What is the "abomination of desolation"? "'Therefore when you see the abomination of desolation which was spoken of through Daniel the prophet, standing in the holy place (let the reader understand)'"  (Matthew 24:15, NASB)

I don't understand.

I'm just curious if anyone actually understands this?  Is this the Antichrist, or Jesus, or the Jews, or Rome...?  Is this a prophecy that will only be understood once it happens?  Make your case.  (See Daniel 9:27, 11:31, and 12:11.)

Christians of many persuasions recognize this text as a definite and peculiar sign concerning the last days. Yet even though the majority of them can agree that the abomination of desolation is an important sign, they can't seem to agree on its specific nature. Even preachers are thrown into a quagmire of confusion - looking for something that no one is very sure about. It is a perfect example of the blind leading the blind.
Of course, some believe they know the identity of the abomination of desolation. Some teach that this prophecy was fulfilled when Antiochus Epiphanes interrupted the temple sacrifices between 168 and 165 B.C. The abomination they point to is the pig Antiochus had offered on the altar in the temple complex. Others believe the abomination of desolation refers to a future time when an atheistic anti-christ will overthrow the temple in Jerusalem and use it as his throne. Then there are those who believe the abomination of desolation is the Roman standards which were worshiped in Jerusalem in 70 A.D. at the time of its destruction by Titus.
Just what exactly is the abomination of desolation? Is it any one of these alternatives? Is it all of them at the same time? Or could it be possible that not any of these interpretations are correct? The answer to these questions is vitally important. Jesus clearly implies that our very lives could be at stake over this matter.
Jesus tells us that our study of the abomination of desolation should focus on the book of Daniel (Matthew 24:15). When one makes a careful study of this book, he discovers that the abomination of desolation can be divided into three parts. These parts are: the abomination of desolation in Daniel's day (involving the first temple); the abomination of desolation in Jesus' day (involving the second temple); and finally the abomination of desolation in the time of the end (involving the whole Christian church). The issues that come into play in the abomination of desolation as treated in the book of Daniel remain consistent in each of its three phases. Therefore they are types, or examples, of each other.
The First Abomination
The key that unlocks the mystery of this prophetic event is found in the first two verses of Daniel.

In the third year of the reign of Jehoiakim king of Judah came
Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon unto Jerusalem, and beseiged it. And
the Lord gave Jehoiakim king of Judah into his hand, with part of the
vessels of the house of God: which he carried into the land of Shinar
to the house of his god; and he brought the vessels into the treasure
house of his god (Daniel 1:1,2).

In these two short sentences Daniel provides a concise historical background to the remainder of the book which follows.
Further study of Daniel's prologue reveals the abomination of desolation was existent in his time and led to Jerusalem's captivity. The Chronicler reveals the reason the Jewish kings fell to Babylon.

"Jehoiakim was twenty and five years old when he began to reign... and
he did that which was evil in the sight of the Lord his God."

It was because of Jehoiakim's iniquitous life that God allowed him to be taken captive.
The significant feature of this is that Jehoiakim's evil deeds are described this way:

"Now the rest of the acts of Jehoiakim, and his abominations which he
did, and that which was found in him, behold, they are written in the
book of the kings of Israel and Judah: and Jehoiachin his son reigned
in his stead" (2 Chronicles 36:5-8).

It was specifically the abominations of Jehoiakim that led him and his city to forfeit God's protection and thus fall to Nebuchadnezzar.
Unfortunately Jehoiachin, his son, didn't do much better. Scripture tells us he also did "that which was evil in the sight of the Lord." Consequently he too was taken captive to Babylon, and "Zedekiah his brother" was placed as king over Judah and Jerusalem (v. 9-11).
The Bible goes on to record that not only did Zedekiah turn out to be just as evil as his two predecessors, but "moreover all the chief of the priests, and the people, transgressed very much after all the abominations of the heathen" (v. 12-14). God's political and religious leaders, as well as the people, adopted heathen ways as their own. They did this at the expense of God's revealed truth. Notice where these abominations were committed: the people "transgressed very much after all the abominations of the heathen; and polluted the house of the Lord which he had hallowed in Jerusalem" (v. 14). These abominations were standing in God's consecrated holy place, the "house of the Lord." The religious leaders of the day had purposefully led the people to adopt heathen worship practices and incorporated them into their worship of God. In substituting for God's commandments the vain notions of men, the leaders of God's heritage provoked his wrath. The people rejected God's calls to repentance and reformation and were left to reap the consequences. "Therefore, he brought upon them the king of the Chaldees, who slew their young men with the sword in the house of their sanctuary" (v. 17).
This judgment was felt not only in the spilling of the blood, but in the complete destruction of the city and sanctuary (v. 19). This all was done "To fulfill the word of the Lord by the mouth of Jeremiah, until the land had enjoyed her sabbaths: for as long as she lay desolate she kept sabbath to fulfill threescore and ten years" (v. 21). The result of God's people practicing the religious abominations of the heathen was the desolation of their land, city and sanctuary.
Breaking The Sabbath Brought Desolation
Just what were these abominations that resulted in such desolation? Since this was all done "To fulfill the word of the Lord by the mouth of Jeremiah," then Jeremiah should be able to tell us what substitutions in worship had been made. In Jeremiah 17 the prophet is told to stand in the gate of the people and prophesy. Under a divine mandate, Jeremiah told the people that if they would honor God's seventh-day Sabbath their city would remain forever, and that this faithful obedience would lead them into such a relationship with Himself that they would be used to convert the surrounding heathen nations (ch. 17:19-26).
On the other hand, if they would not keep the Sabbath day holy God would allow their city to be desolated. "But if ye will not hearken unto me to hallow the Sabbath day, and not to bear a burden, even entering in at the gates of Jerusalem on the Sabbath day; then I will kindle a fire in the gates thereof, and it shall devour the palaces of Jerusalem, and it shall not be quenched" (v. 27).
Sadly, the Jews chose to continue breaking God's Sabbath and thus inaugurated their own destruction and captivity. The abomination that led to their desolation was breaking the Sabbath. Thus, we see the significance of 2 Chronicles 36:21:

"To fulfill the word of the Lord by the mouth of Jeremiah, until the
land had enjoyed her Sabbaths: for as long as she lay desolate she
kept Sabbath."

Ezekiel, who lived during the same time, also tells us about the abominations God's people were practicing in the holy place. In Ezekiel 8, the prophet was brought by vision to the door of the inner gate. God proceeded to show his servant the progressively greater outrages His people were committing. In verses 5 and 6 He speaks of an image that provoked Him to jealousy. In an escalation of outrage, unclean beasts had been brought into the house of God, women were weeping for Tammuz and the greatest abomination of all was twenty-five men standing in God's holy place "with their backs toward the temple of the Lord, and their faces toward the east; and they worshipped the sun toward the east" (Ezekiel 8:16).
God had instructed the Jews to erect the temple in a manner that would discourage the imitation of their heathen neighbors in sun worship. The ark of the covenant, the very focal point of the Jews' worship, was placed at the western end of the tabernacle. Thus the children of Israel would face the west, their backs to the rising sun, when they worshipped the true God. Yet the entrance of paganism among God's people had grown to such proportions that Judah's leading men were actually turning their backs on the temple of God. This was a significant act of apostasy.
Both Ezekiel and Jeremiah list the heathen practices that had been incorporated into the worship of God. Whether it was breaking the second commandment by idol worship, adoring unclean beasts, worshipping Tammuz, the mythological god of the pagans, or breaking God's holy Sabbath and worshiping the sun on the day consecrated to it, these practices all were classed by God as abominations. It was because the Jews persisted in justifying their own course and continued in these heathen customs that God permitted the desolation of their city.
Daniel himself agrees that it was the sins committed by God's people that caused their desolation.

"O Lord, according to all thy righteousness, I beseech thee, let thine
anger and thy fury be turned away from thy city Jerusalem, thy holy
mountain: because for our sins, and the iniquities of our fathers....
cause thy face to shine upon thy sanctuary that is desolate.... open
thy eyes, and behold our desolations..." (Daniel 9:16-18).

It is important to note that the abominations were done by the apostate people of God. This in turn resulted in their forfeiture of God's protection and called down His judgments and chastisement in their desolation. This scenario of the abomination of desolation in Daniel's day, involving the first Jewish temple period, prefigures the two other abominations of desolation prophesied in Daniel. The next one we shall consider is the one that concerns the second Jewish temple period.
The Second Temple Desolated
After their release from Babylonian captivity and rebuilding the city and temple, the Jewish leaders erected a mountain of rules and regulations designed to protect them from repeating the sins that had led to their bondage. The fourth commandment's seventh-day Sabbath became a special object of amendment. The Jews reasoned that since it was transgression of the Sabbath that led to their captivity, they needed to define in minute detail how the Sabbath should be kept.
Over 500 rules concerning Sabbathkeeping eventually resulted. Some of these Sabbath laws were as ridiculous as this: one could not leave an egg in the sun on the Sabbath because the sun might cook it, and cooking on the Sabbath was a violation of the fourth commandment. Of course, this only resulted in a system of pure legalism. At last the people began to believe that favor with God depended on how well they obeyed the traditions of their elders.
Ultimately the people were led full circle to disobedience again. Jesus comments that in spite of their apparent religiosity they were still breaking God's law even as their forefathers had during Isaiah's and Daniel's day.

"Well hath Isaiah prophesied of you hypocrites, as it is written, This
people honoreth me with their lips, but their heart is far from me.
Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the
commandments of men. For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold
the tradition of men... full well ye reject the commandment of God,
that ye may keep your own tradition... making the word of God of none
effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered" (Mark 7:6-13).

Once again the people found themselves immersed in vain and rebellious worship.
Even though their apostasy expressed itself in legalism instead of laxness, it was still based on the same principle upon which all pagan religions are based - that man can save himself by his own works. Jesus, like Jeremiah of old, rebuked this religious system and called it an abomination.

"Ye are they which justify yourselves before men; but God knoweth your
hearts: for that which is highly esteemed among men is abomination in
the sight of God" (Luke 16:15).

