GOD/JESUS - Greek - Yahuwah/Yashuah - Hebrew Growing up having a Christian background, I was taught to use God/Jesus to refer to the Creator and Son.

Recently, I've come across some information stating that our Creator has a Name and that we should use it, the name referring to Yahuah/Yahsuah, which would be in original Hebrew.

Given that Jesus was a Jew and the original text was written in ancient Hebrew, would it be fair to say that instead of the more commonly accepted Greek version of His Name, that should we use the Hebrew versions instead?

Also, if I'm misunderstanding anything in my post, I'm all ears, I'm just trying to figure out if we've been generalizing the Name and sort of not receiving the full effect of being able to state our Creators name and benefit from praising Him in that way.

This, along with knowing that throughout history, things can get sort of lost in translation as we switch from languages. On top of the knowing that devil will do whatever it takes to twist and take the opposite approach of whatever the Creator does.

  In the Bible, God declares:

    I am Jehovah. That is my name; I give my glory to no one else.

    Isaiah 42:8 - NWT

  “Jehovah” is an English translation of the four Hebrew consonants YHWH, which constitute the divine name. That name appears some 7,000 times in the Hebrew Scriptures.  It is used more often than any title, such as “God,” “Almighty,” or “Lord,” and more frequently than any other name, such as Abraham, Moses, or David`

The Greek word, Tetragrammaton, simply means four letters. It refers to God’s holy name in the Hebrew Old Testament, namely, YHWH. As with all Hebrew words, it contains consonants only and no vowels. Thus, its pronunciation is unknown having been lost at the Babylonian captivity.

Since this word was regarded by the Jews as supremely sacred, they would not pronounce it. Therefore, a well-trained scribe would say, “Adonai” (= Lord) whenever he saw the word in the text. During the 8th and 9th centuries AD, when the Hebrew scribes started adding vowels to the Hebrew text, they used the vowels of “Adonai” for the Tetragrammaton. Thus, the Septuagint translators in about 250 BC translated the word as kyrios, Lord.

Unaware of this, the King James translators transliterated the “combination” word, “Jehovah” (only four times out of its hundreds of occurrences in the OT). However, they also adopted another tradition of translating YHWH by “LORD” – to continue the Hebrew scribal tradition.

Modern linguistic analysis has produced “Yahweh” as the best estimate of its original pronunciation.

The New Testament regularly quotes Old Testament passages containing the Tetragrammaton, and often attributes them to Jesus, especially in Hebrews, such as Heb 1:8-12, 2:12, 13, etc.

Thus, God has numerous titles including, Saviour (Isa 44:24), First and Last (Isa 41:4), "I AM" (Ex 3:13-16), Creator (Isa 44:24), the Rock (Isa 44:8), Shepherd (Ps 23), Bridegroom (Isa 49), etc.  Many of these are applied to Jesus in the NT along with more: "Son of God" and "Son of Man", "Immanuel", 'Resurrection and Life" and many more.

The name of Jesus in Hebrew word is "Yeshua" and " Iēsous" in Greek.

  Jesus (IPA: /ˈdʒiːzəs/) is a masculine given name derived from the name Iēsous (Greek: Ἰησοῦς), the Greek form of the Hebrew name Yeshua (Hebrew: ישוע).1[2] As its roots lie in the name Yeshua, it is etymologically related to another biblical name, Joshua. "Jesus" is usually not used as a given name in the English-speaking world, while its counterparts have had longstanding popularity among people with other language backgrounds, such as the Spanish Jesús or the Arabic Isa.

  The name Jesus is derived from the Hebrew name Yeshua, which is based on the Semitic root y-š-ʕ (Hebrew: ישע), meaning "to deliver; to rescue."[3][4][5] Yeshua, and its longer form, Yehoshua, were both in common use by Jews during the Second Temple period and many Jewish religious figures bear the name, notably Jesus in the New Testament, and Joshua in the Hebrew Bible.2https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_(name)

While the word GOD in Hebrew is "(YHWH יהוה)" and in Greek "Kyrios"

  The name of God most often used in the Hebrew Bible is the Tetragrammaton (YHWH יהוה). It is frequently anglicized as Jehovah and Yahweh and written in most English editions of the Bible as "the Lord" owing to the Jewish tradition increasingly viewing the divine name as too sacred to be uttered. It was thus replaced vocally in the synagogue ritual by the Hebrew word Adonai (“My Lords”), which was translated as Kyrios (“Lord”) in the Septuagint, the Greek version of the Hebrew scriptures.1

  Rabbinic Judaism describes seven names which are so holy that, once written, should not be erased: YHWH and six others which can be categorized as titles are El ("God"), Eloah ("God"), Elohim ("Gods"), Shaddai (“Almighty"), Ehyeh (“I Will Be”), and Tzevaot ("[of] Hosts").[2] Other names are considered mere epithets or titles reflecting different aspects of God,[3] but chumrah sometimes dictates special care such as the writing of "G-d" instead of "God" in English or saying Ṭēt-Vav (טו, lit. "9-6") instead of Yōd-Hē (יה, lit. "10-5" but also "Jah") for the number fifteen in Hebrew.[4]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Names_of_God_in_Judaism

Given that Jesus was a Jew and the original text was written in ancient Hebrew, would it be fair to say that instead of the more commonly accepted Greek version of His Name, that should we use the Hebrew versions instead?

And you support your question with this scripture "In the Bible, God declares: “I am Jehovah. That is my name; I give my glory to no one else.” (Isaiah 42:8)

You might consider the New Testament to have a better picture of this verse;

  Jesus Prays to Be Glorified

  17 After Jesus said this, he looked toward heaven and prayed:

  “Father, the hour has come. Glorify your Son, that your Son may glorify you. 2 For you granted him authority over all people that he might give eternal life to all those you have given him. 3 Now this is eternal life: that they know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent. 4 I have brought you glory on earth by finishing the work you gave me to do. 5 And now, Father, glorify me in your presence with the glory I had with you before the world began." (John17:1-5)

  "Then Jesus came to them and said, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to Me." (Matthew28:18)

  Philippians 2:9-15 New International Version (NIV)

  9 Therefore God exalted him to the highest place
      and gave him the name that is above every name,
  10 that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow,
      in heaven and on earth and under the earth,
  11 and every tongue acknowledge that Jesus Christ is Lord,
      to the glory of God the Father.

Did God the Father and Creator "glorify" His Son Jesus Christ? Yes.

Now, let's take a closer look at your desire to worship God with the original Hebrew word that is according to your statement is;

  "the name referring to Yahuah/Yahsuah, which would be in original Hebrew."

If the name "Jesus" was already proclaimed here on earth and also bound in heaven as the "the name above all names" why would it be much better or biblical to give praise or glory to God in original Hebrew word?

As the doubting Thomas one of the Apostle of Jesus after seeing the glorified Jesus Christ had said and professed by faith "My Lord and My God".

  Jesus Appears to Thomas
  …27Then Jesus said to Thomas, “Put your finger here and look at My hands. Reach out your hand and put it into My side. Stop doubting and believe.” 28Thomas replied, “My Lord and my God!” (John20:27-28)

Lastly, to focus on the Hebrew word YHWH or YHVH, this word does not pertains to a name but it is a description of how God intend to offer salvation to mankind. The Hebrew word Yahweh, YHWH or YHVH is not a name but a description.

The Hebrew word YHWH is not a name but a description. You cannot pronounced the Hebrew word YHWH pertaining to the Name of God. Moses was given a scene in the burning bush a man crucified.

  Although in the English language the term onomatopoeia means "the imitation of a sound", the compound word onomatopoeia (ὀνοματοποιία) in the Greek language means "making or creating names". For words that imitate sounds, the term ὴχομιμητικό (echomimetico) or echomimetic) is used. Onomatopoeia - Wikipedia https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onomatopoeia

The word YHWH is the origin why a God given name had a meaning or a mission attached to it. Starting from Jesus Christ, Mary and Prophets and Patriarchs and Old Testament names had a corresponding meaning and mission that defines the life of the bearer of the name.

YHWH tetragammanton means "Behold the Hand, Behold the Nails".

This means, Moses was able to see the pre-figurement of Jesus at the Foot of the Cross as the means of God Salvation. They are pronounced, in Hebrew, "Yod Hey Vav Hey," when you read them in the Hebrew manner from right to left.

  The four letters in God's name in Hebrew have the following meanings:

  Hey = Behold

  Vav = Nail

  Yod = Closed Hand

When read in English from left to right, it says:

  "BEHOLD THE NAIL, BEHOLD THE HAND!" Or, "Behold the nailed hand."

http://the-kingdom-of-god-is-within-you.blogspot.com/2012/02/behold-nail-behold-hand-exodus-314-this.html

We will be suprise if we will discover the greatest mystery behind the Hebrew word YHWH is the word "BEHOLD"

"Behold means to gaze". and Moses was given the chance to BEHOLD that Man Crucified at the Cross.

Jesus at the Foot of the Cross uttered the word "BEHOLD" to the Woman and to St.John the beloved Apostles.

  "When Jesus saw his mother and the disciple there whom he loved, he said to his mother, “Woman, behold, your son.” Then he said to the disciple, “Behold, your mother.” And from that hour the disciple took her into his home."(John19"26-27)

God commanded Moses to "BEHOLD" and Jesus commanded the Woman to "BEHOLD".We either represents St.John or the other Mary's and we too are commanded by Jesus to "BEHOLD" His sacrifice "At the Foot of the Cross". But we can only "BEHOLD" the Crucified Christ and understand the meaning of the Cross of Christ if each one of us welcome Mary in our home, meaning allowing Mary to be our own Mother too as the greatest gift of Jesus Christ to all of us.


Humans doing miracles Jesus says quite a few times that if you have enough faith you can do anything.

Matthew 21:21
Jesus replied, "Truly I tell you, if you have faith and do not doubt, not only can you do what was done to the fig tree, but also you can say to this mountain, 'Go, throw yourself into the sea,' and it will be done.

