veneration of Stalin and Putin.

The Kremlin has been using the politics of memory regarding Soviet times (in particular the victory over fascism) as a fundamental instrument of legitimization of its power and control over society, thus ensuring continued social support and the preservation of the present model of power. You can find similar iconography for Putin throughout modern Russia.


Why did the apostle John call himself, "the disciple whom Jesus loved"? John refers to himself, on at least four occasions, as "the disciple whom Jesus loved"? (John 13:23, 19:26, 21:7 & 21:20).

Why is this? It seems a bit arrogant, especially as Jesus loved the other disciples as well.

There are two ways to read that. Reading it as an arrogant statement is certainly one, but I think it can also be read exactly the opposite way -- as a sign of humility. Not wanting to name himself in a "me, John, I was there see" way, he simply refers to himself based on his identity in relation to Christ.

As a Christian I think this is great way to think of ourselves. Rather than thinking about myself and my accomplishments, if I think about my identity as the way Christ sees me -- that I am simply a recipient of undeserved love -- my life is more likely to reflect him.

It doesn't have to be a boastful statement.

If you read it in a way where "The Disciple whom Jesus Loved" = "All Disciples whom Jesus Loves" (meaning you and me) then a few of the last words of Jesus take on a much deeper meaning, especially for Catholics who strongly love the Blessed Virgin Mary.

Take for example the footnotes from the John 19:26-27 (NABRE)

  This scene has been interpreted literally, of Jesus’ concern for his mother; and symbolically, e.g., in the light of the Cana story in Jn 2 (the presence of the mother of Jesus, the address woman, and the mention of the hour) and of the upper room in Jn 13 (the presence of the beloved disciple; the hour). Now that the hour has come (Jn 19:28), Mary (a symbol of the church?) is given a role as the mother of Christians (personified by the beloved disciple); or, as a representative of those seeking salvation, she is supported by the disciple who interprets Jesus’ revelation; or Jewish and Gentile Christianity (or Israel and the Christian community) are reconciled.

Add on the idea that the woman in John's Revelation is Mary and the woman is also the Church (not the manmade stuff, just the mystical stuff) the disciple is us.  So we take Mary into our home, and we are loved by Jesus as His brother.


What was inside the Ark of the Covenant? 1 Kings 8:9 (NIV) There was nothing in the ark except the
  two stone tablets that Moses had placed in it at Horeb, where the Lord made a covenant with the Israelites after they came out of
  Egypt.

  Hebrews 9:3-4 (NIV) Behind the second curtain was a room called the
  Most Holy Place, which had the golden altar of incense and the
  gold-covered ark of the covenant. This ark contained the gold
  jar of manna, Aaron’s staff that had budded, and the
  stone tablets of the covenant.

1 Kings 8:9 says that inside the Ark of the Covenant there was only the two stone tablets of Moses. But Hebrews 9:3-4 mentions three things, the gold jar of manna, Aaron’s staff that had budded, and the stone tablets of the covenant.

Keeping in mind that the Ark of the Covenant was no more during the time of Jesus, the writer of Hebrews simply recalled from the Torah or from tradition about the contents of the Ark. In fact, even the writer never saw the Ark with his own eyes, let alone what was inside.

Regarding the pot of manna,

  Exodus 16:33-34 (KJV) And Moses said unto Aaron, Take a pot, and put
  an omer full of manna therein, and lay it up before the Lord, to
  be kept for your generations. As the Lord commanded Moses, so Aaron
  laid it up before the Testimony, to be kept.

This verse only says "before the Lord/Testimony" and not inside the Ark.

Regarding the staff of Aaron,

  Numbers 17:10 (NIV) The Lord said to Moses, “Put back Aaron’s staff
  in front of the ark of the covenant law, to be kept as a sign to the rebellious. This will put an end to their grumbling against me, so
  that they will not die.”

This verse also says that the staff of Aaron was placed in front of the Ark.

Questions:

Do these verses from the Old Testament contradict the Epistle to the Hebrews?
What exactly was kept inside the Ark of the Covenant?

In his commentary on Hebrews 9:4, John Gill notes,

  but how this pot, as well as Aaron's rod, can be said to be in the ark, when it is asserted, at the bringing of the ark into the temple, at the dedication of it by Solomon, that there was nothing in it but two tables of stone, (1 Kings 8:9; 2 Chr. 5:10) and both the pot of "manna," and Aaron's rod, are said to be before the testimony, (Exo. 16:34; Num. 17:10) and not in it, is a difficulty.

John Gill supposes that

  the preposition ἐν sometimes signifies "at," or "with," as in (Col. 3:1; John 1:28; Eph. 6:2) and so the sense is, that these were near unto it in the most holy place, and might be in the sides of it, though not within it; for there were places in the sides of the ark to put things into (Deut. 31:26; 1 Sam. 6:8) .

In 1 Sam. 6:8, the author writes that "vessels of gold" (כְּלֵי הַזָּהָב) were placed beside it (the Ark) (מִצִּדּוֹ). These vessels of God were "five golden hemorrhoids and five golden mice" (cp. 1 Sam. 6:4). We know without a doubt that the scriptures never mention any of these being present in the Ark itself. So, we may assume that there was some sort of storage space beside the Ark, yet the exact nature of this storage is unknown. Another possibility is that makeshift platforms were placed beside the Ark at various times to hold such things. Again, scripture is not clear.

Yet, one thing seems to be clear, and that is that there was nothing in the Ark except the two tables upon which were written the Ten Commandments (cp. 1 Kings 8:9). I would tend to agree with Gill's assertion that the Greek preposition ἐν can mean "with" (it is so translated in the A.V. 140 times). There are many examples of ἐν followed by a relative pronoun being translated as "with" (e.g., Matt. 7:2; Rev. 19:20).

