Have Creationists advanced any particular Theories of Origin that they claim are falsifiable via the scientific method? This is an attempt at an on-topic and useful version of this question - any  edits or feedback to ensure that it meets both of those aims are welcome.

To clarify the key term in use:

  Falsifiability is the ability of a theory—a working framework for explaining and predicting natural phenomena—to be disproved by an experiment or observation. - Rationalwiki

In my opinion, an ideal answer will be structured as an overview of different forms of Creationism with brief descriptions of any relevant theories including references.

Reasons to Believe is an organization which presents arguments in favor of Old Earth Creation, and on their Who We Are page, founder Hugh Ross states:

  One of the approaches I've developed, with the help of my RTB colleagues, is a biblical creation model that is testable, falsifiable, and predictive.

Their web site offers an overview of their "falsifiable" creation model approach, which includes:

  Using a model approach supplies researchers with enough detail to assist in further study. It offers explanations for how, when, where, and why the phenomena (or system) occurs. It anticipates, or “predicts,” discoveries that could either verify or falsify the model's explanation(s). The best models also yield specific suggestions for how near-future research may help improve understanding of the systems or phenomena they attempt to explain.

One example (the first I found) of a theory which they claim is falsifiable can be found in this article:

  These morphologically indistinguishable, yet genetically distinct ecomorphs can be properly considered as one of the many fingerprints that the Creator has left on His creation. In fact, if a single Creator was responsible for life, one could anticipate seeing repeated examples of the same blueprint throughout the biological realm. One would expect that a single Creator would reuse successful designs over and over again.

Note that this is not an academic article, so it's targeted at lay people, and as such the terminology is rather imprecise for my taste. It also seems to me that their claims of falsifiability are somewhat subjective, so I simply present them here as evidence that Creationists do, indeed, claim to produce falsifiable theories.

The problem with this question is a false assumption: That Creationists would generally strive to create a model that is falsifiable.

Rather, Creationists, especially the Young-Earth variety, would contend that no origin theory is falsifiable, merely because we cannot experiment on what has already past. Creationists have developed their own distinction of two types of science to explain their thoughts.

The two types of science are:

Observational Science
Historical Science

Observational science is based off of observable, testable, repeatable, and falsifiable events. Essentially, this is what everyone else just calls science.

Historical science is, according to Answers in Genesis (the rapidly becoming "official" YEC source), "[the process of] interpreting evidence from past events based on a presupposed philosophical point of view." In essence, they are completely different things and perhaps historical science should not be called science at all.

The point nearly every Creationist strives to make is that The Theory of Evolution (distinct from the observational science of biological evolution) is a religion just as much as Creationism, and depending on your "presupposed philosophical point of view" you will reach different conclusions about the origins of the Universe. They contend that the YEC perspective looks at exactly the same evidence as The ToE, both accepting the observed sciences as valid, yet they reach different conclusions about origins. They are both theories of historical science.

So some this up, another article on AiG explains:

  A creationist astronomer sees comets in the universe and realizes they have a limited “existence” of at most 100,000 years. He concludes that the universe must be less than 100,000 years old. A cosmic evolutionary astronomer sees the same thing but concludes there must be a constant source of comets, because he believes the universe is 13.7 billion years old. He would, of course, claim that he arrived at that date due to observational measurements of light from distant galaxies. The creationist astronomer would then hypothesize an explanation for the distant starlight problem, which the evolutionist would rebut, etc.

That same source article also attempts to explain the difference and legitimize the distinction between observational science and historical science.

Another source that discusses "two types of science" on AiG.


What is the Biblical basis for saying that God can annihilate human souls? We know that God is love and He is merciful. However, the idea of eternal torment seems too horrifying and doesn't seem to be in parallel with the nature of God.

