How should a Christian look at the Crusaders? I studied in Methodist school from kindergarten to high school, but I never heard of Crusaders until I went to college - and people at church don't talk about it either.

As far as I know, Crusaders have a very bad reputation (at least in the movies.)  But what does it really mean for the modern Christian?

Robert Spencer, who is one of the leading Christian authors on Islam has a fascinating insight into the crusades in this video - The Crusades, Fact & Truth.

The Crusades have a bad reputation, because, as Spencer explains, Westerners have a healthy attitude of self-criticism. Such self-criticism is completely absent in Islam. Spencer points out that it was the invasion of the Turks that began the Crusades.

While it is true that many of the Crusaders did evil acts, the Crusades in themselves were a defensive measure and not an offensive one. Should Christians be ashamed of those Crusaders who commited evil? Sure. Should Christians be ashamed of the Crusades themselves? Never.

When soldiers came to John the Baptist asking him what to do, he didn't tell them to put their swords away, but

  "Rob no one by violence or by false accusation, and be content with
  your wages." (Luke 3:14)

The Bible also says that there is

  "a time to kill, and a time to heal; a time to break down, and a time
  to build up" (Ecclesiastes 3:3)

Often, Jesus statement of "turning the other cheek" is quoted to suggest that any act of self defense is against the teachings of Christ. But I answer that somebody slapping you on the cheek doesn't kill you, whereas if someone tries to kill your body, you are obliged to defend yourself, because your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit (1 Cor 6:19).

  "If any one destroys God's temple, God will destroy him. For God's
  temple is holy, and that temple you are." (1 Cor 3:17)

The implication of this statement is that if you allow your body to be destroyed, then you shall be held accountable for it. Jesus also said,

  "But now, let him who has a purse take it, and likewise a bag. And let
  him who has no sword sell his mantle and buy one." (Luke 22:36)

Paul says that rulers are servants of God to execute God's wrath on the wrongdoer.

  "But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in
  vain; he is the servant of God to execute his wrath on the wrongdoer."
  (Rom 13:4)

The Bible on many occasions praises soldiers. One of the first gentile converts to Christianity was a Roman centurion, Cornelius (Acts 10) and we don't see any demand being made on him to leave his position as a centurion. On another occasion, Jesus marveled at the faith of another centurion (Matthew 8:10). I therefore do not see any reason why a Christian cannot serve in the army.

Had the Crusades not taken place, the entire western world might have been under subjection to Islam today. As a Christian, I shall never be ashamed of the Crusades. Many Christians gave their lives for saving their brethren.

Why did it happen?

The Crusades happened during a time when the Bible was not widely available to believers.  Only the highest Church members had access to it.  So when the leaders made statements about God's will no one could really argue - except on the basis of "having a different opinion", which was received as rebellion  and heresy.  Simply put - they didn't know what the Bible said.

What does the Bible say?

Jesus continually made statements like the following:

  Jesus answered, “My kingdom is not of this world. If My kingdom were of this world, then My servants would be fighting so that I would not be handed over to the Jews; but as it is, My kingdom is not of this realm.” - John 18:36

When the mob came to seize Jesus with swords and clubs, His disciples were ready for a fight!  But watch how Jesus rebukes them.

  When those who were around Him saw what was going to happen, they said, “Lord, shall we strike with the sword?” And one of them struck the slave of the high priest and cut off his right ear. But Jesus answered and said, “Stop! No more of this.” And He touched his ear and healed him. - Luke 22:49-51

After the death of Jesus, Paul explains the following to the early Christians:

  For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the powers, against the world forces of this darkness, against the spiritual forces of wickedness in the heavenly places.  - Ephesians 6:12

What can we learn?

I think the clear lesson we can learn from the Crusades is the importance of knowing your Bible.  Yet even with such blatant examples from history, Bible illiteracy remains one of the biggest problems in the church today.  Yesterday I read the following quote from a book on Spiritual Disciplines:

  Do you realize that... you can read through the entire [Bible] in seventy-one hours?  In no more than fifteen minutes a day you can read through the Bible in less than a year's time...  And yet the majority of Christians never read the Bible all the way through in their whole life. - Donald S. Whitney

We have been given more in the way of Scripture than any generation before us.  We have all 66 books, entire fields of Biblical sciences devoted to clarifying the original wording, concordances, dictionaries, online search tools, commentaries, ... the list goes on and on.  It is difficult to consider this without considering the following words of Jesus:

  From everyone who has been given much, much will be required - Luke 12:48

The lesson from the Crusades has never been more relevant: Read your Bible!


What does it mean by "Selling one’s soul to Devil"? I became very interested (by it means, curious) about the selling soul to devil in past few weeks? You probably had heard the most popular example of this: Robert Johnson, Paganini etc.  I researched alot about this and someone tells the method to do,  someone said it can be done in pieces and one question I found on Stackexchange and answer says that it cannot be done at all as we are not owner of our soul but God himself.
So what's this actually means? And if somehow somebody able to did this,  what consequences he has to suffer? How could the myth of Robert Johnson or Paganini be explained? If selling the soul stuff is absurd then why does this concept even exists?
PS: I am not Christian (so sorry if I wrote something wrong)  but believe in God and the spiritual war with the Devil.

'Selling one's soul to the Devil' is an idiomatic English expression but it does not occur in the bible.

Jesus says :

what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? [Mark 8:36 KJV]

That is to say, in pursuing worldly things, one neglects the salvation of one's own soul.
James the apostle says :

Submit yourselves therefore to God. Resist the devil, and he will flee from you. [James 4:7 KJV]

He urges submission to the mighty hand of God and to resist devilish temptation.
Of Judas, who betrayed Jesus, it is written :

And after the sop Satan entered into him [John 13:27 KJV]

After Jesus passed him some bread for dipping, Satan entered into Judas and he went out and betrayed Jesus.
But I am not aware of any biblical text that would support the idea of a pact being made between a human spirit and the spiritual Entity called Diabolos, Satan and Dragon and Serpent, regarding the soul.

Behold, all souls are mine; as the soul of the father, so also the soul of the son is mine: the soul that sinneth, it shall die.  [Ezekiel 18:4 KJV]

Souls do not belong to the Devil, nor can he be negotiated with in regard to them. That is a superstition and not a fact.
Souls belong to God, as Ezekiel tells us. And God, alone, is the possessor of them. And God alone shall recall them, at a time of his own choosing. And God alone shall judge them.
For he, alone, is God.

Selling ones soul to Satan has Christian origins beginning with Satan's wicked persuasion of Eves to break her compact with God. Goethe wrote Faust on this basis.
In the now highly secular West, to say that one has sold your soul to Saran is simply to say that you have betrayed all your principles in a deep and visceral way.
It's worth pointing out that the secular west by hitching its cart to the individualist metaphysics 'preached' by economists and of growth and profits at all costs can be said to sold their soul to Satan. It's perhaps then no wonder that we see such ills as massive inequality, global warming and weapons of mass destruction to the point of destroying all life on Earth.
If one makes a deal with Satan, don't be surprised later when he gets the better of the deal. This is the warning that Goethe was referring to in his Faust ...


Is it possible to just visit heaven? My church had a guest speaker that said he died and was at the gates of heaven for 90 minutes. Can someone tell me where to read in the bible about seeing if this is possible? I just have trouble believing this.

YES, it is possible to visit Heaven. Some people have visited Heaven before they died.

  I know a man in Christ who fourteen years ago was caught up to the
  third heaven. Whether it was in the body or out of the body I do not
  know--God knows. (2 Corinthians 12:2, NIV)

Your consternation may lie in the fact that you seem to think of Heaven as being some sort of material place where people can navigate to and possibly return.

So for starters we need to understand what Heaven, (or as referred to by Jesus himself   the Kingdom of God) really is. So lets see what we can learn from the Scriptures:

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

from this we are told that God created the heaven, so therefore it must be referring to something in the material realm. This is further illustrated by:

  Genesis 1:8 and 9 And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day. 9  And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.

On the other hand Jesus said:

  Matthew 16:19  And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

notice two things in this statement by Jesus:

He gave Peter the keys of the kingdom of heaven: since the keys to heaven are not material keys, as is indicated by:
whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

It is also noteworthy that 'the kingdom of heaven is not capitalized', which it would be were it a proper noun, as it is in Genesis 1:8.

So if heaven is not a material place then what is it?

  Matthew 18:10  Take heed that ye despise not one of these little ones; for I say unto you, That in heaven their angels do always behold the face of my Father which is in heaven.

Here Jesus says that says that the Father is in heaven, (again not a proper noun), and since we know that God the creator existed before any material creation heaven must also have existed prior to any material creation. That leaves only the possibility that heaven is something Spiritual. In Matthew chapter 20 Jesus describes the Kingdom of heaven:

  Matthew 20:1 through 16  For the kingdom of heaven is like unto a man that is an householder, which went out early in the morning to hire labourers into his vineyard. 2  And when he had agreed with the labourers for a penny a day, he sent them into his vineyard. 3  And he went out about the third hour, and saw others standing idle in the marketplace, 4  And said unto them; Go ye also into the vineyard, and whatsoever is right I will give you. And they went their way. 5  Again he went out about the sixth and ninth hour, and did likewise. 6  And about the eleventh hour he went out, and found others standing idle, and saith unto them, Why stand ye here all the day idle? 7  They say unto him, Because no man hath hired us. He saith unto them, Go ye also into the vineyard; and whatsoever is right, that shall ye receive. 8  So when even was come, the lord of the vineyard saith unto his steward, Call the labourers, and give them their hire, beginning from the last unto the first. 9  And when they came that were hired about the eleventh hour, they received every man a penny. 10  But when the first came, they supposed that they should have received more; and they likewise received every man a penny. 11  And when they had received it, they murmured against the goodman of the house, 12  Saying, These last have wrought but one hour, and thou hast made them equal unto us, which have borne the burden and heat of the day. 13  But he answered one of them, and said, Friend, I do thee no wrong: didst not thou agree with me for a penny? 14  Take that thine is, and go thy way: I will give unto this last, even as unto thee. 15  Is it not lawful for me to do what I will with mine own? Is thine eye evil, because I am good? 16  So the last shall be first, and the first last: for many be called, but few chosen.