Even if the pot of manna and Aharon's bud were located by the side of the Ark, they would still be considered "in the presence of YHVH" (לִפְנֵי יְהוָה; cp. Exo. 16:33) because YHVH dwelt between the kruvim (cp. 1 Sam. 4:4).

One more point to note. In Num. 17:7, it is written that Aharon's rod was to be brought "before the testimony"  or "in the presence of the testimony" (לִפְנֵי הָעֵדוּת). Some might assume that the "testimony" (or "witness) referred to here is the two tablets of the Ten Commandments (cp. Exo. 25:16). Thus, they may conclude that the rod and the pot of manna had to be in the immediate presence of the tablets contained inside the Ark itself. However, in his commentary on Exo. 16:34, Avraham ibn Ezra writes,

  לפני העדות שהוא הארון. ונקרא ארון העדות בעבור לוחות הברית שהיו שם

which is translated as,

  "Before the testimony," which is the Ark. And it was called "the Ark of the testimony" (cp. Exo. 25:22) on account of the tablets of the covenant that were there."

In summary, it's possible that there is no contradiction and that instead of being "in the Ark," the pot of manna and Aharon's rod were "with the Ark" inside the Temple and/ or Tabernacle.

Remember, the Philistines had stolen the Ark of the Covenant and had it in their possession for a time, before returning the holy and precious Ark back into the hands of King David/King Solomon (out of complete fear for their lives).  When it was returned, the only things inside were the 2 stone tablets.  Perhaps, and this is just speculation, the Lord was asking them to replace the lost items and place them back with or into the Ark, before it was placed in King Solomon's Temple, in the Holy of Holies.


How did the "wise men" become known as 3 kings? In Matt 2, the men from east who came to visit Baby Jesus are referred to as wise men.

However, now they are also known as three kings. When did they become known as "kings" rather than "wise men" and what is the basis for the description?

Additionally, they are often referred to as the 3 magi. What is the basis for each of these descriptors?

It is mentioned from The Catholic Encyclopedia website:
In reference to there being three kings:

No Father of the Church holds the Magi to have been kings. Tertullian
("Adv. Marcion.", III, xiii) says that they were wellnigh kings (fere
reges), and so agrees with what we have concluded from non-Biblical
evidence. The [Catholic] Church, indeed, in her liturgy, applies to the Magi the
words: "The kings of Tharsis and the islands shall offer presents; the
kings of the Arabians and of Saba shall bring him gifts: and all the
kings of the earth shall adore him" (Psalm 71:10). But this use of the
text in reference to them no more proves that they were kings than it
traces their journey from Tharsis, Arabia, and Saba.
...
[About there being three]
Among the Latins, from the seventh century, we find slight variants of
the names, Gaspar, Melchior, and Balthasar; the Martyrology mentions
St. Gaspar, on the first, St. Melchior, on the sixth, and St.
Balthasar, on the eleventh of January.

Another reason that there are traditionally Three wise men / Magi is because there were three gifts brought (Gold, Frankincense, Myrrh).
It should also be considered, the significance of the number three in scripture:

In some cases the number three may signify completeness or finality. Thus Pope observes that the number three “naturally suggests the idea of completeness—beginning, middle, end.”34 Beyond this natural expectation, however, is the realization that “the figure three is an evocative image, filled with connotations” so that “three consecutive occurrences of an event serves as a rhetorical signal indicating special significance.

It's catholic tradition but there is no scriptural evidence that there were three or that they were kings.
This assumption is based entirely on the fact that scripture says were three gifts and gold, frankincense and myrrh were very expensive.
The number three has been connected with the trinity in all branches of Christianity for centuries.
However, when we look at history, culture, the geography, climate, and other scripture it's clear they were not kings and likely there were more than three.

Kings would not be making a risky, dangerous journey through the dessert on camels.
Kings would not have the astronomical knowledge to chart planetary conjunctions and navigate though the harsh dessert.
The text said they went to King Herod. If they were kings- the text would have certainly given their names also.
Due to the hot climate, robbers, the long journey,  extreme temperature changes and need for extra water, people in the time of Christ usually traveled in caravans, so it would be much more likely that it was 5-10.

In addition to the church tradition, this notion became established in the minds of millions with the carols like "We Three Kings of Orient Are".


What is the Eastern Orthodox view on Protestants and Catholics I am sure this question has been asked before but because I can't find a question similar, I am going to ask it. If there is, please link it and close the question.
I recently left the Methodist church and have been attending Mass with my dad. I was told by my friend who is an Eastern Orthodox Christian to go to his church instead because the "Latins" are wrong. I asked for the differences between the Catholic Church and the Orthdox Church and got the two main reasons being the filioque clause and the Pope. He also said that the Orthodox Christians might be the only group of people saved. This got me thinking what is the official stance of salvation of the Orthdox Church and can all Christians (Catholics, Protestants, Orthdox, etc.) be saved. He did mention that only God really knows who will be saved which is true but does the Orthodox Church even recognize Catholics and Protestants as Christians?
I know that Protestants typically view all Christian denominations (besides non trinitarian groups) to be Christian. And that the Catholic Church believes something similar but not knowing the full truth. But I know nothing about the Orthodox view.

The Orthodox Church, in my opinion, makes it very clear that they believe it is the One, Holy, Orthodox, Catholic, Apostolic Church established at Pentecost and continues today.  Yet, it recently has broadened its willingness to talk with other sects.

