Is there a Christian equivalent to the Wiccan 'fluffy bunnies'? It is known that Wiccan 'fluffy bunnies' are the types of people who self-identify as "Wiccans" but really don't go anywhere beyond self-identification and using stereotypical associations of Wicca. They have been criticized for not being true adherents of Wicca, merely treating Wicca as a fad, instead of taking the religion seriously and researching what Wicca actually stands for. In essence, they are people who just don't do their research and wish to remain ignorant, refusing to think and critique their own faith. Is there a Christian equivalent to the Wiccan 'fluffy bunnies'?

  ..."fluffy bunny" or the "old lady brigade" have been used in the
  Wiccan and Neo-Pagan community to describe adherents that they view as
  superficial or faddish. Common descriptions given by people
  using the term include elements such as the practitioner deliberately
  choosing to emphasize goodness, light, eclecticism and elements taken
  from the New Age movement over elements seen as too dark, as well as
  the practitioner appearing to follow the religion as a fad.
  The term "fluffy bunny" became more prevalent in the 1990s after it
  was used to describe a depiction of the Wiccan religion in the
  television series Buffy the Vampire Slayer. The show, which featured a
  Wiccan coven, raised ire from practitioners of Wicca who believe that
  the coven in the show reinforced stereotypes.

For Catholics, there's the concept of "Sunday Catholics" - people who go to Mass on Sundays but don't do anything else, who don't really think about their religion outside of Mass.

I'm sure I've heard another simple term for this, but Sunday Catholics was the only one I could find right now.  Meanwhile, the Wikipedia article "Lapsed Catholic" reminded me of a more specialized term I've heard once or twice: "CEO" referring to someone who attends on C hristmas and E aster O nly.

Your assertion is: Wiccans are presumed researchers and "fluffy bunnies" are those who do not research.

My assertion is: Christians are presumed non-researchers and only a few research.

It has been my experience that many Christians choose to know as little as possible as to not confuse themselves which would lead them to regard the confusion as doubt in faith.  It has been my experience that Christians only want to stick to knowing that Jesus is God, the trinity is God, and few actually read the Bible.  That is why things like "Jesus wasn't born on Dec. 25th" draw attraction, frustration, and debate.  My premise is that few study the Bible - which is the rule and guide to the Christian faith.  Most only accept what is read to them from the pulpit in small bites.  Some denominations emphasize ritual over the Bible and are considered Christian (in fact, 50% of them are of this denomination).  Those who do study either become church leaders, pastors, non-Christian, or mods on Christianity.SE :)

So what is the equivalent to the Wiccan term?  Since the religions, practices, and followers are not comparable or as comparable as apples and oranges, there is not a single term/name which would fully encompass the full meaning of "fluffy bunnies".


What is an overview of Christian viewpoints on the accuracy and truthfulness of the Bible? Can anyone provide an overview of major Christian viewpoints regarding the infallibility of the Bible?

Background: I am struggling with accepting that the Bible is 100% correct in all it says.  All the pastors I know hold to the belief that the Bible is right and any view that contradicts it is wrong.  They hold that every part of the bible is God inspired and thus without error.

As an example - but not the point of this question or post:
I have debated with friends about the relationship between works and faith and being saved.  We can all point to scripture that says what we want it to say and seems to imply the other person is wrong.  After 2000 years of Christianity we still have very different interpretations of the Bible and of salvation.

I believe in God, I question whether the Bible is the unspoiled word of God.

I don't believe in arguing over things that are impossible to prove, but I'd like to understand the topic better by reading some well thought out viewpoints.

Thank you for your time.

Without much detail, here is an overview of how different Christians view the Bible. These are major categories, and there is going to be some grey area between all of them.

The Bible is inerrant on all matters it addresses, and should be taken to speak the literal truth unless the Bible itself says otherwise. Also called Biblical Literalism. Adherents to this view believe that Genesis is a literal historical description of the creation of the world, for example.
The Bible is inerrant on all matters it addresses. This is usually called Biblical Inerrancy. It differs from Biblical Literalism in that it admits of the possibility that the Bible may use non-literal descriptions even when that is not explicitly stated. It is the view of many churches (especially but not only Evangelical churches) who do not explicitly hold to the Literalist viewpoint. The Catholic church holds approximately this view, and says ""the books of Scripture must be acknowledged as teaching solidly, faithfully and without error that truth which God wanted put into sacred writings for the sake of salvation."
The Bible is inerrant in matters of faith and Christian practice. Also called Limited Inerrancy. This would mean that the descriptions of God, and commands to his people, are infallible, but that the history of early Israel (for example) might not be completely accurate.
The Bible is an accurate enough description of God and his interactions with his people in order for us to know him. Some adherents to this would attach special weight to the Gospels and to the sayings of Jesus.
The Bible is a helpful book.

What is an overview of Christian viewpoints on the accuracy and truthfulness of the Bible?

There are basically two views of inerrancy. The first is that the Bible is 100% true as it was originally written in the original language. The second is that the Bible is 100% true in a particular language (most often the King James English version).

There are a variety of views regarding the Bible allowing for various degrees of error and or allegory.

Here are some reasons I favor the first inerrant view;

Jesus felt that the Bible was reliable even to verb tenses;

  Matthew 22:32  I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the
  God of Jacob? God is not the God of the dead, but of the living.

Jesus felt the record of the flood was accurate;

  Matthew 24:37-39  But as the days of Noe were, so shall also the
  coming of the Son of man be.   For as in the days that were before the
  flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage,
  until the day that Noe entered into the ark,   And knew not until the
  flood came, and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the
  Son of man be.

Jesus thought the record of the law was accurate in every detail;

  Matthew 5:18  For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass,
  one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be
  fulfilled.

Jesus felt the God had created the world;

  Mark 13:19  For in those days shall be affliction, such as was not
  from the beginning of the creation which God created unto this time,
  neither shall be.

I can understand the passion of those who feel a particular version of the Bible has been kept inerrant. However, I have found places where even the JKV does not have the best translation from the Greek. Another problem with translating the Greek into English is that the English cannot provide enough room to bring over all the information found in verb tenses. For example the Greek might say that something should be done repeatedly, but the English might just say that something should be done and the informational component of "repeatedly" is often left out.

Often the KJV only people are against using the Alexandrian manuscripts that many newer English translations have used. The textus receptus on which the KJV is based is often rejected in favor of the Alexandrian texts for these newer translations. I can understand the concern.

I have asked some scholars why they feel that the Alexandrian texts should be considered superior or at least preferable. Their reasons seem to boil down to;

The Alexandrian texts are older.
Alexandria had the problem of allegoricalism and would not have needed to adulterate the text.

For me, this argument is not persuasive enough to support a view that the Alexandrian texts are to be preferred.

I can understand the confusion so many competing claims can create.

The Bible is under increasing assault. It can be from evolution, literary or textual criticism, and even contemporary social pressure. This is by design. Because the Bible is considered truth (as are God and Jesus) that which is not truth must by definition seek to undermine or destroy it.

Those who use the KJV only position as a shield to protect their faith from an almost constant assault from the world can be seen from a sympathetic perspective.

As far as the other views within Christianity, one might consider that one of the works of the flesh written about in Galatians is hairesis in the Greek (from which we get the word "heresy") which means divisions and we could almost say denominations.

It is unfortunate that Christians within their own churches should also be exposed to that which can unsettle and even undermine their faith.

It should not be unexpected that the world would assault the Bible to undermine faith. It is sad but also should not be unexpected that many churches would surrender to this assault. However, our faith is in our Savior and his word. Institutions may fail, but our God and his word will never fail. There are those who would seduce you with doubts. However, you can take courage from the God who created the universe and made the sun come up this morning that he will be faithful and fulfill all he has promised.


How do we know the words accredited to Jesus were the words Jesus actually spoke? were people making notes of what Jesus said at the time or are the accounts in the N/T just people trying to remember what they were told he said?

We do not have the verbatim words of Jesus because Jesus mostly spoke Aramaic and the New Testament was written in Greek.

It is not important whether what we have is verbatim or not. What is more important is what the message tries to convey. A single idea can be conveyed in many languages without losing its original message.

We can also be rest assured that we have the right message passed down to us through the ages because the scripture was written with the inspiration of the Holy Spirit and God is faithful in protecting his Message from coruption.

  For prophecy never had its origin in the human will, but prophets,
  though human, spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy
  Spirit. (2 Peter 1:21, NIV)

Rex Weyler, in The Jesus Sayings, page 14, cites Robert J. Miller, editor of The Complete Gospels: "Some of the words attributed to Jesus were not actually spoken by him. While this is not news to scholars, it is news to the ... public."

The Jesus Seminar, a theological research group, used voting of members as criteria for establishing what Jesus said, with weighted member votes: 3 - Jesus did say the passage quoted, or something very much like it; 2 - Jesus probably said something like the passage; 1 - Jesus did not say the passage, but it contains Jesus' ideas; 0 - Jesus did not say the passage. The seminar placed the burden of proof on those who advocate any passage's historicity, yet some of the criteria the members were asked to use were based on assumptions or presuppositions about Jesus as a person, so that votes were not entirely objective even within the limited scope of the Seminar. The criteria for acceptance were based on orality, irony and whether Jesus was telling his listeners to trust in God. The criteria for non-acceptance were based on self-reference, whether the words framed or introduced other material, dealt with Christian issues, or represented a theological agenda specific to one gospel. The Seminar concluded that in the four canonical gospels and the Gospel of Thomas, only about 18 per cent of sayings attributed to Jesus were likely to have been said by Jesus himself, with nearly all the sayings that appear in John's Gospel seen as inauthentic.


