How can common believers in the Eastern Orthodox Church be sure that the Church's decisions are correct and not erroneous? There have been some councils, the decisions of which were later reversed by some latter councils. Thus, if your position on a particular matter that was being considered at those councils was too strong, you could easily be excommunicated from the Church as a heretic between those two councils, while you would be just fine after the second one, or the other way around.

Here is an example: the council of Hieria in 754 a.d. and the Second Council of Nicaea in 787 a.d., both of which appropriated their titles as Seventh Ecumenical Council. The first council forbade the use of icons, and the second one reversed that decree. I know that one could say here that the Synod of Hieria was not an Ecumenical Council (it was called and chaired by the imperial family and no patriarchs were present, plus, its status is implicit in the Second Council of Nicaea declaring itself to be the actual Seventh Ecumenical Council), however, it doesn't really matter. What matters is that at the time when it took place it was announced as an Ecumenical Council, which means that ordinary folks - at least during the time between those two councils - had to follow the decrees of the council of Hiernia, otherwise, they would definitely fall into the category of heretics according to the decree of that council.

So, the question is: How can common believers in the Eastern Orthodox Church be sure that the Church's decisions are correct and not erroneous?

My simple answer: the Holy Spirit promised to guide the Church into all truth. The Orthodox believe that He has fulfilled His promise. Now for my lengthier response:

There is somewhat of an implied dichotomy in Western thought that must be called out right off the bat: the distinction between Scripture and Tradition. In Eastern thought, there is no distinction, as the Church and its apostolic tradition existed before the New Testament was written. Scripture is part of tradition, indeed it plays the preeminent role in Tradition. Tradition is not opposed to Scripture nor does it contradict it any point, rather it explains Scripture. But I do not have time to address this fully, nor is it exactly the question at hand. Suffice it to say that in Eastern thought (and increasingly also in modern scholastic Western thought), sola scriptura is a myth—a logical fallacy. Everyone appeals to tradition when interpreting scripture - we just don't agree on which tradition, and many deny that they have any such tradition (and this ignorance is even more dangerous). Hence the 23,000+ denominations in Western Christianity.

In John 16:12-13, Jesus said, "I have many more things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all truth." It should be noted that in both instances, the word "you" is plural. This promise was not made to individuals, but to the disciples, they that would become the Church and form the apostolic tradition that was to be guarded and passed on (cf. 2 Thessalonians 2:15; 3:6). Keep in mind that many churches were planted before the New Testament was written.

When early heresies threatened to corrupt the gospel, early Christians turned to the apostolic tradition to defend the faith (such as when Christians appealed to apostolic succession to refute the Gnostics' claim that Jesus had secret teachings and that there were alternate gospels. Note that no official canon of scripture was adopted until the 16th century in the West, and no official canon has ever been declared in the East). When heresies threatened to divide the unity of the entire church, the church came together with bishops (episkopoi) representing the Church in various geographic regions, including both East and West for the first seven "ecumenical" (church-wide) councils.

When considering this question which was directed to the East, a broader one comes to mind: how can anyone in Christianity-whether Eastern or Western-be sure that the Church's decisions are correct and not erroneous? For instance, the Church preserved certain texts which were eventually accepted as the canon which we today call the bible, and they chose to repudiate other texts. Even still, not everyone was unanimous on the 66 books included in the modern Protestant bible (cf. antilegomena), not to mention the deuterocanonical books found in Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox bibles. The reality is that everything we have in the Christian faith, including our bible, comes from tradition. Studying history helps make sense of it (I highly recommend Jaroslav's five-volume set on The Christian Tradition: A History of the Development of Doctrine, and his concise book Vindication of Tradition. Pelikan is a renowned ecclesiastical historian).

The East has critically evaluated the Church's many theologians, such as the Cappadocian fathers repudiating how Origen and Irenaeus integrated Platonic and Neo-Platonic thought into their theology. Also note that with the exception of Martin Luther and some recent scholars, most Western Christians have never considered how Aristotelian thought and scholasticism has impacted Protestant theology. Western Christianity's ignorance of history prior to the 16th century has lead them to unquestionably adopt many heretical and worldly philosophical viewpoints, and this can be seen clearly in the rampant division and individualistic soteriology that has marked Western Christianity.

A close examination of history shows a remarkable unity in the history of the Church for over 1000 years before the bishop of Rome excommunicated the patriarch of Constantinople in 1054. Prior to that event the Church had always decided issues via ecumenical councils, but the bishop of Rome wished to have sole authority over the entire Church, which was an innovation and was not the apostolic tradition (contrary to Roman Catholic teaching that Peter was the head over all the apostles-we can see already in the New Testament that Paul corrected Peter and that James appears to preside in some way as a leader over the Jerusalem council in Acts 15). Suffice it to say that while there are anomalous events such as the council of Hiera, history shows that these decisions were local and thus not widely accepted and passed on in the Church. Despite many challenges to the faith and Church unity, She maintained remarkable unity throughout history, especially in the East.

In summary, the East trusts that the Holy Spirit has continued to guide the Church into all truth. Eastern theologians are generally very knowledgeable about Church history and they "give their ancestors a vote" when interpreting scripture. Most Protestants do also, they simply aren't honest about it in most cases and don't look much further in the past than the 16th century for theological guidance, except to occasionally use the content of early conciliar creeds.

I do not have time to write a history lesson about the many interconnected issues that are requisite knowledge for a more in depth discussion of the trustworthiness and value of tradition, I have merely hinted at some of the notable data. I hope that I have given a basic response and good resource recommendations to learn more. I hope that this response has not come off as demeaning. I frequently hear Western Christians critiquing Eastern Christians for being uncritical towards Christian history, when the exact opposite is generally the case.

Common believers in the Eastern Orthodox Church, of these days, cannot distinct between truth and heresies. For this, is needed more than a common believe.
The orthodoxy is not based on contemporary logic or understanding, neither based on science methods, or innovations.
The orthodox criterion is always based on tradition made by saints, their teachings, their life examples, and their councils.
The orthodox teachings are always inherited from and confirmed by the preceding saints, which are considered part of the Church, temples of Holy Spirit, guarantors of pure teaching of God tested in practice with their dedicated life, and without contain any mixture of profane wisdom or human understanding.
Many saints are confirmed by God, through relics and miracles around them.
So, distinction between truthful and heretics teachings are validated and accepted in time as official, along few generations.


Is it possible (intellectually honest) to 'contextualise' the 'anti-divorce' passages, but not the 'anti-homosexual' ones? (Disclaimer: This is an honest question, I'm not trying to be inflammatory. Also I confess to not having done a great deal of research on this one)

I'm not familiar with the positions of all denominations on the matter, but generally it seems that those who allow remarriage after divorce treat the "clear word of the Lord" with some measure of 'contextualisation/reinterpretation'.

I don't know all of the arguments involved, but I wonder if they aren't the same, or similar, to the ones advanced in defence of skirting the 'plain meaning' of texts condemning homosexuality.

Obviously, the for/against arguments in both cases are extensive, so I'm not asking for a comprehensive review of them: I just want to know if there is a substantive difference in the 'techniques' used to justify both.

In short, I don't believe there is a plausible way to reinterpret divorce regulations without opening the gate to reinterpreting homosexuality in similar fashion. This point is not lost on all prominent evangelical leaders (e.g., Albert Mohler, John Piper, Tim Keller, John Frame, etc.), even if it seems lost on some (the old school Moral Majority, perhaps). There's not total hypocrisy on this front, though it sometimes seems that way.

Divorce (and hence remarriage after divorce) and homosexuality, according to the evangelicals I have in mind, are both outside of God's desired plan, though not out of his sovereign will. The difference is that the law regulates divorce, permitting it due to our hardness of heart, but not approving of it. The same cannot be said of homosexuality, according to any historico-grammatical exegesis that I am aware of. It is always and everywhere forbidden. There's at least a little more wiggle room in divorce regulation.

Incidentally, I asked a related question that, alas, got deleted: Have any denominations modeled their positions on gay marriage after OT regulatory structures? That is, have any denominations applied the hermeneutic they apply to slavery, polygamy, and divorce -- each of which we could characterize as suboptimal but regulatable rather than being proscribed outright -- to homosexuality. I don't have an answer to that question, which is why I asked it, but I thought it would be a potentially interesting approach to consider.

Jesus gave us 4 things in the following passage.

How God deemed marriage to be.
Why -Moses- not God allowed divorce to begin with.
What God considered to be sin in regards to divorce.
What should be done if a person can't help but seek divorce.

  The Pharisees also came to Him, testing Him, and saying to Him, “Is it
  lawful for a man to divorce his wife for just any reason?”

  4 And He answered and said to them, “Have you not read that He who
  made them at the beginning ‘made them male and female,’  5 and said,
  ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined
  to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’?  6 So then, they are
  no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together,
  let not man separate.”

  7 They said to Him, “Why then did Moses command to give a certificate
  of divorce, and to put her away?”

  8 He said to them, “Moses, because of the hardness of your hearts,
  permitted you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not
  so.  9 And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual
  immorality, and marries another, commits adultery; and whoever
  marries her who is divorced commits adultery.”

  10 His disciples said to Him, “If such is the case of the man with his
  wife, it is better not to marry.”

  11 But He said to them, “All cannot accept this saying, but only those
  to whom it has been given:  12 For there are eunuchs who were born
  thus from their mother’s womb, and there are eunuchs who were made
  eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs
  for the kingdom of heaven’s sake. He who is able to accept it, let him
  accept it.” - Matthew 19:3-12 (emphasis my own)

Therefore according to God it's a sin to remarry after divorce unless one of the spouses has committed adultery prior to the divorce. Because whoever marries a divorced person who being divorced for a reason other than adultery commits adultery in doing so. Homosexuality is very similar.