In keeping with the church's teaching on universality and with the Nicene Creed, Orthodox authorities such as Saint Raphael of Brooklyn have insisted that the full name of the church has always included the term "Catholic", as in "Holy Orthodox Catholic Apostolic Church".[18][19][20] The official name of the Eastern Orthodox Church is the "Orthodox Catholic Church".[5][6][7][8]
Wiki

They put ecumenicism this way.

Why have the Orthodox churches decided to be involved in the ecumenical movement for the unity of God’s Church, and how does this involvement relate to their claim to be the embodiment of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church?
-source-

There is the belief that God's Spirit still works in the sects.

The belief of St. Cyprian that outside of the canonical boundaries of the Church there is no salvation must be respected as a strong urge to maintain and respect the unity of God’s Church. However, today’s needs require it to be supplanted with the theology of schism advanced by St. Augustine. For St. Augustine, schismatic and heretical communities, in spite of their formal separation from the una sancta, continue to maintain bonds of unity with it. All the separated Christian churches are related to each other and in communion, however imperfectly, with the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. The recognition of this relationality is warranted by the fact that there are many still unbroken bonds whereby the schismatic communities are held in certain unity with the One Church. These bonds, in the words of Florovsky, include " right belief, sincere devotion, the Word of God, and above all the grace of God, which ever heals the weak and supplies what is lacking." There is thus in every schismatic and heretical community something of God that connects them with the life of the God’s Church. "What is valid in the sects is that which is in them from the Church, that which remains with them as their portion of the sacred inner core of the Church, that through which they are with the Church. "
-ibid-

So, to answer the OP, it appears to me that the Orthodox view Catholics and Protestants as "separated brothers and sisters in Christ" who have fallen from the truth, but who nonetheless retained some validity and are thus part of the Church.

Orthodox Church is One, Holy Apostolic Church established by Chist on Pentecost.  It keeps tradition and understanding of Scripture from the 1st century.
According to Church's Teaching only inside the Church person can find the 100 % of verity and only Its members can be called christians. However, this term can be used to Catholics and members of Oriental Church( Armenian, Copts..), but not to Protestants.


How could Jesus' audience hear Jesus without audio installation? I am wondering, today we use microphones and large sound systems to amplify someone's speaking. How did they do that 2000 years ago? Jesus spoke outside regularly before large crowds of people. I expect there were enough children, and disagreeing people, so it wasn't always quiet. Your voice won't reach very far when there are a lot of people, especially when there is a kid crying or someone having a discussion.

My question is:

How did the people back then hear Jesus' (or anyone else) preaching when there was a large crowd?

You are right, communication before modern electronics relied more on the speaker yelling and a crowd who surrounding attentively.  Consider the ancient Roman coliseum for example. This place could house an audience of 50,000+ and people would need to shout loud to the crowd and be heard.

When we imagine the crowds that Jesus spoke to a typical Jesus movie seems to portray it right. Sometimes crowds followed him to a place where he could be heard well, like for the sermon on the mount.  Other times they pressed in on him and he even had to sort of hurry away so that it did not become too chaotic. Also many would be responding and discussing among themselves what the meaning was for something he had said. In these conditions many would not hear exactly what was said and only get bits and pieces.  There is also the repetitive second hand reiteration of what he had said. For those who could not hear they would listen to the stories told by others, even late into the night throughout the towns where Jesus preached.

Then there is the example of the Baptist preaching by the river. Have you ever yelled in a valley and heard the echo carry your voice seemingly for ever?

In summary, one could definitely communicate to large crowds in ancient Rome, such as for entertainment in the amphitheaters or when generals gave pre-battle speeches for example. When large crowds were addressed, sometimes good places were chosen for the acoustics, and the crowd would be more aware of when to hush for the communication to be effective. Even making a makeshift blow horn with your hands could have been used as ancient Greek actors already had horn shaped mouths in their masks for this purpose. However, there would certainly be some, especially among noisy crowds, who could not hear and would rely on what others said.

There are still scenarios where a person attempts to speak to a large audience in different places.  What happens in these scenarios, without the use of audio equipment, is that some people do not hear what is being said, some do and spread the word, some people mis-hear what is being said, and so forth.  In other words it is not an efficient method communication similar to the children's game of "Chinese Whispers" or "Broken telephone" - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_whispers

Some messages were communicated to some people some of time is likely the case.


Is "Rapture" or "Caught up alive" in contradiction to God's words "Dust to dust"? By the sweat of your brow you will eat your food until you return to
  the ground, since from it you were taken; for dust you are and to dust
  you will return. (Genesis 3:19, NIV)

  Just as people are destined to die once, and after that to face
  judgment. (Hebrews 9:27, NIV)

From these verses, we can deduce that "All must die once (or at least once) and return to dust".

  For the Lord himself will come down from heaven, with a loud command,
  with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet call of God, and
  the dead in Christ will rise first. After that, we who are still
  alive and are left will be caught up together with them in the clouds
  to meet the Lord in the air. And so we will be with the Lord forever.
  (1 Thessalonians 4:16-17)

  Listen, I tell you a mystery: We will not all sleep, but we will all
  be changed— in a flash, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last
  trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, the dead will be raised
  imperishable, and we will be changed. For the perishable must clothe
  itself with the imperishable, and the mortal with immortality. (1
  Corinthians 15:51-53, NIV)

These verses are very important basis for Christian eschatology belief called Rapture. As per these verses, on the the day of Rapture, first, the dead who belonged to Christ will be resurrected and they will be transformed, second, those who are alive and believe in Christ will be caught up, who may or may not be transformed.