Are we the result of God's permissive will? After listening to this and learning more about the will of God I'd like to ask the above question.

  The active will of God regards what is in perfect accord with the
  perfect goodness and the order established by God. For instance, the
  active will of God would be that Adam and Eve remain perfectly
  obedient to Him, and never have sinned. source

Now we can say everyone was born not in a way God has intended. We can see this clearly in remarried couples. God didn't want them to get divorced and re-marry and have kids in different marriages. And we can basically always find something with everyone's life and come to a conclusion that our lives aren't the result of his perfect will. According to his perfect will we were meant to live in paradise and be children of who knows what parents or even if we were meant to exist(but let's say yes)... But instead, we live in a sinful world and born to a *family God has never intended but he allowed it through his permissive will. *by this I mean if things would go according to his perfect will our parents might have never met or whatever...

So my question is: Are we(humans in current state) according to the Catholic interpretation the result of God's permissive will rather than his perfect will? Is the world running only on God's permissive will since we don't live in paradise and that was his original plan? God only allows things to happen instead of willing them actively since his original plan was abolished by Adam and Eve.

God is the only necessarily existing being, as St. Thomas Aquinas shows in his third proof for the existence of God (Summa Theologica I q. 2 a. 3 c.; cf. ch. 3, § "The Third Way" of Aquinas: A Beginner's Guide):

  …not all beings are merely possible, but there must exist something the existence of which is necessary. … we cannot but postulate the existence of some being having of itself its own necessity, … This all men speak of as God.

All creatures are a product of God's free will (Summa Theologica I q. 19 a. 4 "Whether the will of God is the cause of things?" c.):

  We must hold that the will of God is the cause of things; and that He acts by the will, and not, as some have supposed, by a necessity of His nature.

Nothing necessitates or forces God to create the angels, universe, animals, souls, humans, or any other creature. Therefore, we are all accidents; our being/existence is not necessary.

Regarding what you call "permissive will" and "perfect will",* there is only one will in God; He is supremely simple. The will of God is always fulfilled, but a distinction must be made—between absolute necessity and conditional (ex suppositione or "suppositional") necessity—when addressing the question of "Whether whatever God wills He wills necessarily?":

  There are two ways in which a thing is said to be necessary, namely, absolutely, and by supposition. We judge a thing to be absolutely necessary from the relation of the terms, as when the predicate forms part of the definition of the subject: thus it is absolutely necessary that man is an animal. It is the same when the subject forms part of the notion of the predicate; thus it is absolutely necessary that a number must be odd or even. In this way it is not necessary that Socrates sits: wherefore it is not necessary absolutely, though it may be so by supposition; for, granted that he is sitting, he must necessarily sit, as long as he is sitting. Accordingly as to things willed by God, we must observe that He wills something of absolute necessity: but this is not true of all that He wills. For the divine will has a necessary relation to the divine goodness, since that is its proper object. Hence God wills His own goodness necessarily, even as we will our own happiness necessarily, and as any other faculty has necessary relation to its proper and principal object, for instance the sight to color, since it tends to it by its own nature. But God wills things apart from Himself in so far as they are ordered to His own goodness as their end. Now in willing an end we do not necessarily will things that conduce to it, unless they are such that the end cannot be attained without them; as, we will to take food to preserve life, or to take ship in order to cross the sea. But we do not necessarily will things without which the end is attainable, such as a horse for a journey which we can take on foot, for we can make the journey without one. The same applies to other means. Hence, since the goodness of God is perfect, and can exist without other things inasmuch as no perfection can accrue to Him from them, it follows that His willing things apart from Himself is not absolutely necessary. Yet it can be necessary by supposition, for supposing that He wills a thing, then He is unable not to will it, as His will cannot change.

cf. Charles De Koninck's "The Problem of Indeterminism" (also on PDF pp. 366ff. of this) and "Reflections on the Problem of Indeterminism" (ibid. pp. 412ff.)

In other words: God wills that some causes produce their intended effects only some of the time. This is not always due to a defect in the cause but can be due to a defect in the effect (ibid. ad 4):

  that God does not necessarily will some of the things that He wills, does not result from defect in the divine will, but from a defect belonging to the nature of the thing willed, namely, that the perfect goodness of God can be without it; and such defect accompanies all created good.

For another treatment of the question, see St. Thomas's Summa contra Gentiles I cap. 81 "That God Does not Will Other Things in a Necessary Way".

*St. Thomas nowhere uses the term "perfect will", but he does distinguish between "five expressions of will—namely, prohibition, precept, counsel, operation, and permission" (Summa Theologica I q. 19 a. 12).

This question assumes we have freewill which God allows or, permits.
Here is an alternative narrative:
Q. Who made death?
A. God is responsible for death existing because He made that which made death.
Q.Who made Satan? A. God made all things. John 1v3.
Q.Does Satan sustain his own existence? A. God sustains all. Heb 1v3.
Q.Who sustains Satan's motives and actions? A.God sustains all.
Q. Does God sustain evil? A. God sustains all.
Q.Is it evil to sustain evil? A. God is holy. Rev 4v8. God has a holy motive for sustaining the existence of evil.

Q. What is God's holy motive for sustaining disobedience to His Law?
A. That His creation should not have the honour of obeying God's Law, but that
Jesus His Son might have this honour. " I have come to fulfil the Law". Mat 5v17
Q. How did Jesus fulfil the Law? By submitting to be sent by His Father to be the Saviour of the world.1 John 4v14.
Q. Can we  obey the Law? A. Dead men cannot obey the Law -but-It is no longer I that liveth but Christ that liveth in me. Gal 2v20.
Q. What does God permit? A. God permits nothing but has created the illusion that we are first causes and that suggestions as to what may or may not occur in His creation can absolutely originate in us. However, God is the only Alpha/first cause. We are not autonomous. God decides when His Law is to be kept, and when His Law is to be broken. He decides which of these is appropriate in any given circumstances that in all things [inc' life and death] He might be preeminent.Col 1v18.


Does the Bible command women to cover their breasts? Tribal women in Africa, South America and Papua New Guinea have gone around with bare breasts for countless generations. When Christian missionaries arrived they convinced the women to cover their breasts. What arguments did they use to achieve this? I see nothing in the Bible about God commanding women to cover their breasts.

No, there are no explicit instructions in the Bible to not have bare breasts. Biblical references to modesty are interpreted differently given a particular time and place -- similarly with interpretations of 'nakedness.' There is no explicit verse covering the topic, Christians must infer instructions of modesty on their own. This has been accomplished in a wide variety of ways throughout history. Contemporary women's clothing would be have been considered horrifyingly indecent centuries ago, but they are commonly worn by Christians today.

The only specific article of clothing that a small minority of Christians adhere to is St. Paul's instruction for women to cover their heads (1 Corinthians 11:1-16). Many contemporary Christians interpret that instruction to be specific to the congregation he was speaking to due to the context of their time and place (same with the references to gold, pearls, and remaining silent).

First of all, I would hope that we can all agree that it's a commandment to not walk around naked. Hence why God made Adam and Eve coats of skins to cover their nakedness after they had eaten the fruit and were no longer innocent.
The only scripture I know of specifically referring to covering the breasts of a woman as covering her nakedness is in Ezekiel (actually referring to Jerusalem):

7 I have caused thee to multiply as the bud of the field, and thou
hast increased and waxen great, and thou art come to excellent
ornaments: thy breasts are fashioned, and thine hair is grown, whereas
thou wast naked and bare.
8 Now when I passed by thee, and looked upon thee, behold, thy time was
the time of love; and I spread my skirt over thee, and covered thy
nakedness: (Ezekiel 16:7-8)

Biblically, women were considered naked not only when they were undressed, but also when they were not properly dressed. A woman was not considered properly dressed if she was showing anything that might arouse sexual desire in a man. Walking around topless would certainly qualify as being naked.


Why in the Book of Exodus did God let the people travel for exactly 40 years? What is the symbolic idea behind this number?

Also, what might be His intention behind the travel?

The field of Biblical numerology can be a pretty mirky pond. There are some clear trends (three for completion, seven for perfection, a thousand for a really big number, etc.) and a lot of speculation and conclusions that may or may not be warranted.

In this case however, the answer is pretty much spelled out in another verse. The 40 years of wandering was an exact calculation, one year for one day, based on how long the spies spent looking around the land before they were originally supposed to enter.

  Numbers 14:34 (ESV)
  34   According to the number of the days in which you spied out the land,  forty days, a year for each day, you shall bear your iniquity forty years, and you shall know my displeasure.’

The logical next question is, "Why did the spies spend 40 days on their quest"? To that we are not given any definite clues. It does seem like a reasonable amount of time to get around to a bunch of different places on foot and get an idea of the lay of the land without making your movements too obvious and getting caught.

There are actually quite a few references to 40 in the Bible. The flood. The spies. The wandering in the desert. The reigns of many of the Judges. Moses life has three periods of 40 years each. The temptation of Jesus. The surmised time between the resurrection and the ascension that Jesus spent back on earth. However the connections between these references is faint at best, and I think it is safe to say, since we are not told explicitly that there is any meaning to this number, that it is of no particular consequence that the spies took 40 days to get their spyin' done.

God said that all those who had refused to believe his promise that he would give them the land of Canaan would die in the wilderness. Thus, they had to wonder long enough for all these people to die. That would require decades. "Forty years" seems to be a standard Old Testament period for "one generation".