  "22 You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an
  abomination" -Leviticus 18:22

Considering what Jesus announced in Matthew 19. God doesn't consider a marriage to be anything other than One man to One woman for life. Anything else is a defiling of what He ordained in creation. This however does not condemn a person for being divorced and remarried nor does it condemn a person who is homosexual. The same grace that flowed on a heterosexual person who died only have one spouse their whole life is just as forgiven of his past sin as a person who was once homosexual or was divorced and remarried. If they have been born again through Christ.

I hope this helped. God bless.


What is the Biblical basis for it being wrong for couples to live together “chastely” before marriage? Many Christians say that a couple shouldn't live together before they get married, even if they are not having sex with each other.

What is the Biblical basis for this position? Are there certain passages of Scripture that speak against it? Or are there aspects of Church tradition that speaks against it? Or is there something else that has prompted Christians to view this as wrong?

From your comments you are asking strictly about members of the opposite sex who live in the same house, without any kind of sexual relations.

There is, as far as I know, no absolute prohibition on this. In fact I have known several Christians who have shared houses with members of the opposite sex and nobody has objected in any way. However I do understand your claim that Christians do sometimes object to this. Here are some reasons:

They don't believe it. The church doing the objecting probably thinks the pair are having sex, they are just not being open about it. If the people sharing the house are in a romantic relationship, this skepticism is pretty understandable.
It's laying yourself open to temptation Having someone of the opposite sex 'available' and in a situation where nobody would know if you slept together is heightening the possibility that you might 'slip up'. If you are attracted to the other person that counts double, and if you are in a romantic relationship with them, even more so.
It's damaging your reputation and hence Jesus'. Even if you are living completely chastely, and fellow-Christians believe that, it's extremely unlikely that the rest of the world will believe it. Therefore they will see it as a case of Christians being hypocritical.

Different churches would have different takes on this. I certainly know some that would have have no problem with it, and some that would have a big problem.

There isn’t one, because it doesn’t matter: you’re probably already married.
Simply put, nowhere in the Bible is any form of marriage ceremony required for a marriage to have taken place. Indeed, when you look at the early Biblical patriarchs who lived before the Law of Moses, their marriages are described with verses along the lines of “And then he took her into his tent and lay with her” - no formal ceremony was required. In the Law of Moses when it talks about marriage, it talks about when it is required to occur and how it might be ended, but it doesn’t describe any form of formal ceremony. When Jesus talks about marriage, he mentions “becoming one flesh” (that is, having sex), but he also discusses the new couple leaving their parents’ houses to live together.
As a result, things like “pre-marital sex” don’t really exist; if you’re in a relationship with someone, and you have sex with them, congratulations, you’re married. I say “in a relationship with someone” because men were allowed to hire prostitutes under the Law of Moses (though Paul has forbidden Christians from doing so), and there’s no mention of that resulting in marriage. There’s also one other exception: if you have promised to marry a girl at some point in the future, and then you have sex with her prior to the agreed-upon date or conditions being met (e.g. “I’ll work on your farm for seven years in exchange for marrying your daughter”).
I know that the Catholic Church would disagree with this analysis of Scripture, since they require the formal ceremonies to be held in their churches for them to view marriages as valid, but their views on how “sacraments” work is almost entirely extra-Biblical (though discussion of one of the biggest doctrinal differences between Catholicism and Protestantism is probably off-topic to this question).


What is the Catholic understanding of the first sin committed by Adam and Eve? I always used to consider the first sin committed by Adam and Eve as eating the forbidden fruit from a particular tree. But recently my husband commented that Adam and Eve had sex with each other which is the first sin. I had no substantial point to prove against his point.

Is sex considered to be the forbidden fruit? Is that thought prevalent among Catholics? What is the Catholic teaching on the first sin of Adam and Eve?

(Note that this question is asking about the first sin committed by Adam and Eve, not the doctrine of "original sin": that we all in some way have inherited a sinful nature from them.)

Sexual intercourse was not a sin at all (for Adam and Eve in the context of their marriage).  In fact, God commanded them to be fruitful and multiply:

  "And God blessed them. And God said to them, "Be fruitful and
  multiply and fill the earth and subdue it and have dominion over the
  fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over every
  living thing that moves on the earth."  Genesis 1:28 ESV

While having sexual intercourse was not a direct command, it most certainly was an indirect command.  You can't be fruitful and multiply without it, unless God was merely encouraging them to garden and do arithmetic.

So, the original sin was eating of the fruit in direct violation of God's command.  However, it could be suggested that pride preceded that, because for them to defy God's command they had to exalt themselves as the authority over their own lives.  Pride would have been a sin of the heart whereas eating of the fruit was a sin of deed.

What exactly was the original sin?

THREE ANSWER SOURCES to support the theory that "original sin" is sexual by nature.

1.Jewish Scholarly Answer (see this link aticle)

The keyword is the serpent "beguiled" Eve, and the word "beguiled" in Hebrew means, is related to "seduction and defilement" and in this article link even goes further in entertaining the serpent had "raped" Eve, meaning it is contrary to her will.

  And the LORD God said unto the woman, What is this that thou hast done? And the woman said, The serpent beguiled me, and I did eat. (Genesis3:13)

  THE RAPE OF EVE AND ITS SPIRITUAL CONNOTATIONS IN THE EARLY JEWISH AND GNOSTICS LITERATURE
  file:///C:/Users/Dell%20PC/AppData/Local/Packages/Microsoft.MicrosoftEdge_8wekyb3d8bbwe/TempState/Downloads/Peeters%20(3).pdf

2. BIBLICAL ANSWER (St.Paul teachings)

St.Paul teaches what kind of sin destroy or reduced a human body to a body like an animal or a beast, just like what happened first to Eve and later to Adam.

  Flee from sexual immorality. All other sins a person commits are outside the body, but whoever sins sexually, sins against their own body. 19 Do you not know that your bodies are temples of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own; 20 you were bought at a price. Therefore honor God with your bodies.

Adam & Eve must honor God with their bodies, and the only sin that can defiled the pure,innocent and virgin body of Eve is sexual by nature. It would be unthinkable to think of any other possible sins that can relate to the punishment of Eve in giving birth other than their sins is sexual procreation by nature.

CATHOLICISM ANSWER

St.Ambrose a Church Father and St.Augustine a Doctor of the Church view original sin was sexual in nature.

  St Augustine's theory

  St Augustine, who largely devised the theory of original sin, thought that original sin was transmitted from generation to generation through sexual intercourse. Augustine did not say exactly how this happened.
  He said that it was transmitted by "concupiscence", when people had sex and conceived a child.
  Augustine thought that concupiscence was present in all sexual intercourse. He thought that it was just as bad and uncontrolled in a marriage as it was in non-marital sex, but that an excuse could be made for it within marriage because its purpose was to produce legitimate children.

  ...whenever it comes to the actual process of generation, the very embrace which is lawful and honourable cannot be effected without the ardour of lust....

  [This lust] is the daughter of sin, as it were; and whenever it yields assent to the commission of shameful deeds, it becomes also the mother of many sins.

  Now from this concupiscence whatever comes into being by natural birth is bound by original sin...

  Augustine, De bono coniugali
  https://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/christianity/beliefs/originalsin_1.shtml

How can we understand this view? We need to understand and accept this following view;

The Garden of Eden situated in the east is the Temple of God.
https://jbqnew.jewishbible.org/assets/Uploads/412/jbq_41_2_gardenofeden.pdf
If there is a Temple of God, what is the role of Adam? He is a Priest.

https://sbts-wordpress-uploads.s3.amazonaws.com/equip/uploads/2018/10/SBJT-22.2-Adam-as-Priest-Beale.pdf

If Adam is a Priest, what kind of Priest? God made them overseer, it means he is a Bishop.

  God blessed them and said to them, “Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky and over every living creature that moves on the ground.”(Genesis1:28)

God made Adam a "ruler or overseer".

If Adam is a High Priest or Bishop, what is Adam offering to God? Adam is offering his  own body & blood and the works of his hands. See St.Paul teachings on Romans12:1

  A Living Sacrifice
  12 Therefore, I urge you, brothers and sisters, in view of God’s mercy, to offer your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and pleasing to God—this is your true and proper worship. (Romans12:1)

So, Adam is a High Priest and Jesus is the New Adam that was "anointed" to the Eternal High Priest to offer his own "body & blood" as a sacrifice too.

See this link;https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/resources/sacraments/holy-orders/adam-high-priest-of-humanity

Adam is offering sacrifices in the Temple of God alone, and God sees that it is not good for men to be alone worshipping him. So, God gave Adam a companion and her role is a "helper". What kind of help Adam needs? Adam need someone to help him in offering sacrifices to God. Adam & Eve will now offer their pure & holy bodies to God plus the works of their hands as a pleasing sacrifices to God.

  "For where two or three gather in my name, there am I with them.”(Matthew18:20)

So, Matthew18:20, is the reason why God gave Adam a helper, for when there are two who gathered to worship God, He is in their midst.

So, Adam is a Bishop the one responsible offering the "sacrifices" and Eve role is a "helper". What kind of helper is Eve? In Church terminology a "helper" of Bishop is a "deacon".

Remember Book of Genesis only said, God breathe in to Adam the "Breath of Life" or the Holy Spirit, but did not mention that God also breathe into Eve. Since Adam is a Bishop or High Priest he can confer the gifts of the Holy Spirit to Eve. This is the reason why the vision of Blessed Emmerich reveals Adam "light" is more magnificent than Eve.

  The Holy Spirit is the Breath of Lifehttps://www.orthodoxphotos.com/readings/SJK1/breath.shtml

If Eve is a "helper or deacon", did Adam "anointed" her? Yes! Adam as the High Priest or Bishop can "ordain" and "confer" the gifts of the Holy Spirit to Eve to become a "deacon or helper".
See Catechism on the role of Bishop's "imposition of hands" to ordain. http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p2s2c3a6.htm

Now, understanding all of the above insight will lead to what exactly is the "original sin".