What I cannot understand is that if all are destined to die, then it is a contradiction that believers will be caught up alive, without ever facing death. Though Enoch and Elijah were taken alive, some believe that they are the two witnesses mentioned in Revelation 11, who will be killed by the Beast, thus still fulfilling the words of God that all must die.

Is there any possibility (apart from the scripture about Rapture), that some people will never face death?

Does God's word "Dust to dust" leave any exception?

How do theologians explain this contradiction?

The following statement is directed specifically to Adam as only Adam technically came from dust!  We of course as the offspring of Adam are affected relationally.  However, this statement would not be substantial enough to impose death or the "returning to dust" upon every member of humanity.

By the sweat of your brow you will eat your food until you return to the ground, since from it you were taken; for dust you are and to dust you will return. (Genesis 3:19, NIV)

Paul uses the word koimaō (Strongs G2837) in both of the following verses.  Notice that the word is translated as “dead” in 7:39 and could not be appropriately translated as sleep.  Conversely 15:51 could easily have used the word died in place of sleep.

1 Corinthians 7:39 The wife is bound by the law as long as her husband liveth; but if her husband be dead, G2837 she is at liberty to be married to whom she will; only in the Lord.
1 Corinthians 15:51 Behold, I shew you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, G2837 but we shall all be changed,

Hebrews 9 is not about how many times a man dies, but about the one time sacrifice of Christ.  “Appointed once to die” is in accordance that Christ does not have to continue to be crucified for our sins in the way the Temple sacrifices had to continue to die.  Essentially it is saying that it is natural for a man to die once.

Hebrews 9:24-28 For Christ is not entered into the holy places made with hands, which are the figures of the true; but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us: Nor yet that he should offer himself often, as the high priest entereth into the holy place every year with blood of others; For then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world: but now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself. And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment: So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation.

In Hebrews 9:27 the Greek word "hapax" is translated as "once", it could just as well be translated as "conclude", certainly not a strong enough statement to make a claim of contradiction.
It is also generally accepted form scripture that Elijah (Kings II Chapter 2, Verse 11) and Enoch (Genesis 5:22-24) did not die.
Therefore, While it is generally true that each man dies once, it does not mean that all men must die once.  Therefor, these verses are not in conflict with "Rapture" theology.

Enoch and Elijah are both dead. Neither are in heaven right now and neither are thousands of years old. This is what the Word says

No man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man, which is in heaven" (John 3:13).

Here are Jesus' own words that no man, except Himself, had ascended into heaven!

"all the days of Enoch were three hundred sixty and five years" Gen 5:23
If he was still living, he would be way older than 365 years old.
That is why Moses said that God took Enoch. God removed —translated— him so that he was not found. God took Enoch and buried him, just like he did Moses. God translated Moses and he was not found either.
Since Enoch has not obtained eternal life yet (Heb 11:39) he is DEAD

As for Elijah,
He didn't ascend up into Heaven where God is, Jesus clearly states that, and he sure can't just stay in the air for thousands of years.
 4 full years after Elijah was taken up in a whirl wind, Elijah wrote a letter to Judah's king Jehoram      II Chronicles 21:12-15
Elijah was alive 4 years after the whirlwind, he later died as all mortals do.


How can Protestants authoritatively declare something wrong or heretical under Sola Scriptura? Within Protestantism there is no universal definition of theology or how to understand the Bible: Anglicans have one definition, Lutherans another, Calvinists another, (insert name here), etc.

So upon what basis can Protestants insist that some teaching contradicts the Bible objectively, and not only according to their own personal understanding of the Bible (which most would admit could be wrong)?

And if all you have is your personal interpretation, upon what basis does anyone call anything a heresy, and those who hold it "heretics"? One has to be surer than 'I interpret it this way' in order to start condemning contrary interpretations with any note of seriousness.

I've heard a lot responses things like 'His sheep hear His voice,' which in the first place is able to be claimed by two contradictory sides of a matter and not be falsifiable (it essentially is saying 'well, God knows who's right, and I think it's me!'), and secondly, circularly assumes that 'His sheep hear His voice' is to be interpreted specifically in a way which means that it pertains to the interpretation of the Bible.

Similar are claims of having the 'personal guidance of the Holy Spirit,' which is similar or identical to the argument above. But again, this, while helpful to someone personally, doesn't provide a basis for say, calling others heretics based on that interpretation. Something that the New Testament says is possible.

Worst of all, I've even heard things like 'I don't even interpret the Bible,' ('I skip the stage where I have to account for my interpretation objectively altogether') which is impressive ... in a bad way.

None of these are impressive to me, and they do not withstand the most basic scrutiny.

Can any Protestant provide a sola scriptura epistemology which doesn't rely on such dubious, unfalsifiable arguments?

Speaking as a lifelong Protestant, I would say that in genuine Protestantism, the Head of every man is Christ. There is no hierarchy. None is above another. The greatest is as the least. But it is true that a man's gift will make room for him and spiritual men will appreciate and be voluntarily subject to others more spiritual than themselves.

I have added this edit in answer to the comment made below. It is fundamental to what Protestantism is. Otherwise the question itself becomes invalid as it is not a question that can be asked of Protestantism. (Though it could be asked of other, hierarchical bodies or of hierarchical and individualistic particles of Protestantism).

==================================================================================

The short answer is that if one is utterly meticulous in one's study of the scriptures - in their original language - then there will be no ambiguity, no latitude for personal interpretation, no question of opposing arguments and there will be one, single expression of truth.