I'm a Biblical literalist, but I wouldn't insist on the 40 years being an exact number. It may simply be a round number, and the exact time was 37 years, 4 months, and 12 days or whatever. If the writer is rounding off to the nearest 10 years, there aren't that many possible different numbers. It would pretty much hae to come to about 40 years give or take. Maybe 30 or 50. 20 would be too short; 60 probably too long.

So it may have symbolic significance. But I wouldn't make too much of it. Like that statement in John 21:11 that the disciples caught 153 fish. Did this number have symbolic significance? Or was it just that that happened to be the number?


Are there any conditions which make oneself completely unredeemable in the eyes of God? I am curious if there are any actions or conditions which "seal your fate" so to speak, such that should you do them—no matter how much you repent or accept Jesus or pray—that you are doomed forever to Hell.

For example, Richard Dawkins wrote several anti-God books and has long been critical of religion; is it possible that he's "passed the threshold" of "saveableness"? Or are we all always saveable? Or someone who is born gay, and while I understand not all Christians think gays will go to Hell, there are certainly some major groups that do. Are these people then, genetically determined to go to Hell? A better example might be someone who is born blind and deaf, or extremely mentally ill, such that with no amount of instruction would they be able to understand the Bible, let alone the concept of "book" or "savior". These people would never embrace Jesus; are they damned from birth without any hope?

In other words, is it possible that the conditions of your existence could doom you to Hell inevitably, despite any efforts or willingness on your part?

Jesus answers this one pretty clearly: such a sin does exist.

  Mark 3:28-29

  28 Verily I say unto you, All sins shall be forgiven unto the sons of
  men, and blasphemies wherewith soever they shall blaspheme:

  29 But he that shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost hath never
  forgiveness, but is in danger of eternal damnation.

Unfortunately, nowhere in the Bible does it actually say what constitutes blasphemy against the Holy Ghost, and speculation as to its meaning tends to be all over the place.

As Mason Wheeler points out, Jesus explicitly said that there is only one unforgivable sin.

There have been plenty of cases throughout history of some of the worst sinners turning to God and, as far as we can tell, getting saved. John Newton was a slave trader who by his own admission was responsible for the deaths of 20,000 people and the enslavement of many more. Then he repented and became a Christian. In our own time, Bernard Nathanson was a founder and the first president of the National Abortion Rights Action League and was responsible for many thousands of deaths, but then he got saved. Etc.

I don't know any Bible-believing Christian who says that homosexuals cannot be saved. If you find some number of such people, they're not the mainstream of Christian thought. Yes, we believe homosexual acts to be sin -- just like stealing, adultery, covetousness, etc. A homosexual is no better or worse off than any other sinner, which is to say, any other human being.

As to physical handicaps ... No doubt being born blind and deaf makes it difficult for a person to acquire any information, including nothing of salvation. But it's certainly not impossible. Blind and deaf people have managed to learn to read in Braille and so forth.


Are there any references to "four canonical Gospels" prior to 100 AD? According to the "Institut für neutestamentliche Textforschung" eleven manuscripts of NT are from within the second century alone, which include: P52 (100-150), P90, 104 (2nd century), P66 (c. AD 175-225), P46, 64+67 (c. AD 200), P77, P103, 0189 (2nd or 3rd century), P98 (2nd century).

It means that P52 was not only written, but had spread to a provincial town in Egypt  by the middle of the second century, confirming the its date of composition, in the last years of the first century. It is presumed that books of the New Testament were written between the years 50 and 100 after Christ. If we assume a later date, than it only shortens the period that elapsed between the composition of the books and the date at which the earliest manuscripts now extant were written.

P52 gives us a physical testimony for existence of the fourth Gospel of NT, at the start of second century.

Prior to say around 80 AD, are there any other references to these “four Gospels as books” in any of these sources?

Non Christians and Christians literatures
From any early Christian Fathers
Any historians or
Non Christian authors.

I am not sure  I'm understanding the question. I see two possible things you might be asking...

I don't know about evidences of others calling them the four Gospels (not sure that's exactly what your last sentence is asking), but there is first century manuscript evidence for at least some of the Gospels.

There is potentially evidence for the book of Matthew in a few fragments, but the dating of it is a matter of debate.  The original, cursory examination gave them a date of the forth century, but a later examination gave them a date of A.D. 66.

From  http://www.equip.org/articles/eyewitness-to-jesus-amazing-new-manuscript-evidence-about-the-origin-of-the-gospels/

  The Matthew fragments redated by Thiede are at Magdalen College
  (Oxford). They are called The Magdalen Papyrus (listed as Greek 17 and
  p64). There are three fragments written on both sides, together
  representing 24 lines from Matthew 26:7-33. Two of the three fragments
  are a little larger than 4 x 1 cm.; the other is smaller, 1.6 x 1.6
  cm. Another two fragments, located in Spain, are called the Barcelona
  Papyrus (P. Barc. inv. 1/p67) and contain portions of Matthew 3:9, 15;
  5:20-22, 25-28.

Also, while less specific, faithfacts says...

Early fragments: John Ryland manuscript 130 A.D. in Egypt; Bodmer manuscript containing most of John's gospel 150-200 A.D.; Magdalen fragment from Mat. 26 believed by some to be within a few years of Jesus' death; Gospel fragments found among the Dead Sea Scrolls dated as early as 50 A.D.

Several other sites list the Dead Sea scrolls dating to the first century A.D.

DTS lists another fragment dating to the first century.

  Dr. Wallace: Earliest Manuscript of the New Testament Discovered? by
  Daniel B. Wallace on February 9, 2012 in Articles

  Note: Several websites (NT Blog, Gospel Coalition, Andreas Köstenberger, Evangelical Textual Criticism, Hypotyposeis, etc.) have
  been writing about Dan Wallace's comments to Bart Erhman about the
  discovery of several New Testament papyri. Dr. Wallace has already
  written a summary of the debate, and below he clarifies what these
  papyri might mean.

  On 1 February 2012, I debated Bart Ehrman at UNC Chapel Hill on
  whether we have the wording of the original New Testament today. This
  was our third such debate, and it was before a crowd of more than 1000
  people. I mentioned that seven New Testament papyri had recently been
  discovered—six of them probably from the second century and one of
  them probably from the first. These fragments will be published in
  about a year.

  These fragments now increase our holdings as follows: we have as many
  as eighteen New Testament manuscripts from the second century and one
  from the first. Altogether, more than 43% of all New Testament verses
  are found in these manuscripts. But the most interesting thing is the
  first-century fragment.

  It was dated by one of the world’s leading paleographers. He said he
  was ‘certain’ that it was from the first century. If this is true, it
  would be the oldest fragment of the New Testament known to exist. Up
  until now, no one has discovered any first-century manuscripts of the
  New Testament. The oldest manuscript of the New Testament has been
  P52, a small fragment from John’s Gospel, dated to the first half of
  the second century. It was discovered in 1934.

  Not only this, but the first-century fragment is from Mark’s Gospel.
  Before the discovery of this fragment, the oldest manuscript that had
  Mark in it was P45, from the early third century (c. AD 200–250). This
  new fragment would predate that by 100 to 150 years.

Getting back to the distinction I mentioned in the first few sentences of this answer...

If you're not asking whether we have manuscript evidence from the first century, but rather writings establishing Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John as the only canonical gospels....

I don't know that we should necessarily expect the early Church to refer to the four "canonical gospels" in that way. The way canon was established was at least partially on establishing what the established, trusted writings were. The best we could hope for is to establish whether the first century Church accepted these writings, and whether they interpreted this to mean that these four, and only these four are acceptable as canonical (thereby excluding others. For that, we have no evidence, but that is more likely because it wasn't until later that they became concerned with formally establishing canon.

From http://www.churchhistory101.com/new-testament-canon.php

  A Natural Delivery

  The NT was NOT dropped from heaven.
  The NT was NOT delivered by an angel.
  The NT was NOT dug up in a farmer's field as golden plates like the Book of Mormon.
  The NT was NOT suddenly "discovered" in a clay jar with 27 "books" intact like the Dead  - Sea Scrolls or the Nag Hammadi texts.

  The NT canon developed, or evolved, over the course of the first
  250-300 years of Christian history. If the NT had been delivered by an
  angel, or unearthed as a complete unit it would not be as believable.
  Part of the historical validity of the NT comes from the fact that we
  can trace its development, albeit not as precisely as we might like.

In 144, Marcion was expelled from the orthodox Christian Church and so started his own church,  becoming the first to clearly establish a canon, which consisted of ten of the Epistles attributed to Paul and only one Gospel, which Tertullian decades later identified as the Gospel of Luke, though stripped of "unacceptable features" such as the nativity, Old Testament references and so on. Prior to Marcion, there was no Christian concept of a canon of authorised scriptures.

Critical scholars believe that by the year 80, only three 'gospels' had been written: the Gospel of Thomas, the Gospel of Mark and the hypothetical 'Q' document. Of these, GThomas and Q were sayings gospels and Mark was the first narrative gospel to be written. Although they were never included in the New Testament canon, we know that GThomas and (probably) Q were treated as scripture by early Christians.

Scholars generally date the Gospel of Matthew to the 80s, but Raymond E. Brown says in An Introduction to the New Testament, page 217, that although AD 80-90 is the most plausible dating for Matthew, at least a decade in either direction must be allowed. So, it is at least possible that Matthew was already written by 80 CE.  However, as stated earlier, the number of canonical gospels was not yet fixed and, in any case, Luke and John were not yet written. There could have been no reference to “four Gospels as books” prior to say around 80 AD, or even by 100 AD.