What do you think is the suggestion made by the serpent? Did the serpent offered Eve a better offering to God other than their bodies and works of their hands?

The Key to understanding the actual original sin is Lucifer was present in the Heavenly Realm when God told the angels His Divine Plan for the Logos. The Logos will be "incarnated" in the form of a child. The "Incarnated Logos" is the most pleasing "sacrifice" to God.

Now look and ponder the "Tree of Life". what do we see, the picture below is a good reference.

What can we reflect upon the picture? Jesus is the "fruit" of the Tree of Life", and all the Saints & Martyrs or the "elect" also is "another Jesus".

The question is who is the Tree of Life? The answer is the chosen Woman from eternity, the Blessed Virgin Mary is the Mother of Jesus the "firstborn" and all the "elect" are in the womb of Mary as St.Montfort teaches. So, the "Tree of Life" is the symbol of Mary as the Mother of Jesus and all the Redeemed by Jesus as Christ.

  Mary as the Tree of Life

  Concerning the Tree of Life, in ‘The Mirror of the Blessed Virgin Mary’ St. Bonaventure (1221-1274) writes:

  The Angel showed John "the tree of life, bearing its fruits every month, and the leaves of the tree were for the healing of nations." The tree of life is Mary, the Mother of Life; or the tree of life is the tree of the Cross; or else the tree is Jesus Christ, the Author of Life, who is also the Fruit of Life. Those healing leaves are edifying words and deeds. If even the leaves are healing, how much more healing and life-giving is the fruit? Therefore, that we may be healed by this fruit, let us approach its tree; let us draw near, I say, to Mary. Let us pray with St. Anselm [1033-1109]: "Hear me, O Lady! Heal the soul of thy servant who is a sinner, by virtue of the blessed Fruit of thy womb, who sitteth at the right hand of his Almighty Father."( Bonaventure, The Mirror of the Blessed Virgin Mary, Chapter XVIII ).
  http://tenstringedlyreofthenewisrael.blogspot.com/2016/12/mary-immaculate-conception-tree-life.html

Now, there is another tree in the garden, the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. Can this tree capable of producing fruit? Yes.

Mary's "pure womb and sinless body" produces the "firstborn", "Blessed is the fruit of thy womb, Jesus".

How about Eve, can her "pure womb and sinless body" produce a "fruit" meaning a "child"? Yes.

So, the simple question is, since the serpent already knew the Divine Precept of God in the "Incarnated Logos" or the "Wisdom of God" (1Corinthian1:30). Did the serpent offered Eve another form of "wisdom"? Yes, the serpent offered Eve a "wisdom" if she will eat the "fruit", but since Eve resisted and answered that it was forbidden, the serpent "beguiled" Eve by saying "why not touch it first". Eve responded again, but this time Eve uttered a word that does not comes from God but from her "own intellect', Eve said "eating and touch" are both forbidden. This is the Fall of Eve,why? Because she uttered a "lie" in trying to defend herself. The serpent had gained first base.

So, what is the nature of suggestion of the serpent to Eve? The serpent "beguiled" Eve that She can also produce her own "fruit" from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. But, she need the cooperation of Adam. The question is, since God clearly forbid them "not to eat from the Tree of Knowledge and Good & Evil", it means they cannot produce yet their own "fruit" or a "child" to be offer to God as a "better sacrifice" than what they are offering.

How can we validate, that the actual original sin is the desire of Adam & Eve to produce their own "fruit" and using the analogy that the "pure womb of Mary produces fruits", then Eve "pure womb" can also produce "fruits", but since it is not according to the Will of God, this "sexual act" that can produce "fruit or child" cannot be offer to God.

Why Adam is the one responsible for the "original sin" and not Eve? The simple answer is,  Eve is only a "helper or deacon" and the one who are responsible for offering is Adam because he is the High Priest. Adam had "defiled" the Temple of God by desiring to offer to God a "forbidden fruit" from their "sexual procreated acts". That's why God said, after Adam & Eve made the "sexual acts", they become "One of Us" because they can now "create" a creature out of their own action.

St.Hildegard poem, a Doctor of the Church had validated that the actual "original sin" is a sexual act by this words;

  "She/Eve destroyed her womb by her ignorance". (St.Hildegard)

  A very great cause it was for lamenting and mourning,
  That through the counsel of the serpent, sorrow and guilt
  flowed into woman.

  For that woman, whom God had set to be the mother of us all,
  she destroyed her own womb with the wounds of ignorance
  and gave birth to all pain for her children.

  But, O dawn, from your womb
  a new Sun rises,
  which has cleansed all Eve’s sins,
  and through you a blessing flows
  greater than the harm Eve did to men.

  And thus you have saved us, you who bore the New Light for humankind.
  Gather then the members of your
  Son into celestial harmony.

  From the sequence O virga ac diadema purpurae Regis , translation by Kate Brown, as posted on the Scottish Early Music Consort homepage: http://www.scot-art.org/semc/trans.htm .

Another good validation is the "fruit" or the "child" of Adam & Eve bears the "hatred and murderer nature" of the serpent. Cain had killed his brother Abel.

  401 After that first sin, the world is virtually inundated by sin There is Cain's murder of his brother Abel and the universal corruption which follows in the wake of sin. Likewise, sin frequently manifests itself in the history of Israel, especially as infidelity to the God of the Covenant and as transgression of the Law of Moses. And even after Christ's atonement, sin raises its head in countless ways among Christians.287 Scripture and the Church's Tradition continually recall the presence and universality of sin in man's history:

  What Revelation makes known to us is confirmed by our own experience. For when man looks into his own heart he finds that he is drawn towards what is wrong and sunk in many evils which cannot come from his good creator. Often refusing to acknowledge God as his source, man has also upset the relationship which should link him to his last end, and at the same time he has broken the right order that should reign within himself as well as between himself and other men and all creatures.288

St.Maximus the Confessor explain why the "fruit" that comes from the "original sin" of Adam Eve bears the mark of the serpent "hatred & disbodeience".

  398 In that sin man preferred himself to God and by that very act scorned him. He chose himself over and against God, against the requirements of his creaturely status and therefore against his own good. Constituted in a state of holiness, man was destined to be fully "divinized" by God in glory. Seduced by the devil, he wanted to "be like God", but "without God, before God, and not in accordance with God".279(279 St. Maximus the Confessor, Ambigua: PG 91,1156C; cf. Gen 3:5.)

Therefore, Adam and Eve in committing the "original sin", the "sexual act of procreating their own fruit" from the Tree of Knowledge of Good & Evil had transgressed the Commandment of God, and it is worsen by Adam being a Priest, and since he is the High Priest, their "sexual acts" is an offering that is an "abomination to God" because it is an "offering tainted with disobedience". An offering to God tainted with "disobedience" defiled the Temple of God. Adam loses His anointing as "Ruler" and also loses the gifts of the Holy Spirit, their pure & holy bodies was defiled by their "sexual act". That's why God mercy, taught Adam as a Priest to offer an "unblemished animal" because they can no longer offer their corrupted bodies as a pleasing sacrifice to God.

  "Obedience is better than sacrifice". (1Samuel15:22)

Jesus as the "anointed one" to become the Eternal High Priest, is the only who can restore back the "offering that is pleasing to God" to atone for the sins of Adam and his descendants. But God Holy Decrees recquired Jesus as the Eternal Hign Priest need a "helper" too, but since Jesus comes from Heaven, the chosen "helper" must be "anointed" by a Chief Angel who is a "celestial prophet", to make Her "anointing" carries the dimension of both the Heavenly and Earthly realms. Mary is the chosen "Helper", the Sovereign Queen of Heaven and Earth.

Jesus the New Adam the High Priest & Redeemer and Mary the New Eve the chosen "helper or celestial deacon or Virgin, Priest" will fulfill the role of Co-Redemptrix to atone the sins of Adam & Eve and their descendants.


Did Jesus die on the cross crucified or was he hung to death from a tree? Why do you think that some books in the Bible say that Jesus died at The place of a skull which Is called In the Hebrew Golgotha the sight of the crucifixion.

Matthew 27:33 (KJV)

33 And when they were come unto a place called Golgotha, that is to say, a place of a skull,

Mark 15:22  (KJV)

22 And they bring him unto the place Golgotha, which is, being interpreted, The place of a skull.

John 19:17   (KJV)

17 And he bearing his cross went forth into a place called the place of a skull, which is called in the Hebrew Golgotha:

Now in these scriptures they tell a different story. They say Jesus was killed from hanging on a tree.

Acts 5:30   (KJV)

30 The God of our fathers raised up Jesus, whom ye slew and hanged on a tree.

Acts 10:39.   (KJV)

39 And we are witnesses of all things which he did both in the land of the Jews, and in Jerusalem; whom they slew and hanged on a tree.

Acts 13:29.   (KJV)

29 And when they had fulfilled all that was written of him, they took him down from the tree, and laid him in a sepulchre.

Galatians 3:13.  (KJV)

13 Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree.

Any thoughts?????

The Greek word translated as "cross" is σταυρός (Strong's G4716 - stauros). It is used exclusively (17 times) in the Gospels to refer to the method by which Jesus was killed, and in almost all other instances, except:

  The God of our fathers raised up Jesus, whom ye slew and hanged on a tree.
  -- Acts 5:30 (KJV)

  And we are witnesses of all things which he did both in the land of the Jews, and in Jerusalem; whom they slew and hanged on a tree:
  -- Acts 10:39 (KJV)

Both record Peter's words. The first, when he testified concerning Jesus before the Jewish leaders, "whom YE slew"; and the second just before the Holy Spirit fell upon all the Gentile believers. On the second occasion, Peter says, "whom THEY slew", but it is a generic "they" because there is nothing in his speech that identifies who the "they" are. However, his audience knew.