There is much to be learned about heaven from this passage, but for now we are only interested in the fact that Jesus is not describing the Kingdom of God as a place, but as a state of being. Here he is likening the kingdom of heaven, to the employment of the workers, and their rewards.

So next lets take a look at time, Time is also a creation of God, and divides creation into various lengths by God known as days.

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

and he also counted years as days;

  Genesis 5:8  And all the days of Seth were nine hundred and twelve years: and he died.

But for God there is no such thing as time, as God exists in eternity, which has no beginning and no end, and therefore cannot be divided. As an example lets take the first day and analyze it.

  Gen 1:1 through 5  In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. 2  And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. 3  And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. 4  And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness. 5  And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

Notice: verse 5 where God calls the light day and the darkness night, but he goes on to start his day with the evening or the darkness, called the night. That darkness existed before God created light and is therefore the eternity preceding light.

So the Bible tells us that:

heaven is a spiritual phenomenon and not a material place.
heaven is not subject to time and there is no past and no future only a state of being.
God himself determines who, and when someone is introduced to his Kingdom, just in the parable of the vineyard owner who took in various workers at different times yet they all received the same reward.

So in answer to your question; the Spiritual realm exists concurrently with the material realm and is it possible that God allows certain persons to transition between the two, According to Jesus that  is a yes.

Hope this helps.


Why is Easter celebrated on a different day every year and Christmas is not? It is well known that on Easter we celebrate Jesus' resurrection, but every year it is held on a different date, whereas Jesus' birthday—Christmas—is celebrated on the same day every year. So why is the day we celebrate Jesus' resurrection different every year when Christmas is not?

The date of Easter follows similar rules as the date of Passover, and is determined using those rules because of that tradition. (The death of Jesus on that day is significant because of his connection of his death to the sacrifice of the passover lamb.)

In the western church, Easter falls on the first Sunday after the first full moon after the nominal northern-hemisphere vernal equinox. (I call it nominal because it's considered to be on March 21, rather than at the moment of the astronomical equinox.)

In the eastern church, it's based on the old Julian calendar, and so sometimes is on a different date.  Hopefully somebody who understands this can contribute.

In Lutheran Christianity, the date chosen for celebrating Easter is the archetypal adiaphoron, or a good example of a thing that doesn't matter.  The reformers considered that it was more important to go along with the rest of the Christendom of the time in choosing this date, than it was to somehow get the date "right."

Easter was traditionally a fertility rite in spring among pagan cultures. The name even comes from a pagan goddess. Since fertility is connected to the cycle of the moon, when this festival was converted into the Christian tradition they followed the same lunar observances.

(Connections between fertility and Easter can also be seen in the symbolism of the rabbit, and the eggs. This seems to be widely acknowledged.)

Certainly, later Christian doctrines have established their own reasoning for the tradition, but the Easter festivals predate Christianity.

Christmas being the birth of Jesus coincides with the winter solstice (see Yule), and most ancient cultures had a winter solstice festival. This is the time when the sun begins its return and it's possible that this was adopted for its symbolic significance.


Why is the date of the 2016 Passover a month late when compared to Easter? Jesus was put to death on Passover eve Nisan 14.

This was the first full moon following the vernal equinox.this year the vernal equinox is March 20.2016
The first full moon after March 20 is March 23 2016.

This is the day that Jehovah's  Witnesses will have their annual memorial of Christs death event.

That is why those who celebrate Easter  will be doing so on March 27 2016. The first Sunday following the paschal full moon.

All seems to be in order until I check the date for Passover this year and it is April 22 2016.

Can someone explain why there is almost a full month lag for Passover this year?

Jehovah's Witnesses time their Memorial  based on the current apparent movements of the actual physical moon and sun, as observable from Jerusalem. This, they say, is what happened in first century Judaism.  The rule is not exactly the first full moon following the equinox, but the result is very close to this.
Jews and Christians base Passover and Easter, respectively, on mathematical models of how the moon and sun move. These idealised models were calculated in the 4th century AD. They are somewhat out of step with the real moon and sun, used by JWs.
The result is that the assumed date of the Vernal Equinox has drifted later than the actual date. The earliest date  Passover can now fall is March 26th. The Full Moon on March 23rd, 2016 is too early for this, and so Passover is based on the following Full Moon, in April. This drift is continuing, but very slowly. Passover was on March 26th in 2013, and will again be on March 26th in 2089, and then never again. After that March 27th is the earliest. The last ever March Passover, based on current arrangements, will be March 31st 3248. In 3411, Passover will fall in May for the first time.
In Christianity the situation is complicated by the fact that Western Christians have made adjustments to correct the drift of sun and moon dates, so that the idealised sun and moon correspond more accurately to the real ones. Eastern Orthodox Christians have not. The drift is such that the earliest the Paschal Full Moon can fall, according to the Eastern Church, is April 3rd. Just as for Jews, the March 23rd full moon this year is too early to be counted, and so it is the April Full Moon is regarded as the Paschal one.
Western Christians have made adjustments so that the earliest date the Paschal Full Moon can fall is March 21st, close to the real vernal equinox. Therefore the March 23rd Full Moon does count and so Easter Day is the following Sunday, March 27th.
Apart from the month, the actual  assumed dates of full moons can vary by a day or two from the real ones for both  Jews and Western  Christians.  For Eastern Christians the ideal  full moon occurs 4 or 5 days later than for Western Christians.
So for 2016 there are full moons on March 23rd and April 22nd. The Jehovah's Witnesses Memorial is on March 23rd. Western Easter is the following Sunday, March 27th. Passover is the following full moon, April 22. The Eastern Orthodox model full moon is four days later than this, April 26th, and so Orthodox Easter is the Sunday after this, May 1st.
Fort the whole of this century if we divide the year AD by 19, and the remainder is 2, 10 or 13, then Passover will be about a month later than Western Easter.   If the remainder is 2, 7, 10, 13 or 18 then the Eastern Easter will be 4 or 5 weeks later than the Western one. In other years, if the Full Moon is early in the week, Eastern and Western Easters coincide, but if later in the week the Eastern Easter is one week after the Western, as the 4 or 5 day discrepancy pushes the assumed full moon into the following week.

The reason for the difference in dates has to do with misunderstanding the solar/lunar calculation of Ex. 12:2.

  This month shall be unto you the beginning of months: it shall be the first month of the year to you.

How is that understood?  Please note that verse refers to the lunar (months) and solar (year) measurements.

Year in Hebrew is shaneh.  It means year as a division of time, of age, a revolution (return) of the sun.  It has to first make a complete revolution to accurately mark the beginning of the months.

From Moses to Christ, it was known that the sun first had to have passed the spring equinox and then one looks for the new moon from which to count to the 14th day Passover (or as it too became muddled, the full moon of the 15th).

Here are quotes from Philo of Alexandria, a contemporary of Christ, on how they calculated the month and Passover.

  THE THIRD FESTIVAL
  XXVI. (140) Following the order which we have adopted, we proceed to speak of the third festival, that of the new moon. First of all, because it is the beginning of the month, and the beginning, whether of number or of time, is honourable.

The new moon is the beginning of the month.  Next comes Passover on the fourteenth of that month.

  THE FOURTH FESTIVAL XXVII. (145) And after the feast of the new moon comes the fourth festival, that of the passover, which the Hebrews call pascha, on which the whole people offer sacrifice, beginning at noonday and continuing till evening.

So, what of the vernal equinox?  How does that enter the picture?

I will first jump to Josephus who says this about the year and month calculation of the beginning of the year.

  In the month of Xanthicus, which is by us called Nisan, and is the beginning of our year, on the fourteenth day of the lunar month, when the sun is in Aries, (for in this month it was that we were delivered from bondage under the Egyptians,) the law ordained that we should every year slay that sacrifice which I before told you we slew when we came out of Egypt, and which was called the Passover; and so we do celebrate this passover in companies, leaving nothing of what we sacrifice till the day following.
  http://www.ccel.org/ccel/josephus/complete.ii.iv.x.html

And now back to Philo who defines the same mark (vernal equinox) as he describes the Fifth Festival of Unleavened Bread.

  This month, being the seventh both in number and order [the original order until changed at Ex. 12:2], according to the revolutions of the sun, is the first in power; (151) on which account it is also called the first in the sacred scriptures [Ex. 12:2]. And the reason, as I imagine, is as follows. The vernal equinox is an imitation and representation of that beginning in accordance with which this world was created. Accordingly, every year, God reminds men of the creation of the world, and with this view puts forward the spring, in which season all plants flourish and bloom; (152) for which reason this is very correctly set down in the law as the first month, since, in a manner, it may be said to be an impression of the first beginning of all, being stamped by it as by an archetypal Seal. ... And this feast [of Unleavened Bread] is begun on the fifteenth day of the month, in the middle of the month, on the day on which the moon is full of light, in consequence of the providence of God taking care that there shall be no darkness on that day.

And see here and here in which the latter states:  "But this Aristobulus also adds, that for the feast of the Passover it was necessary not only that the sun should pass the equinoctial segment, but the moon also."