Jesus expressed His displeasure for their abominations on numerous occasions. Most notable were the two times He cleansed the temple. On these times He expressed His anger at the desecration of His holy place. The controversy between Jesus and the Jews steamed, boiled and spewed over religion. The religious leaders hated Him because He didn't look like the Messiah, He didn't respect their traditions and most notably He didn't keep the Sabbath in the manner they thought it should be kept. This latter issue infuriated the Jews and led them to seek Jesus' death (See John 5:10-16; Matthew 12:1-4; Mark 3:1-6).
In spite of the religious leaders' resistance, Jesus sought time and again to bring them to repentance and reformation. Often He reproved them for their erroneous ways and pointed the way to true and undefiled religion that is of great price in the sight of God. Yet they hardened their hearts and beat back the waves of God's mercy.
As Jesus entered Jerusalem for the last time, His prophetic eye saw the consequences of their constant rebellion. With a grief-stricken heart and tears coursing down His cheeks, He prophesied the coming doom of the city:

"For the days shall come upon thee, that thine enemies shall cast a
trench about thee, and compass thee round, and keep thee in on every
side and shall lay thee even with the ground, and thy children within
thee; and they shall not leave in thee one stone upon another; because
thou knewest not the time of thy visitation" (Luke 19:41-44).

After teaching in the temple for several days, Jesus left its precincts for the last time. Again He was choked with anguish as He saw the ultimate result of His people's apostasy. He exclaimed,

"O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest
them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy
children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her
wings and ye would not! Behold your house is left unto you desolate"
(Matthew 23:37,38).

On both these occasions Jesus placed the guilt upon the people by stating, "they knew not the time of their visitation" and "ye would not." As a result of not responding to God's call to turn from their abominations, their temple was to be desolated. This prophecy was fulfilled in 70 A.D. when the Roman armies of Titus burned the temple to the ground. This second desolation of the temple perfectly paralleled its first destruction. On both occasions the abominations were done by the apostate people of God and the desolation was an act of judgment performed by a heathen army.
This desolation of Jerusalem was prophesied by Daniel to come as a result of the people rejecting Messiah the prince. A careful study of Daniel 9:25-27 will show this to be the case. In verse 25 Messiah is promised to Israel and the city's restoration is also predicted. But then, ominously, all is prophesied for doom again. Verse 26 speaks of Messiah being killed by His own people and of how this act would cause their city and sanctuary to be desolated once again.
As Daniel heard Gabriel relay this prophecy, it was to his mind a replay of what he had seen happen to the Jerusalem of his day. The prophecy indicated that history would repeat itself, and this is exactly what happened. The abominations that God's people committed resulted, in both 586 B.C. and 70 A.D., in the destruction of their sanctuary and city -- first by Nebuchadnezzar, then by Titus.
Because Israel rejected the Messiah they lost their place as God's favored people. Jesus predicted this would take place by saying, "The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof" (Matthew 21:43). Israel forfeited their franchise of the gospel by their own obstinate sin.
Who would be the new nation to receive the kingdom of God and bring forth the fruits thereof? The Bible provides a clear and concise answer in the apostle Peter's letter to the Gentile converts who "In time past were not a people, but are now the people of God." Of the converts to Christianity, the new people of God, he further says, "But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvelous light" (1 Peter 2:9,10).
In the new dispensation God bestows upon the converted Christians all the privileges and promises that had been made to the literal seed of Abraham (see Galatians 3:26-29). Now converted Christians assume the role of Israel, and the Christian church absorbs the status of the temple or sanctuary of God. The Scriptures make this abundantly clear in such texts as Romans 2;28,29; Ephesians 2:11-13; 19-22; and 1 Peter 2:5.
The Final Desolation
It is in the light of this New Testament principle of spiritual Israel that Daniel speaks of the abomination of desolation the third and final time. These references can be found in Daniel 8:13; 11:31; and 12:11. Discerning students of prophetic history realize that these verses predict the formation and ascension of power by the Papacy. It is an indisputable fact of history that the Papacy brought into the Christian church the very same practices of paganism for which ancient Jerusalem was destroyed. One has to do only a little study to see how image worship, Tammuz worship, and sun worship were introduced to Christianity during the Dark Ages. Many of these abominations are still with us in the form of statues, candles for the saints, rosary beads, Easter sunrise services and Sunday worship. [For more information on this subject, see Amazing Facts' booklet Baptized Paganism.]
By no means does the papal apostasy exonerate Protestantism. Most Protestant churches accede to the apostasy by continuing the practice of abominations that have their roots firmly fixed in ancient pagan religions, which were established to destroy God's truth. Both Catholicism and Protestantism have fostered abominations in God's holy place, His church. The Christian church is mirroring literal Israel. We are repeating many of the same sins and will consequently reap the same punishment of desolation, unless we are willing to read the handwriting on the wall and flee from Babylon.
It is clear that the three occasions of abomination of desolation found in Daniel result from apostasy on the part of God's people, but what is the sign that will tell us when the desolation is nigh?
In Luke 21:20 Jesus told His disciples what would be the last sign of the imminent destruction of Jerusalem. He said, "And when ye shall see Jerusalem compassed with armies, then know that the desolation thereof is nigh." This text does not indicate that the armies are the abomination, but rather that the armies were the instrument to cause desolation. Through the Roman armies God would execute "the days of vengeance" for Israel's abominations.
When the Roman armies surrounded Jerusalem, it was a sign that most of the city's leaders and inhabitants had passed the boundaries of grace and had filled their cup of iniquity. To the Christians living in the city, this was to be a sign that Jerusalem would soon suffer God's judgment. As soon as the first opportunity arose, these Christians were to "flee to the mountains" (v. 21). In 66 A.D. when Cestius, the Roman general, surrounded the city the Christians knew the promised sign had arrived and the time had come to flee. At their first opportunity to escape they did so, and not one Christian died in the horrible destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D.
Just as God gave the early Christians a sign of when to flee Jerusalem, so He has given us a sign. He has made it possible for every Christian to know when this world's probationary hour is nearing its close.
In Revelation 13 and 14 John records a list of omens that will tell us just how close we are to the end. The sign that will show this nation has filled its cup of iniquity will be when it makes an image to the Papacy by uniting church and state. How much more neatly could this be effected than by the passage of a national Sunday law commanding everyone to honor a pagan day of worship? Such an event will be a direct fulfillment of Revelation 13:15-17, and provide assurance that the end of this earth's time is quickly approaching.
One author describes coming events this way: "As the approach of Roman armies was a sign to the disciples of the impending destruction of Jerusalem, so may this apostasy be a sign to us that the limit of God's forbearance is reached, that the measure of our nation's iniquity is full, and that the angel of mercy is about to take her flight." When the churches have apostasized in their abominations to such a degree that they enact legislation of a religious law which displaces God's holy Sabbath with a pagan holiday, we may leave our cities, knowing that a time of trouble will be forthcoming.
The abomination of desolation is an important subject in these last days. If we study this prophecy carefully, we will find that in each of its three fulfillments refers to a national apostasy by God's people that ends in their tragic destruction. We are now living in the time of the Christian church's final apostasy, which makes of none effect the commandments of God. We need to see that we are in the midst of fulfilling prophecy and keep our eyes open for the culmination of all things.
Our only sure protection against the abomination of desolation is to give our lives unreservedly to Jesus, loving others as He loves them and worshiping Him in the way that His word teaches. The greatest commandment is simply to love God with all our heart and soul and strength. If we have such love, it will be natural for us to do all things to please and honor Him. In return, He will see us safely through the desolation that will close this earth's history just before He comes again.

Daniel 12:13
His armed forces will rise up to desecrate the temple fortress and will abolish the daily sacrifice. Then they will set up the abomination that causes desolation.

Mathew 24:15
15 “So when you see standing in the holy place ‘the abomination that causes desolation,’ spoken of through the prophet Daniel—let the reader understand— 16 then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains. 17 Let no one on the housetop go down to take anything out of the house. 18 Let no one in the field go back to get their cloak. 19 How dreadful it will be in those days for pregnant women and nursing mothers! 20 Pray that your flight will not take place in winter or on the Sabbath. 21 For then there will be great distress, unequaled from the beginning of the world until now—and never to be equaled again.

The abomination of desolation is a nuclear device that terrorists will smuggle in to the temple of Jerusalem in the future. This is clear from both Mathew 24:15-20 and Daniel 12:13(His armed forces will rise up to desecrate the temple fortress and will abolish the daily sacrifice. Then they will set up the abomination that causes desolation). Mathew 24:21 predicts that they would be successful in detonating the nuke, and then the end will come.


Do Pentecostals believe that they are speaking real languages or that God purposely uses gibberish? How do Pentecostals reconcile the babbling of modern "tongues" with the scriptural example of actual languages being spoken? Do they say that the babbling is indeed a real language or that God has chosen now to use babbling for other purposes than to edify by communicating actual messages? In other words, do they teach that the ecstatic incoherent sounds are now the divine order or do they say that what appears to be repeated meaningless pseudo-lingo is actually a real language?

I've heard at least two lines of thought on the issue back when I was in the Charismatic movement, attending Full Gospel churches etc.

A minority of folks seem to cite the verse of saint Paul that mention "the tongues of Angels" and claim it as a kind of heavenly language.
Romans 8:26:

  In the same way, the Spirit helps us in our weakness. We do not know what we ought to pray for, but the Spirit himself intercedes for us through wordless groans.

The majority however see this as being a proof text for modern glossalia being "gibberish", most of the time.   However many Charismatics will point out many anecdotal tales where people who believe they are just speaking the groans of the spirit/gibberish are in fact speaking actual languages that they never studied!   (There is someone in the congregation that studied the language that recognizes the speech as being a language in an ancient or modern tongue and can even translate the message, which is often a praise to God or some other similar message.)

The idea is that tongued is an unknown language to it's speaker, whether a current language, a "dead" language, or a tongue of Angles and Demons. No "gibberish" is involved. It is a sort of praise to God.