What is the Biblical basis for "hate the sin, love the sinner"? The expression "hate the sin, love the sinner" gets thrown about in both Christian and non-Christian circles, but it does not seem to be a bible verse.

What Biblical concepts support this popular cliche? And what supports it being applied to men and not just God? Some say "that's the way that Jesus lived". Are there examples of Jesus' conduct that demonstrate this one way or another?

I think "hate the sin, love the sinner" is a very Christian concept.

God hates sin, and in fact he hates sinners.

Romans 9:10-18

  10 Not only that, but Rebekah’s children were conceived at the same time by our father Isaac. 11 Yet, before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad—in order that God’s purpose in election might stand: 12 not by works but by him who calls—she was told, “The older will serve the younger.”[d] 13 Just as it is written: “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.”[e]

  14 What then shall we say? Is God unjust? Not at all! 15 For he says to Moses,

  “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy,
     and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.”[f]

  16 It does not, therefore, depend on human desire or effort, but on God’s mercy. 17 For Scripture says to Pharaoh: “I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.”[g] 18 Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden.

We see here that God chose to hate Esau before he was even born. He chose to harden Pharaoh in Egypt for his own purposes.

However, we do not know who God has elected to save and so we should treat everyone with the love and respect that he has given to us.

Matt 22:37-40 (NIV)

  37 Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’[c] 38 This is the first and greatest commandment. 39 And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’[d] 40 All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”

We are to love our neighbors (a pretty expansive group, potentially all we come into contact with) as we wish to be loved. This is a huge command. We are to love everyone in our lives as much as we love ourselves (be honest its a lot).

Loving others is our greatest command at this point

Romans 13:8 (NIV)

  8 Let no debt remain outstanding, except the continuing debt to love one another, for whoever loves others has fulfilled the law.

God's perfection cannot tolerate sinners. However, we are by no means perfect creatures and have little to no right to render judgement upon a creature god has created. Thus we should live as if each action we take and word we speak are towards each other and those outside of our circles are towards a brother in Christ, because we can not see who God has chosen and who he has not.

First we have to understand that all people are sinners according Romans 3:23. But God still loves some sinners (John 3:16) but hate other sinners (Malachi 1:2,3). So there must be something that separates one group from the other. What plays a significant role in God's view is the motive of the sinner.

For example, does a person understand that he is a sinner and repent from them? An excellent example of someone who recognized his fault is Job, who said:

  Therefore I despise myself and repent in dust and ashes.Job 42:6

Also we have to recognize that someone may sin, but without knowing what God requires. This person is not a sinner to the same extent as someone who recognizes God's will (1 Timothy 1:13, Luke 12:47, 48)

If someone who understands God's will and wittingly does what God forbids then "no sacrifice for sins is left"(Hebrews 10:26-31). These are people that God doesn't accept and we must see them in the same way (Psalms 139:21,22).

Insight on the scriptures comments:

  This hate does not seek to inflict injury on others and is not
  synonymous with spite or malice. Rather, it finds expression in its
  utter abhorrence of what is wicked, avoiding what is bad and those
  intensely hating Jehovah. (Romans 12:9, 17, 19) Christians rightly hate
  those who are confirmed enemies of God, such as the Devil and his
  demons, as well as men who have deliberately and knowingly taken their
  stand against Jehovah.

Insight on the Scriptures vol.1, p. 1043: Hate


What does The Father do? It seems like such a basic question: what does the Father do? It is said that the Holy Spirit is the life-giver and speaks through the prophets and everything is made through the Son, Jesus, and Jesus is also the way by which we are saved and will judge the world. According to Trinitarians, what is the role of the Father?

The Father is the source of everything.   (1 Co 8:6a).

   1 Corinthians 8:6 English Standard Version (ESV)
  6 yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist

Contra your question,  He is also the one who spoke through the prophets as per Hebrews 1:1-2.

He is also the maker of all things, and that through His Son at Hebrews 1:2.

  Hebrews 1:1-2 God, having of old time spoken unto the fathers in the prophets by divers portions and in divers manners, hath at the end of these days spoken unto us in his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, through whom also he made the worlds. (ASV)

You should read about the economic trinity. Basically, the Father plans, elects, foreknows, ordains, and sends.


Do people who adhere to the Immaculate Conception of Mary believe that Mary and Jesus were both conceived in the same fashion? My Christian training emphasized the uniqueness of the Christ as the only human ever directly created since Adam,thus the only one ever born of woman that could offer a propitiatory sacrifice that would exactly cover the fall of Adam.

Catholics and some Protestants regard Mary as having had a similar special conception that left her perfect to be the mother of God.

My question is if Jesus had to have a perfect mother to be perfect, would not Mary also have had to have a perfect mother to be born perfect?

And her mother  the same and her mothers mother the same and her mothers mothers mother the same etc....

Would it not make much more sense to conclude that just once in all history the Creator of Adam created another perfect human by miraculously adding the necessary spark that initiated  the process known as fetal development from the ovum of Mary?

No, they do not. Jesus was born without sin by virtue of being God. Mary, who was conceived in the usual way, would have had to have some other approach to be sinless. After some thought about how that might have occurred, theologians concluded that

the soul of the Blessed Virgin, in its creation and infusion into the body, was endowed with the grace of the Holy Spirit and preserved from original sin.

(Apostolic Constitution "Sollicitudo Omnium Ecclesiarum", Alexander VIII,  1661; quoted in "Ineffabilis Deus", Pius IX, 1854)
In particular,  the Catechism states:

Through the centuries the Church has become ever more aware that Mary, “full of grace” through God, was redeemed from the moment of her conception. That is what the dogma of the Immaculate Conception confesses, as Pope Pius IX proclaimed in 1854:

The most Blessed Virgin Mary was, from the first moment of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege of almighty God and by virtue of the merits of Jesus Christ, Savior of the human race, preserved immune from all stain of original sin.

(Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraph 491)
That is, essentially, Mary was redeemed, sanctified, and justified (as we all are at baptism) in the moment of her conception, by the merits of her Son's sacrifice extended back in time. There was no need for her to be born of a sinless mother. It was the supreme glory of the Divinity that made it appropriate for Mary herself to be sinless, but she herself didn't have to be born of a sinless one to become that way.

Do people who adhere to the immaculate conception of Mary believe that Mary and Jesus were both conceived in the same fashion?

  NOTE: The Catholic Church teaches Mary is not a Divine Creature.
           The blood of Jesus that redeemed mankind, came from the "three drops of blood" from Mary's Immaculate Heart.

The Catholic answer is YES!. Jesus and Mary were both conceived without sin and their humanity were both created in the order of grace, and were both fashioned by the same Holy Spirit in the womb.

Conception of Jesus

St.Augustine teachings was affirmed by Mary of Agreda's vision and supported by St.Gabriel and St'Elizabeth that says "Blesssed is the fruit of thy womb, Jesus".

St.Elizabeth specifically point the location of conception is the pure womb of Mary hours only from the pronouncement of St.Gabriel that the Logos will incarnate.

  486 The Father's only Son, conceived as man in the womb of the Virgin Mary, is "Christ", that is to say, anointed by the Holy Spirit, from the beginning of his human existence, though the manifestation of this fact takes place only progressively: to the shepherds, to the magi, to John the Baptist, to the disciples.123 Thus the whole life of Jesus Christ will make manifest "how God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit and with power."124

  494 At the announcement that she would give birth to "the Son of the Most High" without knowing man, by the power of the Holy Spirit, Mary responded with the obedience of faith, certain that "with God nothing will be impossible": "Behold, I am the handmaid of the Lord; let it be [done] to me according to your word."139 Thus, giving her consent to God's word, Mary becomes the mother of Jesus. Espousing the divine will for salvation wholeheartedly, without a single sin to restrain her, she gave herself entirely to the person and to the work of her Son; she did so in order to serve the mystery of redemption with him and dependent on him, by God's grace:140

Conception of Mary

  490 To become the mother of the Savior, Mary "was enriched by God with gifts appropriate to such a role."132 The angel Gabriel at the moment of the annunciation salutes her as "full of grace".133 In fact, in order for Mary to be able to give the free assent of her faith to the announcement of her vocation, it was necessary that she be wholly borne by God's grace.

  492 The "splendor of an entirely unique holiness" by which Mary is "enriched from the first instant of her conception" comes wholly from Christ: she is "redeemed, in a more exalted fashion, by reason of the merits of her Son".136 The Father blessed Mary more than any other created person "in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places" and chose her "in Christ before the foundation of the world, to be holy and blameless before him in love".137

  493 The Fathers of the Eastern tradition call the Mother of God "the All-Holy" (Panagia), and celebrate her as "free from any stain of sin, as though fashioned by the Holy Spirit and formed as a new creature".138 By the grace of God Mary remained free of every personal sin her whole life long.

Jesus Christ was born with the dignity as the only begotten Son of the Abba Father, and Mary was born with a dignity destined to become the Mother of the Messiah.

My question is if Jesus had to have a perfect mother to be perfect, would not Mary also have had to have a perfect mother to be born perfect? And her mother the same and her mothers mother the same and her mothers mothers mother the same etc....

The perfection does not depend on the Mother but it depends on the Will of the Father and the action and power of the Holy Spirit.

Mary was perfect, sinless & immaculate not because of Her merits but because the Abba Father had chosen Her to be the Mother of the Messiah in eternity before the foundation of the world.