It can be seen - and it can be proved by many examples - that the reason for conflicting movements in Protestantism is the untutored, undisciplined, inexact and ignorant expressing of what is advertised as 'biblical' but is in fact not meticulous enough in its expression of the word of God.

These holy scriptures leave me stunned at their accuracy, their careful wording, their staggering revelation and their consistency throughout many volumes by multiple authors over a period of, I would say, just over two thousand years.

It is staggering.

My own, personal, Protestant studies, after twenty five years of tutorage and twenty five more of personal searching, leave me in no doubt that :

  Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. [II Peter 1:21 KJV]

The problem is that unholy men, who are not filled with the Holy Spirit (or even holy men who are, temporarily, swayed by nature and not spirit) speak forth things that they should not.

However even then, their peers ought to be able to correct them, as Paul corrected even the Principal Apostle Peter, to his very face, when he was to be blamed, Galatians 2:11, in a matter of Christian doctrine and resultant Christian practice, and this at a time of crisis when even Barnabas was almost carried away as well, in the dissimulation.

Had this been a Catholic situation Pope Peter would have prevailed and we would all have to be circumcised.

But Paul Protested - and quite rightly so.

For the Lord himself is above all and he says :

  I will build my church [Matthew 16:18 KJV]

and he does so . . . in every generation.

So upon what basis can Protestants insist that some teaching contradicts the Bible objectively, and not only according to their own personal understanding of the Bible (which most would admit could be wrong)?

I cannot speak for other Protestants, but when I claim that a teaching contradicts the Bible objectively, I do so on the basis that the falsehood of the teaching is a necessary inference from what is written in the Bible.

To answer this by claiming that my inference is really only my personal understanding of the Bible, and that I could be wrong, is not an argument, but is instead a refusal to even offer an argument. It's the same error that the sluggard makes in Proverbs 26:13, in that it treats the possibility of something as an actuality.

If you want me to believe that my claim about what the Bible teaches is only my own personal understanding, and is objectively wrong, you need to offer more than assertions.


Jesus' power going out What should one understand from  the NT verse  which  says :... Jesus realised that power had gone out from Him" (Mark 5:30)? Is it a figurative narration ? Or, is it a  casualty of translation ?

And Jesus, perceiving in himself that power had gone forth from him, immediately turned about in the crowd, and said, “Who touched my garments?” (RSV)

The word rendered as "power" is δύναμις (dynamis).  Luke (8:46) recounts a slightly different version, but using the same Greek word:

  Jesus said, “Some one touched me; for I perceive that power has gone forth from me.”

Although we think of "power" as some kind of energy or force, the word dynamis has a wider scope.  It translated on many occasions as "mighty works" in the King James, RSV, and other versions:

Matthew 7:22 (RSV)

  On that day many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?’

Mark 6:2

  And on the sabbath he began to teach in the synagogue; and many who heard him were astonished, saying, “Where did this man get all this? What is the wisdom given to him? What mighty works are wrought by his hands!

Luke 10:13

  “Woe to you, Chorazin! woe to you, Beth-saida! for if the mighty works done in you had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago, sitting in sackcloth and ashes.

The power imparted to the woman in Mark 5:25ff is not "transferred" to her form some store of power that Jesus had, perhaps dispersed in some kind of quanta.  It is imparted without depleting anything from the source.  One Byzantine commentary drew a parallel with how "teaching" is imparted:

  Power goes out from Christ, not travelling from one location to another, but rather imparted to others while remaining in Christ undiminished.  It is the same with teachings, which remain with those who teach, and yet are imparted to those who learn.*

*  Theophylact of Ohrid (ca 1055-1107), Explanation of the Holy Gospel According to St. Mark (tr. from the Greek, Chrysostom Press, 1993), p.46.

Mark 5:30 does not say that all Jesus power went out from him, but only that he felt some power go out from him:

  Mark 5:25-34 (KJV): And a certain woman, which had an issue of blood twelve years, And had suffered many things of many physicians, and had spent all that she had, and was nothing bettered, but rather grew worse, When she had heard of Jesus, came in the press behind, and touched his garment.  For she said, If I may touch but his clothes, I shall be whole. And straightway the fountain of her blood was dried up; and she felt in her body that she was healed of that plague.  And Jesus, immediately knowing in himself that virtue [power] had gone out of him, turned him about in the press, and said, Who touched my clothes?  And his disciples said unto him, Thou seest the multitude thronging thee, and sayest thou, Who touched me?  And he looked round about to see her that had done this thing.  But the woman fearing and trembling, knowing what was done in her, came and fell down before him, and told him all the truth. And he said unto her, Daughter, thy faith hath made thee whole; go in peace, and be whole of thy plague.

This passage is the central event (event B) of an intercalation, or literary sandwich, with 5:21-24 (Jairus pleads for Jesus to save his daughter) as event A1 and 5:35-43 (Jesus raises Jairus’ daughter) as event A2. When Mark uses intercalations, the purpose is to have each story reinforce the theology of the other so, in this case the amazing ability of Jesus to heal the woman merely by having her touch his clothes reinforces his amazing ability to raise Jairus' daughter merely by taking her hand and saying, Talitha cumi. Likewise, the story of Jairus' daughter reinforces the amazing story of healing the woman. This demonstrates that we have a good translation, and not a figurative narration. In the case of Jairus' daughter, Jesus said (Mark 5:40), before he even saw her, "The damsel is not dead, but sleepeth," and they laughed him to scorn. When the woman with the issue of blood touched his clothes, Jesus' powers of perception meant that he knew just what had happened.


How is the parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus interpreted? I have always been puzzled by this in Scripture.

Can someone clarify these points:

If Jesus was speaking of reality then 'The End' had technically already come. Is this correct?