Luke 17:6
He replied, "If you have faith as small as a mustard seed, you can say to this mulberry tree, 'Be uprooted and planted in the sea,' and it will obey you.

He's talking to his apostles, but who is Jesus addressing when he says "you"?
Does Jesus suggest that we can do those miracles today,
was that something his apostles could do back in the times of Christ,
or is this a parable of the forgiveness of sins?

In Matt 21, he was talking to those disciples that were with him.  He was giving them a lesson about faith and doubt and that they can see those same results.

In Luke 17 it would appear he was also talking directly to his disciples but there were a lot of people about the place.

Is that the end of the story? no.

Does Jesus suggest that we can do those miracles today? I believe he does

Firstly, the 12 original Apostles were not the only ones doing miracles.  There were others who were sent out to do so.  See Luke 70.  Jesus commisions 70 to go out and...  "And heal the sick that are therein, and say unto them, The kingdom of God is come nigh unto you." - Luke 10:9.  And they did because they came back with a good with Joy saying even the devils are subject to them.

However, John 14 makes it pretty clear. The only qualifier is believe on Jesus. What were the works he was doing? healing the sick, casting out devils, raising the dead.

  12 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believes on me, the works
  that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he do;
  because I go unto my Father.

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

  14 If you shall ask anything in my name, I will do it.

Also the great commission in Mark 16 "go into all the world"... The only qualification is that signs will follow those who believe.  Some would argue that he's saying "those disciples" that were with him.  In that case, why preach the gospel since by that logic Jesus only told those disciples to do so.  No this is for those that believe.

  17 And these signs will follow those who believe: In My name they will
  cast out demons; they will speak with new tongues; 18 they[a] will
  take up serpents; and if they drink anything deadly, it will by no
  means hurt them; they will lay hands on the sick, and they will
  recover.”

There is also an argument going around that says we have the whole bible so therefore we don't need miracles today. And the bible verse that is used to back that up is:

  1 Corinthians 13:8 - "Charity never faileth: but whether there be
  prophecies, they shall fail; whether there be tongues, they shall
  cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall vanish away. 9For we know
  in part, and we prophesy in part. 10But when that which is perfect is
  come, then that which is in part shall be done away."

The claim is that that which is perfect is come and his name is Jesus and he's said on the cross - it is finished, therefore miracles are no longer needed.  However, this doesn't make sense.  Tongues have not ceased, prophesies are not failing and I'm sure everyone would agree knowledge is actually on the increase.

Nope, miracles are definitely for today and I've witnessed some big ones.

I should clarify.  Without God we're nothing. We can't do anything.  It's God doing the miracle, but he uses people.  He works through people.

God has given me the gift of miracles, so I will explain to you how in the future you can use this faith to also do miracles and Anyone reading this will be able to do miracles in his name. So some quick pointers:

God has a temple and it is a person Acts 2:17 NKJV

  And it shall come to pass in the last days, says God, That I will pour out of My Spirit on all flesh; Your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, Your young men shall see visions, Your old men shall dream dreams.

A prayer is a question. The difference between asking a person (let us use Bob for an example) and asking Jesus is the name. Now I declare to you that Gods name is Holy and does not have to be used.

Example Prayer to Bob: Bob, can you pass me the salt?

Example Prayer to Jesus with silent usage: Can you pass me the salt?

Now I declare to you a noticeable restraint so that the understanding will become seen. I have seen a woman call out in church to another by name for example we will name her Ruth because of my memory. Something like (Ruth do you know when the meeting is tomorrow?) The spirit was moved and many felt the urge to answer the question, for the desire was for the spirit to give the answer. And many urged forward to answer but held back the answer out of respect for Ruth. Meanwhile Ruth was busy in conversation, and the group awaited Ruth's response. Eventually the Word was Angeled to Ruth, and the questioner got the Word through Ruth.

Therefore the difference that was to be pointed out was that instead of "Bob, shovel up this mountain and toss it in the sea." Authority is given when the Word says, "This mountain needs shoveled up and tossed into the sea."

Instead of "Bob, pull up this tree and toss it into the Ocean." Authority is given when the Word says, "This tree needs pulled up and tossed into the Ocean."

Instead of "Little Suzy, clean up this room." Authority is given when the Word says, "This room is messy and needs cleaned up."

When the kitchen is active try "The salt needs put on the table." or "The dishes need washed." or "The table needs set." or "The oven needs preheated to 350." or "The refrigerator needs cleaned." Now do not be surprised if the Word responds with "Well go do it!" or "Get it yourself!" or "It's your turn to wash the dishes!" For we have been called to be servants. If that is the Case work like you are working for the Lord =).

Instead of "Billy, give me your toy." Authority is given when the Word says in weakness confessing the sin, "I want to play with that toy."

Yes you could pray "Jesus, I want to play with that toy." Yet few understand the real meaning about using the name in vain, so incorrect correction my come. So silence usage of the name is acceptable. Followed by a "Thank you Jesus". For all good gifts come from God(James 1:17), and let us thank him in what we do!

For the flesh is in opposition to the Word, but the Word and the Spirit are bound by Love.

In your excitement if you wish to comment on your future experiences of peace, love, and joy below. I feel it would be nice to have recorded some actions that God does through people so that Doubt and Denial can be a thing of the past. Amen.

Now also as a note: It is good for a woman to have a man ask the spirit for her.

Like my wife saying "Jeff, can you get the kitchen ready?"
Then calling out my set of prayers "I need the kids down here." then when they show up. "That table needs set." "The oven needs preheated to 350." "are you having trouble getting those?".

For it is God's glory to service man, as it is Man's glory to service woman, as it is the hair that is woman's glory. It is not good that a Man ask a woman to pray to the spirit for him. For God can do it for the woman, but he chose to do it for the man. And the needs should be the same because they are one-flesh.

1 Corinthians 11:7-10 NKJV

  7 For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man. 8 For man is not from woman, but woman from man. 9 Nor was man created for the woman, but woman for the man. 10 For this reason the woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels.


When someone converts to Christianity and is "reborn in Christ," is it the body or the soul that is reborn, or both? I understand this question can be approached from different denominational positions, depending on how one interprets John 3:3-5.

Jesus replied, "Very truly I tell you, no one can see the kingdom of
God unless they are born again." "How can someone be born when they
are old?" Nicodemus asked. "Surely they cannot enter a second time
into their mother's womb to be born!" Jesus answered, "Very truly I
tell you, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless they are born of
water and the Spirit."
— Gospel of John, chapter 3, verses 3–5, NIV

As asked, your question will receive many answers, most of them will be personal opinions. I will not undertake to answer your question as asked.
I will however, give you the scriptures concerning this subject as I know them. You may use them for your research in seeking truth. I also would like to suggest that you seek consultation with your Pastor or other trusted Christian.
Those Scriptures from the King James  version are as follows:

Matthew 11:28  Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.

Matthew  11:29  Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls.

Matthew 10:28  And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.

Matthew  16:25  For whosoever will save his life shall lose it: and whosoever will lose his life for my sake shall find it.

Matthew _7:21  Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.

Matthew _7:24  Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock:

Matthew_7:26  And every one that heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them not, shall be likened unto a foolish man, which built his house upon the sand:

John_15:15  Henceforth I call you not servants; for the servant knoweth not what his lord doeth: but I have called you friends; for all things that I have heard of my Father I have made known unto you.

Matthew  7:16  Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?

Matthew  7:17  Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.

Matthew  7:18  A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.

Matthew  7:19  Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.

Matthew  7:20  Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.

You will also find that some good commentaries will help in understanding not only these, but any other Scriptures.
There are several Bible study aids available for free downloads on the internet, I have found them very helpful. Two fine ones that I use are e-sword and the Word. Both are free and have the ability to download many Bible versions, commentaries, and many other useful things such as maps, and etc.
Good luck in your studies, they are invaluable to new Christians as well as elder Christians.

Before we get to an answer, we must first show some details about being 'born again'
Jesus is the firstborn of 'many brethren' Believers are the 'many brethren'.

Rom 8:29 For those whom He foreknew, He also predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son, He would be the firstborn among many brethren.

We follow Jesus in the pattern laid down by God for all to follow. Jesus becoming the firstborn happened at his resurrection.

For Christ also died for sins once for all, the just for the unjust,
so that He might bring us to God, having been put to death in the
flesh, but made alive in the spirit. 1 Pet 3:18

Jesus was 'made alive in the spirit'/reborn at his resurrection. Prior to that he was mortal and subject to death. Rom 6:9 This was his re-birth into the spirit realm. Ours will be the same. When resurrected we will be granted immortality as Jesus was. (Rom 6:9 again)
Prior to this, at baptism, we received the 'deposit' (Eph 1:14) of holy spirit (Jesus also at baptism) - we are not born again yet.

having been begotten again, not of corruptible seed, but of
incorruptible, through the word of God, which liveth and abideth. ESV ASV 1 Pet 1:23

They have correctly used 'begotten' rather than born here. Notice it is the 'seed', the deposit that is placed within us as God's 'gift' of Holy Spirit to reorient our will with His until Jesus returns. Just as a 'seed' makes a new life in the womb, this is begotten, not yet born.

So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown a perishable body,
it is raised an imperishable body; 43 it is sown in dishonour, it is
raised in glory; it is sown in weakness, it is raised in power; 44 it
is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body 1 Cor 15:42-4

The 'raised from dead' Paul describes is when our 'humble body' is transformed as part of the re-birth process.
1 Cor 15:50 reminds us that 'flesh and blood cannot enter the kingdom'
John 3 informs that we must be born 'from above' to see the kingdom
If we are still flesh and blood, we are not yet born again or born from above.
So to your question, we know that the soul can die with this mortal body of flesh and blood - when raised, the body will be given new life of spirit. There is no mention of soul in the next life.