  Ephesians 1:3-5 New American Bible (Revised Edition) (NABRE)
  The Father’s Plan of Salvation. 3 [a]Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavens,[b] 4 as he chose us in him, before the foundation of the world, to be holy and without blemish before him. In love 5 he destined us for adoption to himself through Jesus Christ, in accord with the favor of his will,

How about St.Anne, does she need to be perfect too? The answer is NO!, Mary was born perfect not by the merit of St.Anne nor of St.Joachim but by the merit of Christ redemptive sacrifice applied to Mary at the first instant of her conception as define in the Dogma of the Immaculate Conception.

This can be further understood by the revelation of the Blessed Virgin Mary to St.Catherine of Laboure in 1830:

  "O Mary, conceived without sin, pray for us who have recourse to thee."

LAST QUESTION

Would it not make much more sense to conclude that just once in all history the Creator of Adam created another perfect human by miraculously adding the necessary spark that initiated the process known as fetal development from the ovum of Mary?

ANSWER

The fetal development does not takes place in the ovum of Mary rather in the Mother's womb or uterus, as evident in the Ave Maria prayer...

  "Blessed is the fruit of thy womb/uterus, Jesus"

St.Augustine teachings was affirmed by Mary of Agreda's vision and supported by St.Gabriel and St'Elizabeth that says "Blesssed is the fruit of thy womb, Jesus".

St.Elizabeth specifically point the location of conception is the pure womb of Mary. Incarnate Word was immediately formed from the "three drops of blood" coming from the Immaculate Heart of Mary in the womb and from the ovum as fertilized egg.

TAKE NOTE: St.Elizabeth greetings came hours only from the pronouncement of St.Gabriel that "Mary shall conceive" and so the theory of "ovum" definitely contradict the words of St.Elizabeth in the gospel of St. Luke.

Jesus human nature does not come from the seed of man wherein it needed to fertilized an egg in a Woman's ovum. In the case of Mary, there's no fertilized egg in the ovum but a "three drops of blood" was conceived in the womb/uterus.

  The mystics say that at the Annunciation/Incarnation
  three drops of the Blessed Virgin Mary's blood
  received the Divine Power of the Holy Spirit
  and the Second Person of the Triune God
  became the God-Man, Jesus Christ.

  ...her most pure heart, as it were by natural consequence, was contracted and compressed with such force, that it distilled three drops of her most pure blood, and these, finding their way to the natural place for the act of conception, were formed by the power of the divine and holy Spirit, into the body of Christ our Lord. Thus the matter, from which the most holy humanity of the Word for our Redemption is composed, was furnished and administered by the most pure heart of Mary and through the sheer force of her true love.
  The Mystical City of God, Venerable Maria of Agreda

Why not a fertilized egg?, if Mary had release Her egg in the ovum it would need a "physical/carnal sensation" and this is not possible because Mary is not subject to concupiscence of the flesh, She is free from all stain of sins.
Mary was not living in a flesh but in Spirit, as She said in Magnificat "My Spirit rejoices in God my saviouir".

  John 3:5-6 New American Bible (Revised Edition) (NABRE)
  5 Jesus answered, “Amen, amen, I say to you, no one can enter the kingdom of God without being born of water and Spirit. 6 What is born of flesh is flesh and what is born of spirit is spirit.

Jesus human nature does not come from the seed of man, but rather it cames from the "three drops of blood" coming from the Immaculate Heart of Mary.Before Mary conceived Jesus in Her pure womb, She had conceived first Jesus in Her Immaculate Heart.

  St.Augustine of Hippo

  Mary freely accepted the plan of God and by faith conceived the Son of God in her heart before He was formed in her womb.

  A virgin conceives, yet remains a virgin: a virgin is heavy with child; a virgin brings forth her child, yet she is always a virgin. Why are you amazed at this, O man? It was fitting for God to be born thus when He deigned to become man” (Serm. 186, 1).https://www.homeofthemother.org/en/resources/virgin-mary/fathers/8477-s-augustine


Is salvation acheived by faith alone, or does it in fact require some works? I was raised a Lutheran, and am looking for an answer from someone (like a Lutheran) who believes in salvation by grace alone (by faith alone, etc.). I still believe in salvation by faith alone because much of the New Testament seems to indicate this (John 3:16, Romans 3:28, 1 Corinthians 3:11, etc), but I am wondering how we rationalize these words of Jesus (below) and how they can be reconciled with the 'faith alone' philosophy. They seem to explicitly state that one 'must do the will of the father' in order to enter the Kingdom of Heaven (have salvation, right?).

Jesus said, in Matt 7:21-23
(NASB)
21 “Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven will enter. 22 Many will say to Me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many [a] miracles?’ 23 And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; DEPART FROM ME, YOU WHO PRACTICE LAWLESSNESS.’

James 2:14-26 answers your question perfectly.

Faith is shown through works. I've included the excerpt below *.

Symbolically, sin can be likened to nakedness, whereas clean white robes represent good deeds which are obviously tied with faith.

Revelation 19:8

  8 She has been permitted to dress in fine (radiant) linen, dazzling
  and white—for the fine linen is (signifies, represents) the
  righteousness (the upright, just, and godly living, deeds, and
  conduct, and right standing with God) of the saints (God’s holy
  people).

With the amount of reference to "white robes" in Revelation (such as Revelation 7:14 ), and their correlation to faith (deeds) which is the result of both Christ's sacrifice and good works on the part of the follower, we can conclude that works are a large part of faith.

There is a definite correlation between good works (by which faith can be measured) and being counted among Christ's people.

Matthew 25:36 Compare to James below:

  36 I was naked and you clothed Me, I was sick and you visited Me
  [j]with help and ministering care, I was in prison and you came to see
  Me.

James 2:14-26

  14 What is the use (profit), my brethren, for anyone to profess to
  have faith if he has no [good] works [to show for it]? Can [such]
  faith save [his soul]?

  15 If a brother or sister is poorly clad and lacks food for each day,

  16 And one of you says to him, Good-bye! Keep [yourself] warm and well
  fed, without giving him the necessities for the body, what good does
  that do?

  17 So also faith, if it does not have works (deeds and actions of
  obedience to back it up), by itself is destitute of power
  (inoperative, dead).

  18 But someone will say [to you then], You [say you] have faith, and I
  have [good] works. Now you show me your [alleged] faith apart from any
  [good] works [if you can], and I by [good] works [of obedience] will
  show you my faith.

  19 You believe that God is one; you do well. So do the demons believe
  and shudder [in terror and horror such as [a]make a man’s hair stand
  on end and contract the surface of his skin]!

  20 Are you willing to be shown [proof], you foolish (unproductive,
  spiritually deficient) fellow, that faith apart from [good] works is
  inactive and ineffective and worthless?

  21 Was not our forefather Abraham [shown to be] justified (made
  acceptable to God) by [his] works when he brought to the altar as an
  offering his [own] son Isaac?

  22 You see that [his] faith was cooperating with his works, and [his]
  faith was completed and reached its supreme expression [when he
  implemented it] by [good] works.

  23 And [so] the Scripture was fulfilled that says, Abraham believed in
  (adhered to, trusted in, and relied on) God, and this was accounted to
  him as righteousness (as conformity to God’s will in thought and
  deed), and he was called God’s friend.

  24 You see that a man is justified (pronounced righteous before God)
  through what he does and not alone through faith [through works of
  obedience as well as by what he believes].

  25 So also with Rahab the harlot—was she not shown to be justified
  (pronounced righteous before God) by [good] deeds when she took in the
  scouts (spies) and sent them away by a different route?

  26 For as the human body apart from the spirit is lifeless, so faith
  apart from [its] works of obedience is also dead.

Saint Apostle James answers the question (James 2:19-26):

  Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble. But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead? Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar? Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect? And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God. Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only. Likewise also was not Rahab the harlot justified by works, when she had received the messengers, and had sent them out another way? For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.

You see that faith without works is dead! Devils also believe in God but they don't get no benefit from this continuing to be evil demons condemned to hell! As Saint Athanasius of Alexandria said (my translation):

  God save us not without us.

But how we can check that our faith is not dead (because our works seems us as a good can be vain and evil in the sight of God)? We must really sense Divine grace in our souls which give us strength to keep the saint commandments of our Lord Jesus Christ who said (John 15:4,5):

  Abide in me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, except it abide in the vine; no more can ye, except ye abide in Me. I am the vine, ye are the branches: he that abideth in me, and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit: for without me ye can do nothing.

We can get such fruitful Divine grace only in the sacraments.


Are the Old Testament prohibitions on incest applicable to Christians? The Old Testament forbids incest. Does this aspect of the Mosaic law apply to Christians?

Are the Old Testament prohibitions on incest applicable to Christians? - Yes.
Leviticus 18:16 is observed in the Gospel of [Mark 6:17-18], alluding to Christian observance all the Laws in Leviticus 18 regarding incest.

Leviticus 18:16 in regards to Mark 6:17-18 :
Mark 6:17-18 [KJV]
17 For Herod himself had sent forth and laid hold upon John, and bound him in prison for Herodias' sake, his brother Philip's wife: for he had married her.
18 For John had said unto Herod, It is not lawful for thee to have thy brother's wife.

Leviticus 18:16 [MT]
You shall not uncover the nakedness of your brother's wife. It is your brother's nakedness. (עֶרְוַ֥ת אֵֽשֶׁת־אָחִ֖יךָ לֹ֣א תְגַלֵּ֑ה עֶרְוַ֥ת אָחִ֖יךָ הִֽוא)

Yes it does. Most mosaic laws apply unless stated otherwise in the New Testament. But the NT consistently talks about sexual immorality, which would include incest and other things.