It is clear from this that Peter wanted to advertise the fact that those responsible for precipitating Jesus' death, had done a despicable thing.
The "despicable thing" Peter was referring to is explained by Paul, when he says:

  Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree:
  -- Galatians 3:13 (KJV)

Paul joins Peter in alluding to the same despicable method of dying, by pointing out that the manner of Jesus' death made him accursed -- "despised and rejected" as it was given by the prophet (Isaiah 53
:3).
In 1 Peter 2:24, Peter again uses this expression:

  Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree, that we, being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness: by whose stripes ye were healed.

  27 For they that dwell at Jerusalem, and their rulers, because they knew him not, nor yet the voices of the prophets which are read every sabbath day, they have fulfilled them in condemning him. ...
  29And when they had fulfilled all that was written of him, they took him down from the tree, and laid him in a sepulchre.
  -- Acts 13:27,29 (KJV)

Like Peter, Paul is drawing attention to the despicable nature of what the perpetrators, "they that dwell at Jerusalem, and their rulers", had done.

If this were the only record of Paul concerning how Jesus was killed, then there might be some doubt, but since he uses cross σταυρός on all but one occasion throughout his epistles (10 times), from his testimony the matter is clearly settled -- Jesus was killed on a cross.

Conclusion

Jesus was killed on a cross -- a cross is not a tree, but is made from a tree -- and for the purpose of opening the eyes of the perpetrators, to the despicable nature of what they had done to a man "who went about doing good, and healing all that were oppressed of the devil; for God was with him", Peter, and Paul (twice from twelve references) have depicted it as being hung "on a tree", which all who were familiar with the Torah would have understood as an accursed way to be put to death (Deuteronomy 21:23).

The last comment states that Peter "says" in the book of Peter.  It is known historically that Peter did not write the book of Peter.  Claiming such a thing only serves to lend false sense of credibility to the fraudulent explanation given you.  There is a thing called Truth and there is what is most popular. This is defending Christian biblical traditions at the expense of the Truth.  The word cross is used in many places in the Bible, and the word tree in others.  There is no "translation" justification for this discrepancy.  Tree = δέντρο  Cross = σταυρός  These are two distinct Greek words.  So the translation mishap excuse fails the smell test. Furthermore, the common Christian image of Jesus on the cross is not historically accurate.  The Christian cross would have been too costly to reproduce and too labor intensive to erect for all the numerous crucifixions they were carrying out.  It was instead two small tree branches crossed in an X shape with a third support beam branch behind it to hold it upright.  This would have been what Jesus was crucified on, not the popularized image which so many still think he was crucified on.  He was crucified on the same thing the Romans crucified every one else on, not on the image popularized by the early church.


Where did Goliath come from? The popular story of David and Goliath describes Goliath as very tall ("six cubits and a span"--apparently roughly 9 feet 9 inches, or 297cm).  Most children are just told he was a "giant" in Sunday school.

Where did he come from?  Was he part of a now-extinct race of giants, or was it just some sort of genetic mutation?

In the beginning...

Genesis 6:4 (NIV)

  The Nephilim were on the earth in those days—and also afterward—when the sons of God went to the daughters of humans and had children by them. They were the heroes of old, men of renown.

The descendants of these children of Nephilim were the giants that show up later in the bible.  When Moses sent the twelve spies into Canaan, the promised land (before the 40 years of wandering), they reported back of giants in the land:

Numbers 13:33

  We saw the Nephilim there (the descendants of Anak come from the Nephilim). We seemed like grasshoppers in our own eyes, and we looked the same to them.”

There's another reference to them in 2 Samuel:

2 Samuel 21:20

  In still another battle, which took place at Gath, there was a huge man with six fingers on each hand and six toes on each foot—twenty-four in all. He also was descended from Rapha.

Goliath, himself, was a Philistine.  He was also known as the "Goliath of Gath".  Gath was one of the five city-states of Philistine.

1 Samuel 17:23 (NIV)

  As he was talking with them, Goliath, the Philistine champion from Gath, stepped out from his lines and shouted his usual defiance, and David heard it.

Because we know that Goliath was from Gath (from 1 Samuel) and that the giants in Gath were descendants of the Nephilim (from 2 Samuel) it's pretty safe to assume he was one of those.

It's also safe to assume some possible genetic issues (due to the six fingers and toes).

I believe that the gene of the giants were passed down after the flood through Ham, to his son Mizraim,which are the Philistine peoples.


What would be the best version of the bible for me? I came across this forum while doing a little bit of research. I just want to say first I do not consider myself Christian. I was raised Christian but always felt it forced on me. I have not been to a church service for 10 years and have no interest in going right now.

That being said, I want to get a bible and read it so I can make an informed decision on what I should believe.

I am looking At purchasing a bible but don’t know what version would be best for me. I want a version that is easy to read but at the same time not an interpretation and as close to a original translation as possible.

Any suggestions would be appreciated.

Side note: I went to a Lutheran church for the majority of my childhood. My mother still goes to the same church. My dad is a Christian but goes to a different denomination of church. I don’t know what kind.

The major translations of the Bible are the King James Version (KJV), the New International Version (NIV), the New American Standard (NAS), the New King James Version (NKJV), the English Standard Version (ESV), and the New Living Translation (NLT).

The KJV and NAS attempt to take the underlying Hebrew and Greek words and translate them into the closest corresponding English words as possible (word for word), while the NIV and NLT attempt to take the original thought that was being presented in Greek and Hebrew and then express that thought in English (thought for thought).  There are pros and cons to each type - the article will help to explain.

You may find this article helpful - it gives insights into these different translations. https://www.gotquestions.org/most-accurate-Bible-translation.html

For more detailed information into the history of how the Bible has been translated, and what those translations are, please refer to this article: https://www.gotquestions.org/Bible-versions.html

I realise this presents you with more information than you might need, but, if you are to make an informed decision as to which Bible to buy, then this is a good way to go about it.  One thing I would recommend is that you buy a Bible which contains cross-references, maps, a concordance and so much more to make the Bible come alive and to answer questions that will undoubtedly arise as to start to read.

No other translation measures up to the King James.

The modern versions are based on very different texts that fundamentally change doctrine, and omit words. (The NIV is about 36k words shorter than the King James Bible.)

The chapters, words, letters and verse numbers have precise meanings that are lost when the text is changed.

For example one of the most loved verses is:

  John 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten
  Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have
  everlasting life.

The word "begotten" qualifies Jesus as the only one born of God so allows other sons, which is a marvellous thing, since:

  John 1:11 He came unto his own, and his own received him not.

  1:12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the
  sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:

which instructs us that we can become sons of God.

This is butchered in e.g. the ESV which has:

  "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that
  whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life."

When Christ speaks to his disciples in Matthew 5-7, it is precisely stated:

  Matthew 5:1 And seeing the multitudes, he went up into a mountain: and when he was set, his disciples came unto him:
  5:2 And he opened his mouth, and taught them, saying,

The NIV paraphrase for verse 2 is:

"and he began to teach them."

This omits the word "mouth" so losing the connection with the quote from Deuteronomy in the previous chapter (Matthew 4:4).

You will hear arguments against the King James Bible mostly using outside sources, but its own words remain a consistent witness to the truth.


How should a Christian relate to pseudoscience? This chart from Wikipedia quite nicely explains what pseudoscience is:

I think it's quite clear from the Bible that we Christians shouldn't give room to superstitions. As pseudoscience is close to superstition, should we treat it the same? What guidelines should be used when deciding whether to believe what some call pseudoscience?

For reference, some examples of claimed pseudoscience (from Wikipedia):

  Examples of pseudoscience concepts, proposed as scientific when they are not scientific, are creation science, intelligent design, orgone energy, N-rays, ch'i, L. Ron Hubbard's engram theory, enneagram, iridology, the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator, New Age psychotherapies (e.g., rebirthing therapy), reflexology, applied kinesiology, astrology, biorhythms, facilitated communication, plant perception, extrasensory perception (ESP), Velikovsky's ideas, von Däniken's ideas, Sitchen's ideas, anthropometry, post-normal science, craniometry, graphology, metoposcopy, personology, physiognomy, acupuncture, alchemy, cellular memory, Lysenkoism, naturopathy, reiki, Rolfing, therapeutic touch, ayurvedic medicine, and homeopathy.

(You may assume that creation science and intelligent design are in fact protoscience, if you want to avoid focusing on them.)

The Bible advises wisdom, not naiveté:

1 Thessalonians 5:20-21 (ESV):

  20Do not despise prophecies, 21but test everything; hold fast what is good.

Proverbs 2:9-11 (ESV):

  9Then you will understand what is right and just and fair—every good path. 10For wisdom will enter your heart, and knowledge will be pleasant to your soul. 11Discretion will protect you, and understanding will guard you.

Although the scientific method, properly applied, is simply a rigorous way to test everything and hold fast what is true (note: not necessarily good, but similar in spirit), one can decorate all sorts of whims and falsehoods with the appearance of science.  Pseudoscience delivers no more wisdom and knowledge than superstition simply because it pretends to be science; you have to actually rigorously apply the scientific method for it to work.

Thus, Christians should adopt the same stance towards pseudoscience--that it is not knowledge, not wisdom, and not to be held fast--as they do towards superstition.

As this question is based on things which are not generally accepted as sound science, we should first look for a solid answer as to how Christians should relate to things which are generally accepted as sound science.  And that's a bit of a tricky question, because "sound science" is not even well-settled by the scientists themselves.

To give a dramatic example, just last week some new experiments called into question the principle of the speed of light as the Absolute Speed Limit, which is one of the cornerstones of modern physics.  They're still working on verifying the data, but if it's right, they might need to rethink a huge amount of what was previously considered to be settled, non-controversial "sound science."

Also, remember that a lot of things that are today considered sound science were once derided and mocked as pseudoscientific nonsense. (Plate Tectonics is the most famous example, but certainly not the only one.)