Is the Eastern Orthodox opposition to the Immaculate Conception an innovation? This question of mine springs from reading this article (Orthodoxy and the Doctrine of the Immaculate Conception) referenced in this answer to this Christianity SE question: What is the Catholic response to the Eastern Orthodox view that the Immaculate Conception remove Jesus' ability to redeem all of humanity?

Basically it contests the modern assertion of Orthodox teachers that the Eastern Orthodox church has always opposed the idea of the immaculate conception and instead taught that Mary became pure while raised in the temple as articulated in this podcast: Perfection Possible.

I have a suspicion that the article imposes Western Catholic meanings on the writings of the Eastern fathers/teachers that they cite. I could not look up the references on the internet (for free anyways). Can anyone provide support for or argument against this article while actually citing texts from Eastern Orthodox teachers that I can read or at least providing quotes. Any citation from an EO teacher before the 15th century would be fitting, as the article maintains that it wasn't until this time that the Orthodox began to react against the immaculate conception.

The one source I looked up this morning was from St. Gregory Palamas: Sermon on the Entry of the Mother of God into the Temple. Where he seems to teach something in complete agreement with the contemporary Orthodox view. Specifically, that the Virgin Mary was made pure not simply by election of God, but that her own will and ascetical efforts were involved as well. The corollary being that original sin doesn't need to be miraculously removed by the pre-election of God, but that our ancestral sin is removed by a participatory process.

Is the Eastern Orthodox opposition to the immaculate conception an innovation? YES

In light of their own Tradition which already celebrated the Immaculate Conception having their own liturgy during the early Church Father time.

  Fr. Casimir Kucharek in his magnus opus "The Byzantine-Slav Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom" (1971; Alleluia Press, pp. 355-357) marshals the evidence that the early Eastern Church did believe in and commemorate the Immaculate Conception of the Theotokos:

  *Also, from end to end of the Byzantine world, both Catholic and Orthodox greet the Mother of God as "archrantos", "the immaculate, spotless one," no less than eight times in the Divine Liturgy alone. But especially on the feast of her conception (December 9 in the Byzantine Church) is her immaculateness stressed: "This day, O faithful, from saintly parents begins to take being the spotless lamb, the most pure tabernacle, Mary..."; "She is conceived...the only immaculate one"; "or "Having conceived the most pure dove, Anne filled...." [References: From the Office of Matins, the Third Ode of the Canon for the feast; From the Office of Matins, the Stanzas during the Seating, for the same feast; From the Office of Matins, the Sixth Ode of the Canon for the same feast.]*

  Has Eastern Orthodoxy always opposed the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception of the Theotokos, the Mother of God? She is praised in the Megalynarion hymn in the Divine Liturgy and in Vespers and Matins showing the pre-eminence of Mary among the saints:
  It is truly right to bless you, O Theotokos, ever-blessed and most pure, and the Mother of our God. More honorable than the Cheribum, and more glorious beyond compare than the Seraphim, without defilement you gave birth to God the Word: True Theotokos, we magnify you.

  *How is the Theotokos "most pure"? Most Orthodox would say that she was without sin at the Annunciation, but would disagree that the Virgin Mary was conceived immaculate by St. Anne. Fr. Peter E. Gillquist comments in "Becoming Orthodox":*

This is where the problem starts with some if not most of the Orthodox. The question is when is Mary begin to be addressed "All-Holy" or spotless?

Some or perhaps most acknowledged Mary as "All-Holy" at the Annunciation, and this is where the innovation begin as the Eastern Orthodox upheld Mary's dignity even at Her origin coming from a saintly parents.

  No sin, no fault, not even the slightest, ever marred the perfect sanctity of this masterpiece of God's creation. For hundred of years, the Byzantine Church has believed this, prayed and honored Mary in this way. Centuries of sacred tradition stand behind this title.

ORTHODOXY AND THE DOCTRINE OF THE IMMACULATE CONCEPTION OF THE THEOTOKOS—UNIQUE TO THE MODERN ROMAN CHURCH OR ANCIENT EASTERN TRADITION?

So, the problem really is Eastern Orthodox must revisit one of their Great Theologian and also acknowledge by the West as Doctor of the Church. The wisdom & teaching of St. John Damascene can harmonize the Catechism of the Catholic Church and Immaculate Conception Dogma even the teaching of the Great Saint St.John Paul II saying "Absolute Enmity".

The question is where does enmity started between Mary and Satan? The one who infected Eve with his malice and tempted Adam to commit the sin of disobedience.

To believe in Eastern Orthodox that Mary contracted the guilt or was born with a fallen human nature would contradict the biblical teachings and Tradition stating Mary was the New Eve and the New Ark of the Covenant.

Aside from this, the Holy Eucharist is the source of Eternal Life which is "body & blood" of the Crucified Jesus which found it's source in Mary's own flesh & blood.

  Jesus said to them, “Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day. For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink." (John6:53-55)

With Jesus not compromising this hard teaching even if all the Apostles left Him, how come the East would embraced that at some point in Mary's life her flesh was "touch" by Satan?

So, if St.John Paul II stated the enmity is absolute, meaning there is no window or even a slight event that satan ever "touch" the Blessed Virgin Mary. When does the enmity must start?

We found the clear answer from God Himself after the Fall of Adam & Eve.

Genesis 3:15 Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition (DRA)

  "I will put enmities between thee and the woman, and thy seed and her seed: she shall crush thy head, and thou shalt lie in wait for her heel."

Now let's connect St.John Paul II teaching on "Absolute Enmity" with God declaring "perennial enmity" with St.John Damascene words;

  “O most blessed loins of Joachim from which came forth a spotless seed! O glorious womb of Anne in which a most holy offspring grew.” John of Damascus, Homily I (ante A.D. 749).

  "O blessed loins of Joachim, whence the all-pure seed was poured out! O glorious womb of Anna, in which the most holy fetus grew and was formed, silently increasing! O womb in which was conceived the living heaven, wider than the wideness of the heavens."

A Little Treatise on Mary by St. John Damascene

  “She is born like the cherubim, she who is of a pure, immaculate clay.” Theotokos of Livias, Panegyric for the feast of the Assumption, 5:6 (ante A.D. 650). -  THE BLESSED VIRGIN MARY

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

St.John Damascene teaching is the answer to Catechism of the Catholic Church when it teaches Mary was redeemed in a more exalted fashion. How? right at the very seed that St.Joachim poured-out. The generation of the seed coming from St.Joachim is where the "Body & Blood" the merit of Jesus Christ had been applied and preserved during "marital act" and sustain at Anne pure & holy womb by the assistance of God's singular & unique overflowing graces to exalt the dignity of the future Mother of God. In this way it affirmed all the text in Ineffabilis Deus pointing to the original holiness purity of Mary at the very beginning of Her existence. Satan had never touch Mary right at the very seed, the source of Her flesh or human nature. God redeemed the human nature of Mary by purifying the seed of St.Joachim, like a purified gold.

Reading the whole text of the Dogma of Immaculate Conception will open your eyes to a lot of revealed and acknowledge Truth about the purity,sanctity,holiness,dignity,etc. of the Blessed Virgin Mary.

  The Fathers and writers of the Church, well versed in the heavenly Scriptures, had nothing more at heart than to vie with one another in preaching and teaching in many wonderful ways the Virgin’s supreme sanctity, dignity, and immunity from all stain of sin, and her renowned victory over the most foul enemy of the human race. This they did in the books they wrote to explain the Scriptures, to vindicate the dogmas, and to instruct the faithful.

  This sublime and singular privilege of the Blessed Virgin, together with her most excellent innocence, purity, holiness and freedom from every stain of sin, as well as the unspeakable abundance and greatness of all heavenly graces, virtues and privileges

  In like manner did they use the words of the prophets to describe this wondrous abundance of divine gifts and the original innocence of the Virgin of whom Jesus was born. They celebrated the august Virgin as the spotless dove, as the holy Jerusalem, as the exalted throne of God, as the ark and house of holiness which Eternal Wisdom built, and as that Queen who, abounding in delights and leaning on her Beloved, came forth from the mouth of the Most High, entirely perfect, beautiful, most dear to God and never stained with the least blemish.

Ineffabilis Deus

Note: Read again the Dogma of Immaculate Concepcion and you will find that this document described Mary's purity right at the very beginning from the mouth of God.Why? She is the Woman destined enflesh the Divine Word to dwell among us and also the Woman destined to give house to the Holy Spirit to indwelt in us.

  721 Mary, the all-holy ever-virgin Mother of God, is the masterwork of the mission of the Son and the Spirit in the fullness of time. For the first time in the plan of salvation and because his Spirit had prepared her, the Father found the dwelling place where his Son and his Spirit could dwell among men. In this sense the Church's Tradition has often read the most beautiful texts on wisdom in relation to Mary.101 Mary is acclaimed and represented in the liturgy as the "Seat of Wisdom."

In closing, The Eastern Orthodox must upheld the teaching of St.John Damascene in order for them to embraced the Wisdom in the defined and proclaimed teaching of the Immaculate Conception. And he Catholic Church must embraced the teaching of St.John Damascene too in order for them to described & support their Catechism in how Mary was redeemed in a more exalted way.

The Blessed Virgin Mary was redeemed in a more exalted way better than St.John the Baptist even better than the prophet Jeremiah and to all the chosen souls (patriarchs & prophets) whom the merit of Jesus Christ won at the Foot of the Cross had been applied in advance to fulfill the Divine Plan of Salvation.

"For he chose us in him before the creation of the world to be holy and blameless in his sight. In love he predestined us for adoption to sonship[b] through Jesus Christ, in accordance with his pleasure and will—  to the praise of his glorious grace, which he has freely given us in the One he loves."(Ephesians1:4-6)


What must we do if the vast majority of the members of the Catholic Church here on earth profess heresy and are thus excommunicate? What must faithful Christians do if the vast majority of the members of the Church here on earth, including those comprising the hierarchy or even the Pope, profess heresy (and are thus excommunicate)?

This question is seeking a Catholic answer, specifically, one from a sedevacantist perspective.