Thus we learn that to properly calculate the first month the sun had to be in Aries, the sun had to pass through the Spring Equinox, and then you look for the new moon.  They didn't measure the beginning of the year from only the first full moon after the Spring Equinox.  The correct calculation that made sure the sun was in Aries (after the Spring Equinox) necessitates when the intercalary month was added.  The sun was in Aries, then they looked for the new moon, and thus the full moon.

As centuries past, the way to count became more muddled.  By the time of Constantine (325 CE), the accusation became that the Jews were observing two Passovers in one (solar) year.  This happened because they failed to count the solar year properly.

For the OP example shown in 2016, we see this problem in operation.  For JW, they only counted the first full moon of 3/23/16 as the day of their memorial.  This means the solar/lunar calendar would still be measuring the previous year 2015.  In 2015, Passover fell on 4/4/15.  For 2015, the sun had passed the Spring Equinox, the first new moon observed, and the full moon was 4/4/15.  In 2016, the sun had not passed the Spring Equinox to mark the start of observing the first new moon and thus the full moon. Instead 3/23/16 (and Sunday 3/27/16) was merely the first full moon after the Spring Equinox.  In this way, they mistakenly observed two Passovers in one year.

So, that's the reason for the "lag" so called.  It's not that Easter was particularly miscalculated in 2016, but rather the JW (and Christian) observance was based on how later Jewish calculations came into play, rather than how Christ would have done it.

PS.  To clarify, Easter was observed in 2016 on the first Sunday 3/27 following that first full moon on 3/23.

The Jewish Passover was observed 4/22.

If you love irony sharpening irony, this is a great example.  In other words, the answer remains the same, but it's the switch.  In Christ's time they observed the Passover on the first full moon after the first new moon after the Spring Equinox.  That meant the sun had passed the Spring Equinox (in Josephus' parlance, it was in Aries).  That's the correct way to calculate and thus observe the death, burial, resurrection of Christ Jesus.


What's the justification for believing that God interacts with us today the same way He did thousands of years ago? Most Christians I have come across believe that because

  8 Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever. Hebrews 13:8

God must interact with people today the same way He did back then. One way this belief is expressed is that God speaks to us only or primarily though the Bible, for example. There seems to be this implicit assumption that humans today are basically the same as humans back then, so what God said to them applies just as well to us. I think is clearly not the case; the way we act and think today is vastly different, as are most of the issues we face.

The way a father interacts with his child changes as his child matures. What I would like to know is how prominent Christian theologians make the case against this possibility. I want to know how great theologians (on the order of, say, Augustine, John Bunyam, C.S. Lewis, John Wesley, and the like) justify this belief that the way God behaves towards humans today is much the same way He behaved towards them thousands of years ago. Widely-accepted sources of theology such as the Westminster Catechism are also acceptable. It seems to me that this sort of belief is fairly consistent across denominations and branches, so I don't think I need to scope it any tighter.

Note: such a justification should not depend on God's character/characteristics being unchanging. A father's character need not change (though it probably will) for his interactions with his children to change as they get older.

Okay, I'm gonna try to clarify my question. The Bible makes it quite clear that God does not change. His nature, essence, and Being do not change in the slightest. However, that doesn't preclude God from changing the way He acts towards us. Many societies today are vastly different from the societies of the ancients. Take the rise of democracy, for instance, or the rise of various economic systems like capitalism and communism. Take the advent of Science and how electronic/computer technology has become so pervasive and significant. The controversies surrounding abortion and contraception absolutely could not have happened two thousand years ago.

So then, is there a good justification for believing that God behaves towards us today the same way He did towards the ancients? I don't want a Biblically-based answer as there are too many varying interpretations of what it says, so I want an answer that derives from a prominent theologian's work. If one of those great theologians actually directly answers that question, that would be ideal.

What's the justification for believing that God interacts with us today
the same way He did thousands of years ago?

In a word: Experience.

Consider the value the following men place on experience:

  “This grace of God is a very great, strong, mighty and active thing. It does not lie asleep in the soul. Grace hears, leads, drives, draws, changes, works all in man, and lets itself be distinctly felt and experienced. It is hidden, but its works are evident.”
  ― Martin Luther

  “The gospel is not a doctrine of the tongue, but of life. It cannot be grasped by reason and memory only, but it is fully understood when it possesses the whole soul and penetrates to the inner recesses of the heart.”
  ― John Calvin, Golden Booklet of the True Christian Life

  “And Festus said with a loud voice, Paul, thou art beside thyself.”
  Acts 26:24.
  And so say all the world, the men who know not God, of all that are of Paul’s religion: of every one who is so a follower of him as he was of Christ. It is true, there is a sort of religion, nay, and it is called Christianity too, which may be practised without any such Imputation, which is generally allowed to be consistent with common sense, —that is, a religion of form, a round of outward duties, performed in a decent, regular manner. You may add orthodoxy thereto, a system of right opinions, yea, and some quantity of heathen morality; and yet not many will pronounce, that “much religion hath made you mad.” But if you aim at the religion of the heart, if you talk of “righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost,” then it will not be long before your sentence is passed, “Thou art beside thyself.” ― John Wesley, Sermon 37 "The Nature of Enthusiasm"

In different ways, they are arguing against a 'dead' orthodoxy that merely consists of intellectually assenting to propositions to be 'believed'; but rather for an experiential faith that makes a profound difference to the life of a believer. As these men all believed in sola scriptura, what constitutes 'valid' experience is of course determined by scripture (i.e. 'how God dealt with the ancients') - this necessarily includes 'how God relates to us today'.

The preceding is the substance of my answer, but for the sake of further clarity: From the sermon quoted earlier, Wesley goes on to say, in warning on the dangers of 'enthusiasts' receiving revelation by...

  ...what is justly called an extraordinary manner: I mean, by visions or dreams, by strong impressions or sudden impulses on the mind. I do not deny, that God has, of old times, manifested His will in this manner; or, that He can do so now: nay, I believe He does, in some very rare instances. But how frequently do men mistake herein! (Ibid., emphasis added)

Wesley at least, affirms that at least some of the 'supernatural' ways God has related to men in the past do still happen, but are not necessarily the norm, rather:

  Perhaps some may ask, “Ought we not then to inquire what is the will of God in all things? And ought not His will to be the rule of our practice?” Unquestionably it ought. But how is a sober Christian to make this inquiry? to know what is the will of God? Not by waiting for supernatural dreams; not by expecting God to reveal it in visions; not by looking for any particular impressions or sudden impulses on his mind: no; but by consulting the oracles of God. “To the law and to the testimony!” This is the general method of knowing what is “the holy and acceptable will of God.” (Ibid.)

So this is the norm (as per the model of the Bereans - cf. Acts 17:11), however just because 'visions...dreams...strong impressions or sudden impulses on the mind' from God are 'very rare', they are not non-existant.

It is actually a reasonably common mistake, upon cursorily reading the Bible, to assume that the way God normally interacts with man is overtly miraculous. Such a view (a seemingly implied premise of your question) focuses on the 'spectacular portions' of scripture ignoring the fact that over the historical period covered by scripture, the miracles, visions and dreams etc. presented are actually few and far between (the periods of the Exodus and the ministry years of Jesus being the exceptions that actually prove the rule).  Scripture is not just a 'highlights package' of God's 'greatest hits', but it does actually record (significantly extensive) periods where nothing much is happening on the miracle front - the people of God are chronicled as proceeding through life in a fashion that is either characteristically obedient or disobedient to earlier revelation, but not necessarily 'encountering' God until (or sometimes, not even when) some crisis eventuates. Prophets receiving their prophetic revelation may be viewed as a significant exception to this, but for the vast majority of people contemporaneous with the prophets, they could easily have viewed the prophets and what they said as just a guy mouthing words unless there was some miraculous confirmation or direct fulfillment of foretold events (which often didn't happen for generations after the fact) - indeed at least in Jeremiah's case, that is exactly what happened.

In regard to some of the other issues you raise -

Many societies today are vastly different from the societies of the ancients.
Take the rise of democracy, for instance, or the rise of various economic systems
like capitalism and communism. Take the advent of Science and how
electronic/computer technology has become so pervasive and significant. The
controversies surrounding abortion and contraception absolutely could not have
happened two thousand years ago.

The Bible itself portrays:

People groups that undergo significant cultural transformations - including, but not limited to, the development of various technologies and operating under different political and economic systems - but God's interactions with those people groups not changing significantly as a consequence of these particular changes, but rather -
God changing the way he relates to people according to how they relate to Him. In the book of Judges for example, viewed at one level, God changes the way He relates to His people from chapter to chapter - alternately allowing them to be oppressed and then delivered (of course, viewed more wholistically, God is completely consistent - it is the people who He deals with that are inconsistent). The Amorites (cf. Genesis 15:6 & book of Joshua) and Ninevites (book of Jonah) are further salutory examples of this.
Significant and lasting changes in the way He relates to people according to 'Covenants' he makes with them (particularly Adam, Noah, Abraham, Jacob/Israel, Moses & the children of Israel, David and of course the New Covenant offered through Christ to all peoples of the Earth).

Summary: the Bible itself portrays a variety of ways that 'God behaves towards mankind'. Theologians who affirm sola scriptura necessarily bind themselves to scriptural (especially New Covenantal) models of this interaction - for them to deny that God would 'interact with us today the same way He did thousands of years ago' would be inherently inconsistent.

What do you mean by "interacts with"? Humans today ARE the same, the rules ARE the same. God judges us the same.  But God does not "interact with" us the same, as in, he doesn't speak audibly to us.  Your question is really not a question but a liberal rant, and one that is all caused by your inability to differentiate between the rules changing and interaction changing.

Parents may interact differently with their children as they grow, but does that mean their morality changes?  Say a parent taught their child that smoking is wrong.  As a kid, if they caught the kid smoking they might interact with them one way, and as an adult, a different way.  But in both cases the disappointment and disapproval will be the same.