Keeping that in mind, Christians should deal with "pseudoscientific" claims in basically the same way as we deal with "scientific" claims: review the evidence for and against them as impartially as we can and come to our own conclusions based on their validity.  And remember that, when necessary, we can take these questions to a higher source, whose views won't end up changing or being invalidated by the discovery of new, previously-unknown evidence.

  James 1:5

  5 If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him.

  2 Peter 1:19

  19 We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts:


If Jesus is God then how could he die? According to trinitarian theology, Jesus is both 100% man and 100% God. It is said that Jesus, being 100% God, died. Therefore, God died.

I know that 1/3 of God did not die, because that would be tritheism.

So I've considered two other positions:

100% of the living God stopped living. He died and three days later He rose again.
God did not die in the regular human sense. Just as He is "eternally begotten", He is also "eternally dead".

Neither of these positions make any sense to me, so perhaps there is a third option. Could somebody please explain how God's death should be understood?

This is where the doctrine of the hypostatic union is essential. Jesus the Son of God is one person, but he has two natures: the divine nature, and a human nature. The two natures cannot be divided, but neither are they mixed in the union to become hybrid natures.

The divine nature cannot die, but the human nature can. Jesus died completely in his human nature. But we do not say that only the humanity of Jesus died - because it is a union in one person we must say that whole person of Jesus Christ, who is the Son of God, died.

Jesus is definitely God, and so there is validity to saying that "God died", but when most people hear that they will understand it as meaning that the divine nature died. I would recommend not to say "God died" and instead say "Jesus Christ the Son of God died".

Yes, you are right, Jesus died, the Bible says that God detests sin, and at that period on the cross, Jesus was an epitome of sin, that was why for the first time Jesus referred to God as "My God", and not "My Father", because he knew that at that period, God had completely left him or he was no longer connected to God. So that means Jesus died as a man at that time and not an angel or a spiritual being.

So when Jesus finally died, all those sinful burden he carried was flushed away from him and he resurrected in the third day as he foretold his disciples


What does it mean for the Spirit to only speak of what he hears? (trinitarian perspective) I have much more to say to you, more than you can now bear. But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all the truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come. (John 16:12-13, NIV)

Am I correct that the Spirit of Truth is referring to the Holy Spirit?

If so, what does it mean for the Spirit to speak only of what he hears?

Trinitarians believe that the Holy Spirit is God, and God does whatever he wills to do. So how do they interpret these verses?

From John Gill's exposition of this passage:

  For he shall not speak of himself:
  as Christ, the Son, spoke not of himself in opposition to the Father, so the Spirit speaks not of himself in opposition either to the Father, or the Son, but in perfect agreement with both; being, as of the same nature and essence, power and glory, so of the same mind, understanding, and will; and as they agreed and wrought jointly and harmoniously, in the works of nature and providence, so in the economy of grace and salvation.

  But whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak;
  as Christ himself did, ( John 15:15 ) ; and they are such things as ear has not heard besides; what were secretly transacted in the council and covenant of peace, and agreed upon by all the three persons; things which concern the salvation of men, the Gospel church state, another world, and the glory of all the divine persons: ... (source)

This is extremely useful in two respects:

Recognising the Spirit when He comes: What the Spirit says will align with what the Father says and what the Son says - His voice will be familiar in that sense and a previous familiarity with words from the Father and the Son will serve as a suitable 'introduction' for a believer to therefore recognize the voice of the Spirit when He speaks.
A Safeguard from error - particularly Montanist style errors. There are many who claim to have received the Spirit, but are actually deceived as the words they claim as being from the Spirit are inconsistent with words that come from the Father and the Son. This passage of scripture makes it abundantly clear that the Spirit will not contradict the revelation previously given, therefore prophecies, 'words of wisdom' or 'words of knowledge' should be subjected to the test of whether they are consistent with scripture.

1) The answer to your first question is; Yes!

John 16:7-15 (KJV)
7 Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you.
8 And when he is come, he will reprove the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment:
9 Of sin, because they believe not on me;
10 Of righteousness, because I go to my Father, and ye see me no more;
11 Of judgment, because the prince of this world is judged.
12 I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now.
13 Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.
14 He shall glorify me: for he shall receive of mine, and shall shew it unto you.
15 All things that the Father hath are mine: therefore said I, that he shall take of mine, and shall shew it unto you.

2) To properly reference that question we need to correlate from within scripture! The text and context of your questions! When we read from another translation, as provided above; note that it says, “for he shall not speak of himself;” In the complete context from which this statement is made, Jesus is warning the disciples concerning the potential of deceptions by another spirit, not authorized to administer the gospel according to scripture through the Apostles and subsequent believers throughout the church age; after the Day of Pentecost, beginning in Acts 2. The following scripture references show; the instruction and a pattern of the problem from the Old Testament! As a personal example while with a street evangelism group our team came upon a particular individual that had an anointing of a familiar spirit and would quote scripture way out of context in order to justify the profane life style! If the group would attempt to share within a Biblical context; concerning his lifestyle he, would get violently angry and change the subject when confronted with scripture that the he had chosen to avoid!

Leviticus 20:27 (KJV)
27 A man also or woman that hath a familiar spirit, or that is a wizard, shall surely be put to death: they shall stone them with stones: their blood shall be upon them.

1 Samuel 28:7-8 (KJV)
7 Then said Saul unto his servants, Seek me a woman that hath a familiar spirit, that I may go to her, and enquire of her. And his servants said to him, Behold, there is a woman that hath a familiar spirit at Endor.
8 And Saul disguised himself, and put on other raiment, and he went, and two men with him, and they came to the woman by night: and he said, I pray thee, divine unto me by the familiar spirit, and bring me him up, whom I shall name unto thee.

1 Chronicles 10:12-14 (KJV)
12 They arose, all the valiant men, and took away the body of Saul, and the bodies of his sons, and brought them to Jabesh, and buried their bones under the oak in Jabesh, and fasted seven days.
13 So Saul died for his transgression which he committed against the LORD, even against the word of the LORD, which he kept not, and also for asking counsel of one that had a familiar spirit, to enquire of it;
14 And enquired not of the LORD: therefore he slew him, and turned the kingdom unto David the son of Jesse.

2 Chronicles 33:5-6 (KJV)
5 And he built altars for all the host of heaven in the two courts of the house of the LORD.
6 And he (Manassa) caused his children to pass through the fire in the valley of the son of Hinnom: also he observed times, and used enchantments, and used witchcraft, and dealt with a familiar spirit, and with wizards: he wrought much evil in the sight of the LORD, to provoke him to anger.

Isaiah 19:2-3 (KJV)
2 And I will set the Egyptians against the Egyptians: and they shall fight every one against his brother, and every one against his neighbour; city against city, and kingdom against kingdom.
3 And the spirit of Egypt shall fail in the midst thereof; and I will destroy the counsel thereof: and they shall seek to the idols, and to the charmers, and to them that have familiar spirits, and to the wizards.

Isaiah 29:3-4 (KJV)
3 And I will camp against thee round about, and will lay siege against thee with a mount, and I will raise forts against thee.
4 And thou shalt be brought down, and shalt speak out of the ground, and thy speech shall be low out of the dust, and thy voice shall be, as of one that hath a familiar spirit, out of the ground, and thy speech shall whisper out of the dust.

3)  The Trinitarians belief is based on what is taught in scripture! In the following verse Daniel uses in his prayer, and throughout the remainder of his prayer; All Three of what is called The Trinity! (bold highlight mine)

Daniel 9:4 (KJV)
4 And I prayed unto the LORD my God (Y@hovah), and made my confession, and said, O Lord (‘Adonay), the great and dreadful God (‘el), keeping the covenant and mercy to them that love him, and to them that keep his commandments.

Genesis 24:2 (KJV)
2 And Abraham said unto his eldest servant of his house, that ruled over all that he had,

What we have here is a fore type of the evangelistic work of The Holy Spirit; as Abrahams servant was sent to get a wife for his son Isaac. In parallel fashion The Holy Spirit rules over the Kingdom of God on earth, in an administrative capacity during the church age. Drawing the lost to salvation; as Rebekah was invited to follow Abrahams servant back to her unseen husband to be. She was impressed by the testimony and gifts delivered by the servant; believing his word! The servant did not spend much time speaking of himself rather spoke of his master and his son with all authority, ability and privilege according to his commission.

In a more earthly comprehension; just look at an egg; three parts different capacity and function. An egg in a nest may be a bit unsanitary, when we reach in to pick up that egg we handle it with care, clean it, break it open and prepare for food (Bible study and prayer)! The Holy Spirit delivers the gifts and produces the fruit of the Spirit within us; as we submit to his leading, He is just doing the job He was sent to do until his work is finished!

John 14:23 (KJV)
23 Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him.

What we have here is the ultimate goal of The Holy Spirit while on earth as we can comprehend it, The Holy Spirit desires for any believer to be visited by The Creator while still on earth!


What were people supposed to do with an incomplete or nonexistent Bible? If god wants everybody to be Christian and the Bible is the central text of Christianity, what were people supposed to do before it was completed, much less started?

Also, is there anything on record speaking to reasons why the particular era that the Bible was written was chosen (specifically OT)? It was a gradual roll-out, so were there parts that weren't needed until they came up, or did they perhaps correlate to certain events?

The entire old testament was available and written before Jesus' time.  The new testament, as we have it is the collected writings of the apostles.  Before all the writings were complete, the apostles taught directly.  After their death, their immediate successors taught what they had learned and during that time the writings were collected, copied and distributed.

Creeds and hymns formed a big part of conveying biblical doctrine before a printed bible was widely available to all, as did the church teaching and structure.  The documents themselves were available to clergy from very early times, soon after the apostolic day.