Does the Bible give us any indication of why God created such a vast universe with so much stuff in it? We all know the universe is enormous, and this isn't the place to debate that. But why does it need to be so enormous? The only celestial bodies that could be counted as truly necessary are the sun, moon, and Jupiter (which blocks Earth from many meteor hits). Why create something 29 gigaparsecs wide when only a tiny corner of it is populated?

Does the Bible address this question?

I think any question that contains "why does this need to be so" is fundamentally flawed. The truth is nothing needs to be how it is. God could choose do it anyway He wanted to, and He choose to do it this way.

Now, We can speculate as to why He wants it that way, but short of scriptural support it's just speculation.

That said, Yes i think the Bible does give us some hints and here is some scripture as to the reasons the heavens are so big:

  Psalm 19 1-4 "The heavens declare the glory of God;
      the skies proclaim the work of his hands.

  2 Day after day they pour forth speech;
      night after night they reveal knowledge.

  3 They have no speech, they use no words;
      no sound is heard from them.

  4 Yet their voice[b] goes out into all the earth,
      their words to the ends of the world."

Romans 1:20

  "For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse."

So we can infer from these passages that tell us the universe is there to teach us about the nature of our Creator, that it's vastness is most likely to demonstrate the vastness of God Himself, Who is infinite and above, and beyond that which He created.

The popular view of Mormonism is that when you die, you get your own planet. Here is a more precise statement of the view from the Wikipedia article on Mormon Cosmology:

  Mormon cosmology teaches that the Earth is not unique, but just one of many inhabited planets,[25] each planet created for the purpose of bringing about the immortality and "eternal life" (i.e., the highest degree of salvation) of humanity.[26]

There are millions of Mormons and billions of Christians. At the time Mormonism was founded, it was not clear how many planets there were outside the solar system-- many planets were undiscovered.   It might have been a stretch in the early years of Mormonism to claim there were enough planets for every possible believer.

Even if we limit our view to Nicene Christianity, it is clear that there was a command to multiply:

  God blessed them and said to them, "Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky and over every living creature that moves on the ground." Gen 1:28

Many have held that physical death (i.e., a limited lifetime) was not in the original plan for God's creation.  A command to multiply and no death logically leads to geometric progression of population.  If there's only one planet, it probably would fill up soon.

But the universe is immense.  My favorite measure of the immenseness of the universe is that one previously-thought dark region of sky, when examined by The Hubble Telescope, was shown to contain 10,000 galaxies.

Thus, a plausible reason for the immense universe is to provide homes for an unfallen, geometrically increasing population of humans.  It provides an apologetic argument for God's providence that would not be there if say, the observable universe had consisted of merely the island of Bermuda.

While it's clearly implausible for humans, in their current fallen state, to travel to far galaxies without any Divine intervention, "all things are possible with God."


Why does Christianity claim to be the only true religion? From where does the idea that Christianity the only true religion come? Other religions claim the same. What is the basis for the Christian claim?

At one level, this question is easily answerable.

Christianity is based upon the idea that Jesus is who He claimed to be.  And He said, in John 14:6

  I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father
  except through me.

And if Jesus is who He claimed to be, then Christianity must be the only true religion, because He said specifically "No one comes to the Father except through me".

At another level, there are other answers, but too large to fit in a single answer here.

If you're looking for external evidence, there's an entire field of study, known as Apologetics that seeks to provide a defense for the veracity of Christianity, its teachings, the identity of God, and the Truth of the Bible.

There are volumes of information available (as well as counter-points arguing against the Truth of Christianity).  Put simply, there's much too much information to make your question answerable in this forum. A Google search for "Apologetics," however, is a good place to start.

Ravi Zacharias has to say following on this question. From one of his video talk, here is the transcript:

...Take a look at other world religion and see how these four question are dealt with: Origin, meaning, morality and destiny. These four questions are to be answered in two ways. Every particular answer has to correspond to truth, either through empirical form of measurement or through the logical reasoning process and when those four answers are put together they must cohere and not be incoherent. So the two tests should be correspondence and coherence. Only in Judaeo-Christian worldview will you find these four questions answered with corresponding truthfulness and with a coherence of world view.
In the Koran, it is the only historically claimed document that denied Jesus Christ was actually crucified and died on the cross. It denies it. The Greek historians say that he died on the cross, Roman historians say that, Pagan historians says that, Jewish historians says that and Christians historians says that. So historically it is making an affirmation that is really historically untrue.
Origin, meaning, morality and destiny: the Judea-Christian view is not the only one to claim exclusivity but is the only one that takes those four questions with corresponding answers that are truthful and coherent answers that stands the test of time. And the ultimate answer:The resurrection of the dead, that gives you the hope and meaning....


What is the biblical basis against the personhood of the Holy Spirit? Someone already asked a question seeking the biblical basis for the personhood of the Holy Spirit, but it seems that no one has asked a question yet seeking the opposite. Thus, in order to fill this gap, I ask:
What is the biblical basis against the personhood of the Holy Spirit?

The case against a Holy Spirit person or entity that IS NOT the Father is clearly outlined in scripture. IOW, the HS IS the Spirit of the Father according to the scriptures and not a separate entity of a 3 part God.
Basically, according to Jesus and the Apostles, he hardly even exists if all the verses speaking of the Father and His relationship with Jesus and us is concerned.
No one gives greetings or sends messages, or prays to the HS.
No instruction is given about 'him'.
No mandate for his place within the so-called 'Godhead'.
To understand otherwise is to read into the text that which is not plainly provided.
In Luke, Jesus rules out everyone - humans, spirits, devils from his statement - 'only the Father knows'. If there was a Holy Spirit entity he would have to be included in this intimate knowing.

All things have been handed over to Me by My Father, and no one knows who the Son is except the Father, and who the Father is except the Son, and anyone to whom the Son wills to reveal Him. Luke 10:22

Furthermore, the disciples have left us with their wisdom on this matter which shows us what the holy spirit is.

the Holy Spirit will teach you in that very hour what you ought to say Luke 12:12

For it is not you who speak, but the Spirit of your Father that speaks in you. Matt 10:20

We have many examples of 'the spirit of...' Christ, truth, grace, wisdom, Zerubbabel, Father, etc. None of these is a 'separate' entity. God gives name to everything and everyone - even changing names to suit new circumstances or roles. The HS has no name. Just as the 'spirit of Christ' or 'wisdom' has no special name either as it is the essence of who they are.
Let's not be misled by the 'him' and 'he' liberally applied by our interpretive translators, where 'which' and 'it' could/should have been applied.
If there is a Holy Spirit entity, Jesus or the apostles never taught this. It wasn’t included in the creeds until centuries after the church started, further confirming that it wasn’t a teaching of the apostles.
While we can certainly read this aspect of God into our theology from a few select verses, what would be the point if it is not a truth God has clearly provided for Jesus’ followers?
+++++++++++++++++++++++++
Lots of times Isaiah 63 gets quoted, 'and they grieved His Holy Spirit'
Perfect example of proof-texting! We could equally say, based on what the apostles have told us, (the Holy Spirit IS the spirit of the Father) He was grieved in His heart! How one justifies a 'person' from this verse is astounding!
Read on same verse.

Therefore He turned Himself to become their enemy, He fought against them.

Who is HE? Not the HS, but God - He fought, He became their enemy. His Spirit was grieved.
The biblical basis against the 'person' of HS is abundant. Anything suggesting otherwise is based on very poor exegesis like the Isaiah 63 proof-texting approach, ignoring context and drawing faulty presumptions.
In short, the biblical basis against a Holy Spirit 'person' is

to read what is provided.
to not draw poor conclusions from a text in isolation.
to not add to the text that which it does not naturally supply.

Excerpt from Why Doesn't the Holy Spirit know who Jesus is?


Is female homosexuality against the Law of Moses? While there are a few passages in the Old Testament that are taken to condemn male homosexuality (e.g. Lev 18:22, 20:13), I am not aware of any that condemn female homosexuality. It seems to me that all the Biblical arguments against female homosexuality must either rely on:

a single NT passage, Romans 1:26-27 (is an NT passage good evidence for what the law of Moses says? - assuming this passage even is about female homosexuality), or
more indirect arguments (e.g. Adam and Eve as an ideal that all human beings are required to conform) - the very indirectness of these arguments supports doubting them
Traditional Judaism considers female homosexuality to be prohibited, but there is disagreement about whether this is a biblical or post-biblical prohibition (and if the prohibition is post-biblical, then it has little value for those outside of rabbinical Judaism)

So is it fair to say that female homosexuality is not prohibited by the Law of Moses?

Quite simply, no, it's not fair to say that.  I do not know Hebrews, but I do know that in Greek, the word anthropos indicates a generic man or person, while aner means specifically a person who is male.  If we went through the entire Bible and applied an exclusive gender wherever it said "man", it would be nonsensical.

  Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed, for
  God made man in his own image.  Genesis 9:6 ESV

So, capital punishment if anyone kills a man, but no punishment for killing a woman?

  Thus says the Lord: “Let not the wise man boast in his wisdom, let not
  the mighty man boast in his might, let not the rich man boast in his
  riches, 24 but let him who boasts boast in this, that he understands
  and knows me, that I am the Lord who practices steadfast love,
  justice, and righteousness in the earth. For in these things I
  delight, declares the Lord.”  Jeremiah 9:23-24 ESV

So, men should not boast about wealth or wisdom or strength, but women can?