From Hell it would appear we can see Heaven and speak to people in Heaven as they can see us.

The last point I have comes from Revelation.  We are taught that in the end everyone will live on earth.  It speaks that the pure and holy will walk past those who are un-pure and un-holy day after day to worship.

It also states that there are gates to Heaven which again have people outside them.  Can I assume then that Hell is basically everything outside of Heavens gates.

Why would Heaven even need gates?

First off I'd like to state that this is, in my opinion, clearly not a parable because the Bible does not state it as one like it does in these many citations:

Matthew 13:18
Luke 6:39
Luke 12:16
Luke 15:3
Luke 18:1
Luke 18:9
Luke 19:11

  If Jesus was speaking of reality then 'The End' had technically already come. Is this correct?

So, to answer this question, Jesus was in fact not only speaking of reality but also of a real happening. Lazarus and the rich man was not a parable, it was real. However, The End has not yet come. In fact, Hell is going to be destroyed as well and is simply a holding place for the souls that are lost. Revelation speaks of it in Revelation 20:14:

  And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.

Note that both death (the fact that man must die for his sins) and hell are cast into the lake of fire. Furthermore, that is where the devil will end up according to Revelation 20:10:

  And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever.

So, the end has not yet come, but it's on its way.

  From Hell it would appear we can see Heaven and speak to people in Heaven as they can see us.

This now makes more sense now that we have revealed that hell is a holding place for souls, but let's concrete this a bit more and see clearly that heaven is a holding place for souls as well. So, let's look at Revelation 21:1:

  And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea.

Here we see that heaven, which is the holding place that Lazarus ascended to, is also destroyed and a new heaven and a new earth is built. So yes, those souls in hell can see those souls in heaven until both are destroyed.

  It also states that there are gates to Heaven which again have people outside them. Can I assume then that Hell is basically everything outside of Heavens gates.

I would say you don't assume that everything outside the gates of heaven is hell, the earth is outside the gates of heaven but is clearly defined as the earth in Genesis 1:1:

  In the beginning God created heaven, and earth.

So hell is a different creation all by itself.

Keep in mind that most English translations use the word "Hell" to describe two completely different things: "Hades" (the realm of the dead) and "Gehenna" (the lake of fire). Before Christ, there was no salvation. Jews that kept God's covenant went to a place called Paradise or Abraham's Bosom, while the rest went to Hades. As already mentioned, we are not told that this story is a parable like we are in the other parables (though that doesn't necessarily mean that it isn't). We cannot be certain if its a parable or not, and since we can't be certain about that, we also can't be certain if there was/is a way for people in Hades and Paradise to see and speak to each other.

Since "Hell" in this story is referring to Hades, we cannot infer 'the end' has come, since people were going to Hades since long before Christ. I believe your references to Revelation are speaking about the millennial reign of Christ on Earth. During this time Christ comes to rule the nations/world from Jerusalem. Hell is not outside Jerusalem, and Heaven is not inside. It is still just Earth.


Why does the Catholic Church prefer burials over cremation? In a copy of Order of Christian Funerals that my deacon owns, it says this regarding burial and cremation:

413 Although cremation is now permitted by the Church, it does not enjoy the same value as burial of the body. The Church clearly prefers and urges that the body of the deceased be present for the funeral rites, since the presence of the human body better expresses the values which the Church affirms in those rites.
414 The Church's teaching in regard to the human body as well as the Church's preference for burial of the body should be a regular part of catechesis on all levels and pastors should make particular efforts to preserve this important teaching.

Unfortunately, it doesn't go into detail about why the Catholic Church prefers burial over cremation.
What is the reasoning for this? What values that the Church affirms are better expressed through burial, but not cremation?

Cremation erodes the belief in the resurrection of the body* and the afterlife (although nothing can prevent our bodies from resurrecting on the last day).

Moral theologians Frs. McHugh, O.P. & Callan, O.P.'s Moral Theology §2595 write:

  (b) The prohibition of the cremation of corpses (Canon 1203 [= 1983 Code canon 1184 [§1.2]]) is not based on natural law or on any dogma, as though the burning of dead bodies were intrinsically evil or repugnant to our faith in immortality and resurrection. On the contrary, in exceptional cases (e.g., in time of war or epidemic) cremation is permitted, if a real public necessity requires it. The reasons for the anti-cremation law are: the tradition of the Old and New Testaments (Gen., iii, 19; I Cor., xv. 42), and especially the example of Christ whose body was consigned to the tomb; the association of burial throughout the history of the Church with sacred rites and the doctrine of the future life, and the contrary association of cremation both in times past and today with paganism and despair; the sacred dignity of the human body (Gen., i. 25; I Cor., iii. 16, iii. 5), and the feeling of affection for parents, relatives, friends, which is outraged when their bodies are consigned to the furnace. The practical arguments offered for cremation are chiefly hygienic and economic; but it is certain that proper burial at sea or in the grave is no menace to public health, and is not more expensive or difficult than cremation. A most serious objection to cremation is that it makes exhumation impossible, and is therefore a means of concealing murder by poison. It is not lawful for a Catholic to coöperate (except materially in case of necessity) with cremation, or to belong to any society that promotes the incineration of corpses; it is not lawful for a priest to give the last Sacraments or funeral rites to those who ordered the cremation of their bodies.

cf. §40.14 "Cremation" of Romano Amerio's Iota Unum

The 1869 International Congress of Freemasons made them promote cremation for undermining belief in the resurrection of the body and the afterlife. Fr. John Laux writes in Catholic Morality (imprimatur 1932), p. 106:

  On December 8, 1869, the International Congress of Freemasons imposed it as a duty on all its members to do all in their power to wipe out Catholicity from the face of the earth. Cremation was proposed as a suitable means to this end, since it was calculated to gradually undermine the faith of the people in "the resurrection of the body and life everlasting."

cf. Charles Augustine, O.S.B., D.D.'s A Commentary on the New Code of Canon Law on 1917 canon 1240: "all societies whose principal purpose is to promote cremation, or which have tendencies similar to those of Freemasonry" are prohibited from ecclesiastical burial.