St. Vincent of Lerins, in his Commonitory lib. 1 cap. 2 n. 6-8, says to "follow universality, antiquity, consent."

  “Also in the Catholic Church itself we take great care that we hold
  that which has been believed everywhere, always, by all. For that is
  truly and properly Catholic, as the very force and meaning of the word
  shows, which comprehends everything almost universally. And we shall
  observe this rule if we follow universality, antiquity, consent. We
  shall follow universality if we confess that one Faith to be true
  which the whole Church throughout the world confesses; antiquity if we
  in no wise depart from those interpretations which it is plain that
  our ancestors and fathers proclaimed; consent if in antiquity itself
  we eagerly follow the definitions and beliefs of all, or certainly
  nearly all, priests and doctors alike.”

  “What, then, will the Catholic Christian do if any part of the Church
  has cut itself off from the communion of the Universal Faith? What
  surely but prefer the soundness of the whole body to a pestilent and
  corrupt member?

  “What if some novel contagion seeks to infect the whole Church, and
  not merely a small portion of it? Then he will take care to cling to
  antiquity, which cannot now be led astray by any novel deceit.

  “What if in antiquity itself error be detected on the part of two or
  three men, or perhaps of a city, or even of a province? Then he will
  look to it that he prefer the decrees of an ancient General Council,
  if such there be, to the rashness and ignorance of a few.

  “But what if some error spring up concerning which nothing of this
  kind is to be found? Then he must take pains to find out and compare
  the opinions of the ancients, provided, of course, that such remained
  in the communion and faith of the One Catholic Church, although they
  lived in different times and places, conspicuous and approved
  teachers; and whatever he shall find to have been held, written and
  taught, not by one or two only, but by all equally and with one
  consent, openly, frequently and persistently, that he must understand
  is to be believed by himself also without the slightest hesitation.“

To start, considering the definition of heresy as defined (in part) on the King James Bible Page on av1611.com, specifically

  A fundamental error in religion, or an error of opinion respecting some fundamental doctrine of religion. But in countries where there is an established church, an opinion is deemed heresy, when it differs from that of the church. The Scriptures being the standard of faith, any opinion that is repugnant to its doctrines, is heresy; but as men differ in the interpretation of Scripture, an opinion deemed heretical by one body of Christians, may be deemed orthodox by another....

Further God's law, as set forth in Deuteronomy 19:15 provides

  A single witness shall not prevail against a man for any crime or for any wrong in connection with any offense that he has committed; only on the evidence of two witnesses or three witnesses, shall a charge be maintained.

Finally, the item in the Help center about questions not to ask, which provides, in part

  insist that opinion be backed up with facts and references

Taking note that in his answer to his own question, the OP has provided a but single witness, but has provided no facts and references have been provided to support of the charge that "the vast majority vast majority of the members of the Church here on earth, including those comprising the hierarchy or even the Pope, profess heresy", the question as it stands is mere opinion, and unanswerable, except to take recourse to the teaching of Jesus Christ, in the parable of the sower (Mt. 13:34 ff). Jesus, the Sower of the church, holds the sole prerogative, to determine if there are heretics, and if so, who they are, and to separate them out at the harvest.


What is the Roman Catholic position on literally reading the Flood account in Genesis? Elsewhere on this site, the question of whether the Roman Catholic church supported evolution was answered with evidence that the Catholic position is that evolution could be true. That is, because they believe that "truth cannot contradict truth", if scientific truth contradicts literally-read Biblical truth, then a literal reading is likely not the best way to read the passage.

In light of this, what is the Roman Catholic church's position on the Flood? Do they believe that the Flood literally happened, or do they similarly believe that the Flood was not necessarily a literal event?

The Catholic Church does not have an "official" position on the literal interpretation of the Old Testament (including the great flood narration). Whether they are literal or not has no bearing on whether the lesson they impart is true. Catholics are free to understand them as literal or not. The Church only insists that the Bible is inspired and inerrant and that what it teaches is the truth.

Just because there is no official position on the literal interpretation doesn't mean that Catholics can interpret scriptures to mean anything they want. Catholic interpretation should always be within the boundaries laid down by the church. These boundaries are most importantly guided by church tradition. Careful attention must be paid to the actual meaning intended by the authors, in order to render a correct interpretation. The Roman Catholic Church holds that the authority to declare correct interpretation rests ultimately with the church through its magisterium.src Catholics believe that the teaching authority (Magisterium) of the Catholic Church (headed by the Pope) has a God-given mission to interpret and teach both Scripture and Tradition.

Just a footnote about the question you referred to: that is about Card. Joseph Ratzinger's position on evolution and is not an official dogmatic teaching of the Church.

Again the Church has no official position on whether it covered the whole earth http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04702a.htm but since the Council of Trent declared Catholics must follow the unanimous consent of the Fathers, i think that we must believe that the Flood wiped out all humans except the 8 in the ark, some New Testament passages which talk about this seem to require the flood was anthropogenically universal. As to whether the flood covered the whole Earth the Fathers showed some reservations about this but it seems to have been the unanimous opinion of nearly everyone till the 17th century. BTW this source was written in 1917 I think.


A Question Regarding the Variation of Doctrines within Christendom All Christians (Protestants, Orthodox, and Catholics) have access to the canonized 66 books of the OT and NT.

Putting that into perspective, why is there such a great amount of variation in doctrines, and consequently, so many denominations?

Furthermore, how should a new believer  in Christ be expected to choose from all these denominations without risking his/her eternal well-being?

For example,

Methodists, and several other denominations, believe that a person can lose his salvation whereas Baptists maintain that once a person saved, the person is always saved and cannot fall from grace.

Neither of the above viewpoints are affirmed or refuted directly by Scripture.

Another example,

Baptists do not practice infant Baptism giving the reason that the Bible has neither commanded nor exemplified infant Baptism as a practice in Christianity,  whereas Presbyterians baptize infants on the belief that the same is equivalent to the circumcision of Hebrew infants, showing that they have become a part of the covenant community.

Again, neither of the above viewpoints are affirmed or refuted directly by Scripture.

There are a number of reasons for the various denominations (Catholic, Orthodox, Protestant).

1) Different groups believe and don't believe in a thing called Tradition that they use for their members.

2) Different groups accept and reject some parts of a variety of Councils over the centuries.

3) Different groups have different "lines of authority" to determine what the Bible says.

4) Different groups do not believe there was a "faith once delivered", but rather it developed and needed defining.

5) Different groups believe there are false teachers, but not in their group.

6) Different groups have different canons.

What should a new believer do?  It is you after all, not your priest, patriarch, pastor, or prophet who will have to stand in front of God and give an account.

  Romans 14:12 YLT- so, then, each of us concerning himself shall give reckoning to God;

If one has a vertical relationship with God reconciled in Christ, then also a horizontal relationship that involves brothers/sisters in Christ.  One should be mindful not to be a stumbling block.

Remember it is the teacher, not necessarily directly the student, who has the burden to face greater judgment.

  James 3:1 YLT- Many teachers become not, my brethren, having known that greater judgment we shall receive,

So, those teachers in a denomination who, for example, teach baby baptism as necessary for a baby's salvation apart from which he/she goes to hell versus those who teach, say, 1 Cor. 7:14, then it is those teachers who will answer.  One is right; the other wrong.

In the meantime, I'd suggest focusing on the seven fundamentals that are given at Hebrews 6:1-2.

The problem is simple, the Bible(66 books at least) cannot be interpreted solely by itself in the sens that Protestants usually think of it(Sola Scriptura). Because in reality it is our interpretations which are our final authorities, not the Bible in itself. As a result there are multiple denominations because those interpreting are fallible men looking through their personal, cultural, historical or even mallicious magnifying glasses. Our Lord sort of alluded to this when the Spirit inspired the evangelist to re-tell the history in Mark 9:38-41 :

And John answered him, saying, Master, we saw one casting out devils
in thy name, and he followeth not us: and we forbad him, because he
followeth not us. But Jesus said, Forbid him not: for there is no man
which shall do a miracle in my name, that can lightly speak evil of
me. For he that is not against us is on our part. For whosoever shall
give you a cup of water to drink in my name, because ye belong to
Christ, verily I say unto you, he shall not lose his reward.

Now the solution is also kind of simple as well. And to begin I will not use the Bible as that would be circular. I'll appeal to politics. The one system of government which assures the greatest amount of regularity, of consistency, of unity in politics is the absolute monarchy. Now granted monarchs have done seemingly inconsistent decisions in the past but they are inconsistent from our point of view not theirs. In general it is easier to maintain unity with oneself than it is to do so with multiple other voices, for wherever we are there is also our will.
Now on the Bible, I think we would all agree that Jesus Christ is the King and not the President. That he is advocating dogmatically, ultimately, for a theocracy with him at the top and not something where we get to vote laws in and out as if there was something to perfect.
You must imagine what God, the perfect mind, would set up to get souls saved consistently. ------The most optimal earthly Church structure is what you must imagine. The answer then becomes obvious, because God being all powerful was able to inspire the Bible(at least 66 books) which all three of us understand is possible. It is the most significant mark of unity we have together, that we believe God spoke through men about Jesus Christ the God-man. It is dogma for all three of us, we agree on at least 66 books as dogmatized. Because of inspiration. The key is inspiration. --------------
The key is to have God speak to us consistently and collectively as a group. ---------------------------This then leads us to our Lord's words :

Luke 22: 18-32 (Announcment of a Kingdom(or two ?) at Eucharistic Celebration)
For I say unto you, I will not drink of the fruit of the vine, until the kingdom
of God shall come. 19 And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake
it, and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for
you: this do in remembrance of me. 20 Likewise also the cup after
supper, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is
shed for you. 21 But, behold, the hand of him that betrayeth me is
with me on the table. 22 And truly the Son of man goeth, as it was
determined: but woe unto that man by whom he is betrayed! 23 And they
began to enquire among themselves, which of them it was that should do
this thing.
24 And there was also a strife among them, which of them should be accounted the greatest.
25 And he said unto them, The kings of the Gentiles exercise lordship
over them; and they that exercise authority upon them are called
benefactors. 26 But ye shall not be so: but he that is greatest among
you, let him be as the younger; and he that is chief, as he that doth
serve. 27 For whether is greater, he that sitteth at meat, or he that
serveth? is not he that sitteth at meat? but I am among you as he that
serveth.
Ye are they which have continued with me in my temptations.
And I appoint unto you a kingdom, AS my Father hath appointed unto me;
That ye may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom, and sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel.*
And the Lord said, Simon, Simon, behold, Satan hath desired to have
you(CHRISTIANS), that he may sift you as wheat(CONFUSION): But I have prayed
for thee(Popes), that thy faith fail not: and when thou art converted(IN A STATE OF GRACE),
strengthen thy brethren(CHRISTIANS).