What is the Catholic interpretation of Romans 14:5? Romans 14:5
  One person considers one day more sacred than another; another considers every day alike. Each of them should be fully convinced in their own mind.

All kinds of blessings are in the Catholic feast days and sabbath, but here, Paul is talking about the different days that each person holds sacred.

Why should one keep a day holy if it's useless? You don't keep shabbat just to rest, there are blessings, the feast brings spiritual blessing, so if the feasts or days can't give you that anymore, why keep them?

What is the Catholic interpretation of this verse?

According to the Catholic Encyclopedia The sabbath in the New Testament:

  St. Paul enumerates the Sabbath among the Jewish observances which are
  not obligatory on Christians (Colossians 2:16; Galatians 4:9-10;
  Romans 14:5).  The gentile converts held their religious meetings on Sunday
  (Acts 20:7; 1 Corinthians 16:2) and with the disappearance of the Jewish
  Christian churches this day was exclusively observed as the Lord's Day.

Catholics interpret Romans 14:5 as meaning that the Bible supports the Roman Church's decision to move God's holy day from the Sabbath to Sunday.

For denominations that don't follow Rome's teachings, the interpretation is quite different though.  The entire chapter of Romans 14 talks about one common theme:  new Gentile converts and how they should be handled.

New converts are coming from a completely different view of the world.  Many of them are Vegetarians, Ascetics, or other sects that believe that physical deprivation improves the soul.  It will take some time for them to adjust to the new reality of Christianity, and the current Christians should be careful not to push the process too quickly.

For instance, Vegetarians believe that eating meat is a sin.  Christians know that it isn't, but if they try to force meat onto someone that still feels as if it is a sin, they risk causing that convert to leave them.  Paul points out that it is not a sin to refrain from eating meat, so there is no point in pushing this aspect of Christianity.  Instead, one should stick to the more fundamental beliefs of Christianity, and the converts will eventually accept less important aspects of their new life, such as eating meat without feeling guilty.

  Let us therefore follow after the things which make for peace, and
  things wherewith one may edify another.  For meat destroy not the work
  of God. All things indeed are pure; but it is evil for that man who
  eateth with offence. -- Romans 14:19-20

Arguing a Vegetarian into eating meat, even though he (incorrectly) feels that it is wrong, might cause him to reject his new relationship with God.

Similarly some converts might have no concept of a special day of the week, while other might think that the day the Romans dedicate to Apollo the Sun God should be treated specially.  Eventually the new converts will understand the truth, but forcing them to behave in a way they still feel is wrong is going to do far more harm than good.  It is far better to concentrate on teaching the doctrines of salvation first.

When reading Romans or any of the writings of Saint Paul, a Christian can and easily does get confused (see: 2 Peter 3:16) I remember reading the epistles when first investigating the faith as a mature adult and finding in them not the teaching of the Catholic Church but confusion and indeed something that seemed to resemble the teaching of Protestantism.

What I came to realize was that Paul was not addressing the current age, but an age where those who fallowed Christ were coming not from only the Jewish Tradition but from non- Jewish Tradition as well, the meaning of his writing became clear and everything falls into place.  The two distinct traditions, Jewish and Non-Jewish, presented a challenge to the early church, when entering into Christ body the Church, differences created much contention between the two factions, Even more so came from those referred to a the circumcision party (GAL 2:2) Or those who were Pharisees (ACTS 15:5) who were not just ordinary Jewish converts, but converts who fallowed taught and judged the Law of Moses.  The situation becomes even more distinct when you include Samaritans into the mix; their customs and practices were distinct from the worship done at the Temple.

In Paul’s letters, and especially Romans, Paul is addressing those issues, feast days, circumcision, genealogies, all of the 613 laws of Moses which many believed and rightfully so, that God commanded for his people.  The Church, through the teaching authority of the Apostles and Elders are continuously addressing these conflicts in Acts and in the Epistles.  Not describing the Protestant Man made Tradition of  “Faith Alone” but New Covenant Christianity with adoption of Gentile and not Rabbinic Jewish Christians, which was taboo, into the Israel of God.

Now, when we look at Romans in light of the environment Paul was dealing with, we have the intermingling of various Abrahamic religions, those who are under the Law, and those coming from Pagan background who, by virtue of their specific customs celebrated feasts at different times according to their customs.  The Passage is often quoted as referring to things like “The Nature of Baptism” but it does not, it is dealing with how Christians from different Cultures celebrate the Life Death and Resurrection of the Christ and how together as one Church they give all honor and Glory to God through his Son no matter what days they add to the Calendar to Worship.


How do Protestants interpret "baptized for the dead" in 1 Corinthians 15:29? 1 Corinthians 15:29 (KJV)
  Else what shall they do which are baptized
  for the dead, if the dead rise not at all?  Why are they then baptized
  for the dead?

I know that the LDS Church interprets that verse literally. How do other Protestant traditions interpret this passage? What specific doctrines are derived from or reference this verse?

There are a few interpretations that I have come across regarding the specific meaning of this verse, but all agree that this is a small argument in a wider context, not a change of direction from the verses before and after it:

John Stevenson (a Presbyterian theologian) argues that "for" in this case means "in the place of". This was a time when Chrisitans were heavily persecuted and frequently killed, yet the gospel message was spreading and more believers were being baptised. So Stevenson asserts that this verse is asking (rhetorically), "why, when so many Christians are being killed for their faith, are people still becoming Christians and being baptised, replacing those who were killed?"

Meanwhile, Matt Slick of the Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry concentrates on the meaning of the word "they" as opposed to "we". He asserts that Paul is talking not about Christians, but about a pagan religion from Eleusis, north of Corinth, who believed that baptising in the sea guaranteed a good afterlife. Slick's interpretation is that Paul is saying "if even the pagans believe in the resurrection and the importance of baptism, why can't you?"

The Restored Church of God teaches that the word "for" should be translated as "in the hope of" and asserts that the meaning is much more straightforward: if there is no bodily resurrection, we have no hope after we die. We therefore believe and are baptised because we do have hope that the dead will rise again.

While these interpretations vary in their conclusions regarding what Paul was specifically referring to, they all make the point that the verse must be taken in context. Stevenson explains,

  The context of this passage is one in which Paul is arguing on behalf
  of the doctrine of the bodily resurrection. The Greeks as a rule did
  not hold to a bodily resurrection. It was a new concept to them. Their
  religion taught that the afterlife consisted of a disembodied
  existence. Throughout this chapter, Paul gives one argument after
  another showing that Christians legitimately believe in a
  resurrection.

So the verse itself doesn't result in specific doctrines in protestant churches outside of LDS, because the verse is part of a much wider set of arguments for the doctrines of baptism and the bodily resurrection.

I've picked on a few particular resources that address this issue but there are several others that also support the argument that the verse should be taken in the context described above and not as an indication of support for baptism on behalf of those that have already died. In addition, here's a specific rebuttal of the Mormon view from David Pratte's gospelway.com website.

Baptism for the dead may have a more prosaic meaning if one takes into consideration that some in the early church practiced baptism upon conversion but once a year on Easter. If someone became a Christian but died before they would have been baptized on Easter, a friend or relative might complete the baptism ceremony for them as a memorial.


Why are wives considered the "weaker partner"? (1 Peter 3:7) In 1 Peter, we read:

  1 Peter 3:7 (NIV)
  Husbands, in the same way be considerate as you live with your wives, and treat them with respect as the weaker partner and as heirs with you of the gracious gift of life, so that nothing will hinder your prayers.

What exactly does "the weaker partner" mean?  Does the Bible state what ways are they weaker?  How do Protestants interpret this verse?

Also, does this still hold true today?

I do not think the NIV does the original Greek justice in this case. The English Standard Version (a respected relatively new essentially literal translation) renders the verse this way:

  7 Likewise, husbands, live with your wives in an understanding way,
  showing honor to the woman as the weaker vessel, since they are heirs
  with you of the grace of life, so that your prayers may not be
  hindered.
  1 Peter 3:7

In Calvin's commentary on this verse his translation supports this choice in translation as well. A few other resources I checked seem to align with this as well.

That being said, the word weaker is still there. So what does this mean? Commentators seem to agree that in this passage that the use of the word weaker was used to prompt the husband to act in a gentle and gracious manner.

Calvin:

  Moreover, he employs a twofold argument, in order to persuade husbands
  to treat their wives honourably and kindly. The first is derived from
  the weakness of the sex; the other, from the honour with which God
  favours them. These things seem indeed to be in a manner
  contrary,—that honour ought to be given to wives, because they are
  weak, and because they excel; but these things well agree together
  where love exists.

Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible:

  Both husband and wife are vessels in God’s hand, and of God’s making,
  to fulfil His gracious purposes. Both weak, the woman the weaker. The
  sense of his own weakness, and that she, like himself, is God’s vessel
  and fabric, ought to lead him to act with tender and wise
  consideration towards her who is the weaker fabric

Matthew Henry's Concise Commentary:

  Christians ought to do their duty to one another, from a willing mind,
  and in obedience to the command of God. Wives should be subject to
  their husbands, not from dread and amazement, but from desire to do
  well, and please God. The husband’s duty to the wife implies giving
  due respect unto her, and maintaining her authority, protecting her,
  and placing trust in her. They are heirs together of all the blessings
  of this life and that which is to come, and should live peaceably one
  with another. Prayer sweetens their converse.

The argument that "weaker vessel" implies care and gentleness carries a lot of weight in my opinion. If you have a fragile, beautiful vase are you going to knock it around and treat it roughly? Not if you care about it. Taking a good literal translation into account and viewing this as an illustrative analogy will help a lot in interpreting this verse.