*Notes on the resurrection of the body & cremation:

The Sadducees—the Jewish sect Jesus called, along with the Pharisees, a "brood of vipers" (Mt. 3:7)—disbelieved (unlike the Pharisees) the resurrection of the body (cf. Mt. 22:23).

Now, under the guise of "hygiene," cremation is actually incentivized.(similar to how circumcision—which began as a Jewish purification ritual—is now promoted for hygienic reasons, despite there being no evidence it is more hygienic, although the circumcision rate in the U.S., at least, is declining; and today's circumcision is very different from how ancient Jews were circumcised, which was with one swipe of a knife; modern, Pharisaic circumcision dates from 140 AD)

There are places that freezes bodies because they believe in the future the technology will be so advanced as to be able to resurrect the dead! It's possible, but an unreasonable hope. Even the pagan philosophers realized the human soul is immortal and is still related to the body after death (although some of them did believe in reincarnation). That the soul is immortal follows from the fact we humans are able to know universal things, which are eternal.

The Christian tradition of burial differed from the Roman tradition of cremation, and the Vatican only lifted the ban on cremation in 1963. The Christian preference for burial may have had a connection with the Pauline idea of the body as a temple of God, and it may have had a connection with the belief in resurrection. Notice that Jews traditionally also prohibited cremation, and Christians often adopted Jewish custom.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cremation_in_the_Christian_World

Burial was never a dogma propounded by the Catholic councils, and what was stated above only shows that there was a strong traditional bias for burial in the catholic church. The fact that burial never was a dogma explains why the ban on cremation could be lifted in 1963. There is more information here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cremation#Catholicism


Does the Pope teach infallibly ONLY when he speaks ex cathedra? The Vatican Council (opened on 8 December, 1869) defined as "a divinely revealed dogma" that "the Roman Pontiff, when he speaks ex cathedra — that is, when in the exercise of his office as pastor and teacher of all Christians he defines, by virtue of his supreme Apostolic authority, a doctrine of faith or morals to be held by the whole Church — is, by reason of the Divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, possessed of that infallibility with which the Divine Redeemer wished His Church to be endowed in defining doctrines of faith and morals; and consequently that such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are irreformable of their own nature (ex sese) and not by reason of the Church's consent"1 - Source: Explanation of papal infallibility | Infallibility | New Advent.

1. cf. Denzinger 1839 And so We, adhering faithfully to the tradition received from the beginning of the Christian faith, to the glory of God, our Savior, the elevation of the Catholic religion and the salvation of Christian peoples, with the approbation of the sacred Council, teach and explain that the dogma has been divinely revealed: that the Roman Pontiff, when he speaks ex cathedra, that is, when carrying out the duty of the pastor and teacher of all Christians by virtue of his supreme apostolic authority he defines a doctrine of faith or morals to be held by the universal Church, through the divine assistance promised him in blessed Peter, operates with that infallibility with which the divine Redeemer wished that His church be instructed in defining doctrine on faith and morals; and so such definitions of the Roman Pontiff from himself, but not from the consensus of the Church, are unalterable.

The question is, does the Pope teach infallibly ONLY when he speaks ex cathedra? Are there instances when a Pope has taught infallibly but not precisely as according to the definition by the Vatican Council? If so, what are some examples?

Ex cathedra is the means by which a pope defines dogma.
Infallible means "not prone to err."

The First Vatican Council says a pope cannot err when defining dogma. This does not imply he's prone to err when not defining dogma, nor does it mean he must speak ex cathedra to be inerrant.

Encyclicals, for example, are inerrant; otherwise, the Church would demand the faithful to assent to what might contain error, and the Church cannot lead one into error because the Church is indefectible. From Pope Pius XII's Humani Generis:

  Nor must it be thought that what is expounded in Encyclical Letters does not of itself demand consent, since in writing such Letters the Popes do not exercise the supreme power of their Teaching Authority. For these matters are taught with the ordinary teaching authority, of which it is true to say: "He who heareth you, heareth me";[Luke, X, 16] and generally what is expounded and inculcated in Encyclical Letters already for other reasons appertains to Catholic doctrine. But if the Supreme Pontiffs in their official documents purposely pass judgment on a matter up to that time under dispute, it is obvious that that matter, according to the mind and will of the Pontiffs, cannot be any longer considered a question open to discussion among theologians.

Does the RC Church believe the Pope teaches infallibly ONLY when he speaks ex cathedra (from the chair)?

Roman Catholic teaching affirms that they believe their Pope teaches infallibly Only when he is speaking or teaching from 'the chair', ex cathdra.

RCC has said ONLY when their Pope speaks from the chair, do they believe he will not err in doctrine or moral teaching.

This comes from personally hearing a RCatholic explain ex cathedra reading from RCC approced documentation to me. (this falls within the proof acceptable for support)

As further proof, here is a quote from the Catechism of the Catholic Church;

Pope and Bishops (891)

The Pope is infallible when, as supreme pastor and teacher of the faith, he proclaims by a definitive act a doctrine pertaining to faith and morals.