So at first, there was the testimony of direct witnesses.  Then there was teaching from those taught by the apostles and the apostles written records.  Finally those records were compiled into the bible, and between the mid 300s and late 600s AD the canon of authoritative scripture was considered closed by most traditions, although the Catholic church did not formally declare the bible canons closed until the council of Trent in 1546 with the only disagreement with other traditions being the OT deuterocanonical books (and bear in mind, too, that the Catholic church (and perhaps others), holds to a continued revelation through the church's magisterial office and authority).

The word "incomplete" in your question implies that the Bible today is the complete word of God, that we have a closed canon.  I've written about that elsewhere; it's really bad theology, and a concept that historically has always been associated with apostate groups, not with God's true disciples.

Once you understand that, the rest of the question is simple to answer, by breaking it down into its parts:

We turn to the Bible today to find God's word and his will for us.
The writings in the Bible that contain God's word and his will were given by prophets and apostles, with new teachings and concepts being given when they were needed.
So where did people turn in ancient times when they needed to know God's will and existing scriptures did not suffice?  To the currently-living prophets and apostles, of course.


What does it meant that Jesus "breathed on them"? I always tried to visualize the moment when, after Resurrection, Jesus gave Holy Spirit to Apostles:

  So Jesus said to them again, "Peace to you! As the Father has sent
  Me, I also send you." And when He had said this, He breathed on
  them, and said to them, "Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive
  the sins of any, they are forgiven them; if you retain the sins of
  any, they are retained." (John 20:21-23, NKJV)

Is the term 'to breath (to give Spirit)' or other to explain how can it be understood? Did Jesus just made a loud voice of a breathe faced towards Apostles? Do people of our times that live in the Spirit make that gestures? In the only moment I recall that gesture (or act of breathing so to speak) with purpose of blessing.

In Genesis we read:

  And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed
  into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being. (Genesis 2:7, NKJV)

but this can't be really easy to imagine.

These moments when 'spiritual world' crosses with human, common gestures are so special and make me wonder.

What means that “(Jesus) breathed on them” in John 20,22

  John 20:20-22  And when he had so said, he shewed unto them his hands
  and his side. Then were the disciples glad, when they saw the Lord.
  Then said Jesus to them again, Peace be unto you: as my Father hath
  sent me, even so send I you.   And when he had said this, he breathed
  on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost:

This is the first instance where believers in Jesus receive the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. Those who trusted in God in the Old Testament would occasionally receive the Holy Spirit to prophesy or some other specific task. However, the indwelling Spirit was intended for those who receive their new life in Christ.

  Hebrews 11:39-40  And these all, having obtained a good report through
  faith, received not the promise:   God having provided some better
  thing for us, that they without us should not be made perfect.

  John 5:24  Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word,
  and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall
  not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.

Jesus told his disciples that they would also receive a "baptism" of the Holy Spirit.

  Acts 1:4-5  And, being assembled together with them, commanded them
  that they should not depart from Jerusalem, but wait for the promise
  of the Father, which, saith he, ye have heard of me.   For John truly
  baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not
  many days hence.

This was an additional dispensation of the Holy Spirit that was prophesied by Joel and was to be a sign as well as a means of establishing the Kingdom.

  Acts 2:16-17  But this is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel;
  And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out
  of my Spirit upon all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall
  prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall
  dream dreams:

The idea that the Holy Spirit was given in two steps is not accepted by everyone. However I think we can see that the Holy Spirit was given a second time by the laying on of hands of those who had already professed their faith and been baptized constitutes a second reception of the Holy Spirit.

  Acts 8:14-17  Now when the apostles which were at Jerusalem heard that
  Samaria had received the word of God, they sent unto them Peter and
  John:   Who, when they were come down, prayed for them, that they
  might receive the Holy Ghost:   (For as yet he was fallen upon none of
  them: only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.)   Then
  laid they their hands on them, and they received the Holy Ghost.

As I understand the Bible, the second reception of the Holy Spirit was consistent with the immanency of the Kingdom of God. Since Israel was not even provoked by jealousy, and did not receive this kingdom offer, today we are left with just the indwelling Holy Spirit as proof of our new life in Jesus.

  2 Corinthians 1:21-22  Now he which stablisheth us with you in Christ,
  and hath anointed us, is God;   Who hath also sealed us, and given the
  earnest of the Spirit in our hearts.

When a faithful remnant of Israel does finally receive the kingdom, we shall once again see the reception of the Holy Spirit through the laying on of hands resume.

so what does it mean? Well  verse 22 and 23 should help clarify what it meant when Jesus blew his breath onto his Disciples. Basically to clarify John 20:22, Jesus is giving his Disciples the Holy Spirit and just like how the Father sent Jesus, he will send his Disciples and then he followed up by saying "If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven them if you retain the sins of any, they are retained." Which meant that he was giving his Disciples the authority to forgive sins and restrain sins through the Holy Spirit. which also relates back to when Jesus said "As the Father has sent Me, I also send you." Jesus came to forgive sins and was sent by the Father so just like the father has sent  him to the world to forgive sins, he's sending his Disiples out to go and forgive sins through the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit is the Father (Evidence is in 1 Corinthians 2:11-2:12 when Apostle Paul said "For what man knows the things of a man except the spirit of the man which is in him? Even so no one knows the things of God except the Spirit of God." which is basically stating that the Holy spirit Is God because it knows the thoughts of God just like how you know your own thoughts because your spirit is your mind  and a synonym for Spirit is Mind which again is you and who you are as a being not just a human being but as a Spirit being.) I am just elaborating it and breaking it down to its core so it is easier to understand .so going back to what i was saying, Jesus has given his Disciples the Spirit of the Father(which is the Holy Spirit) to forgive man's sins. But remember Jesus is now the only Redeemer do not get this confused. Even though Jesus did give the Spirit to his Disciples to forgive sins, that doesn't mean that if you have the Holy Spirit in your life (which is only given to us through faith in receiving Jesus as our Lord and Savior) you can forgive or "clean" someone else from their sins remember that when Jesus gave the Spirit to his Disciples, it was clearly before Jesus had died on the cross for the sins of the world. So please don't go around and believe you have the authority to clean someone else's sin since you have the Holy Spirit in your life. that is not the case, the fact of the matter is that once Jesus died, he cleansed the world from sin so now we can only be cleansed through the blood of Jesus since now he has died on the cross for the world. So it is only through Jesus's blood can we be cleansed from our sins.  before Jesus died, the Holy Spirit which again, is the Father, was the only way you can be cleansed from your sins but now since Jesus is the sacrifice we are only cleansed through his blood. it is the only way to be forgiven from your sins now because he died for the sins of the world. I hope this clarify what it meant if it didnt try reading it agian by pieces and digest it and if it still is a little confusing i will try my best to elaborate on it some more. God Bless and have a great day


According to Catholicism, is it sinful to physically harm abortion doctors to prevent them from performing abortions? Question: Is it sinful to physically attack a doctor who performs abortions and break his fingers so that he can not perform an abortion? If yes, why? If no, why? Does it depend on the circumstances?

Arguments against:

It would seem that one should not attack a doctor because he is not doing something unlawful.
It would seem that one should not attack a doctor because one does not have the authority to exert violence.

However, these arguments seem not to be good. To explain why I will give an analogy.

Imagine a situation where some guy wants to dismember a 3-year-old child. You see him going toward the child, and you know for certain what he plans to do. You are able to stop him via violence (and no-one except that guy will be harmed in the process). However, your stopping him will be illegal. It still seems that you should stop the guy. This analogy seems to explain why neither authority nor what is (il)legal matter, and therefore it shows why arguments against are not good arguments. Also, it is often said that: "Necessity does not know the law." And that "Unjust laws are not really laws."

If it were not sinful to attack a doctor who performs abortions someone would already be doing it. But we did not see such a case.

Arguments for:

Using the same analogy as above, it seems not only that it is not sinful to attack a doctor, but that we have a duty to attack a doctor, just as we would have a duty to stop someone (if we are able to) who wants to dismember a 3-year-old child.

Maybe the arguments above depend on whether we see a doctor who directly goes to the hospital to perform an abortion, but not to a doctor who does not directly go to perform an abortion.

I am interested in responses from a Catholic viewpoint (preferably a natural law response).

Ends do not justify means.
It is never permissible to do evil so that good may come about: "let us not do evil that there may come good" (Rom. 3:8). Sin sometimes must be tolerated in order to prevent a greater evil.
St. Thomas Aquinas's answer to the question of "Whether the rites of unbelievers ought to be tolerated?" (Summa Theologica II-II q. 10 a. 11 co.) could be applied, mutatis mutandis, to whether  abortionists ought to be tolerated:

although God is all-powerful and supremely good, nevertheless He allows certain evils to take place in the universe, which He might prevent, lest, without them, greater goods might be forfeited, or greater evils ensue. Accordingly in human government also, those who are in authority, rightly tolerate certain evils, lest certain goods be lost, or certain greater evils be incurred: thus Augustine says (De Ordine ii, 4): "If you do away with harlots [or abortionists], the world will be convulsed with lust."

cf. Vermeersch, S.J.'s Tolerance
In "Whether human law should repress all vices?" (Summa Theologica I-II q. 96 a. 2 co.), St. Thomas shows that human law should forbid murder:

human law is framed for a number of human beings, the majority of whom are not perfect in virtue. Wherefore human laws do not forbid all vices, from which the virtuous abstain, but only the more grievous vices, from which it is possible for the majority to abstain; and chiefly those that are to the hurt of others, without the prohibition of which human society could not be maintained: thus human law prohibits murder, theft and such like.

Thus, "laws" permitting murder are no laws at all.
Abortion a state of war?
If the millions of abortions happening yearly constitute a state of war, then just war theory might be applicable. "In order for a war to be just, three things are necessary" (Summa Theologica II-II q. 40 a. 1 co.):

"the authority of the sovereign by whose command the war is to be waged"

"a just cause is required, namely that those who are attacked [e.g., abortionists], should be attacked because they deserve it on account of some fault [e.g., killing innocent babies]."