Heh, finally found a good reason for Choosing NLT over NIV. The version you gave us was the NIV. Here is NLT version of it:

  1 Peter 3:7 : 7 In the same way, you husbands should live with your wives in an understanding way, since they are weaker than you. But show them respect, because God gives them the same blessing he gives you—the grace that gives true life. Do this so that nothing will stop your prayers.

Basically, what Peter is saying is that we should treat women which most of them are weaker then us with same respect and understanding, because God gives them same blessing as men.


Does God have a sense of humor? Does he laugh? I've always heard "God must have a sense of humor because he created X".  Usually X is "the platypus" or "me".

Also, it should be evident that Jesus, being human, had a sense of humor.  It's part of the human experience.

But, is there anywhere in the Bible where humor on the part of God is actually recorded?  Furthermore, is there any doctrinal stance supported by extra-biblical (yet inspired) text that indicates God's sense of humor?

I'm interested in both humor from Jesus (as I don't know of any) as well as humor from the heavens (either God while Jesus was here on Earth or anything before or after that point).

Sadly, there is no record of Jesus laughing. The closest is in Luke 10:21:

  At that time Jesus, full of joy through the Holy Spirit

I'd imagine that, when He was full of joy, at the very least He had a big smile on His face.

Update: apparently Jesus thinks laughing is a blessing; from Luke 6:21b:

  Blessed are you who weep now, for you will laugh.

(Two verses further, He even commends jumping for joy!)

Read the book of Jeremiah, chapter 30:

  Thus says the Lord:
  We have heard a cry of panic,
  of terror, and no peace.
  Ask now, and see,
  can a man bear a child?
  Why then do I see every man
  with his hands on his loins like a woman in labor?
  Why has every face turned pale?
  ...

I consider this humor, and see, it’s in God’s speaking.


What is the essence of sin? There are bound to be lots of questions like "Is X or Y a sin?". However, what is sin at its root and where in the Bible do we get our understanding of it?

Luther has famously argues that every time you break any other commandment, you always break the first commandment; in other words, behind every sin is the desire to worship a god other the God. Whether it is pride, in which we consider ourself to be God, or a sin of fear-of-man, in which we consider another person to be God, all sin is, at its core, idolatry.

When you see the essential problem as a worship issue, over against a breaking-of-commandments issue, I think several things are clarified.

Worship and idolatry addresses both the positive and negative sides. That is, when we do what is right, we are worshipping God (and conversely), and when we are not worshipping God, we are not doing what is right (and conversely).
Much of the Bible talks about idolatry, and seems a bit foreign and obsolete to modern ears. After all, we do not deal with Baal or Molech on a daily basis. However, when considering this as an example of our basic relationship with God, these passages become much more relavant. God is repeatedly enraged by his people worshipping idols and intermixing with other gods. Though we do not by and large bow down to physical idols made by hands, we do worship at the gods of money, power, etc.
The idolatry issues allows for a distinction between things that are good and created by God against things that ultimate for us. God gives us food, but we can be gluttons. God gives us sex but we find all ways to abuse it. Seeing sin as essentially idolatry allows us to have good things be God-centered, and not find abuse to be the only use we can comprehend.

The essence of Sin is to act contrary to to Love. It has been said above but it can not be said enough. The Savior said it best here:

  Matthew 22:37-40 (ESV)
  37 And he said to him, "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. 38 This is the great and first commandment. 39 And a second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. 40 On these two commandments depend all the Law and the Prophets."

If you have perfect Love for your fellow man you will have no desire to sin, and will keep all the commandments perfectly.  We best Love and serve God by keeping his commandments which are to Love and serve others.

  John 14:15
  15 If ye love me, keep my commandments.


Is it accurate to call Abraham a Jew? It is common to associate Abraham as "father of the faith" and the first Jew.

However, since  Abram's family came from the land of Ur, isn't it more accurate to say that he wasn't a Jew but - in reality - a Babylonian that became a Jew because of his faith in God?

This is open for answer by all denominations. I would like to hear their thoughts on the matter.

The word “Jew” follows etymologically from the name “Judah”, Abraham’s great-great-grandson. Judah is Jacob’s fourth son and the fourth son of Jacob’s fist and less favored wife Leah. The second king of Biblical Israel is his descendent.
The first king was Saul, a descendent of Judah’s youngest brother Benjamin. But Saul sinned against Yahweh and while Saul was still king, he anointed David of Judah to be King of Israel by his prophet Samuel.
After David’s death, the kingdom of Israel split into two Kingdoms upon the succession of his grandson Rehoboam, the son of David’s son Solomon who built Yahweh’s temple in Jerusalem, though his Temple really resided in Solomon. The northern Kingdom retained the original name, Israel, and the Southern Kingdom was known as Judah. The Jews are judahites in that sense- cultural and ethnic successors of the southern kingdom. Both kingdoms were eventually lost to conquering empires.
Abraham was among the first people to practice what we would call the Jewish faith in earnest- monotheistic veneration of Yahweh, who he knew as El Shaddai, “Almighty God”, though not all of Abraham’s offspring are counted among his children according to the promise Yahweh made to him. Through much of the Biblical Narrative, Yahweh is called “The God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.” It is not accurate to say he was the first Jew, since the name comes from his own offspring. It would be more appropriate to refer to him as the father of the Jews.

Calling a person Babylonian is rather like calling someone a US citizen or a British citizen; it refers to their nationality rather than their religion. This is of course of immense importance when one is applying for passports or for support from the state administration. Of course, there was no such thing as nation states then, but something similar will have applied.
Abraham, like his father, was born in the city of Ur of the Chaldees, according to the Biblical narrative; and in 1927, Leonard Woolley identified this city with the Sumerian city-state of Ur founded in 3800 BCE and located now at Tell el-Muqayyar in southern Iraq's Dhi Qar Governate. At the time of its founding it was a coastal city near the mouth of the Euphrates but this has now shifted and do the city is now well inland, being around 16km from the river.
It's probably inappropriate to call Abraham a 'citizen', as this again is a modern term; Ur, although a city state, was a monarchy, with the first king of the first dynasty called Mesannapada; and the city's patron deity is Nanna (or Sin in Akkadian), the Sumeruan moon-god and from whom the city takes its name: Unug, literally, the abode of Nanna.
Whilst being a 'citizen' of Ur was important in terms of where he lived and how; this is, however, in the temporal order of things and the Bible is less concerned with this order than the spiritual order.
It's in this sense that we think of Abraham as primarily being the patriarch of Judiasm, Christianity and Islam; rather than Sumerian. What we can say is that the biblical Abraham, like his father Terah, was born in the Sumerian city-state Ur, in modern day Iraq, and was told by God to emigrate to the land of Canaan which had been given originally to Canaan, a son of Ham, and a grandson of Noah; and was now promised to him; and according to the Table of Nations in Genesis 10: it comprises all the land from Sidon or Hamath to the north of Gaza and Lasha to the southeast; in modern day terms, it is known as the Levant, and comprises all of Israel, Palestine, Lebanon, Western Jordan and Western Syria.


We might find Judas in Heaven? We all know how Judas sold Jesus for 30 pieces of silver. The thing is he hanged himself before Jesus died on the cross so he went to (supposedly) hell.

But after Jesus died on the cross he went to the underworld and preached there. Is it possible that Judas might have been redeemed there, or is it safe to presume that the only ones that Jesus preached to in the underworld were those who hadn't heard the gospel in their lifetime?

What church doctrines/beliefs are there on these issues? Are they even related?

There is good reason to believe that we will not see Judas in heaven.  Jesus spoke of His betrayer with these words:

  The Son of Man goes as it is written of him, but woe to that man by whom the Son of Man is betrayed! It would have been better for that man if he had not been born.”  Matthew 26:24 ESV

As @Paul A Clayton noted in this comment, John 17:12 is more emphatic:

  None has been lost except the one doomed to destruction so that Scripture would be fulfilled.  John 17:12b NIV

If Jesus said that it would have been better for Judas had he never been born, then it is hard to imagine that he is in heaven now.  Since Jesus is omniscient, if Judas were to have another opportunity to respond to the gospel after his death--which I don't believe he did--then Jesus would have also known the outcome of that and would not have said what He did.

Judas did, however, feel remorse, but there is a significant, even eternal difference between remorse and repentance.  He certainly could have repented of what he did and returned to Jesus, but it appears he felt remorse and probably shame.  His suicide appears to be a result of that and not of biblical repentance.

I think that the Judas role is much more enigmatic than we think. I don't know whether he will be saved or not, God knows. But why there was need for betrayal? Crucifing could be possibly be done by demand of Jewish authorities who would recognize Him with his disciples. But they wanted to catch Him via somebody who would betray Him. It is a very, very strange part of the event. And secondly, He did not preach to Judas or anybody because He was dead for 3 days until He was resurected by Father. Judas was and is still dead. And dead means dead, unconscious. I agree that "spirits in prison" are probably "fallen angels".


Why is Christianity so despised in the World? Since its inception, Christianity has been ill received through out the world. This is true not only of people, but of Governments as well.
It is easy to understand why the Sanhedrin was so opposed to Jesus, since he was messing up their little playhouse, but since the main themes of his teachings were peace and harmony, why are these ideas so abhorrent?

John 13:34  KJV A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another.
Matthew 22:21  KJV  They say unto him, Caesar's. Then saith he unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's
Matthew 5:7  KJV  Blessed are the merciful: for they shall obtain mercy.
Mat 5:44  But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;

Are these precepts so opposed to the power struggles and quest for riches that most societies believe they must be eradicated?
What are the arguments used that vilify Christianity?