  I know, O Lord, that the way of man is not in himself,
  that it is not in man who walks to direct his steps.  Jeremiah 10:23 ESV

And a man's life is not his own, but woman's life is?

So, again, no, we cannot exclude female homosexuality as being lawful under Mosaic Law just because the word "man" is employed.  At best, it would be an argument from silence, but it really isn't from silence.

This may largely depend on what you determine purpose of the Law of Moses to be as it pertains to this issue. For example, many believe that large portions of the Law of Moses were handed down to prevent the spread of infectious diseases. Many argue that this is why Kosher laws are no longer necessary - Because we know how to prevent things like botulism and have pasturization technology which prevents diseases and bacteria from growing in milk (for example) and many other technological advances.

If one interprets the prohibitions on Homosexuality  similarly with the understanding that anal sex has certain hygienic considerations, the the answer is "No." Naturally lesbians engaged in intercourse would not have same hygenic concerns that gay men would, so it makes sens that this might only extend to men. Women would of course still need to follow the purity customs outlined in Leviticus 18:19 and 20:18 however.

On the other hand, if you interpret this passage to apply to mankind for moral reasons then the answer would be "Yes," this passage applies equally to both genders.


What does it mean to magnify or glorify the Lord? 'Magnify' can mean to make something look bigger than it is, but this is not possible to do with God.  Certainly God can't obtain more glory than the infinite worth he had from all eternity. So if we can't make God seem bigger or more glorious than he already is, what does it mean for God to be magnified or glorified?

Note: I am not asking 'what' magnifies or glorifies the Lord, but what does it mean in our understanding of God that he is 'magnified'?

I'd give the same answer I gave on this similar (but not quite duplucate) question.

Clearly, those phrases can't mean that we have the ability to alter God in any way.  I don't think that the definition of "magnify God" in these phrases means to actually make God "bigger" or "greater". I understand them to mean "Make God more prominent in my life, our culture, etc."

Magnification doesn't make objects bigger, it alters our perception of an object, making it appear bigger to us.

Similarly, magnifying God doesn't make Him bigger, it means He becomes more prominent to us.

The phrase "God, I magnify you" simply means "I am making you greater (more important) in my life, and putting you first, because you are my focus and priority."

A magnifying glass allows us to see more details in an object, you can see the object on a more intimate level from a different perspective seeing details you wouldn't normally see without it. Maybe to magnify God means (of course many things not just this) to focus on God, stay tuned with Him so He can show us more of His amazing detail we wouldn't normally see when we don't focus our attention upon Him. God wants to show us many things and answer questions we have, but without our full attention (people often ask God but don't actually tune out other things in life and take time and listen to what He has to say and learn His voice) to magnify God could mean to focus on Him so He can show us more of Him that we have never experienced before because our attention is not fully of Him. (this is just my thought I could be wrong).


If Protestants won't ask dead saints to intercede because there is no mediator but Jesus then why do they ask living Christians to pray for them? Protestants reject the Catholic and Orthodox practice of asking deceased saints to pray for them, and I think there are two main reasons why they reject it: it is communicating with the dead, and it is dishonouring to Jesus. The first has been dealt with in many other questions, but I'd like to focus on the second one to see how valid an argument it is.

So the second major reasons why protestants don't ask the deceased to pray for them is that they believe they need no other mediator than Jesus. For protestants, asking anyone other than Jesus to intercede with God for them is dishonouring to Jesus!

But Protestant Christians have no hesitation at all in asking living Christians to pray for them. Why does the argument against dead Christians not apply to living Christians? If you ask your Christian brother or sister to pray for you, why is that not seeking another mediator than Jesus? The Bible clearly instructs us to pray for others, and it frequently show that early Christians asked other Christians to pray for them (ex. in Paul's letters), but does it ever instruct us to ask others to pray for us?

Intercession is not the same as mediation!

As other answers have said perfectly adequately, there is plenty of biblical support for interceding for one another and the example of the Apostle Paul requesting this intercession from other (living!) saints; although there is no particular scriptural warrant to explicitly endorse asking for such intercession from saints who have 'fallen asleep'.

So how is mediation different? Mediation implies there is a separation between parties - one side is estranged or in conflict with the other and does not have the capacity in itself to resolve the situation: this is descriptive of the situation prior to regeneration - our sins separate us from God, we can do nothing to resolve this situation of ourselves; when we receive Christ however, we are reconciled to God - no longer separated. Only Christ (not Mary or any of the other saints) could and can do this.

Although Intercession can be mistaken for mediation because it is sometimes (and biblically) referred to as 'standing in the gap', it does not actually require there to be disagreement between parties; in fact effective intercession relies on agreement between the will of pray-er and God and to a lesser but still real extent, the willingness of the object to receive the answer to prayer. Paul was not far from the Lord when he requested the prayers of the saints on his behalf, he merely sought that they join together with him in prayer that all might be agreed for God's will to be done in Paul's life and to share in the joy of seeing those prayers answered. When we intercede for 'sinners' (most commonly, unsolicited), the aspects of it involving mediation (ie addressing 'the gap') necessarily rely on Christ's work as the mediator, we don't (can't!) do that particular part of the work of intercession.

Job 42;10

And the Lord turned the captivity of Job, when he prayed for his friends, also, the Lord gave Job twice as much as he had before.

Matthew 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;

Hebrews 13;18

Pray for us: for we trust we have good conscience, in all things willing to live honestly,

John 17;9

I pray for them: I pray not for the world, but for them which thou hast given me; for they are thine, and thine are mine, and I am glorified in them.

We are instructed to pray for one another, not to one another, We are not asked to pray for on another, we are told to do so.

If you ask your Christian brother or sister to pray for you, why is this not seeking another mediator?   The prayer is not to the brother or sister but to the Father, in their behalf.


According to Protestants, why was Mary troubled at the greeting of Gabriel? We read the following in Luke's Gospel (1:26-38 DRB):

  And in the sixth month, the angel Gabriel was sent from God into a city of Galilee, called Nazareth, to a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin's name was Mary. And the angel being come in, said unto her: Hail, [kecharitomene], the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women. Who having heard, was troubled at his saying, and thought with herself what manner of salutation this should be. And the angel said to her: Fear not, Mary, for thou hast found grace with God. Behold thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and shalt bring forth a son; and thou shalt call his name Jesus. He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the most High; and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of David his father; and he shall reign in the house of Jacob for ever. And of his kingdom there shall be no end. And Mary said to the angel: How shall this be done, because I know not man? And the angel answering, said to her: The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the most High shall overshadow thee. And therefore also the Holy which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God. And behold thy cousin Elizabeth, she also hath conceived a son in her old age; and this is the sixth month with her that is called barren: Because no word shall be impossible with God. And Mary said: Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it done to me according to thy word. And the angel departed from her.

Question

My question is two-fold:

Was Mary troubled at

a) the fact of Gabriel's speaking with her, or
b) what he said to her (i.e. the "manner of" the greeting)?

If (b), what does this imply for Protestants about a) Mary, and b) the uniqueness of the (manner of) greeting as relates to other angelic visitations in Scripture (if any).

Thank you in advance.

Part II - Mary, and the uniqueness of greeting.
1) Mary, Herself

Mary's place in scripture is very clearly that of a woman greatly blessed by being chosen to perform a quite unique service, but not to be promoted into a unique office. Gabriel's greeting underlines this, 'Highly favoured, among women'. She remains among women, as one of them, and is highly favoured.
Jesus never addresses Mary as mother. He calls her, 'Woman,' when she speaks to him in Cana at the wedding and he calls her, 'Woman,' from the cross when making provision for her with John. When Mary slips in her words and speaks of, 'Thy father and I,' she receives a mild rebuke from the twelve year old boy, 'Wist ye not that I must be about my Father's business '

2) The Uniqueness of Circumstance

(Seven Appearances)
The LORD appeared to Abraham in the plains of Mamre, Genesis 18:1, and he looked and Lo, three men. 'My Lord,' he said. And the unnamed men rose up from thence. But the LORD continued to speak to Abraham. A messenger, malak, spoke to Moses out of a burning bush. The LORD saw and God called, Genesis 3:4. An unnamed angel spoke to the unnamed wife of Manoah, Judges 13, and later ascended up in the flame of the altar.
A man strove with Jacob till the breaking of the day and would not tell him his name, but he called Jacob 'Isra-el' for Jacob had power with God and had prevailed. Daniel saw the appearance of a man and he heard a man's voice say, 'Gabriel, make this one to understand. Later, Gabriel appears and says, 'O Daniel . . . .' One appeared to Daniel and told him, Daniel 10:13, that he was helped by Michael, the archangel.
And the greatest king upon earth, at the time, Nebuchadnezzar, saw four men in a furnace of flame, Daniel 3:25, and said, 'The form of the fourth is like unto the Son of God.' These seven occurrences are singular visitations of huge importance in the unfolding  revelation of the purposes of God upon earth. They rise like seven pinnacles over the rest of the comparatively trivial events recorded by humanity of its own history.
And then, after Daniel and Malachi, comes silence. Not a word, for four hundred years. But there are a few faithful, such as Simeon and Anna, Zacharias and Elizabeth - and Joseph and Mary.
Then comes not just an angel but an archangel. And not unnamed - this is Gabriel who announces to Zacharias, 'I am Gabriel, who stand in the presence of God - -  and behold thou shalt be dumb !' He has the power to strike a man dumb if his herald is not believed.
Michael is also called, apostolically by Jude, an archangel, Jude 9. John's visions indicate that Michael fights with the Lord's hosts, Revelation 12:7. But Gabriel stands in God's very presence.
There are three that appear significantly - two with personal names, Gabriel and Michael, and one who is only ever represented in ten descriptive terms, as Serpent, Satan, Diabolos, Antidikos, Poneros, Abbadon, Kategoros, Beelzebul, Apollyon, Lucifer, Animos and Drakon. This one is defeated by Michael, once it is righteously proper to do so.