This infallibility is also present in the body of bishops when, together with the Pope, they exercise the supreme Magisterium, above all in an Ecumenical Council. When the Church proposes a doctrine as Christ's teaching "for belief as being divinely revealed," the faithful must adhere by "the obedience of faith." This infallibility extends to the entire deposit of divine revelation.

This definition is called ex cathedra.

Ex Cathedra

From the Catholic Encyclopedia

Literally "from the chair", a theological term which signifies authoritative teaching and is more particularly applied to the definitions given by the Roman pontiff. Originally the name of the seat occupied by a professor or a bishop, cathedra was used later on to denote the magisterium, or teaching authority. The phrase ex cathedra occurs in the writings of the medieval theologians, and more frequently in the discussions which arose after the Reformation in regard to the papal prerogatives. But its present meaning was formally determined by the Vatican Council, Sess. IV, Const. de Ecclesiâ Christi, c. iv: "We teach and define that it is a dogma Divinely revealed that the Roman pontiff when he speaks ex cathedra, that is when in discharge of the office of pastor and doctor of all Christians, by virtue of his supreme Apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine regarding faith or morals to be held by the universal Church, by the Divine assistance promised to him in Blessed Peter, is possessed of that infallibility with which the Divine Redeemer willed that his Church should be endowed in defining doctrine regarding faith or morals, and that therefore such definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves and not from the consent of the Church irreformable."

http://www.catholicity.com/encyclopedia/e/ex_cathedra.html


What's the name of the process by which the scriptures were written down? The word 'concoursis' was used by a Sunday school teacher to describe the process by which Scripture was revealed by the Spirit to the Apostles and then written down. However, I can't find the word used anywhere.

Is the word 'concoursis' used by any theologian to name that process, or is any other word used specifically as a name for the process?

To be clear, I'm asking for the name/word. While there are a variety of ideas about the specific manner in which the ministry of the Spirit moved men to effect the writing of Holy Scriptures. The word seemed to be used as an umbrella term for any process by which the ministry of the Spirit resulted in written Scripture.

Suppose the word is concoursis, to use it in a sentence. One might say "letter for letter, general dictation, and the divinely informed free hand are each held by different groups to be the means of concoursis."

Concursus is a Latin word which can be translated encounter or meeting. The late 19th–early 20th century Presbyterian theologian Benjamin Breckenridge Warfield used the word to describe his belief that

  the whole of Scripture is the product of the divine activities which enter it, not by superseding the activities of the human authors, but by working confluently with them, so that the Scriptures are the joint product of divine and human activities, both of which penetrate them at every point, working harmoniously together to the production of a writing which is not divine here and human there, but at once divine and human in every part, every word and every particular.

(source: B. B. Warfield, "The Divine and Human in the Bible," in Selected Shorter Writings of Benjamin B. Warfield (ed. John E . Meeter; Presbyterian and Reformed, 1970), page 57. Cited on a web page at The Biologos Forum. Here is a copy of the original essay, discussing concursus and its meaning.)

Thus, concursus doesn't describe "the process by which the Scriptures were written down" generally, but rather one theologian's view of the interaction between God and the humans who wrote down the Scriptures.

You may be looking for the word diatheke, which is a Greek word which translates to "testament" or "witnessing."


Which angels and fallen angels are named in the Bible? Which angels and fallen angels are named in the Bible. and what are they responsible for?

Angels

There are only two angels mentioned by name in Scripture:

Michael, the archangel, mentioned in Daniel 10 (and also in Jude). He is described as fighting the prince of Persia.
Gabriel, who announced the birth of Jesus to Mary in Luke 1.  Here Gabriel is being an angelos quite literally - a messenger.

Other Angels appear in the OT (One to Manoah in Judges to announce the birth of Samson, three to Abraham in Genesis), but they are unnamed.

An angel has only one job, as implied by the name - they deliver messages.

When they are not doing this job, they are usually in the presence of the Lord, praising him and announcing his glory (Isaiah 6, Revelation)

Fallen Angels

Debatedly, the only fallen angel is Lucifier in Isaiah 14 - the "Star of Morning" who is the Devil.

One could also describe "Legion" as a demon in Luke 5 (at Genesseret), but that isn't a proper name, rather a collection of Demons.

There are more then one fallen angel as
Lucifer (the morning star)  is a angel an he was the reason of the fallen because he wanted his own kindgom so therefore Jehovah banned him and any of the angels that agree with lucifer. He is the ruler of hell and it his job to test both humans and the fallen.
Sammeal/Satan is the only archangel to fallen and he rules in hell as the prince.
Ori was one Fallen it was his job to hell luicfer by killing any rouge demons. Also he was excellent at seducing both men and women.
Gusion (fallen) was known for seeing the future, he was also Ori friend, it was said that he help Ori in battle against Sarteal.
Sarteal (fallen) want to to rule hell instead of Lucifer.

Some of the fallen mated with humans and produced nephilim (half-angel half-human)
There are seven archangels and they are
1. Uriel, one of the holy angels, who presides over clamer and terror
2. Raphael, one of the holy angels, who presides over the spirts of men
3. Raguel, one of the holy angels, who take vengeance on the world of the luminaries
4. Micheal, one of the holy angels, to wit, he that is set over the best part of mankind and chos
5. Sarakiel, one of the holy angels, who is set over the sports, who sin in the spirt (and the only female archangel)
6. Gabriel, one of the holy angels, who is over paradise and the serpents and the cherubim
7. Remiel, one of the holy Angels, whom god set over those who rise
- the book of Enoch 20:1-8
Therefore Micheal can't be a fallen.