What is the basis for the argument that Jesus DID have the ability to give in to temptation? I understand that some people believe that Jesus actually had the capacity to sin, that is, to give in to the temptations that He suffered.  This seems to suggest that God has the power to sin.

In a sense, then, the redemption of mankind hung in the balance, so to speak, during the temptations of Christ.

What are the theological arguments in support of this position?

The argument comes both from the fact that Jesus was fully human, and from the Hebrews 4:15, which says (in the King James)

  For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the
  feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we
  are, yet without sin.

This outlines the fact that even though Jesus is fully God, He was also fully human.  He felt all our infirmities and weaknesses, and yet, as God overcame them.

A complete theological statement would be "because Jesus was fully Human, He had the capacity to sin, but because of His perfect nature, also being fully God and therefore perfectly good, He could not sin."

Both are true, but people have a hard time wrapping their head around that, choose half the truth, and fall into error.

The debate uses the terms peccable/impeccable. On the one side, people who argue for the peccability of Christ hold that Jesus wasn't really tempted or fully human unless he could have failed. On the other side, those who argue for the impeccability of Christ argue that Jesus being God could not sin. Then there are a few heretics (technical term) in between these positions and argue that Jesus could sin in his humanity but not in his divinity. The technical term for this heresy is Nestorianism (note that there is some debate whether the Nestorians actually taught the heresy named after them). By far, the majority position favors the impeccability of Christ.


What scriptural arguments are there, if any, that there is hell but it is not eternal? The Catholic Church teaches that there is hell and it is eternal [cf. The Hell There Is! | Catholic Answers].

What is the [common] scriptural basis, if any, for the Christian groups which teach that there is a hell but that it is not eternal?

What is the [common] scriptural basis, if any, for the Christian groups which teach that there is a hell but that it is not eternal?

Much of the trouble with the determination of “eternal” comes from the definition of the Geek word aion. It can mean a period of time like a lifetime, an age or true eternity. One of the Biblical proofs that aion does not always mean true eternity can be seen;

  Jude 1:7  Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in
  like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after
  strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance
  of eternal fire.

Here one might say that the effects are eternal rather than the fire, however that does not help impart support for the idea of eternal torment as torment that continues eternally.

Another problem in declaring the eternality of torment is the problem of “eternal” life.

  Romans 6:23  For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is
  eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

  John 10:28  And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never
  perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand.

One can ask if the gift of God is eternal life, then how do those who reject Christ merit or receive it and how can torment be truly eternal if life is not.

Another problem of the subject is our limited ability to understand the concept of eternity itself. This can be seen in part if we consider the question, if eternity is the end of time or time unending.

A further problem exists as we are told that punishment is in proportion to works.

  Revelation 20:12  And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before
  God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is
  the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which
  were written in the books, according to their works.

If one considers a hypothetical person who lived out his life in routine and harmless normality. His biggest crime was not being interested in Jesus. It is difficult to resolve the idea of eternal conscious torment with a merciful God.

There are only a few ways to consider this dilemma.

God is unjust.
Mans slightest infraction deserves eternal torment (making God just).
Torment is not eternal but proportionate.
The system is more complicated than we know or can understand.

There is a lot of flexibility in how to translate the word “eternal” (aion). Some translations (i.e. YLT), use the phrase “age lasting”.

I am sure that there are more answers to this question then this, but many universalist use John 12:32

  And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me.

The verse is applied to "all men" dead and alive,  the idea is that God is perfect and does not fail in what he does, he will draw all men to himself and he will do this in this life or in the what is considered a temporary punishment of hell.

The argument is based on the use of Hyperbole in language arguing about extreme text only meaning preference.  There is a tendency in many of the new Christian practices to apply hyperbole where you wish and ignore it where you do not.

Biblical basis is no basis in and of itself, the idea that the preservation of the living word resides soley in a book is a modern tradition.


Would an actual Christian (in the 1920s or today) actually make a "prayer sign" like this in this context? In the Charlie Chaplin film "The Kid" (1921), there is a scene where his character, who is apparently supposed to be Christian, is being threatened with violence by a thug. As he walks backwards, dodging the swings from the thug, they appear under a sign that says "BEDS 10 CENTS".
When the thug swings at Charlie's character underneath the sign, it starts swinging back and forth from its hinges. Charlie's character notices this and makes the Christian "prayer hands" sign while looking up at the sign.
Here is the YouTube video clip showing it: The Kid, Charlie Chaplin fight scene one of the funniest scenes in kid.
Can this be explained somehow, other than simply being a fun visual gag? I mean, is it based on something? Would a Christian make such a prayer sign at a sign because it swings? Because the thug missed him? As if God saved him from the punch hitting him?
Is that "prayer sign" with the hands against each other something that Christians do/did to basically say: "Thanks for saving me from that danger, God!"?

In silent movies, actors had to do things in an exaggerated way in order to communicate the idea to the audience:

People made that praying-hands gesture to indicate "thank God".
Women put the back of their arms to their foreheads to show that they were about to faint.
Gangsters pumped their guns forward each time they fired.
Heads were tipped back to indicate swallowing a pill.

But even in modern film and TV, the actors still do this, though far less melodramatically:

Remote controls are pumped at the TV to indicate they are being used.
Mobile phones are disabled by being snapping in two and thrown out a window.
Computer accounts have all-upper-case passwords.
Concealed listening devices have a red light, and bombs have a flashing red light.
Guns and rifles are repeatedly used to make threatening "chicka" sounds.
Bullets make sparks whenever they ricochet off something.
Seatbelts are blatantly fastened, but only when the chase scene is about to get even more ridiculous.

These all are movie memes that we see and take for granted without realizing that it doesn't match real life.

The sign that a Catholic or Orthodox Christians makes while blessing (or strengthening) himself is the Sign of the Cross; that is, he touches his forehead with his palm  saying: “In the name of the Father", then his left shoulder  saying "..and of the Son"  and his right shoulder saying "..and of the Holy Spirit".." and finally clasps his palms  saying "..Amen". Over a period of time, the sign has shortened in different ways. Chaplin was perhaps too busy protecting himself that he forgot to make the Sign of the Cross  and did only the last part, which is a sign of supplication.


What exactly are 'private vows'? What exactly are private vows? After somebody I vaguely know noted that she has taken private vows, I have been rather too fearful to admit my ignorance. I went home, looked through the Code of Canon Law and after an hour or so, I was even more confused. Apparently, it's not the same as recognised private vows, which apparently are public vows despite the name. Can somebody shed light on this conundrum?

Since you question specifically states Catholicism, I will give you a quote from a Catholic source:

  For centuries people have been embracing the evangelical counsels and
      binding themselves to observe them by the vows of poverty, chastity, and obedience.
      The most common example we have of persons making these vows are the men and women
      who make their profession of vows as religious.  These religious make what is known
      as public vows.   Not all people, however, are called to make public vows, but
      instead elect to follow the evangelical counsels through private vows.

  There is one primary difference between a public vow of poverty, chastity, or
      obedience and a private vow of poverty, chastity, or obedience.  Public vows are
      made in a religious profession, or profession in the hands of the bishop of a
      diocesan hermit and have the effect of placing the individual in the consecrated
      state in the Church.  Private vows are made outside of this context of
      Ecclesiastical acceptance and they do not change the canonical status of the
      individual making them within the Church.

I do  not know if only those three fall into what can be a private vow or not.

If I look at my relationship with God the father as a intimate Love between me and Him and also his peoples..

Its only natural to have private vows.. especially since God desires to have a one on one with us.
Because simply Gods love is for you.

God loves you more then anyone else could.. weather we take a vow.. only God knows the true heart of the person who made that vow. For God knows the Spirit and if the spirit is truth then nothing can break that vow.
But that again is between man and God. The very reason God gave us a new covenant through Jesus.To love God with all our heart, soul, mind, strength, and to love our neighbor as our self. Lots of Love happening with God don't you think? private or public if its love.. there is no issue.  (Mark 12:30-31, Jeremiah 31:31-34, Hebrews 8:13, Luke 10:27 Duet 6:5,)

John 13:34-35
" A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another; as I have loved you, that you also love one another. By this all will know that you are My disciples, if you have love for one another.” NKJV

Simply God knows, your heart. He knows your vows.


Does the Bible tell us who should be interpreting its message? Is there a passage in the Bible which tells us who should interpret the Bible? I know there are many interpretations/translations of the Bible already. Maybe I can get a better understanding from the different denominations and their interpretation.

For example, is it men, children, clergy, everyone?

Here are two verses that can form an answer to your question (at least they do it for me):

Jeremiah 17:5: "Cursed is the one who trusts in man, who draws strength from mere flesh and whose heart turns away from the Lord."

and:

John 16:13: "But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all the truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come"

Regardless of who preaches the Gospel or who translates the Scripture, a child of God must seek spiritual nourishment from his heavenly Father and He will not give a stone to a child who's asking Him from bread.


Non-Christian/secular translation of the Bible? Is there a rigorous translation of the Bible, sponsored or produced by secular organization?  Not that this translation would be necessarily more impartial, but it would be nice to have this version to read in parallel with other versions. There are several Parallel works (listed below) but they too seem to be affiliated with Christian organization or scholars.

Popular translations:

The NIV was sponsored by the Christian Reformed Church and the National Association of Evangelicals.
The KJV conforms to instructions by King James I to support the episcopal structure of the Church of England.

Parallel translations:

The Amplified Bible (which sources 2+ translations side-by-side) is a product of the Zondervan Corporation, the founding member of the Evangelical Publishing Association of America.
The Comprehensive New Testament - promising. I may read it, but also edited and compiled by Christians.

The Society for Biblical Literature produces a well regarded translation (Logos even carries it).  According to their own mission statement, they are concerned with biblical scholarship and not doctrine. Their vowed mission statement is simply "to promote biblical scholarship." They are a secular organization not affiliated with any religious organization (see comment below). Their Greek translation of the New Testament is available for free here, but I believe their translation of the Old Testament requires purchase.