My argument is that, if God were capable of annihilating the soul, He would have done it long ago. Annihilating Adam and Eve would stop all these countless people going to Hell. It is not just at all if God allowed only a few to enter Heaven and the majority suffer eternal torment. Why can't God simply make us all vanish? Maybe because God is not able to! Perhaps this is the reason why God had to sacrifice His one and only Son for us, who was flogged, tortured, mocked, crucified and died, only with the hope of saving some souls.

Moreover, the idea of annihilation seems appealing as it gives hope to the unsaved souls. However, I still have trouble with this theology because I can't find any reference from the Bible that God can annihilate the soul.

According to Annihilationism, what is the Biblical basis that God can annihilate the soul? Which verses do they use and what is their interpretation?

First, the idea of the immortality of the soul comes from the Greek dualistic view of body and soul as separate, with a mortal body and an immortal soul.
Immortality belongs to God alone (I Tim. 6:16) in the sense of before creation and on to eternity.
God offers eternal life (John 3:15–16; 10:28; 17:2; Rom. 2:7; 6:23; 1 Cor. 15:42f; 50, 54; Gal. 6:8; 1 John 5:11).
Many will not be saved - look at Mt 7:13-14
“Enter through the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way is broad that leads to destruction, and there are many who enter through it. For the gate is small and the way is narrow that leads to life, and there are few who find it.
The "great white throne judgment" in Rev 20:11-15 tells about the second death.

11 Then I saw a great white throne and Him who sat upon it,
from whose presence earth and heaven fled away, and no place was found
for them. 12 And I saw the dead, the great and the small, standing before
the throne, and books were opened; and another book was opened, which is
the book of life; and the dead were judged from the things which were
written in the books, according to their deeds. 13 And the sea gave up
the dead which were in it, and death and Hades gave up the dead which
were in them; and they were judged, every one of them according to
their deeds. 14 Then death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire.
This is the second death, the lake of fire. 15 And
if anyone’s name was not found written in the book of life,
he was thrown into the lake of fire.

Calling this the second death is a strong indication that the unsaved do not have an eternal existence of eternal torture.
The Old Testament speaks of destruction as the "reward for wickedness"
(look here for a more complete treatment).
The New Testament gives many pictures of destruction.
Look at James 4:12

12 There is only one Lawgiver and Judge, the One who is able to save and to destroy;
but who are you who judge your neighbor?

Here it seems like salvation or destruction are the only options.
Here are a few scriptures that speak of destruction

Psalm 1:6 ... but the way of the ungodly shall perish
Psalm 37:20   But the wicked shall perish... they shall consume; into smoke shall they consume away.
Psalm 92:7    ... shall be destroyed forever
Matthew 10:28b    Rather, fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.
John 3:16 ... whosoever believeth in him should not perish (Greek: destroyed)
Romans 6:23   For the wages of sin is death …
Philippians 3:19  whose end is "destruction"
2 Thessalonians 1:9   who shall be punished with everlasting destruction ...
Hebrews 10:39 But we are not of them who draw back unto perdition (Greek: destruction); but of them that believe to the saving of the soul.
James 4:12a   There is one lawgiver, who is able to save and to destroy.
Revelation 20:14  This is the second death...

Greg Boyd has put together a list of scriptures here.
A good book on the subject is
E.W. Fudge & R.A. Peterson, "Two views of Hell: A Biblical and Theological Dialog," Inter Varsity Press, (2000)
In this book we read . . .

"The fact is that the Bible does not teach the traditional view of final punishment. Scripture nowhere suggests that God is an eternal torturer. It never says the damned will writhe in ceaseless torment or that the glories of heaven will forever be blighted by the screams from hell. The idea of conscious everlasting torment was a grievous mistake, a horrible error, a gross slander against the heavenly Father, whose character we truly see in the life of Jesus of Nazareth." (p. 21)