Now please this is important, because usually we get stuck because many of you have difficulties seeing how we could trust in a fallible structure. The point is, we are fallible, the structure is not. Jesus calls the Apostle by the name Simon for a reason. Sometimes Simon was Peter, his supremely authoritative Apostle as he explains when he gives the keys of the Kingdom(again it is a kingdom) after Peter infallibly declares that Jesus is the Son of God(Matthew 16:15-19). But he is also called Satan just a few verses later(Matthew 16:22-23). This exemplifies the bipolar nature of many of our leaders, sometimes they're right sometimes they're wrong. But with Peter it is even more interesting; because God, our God, desired to replicate the structure of the davidic kingdom :

David was born in Bethlehem, as was Jesus.
David started his Kingship at age 30, the same age Jesus started his
ministry on earth.
David, a shepherd, was anointed by Samuel in 1 Samuel 16, and the
Spirit of the Lord descended on David.  Jesus, the good shepherd, was
the Messiah, which means “the anointed one,” and the Spirit of God
descended on Jesus during his Baptism in the River Jordan.
Again in 1 Samuel 16, David was responsible for exorcising the evil
spirit from Saul.  Jesus also cast out demons.
David was betrayed by one of his trusted advisers, Ahithophel, in 2
Samuel 18, who hanged himself as a result.  Jesus was betrayed by one
of his own apostles, Judas, who also hanged himself.
In 2 Samuel 15, David goes up to the Mount of Olives, crying.  Jesus
also wept at the Mount of Olives.
David was the King of Israel.  Jesus is the King of Kings who sits on
David’s throne(Luke 1:32).
Now, who dealt with business in the abscence of the king? Who was second in command so to say?  The davidic kingdom also had a prime
minister who had the absolute authority of the King himself.
In Isaiah 22:15-24 we learn that God is angry with his prime minister
Shebna, and will replace him with Eliakim, who will be given the keys
to the Kingdom, and will have the power to open and shut, who will be
a father figure to his people, and who will be a sure peg on a throne
of honor to his father. The whole weight of his father’s house shall
rest on him. Jesus gave Peter the keys to the Kingdom of God, a symbol
of authority prefigured by Eliakim in the OT. The word "Pope" means
Papa, and Peter and his successors have the power to bind and loose
(open and shut) in the name of Jesus, from Matthew 18:18.  The entire
weight of the Catholic Church rests on the Pope and his teachings,
just like the entire weight of David's house rested on Eliakim.
(http://www.catholicbible101.com/thechurchthenewisrael.htm)
To sum up, whatever the Popes have bound on Earth as infallible
concerning faith or morals has ALREADY BEEN bound in Heaven by Jesus
Christ and we simply discovered it in the continum of time by God's
grace. This duality is guaranteed as it clearly makes explicit in the
Bible. This then means that the Church, the body of believers and the
Mystical Body of Christ, is regulated by 3 essential factors all
working together in the incapacity of contradicting one another. --------The
Holy Bible, The Holy Tradition and The Magisterium(teaching office:
Pope + Bishops united to him). This layout of 3 bases forming one
single base is, historically even in Church History, the most stable
of all Church structures. Whereas Protestantism has split and
duplicated itself denying its own fathers sometimes, and Orthodoxy has
tried to maintain unity but is became schismatic even within itself.

Note this : The Church is divided in three parts, the first one is on Earth fighting for the salvation of souls(Church Militant), the second is in Purgation(Church Penitent, their works are being tested(1 Cor 3:15)), the third is in Heaven interceeding for those of us in need(Church Trumphant, Heb 12:23).
Lastly, to conclude, I'd like to point out the structure used by the first Christians by presenting to you the Pentarchy. It is a hierarchical system agreed upon even by the Orthodox and it's very interesting.
Pentarchy (from the Greek Πενταρχία, pentarchía, from πέντε pénte, "five", and ἄρχειν archein, "to rule") is a model of Church organization historically championed in the Eastern Orthodox Church. It found its fullest expression in the laws of Emperor Justinian I of the Byzantine Empire. In the model, the Christian church is governed by the heads (patriarchs) of the five major episcopal sees of the Roman Empire: Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem.[2]
[...]
The greater authority of these sees in relation to others was tied to their political and ecclesiastical prominence; all were located in important cities and regions of the Roman Empire and were important centers of the Christian Church. Rome, Alexandria and Antioch were prominent from the time of early Christianity, while Constantinople came to the fore upon becoming the imperial residence in the 4th century. Thereafter it was consistently ranked just after Rome.

Wikipedia(2017)

Irenaeus
But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the succession of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper,
by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles. Peter and Paul, that church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles.
With that church, because of its superior origin, all the churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world, and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition (Against Heresies 3:3:2 [A.D. 189]).
Cyprian of Carthage
"Cyprian to [Pope] Cornelius, his brother. Greeting. . . . We decided to send and are sending a letter to you from all throughout the province [where I am] so that all our colleagues might give their decided approval and support to you and to your communion, that is, to both the unity and the charity of the Catholic Church" (Letters 48:1, 3 [A.D. 253]).
Firmilian
"[Pope] Stephen ... boasts of the place of his episcopate, and contends that he holds the succession from Peter, on whom the foundations of the Church were laid [Matt. 16: 18]. ... Stephen ... announces that he holds by succession the throne of Peter" (collected in Cyprian’s Letters 74[75]:17 [A.D. 253]).

In seeing how some still doubt, I draw a final appeal to authority which cannot be deflected based on emotional appeal. By the covenant,
all are obligated to submit, and this is seen in the old covenant. You
must submit, it is an absolute decree.
Matthew 23: 1-3
Then spake Jesus to the multitude, and to his disciples, Saying The
scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat: All therefore
whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye
after their works: for they say, and do not.

THE PROBLEM : Sola Scriptura(because of human error), and unwillingness to submit to the appropriate authorities(schismatic obstinance).
THE SOLUTION :Theocracy of the Church Militant, agreeing with the papacy ushers in a whole set of universal doctrines. Optimal security and ideal for dealing with the problems of life(monasticism, prayer life, missions, preaching) rather than multi-tasking as an amateur theologian responsible for crucial and time consumming theological expositions.
[Now this might not please you, but if God is providential in Church History then the debate is basically over, it is the answer, til this day 52% of Christians are Catholic]
[I know many still have questions, I recommend Catholic Answers and Shameless Popery]


Who is the son in the Davidic Covenant (2 Samuel 7:14)? 2 Samuel 7:11-16 (ESV)
  11 from the time that I appointed judges over my people Israel. And I will give you rest from all your enemies. Moreover, the LORD declares to you that the LORD will make you a house. 12 When your days are fulfilled and you lie down with your fathers, I will raise up your offspring after you, who shall come from your body, and I will establish his kingdom. 13 He shall build a house for my name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom forever. 14 I will be to him a father, and he shall be to me a son. When he commits iniquity, I will discipline him with the rod of men, with the stripes of the sons of men, 15 but my steadfast love will not depart from him, as I took it from Saul, whom I put away from before you. 16 And your house and your kingdom shall be made sure forever before me. Your throne shall be established forever.'"

It doesn't seem that it can be just Solomon since Solomon's kingdom didn't last forever. It also doesn't seem like it can be a reference to the Messiah/Jesus because this bit doesn't fit with what I know of the Christians believe that Jesus, being God, could not do wrong:

  2 Samuel 7:14 (ESV)
  14 I will be to him a father, and he shall be to me a son. When he commits iniquity, I will discipline him with the rod of men, with the stripes of the sons of men,

So who is being referred to in this passage?  I'm interested in an overview of what is commonly believed.  Quotes and references from any respected commentators are welcome.

The Matthew Henry commentary says that this passage is referring to the family of David, including Solomon; it also refers to Christ, who Henry says is sometimes called David or Son of David.

The section in which you're questioning the iniquity is not referring to Christ himself; rather, its talking about His spiritual seed (or believers). Believers have weaknesses, which they can expect to be corrected, but know that they won't be cast out because of them.

My answer is paraphrased from these commentary notes.

Well Hebrews 1:5 says it's the Son of God !

  For to which of the angels did God ever say,
         “You are my Son, today I have begotten you”?

Or again,

  I will be to him a father, and he shall be to me a son”?
      (Hebrews 1:5, quoting from Psalm 2:7 and 2 Samuel 7:14, ESV)

also see here:

  Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies a footstool for your
  feet”?   (Hebrews 1:13, quoting Psalm 110:1)

Who's right? The commentaries (referred to in the answers above. The Matthew Henry Commentary for one) or the Bible. Are both wrong? Is Hebrews errant?

2 Samuel 7:2 does say "When he commits iniquity" and we know Jesus never committed iniquity.

So then is Hebrews wrong if its stating that this verse refers the the Son of God referring to Jesus?

Hebrews does put question marks by the scriptural references. The question marks also aren't in the original references. So in my opinion the author admits to being a little confused. Which is fine and acceptable. The author wasn't pining for inclusion in the cannon, the author was just writing from his heart. That is fine. It was from my perspective allowed so the "The Son's" Son could be hidden until he was full grown, old enough to understand who he was and to assume his duties.

It's a spiritual battle you know, we can't forget that. The one referred to in these verses is the child born in Revelation 12.