Additionally, Isaac Asimov and Thomas Jefferson both have secular digests that bear some reading. (Admittedly, neither is an ad fontes translation, but they did look at sources to compile their versions.)

As for commentaries that speak to the translation difficulties that come from a decidedly secular point of view.:

The Oxford Companion to the Bible was the product of many well respected theological scholars, including several who are not Christians. Bruce Metzger is (was?) the chief editor.
Anything by Bart Ehrmann e.g. Misquoting Jesus should speak to the historical value of the source texts and give guidance.
Anything by John Dominic Crossan or The Jesus Seminar would also fall into this category. JDC is currently in the leadership of the SBL.

A. Nyland has written a couple of comontaries about mistranslation of the bible in the name of religious tradition. Basically her take is that no one who currently edits, 'writes', or publishes bibles is a professional linguist or translator, and the one company that attempted to publish a bible produced by a professional was threatened with economic murder. Nyland has produced her own translation of one of the gospels, it is interesting to read, but her excessive use of exclamation points is distracting and, frankly, irritating.  Nyland's work is available from Amazon Kindle.


What is the Biblical basis for using the names "Yeshua" and "Yehoshua" (Joshua) for Jesus? Messianic Jews commonly refer to Jesus as "Yeshua" or "Yehoshua," which are forms of the Hebrew (and Aramaic) name commonly translated into English as "Joshua."

What is the Biblical basis for using these names for Jesus?

This is, as noted, primarily a question about Semitic languages in the First Century. However, as it happens, there is a Biblical record of the relationship between the Semitic name yĕhôšūaʿ and the Greek Iēsous, the diachronic shift that produced yēšûaʿ, and the equation of yēšûaʿ with Iēsous.1

Background

The New Testament is in Koine Greek. Jesus's name here is written as Ἰησοῦς (Iēsous).1 However, it is generally accepted that Jesus spoke primarily Aramaic and/or Hebrew. Determining the precise sounds that Jesus and his friends used to pronounce his name (which is, I suppose, the basis of the preference of the group described in the question) entails speculation about the Hebrew or Aramaic name that corresponds to the Greek name recorded in the Gospels. In this case, whether they were speaking Hebrew or Aramaic is probably not so important. (See below.)

Insights from Septuagint Joshua

As noted in this question and another related question, the name yĕhôšūaʿ is used most frequently in the Bible to the man who served as Moses's "assistant" during the wilderness period and subsequently led the Israelite people into Canaan, as recorded in the eponymous book. This name is transliterated consistently into the Greek of the Septuagint as Ἰησοῦς (Iēsous). Yĕhôšūaʿ, though, has an additional syllable compared to yēšûaʿ, so we remain one step away from a full explanation.

Insights from Late Biblical Hebrew

The Biblical books of Ezra, Nehemiah, and Chronicles provide the link we need. These books were composed during the Persian period (539 - 332 BCE) and so occasionally provide information about the transition between the language of the earlier portions of the Hebrew Bible and the dialect spoken in the first century. In these books, the name yĕhôšūaʿ is used only once, in reference to Moses's assistant (1 Chr 7:27). Otherwise, the name yēšûaʿ is used, most often (only?) to refer to the son of Jozadak, a man referred to in Haggai and Zechariah as yĕhôšūaʿ. This occurs both in Hebrew and in the Aramaic portion of Ezra.2

Starting with Ezra 2:2:

  ESV: They came with Zerubbabel, Jeshua, Nehemiah...
  Hebrew: ʾăšer-bāʾû ʿim-zĕrubbāḇel yēšûaʿ nĕḥemyāh...
  Greek: hoi ēlthon meta Zorobabel; Iēsous, Neemias...

Yēšûaʿ, then, is a shortened form of yĕhôšūaʿ that was more commonly used later periods. In addition to being capable of an identical referent, both are translated identically into Greek: Iēsous.3

Notes

1. I use throughout the technical transliteration style set out by the Society for Biblical Literature. The transliterations in "normal" Latin characters offered in this question and others are no less "correct" (š = sh), but this system has the advantage of precisely representing each Hebrew consonant and vowel with 1:1 correspondence.

2. In Hebrew: Ezra 2:2, 6, 36, 40; 3:2, 8-9; 4:3; 8:33; 10:18; Neh 3:19; 7:7, 11, 39, 43; 8:7, 17; 9:4-5; 10:10; 12:1, 7-8, 10, 24, 26; 1 Chr 24:11; 2 Chr 31:15. In Aramaic: Ezra 5:2.

3. As it happens, in the Septuagint the Greek translation of yēšûaʿ (Iēsous) behaves slightly more like the New Testament's Iēsous than does the Greek translation of yĕhôšūaʿ. Although identical in the nominative case, the Greek term is only partly declinable in the NT: the dative and genitive share the form Iēsou. This is also true in the Greek translations of yēšûaʿ in Chronicles, etc. On the other hand, the dative is (usually) distinguished in the book of Joshua (yĕhôšūaʿ) as Iēsoî.

We know for sure that 2000 years ago, they did not call our Messiah Jesus, because Jesus is a Latin name, and our Messiah was not Latin, but a Hebrew Rabbi.  I am for sure that his name was "Yeho" (shua), because he said in John 5:43, "I came to you in my Father's name," meaning His Father's name is "Yeho (vah).  And the first part of his name is His Father's abbreviated name "Yeho." And His Father removed the last part of his name, which is the (vah,) and replaced it with the Hebrew word "(shua)."  Because "shua" means, "(cry out to be save)." And because the Father "Yehovah," was going to save the world, through his son, he told us that "His Son's Name shall be called "Yeho (shua)," because Yeho means Yehovah, and shua means cry out to be save.  And when you put the meaning of both words together, which is the name, Yehoshua, it means,"Cry out to the Father Yehovah to be saved, in the name of his son, Yehoshua. Because the name of his Father Yehovah, who is doing the saving, is abbreviated Yeho, in the name of his Son Yeho (shua).


Can someone tell more about this artwork of Jesus Christ? Another piece in the belongings of my late grandmother may she rest in peace.

This is a part of 7 pieces in total.

I am really intrigued by the artwork itself.

Is it possible for someone to identify this scene?

The image depicted is of the Crucifixion of Jesus.

  The crucifixion of Jesus occurred in 1st-century Judea, most likely between AD 30 and 33. Jesus' crucifixion is described in the four canonical gospels, referred to in the New Testament epistles, attested to by other ancient sources, and is established as a historical event confirmed by non-Christian sources, although there is no consensus among historians on the exact details.

  According to the canonical gospels, Jesus was arrested and tried by the Sanhedrin, and then sentenced by Pontius Pilate to be scourged, and finally crucified by the Romans. Jesus was stripped of his clothing and offered wine mixed with myrrh or gall to drink after saying I am thirsty. He was then hung between two convicted thieves and, according to the Gospel of Mark, died some six hours later. During this time, the soldiers affixed a sign to the top of the cross stating "Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews" which, according to the Gospel of John, was written in three languages. They then divided his garments among themselves and cast lots for his seamless robe, according to the Gospel of John. According to the Gospel of John after Jesus' death, one soldier pierced his side with a spear to be certain that he had died, then blood and water gushed. The Bible describes seven statements that Jesus made while he was on the cross, as well as several supernatural events that occurred. - Crucifixion of Jesus

The Latin words are the opening words of Matins in the Divine Liturgy. The Church praises her redeemer for Christ saving humanity on the Cross.

  V: Domine labia mea aperies.

  R: Et os meum annunciabit laudem tuam.

And in English:

  V: Thou O Lord wilt open my lips.

  R: And my mouth shall declare thy praise.

The art depicted the Fifth Sorrowful Mystery. "The Crucifixion and death of our Lord Jesus Christ"

To give you a nice reflection on this, this image was the very first image that was hidden in the very first verse in the bible, the word "In the beginning". Translated in Hebrew language this word becomes "Bereshit".

This is the Divine Plan for the Salvation of Mankind, it's called the "Way of the Cross".

This is also the meaning of the name of God in Hebrew YHWH.

Let us connect this hidden mystery.

The image depicted Jesus offering His life to redeemed all mankind. His most precious blood merit the graces needed to wash away the original sin and freed us from the slavery of Satan and healed our wounded nature.

  "He who sins is of the devil, for the devil has sinned from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that He might destroy the works of the devil." (1John3:8)

  But He was wounded for our transgressions,
  He was bruised for our iniquities;
  The chastisement for our peace was upon Him,
  And by His stripes we are healed. (Isaiah53:55)

The mystery behind this image is, before God created mankind and before the fall of Adam & Eve,God already knew it. And so, God already had conceived the Divine Plan for the Salvation of Mankind even before Adam & Eve fall.

The meaning of YHWH is "Behold the Hand, Behold the Nails". The Hebrew word YHWH is not a name but a description of what Moses saw in the burning bush, Moses saw a crucified man and that was the meaning of YHWH.

Plus if we take into the meaning of the first verse in the bible Genesis1:1 the Hebrew word "Bereshit" means "The Son of the Almighty God offered his life freely on the Cross"

So, the image of the Fifth Sorrowful Mystery the Crucifixion & Death of Jesus Christ is the very image shown to Sis. Lucia requesting prayer & penance in June 1929.

Note :
The picture on the artwork also depicted the same royal robe of Mary. Both Mary and St.John depicted holiness in their faces. With the addition of the other Mary on their back also have a halo and robe with white garment depicting the holiness & piousness of this other Mary.The centurion is included in the scene as the Blood & Water that flowed from the side of Jesus coming from His Sacred Heart is the First Miracle that healed the blindness of the centurion that led to his conversion. The other centurion will serve as a living witness to the miracle. The symbol of Sun and Cresent Moon was on top of the Cross, the Tradition point this symbol to Jesus and Mary. The Latin word on the white ribbon is hard to visualize but the Latin word at the bottom is Domine, labia mea aperies, et os meum annuntiabit laudem tuam.