"it is necessary that the belligerents [e.g., anti-abortionists] should have a rightful intention, so that they intend the advancement of good, or the avoidance of evil [e.g., ending abortion]."

Conditions #2 and #3 certainly could apply to abortion, but it is unclear that condition #1 applies. Has any civil ruler ever openly declared war against abortion?

Short answer: Yes.

However, the reason why is not so simple. I found an answer by Germain Grisez which, it seems to me, is satisfactory:

  I am a woman, a nurse, and consider myself a feminist, but I accept
  the Church’s teaching that abortion is always wrong. Indeed, if the
  Church did not teach that, I would have a hard time believing anything
  it does teach about practical matters. I also am convinced that
  abortion should no more be legal than killing you or me or anyone
  else. But the fact of the matter is that in this country abortion is
  legal and, at least for now, there does not seem much hope of making
  it illegal. We therefore need some clear guidelines on our duties
  regarding abortion.

  I have friends who have done sidewalk counseling; one of them also has
  engaged in rescues.435 For various reasons—one of which admittedly is
  cowardice—up to now I have been unwilling to do either of those
  things. My friends think I am failing to do my duty. The one who has
  been involved in rescues argues that everyone has the same duty to try
  to stop abortions as to try to stop the killing of an already-born
  child, the only difference being that the Supreme Court’s ukase has
  made abortion legal.

  While I see the force of his argument, it seems to me to prove too
  much. Specifically, it seems to point to a duty to gun down
  abortionists—something a few people have done, but hardly anyone
  approves of, much less regards as a duty. Let me explain. My work as a
  visiting nurse sometimes takes me into rough neighborhoods at all
  hours. After one bad experience that I will not go into, I learned to
  use a handgun, got a gun and a license, and now carry the gun at all
  times in my shoulder bag. Suppose I am walking down the street and see
  a man brutally beating a small child with a baseball bat; I take out
  my gun and order him to stop; he shouts a threat at me, turns, and
  hits the child again. Surely, it would be right for me to shoot him,
  and, as I was taught to do, I would aim at the middle of his back to
  give myself the best chance of stopping him. If I killed him without
  using more bullets than necessary to stop him, I am sure nobody would
  object. But if everyone has the same duty to try to stop abortions as
  to try to stop the killing of an already-born child, then I have a
  duty to gun down abortionists.

  While I would like to know what you think of the argument between my
  friend and me, I am more interested in the broader question: Does
  everyone have a duty to try to stop abortions?

  Analysis:

  This question calls for applying norms regarding civic responsibility
  and the use of force to protect innocent people’s lives. Everyone who
  recognizes the evils of abortion and its legalization should do
  something to oppose them. But since each individual has his or her
  unique personal vocation, each must discern what he or she ought to
  do. Prima facie, the justification of force to defend the innocent
  seems to extend to gunning down abortionists. Although arguments
  against doing so drawn from prospective bad consequences are not
  decisive, the action is unjustifiable insofar as, rather than being an
  effective means of protecting the lives of unborn persons, it is a
  revolutionary act that surely will not succeed.

  The reply could be along the following lines:

  Abortion and its legalization are great evils.436 They differ in some
  ways from the mass murders carried out under Stalin, Hitler, and
  others, but also in some ways are comparable to those crimes and in
  other ways even worse: because of the greater numbers being killed,
  their total innocence and defenselessness, the essential role played
  by those primarily responsible for nurturing the victims, the
  widespread support of this slaughter by both rulers and people in
  so-called liberal democratic nations, and the complicity in the
  killings of so many religious leaders, educators, people trained in
  law, health care professionals, people in the mass media, and so on.

  Everyone who recognizes the evils of abortion and its legalization
  should do something to oppose them. What that should be depends on an
  individual’s unique opportunities and capacities. Opportunities—what
  can be done—are limited to what is morally acceptable as well as to
  what is possible in other respects; one’s capacities are limited by
  one’s other responsibilities. All of us should do what we can, that
  is, some of the morally acceptable things that are in our power and
  that we can do without neglecting duties that flow from other elements
  of personal vocation to which we already have committed ourselves or
  which, being inescapable, we have accepted as God’s will. So, for
  instance, the contemplative nun and the bedridden man in a nursing
  home ought to work against abortion chiefly by praying for divine
  intervention or by writing letters of protest, not leaving the
  cloister or sickbed to participate in your friends’ work at clinics.

  Your friends’ commitment to their effort is commendable, but they and
  others engaged in a particular sort of activity against abortion, its
  legalization, or any other injustice should not think or say that
  everyone should do the same. Whether or not you should take part in
  their efforts, they are wrong in pressuring you. Conscientiously
  examine your opportunities and capacities and discern what you should
  do about abortion. Though your appropriate contribution might partly
  coincide with theirs, it also might well be entirely different.

  As for your friend’s argument that everyone has the same duty to try
  to stop abortions as to try to stop the killing of an already-born
  child, your counterargument—that this would imply a duty on your part
  to gun down abortionists—might not move him. He might accept that
  implication and urge you to put your gun and your skill in using it to
  good use. Of course, he might say it would be wrong to aim at the
  middle of the back of the brutal man in your example instead of
  aiming, say, at his shoulder, and, likewise, that it would be wrong
  for you to kill abortionists rather than choosing some less drastic
  way of stopping them—for example, cutting off their hands. However,
  that would not address the issue your argument raises, namely, whether
  you are soundly applying the principles that can justify using as much
  force as necessary to defend innocent life. Prima facie, it seems
  sound, for you could gun down an abortionist with precisely the same
  intention with which you would shoot the brutal man beating the child:
  not intending to kill or even injure him, but only to stop him and
  protect the victim.437 Moreover, since in both cases those being
  stopped are engaging in objective injustices that should be stopped,
  in neither case would you be acting unfairly toward those you stopped,
  provided you used the minimally destructive means adequate to protect
  the victim.

  Your friend could reply that, despite their common features, the two
  cases differ in other morally relevant respects. He might offer four
  arguments. First, that gunning down abortionists is hard to reconcile
  with the Christian gospel, which emphasizes loving even enemies and
  seeking the conversion of evildoers. A dead abortionist cannot repent;
  women prevented from obtaining the abortion they wanted are unlikely
  to be moved to repent by the abortionist’s death; and many hearts,
  reacting self-righteously against the killing of an abortionist, are
  likely to be hardened with respect to the slaughter of the unborn.
  Second, he might say it clouds prolife witness by making it seem that
  even those who oppose abortion approve killing people when they think
  doing so would serve some good end. Third, he might say that the cases
  of shooting abortionists have proved it to be counterproductive. It
  provokes a strong, negative reaction from most people and
  countermeasures by public officials that impede every other form of
  prolife work, not least nonviolent direct action such as sidewalk
  counseling. Fourth, your friend could suggest with some plausibility
  that violence against abortionists serves as a bad example for many
  sorts of extremists, thus contributing to an increase in the
  lawlessness and unjustifiable violence already common in our society.

  You can, of course, point out in reply that none of those
  considerations is decisive, since the gospel does not entirely forbid
  the use of force to defend the innocent (such as the child being
  beaten to death with the baseball bat), and, although gunning down
  abortionists has some bad consequences, it also has various good side
  effects. For example, it bears witness to the truth that unborn babies
  are no different in human worth and personal dignity from people
  already born; it keeps alive the awareness that legalized abortion is
  morally equivalent to murder and not similar to other morally
  questionable practices and institutions tolerable in a generally good
  and just society; and it serves as an example of unselfish courage in
  a society pervaded by self-indulgence and moral cowardice.

  Your friend might reply in either of two ways. He could accept the
  conclusion and concede that under appropriate conditions, which
  probably seldom occur, it is morally right to use as much force as
  necessary to stop abortionists.

  Or he could point out another difference between stopping the brutal
  man in your example and gunning down abortionists. The brutal man is
  an isolated wrongdoer whose violence is afforded no protection by
  society and its institutions. But abortionists are others’ agents—they
  serve women who have decided to get rid of their unborn children—and
  both doing and having abortions are socially accepted, protected by
  law, and even, in some respects, supported by public policy. The
  fellow beating the small child with a baseball bat almost certainly
  will not be replaced if you shoot him. Thus, your effort very likely
  will achieve your good end of protecting the child. But if you gun
  down one or even many abortionists, the women who meant to use their
  services, and others who will decide to obtain abortions, certainly
  can—and almost all probably will—find someone else to kill their
  unborn babies. And while killing or maiming large numbers of
  abortionists might have a temporary deterrent effect on actual and
  potential abortionists, it probably would quickly provoke a
  well-organized public response. New governmental programs almost
  certainly would make doing abortions more lucrative and provide
  abortionists with special protections and privileges. Abortion
  probably would be at least as widely available as it is now, so that
  no fewer, and perhaps even more, unborn babies would be killed. Since
  our society already is deeply committed to the evils of abortion and
  its legalization, gunning down abortionists therefore would be
  pointless unless one went on to gun down the public officials who
  support abortion. But that would be starting a revolution with no
  prospect of success; and, like war generally, a revolution without a
  prospect of success is unjust to the nation, whose common good it
  injures rather than promotes. Therefore, your friend could conclude,
  gunning down abortionists is unjust, while nonviolent direct
  action—rescues, sidewalk counseling, picketing abortionists’ homes—is
  just.

  But should you participate? Perhaps. More likely, it seems to me, your
  unique capacities and opportunities call you to make your contribution
  in some other way—for example, working to persuade other nurses to
  resist pressures to participate in doing abortions and/or using your
  knowledge and professional contacts to help desperate women find a
  suitable alternative to abortion.