Jesus said,

  If the world hates you, you know that it hated Me before it hated you.
  19 If you were of the world, the world would love its own. Yet because
  you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, therefore
  the world hates you. 20 Remember the word that I said to you, ‘A
  servant is not greater than his master.’ If they persecuted Me, they
  will also persecute you. If they kept My word, they will keep yours
  also. 21 But all these things they will do to you for My name’s sake,
  because they do not know Him who sent Me.

  John 15:18-21

Satan has power in this world and will persecute the followers of Jesus until he is destroyed. Sometimes the hatred is irrational, sometimes it is excused by the actions of so-called Christians. Nevertheless the real reason is because Jesus is hated by Satan. He cannot touch Jesus so he goes after those who are dear to Him. Sometimes Jesus allows it for a purpose, to build our character, but sometimes he does not allow it.

It is not the Christian principles that people hate. Most of the time they do not know what Christians believe. It is the hatred put in their hearts by the enemy himself.

The truth is, if you were in the path of destruction, would Satan
 care? No, he would leave you just as you are. However if you are in
 the path of righteousness, and bringing other souls from perdition
 into salvation, Satan would hate you. So he would do everything in his
 power to kill you, hurt you, discourage you, or make you doubt.
 EVERYONE in the Bible that followed God was persecuted, hurt, and
 sometimes killed. Most of the prophets were murdered. Jesus Himself
 was murdered, hurt, persecuted, and called demon-possessed. If you
 follow Christ this is what you might face one day.

When I think of Jesus vs Sanhedrin. I'm thinking more about the struggle between Protestantism vs The Catholic Church, the One true church. Per Wikipedia:

  Protestantism encompasses forms of Christian faith and practice that
  originated with doctrines and religious, political, and
  ecclesiological impulses of the Protestant Reformation against what
  they considered the errors of the Catholic Church.

Why has Christianity has been ill received? Well Christian persecution is certain to happen. 2 Timothy 3:12 NET.

  Now in fact all who want to live godly lives in Christ Jesus will be
  persecuted.

But about the power struggles and quest for riches. Usually that is between non-Christians. Christians have the Great Commission and they only need the Power of God to make that happen. Not the power of money.

Working among children all the time I find that when I question a kid that does a bad deed like bulling. They dont remember the details. They forget. They forget the rules. But what they dont know is that good kids are watching and they do remember the details and make a complain. I make a report and notify the parents.

Maybe that is why bad men feel ill about good men. Because they tattletale. Kinda like Able vs Cain.


What do Jehovah's Witnesses believe about evolution? From Do Jehovah’s Witnesses Believe in Creationism? on jw.org:

No. Jehovah’s Witnesses do believe that God created everything. But we do not agree with creationism. Why not? Because a number of creationist ideas actually conflict with the Bible. Consider the following two examples:

Length of the six days of creation...the word “day” in the Bible can refer to a considerable length of time...
Age of the earth...Jehovah’s Witnesses have no objection to credible scientific research that indicates the earth may be billions of years old.

Although Jehovah’s Witnesses believe in creation, we are not antiscience. We believe that true science and the Bible are compatible.

Any mention of evolution is absent (which IMO is a bit surprising, considering the FAQ being answered).
Similar to Earth's age, would Jehovah's Witnesses also have no objection to "credible scientific research that indicates" life, including humans, evolved from simpler forms?
Or do they have a different belief?

I'll try to summarize some of the infos we can find in the JW.org site (wol.jw.org)

First, have a look at their Awake! 9/06 magazine, pages 9-10, the article titled "Did God Use Evolution to Create Life?"

As a summary, it says that the Bible’s account of the creation of the first man, Adam, is to be taken literally. It also says that Jesus (and his disciples) took it as a true story.

Also this other article from their 1/1 2008 Watchtower magazine, titled "Is evolution compatible with the Bible ?", should interest you.

Many here are a bit confused, so let's be plain about it: Jehovah's Witnesses do NOT believe in evolution of any form, simple as that.

They also plainly say NO to 'creationism' which teaches that God created the whole universe in six literal days, as it is not Biblical. In fact, the first two verses of Genesis state the circumstance that exist BEFORE those six days (even the earth existed before the first day). The first actually starts in verse 3 with the phrase "And God said" and that same phrase precedes every new day as creation unfolds. All six days are also declared with the same phrase that "God was it was good, an evening..." etc.

At the end of those six creative days, Genesis 2:4 says: "This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made earth and heaven."

Interestingly, that day is in fact all the six days combined. Hence some translations with take the Hebrew word for "day" and use the word "time that God created...".

So "day" can also be equated to a period of "time" or even an "era" or epoch" - like, things were very different in my Great Grandfather's "day" when they did not have computers or the internet.

So here Genesis 2:4 is using "day" in a way that cannot be 24 hours. Also, Genesis uses the word "day" in Genesis 1:5 to signify "daylight hours" or 12 hours only.

So we now see THREE different usages in Genesis for the word "day".

BUT: Everybody forgets there were in fact seven days and not just six.

The "seventh day" was not a 24 hour rest that God had as if he was somehow tired. The rest simply meant that his creation activity came to a rest, or stop.

Why is that so significant?

Simply because the Apostle Paul in Hebrews 4 alerts us to the fact that this rest is ongoing and he actually says "that day remains" in verse 6 and that we can enter it too, but must put behind us our evil ways.

So clearly, if the seventh days is thousands of years old, hence so must the other six days be thousands of years each.

Seems that we are still in the "seventh day" right now - as wickedness has not come to an end. One day the "seventh day" will come to an end. Watch out as that means God's intervention will make it happen!

So the clarity of belief of Jehovah's Witnesses is stark. They absolutely believe in the Genesis Creation account in every respect.

Note that stark and clear position stands very separate to that of so-called creationism - and creationism is tantamount to wanting to squeeze God into a human timetable by insisting on six literal days.

Finally, no matter how long creation took place, does insisting on six literal days make creation any lesser or greater than it already is? Every atom, particle, photon or molecule will not have changed one iota. So please, can we put the nonsense of creationism behind us by saying "God created everything in his own time and that of nobody else's."


What did Jesus think he was? What does the biblical Jesus (as opposed to the historical Jesus) think he is?

a rabbi
the son of a carpenter
the child born in the house of David
the king of the Jews, about to be anointed with oil, to save Jerusalem from all oppression and be the light of the world
a pious Jewish man well-versed in the Hebrew scriptures at the time and carefully cites some sources from the Hebrew scriptures in order to serve his purpose and make himself seem credible, genuine, and sincere to his community
a traveler who wants anybody who has ears to hear to listen to him
a man holding a grudge against the Pharisees, even though one of the Pharisees shows hospitality by inviting him to his house
a prophet that foretells what shall happen to the Son of Man, which turns out to be him
his disciples seem to treat him like a teacher, a rabbi, and sometimes refer to him as "lord" (whether or not "Lord" is the correct translated term is another story)
complex relationship with his "Father"

Compared to modern Rabbinical Jewish mashiach, it is implied that Jesus presumably thought that he was the Jewish messiah, the King of the Jews. Wearing a crown of thorns and being labelled "King of the Jews" at his crucifixion and resurrection. Plus, some say that his resurrection really did happen in history. His resurrection seems to be most significant, because without it, he would be a dead messiah, and that means he would be no messiah.

The common Christian answer goes straight to the words Jesus spoke in John 8:58

  Jesus said to them, "Most assuredly, I say to you, before Abraham was,
  I AM."

This is understood now, and was understood at the time, as Jesus claiming to be God, referring to the the words God spoke to Moses from the burning bush.

This is covered in much greater detail at Let Us Reason Ministries.

Excerpt:

  Who do you say Jesus is? Jesus asked this same question to his
  disciples about what others thought of him and then asked what they
  thought of him.

  Jn.5:37: "And the Father himself, who sent me, has borne witness of
  me. You have neither heard his voice at any time, nor seen his shape.
  ‘Jesus gives the source of his commission, which is from the Father
  personally. It is the Fathers voice and form they have not seen, yet
  Christ has.

  Christ who is called the exact image of the invisible Father is the
  voice that the people heard. He then says that they search the
  Scriptures in them you think you have eternal life but they testify of
  me."(v.39) The Son is said to be the eternal life with the Father. Are
  we to believe the Scriptures testify of only a human being and not God
  himself? In the end of the discourse Jesus says in vs.46-47 "If you
  believed Moses you would believe Me; for he wrote about me. But if you
  don’t believe his writings, how will you believe my words?"

  When did Moses write of him? Deut.18:15-19: "The LORD your God will
  raise up for you a Prophet like me from your midst, from your
  brethren. Him you shall hear, "according to all you desired of the
  LORD your God in Horeb in the day of the assembly, saying, 'Let me not
  hear again the voice of the LORD my God, nor let me see this great
  fire anymore, lest I die.' "And the LORD said to me: 'What they have
  spoken is good. 'I will raise up for them a Prophet like you from
  among their brethren, and will put My words in His mouth, and He shall
  speak to them all that I command Him. 'And it shall be that whoever
  will not hear My words, which He speaks in My name, I will require it
  of him." Jesus claims to be the prophet Moses spoke of that should
  listen to. Notice that it says they did not want to hear the voice of
  the Lord anymore or see his glory in Horeb. Then God says he will put
  his words in a future prophets mouth if they do not listen to his
  words, God will require it of him." This very thing Jesus said of
  himself in Jn.8:24 "Therefore I said to you that you will die in your
  sins; for if you do not believe that I am (He), you will die in your
  sins."