The idea of eternal conscious torment is one of those traditions carried over from medieval Catholicism (ultimately coming from Greek philosophy) that's heavily defended in Protestantism but not really taught in Scripture, or if it is, not plainly, as it is only inferred from certain expressions like "unquenchable fire" which speaks of the fire being unquenchable but does not say it will not burn anyone up. It can be defended with proof-texts to be sure, but is it explicitly and clearly taught? No.  The annihilation of the souls of the wicked, however, is explicitly taught in at least two verses: 0 vs 2.
In large part the idea of eternal conscious torment in hell is based on the Platonic concept of the natural immortality of the soul. Plato and the Platonizing "church fathers" believed the soul to be so immortal by its very nature that God could not destroy it even if he wanted to. The result is that all God can do with the souls of the wicked in this philosophy is to dump them somewhere for all eternity. (In Platonism the soul was conceived as actually being a breakaway from God's substance or essence, thus sharing the nature of God and indestructible.)
But does scripture teach the natural immortality of the soul, or does it teach that souls are only immortal so long as God deems them to be so by his will?

1 Timothy 6:15-16 NIV "which God will bring about in his own time—God, the blessed and only Ruler, the King of kings and Lord of lords, who alone is immortal and who lives in unapproachable light, whom no one has seen or can see. To him be honor and might forever. Amen."

According to Scripture, God alone is immortal by nature.  The soul then is only conditionally immortal.  That is, only immortal if God says so.  That means the biggest presupposition that caused the "church fathers" to develop the theory of eternal conscious torment is false, according to scripture.
Once you understand that, you will find a different story in Jesus' sayings on the subject.  You will be free from the tyranny of Platonic philosophy and tradition based thereon, which before prevented you from taking Jesus at his word when he said:

Matthew 10:28 NIV "Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell."

He said "destroy" but tradition has always forced us to interpret "destroy" as "torment"!  If we re-evaluate the tradition, and correct the root problem (Platonic misunderstanding of the nature of the soul) we no longer have to force ourselves to misinterpret the Bible in this way.
There's an entire website dedicated to a growing movement of Protestants who are Rethinking Hell, which is the name of the site: http://rethinkinghell.com/
And furthermore, there is one verse in the Bible that positively clinches the case by explicitly stating the wicked will be devoured by fire:

But the wicked shall perish, and the enemies of the Lord shall be as the fat of lambs: they shall consume; into smoke shall they consume away. (Psalm 37:20 KJV)
But the wicked will perish: Though the Lord’s enemies are like the flowers of the field, they will be consumed, they will go up in smoke. (Psalm 37:20 NIV)

In your other question about hell, Would Jesus weep for the souls in Hell? I noticed the following.  You quote a girl who claims to have visited hell as saying that Jesus said to her:

because of sin and the lack of repentance, humanity ends here, and there are more that perish than those who reach My glory

Notice how even in the traditional Platonic paradigm the scriptural word "perish" (which means to cease to exist) is used, but what they're talking about isn't perishing, its continuing to be tormented forever and ever. The fact that "perish" is used is a clear demonstration that eternal conscious torment is not the original doctrine. If it were the original doctrine then "torment" would be the word used in scripture and would have become the word traditionally used to describe the fate of the lost, but since "perish" persists as the word of choice, being the scriptural word, we know that the present traditional doctrine arose after the New Testament was written, and after this language of "perish" was already so well established that it could not be replaced.  The same argument applies to the word "destroy" in Matthew 10:28.


Why aren't the Biblical Apocrypha included in the protestant Bible? Biblical Apocrypha are portions of Bible that are printed in some editions of Bible between Old and New Testament, sometimes called inter-testament. When Martin Luther was translating Latin bible into German language, he left the translation to other people, and labeled it as "Apocrypha: These Books Are Not Held Equal to the Scriptures, but Are Useful and Good to Read".

My Question is, why are they not included in the modern protestant Bible?

These books of the Bible were accepted as part of the canon (part of the Bible). These books have been around for a long time. First of all, the books called apocrypha are related to the Old Testament. The New Testament is accepted with its 27 books among the major Christianity branches (Catholics, Protestants, Evangelicals).