  V: Domine labia mea aperies.
  R: Et os meum annunciabit laudem tuam.

  V: Thou O Lord wilt open my lips.
  R: And my mouth shall declare thy praise.

https://www.medievalist.net/hourstxt/bvm1mata.htm


Why is it usually easier to do things the wrong or unethical way than to do things the right way? Jenny Thompson generalized this question from another that I asked earlier, so I thought I'd ask it here.

I have a few suggested answers on this:
(But they're probably all wrong)

Some people have more brain power (frontal lobes) than others  (but this kind of relays me back to God in this case for why that would be the case)
Somebody is probably going to say "because the devil is the ruler of this world", in which  case I still have to ask, "well why Did God create him then?"
Commercialism / Greed has made unethical thought more appealing because of the "short term gains" it provides.

It's only easier at first to do the wrong thing; but consequences follow and make the way more difficult afterwards.

Proverbs has a lot to say about wisdom and not going the easy, enticing way.

There is a way that seems right to a man,
but in the end it leads to death. (Prov. 14:12).

and

In the paths of the wicked lie thorns and snares,
but he who guards his soul stays far from them." (Prov. 22:5)

By contrast,

The path of the righteous is like the first gleam of dawn,
shining ever brighter till the full light of day. (Prov. 4:18).

As to why it is easier for us to do the wrong thing, Paul speaks of the death that reigns over all mankind because of the sinful nature we inherited from Adam:

...sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin,
and so death spread to all men because all sinned (Romans 5:12)

Our inherited propensity to sin makes it harder to do the right thing.

Unethical act is a personal gain, and a short cut in life; that's why it is easier to choose wrong over right. At my job, Maybell painted Theresa as an uncooperative co-worker to the supervisor for the supervisor to favor her instead. To lie on Theresa, was like looking down and counting the few pennies on the floor, easy to do. But to complement Theresa to the supervisor, it would have been like to bend down to pick up those pennies off the floor, harder and more painful to do. Unethical as wrong behavior is to please or satisfied one's own intension. While ethical or right behavior is to benefit or uplift another person's life.


What is the basis for the belief among some Protestants that Christ's teachings do not apply to us today? I have seen some Protestants arguing that Christ's teachings in the Gospels don't apply to us; that they were applicable only to the Jews, the immediate audience, since the new covenant did not begin at that time; and that only the new covenant teachings apply to us. The same is said about the Epistle to the Hebrews.

Here is one example of this doctrine, in an excerpt from an article by Paul Ellis, a popular Protestant preacher:

  .... Sadly, it didn’t happen. Since the law-teachers had been negligent,
  Jesus had to do their job before He could do His own. Before He could
  save the world from sin, He had to preach the law that made sin
  utterly sinful. Before He give Himself as the answer, He had to make
  sure we were asking the right question. Who will deliver us?

  So Jesus became the greatest law preacher of all time. As the prophet
  Isaiah had foretold, He made the law magnificent. He lifted up what
  others had knocked down and raised the standard to glorious levels of
  perfection. Never again would mankind be without excuse. You want to
  know what God expects? Just read the Sermon on the Mount. In it Jesus
  says that God demands perfection and nothing less.

  How did Jesus preach the law?

  Preaching the red letters of Jesus is a bit like drinking whatever you
  find in the laundry. If you’re not paying attention – if you fail to
  distinguish His life-giving words of grace from His death-dealing
  words of law – then you could really do some damage. Don’t believe me?
  Then consider these red letters:

  If you forgive men when they sin against you, your heavenly Father
  will also forgive you. But if you do not forgive men their sins, your
  Father will not forgive your sins. (Mat 6:14-15)

  This is one of the most-quoted passages in the Bible and it is vintage
  law. It is a killer scripture. It is not good news. This verse should make
  us shudder for it says that our forgiveness hinges on our ability to
  forgive others and we are poor forgivers indeed. Men sin against us
  repeatedly. Have we honestly forgiven them all? What if we miss one?
  And what do we say to those who have been raped and abused? What do
  you say to a young child who has been molested? “Sweetie, you need to
  forgive that evil man otherwise God won’t forgive you.” That’s not
  grace. That’s the condemning ministry of the law in full bloom. How do
  you forgive the unforgiveable? You can’t! Then you’re in trouble. The
  law condemns you as an unforgiver. Now you’re beginning to recognize
  your need for grace and this is a good thing.

  Any time you read a conditional statement from Jesus, you should
  interpret it as law. “Do not judge and you will not be judged” (Lk
  6:37). That’s good advice but it’s also law. To avoid something
  (judgment) you have to do something (don’t judge). It’s a blessing you
  have to pay for. And anytime Jesus makes a threat, you should
  interpret that as law as well. “Anyone who is angry with his brother
  will be subject to judgment” (Mt 5:22). That’s bad news for anyone
  with a brother!

This quote is only to give an example and evidence of this doctrine. It may not be representative of the views of all others who hold a similar doctrine.

My question:

What exactly is this view, in what sense don't these teachings apply to us today, and what are the reasons or basis given to justify this view?

The category of beliefs you are hearing about fall mainly under the heading of Dispensationalism. I'm not going to give you a detailed description,  but now you have the name you can read up in it for yourself.

My experience is that practitioners of this often have very little direct Biblical basis for preaching it (ironically since it is largely preached by conservative evangelicals who claim to teach only what the Bible says) - rather it falls out because preachers decide that some teachings in the New Testament cannot be practiced literally, so decide they must be inapplicable.

I'm aware this is not strictly an answer to the question,  but I will leave it unless someone actually comes up with a good Biblical basis for the belief.

One biblical basis for the belief that some of Jesus teachings were intended for the audiences of his day but not necessarily our own time are found in some of the stories about Jesus casting out demons. It is not my position that in none of the narratives of Jesus casting out demons did he actually do so, but in a significant number of these stories the symptoms of demon possession sound remarkably like what today are known to be mental illnesses.

For example, the narrative in Luke 9:37-43, and its parallel passages, where a man intercedes with Our Lord to heal his son, who Luke reports has been possessed by a spirit.  Now, I am not a physician, and do not play one on Stackexhchange, but people I know who are have told me that the narrative in Luke looks very much like someone with mental illness (the translators who produced the RSV in Matthew describes the boy as an "epileptic"—cf. Matt. 17:15 ) rather than demon possession, but the audiences that Jesus was addressing would not known what mental illness was, since the concept of mental illness did not become part of the canon of medicine until at least the eighteenth century.

So I consider that in many of these cases Jesus was not so much casting out demons as he was healing people with mental illness, and that casting out demons was an explanation that would have made much more sense to the people Jesus was talking to in his sermons, than if Jesus had corrected the crowd that said that the man was possessed of a demon by stating that the man was suffering from bipolar disorder.

The fundamental truth here is, in my opinion anyway, that Jesus healed the person, and whether it was from demonic possession or from bipolar disorder, is an inconsequential detail.


Where does the Scripture say that you need to be in the state of Divine Grace in order to go to Heaven? If I am correct, the Catholic Church teaches that you need to be in the state of Divine Grace at the moment of your death if you wish to go to Heaven.

If you are not, then you are automatically cursed for all Eternity and go straight to Hell.

Let's say a man had devoted his whole life to God, believed in Jesus and lived his life according to what Jesus had said, but prior to his death committed some kind of 'eternal' sin. Still, he didn't stop to believe in Jesus for even a second. Let's say he was caught off guard by temptation and died shortly afterwards.

According to the idea of Divine Grace, he goes to Hell.

My two questions:

1) How can this be just whatsoever ?

2) Where in the Scripture does Jesus say that you will end up in Hell if you are not in Divine Grace state ? If I am correct he doesn't say it at all and the whole concept has been invented by the later Tradition of the Catholic Church, not by Jesus himself.

I'm not trying to offend anyone by asking these questions. I believe in God, Christ and the Scripture. I also have a deep faith that the Church tries to bring us to God as close possible. I'm just trying to figure out the purpose of some of the 'constructs' like Divine Grace and whether they can have such a big impact on our salvation.

If I am correct, the Catholic Church teaches that you need to be in the state of Divine Grace at the moment of your death if you wish to go to Heaven.

Not only the Catholic Church, but the Bible itself teaches that you must be in a state of grace or status gratiae at the moment of your death if you wish to go to Heaven.

In Rom. 5:1-2, the apostle Paul wrote,

  Therefore, being justified by faith, we have peace with God by our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom we also have access by faith into this grace wherein we stand, and rejoice in hope of the glory of God.

The Greek εἰς τὴν χάριν ταύτην ἐν ᾗ ἑστήκαμε, meaning "into this grace wherein we stand," is the basis for the idea of a "state of grace" or Latin status gratiae.1 If you are not in a state of grace, that is, if you do not stand in grace, then you are not saved; you are not justified by faith.

  If you are not, then you are automatically cursed for all Eternity and go straight to Hell.

Actually, this is true. If you do not stand in grace, you will suffer eternal torment in Gehenna ("Hell"). The logical corollary of Rom. 5:2 is that if you do not stand in grace, then you do not have faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, for it is "by faith" (τῇ πίστει) that one may have "access" (προσαγωγή) to stand in grace. Ergo, if you do not have faith in order to have access to stand in grace, then neither do you have peace with God, nor are you justified by faith (cp. Rom. 5:1).

If you have faith,

you are justified
you have peace with God
you have access to stand in grace

If you do not stand in grace,

you do not have peace with God
you are not justified
you do not have faith

The consequence of the latter is eternal torment in Gehenna.

All this being said, I think you should also know that one may stand in grace (i.e., a state of grace) yet be a sinner. However, if we sin, we must confess and repent of our sins, and "he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness" (1 John 1:9). Sin defiles (Mark 7:23), thus the corollary is that if we do not confess and repent of our sins, we are defiled with unrighteousness, but "nothing that defiles shall enter into it" (Rev. 21:27), that is, God's kingdom and New Jerusalem. For those standing in grace who sin without confessing and repenting their sin(s) before death, they must still be purified from the unrighteousness of their sins after death by enduring Purgatory (purification).