3) The Uniqueness of Greeting

Only to Mary is it said that 'The Holy Spirit shall come upon thee and the Power of the Highest shall overshadow thee,' and only - ever - of that within Mary was it, or could it be, said that, 'Therefore, also, shall that generated holy be called Son of God.' [Literal Translation of TR.]
These words, and the circumstances of them, stand out even against the background of the seven previous singularities recorded in scripture. This event is breathtakingly momentous.
My wording - “generated holy ” - reflects the exactitude of the wording used, gennwmenon agion, of this momentous event . The English translation is unsatisfactory, even in the AV which I, otherwise, greatly respect. The wording comparison in Matthew and Luke is just stunning, utterly stunning, and deserves to be further highlighted.
[Edited after Post in order to keep closer to the text and to the answer required.]

Well, Mary was likely not only troubled by Gabriel's presence, but also his appearance. Remember, throughout the Bible angels are described as terrifying creatures.

Gabriel then went on to say that the Lord was already with her, and that she was being 'highly favoured'.

In such a situation, it is very unlikely that she will not be burdened with a great responsibility, and indeed she was.


Does the Holy Spirit's procession from the Father and Son infringe on the co-equality of the Trinity? The following is intended to correlate to classical scholastic terminology, to whit:

Nature = essence, as in "the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit all have the Trinitarian 'nature' of God."

Person = mode of particular operation, as in "the Son is the second "person" of the Trinity, light from light, true God from true God, begotten not made..."

The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are all co-eternal and co-equal.

Question

If the the persons of the Trinity - Father, Son, and Holy Spirit - are co-eternal and co-equal, and the Holy Spirit proceeds from both the Father and the Son...

Wouldn't the Father and the Son need to proceed from the Spirit as well in order to maintain the triad of equal procession from all three?

It seems as though, since the Holy Spirit doesn't have the faculty of bestowing procession upon the Father and the Son, then that gives the Holy Spirit one less faculty than the rest, which in turn subordinates the Holy Spirit to receive procession only.

Doesn't this infringe on the Spirit's co-equality?

This question derives from my study of the and drawn out debate concerning the validity of the filioque.

Brief Historical Introduction

The Nicene Creed originally did not include the words "and the Son" (called the Filioque clause) because it was based on the words of Scripture in John 15:26 (τὸ ἐκ τοῦ Πατρὸς ἐκπορευόμενον). It was added later, and not by an ecumenical council (it was originally inserted by the Third Synod of Toledo). Not to mention, even previous Roman popes resisted its addition to the Creed (e.g. Leo III). It adds nothing to the Creed that isn't already said elsewhere in it. Writing in the fourth century, Gregory of Nazianzus wrote concerning the Holy Spirit:

  The Holy Ghost is truly Spirit, coming forth from the Father indeed,
  but not after the manner of the Son, for it is not by Generation but
  by Procession (since I must coin a word for the sake of clearness);
  for neither did the Father cease to be Unbegotten because of His
  begetting something, nor the Son to be begotten because He is of the
  Unbegotten (how could that be?), nor is the Spirit changed into Father
  or Son because He proceeds, or because He is God— though the ungodly
  do not believe it (Oration 39:12).

The Greek Church Fathers were careful not to use the verb ἐκπορεύομαι to describe the relation of the Holy Spirit from the Son, this term was exclusively for how the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father (and is directly from the mouth of Jesus as recorded in John's Gospel).1

In contrast, Western Christians had begun using the Latin verb procedere to translate ἐκπορεύομαι and to describe the Holy Spirit's relationship to both the Father and the Son. History shows that some Christians were indifferent to this and others took issue with it. Controversies ensued that I won't go into as you can read the history in more detail elsewhere. The Roman Catholic Church has even officially admitted that the Holy Spirit does not proceed (ἐκπορεύομαι) from the Son, but rather from the Father through the Son, however it maintains the current verbiage of the creed with caveats to explain this distinction (with the exception of Eastern Catholic churches, which it encourages to omit the Filioque).

Does the Holy Spirit's procession from the Father and Son infringe on the co-equality of the Trinity?

Yes. John 15:26 says that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father (ὃ παρὰ τοῦ πατρὸς ἐκπορεύεται / who from the Father proceeds). That the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father is straight from Jesus' mouth as recorded in Scripture. Jesus didn't say, "and from me." The Filioque makes the Holy Spirit a subordinate member of the Trinity. The procession of the Holy Spirit is now no longer unique to only one Person of the Trinity nor shared by all Persons, thus compromising the co-equality of the Persons of the Trinity.

1 This is evidenced by the Alexandrian fathers' use of προϊέναι and προχεῖσθαι rather than ἐκπορεύεσθαι, as an example.

To understand how the spirit proceeds from "the Son", first you must understand the nature of the Spirit. A fresh perspective may clear this up for you. Consider that originally Adam was made for everlasting life. So prior to the fruit of the knowledge of function and dysfunction. Adam was filled with the Holy Spirit for he also was with God.

Genesis 2:19 NKJV

  Out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the air, and brought them to Adam to see what he would call them. And whatever Adam called each living creature, that was its name.

I consider it Holy because it was approved of by God.

Genesis 1:31 NKJV

  Then God saw everything that He had made, and indeed it was very good. So the evening and the morning were the sixth day.

What made Adam's spirit unholy was the fruit of the knowledge of Function and Dysfunction.

The fruit of the knowledge of Function is Pride.

The fruit of the knowledge of Dysfunction is Anxiety.

Thus we have arguments. Dysfunction pointed out by the daughters of Eve, and the Function pointed out by the sons of Adam. Now the Spirit of Peace and Comfort was active and unified before the argument. Once the argument starts however the spirit flees.

So the answer to our problem of Pride, Anxiety, and the Death that it brings. Is HUMILITY and FAITH. For humility is polar to pride, and faith is polar to anxiety.

Conclusion The Spirit of Love has always Existed with God and is God.

  "God is Spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth." (John 4:24 NKJV)

Procession means "The act of moving forward." Without Humility and Faith, the Holy Spirit was not moving forward (from a certain perspective). Once Jesus did his thing then the Spirit was able to do his thing again.

There is only One God. "The Thinker(Father) that Said(Son) and Felt Love(Holy Spirit) from the beginning that came in flesh(Son) died, and rose again(Thinker thought of himself again)."

Note: So realize the question about the Spirit's co-equality. Is like asking me "Do you feel that your joy is as important as your thought? Or did the joy come from the thought? Or did the thought come from the joy? Or would you conclude that Joy is not as important as thinking? Or is what you say more important then your joy?

Answer: They are all important because they are His!


If God controls our decisions, does this mean we don't have free will? This was originally part of this question  However, it's really a separate line of logic (and therefore a different question, imo).  If others prefer, I can remerge this into the original.

God is omniscient.  He truly, literally knows everything.  God knows whether or not I will sin.  God can (and does) direct certain people to prevent them from choosing one way or another.

Exodus 4:21 (NIV)

  The LORD said to Moses, “When you return to Egypt, see that you perform before Pharaoh all the wonders I have given you the power to do. But I will harden his heart so that he will not let the people go.

Clearly, this is an instance where God stepped in and prevent Pharaoh from making the decision.

Since he controls decisions and knows what decisions I will make, do I truly have free will?  Or do I only have free will in the inconsequential things (which isn't really free will, after all)?

From a purely practical standpoint, ie removing all theological considerations for a moment, we have free will. I can decide to get up and have a glass of water right now. I can flex and relax the muscles in my fingers to make a fist or open my hand. Perceptually I am controlling my body, my thoughts, and making decisions. When I interact with other people, I perceive an ability to formulate my responses independently of their interaction with me.
Whether I have complete free will, limited free will, or all my actions are predetermined, I cannot perceive anything beyond this immediate moment, and I cannot perceive active outside interference with my free will, and therefore the only logical way to act is as if I have free will. The many verses in Scripture instructing us to behave, choose, and think certain ways seems to back this up - for example:

Jos 24:15 NIV  But if serving the LORD seems undesirable to you, then choose for yourselves this day whom you will serve, whether the gods your forefathers served beyond the River, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land you are living. But as for me and my household, we will serve the LORD."
Pro 1:10 NIV  My son, if sinners entice you, do not give in to them.

And yes, I am aware of other passages which support predestination and would seem to contra-indicate free will. My only point is regardless of the flow of time and causality from God's perspective, we don't have this eternal or future perspective available to us and must practice making the best choices assuming that we do have free will.

In a comment to sidran32's answer you say:

  Therefore, he would be able to manipulate every aspect of it so that
  our choices are not our own.

Yes, I believe he would be able to do that if he wanted to, but he won't.

Just as you would let your dog run into an electric fence so that it would learn to not try to attack the neighbor dogs through the regular fence, he won't control our lives to prevent us from making mistakes and, through them, learning.

On the other hand, regarding him blessing our lives when we're in a time of need:

If you heard your dog yipping and it had gotten caught on the fence and is continually getting shocked; you'd go help it.

He loves us and will help/comfort those who call on him in his own time.