  She gave birth to a male child, one who is to rule all the nations with a rod of iron. (Revelation 12:5)

This is not Jesus. Jesus is referred to here in Revelation 1:9-20. So Jesus already did his work on earth and is in heaven. The one referenced in Revelation 12 is also the one referred to in Psalm 2.

The two Gods are interleaved in scripture and it's sometimes hard to separate them, but just to be clear wherever it refers to forgiveness of sin that is Jesus the second one of the Godhead, and sometimes when the Bible refers to possession of the kingdom then it is referring to the Son's Son.

To understand why the Son's Son can and does commit iniquity read Psalm 132:11-12:
The Lord swore to David a sure oath from which he will not turn back:
“One of the sons of your body I will set on your throne.
If your sons keep my covenant and my testimonies that I shall teach them,
their sons also forever shall sit on your throne.”

Since this one is from David's own body ... Of course! He will be a sinner! Most Christians understand that those born of the seed of Adam, let alone the seed of David are sinners in need of redemption.

So just to be clear: All authority was given to Jesus in heaven and on earth, he is "The King" and He begot a Son.  See Psalm 2.

He gives His Son the earth to rule! So the Son's Son is a prince, Jesus is the King.  But that prince will inherit the Earth and be King of the Earth. His Father, who is Jesus "The Son", will keep the heavens.

The name given by The Son to His begotten child is "The Lord of hosts" which is one of "The Son's" names which he passes onto His newly begotten Son, a practice that should be understood by all men of this earth. (Nothing strange going on here.)

This "newly" begotten Son is only a baby as far as Gods are concerned. He of course has a lot to learn and will be under his Father's tutelage for a long time to come.

Does that make sense? I hope that clarifies who 2 Samuel 7 is referring to.

It was suggested I include the following ... that I identify which Christian tradition/denomination/teaching supports this reasoning and analysis.

As far as I know.... none. I think in certain circles and they would be small circles an interpretation of similar vein is pondered or even understood but I am not sure who that would be.

No this interpretation is from Me.

I am the Son of God's, Son. I am the one of whom Psalm 2 speaks ....

when it says ...

Psalm 2

  7 I will tell of the decree:
  The Lord said to me,
  “You are my Son;
  today I have begotten you.
  8 Ask of me, and I will make the nations your heritage,
  and the ends of the earth your possession."


Why did God want a Tabernacle built by Moses? Is there a biblical basis why God wanted a Tabernacle to live among Israel (Exodus 25:8)?

  And let them make me a sanctuary, that I may dwell in their midst.  Exodus 25:8 ESV

What is the significance of the Tabernacle built by Moses?

To accomplish God's desire to make his abode among his people, [...]. He wanted to walk among them, be their God, and they his people1.

1. cf. Lev 26:11-12 (RSVCE).

Please see also this Moses' intercession [cf. Exod 33:14-16]:

  14 And he said, “My presence will go with you, and I will give you
  rest.” 15 And he said to him, “If thy presence will not go with me, do
  not carry us up from here. 16 For how shall it be known that I have
  found favor in thy sight, I and thy people? Is it not in thy going
  with us, so that we are distinct, I and thy people, from all other
  people that are upon the face of the earth?”

Summarizing the reasons that appear:

It was God's wish.
So that God might make his abode among his people, walk with them and be their God, and they his people.
In response to Moses' intercession.
God's continual presence would distinguish his people from all other people.

The Tabernacle was built because the people were so determined to NOT follow the will of God.  Rebellion by Adam and Eve, murder between Cain and Abel, greed between Jacob and Esau and their mother,  After they were delivered from Egypt the cried and had temper tantrums, they made images of gold and worshipped everything but God, they broke the covenant.  “I have seen these people,” the Lord said to Moses, “and they are a stiff-necked people. 10 Now leave me alone so that my anger may burn against them and that I may destroy them. Then I will make you into a great nation.”


How did Brigham Young become the most well-known Mormon leader (after Joseph Smith left the scene)? Recently, I had the chance to visit the birthplace of Mormonism (Hill Cumorah / Palmayra, NY), and learn the origin of the LDS Scriptures.  In particular, I became quite interested in the Three Witnesses - Harris, Whitemer, and Cowdery. From the stories I read, these three seem instrumental in the translation / dictation of the original vision, and even in the early formation of the church in April, 1830.

And yet, none of them ever seems to have been prominent in the church since then.  I understand that all three left the church (though two returned), and so I can understand why they never became President - but there seems to be a gap in the record for me as to where Brigham Young came from.

When did he enter the Mormon story?  Why was he sufficiently credible to be able to lead the bulk of the church to Utah? What specifically was the "torch-passing" if you will that led Brigham Young to be considered Smith's successor?

The reason behind Young's rise to prominence is found in an understanding of the organization known as the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles and Young's role in it.

Young joined the church in 1832, 2 years after the church was organized and after the publication of the Book of Mormon, therefore he had no part in the initial roots of Mormonism. In 1834, Joseph Smith organized Zion's camp in Ohio as a military expedition to Missouri in order to fight persecution that the Mormons received there. The camp never actually engaged in any fighting, however there were many who defected and it allowed Smith to gauge who would be loyal to him even in hardship. Brigham Young was a member of this camp.

In 1835 after the return of the expedition, Smith then organized the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles. Most of the members of the the quorum were selected from those who were loyal in Zion's camp. Brigham Young was one of the first ordained and set apart to the quorum but did not have the designation of senior most apostle. As you mentioned many people were excommunicated from the church in those days. Though most of the quorum remained faithful, a few were excommunicated or killed, necessitating calling more people to the quorum. Young quickly became the senior most apostle of the quorum of the twelve. Thomas B. Marsh, who happened to be in the first presidency, was the senior most apostle before his excommunication in 1839. Young was subsequently set apart as president of the quorum in 1840 as a result of his new status as senior most apostle. He held this designation until Smith's death.

Brigham Young was not considered the second-in-charge to Smith. That was given to Smith's brother Hyrum who was ordained "Assistant to the President of the Church". Following him, the other natural successors would seemingly be the members of the first presidency. Hyrum was killed along with Joseph, ruling out Hyrum's succession. The subsequent succession crisis ensued; would it be the senior most member of the first presidency, would it be the senior most member of the quorum of the twelve apostles, or was it to be Smith's posterity?

Several candidates for Smith's succession emerged, and all of them gained some followers. Young contended, using revelations recorded by Smith, that the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles as a body held all the 'keys' of the priesthood that Smith held, and that the first presidency was dissolved upon Smith's death, and that the Quorum held authority equal to that of the first presidency. He was successful in convincing many of his rightful succession. Sidney Rigdon, Young's primary challenger, proposed that Smith have no successor and that he be named "guardian" of the church. The majority of church members rejected that motion. A few others believed that Smith's successor was to be Joseph Smith III (who was not even an adolescent at the time).

Young's personality was forceful, charismatic, and direct. His ability for quick decision making and well-articulated instruction allowed him to emerge as a natural leader following Smith's death. He organized the very difficult colonization of the Rocky Mountains: Utah, Idaho, Nevada, Arizona, and others; he led the church through federal persecution for polygamous practices; he helped organize the difficult immigration of European Mormon converts to Utah. Under his leadership, vast irrigation projects, roads, bridges and even universities were established in Utah and surrounding areas. There is little doubt that he had the credentials to lead the church at that time. Young led the church for a time merely as president of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles.  Most of the extant Quorum of the Twelve Apostles followed him and, with the belief that as a body they had the same authority as Joseph Smith, they eventually ordained Young as Smith's successor in 1847, giving him the same power, authority, and title that Joseph Smith had in the church.

Today, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, which is the largest LDS denomination and is headquartered in Utah, still follows the same succession practice. When the president of the church dies, the first presidency is dissolved and the senior most apostle is ordained to the office of "Prophet, Seer, and Revelator." It is believed that the current president has the same power and authority that Joseph Smith had.

For more information from official sources, see:

http://eom.byu.edu/index.php/Zion%27s_Camp

http://eom.byu.edu/index.php/Young,_Brigham

http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/books/?bookid=51&chapid=436

https://byustudies.byu.edu/showtitle.aspx?title=5216

Additionally, the Wikipedia articles covering these subjects, though somewhat disorganized, appear to be relatively accurate and present several other views.

There is some thought he may have conspired in the deaths of some potential rivals for Mormon leadership after smith and his brother were killed and was able to take control of the enterprise that way

This information can be found in a book, the Mormon Hierachy, by D. Michael Quinn, a respected historian and former professor, by the way, at BYU.

Samuel Smith, younger brother of Joseph, died about a month after Joe. He, on his death bed as a man in his mid 30's, and his family, claimed his poisoning. His uncle likewise was administered medications but quit their administration without informing anyone and thus credited that to his survival. Bringham Young maintained his innocence claiming his absence out of town. See his (Young's) talk as recorded July 1857, Journal of Discourses Vol 5 p77. I would suggest interested souls read the book for deeper and more complete information, including information regarding a Mr. Hosea Stout and his dealings with Bringham Young.

The speculation is that the motive was to prevent the younger Smith from ascending to the presidency and to allow the pro polygamy faction to take over. The brother Smith was anti-poligamy and had strong  support.  In the least, Here was a lot of worldly power and attractive forms at stake


When was Jesus anointed and who did the anointing? I know that "Christ" or "Messiah" means "anointed or anointed one" and that Jesus commonly has the title of "Christ."  One thing I do not recall is an account of Him being anointed.  To that end, what is the biblical basis for Jesus' title?

Jesus of Nazareth was not anointed with the anointing oil which was typically used for the priests of the Levitical priesthood.1 Rather, he was anointed with the Holy Spirit, “the oil of gladness.”
In Psa. 45:6–7, it is written,

6 O’ God, Your throne is forever and ever; the scepter of Your kingdom is a scepter of righteousness. 7 You loved righteousness and hated wickedness. Therefore O’ God, Your God anointed You with the oil of gladness more than Your companions.