The Catechism of the Catholic Church, §1030, states,

  All who die in God's grace and friendship, but still imperfectly purified, are indeed assured of their eternal salvation; but after death they undergo purification, so as to achieve the holiness necessary to enter the joy of heaven.

Footnotes

The Latin is in gratiam istam in qua stamus. The word stamus is a verb conjugated from the lemma sto. The word status is a noun related to the verb sto; it means "place; position; state; status."

Nowhere in the Bible is there “state of grace”.  Grace is defined as unmerited or undeserved favor from God.

  By Grace you are saved, Eph 2:8.

Which means you cannot earn heaven by being good.

Now continue reading verse 9.

  Your saved by grace and it’s NOT of yourself or NOT of good works.

Also there is nothing in the Bible about committing a mortal sin.  If you commit one lie your deserving of hell.  One little sin.  That’s why we need a Savior.  His one time sacrifice on the cross for our sins by Jesus death and resurrection is the only way to get to Heaven.

Titus 3:5a

  Not by works of righteousness which we have done but according to His
  mercy he saved us.

Just believe it!


Do people go to heaven immediately when they die? When someone passes away, at their funeral the priest will usually say something that gives the idea that the deceased is in heaven. And a lot of people also like to give the idea that people who die are with Jesus Christ. For instance, say someone close to you passed away, chances are you've said something that gives the idea that the person is in heaven, such as, "I know you are in a better place, near Jesus Christ."

The reason I ask this question is that the when people die, I know that they go to the world of the dead till the day that Jesus Christ will return. But if people are already in heaven this means that there really isn't much reason for Jesus Christ to return, because all those that believe in Him are already in heaven.

If Jesus Christ will return and all those that have faith in Him will be raised and be priests with Him for a thousand years, why make it seem as if the deceased are already in heaven? If someone dies and goes to heaven before the Last Judgement, what need is there for him to be judged at the final judgement? Hasn't he already been judged righteous if he is in heaven?

That death and "sleeping," are often conflated in Scripture is perhaps a useful metaphor here. Notice how, in 1 Corinthians 15, Paul likens those who have died to those who have "fallen asleep in Christ."

  And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins. 18 Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ are lost. 19 If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are of all people most to be pitied. 20 But Christ has indeed been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep.

This is a useful metaphor, for when a normal person falls asleep, they are unaware of the passage of time.  Whether or not there is a time lag between dying and being raised back up is, in fact, irrelevant.

The person who has died is unaware of the passage of time.  For that person, whether Christ tarries a thousand years or only minutes, is, to the dead, indistinguishable.  There is no sensation between now and then, so it doesn't really matter.
To the person who is still alive, there is no communication in any event, so that the precise location of the soul is not important.  We thus do not "mourn as the Gentiles do," but rather we have a hope and a peace that passes understanding - because we know that at the end of our temporal existence, we will be reunited with our loved ones.  Once we die, sensation ceases for us as well - and at that point, eternity begins.
To God, who is outside of time, time and space are irrelevant.  All things occur at once.

The next communication we have with our loved ones will, in fact, be in heaven - so in a sense to say they "are in heaven" - which may or may not, at that exact moment, be temporally accurate or not - is not really the question being addressed.  That our next moment of contact will be in heaven is the point, and on that point, if it is not true, then everything else is vain any way.

In any event, the focus is that at some point, the promise of the Christian life is the hope that we will be resurrected - that we will be "awoken" is beyond doubt - and when we are, oh what a day of rejoicing that will be!

  50 I declare to you, brothers and sisters, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable. 51 Listen, I tell you a mystery: We will not all sleep, but we will all be changed— 52 in a flash, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed.

Put another, the current chronology is irrelevant.  The end state is the same - we will all, at some point, in an instant, be together in heaven with Christ.

It's kind of a touchy subject either way and doesn't really make much of a difference. However on the cross Jesus told the thief "Tonight you will be with me in paradise" which if taken literally then it should be clear that they went to 'paradise'. However this paradise is not directly portrayed as heaven. The implication is that as the riteous we should go to paradise directly after death and that when a new heaven and a new earth are created then we will be in the new and perfected earth with God. I'm not sure if that makes much sense or if it's correct but that's what I personally get from it.

The only problem with this paradise vs. heaven theory is that in the apostles creed we state that "Jesus now sits at the right hand of God the father" and therefore how can they be separate and Jesus be both in paradise with us and in heaven with god the father.


Does God tempt Abraham in Genesis 22:1? In James 1:13 it says:

  Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man:

But in Genesis 22:1 it is written:

  And it came to pass after these things, that God did tempt Abraham, and said unto him, Abraham: and he said, Behold, here I am.

So did God actually tempt Abraham or not?

No, God does not.
In hebrew the word there is נָסָה the KJV translates it as "tempt", but strong's translates it as "to test". In fact if you check out other translations you'll find thats how they translate it as well.
So what was God doing in Genesis 22? Was he tempting Abraham or testing him? Reading on in the chapter God makes it clear.

2 “Take your son, your only son—yes, Isaac, whom you love so much—and
go to the land of Moriah. Go and sacrifice him as a burnt offering on
one of the mountains, which I will show you.”
...
12 “Don’t lay a hand on
the boy!” the angel said. “Do not hurt him in any way, for now I know
that you truly fear God. You have not withheld from me even your son,
your only son.”

God was testing Abraham to see if he feared Him. And because of Abraham's obedience and faith he was blessed and so were we.

God did not test or tempt Abraham in genesis 22. The problem is no one in here knows the hebrew language. I challenge everyone to read the Hebrew words. The prefix "ha" is the equivalent of our English word "the". The hebrew of genesis 22 is written as "ha elohim" which means "the gods". The only time the word elohim becomes singular is when the angel of Yahweh appears to stop Abraham. If you don't believe me then read it for yourself. Get an interlinear and check it out.


Are there unforgivable sins? Jesus came and died for our sins so that we may be forgiven and have salvation.

But Matthew 12:32 (NIV) says there is at least one thing to prevent being forgiven.

  32 Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but anyone who speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come.

Are there unforgivable actions that would clash with Jesus' sacrifice (eg: an unbeliever 'speaks against the Holy Spirit', then later in life repents and turns to Christ.) Will that person be granted eternal life?

In the gospels Jesus speaks, as your question points out, of the unforgivable sin of blasphemy against the Holy Spirit.  Indeed it's true that blaspheming the Spirit of God is a grave sin. It's important to keep in mind that he was speaking not to his disciples or to the crowds following him, but to the Pharisees who accused him saying "It is only by Beelzebul, the ruler of the demons, that this fellow casts out the demons."  Those Pharisees did not say what they said by carelessness or momentary anger. They said it intentionally and deliberately, in order to entrap Jesus.  And his response ("unforgivable sin") was an explanation of the spiritual consequences of their actions.  I think he was inviting them to repent.  But what do I know?

Sisters and brothers, for pastoral reasons I urge you to be very VERY careful with speech about this unforgivable sin.  There are a surprising number of people in this broken world of ours who have become convinced that they have committed this sin and are beyond redemption.

The ones I have spoken to are seriously seeking some kind of reconciliation, but have become convinced they're not worth it.  Some are struggling with intrusive thoughts of personal unworthiness, and others are struggling to repent of past angry thoughts or words.   Not one of these people seeking redemption from God can possibly be guilty of this sin of blasphemy against the Spirit:  it is that same Spirit that inhabits their hearts and turns them to seek God.  Jesus did not turn away ANYONE who sincerely sought healing or repentance.

So, let's you and I leave all judgement about this sin to God, OK? Please? For the life of the world?

I strongly disagree with most of the answers given here: The answer to your question is an absolute No!

I will also cite Matthew (5:43-48):

  “You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor[a] and hate your enemy.’44 But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you,45 that you may be children of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. 46 If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that?47 And if you greet only your own people, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that?48 Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.

It is clearly written here that perfection encompasses total forgivingness. Otherwise God would not be perfect which he is - he would be like a "tax collector". So he will forgive every sin and that is the incomprehensibly great story about our Saviour Jesus Christ.

It clearly encompasses "those who persecute you" which translates even to people that hate God and Jesus (or don't believe in him) - they will be saved too, this is the overwhelmingly good message of Jesus! He also gives the example of his causing the sun to rise on the evil! There is obviously no room for interpretation here because "the evil" is explicitly addressed.

It could justly be said that people who believe that God doesn't forgive everything accuse God of not being perfect because he would only reward those that love him (= "tax collector"). They don't understand the fantastic message Jesus is giving us here!

I think Jesus had a point and it is no coincidence that he is so direct here and gives so many clear examples.


Why did Esau despise his birthright? Genesis 25:29-34 tells the story about Esau selling his birthright because he is hungry and despised it.

  And Jacob sod pottage: and Esau came from the field, and he was faint: And Esau said to Jacob, Feed me, I pray thee, with that same red pottage; for I am faint: therefore was his name called Edom. And Jacob said, Sell me this day thy birthright. And Esau said, Behold, I am at the point to die: and what profit shall this birthright do to me? And Jacob said, Swear to me this day; and he sware unto him: and he sold his birthright unto Jacob. Then Jacob gave Esau bread and pottage of lentiles; and he did eat and drink, and rose up, and went his way: thus Esau despised his birthright.

Why did he (Esau) despise his birthright?

Is there a good Christian commentary that explains what "despised" means, and why Esau would have despised it?

Esau despised his birthright. In order to understand this, first we need to understand what it means in this context to "despise" and also what the birthright was.

What was a birthright?

An abundance of sources will tell you that in the Ancient Near East context, the birthright goes to the eldest son. All sons receive a "portion" of the inheritance of their father, but the one who receives the birthright receives a double portion. He would also be the "head" of the family.

What did despise (בָּזָה) mean?