How do those who believe man is tripartite respond to Gen. 2:7, "the man became a living soul"? Those who believe that man is bipartite (a soul consisting of body and spirit) cite Gen. 2:7 as proof that man does not have a soul, but rather, man is a soul. Consequently, they deny any assertion that a soul continues to exist after the death of the body (i.e., disembodied soul). Yet, certain scriptures seem to confirm the existence of an embodied soul, such as 1 Thes. 5:23,

  And the very God of peace sanctify you wholly; and I pray God your whole spirit and soul and body be preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ. (KJV)

How do those who believe that man is tripartite answer the objection (from those who believe that man is bipartite) that a man is a living soul and therefore does not have a soul, based on Gen. 2:7?

Gen. 2:7, which states that "the man became a living soul" (thereby implying that "the man" = "the living soul"), seems to conflict with 1 Thes. 5:23 which states that man is composed of "the spirit and the soul and the body" (τὸ πνεῦμα καὶ ἡ ψυχὴ καὶ τὸ σῶμα). Is man a soul or does man have a soul?

The apparent contradiction can be reconciled if we understand that the author of Gen. 2:7 is using the Hebrew word נפש (Greek ψυχή) as a synecdoche of part for the entire person.

In Approaching Jehovah’s Witnesses in Love: How to Witness Effectively without Arguing, Ch. 6, Wilbur Lingle wrote,

In Figures of Speech Used in the Bible, p. 840, Ethelbert William Bullinger defines the synecdoche of part:

Hence, נפש is used to represent the entire man because it represents one of the more important parts of man.

The confusion from trying to understand the tripartite person stems from the fact that the human mind is not geared to comprehend the difference between the Spiritual realm and the physical realm. Our minds are geared to comprehend real as things that stimulate the five senses. We only accept as true those things which we can see, hear, touch, taste,  and smell.

In actuality the material realm is not the true essence. It is preliminary to Christianity to believe that God created all material things. What is the truth in believing in the supremacy of God is that the Spiritual realm is preexistent to the Material realm.

So what does that statement actually mean? If we are to believe that God is Supreme then we have to accept  the first chapter of Genesis. That necessitates that we believe that God, Heaven, The Angels, Satan, and etc. are all of the Spiritual realm. That is to say that they preexisted Chapter one of Genesis. We must also accept that God is the supreme being in the Spiritual realm.

By accepting Chapter one of Genesis, we are in reality accepting that the material realm has a beginning; while the Spiritual realm is eternal.

So let's take a look at what transpires in Chapter one of Genesis; and we are doing so in the belief that we accept Genesis as fact.

  Genesis 1:26 KJV  And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

Let us dissect that verse in the concept of a tripartite God. God in this case consists of three persons in one identity. The God head consists of the father, the son and the Holy Ghost. This is basic to my understanding of the Southern Baptist belief, which is un-arguably based on a tripartite God.

So if we take the first part of that Scripture and allay that to God's creation of man, what we find is that if God consists of three persons, then if man is to be created in his likeness and his image; then he must first of all be tripartite as God is tripartite.
Second man must be supreme to some degree since God is supreme. Therefore God:

  Genesis 2:7 KJV  And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

So let's take a look at what that actually says. And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, this actually says that God took a part of his original creation and reformed it into a man, however; at this point it is nothing more than a lump which God has given a material form.

and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, Here something different has happened. God has now put into this creation something eternal that being the breath of life. Why this is significant is because this is something that is a part of God and we must remember that God in all of his manifestations is Eternal, therefore the breath of life which he breathed into man is also eternal, and as a result part of the man he created is now eternal, and brings about the final part of this Scripture which says that man became a living soul.

So now what do we have, we have the original lump which we call man, We also have the breath of life which is a part of God and therefore eternal, and lastly we have now residing in this lump that God created something that will be eternal.

And so we have now something eternal existing within something material. Or you might say that we have a bipartite creation part of the Spiritual realm paired with something from the Material realm. Even though this is a bipartite being (spiritual and material) it is also tripartite in that it contains two parts Spiritual (breath and eternal existence [also known as soul]) along with one part material.

The body is only a repository for the eternal soul and spirit. The difference between spirit and soul lies in the same as the difference between knowledge and experience.

Experience is the application of knowledge, the soul is the application of spirit (spirit in this case refers to the motivations a person employs), and is the basis for judgment.


What is the framework and concise definition of the New Perspective on Paul? Can you list a simple matrix of the old and new views on the Perspective on Paul from the viewpoint of vetted and at least modestly accepted details based on the New Perspective of Paul?

I'm not as interested at this time on the arguments for or against the New Perspective, but simply a list of the main topics (vetted to some extent) of what the new perspectives are and what the old perspective was.

I understand that the Old Perspectives probably have different viewpoints as well, please consider using the basic United States Protestant perspective (probably based on Martin Luther's work) or just leave the "Old Perspective" empty and I'll infer it from my own reading.

Conceptually what are the hinges of the NPP viewpoint on which the interpretation of the writings of Paul swings?

Define the hinges, ignore the position of the door so to speak.

The Hinge on the New Perspective of Paul Rests mainly on the new 15th century  understanding or reformers that Old Covenant Judaism was a “works based salvation.” The ‘New Perspective on Paul’, which is a protestant new prospective on how to understand the writings of the Evangelist Paul, who was a hightly learned Rabbi, understood the Old Covenant Judaism as one of Grace 1st, then Faith, through Circumcision and obedience to the ordinances of the Law to stay in that covenantal Relationship.

The works of E.P. Sanders "Paul and Palestinian Judaism" Comments of and relating to Covenantal Nomism. That Judaism
 Was a Grace based Covenant and that to enter into it one must be circumcised, pass on their faith to their heirs and do the works associated with the covenant to stay in covenant"

  E.P. Sanders “Covenantal nomism, in opposition to merit theology, is the belief that 1st century Jews in the land of Israel did not believe in works righteousness. Essentially, it is the belief that one is brought into the Abrahamic covenant through birth and stays in the covenant through works.”   Source wiki.  Also E.P. Sanders work  “Paul and Palestinian Judaism”

The realization that Paul was not speaking against all works but simply works of the Law is at the heart of New Pauline Perspective. It is plain (to those who fallow the new perspective) when understood in its historical context, that the reformers turned upside down the orthodox teachings of the church, reformers, who were rightly looking for reforms within the Catholic Church, made mistakes in their interpretations.  Abandoning the reality of who Saint Paul was, and the world he lived in, in unity by necessity of revolting, the sacred teachings preserved by the Church, and under the pressures of secular powers challenged and apposed by virtue of theses misconceptions, those sacred teachings were abandoned. Reforms were made within the church however that did not abandon the original interpretations.

  ling for reformation inside the Church
  http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04437a.htm

The Framework of the New Perspective on Paul it that in opposition to the OLD Framework (Protestant) that Salvation in OLD Covenant Judaism was works based identifies that belief to be a false assumption and that Old Covenant Judaism is in fact and always has been, Grace Based, faith based and Obedience based.

In addition to this perspective which is a direct assault on precepts of the reformation, the new perspective on Paul suggests that Saint Paul, being a Jew with a 1st Century Jewish mentality, understood that you must enter into the New Covenant, Maintain your covenantal commitment, and remain in covenant in order to be Saved.


Matthew 26:24, is God Omnibenevolent? I'm really interested about Matthew 26:24 in which Jesus said that

  The Son of Man will go just as it is written about him. But woe to that man who betrays the Son of Man! It would be better for him if he had not been born."

Since this verse is talking about the betrayal of Judas, it seems that Jesus is affirming the eternal fate that awaits Judas by saying that it is better if Judas is had not been born.

Why is God who is Omnibenevolent knows that Judas will be better of if he had not been born let Judas to be born?

or

How can we say that God is Omnibenevolent if He made a decision (creating Judas) in which He fully knows that His decision will made one of His creation fate much-much worse in the end?

PS: This question is for all of you although I have special interest for answer from christian universalism point of view, hope u guys can chip in :) Thanks!

You are basically asking why God allows people to sin, without taking their lives beforehand, or even allowing them to live at all. Or how about "Why does God create people that will end up in hell?", because it would be better for anyone to not be born than to turn from their creator.

God created us and gave us free will, knowing we would turn to our own ways. He perfectly chose Adam and Eve to represent you and I. He also knew that some would repent and yearn for Him. Now I do not recall if it's mentioned that Adam (or Eve) find redemption, but if not and God had not allowed them to live long enough to sin, then mankind would not exist. It would be wrong for God to take every man's life that would not be saved through faith and repentance before they had sinned. God offers salvation to every sinful man (Matt 7:7-8). If all of these people had died so soon, or before they were even born, then how many souls would not even come to be? How many would not even be offered life and salvation?

Obviously if Judas ends up in hell, then it would be better if he had died before he sinned. I think Jesus is giving us a metaphor or simile in plain terms of the pain and suffering he would endure from his conviction for betrayal to his suicide, or perhaps in hell, or both.

God is omnibenevolent in such a way that He is perfectly good (Deut.32:4).He did not creat evil to duel within us but we caused it,God did not creat Judas to end up in hell, Jesus has to die to save the world,but because of the selfish and the love of money life in Judas he betrayed His master.he will by all means end up in hell due to the life that he was living because the word of God let us know that people living such will not enter the Kingdom of God(Galat.5:19-21). God is not injustice. I think Judas had the chance to change his ending by asking for forgiveness but rather committed suicide making it worse(Prov.28:13)(Isaiah 1:18). He was with Jesus all the time he heard Jesus saying that it will be better if person had not been born but due to his love for money which is the root of all evil he still went ahead in betraying Jesus. The Bible says blaspheming against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven but did not say anything about betraying so he could have asked for forgiveness. Jesus is not only talking to Judas but all of us,betrayers or traitors will end up in hell so we should change.God loved Judas and created him to live but he chose his on way(John 3:16) .not only Judas but everyone who is a traitor and betrayer should turn to God for HE will freely forgive.