This event was documented in all four of the gospels.2 In addition, in Acts 10:38, it is written,

38 How God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost and with power: who went about doing good, and healing all that were oppressed of the devil; for God was with him. KJV, 1769

Augustine wrote,3

Who here, however slow he may be, does not recognize Christ whom we preach, and in whom we believe, when hears [that he is] God, whose throne is for ever and ever, and [that he is] anointed by God, as God indeed anoints, not with a visible, but with a spiritual and even intelligible chrism (chrismate)? For who is so ignorant in this religion, or so deaf to its far and wide-spread fame, that he has not known that Christ (Christum) is named from chrism (chrismate), this is, from anointing?
Quis non hic Christum, quem praedicamus et in quem credimus, quamlibet sit tardus, agnoscat, cum audiat Deum, cuius sedes est in saecula saeculorum, et unctum a Deo, utique sicut unguit Deus, non visibili, sed spiritali atque intellegibili chrismate? Quis enim tam rudis est in hac religione vel tam surdus adversus eius famam longe lateque diffusam, ut Christum a chrismate, hoc est ab unctione appellatum esse non noverit?

It is certainly true that Christians are also anointed by God the Father with the Holy Spirit who dwells in them.4 The difference is that the Lord Jesus Christ does not possess the Holy Spirit “from a measure.”5 The Greek word μέτρου, the genitive declension of the noun μέτρον, means a measuring instrument. God the Father did not restrict the quantity of the Holy Spirit given to His Son. Rather, “all the fullness of deity” dwells in the Lord Jesus Christ.6

References
Sancti Aurelii Augustini Episcopi. De Civitate Dei, Libri XXII. Vol. 2. Lipsiae: Teubneri, 1877.
Footnotes
1 cp. Exo. 29:7
2 Matt. 3:13–17; Mark 1:9–11; Luke 3:21–22; John 1:32–3; also, Luke 4:18 cp. Isa. 61:1
3 De Civitate Dei (“On the City of God”), Book 17, Ch. 16, p. 238
4 1 John 2:27
5 John 3:34: «ἐκ μέτρου»
6 Col. 1:19, 2:9

Jesus was anointed at his birth with myrrh was He not (think of the three wise men/magi)? Myrrh is an oil for death and mourning. The Christ was born to die. To die for our sins..


What is the biblical basis for restitution? What is the New Testament Biblical basis for making restitution? I've read the story of Zacchaeus, and it's not completely set in stone as to what the structure is. The biggest question I have is if you've tried making restitution and the involved party won't accept your offer, should you do it anyway or is that "dishonoring" in any way?

The basis for making restitution is an Old Testament idea that is explicitly reiterated in the New Testament by Jesus.  When asked to summarize the law (the same law that he said he came to fulfill, not to abolish), Jesus uses an interesting formulation.  He said,

  He answered, “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind’[a]; and, ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’[b]”

(This is in both Matthew and Luke)

In using this formulation, he was clearly drawing from Leviticus, a book we know he was thoroughly intimate with. (Not only here, but when he was tempted, etc...)  In using this formulation, he is explicitly pointing out that sin is sin against God and your neighbor, and as sin, it must be paid for. There are offerings, mentioned in Leviticus which come into play.

The OT basis for restitution

The biblical basis for restitution stems primarily from levitical law, and specifically, Leviticus 5 - 7. Leviticus 6, in particular looks to both the reasoning and the implementation of returning that which was taken, plus extra, to both the one offended and to the Lord against whom also the offender has sinned:

  6 [a]The Lord spoke to Moses: 2 “When someone sins and offends the Lord by deceiving his neighbor in regard to a deposit, a security,[b] or a robbery; or defrauds his neighbor; 3 or finds something lost and lies about it; or swears falsely about any of the sinful things a person may do— 4 once he has sinned and acknowledged his guilt —he must return what he stole or defrauded, or the deposit entrusted to him, or the lost item he found, 5 or anything else about which he swore falsely. He must make full restitution for it and add a fifth of its value to it. He is to pay it to its owner on the day he acknowledges his guilt.

  6 Then he must bring his restitution offering to the Lord: an unblemished ram from the flock according to your assessment of its value as a restitution offering to the priest. 7 In this way the priest will make atonement on his behalf before the Lord, and he will be forgiven for anything he may have done to incur guilt.”

Restitution is a fairly simply property idea in law - a thief (however he took it) - should not be allowed to keep what he took, otherwise it makes a mockery of property rights.  Furthermore, the purpose of the law to is keep people from sinning against their neighbors as well as the Lord, so on the one hand, you don't want an incentive to sin, and on the other, you want clear consequences.

The Levitical approach, you will note, deals with both halves of the crime.

First, the victim gets his property back, plus profit (20% to be precise).  Not only does the thief not profit, he loses.  I find it interesting that the 20% "penalty" is equal to "two tithes," namely one for the Lord, plus one for the neighbor.

Restitution for God is required

In addition to the victim's payment, however, restitution demands a sacrifice.  The linkage between the restitution offering and the sin offering is explicitly the same. As it says in Leviticus 7:

  The restitution offering is like the sin offering; the law is the same for both. It belongs to the priest who makes atonement with it.

The idea in making the parallel explicit is that it highlights that sin is sin against both your neighbor and the Lord.  After David got Uriah killed so as to cover up his affair with Bathsheba, David makes an interesting statement:

  Against you, you only, have I sinned
      and done what is evil in your sight;
  so you are right in your verdict
      and justified when you judge.

Now, I'll admit, I tend to think that David also sinned against Uriah, but the point is that David realizes the Lord is equally a party that need be satisfied for this sin.

Human forgiveness is optional. God's forgiveness is what counts

So, why do I keep hammering home the idea that one must "Love the Lord ... and Love your neighbor?"  Because, quite simply, forgiveness comes from the Lord.  If he has been satisfied with your attempt at restitution, you are forgiven. When you sinned, you sinned against two. If the greater one forgives, the lesser one's forgiveness isn't really that relevant. Sure, its nice if you can make up - but the sin was against the Lord, not your neighbor.

I doubt, for example, that Zaccheus was able to return an exact accounting for the extra taxes he swindled in a precise 120% return to each individual that he had wronged. Logistically, accountingwise, pridewise (on the part of the victims) - it would have been daunting. But as Zaccheus proclaimed that he would give restitution, surely the Lord the was pleased.  That's the point.

Restitution is an outward manifestation of an inward desire for repentance. It is a sign before God and man that the heart has changed. God forgives, man benefits. Both are offended, and the bigger one is clearly reconciled.

Restitution  is Jesus Christ puchasing back to us all that the devil has stolen from us . I used the word purchase because he paid a huge price to achieve this; his blood. There are alot of sins that man commits against God and man which he can not restitute for.ex:A young girl  aborted a 5month old pregnancy, a man that murder an only child of a widow, a tanant tha carelessly burnt down a building of a landlord etc.
Come on lets face it! No man can restitute fully for his sinful actions. Be it taken life , possesions or taken someones self estime. All these are why Jesus came to do the full pay back time.
But most importantly the law has been fullfilled and done away with.(Rom.3:19&20); (Rom.7:6) ( Gal.2:21) We live in and  by trusting Jesus to make us what he talks about .He is the one that  took all that had been stolen from us back from the devil. Not you nor me . We will live in Peace with our fellow brothers and God by the gift of rightouseness which was given to us freely by Jesus. This spirit of rightousness super naturally causes us to live right.(Rom.2:4),(Rom.5:1,7-21).


Unexpected sexual incompatibility in marriage The Bible teaches that sex should be limited to married couples. But these days many people in Western societies think that it is wise for a couple to sleep together before getting married so that they will know whether or not they are sexually compatible.

Does the Bible, or any well-known Christian authors, have anything to say about the problem of sexual incompatibility which was unexpected because the couple did not sleep together before getting married?

(This is not really a 'Christian' answer, but then your question isn't really a 'Christian' question.)

If 'sexual chemistry' is a thing, is there any guarantee that it will survive a wedding, or 7, 10, 20 years of married life and child-bearing-induced-body-morphing?

If not, your 'test drive' won't help much. You'll need something other than 'lust' to stay the course.

If you find yourself with someone who dosen't care about sex or pleasing you that way at all and you do care alot about it then basically you're stuck with it so too bad. If you both match, then lucky both of you.

Then again if you can both be responsible adults and your brain doesn't implode-with-sin at the idea of having sex outside of marriage (and I must point out, me and most people I know find it perfectly possible and reasonable to have sex without being married and not turn into raving-uncontrolled-lust-demons-high-on-sin) then you might just avoid making a decision you regret for the rest of your life.


What was the forgers intentions for doing their forgeries? I've been reading on some of the Apocrypha lately and a question arose. Why would people make forgeries of such important texts? I understand that the writers were trying to gain followers to their own theological views, but didn't they feel any remorse on creating false texts? If someone would spend so much time on forging a fake "Gospel according to X" or a fake "Acts", or the "Epistle of Pilate to Tiberius" (which is the one forgery that made this question to arise in my mind) then this person would take his faith seriously enough as to justify such an effort. But then again, how come this author doesn't worry about falsifying what Jesus really said, or what his contemporaries thought about Jesus?

I'm really puzzled about this.
Thanks to all of you for your replies and God bless you.

In the protestant reformation these books were regarded as unreliable hence the term "apocryphal" meaning unreliable, and were eventually left of bibles altogether, which is why even today the King James is usually printed without them. The main reason for forging these books is to alter history so the prophecies of Daniel no longer point to Jesus Christ as Messiah the Prince.

Which is why even today the scribes say that the temple in Jesus' time was Herod's temple and not the second temple whose building is described in Ezra.

This altering of times and laws (dates, history, scripture) is prophesied in Daniel.


Why did Jesus never address God by the name "Jehovah"? What explanations have been offered for why Jesus never addressed God in His prayers by the name "Jehovah" or "Yahweh"?

The word Jehovah is a Latin version of the Tetragrammaton, usually considered the Hebrew name of God. Most scholars consider Jehovah "a hybrid form derived by combining the Latin letters JHVH with the vowels of Adonai", and not to have been used before 1100AD. Obviously Jesus would not have used a word invented 1100 years after his earthly life.