Different translations have:

  Despise (NIV, ESV, NASB, KJV, HCSB, NET, WEB), contempt (NLT), belittle
  (ISV), make little account of (Douay-Rheims)

Strong's defines it as:

  despise, disdain, contemptible, think to scorn, vile person

NET Bible Notes say:

  So Esau despised his birthright. This clause, which concludes the
  episode, is a summary statement which reveals the underlying
  significance of Esau’s actions. “To despise” means to treat something
  as worthless or with contempt. Esau’s willingness to sell his
  birthright was evidence that he considered it to be unimportant.

Bottom line: He considered his birthright to be unimportant.

What was Esau's birthright?

God makes a covenant with Abraham in Genesis 17:

  I have made you a father of many nations. I will make you very fruitful; I will make nations of you, and kings will come from you. I will establish my covenant as an everlasting covenant between me and you and your descendants after you for the generations to come, to be your God and the God of your descendants after you. The whole land of Canaan, where you now reside as a foreigner, I will give as an everlasting possession to you and your descendants after you; and I will be their God.

This reiterates and expands on the promises God had already made to Abraham in Genesis 12, 13, and 15. In Genesis 25:11, it says that "after Abraham's death, God blessed Isaac." In the next chapter, God speaks to Isaac:

  Stay in this land for a while, and I will be with you and will bless you. For to you and your descendants I will give all these lands and will confirm the oath I swore to your father Abraham. I will make your descendants as numerous as the stars in the sky and will give them all these lands, and through your offspring all nations on earth will be blessed, because Abraham obeyed me and did everything I required of him, keeping my commands, my decrees and my instructions.

These are the blessings that Esau was to inherit, in addition to his father's property. He was to receive the promise of fathering many nations, being a blessing to other nations, and a close relationship with God. But this he despised.

Why did he despise it?

In Hebrews 12 we read:

  See that no one is sexually immoral, or is godless like Esau, who for
  a single meal sold his inheritance rights as the oldest son.
  Afterward, as you know, when he wanted to inherit this blessing, he
  was rejected. Even though he sought the blessing with tears, he could
  not change what he had done.

Esau is implicitly contrasted with Jesus, who is mentioned at the beginning of the chapter:

  For the joy set before him he endured the cross, scorning its shame, and sat down at the right hand of the throne of God.

Jesus endured the hardship of the cross in order to secure blessings for all nations. Esau gave in to his momentary hunger in order to forego his blessing. Ultimately the reason he despised his birthright could be said to be that his god was his stomach. Paul has this to say about such men in Philippians 3:

  For, as I have often told you before and now tell you again even with tears, many live as enemies of the cross of Christ. Their destiny is destruction, their god is their stomach, and their glory is in their shame. Their mind is set on earthly things. But our citizenship is in heaven. And we eagerly await a Savior from there, the Lord Jesus Christ, who, by the power that enables him to bring everything under his control, will transform our lowly bodies so that they will be like his glorious body.

Additional Resources

A Despised Birthright | Ligonier Ministries
Despising the Blessings of God | First Baptist Church of Toulon

The reason Esau despised his birthright is because he is at the point to die. Meaning he and the nation of people that he is the father of ( Edom)  was created to be the vessels of dishonor, the son of perdition,  fitted for destruction at the end of what the gentiles call this life, but know to the spiritual vessels of honor ( children of Israel) as the election. This is explained in Romans 9:11-22. Esau and Cain are one in the same, the serpents seed. There punishment is reserved until the end. Esau/Edom are carnal and defiled by the vanities of this world. Jacob/Israel where put at the bottom of society by the MOST HIGH for defiling themselves with the vanity of this world, but the elect number of them will endure until the end in accordance with GODS laws, statues and commandments, as well as spiritual faith until the LORD ends their final captivity and destroys the kingdom of Esau, and the children of Israel shall posses the nation on Edom as slaves in the kingdom of the LORD. As told in Isaiah 14:1-3 and Revelation 13:9-10. As well as the book of Obadiah the smallest book in the bible 1 chapter long that depicts the end of Esau.     -


How did Nathanael see the angels of God ascending and descending on the Son of Man? In Jesus' encounter with Nathanael, Jesus concludes the conversation by indicating that Nathanael, as well as others, would see the angels of God ascending and descending on the Son of Man.

  43 The next day Jesus decided to go to Galilee. He found Philip and
  said to him, “Follow me.” 44 Now Philip was from Bethsaida, the city
  of Andrew and Peter. 45 Philip found Nathanael and said to him, “We
  have found him of whom Moses in the Law and also the prophets wrote,
  Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph.” 46 Nathanael said to him, “Can
  anything good come out of Nazareth?” Philip said to him, “Come and
  see.” 47 Jesus saw Nathanael coming toward him and said of him,
  “Behold, an Israelite indeed, in whom there is no deceit!” 48
  Nathanael said to him, “How do you know me?” Jesus answered him,
  “Before Philip called you, when you were under the fig tree, I saw
  you.” 49 Nathanael answered him, “Rabbi, you are the Son of God! You
  are the King of Israel!” 50 Jesus answered him, “Because I said to
  you, ‘I saw you under the fig tree,’ do you believe? You will see
  greater things than these.” 51 And he said to him, “Truly, truly, I say to you, you will see heaven opened, and the angels of God ascending and descending on the Son of Man.”  John 1:43-51 ESV

So, in what manner did Nathanael "see the angels of God ascending and descending on the son of Man?"

According to someone in this question (moved from christianity to hermeneutics):

  First, the phrase "the angels of God ascending and descending" links Jesus' statement back to Jacob's dream in Genesis 28. In that story Jacob himself glimpses a new reality. He says, "Surely the LORD is in this place, and I was not aware of it. How awesome is this place! This is none other than the house of God; this is the gate of heaven." In connecting himself to this, Jesus is perhaps indicating that what Jacob saw, Nathanael will soon see in the Son of Man: namely, the presence of the I AM, the "house of God" and the "gate of heaven" (cf. John 8:58, John 2:19-22, John 10:1-9).

Also according to bible.cc:

  Heaven open - This is a figurative expression, denoting "the conferring of favors." Psalm 78:23-24; "he opened the doors of heaven, and had rained down manna." It also denotes that God was about to work a miracle in attestation of a particular thing. See Matthew 3:16. In the language, here, there is an evident allusion to the ladder that Jacob saw in a dream, and to the angels ascending and descending on it, Genesis 28:12. It is not probable that Jesus referred to any particular instance in which Nathanael should literally see the heavens opened. The baptism of Jesus had taken place, and no other instance occurred in his life in which it is said that the "heavens were" opened.

As both quotations seem to say that it has something to do with Jacobs Ladder I think that it is safe to say the same. Also it is interesting to note that Nathanael was a descendant of Jacob. This link here also talks a little about this topic, saying:

  this passage shows Nathanael to be a thoughtful and reflective sort of person.  The statements of Jesus Christ about being an Israelite relate to his descent from Jacob, who was certainly a man full of guile and deceit during his early life.  That said, it would appear as if Nathanael was under the fig tree (a common representation of a philosophical sort of person) thinking about the dream of Jacob where angels went up and down the stairway to heaven, showing the relationship between heaven and earth and the possibility of communication between the two realms.  This musing on deep and spiritual matters allows Jesus Christ to call him as a member of the twelve without hesitation or complaint.

I don't know if people dislike so many quotations, but I found that they all relate quite well to the subject. I don't know. Think what you will from the quotations and links. What i get from it is that it was more of one of Jesus' encrypted sayings, not really meaning exactly what he says.

The son of man is a royal reference. "Son of" is a hybrid real/metaphorical reference that can indicate blood relation, relation in terms of function, likeness or classification. There is a messianic reference to a son of David that could be by blood, but more likely is by class as David was a remarkable king set apart in terms of leadership style and dynamic understanding of the kingdom. However after the fall of Jerusalem David is still admired for his liturgical process but condemned and the search for a king who would follow the Torah to the letter pressed on - this would usher in the era of God's kingdom on earth.

However, the people of the time were well aware of generational degradation and as in prior years they felt that humanity had gone too far. The desert did what it could to purge the nation of prior ills, but the return to the land and the second temple provided yet another generation of hypocritical reformers and eyes turned back to the collection of genesis and the period of time when humanity was entrenched in liturgical duties of love and stewardship to creation under direct guidance and support from God. David developed an impeccable formula for this to some degree, but the people recognized that Adam was the primordial royal person - one who was a son of the earth by flesh and a direct heir of God by breath. The seeking of the son of man is a reflection of the hope of the people that God would raise a perfect specimen and roll back the odometer on humanity's decay.

Christ speaks to this by relating to the people that angels will descend and ascend upon the son of man - the liturgical cycle of yielding needs and delivering the fulfillment of providence to the people will be engaged by a person who fits the criteria of being as a person who was as Adam was to God before the fall - a son of man. Later theologians would postulate that God created the world to respond loyally and positively to Adam's divine image, but in order to accomplish this God had to beget Christ as a person, and then created the universe to suit and serve that person, and then form man in the image of God and give it His spirit. Thus Christ is referred to as the Second Adam or New Adam because His incarnation is the completion of a story arc that begins in the mind of the father before the world was even created.

So the reference to the angels and the son of man is a royal reference that Christ uses to indicate he is fulfilling this desired model in the near future - it is akin to his transfiguration as a sign of His fulfillment of the law and the prophets, but it speaks to a newer developing theology that was messianic but outside the status quo.


What is the Biblical evidence that there are ONLY three persons in the "Trinity"? (This is a followup to the various answers for the question What is the Biblical basis for the doctrine of the Trinity?)

The specific concept of 'trinity' isn't specifically spelled out in the Bible.  Instead, we have deduced from various scripture verses that there are three distinct persons within the Godhead.

What is the Biblical evidence that there are only three persons in the Godhead?  Why don't trinitarians believe that there could be others that are not revealed specifically through scripture, or that we can attribute multiple "persons" to a single concept of Father or Holy Spirit?