This is also famously covered in C.S. Lewis's Trilemma

  "I am trying here to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing
  that people often say about Him: I’m ready to accept Jesus as a great
  moral teacher, but I don’t accept his claim to be God. That is the one
  thing we must not say. A man who was merely a man and said the sort of
  things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either
  be a lunatic — on the level with the man who says he is a poached egg
  — or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice.
  Either this man was, and is, the Son of God, or else a madman or
  something worse. You can shut him up for a fool, you can spit at him
  and kill him as a demon or you can fall at his feet and call him Lord
  and God, but let us not come with any patronising nonsense about his
  being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did
  not intend to. ... Now it seems to me obvious that He was neither a
  lunatic nor a fiend: and consequently, however strange or terrifying
  or unlikely it may seem, I have to accept the view that He was and is
  God."

Jesus called himself "son of man"
He also said: "I can do nothing by myself - I see the Father and I do the same."
He said He was the son of "The Father," and of Mary his Mother.
He said He should not be called "good Master," for only God is good.
He said he was a prophet.


What did Pilate mean by asking "What is truth?" When Jesus is brought before Pilate, he asks him if he is a king. When Jesus admits that he is Pilate says

“You are a king, then!” said Pilate.
Jesus answered, “You say that I am a king. In fact, the reason I was born and came into the world is to testify to the truth. Everyone on the side of truth listens to me.”
“What is truth?” retorted Pilate. With this he went out again to the Jews gathered there and said, “I find no basis for a charge against him. (John 18:37-38)

Does Pilate actually believe Jesus, or is he simply being dismissive of Jesus' "naivite" in assuming there is such a thing as truth?
I'd like answers that pull from the tradition of mainstream Christian factions and scripture.

History records that Pilate was not the most even tempered of men. Considering this, I find that it is quite probable that the words would have been intended more as mockery than anything else.

Traditions related to Pilate are a good deal more vague. While the apocryphal "Passion (or Gospel) according to St. Peter" exonerates him, the majority of writings which come from the post-apostolic writers suggest that the writings of Philo may very well be correct as to the nature of his character.

Of course, there is no way to know, but it seems far more probable that he was not acting as Christ's friend in that conversation.

I've been considering this conversation, since watching the movie "Hellbound?" -- After reading the scripture and many commentaries, I've come to the conclusion that Pilate was referring to what Jesus answered about Truth... that Truth was "true" for those who were "from" the Truth. What does it mean to be "from" the Truth? THAT is what I think Pilate was referring to... the idea that Truth in fact, in his own experience, depended upon what a person did or did not accept as the Truth, period.

Therefore, in Pilate's view, in this life, Truth is what you think is True, and there is not a reliable way to know what is Truly True - which "Truth" corresponds to reality.

Truth may be an objective thing - there can only be one Truth, ultimately. (I think...LOL) But in the context of spiritual matters, such as what Jesus taught, versus the Jews, versus Pagans, there is no way to objectively conclude what is Truth. It is a subjective decision... we all decide to be "from" one Truth or another.


Will God destroy the earth again? A friend of mine once said that, "God said he would never destroy the earth again." I assume she was referencing the time of Noah's Ark, where the Great Flood wiped out the entire world.

I was simply wondering if this was true, and if there were any other cases in the Bible (or elsewhere) in which God said something like this?

Yes, God did say something like that after the flood. You can find this in Genesis, however the reference is specifically to destruction by flood (emphasis added):

  Genesis 9:8-17 (ESV)
  Then God said to Noah and to his sons with him, “Behold, I establish my covenant with you and your offspring after you, and with every living creature that is with you, the birds, the livestock, and every beast of the earth with you, as many as came out of the ark; it is for every beast of the earth. I establish my covenant with you, that never again shall all flesh be cut off by the waters of the flood, and never again shall there be a flood to destroy the earth.” And God said, “This is the sign of the covenant that I make between me and you and every living creature that is with you, for all future generations: I have set my bow in the cloud, and it shall be a sign of the covenant between me and the earth. When I bring clouds over the earth and the bow is seen in the clouds, I will remember my covenant that is between me and you and every living creature of all flesh. And the waters shall never again become a flood to destroy all flesh. When the bow is in the clouds, I will see it and remember the everlasting covenant between God and every living creature of all flesh that is on the earth.” God said to Noah, “This is the sign of the covenant that I have established between me and all flesh that is on the earth.”

There will be a time when the earth is destroyed again, this time by fire. You can find one (of many) references to this in the New Testament (emphasis added):

  2nd Peter 3:4-10 (ESV)
  They will say, “Where is the promise of his coming? For ever since the fathers fell asleep, all things are continuing as they were from the beginning of creation.” For they deliberately overlook this fact, that the heavens existed long ago, and the earth was formed out of water and through water by the word of God, and that by means of these the world that then existed was deluged with water and perished. But by the same word the heavens and earth that now exist are stored up for fire, being kept until the day of judgment and destruction of the ungodly. But do not overlook this one fact, beloved, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. The Lord is not slow to fulfill his promise as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance. But the day of the Lord will come like a thief, and then the heavens will pass away with a roar, and the heavenly bodies will be burned up and dissolved, and the earth and the works that are done on it will be exposed.

YES YES

John wrote in Revelation 21:1

  Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth; for the first heaven and the first earth passed away, and there is no longer any sea.  NASB


Why is "in the name of Jesus Christ" usually used at the end? In the scriptures, a phrase such as "in the name of the Lord" or "in the name of Jesus" is typically used at the beginning of statements, especially commands. In our day, I notice that most of our prayers, for instance, end "in Jesus' name" or "in the name of Jesus Christ." By way of another example, it seems that even most special Priesthood blessings by Latter-day Saints end with such a phrase, instead of starting with it.

Is there significance in the reversal of the placement of this phrase? Does the meaning change whether at the beginning or end?

(Sometimes I think when we say a prayer and end it with that phrase, it tends to get lost behind the other words, or is said quickly as a part of just ending the prayer, instead of carrying the meaning of praying in the Lord's name, which is why I'm asking this question.)

The answer to your question is in several Scriptures.

In the book of Matthew He told us first of all that we should pray directly to the Father, and not for rewards here on Earth.

Matthew 6:5 through 7 KJV

  5  And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward.

  6  But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly.

  7  But when ye pray, use not vain repetitions, as the heathen do: for they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking.

Then Jesus taught his disciples (which of course includes us) in the model prayer:

Matthew 6:9 through 15 KJV

  9  After this manner therefore pray ye: Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name.

  10  Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven.

  11  Give us this day our daily bread.

  12  And forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors.

  13  And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil: For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen.

  14  For if ye forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you:

  15  But if ye forgive not men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses.

This was given as an outline and not meant to be recited word for word, but even if you recite it word for word, what matters is your intent; and so praying the "Lord's Prayer" in not in any way sacrilegious as long as your intent is right.

He went on to say that we need to pray knowing that God has the power to grant our every wish, and that He will grant them in accordance with His plans for us.

Matthew 21:22  KJV

  And all things, whatsoever ye shall ask in prayer, believing, ye shall receive.

John 14:13 and 14 KJV

  13  And whatsoever ye shall ask in my name, that will I do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son.

  14  If ye shall ask any thing in my name, I will do it.

Finally He tells us that if we expect him to grant our request we must continue in his word, and be the best Christian we know how to be.

John 15:7  KJV

  If ye abide in me, and my words abide in you, ye shall ask what ye will, and it shall be done unto you.

It really doesn't matter when you acknowledge Jesus Authority, either before or after, but it does matter that you acknowledge it.

I believe that when we first come to God in prayer that we should start off saying, "I come to you in The Name of Jesus The Christ", because this opens the door to God. Since Christians are imperfect beings and Jesus is the only perfect being, and God only hears from us through Jesus' intersession because our sinfulness blocks access to God, we should start the prayer in His Son's Name. Otherwise, it's like trying to get into a computer without the access code. Then, it's okay at the end of the prayer to say, "Thank You, in The Name of Jesus Christ."


Who learned that Abraham would even sacrifice his son in Genesis 22:11? Most translations say that "Now I know that you fear God" and I refers to the angel in the previous verse.

But Open Theists say that God is learning, that "I" refers to God, but I don't see that in the translations.

Is there any evidence of this belief, that "I" refers to God, in the text?

The Patristic View

The Church Fathers teach that the Angel of Lord is God, specifically the Son.

The earliest Patristic reference I know of is Justin Martyr's Dialog with Trypho. Justin says to Trypho:

  And I continued: “It is again written by Moses, my brethren, that He who is called God and appeared to the patriarchs is called both Angel and Lord, in order that from this you may understand Him to be minister to the Father of all things, as you have already admitted, and may remain firm, persuaded by additional arguments. The word of God, therefore, [recorded] by Moses, when referring to Jacob the grandson of Abraham, speaks thus: ‘And it came to pass, when the sheep conceived, that I saw them with my eyes in the dream: And, behold, the he-goats and the rams which leaped upon the sheep and she-goats were spotted
  226
  with white, and speckled and sprinkled with a dun colour. And the Angel of God said to me in the dream, Jacob, Jacob. And I said, What is it, Lord? And He said, Lift up thine eyes, and see that the he-goats and rams leaping on the sheep and she-goats are spotted with white, speckled, and sprinkled with a dun colour. For I have seen what Laban doeth unto thee. I am the God who appeared to thee in Bethel Dialog LVIII

Irenaeus identifies the Son with the Angel that guided Abraham:

  With regard to Christ, the law and the prophets and the evangelists have proclaimed that He was born of a virgin, that He suffered upon a beam of wood, and that He appeared from the dead; that He also ascended to the heavens, and was glorified by the Father, and is the Eternal King; that He is the perfect Intelligence, the Word of God, who was begotten before the light; that He was the Founder of the universe, along with it (light), and the Maker of man; that He is All in all: Patriarch among the patriarchs; Law in the laws; Chief Priest among priests; Ruler among kings; the Prophet among prophets; the Angel among angels; the Man among men; Son in the Father; God in God; King to all eternity. For it is He who sailed [in the ark] along with Noah, and who guided Abraham; who was bound along with Isaac, and was a Wanderer with Jacob; the Shepherd of those who are saved, and the Bridegroom of the Church; the Chief also of the cherubim, the Prince of the angelic powers; God of God; Son of the Father; Jesus Christ; King for ever and ever. Amen. Fragment 53