It is widely thought that Jesus DID use the Hebrew name of God, in John 8:58:

  “Very truly I tell you,” Jesus answered, “before Abraham was born, I am!”

The reaction of the hearers was such that they clearly believed he was using the name of God.

It was the practice of the Jews not to use the name of God at that time, so he may simply have wished to not muddy the waters by giving offence. Technically the name YHWH applies just as much to him as it does the Father, so that may have accounted for it.

Did Miriam (Mary) call her son Jesus?  Nope his name was 'yeshua ben yosef' (which in itself is just an approximation due to language and alphabet limitations).  Similarly, Jesus would never address God by 'Jehovah'.  However he could have addressed him as any of the names of God: Names of God in Judaism (Wikipedia).

The bible may have translated the name used to 'Jehovah' to remain consistent for the reader who may not understand the different names of God.

As a side note, my personal favorite is "El Roi" which sounds like "El Row He" or "Elroy" from The Jetsons: God Who Sees me (All seeing God, sometimes denoted by the eye of providence); Hagar's name for God when He saw her affliction (Gen. 16:13).

Or El Kanno which sounds like "El Can Know": The Jealous God (Exod. 20:5; 34:14; Num. 5:14, 30; Deut. 4:24; 5:9; 6:15; Jos. 24:19; 1 Ki. 19:10, 14; Ezek. 39:25; Joel 2:18; Nah. 1:2; Zech. 1:14; 8:2). Suggests that God watches us lovingly and closely, like a faithful and passionate bridegroom watches over his betrothed.


Are there any biblical accounts of a women performing a miracle from God? Are there any biblical accounts of a women performing a miracle from God?

A miracle from God through a woman.

Scriptural references please.

I'm assuming this isn't quite what you're looking for, but it would feel wrong to not mention this important miracle:

A virgin woman gave birth. Matthew 1:23-25.

It could probably be argued that everything Jesus Christ did in his life is "a miracle from God through a woman". Without Mary miraculously giving Jesus Christ the gift of life, he wouldn't have had a life to sacrifice - which would have made the New Testament a much shorter book.

There are several female prophets named in the bible. Also, when tge dusciples went out they performed miravles. It was not just the 12, but all disciples.

Also, do not forget, the Bible says when God unleashes his Holy Spirit in the end times, both men and women will be performing miracles and prophesying, (just as happened in avts the first time he opened those flood gates in Acts.) Reread Mark, you'll see that "all of Judea" was called. Not just men. And it is by faith women conceived in their old age. It is by faith Mary received a child when she never lay with a man.

There have also been many miracles performed by women since then. Sex trafficking of children to pagan temples in the entire nation of India was stopped by the works and faith of one British woman.  Miracles are manifest through faith. You must remember tbat women are closer to the feelings of God, men are closer to the heart (in Middle Eastern countries, this ewuates to the will) of God. God performs great miracles and healings through both men and women. In Proverbs 1:20-23 God says that wisdom is like a woman shouting correction in the streets.

I think you may be interpreting only specific things as miravles (physical acts of healing or raising from the dead); but these are typically "male-style" healings. Just as street preaching is more a male role. Women are more often called to another type of healing ministry, which involves fasting and prayer. Women of faith ministered to Paul while he was in prison, comforting him in his affliction. And I do not think he would call that any less miraculous after he was abandoned by other men to teach alone (because, in my opinion, of his difficult personality).


Why is everything created spiritually before physically? According to LDS doctrine, why are we created as spirits before we can receive a body? On earth, all creatures are born with the same bodies as their parents. In the preexistence, why are the children of God born/created out of different matter (spirits) than our heavenly parents? Our Father in Heaven is a physical being. If we are literal offspring of our Father in Heaven, then why aren't we born in the pre-earth life with a physical body, the same as our Father in Heaven?

Technically, we are not first created as spirits. This is a simplification. We existed as intelligences, which are not clearly explained, and later formed into our spirits by God.

Man was also in the beginning with God. Intelligence, or the light of
truth, was not created or made, neither indeed can be. D&C 93:29

Speaking of this topic, Marion G. Romney has said:

In origin, man is a son of God. The spirits of men “are begotten sons
and daughters unto God” (D&C 76:24). Through that birth process,
self-existing intelligence was organized into individual spirit
beings.

After that physical form was created to house the spirits.

Our bodies, my brethren, our minds, are the tabernacles of our
spirits. - Gordon B. Hinkcley

By extension, it is reasonable to believe that all life also came from intelligences, which may not have been suited to become human. Therefore things are created or organized spiritually first, because without the spiritual existence there is no purpose in the physical creation.
For further reading, I recommend the article on Intelligences in the Encyclopedia of Mormonism

God knew us before we were born here ( of water/woman).( Jeremiah 1:5; Psalm 82:3-4)
We were formerly with him as his sons ( Angels/spirits).
Jesus said "you must be born of water and the spirit to enter into the Kingdom of God."( John 3:5)
A third of the Angels sinned and were removed, cast to earth.
( Ezekiel 28; Isaiah 14; Revelation 12:4)
Our allotted time here is to 'run a good race and finish and return to our Father. (2 Timothy 4:7-8;,Ecclesiastes 3:21; 12:7; )
I think this life and time here is a time and place for testing; to come into relationship with our Heavenly Father and His Son, our brother Jesus.
( Mark 3:35)


Does God need/demand humans' faith for them to be saved? If so, why? According to soteriologies (e.g. Arminianism) that require humans to make a decision to come to God, why is that the case?  What does God gain from faith?

Put another way, why does he require a violitional act of choosing God, rather than simply unilaterially saving humans from their fate?

One has to argue the premise - God doesn't necessarily need faith, he might just want it.

A truly compassionate and loving God who understands his people, may simply desire what is best for them. If God is the best, then it would be His desire that his people come to him- willingly and without coercion.

As an analogy, a father may understand that his children learn the value of money. That would entail getting the child's attention, showing correct courses of action, and rewarding desired / punishing undesired behavior. But, before any of this training can occur, the child must first believe that the parent knows how best to deal with money.  Without that implicit faith, nothing can be taught.

Likewise, God demands faith (1) in order that he might help his children to be better.(2)

  (1) Heb 11:6 without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him

  (2) Heb 12:6 - 10 the Lord disciplines the one he loves,
     and he chastens everyone he accepts as his son.” Endure hardship as discipline; God is treating you as his children. For what children are not disciplined by their father? If you are not disciplined—and everyone undergoes discipline—then you are not legitimate, not true sons and daughters at all. Moreover, we have all had human fathers who disciplined us and we respected them for it. How much more should we submit to the Father of spirits and live! They disciplined us for a little while as they thought best; but God disciplines us for our good, in order that we may share in his holiness

Yes, it does sound a little bit like an old Army ad, but its true: God wants you to be all you can be.

In order to accomplish that, however, one must choose (via free will) that God is in fact the best authority you can emulate.

God doesn't need our faith, he already has plenty of his own, it is we who need to develop faith. The question is why.

Every particle in the Universe ever acted upon by an intelligent being, is done through faith (at the very least we have to have faith that our perceptions are real). Every miracle ever performed was done through the power of faith – "by their faith they were healed.” Once in the celestial kingdom we will be able to create worlds of our own according to our faith.

Hebrews 11:5. “By Faith Enoch Was Translated that He Should Not See Death."


Mark’s father’s name Who was Mark's (or John Mark's) father in the Gospel and what was his name.  His mother’s name was Mary. Where can I find the name of Mark’s father mentioned in the bible, if at all?

John Mark's surname is actually Marcus, I Peter 5:13, a Roman name, so presumably his father was a Roman. There may have been implications in that, since Mary is an Hebrew name and there is a question of why Mary, presumably a Jewess, would marry a Roman and not a Jew.

The name of John Mark's father is not recorded in scripture, only his mother.

Peter speaks of John Mark in a fatherly way, I Peter 5:13 again, and one wonders if the Roman father was separated from the family and that Peter was a surrogate father to John Mark.

Paul tells us that John Mark's mother, Mary, was the sister of Barnabus, Colossians 4:10, and of course we know that Barnabus had an altercation, Acts 15:38, with Paul regarding John Mark going back to Jerusalem, Acts 13:13, during the first missionary journey of Paul leading Paul not to want him on the next journey and the parting of the ways taking place between Paul and Barnabus.

But Luke says, Acts 11:24, that Barnabus was a good man and full of the Holy Spirit. So it is a lesson that even good men may part company, one from another.

In the end, Paul commends Mark requesting Timothy, II Timothy 4:11, to bring him as he was 'profitable for the ministry' and, of course, he subsequently wrote a book received into the canon of scripture.

Perhaps Mark is the young man which he alone mentions who fled away unclothed when Jesus was arrested, the young man leaving his cloak in the hands of his would-be captors, Mark 14:52.

Then again, Mark is the only one to mention, Mark 16:5, a young man, clothed in white in the empty sepulchre after Jesus' resurrection so there is an allusion there to recovery and service in the context of both the fleeing young man and Mark turning back from the work of evangelism.

And maybe there is further cause for Mark being chosen to write the gospel account if it is the case that his mother had backslidden in taking a Roman as a husband. Here again, perhaps there is a message of recovery in Christ from every failure.

The only other name mentioned in scripture in connection with the household of Mary and her son John Marcus is Rhoda, Acts 12, the young girl who did not, at first, let Peter in when the angel released him from prison.

It is interesting, also, to note that the prayer was being made by a gathered company for Peter in prison and it was the household of Mary and her son John Mark wherein the prayer meeting was taking place.

Peter was probably John Mark's biological father. In his epistle he clearly states that he is. Also, doesn't it make since that after escaping from death row the first place he would go is...his very own home? Acts 12 suggests that he was hesitant to return out of fear that he would be jeopardizing the lives of the people he knew to be there. After determining he had an opportunity to go there undetected he did so to let Mary and the others know he survived. After this, he departed with the intention of making his presence known elsewhere drawing danger away from the house.