Our biggest clue is from this scripture:

Matthew 28:19 (NIV)

  Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,

Beyond that, I know of no other verses that limit the Godhead to three persons.

In the Book of Job, there are nine speaking roles. Job's wife has a one liner, so I will ignore her.

God and Satan speak in the prologue, God as Trinity (Elohim, the strange plural-singular construction, is used as his name) and Satan representing all his minions. Job and his wife also speak in the prologue.

In the main dialogue, there are six speakers: three friends (Eliphaz, Bildad and Zophar), Job, Elihu and the voice from the whirlwind.

Each person in the trinity is represented by a speaker:

Job is God the Son, the Son of Man (he places his hope in the Son of Man in Job 16:21)
Elihu is the Holy Spirit (Job 32:8)
The voice from the whirlwind is God the Father (cares for his creatures)

Each of the three fiends plays an antagonistic role:

Bildad is the anti-Christ (he insults the Son of Man in Job 25:5-6)
Eliphaz is the evil spirit (he is visited by a fearful spirit in Job 4:12-17)
Zophar is the Father of lies (he alone of the friends refers to God as Elohim in Job 20:29)

It is a peculiar asymmetry that Eliphaz and Bildad speak three times, but Zophar only once. Because of the assignments made, consider Zophar coupled with Satan. Then the sequence of Satan and the friends speaking is:

Satan, Eliphaz, Bildad
Zophar, Eliphaz, Bildad
Zophar, Eliphaz, Bildad

Thus the sequence is Father of Lies, Evil Spirit, Anti-Christ.

Looking at the true persons of the trinity, the sequence is:

Job (Son of Man), Elihu (Holy Spirit), voice of God (Father)

This pattern defines a chiasm (pyramid structure common in Hebrew literature):

  A.      Father of Lies
    B.    Evil Spirit
      C.  Anti-Christ
      C'. Son of Man (Christ)
    B'.   Holy Spirit
  A'.     God the Father

The assignments of the people to their roles in the Trinity thus has support in the details of their speeches as well as the overall structure of the document.

There are three persons in the Godhead and each has a speaking part in Job. There are three distinct antagonistic roles, and each attacks one person of the Trinity. If there were more persons, there would be more parts.


What is the difference between evangelizing and proselytizing? Aren't they both focused on converting people? What's the difference?

Evangelism is Christian proselytizing

To proselytize means to attempt to convert a person from one religion to another. To evangelize means to proselytize for Christianity.

What is the difference between evangelizing and proselytizing?

Gospel = euaggelion = good news

Evangelist = euaggelistēs = one who heralds or proclaims the good news

Proselytize is not in the Bible. Proselytizing exceeds the definition of proclaim by going into the realm of salesmanship and even coercion.


Interpreting Acts 2:38 together with John 1:12 Acts 2:38, "Peter said to them, 'Repent, and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins ; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.'"
John 1:12, "But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name . . .."

How do we interpret Acts 2:38 which seems to require baptism for forgiveness of sin, compared with John 1:12 which simply requires belief in Christ?

Peter does not say "and if you don't get baptized you won't be saved".

Almost all Christian denominations take the view that baptism is the normal thing to do, and that Christians should do it. That doesn't imply that failing to do so for some reason invalidates your faith or excludes you from salvation. Likewise there is nothing in the Acts passage that implies that.

Being born into the breath

  Then Peter said to them, “Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. (Acts 2:38 NKJV)

Once a person starts to listen to what people say with there mouth and the events that occurs after the word is spoken, the people realize that statements about error should not be said, therefore when a person repents (meaning that they stop speaking about error), they start to speak about the goals of functionality meaning the prophecy of the Holy Breath. Then the errors stop occurring in the persons life and they are forgiven.

Believing in the words "will be"(יהוה) the "name of the Lord"

  But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, to those who believe in His name:  (John 1:12 NKJV)

For anything that is said "will be" will be. Both positive and negative. Therefore we are saved when we repent of pointing out error, and believe that what we say will be in a positive light will be.

Example: This will be understood.


What are the differences between God and mankind? A lot has been said about man being made in God's image. However, when I once explained this to a Hindu lady, she said "God in man's image or man in God's image, it's all the same", implying that she thought the God of the Bible was just man's projection.

However, I think it would be useful to have some explanation of the "otherness" of God as seen in the Bible. I think that most non-Christians are unaware that the Bible has a particular view of God, that is different from their own. It would be nice to have some discussion on the question of the otherness of God.

The statement that your quoted from the Hindu believer has a Pantheistic notion in it. Contrast this with the way the Christian Holy Bible consistently teaches about God and His plan for humanity.

God is distinctly declared as the Creator of Heaven and Earth and the first human being. The account of the creation of the world starting from Genesis 1:1 would be a good starting point.
The names ascribed to God in the ancient Hebrew traditions (Old Testament) would be another field of study that can profoundly improve our understanding on the observable attributes of God that His chosen people ascribed to Him.
God reveals Himself in three persons, co-equal, co-eternal (the concept of Trinity) in order to carry out the plan of Salvation.
And lastly, and most pertinent when discussing Christianity with people of different faiths, is the fact that the Christian Bible is not a collection of wisdoms, it is not a collection of legends, it is not a collection of legalistic rules and regulations.  Instead, it use all those to weave a coherent blueprint and a model on how to connect ourselves to God, so we can participate in His plan using His strength.  This plan has a definite beginning, and it has a definite end.  It is not an cycle with indefinite number of iterations.

Of course, this doesn't even began to describe how rich the revelation of God in the Scriptures really is. This is just a starting point, a frame of mind to start a discussion.

God is the creator and man is the creation . Meaning God has power over creation and man has no power over the Creator.God holds the purpose of man, whilst man should execute God's purpose. There are things in life that man cannot change nomatter how hard he forces and pray, because he is there to fulfil God's purpose, but God can, since he holds the purpose. Man is a little God , not God himself.For example , if man makes a chair to seat on it, when the chair refuses to be sat on, meaning its failing to execute the purpose of it's creation .

Stay blessed


2 Corinthians 2:15-16 - what does this passage mean? Peace, grace and blessings everyone!  I’m new to this board. I look forward to everyone's answer.

  For we are a fragrance of Christ to God among those who are being
  saved and among those who are perishing;to the one an aroma from death
  to death, to the other an aroma from life to life. And who is adequate
  for these things? 2 Cor. 2:15-16

Now my focus is where it says “to the one an aroma from death to death, to the other an aroma from life to life”

What I'd like to know and understand is whether the “death unto death” is a statement referring to those who are “perishing” or to those who are being “saved”?

I may be in the minority, but I believe the "death unto death" is referring to those being "saved" and the "life unto life" to those who are perishing.

I say that base these passages:

  Precious in the sight of the LORD is the death of his saints. Psalm
  116:15

  Truly, truly, I say to you, unless a grain of wheat falls into the
  earth and dies, it remains alone; but if it dies, it bears much fruit.
  John 12:24

  Or do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ
  Jesus have been baptized into His death? Rom 6:3

  For whoever wishes to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses
  his life for My sake, he is the one who will save it. Luke 9:24

It seems to me that understanding our union and death in Christ is what brings "death unto death" which is indeed "precious in His sight" because I believe God wants us to understand that it takes a death to bring real life. The more that we know that nature of Adam was crucified and buried, the more we awaken to our union and oneness with God because of Christ For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all will be made alive.(1 Cor 15:22) And so to those who are then "perishing" (no knowledge or intimacy with God) the message of the cross and reconciliation can become "life unto life" once they believe and receive the free gift of salvation.

If we believe that it pleases Him that the aroma of those in Christ who minister the message of love and grace brings"death unto death" to those who are "perishing", then I beleive it contradicts what God says to Ezekiel:

  Do I have any pleasure in the death of the wicked,” declares the Lord
  God...Ezk 18:23

Would love to hear what others think.  Thanks!

2 Corinthians 2:15-16 - what does this passage mean?

  2 Corinthians 2:15-16  For we are unto God a sweet savour of Christ,
  in them that are saved, and in them that perish: To the one we are the
  savour of death unto death; and to the other the savour of life unto
  life. And who is sufficient for these things?

Paul uses the human faculty of sensation perception through chemicals in the air we know of as odor. He is saying that there is something distinct about Christians that is specifically discernable to God, the unsaved, and to other Christians.

When God perceives us, he is pleased to consider the life of Christ in us as a sweet reminder of all that is Jesus.

When the unsaved perceive us they also are able to detect something of Christ.

  John 3:19  And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the
  world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds
  were evil.

  John 15:19  If ye were of the world, the world would love his own: but
  because ye are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the
  world, therefore the world hateth you.

It may be that the unsaved perceive at some level their own eventual doom and see in Christians that which is odious.

It is also possible for a Christian to perceive another Christian like the encounter of a pleasant smell.

Philippians 4:18  But I have all, and abound: I am full, having received of Epaphroditus the things which were sent from you, an odour of a sweet smell, a sacrifice acceptable, wellpleasing to God.

To my mind, the overriding context, is expanded in 1 Peter 2:7-8

  Now to you who believe, this stone is precious. But to those who do not believe,

  “The stone the builders rejected
      has become the cornerstone,”
  and,

  “A stone that causes people to stumble
     and a rock that makes them fall.”
  They stumble because they disobey the message — which is also what they were destined for.

From this, I would argue that Paul is indeed intending a straight reading - that to those who are dead [in sin and trespasses], the people bringing the message, or aroma, only succeed in confirming their death. To those that God has chosen, the message, the knowledge of Christ, is life.

To answer your point about the apparent contradiction between it being a "pleasing aroma" to God and it being death to those who reject it, something similar is argued against in Romans 7:9

  Once I was alive apart from the law; but when the commandment came, sin sprang to life and I died.

Does this mean that the law was displeasing to God?
(Romans 5, 6 and 7 go into this whole topic in much more depth)