Athanasius identifies the Angel of the Lord with the Word

  And none other than God blessed Abraham and Isaac; and Isaac praying for Jacob, said, ‘May God bless thee and increase thee and multiply thee, and thou shalt be for many companies of nations, and may He give thee the blessing of Abraham my father.’ But if it belong to none other than God to bless and to deliver, and none other was the deliverer of Jacob than the Lord Himself and Him that delivered him the Patriarch besought for his grandsons, evidently none other did he join to God in his prayer, than God’s Word, whom therefore he called Angel, because it is He alone who reveals the Father. Which the Apostle also did when he said, ‘Grace unto you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ Against the Arians, 3.25.13

and

  But if at any time, when the Angel was seen, he who saw it heard God's voice, as took place at the bush; for 'the Angel of the Lord was seen in a flame of fire out of the bush, and the Lord called Moses out of the bush, saying, I am the God of your father, the God of Abraham and the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob ,' yet was not the Angel the God of Abraham, but in the Angel God spoke. And what was seen was an Angel; but God spoke in him. For as He spoke to Moses in the pillar of a cloud in the tabernacle, so also God appears and speaks in Angels. So again to the son of Nun He spoke by an Angel. But what God speaks, it is very plain He speaks through the Word, and not through another. And the Word, as being not separate from the Father, nor unlike and foreign to the Father's Essence, what He works, those are the Father's works, and His framing of all things is one with His; and what the Son gives, that is the Father's gift. Against the Arians, 3.25.14

"I" is referring to the messenger of Yahweh (malakh Yahweh). In Exodus 23:21-23, we learn that the messenger is to be listened and obeyed, and not to be rebelled because he will not pardon those sins, "for my name is in him."

As it has been noted in the verse given in your question, "I" is following from the messenger, whom, given the verse in Exodus, indicates two individuals, not one.


Did the coins at the time of Jesus have distinct images and inscriptions? At Matthew 22:18-21(NIV) we read:

"... But Jesus, knowing their evil intent, said, “You hypocrites, why are you trying to trap me?  Show me the coin used for paying the tax.” They brought him a denarius, and He asked them, “Whose image is this? And whose inscription?”

“Caesar’s,” they replied.

Then He said to them, “So give back to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s.”

My question is : did the coins used by Jews at the time of Jesus bear two different types of images and inscriptions in order to indicate the usage meant of the coin ?  To elaborate, were there distinct  images and inscriptions on the coins meant for being offered at the Temple of God ? What were those like ?

Yes, during Jesus' lifetime, coins in the Roman Empire bore the likeness of the Emperor - who happened to be Augustus, also known as Tiberius, for most of Jesus' life.

These are actual Roman coins from Jesus' lifetime, bearing the image of Augustus Cæsar.

-  Source

Contrary to popular belief, coins bearing the image of a pagan were not inherently considered contaminated or unfit for use in the Temple:

  When Jews traveled to Jerusalem from other lands, they brought money for room, board, and souvenirs. Most importantly, they were required to pay the annual half-shekel tribute to the temple. The currency they had would be of their native land or acquired in trade along their way.

  Money changers performed a key service when they converted the varieties of local coinage into the required tribute of silver shekels or half-shekels of Tyre (Tosefta Ketubbot 13:20, Exod 30:11-16). Many writers have suggested that the Tyre currency was preferred because it did not defy the Decalogue by depicting the graven image of a foreign king, and that is true. But the Tyre coins portray a pagan god of Tyre, Melqarth-Herakles—which was certainly even more offensive!

  Images on coins, however, do not contaminate them even for payment to the temple. The Mishnah explains that money is unclean only if it is used for another purpose, such as for jewelry (Mishnah Kelim 12:7). The law stated that the temple must not be shortchanged in any way, so the silver coins of Tyre were most likely mandated because they were of good silver and true weight at a time when many coins were debased or lightweight.
  -  Source

Coin used at the Temple:

Let us disagree. In order to answer the disciples' query as to whether payment of Temple Tax was mandated of them, Jesus says at Mtt 17:27 (NIV) :  “But so that we may not cause offense, go to the lake and throw out your line. Take the first fish you catch; open its mouth and you will find a four-drachma coin. Take it and give it to them for my tax and yours.”

(For further reference, please visit `Scriptorium' hosted by Bible scholar and researcher  Jack Kilmon.)

The description of Jesus taking on the money changers at the Temple, also  proves that not all coins were accepted as offering at the Temple.


Who is the "Seed of the Serpent" spoken of in Genesis 3? In Genesis 3, God curses the serpent Satan in the following words:

  The Lord God said to the serpent, “Because you have done this, cursed
  are you more than all cattle, and more than every beast of the field;
  pn your belly you will go, and dust you will eat all the days of your
  life; And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between
  your seed and her Seed; He shall bruise you on the head, and you
  shall bruise him on the heel.”  Genesis 3:14-15 NASB

Most Christians understand the Seed of the woman to be referring to Jesus, who was uniquely born of woman.  However, it seems unclear who the seed of the serpent is.

To whom exactly is this referring?  I'm not sure a particular tradition matters here, but I'm most interested in a perspective that at the very least views the Scriptures as the divine Word of God (a biblical literalist), but again, I'm not sure other perspectives would really impact an understanding of this too much.

Speaking to the Pharisees, Jesus said,

  Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will
  do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth,
  because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh
  of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.

  And because I tell you the truth, ye believe me not.

  Which of you convinceth me of sin? And if I say the truth, why do ye
  not believe me?

  He that is of God heareth God's words: ye therefore hear them not,
  because ye are not of God.

  John 8:44-47

Those who do not do the will of God, but live in sin are the devil's seed.

  He that is not with me is against me; and he that gathereth not with
  me scattereth abroad.

  Matthew 12:30

There are only two teams. Those who are the seed of the woman, and those who are the seed of the serpent. Those who are with God and those who are against God. There is no neutrality.

Genesis 3:15
  And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed: it shall bruise thy head and thou shalt bruise his heel.
Mt.13:38
The field is the world; the good seed are the children of the kingdom, but the tares are the children of the wicked one.

John 8:44
Ye are of your father the devil, and the lust of your father will ye do----.

Acts 13:10
O full of all subtlety and all mischief, thou child of the devil----.

1 John 3:10
In this the children of God are manifest and the children of the devil: ----

After the curse Eve gave birth to two sons, one good, one evil and the simple result was murder, the bad murdered the good. So began the story of man---.
Jesus had much to say about Children of the devil, even in parables and it should be plain and simple to accept His words. I have read some outlandish interpretations of Genesis 3:15, I am both surprised and dismayed The Bible has been misinterpreted in so many ways. This is an allegory--this applies to that and not to this.
My eyes and my heart are focused on the Word of God and I find to let scripture interpret scripture and let the Holy Spirit guide me in understanding.
Thank you. KB


What did Jesus mean by `being shrewd'? We see Jesus saying at  Luke 16:8 (NRSVCE)

".. And his master commended the dishonest manager because he had acted shrewdly; for the children of this age are more shrewd in dealing with their own generation than are the children of light."

We also see Jesus instructing his disciples  at Matthew 10:16 (NIV)

" I am sending you out like sheep among wolves. Therefore be as shrewd as snakes and as innocent as doves."

I wish to know what exactly Jesus meant by `shrewdness '. Was it practical wisdom,  futuristic sight or some other desirable quality   ? What does the Catholic Church say about the said teachings of the Lord ?

The Rheims translation says (Vulgate translation and Greek in parentheses):

  Luke 16:8And the lord commended the unjust steward, forasmuch as he had done wisely (prudenter, φρονίμως): for the children of this world are wiser (prudentiores, φρονιμώτεροι) in their generation than the children of light.

and

  Matthew 10:16Behold I send you as sheep in the midst of wolves. Be ye therefore wise (prudentes, φρόνιμοι) as serpents and simple as doves.

Prudens means "foreseeing, foreknowing", and φρόνιμος means "in one's right mind, in one's senses".

St. Thomas explains this prudence/wisdom in his commentary on Matthew 10:

  Be ye wise. The prudence of a serpent consists in that it always wishes to defend its head. The head is Christ, whom He commands them to serve. Hence: “I have fought a good fight: I have finished my course: I have kept the faith” (II Tim. 4, 7). Likewise, they ought to guard the Head, because it is the principle of the whole (I Cor. 11, 3);23 “With all watchfulness keep thy heart” (Prov. 4, 23). Likewise, there is another prudence of a serpent, that when it grows old, it passes through a narrow hole and sheds its vesture, or skin; so we ourselves ought to do in relation to our manner of living. And the Apostles says: “Stripping yourselves of the old man with his deeds,” etc., (Col. 3, 9). Moreover, we ought to have a serpent’s prudence in preaching, because, as it is stated in Gen. 3, on account of the serpent’s shrewdness, the human race was cast down, because he attacked the weaker sex. Likewise, he showed her a tree. So preachers ought to convert sinners through the most apt means. Similarly, they ought to exhort concerning the tree of the Cross, so that just as the devil derived benefit from a tree for an evil end, so these men ought to derive benefit from the tree of the Cross for a good end.

Piper addresses this particular question: Does Jesus Commend Dishonesty in Luke 16? // Ask Pastor John

The idea is, the guy gets fired.

He cuts deals with the debtors "so when he is jobless, they will help him out."

The master thinks this is "clever/shrewd."