The Old Testament Canon was taken from the Jewish Bible. The Jewish recognized an historical value to the apocrypha, but not one of authority. The Catholics started to view the apocrypha as part of the Bible during the counter-reforme in 1546 (Concile of Trente). Principally to object the protestant attack on particular doctrine like the purgatory.

In fact, the protestants returned to the position of Jerome, who presented the Old Testament with the apocrypha separated to the Old Testament (Prologus galeatus) around 390.

--Source Magazine Theologie Systematique, Article : Apocryphes ou Deuterocanoniques by Henri Blocher. (Sorry for the French source) Here is the English transcript

Why are those books not included in the post-reformed Bible? Simply beacause for the Protestants these books were never part of the Old Testament. The New Testament does not quote them, as it does for most of the Old Testament. The Jewish people did not see those books on the same levels then the rest of the Old Testament Canon.

Including anything in a Bible that we don't believe is inspired is always a risk. That includes chapter and verse numbers, section headings and even study notes in study Bibles. People tend to think everything printed in a Bible is right, but section headings and study notes are sometimes not more than guesses, which is why some Christians discourage regular use of study bibles.

The apocrypha is the same. While they may still be useful for serious Bible study, Protestants don't believe they are inspired. They belong in other books, just like commentaries, dictionaries, church histories, textbooks and all sorts of other study tools.


Do spirits need bodies to manifest? Every instance in the Bible where a spirit, (including for the most part God) speaks to a physical person, or moves a physical someone it is done in a body or through another person that possesses a physical body. Is it necessary for a spirit to have a body to manifest?

As a lifelong Protestant whom most people accept as being 'evangelical' I would say the following :
There are many examples and this is but one [Acts 8:27-29, KJV] :

Behold, a man of Ethiopia, an eunuch of great authority under Candace queen of the Ethiopians, who had the charge of all her treasure, and had come to Jerusalem for to worship, was returning, and sitting in his chariot read Esaias the prophet.
Then the Spirit said unto Philip, Go near, and join thyself to this chariot.

Here we see God, the Holy Spirit, communicate directly to Philip, in spirit, without any physical intervention, without any other agency and without any manifestation.

From the OP's comments I would suggest it may be helpful to consider I Theesalonians 4:14 :

For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so them also which sleep in Jesus will God bring with him.[KJV]

Human minds are immaterial but require the material presence of a brain in order to communicate intelligently and logically. The question of whether a human spirit can 'communicate' without a brain or by by-passing the brain is somewhat hypothetical.
Disembodied human spirits 'sleep'. And the question of 'communication' then becomes totally hypothetical. If we die in the Lord, we shall experience whatever that 'sleep' is.
The disembodied spirit of the rich man (who did not help the beggar Lazarus) 'communicated' with Abraham (perhaps) or possibly experienced something within himself, in hades, which Jesus attributes to a likeness of communication with Abraham.
Myself, I do not think we have sufficient information in scripture to answer the question. As I say, we may experience something in the future, if the Lord tarries.
It is an interesting question, however, and I did up-vote it.
We are what we are. And what we are, is what God made us to be. And we can only express ourselves (in prayer, particularly, as the OP comments) in spirit and in understanding with a human spirit and with a human mind.
Yet, if we receive and believe the Gospel and are justified by faith we shall receive the Holy Spirit in a union of spirit, within our own spirit. Then shall we pray in the Spirit and with our own understanding.

What is it then? I will pray with the spirit, and I will pray with the understanding also: I will sing with the spirit, and I will sing with the understanding also. I Corinthians 14:15, KJV.]

It mustn't have body to manifest, it did so in front of ancient people, who didn't know anything about spirit, as Paul says : when you were children in faith you were fed with milk, nowI you have teeth to eat. Nowadays people do not need any physical forms to believe in spiritual things.


Will we theoretically be able to sin in Heaven? The Bible tells us that there will be no sin in Heaven
. Also, most christians agree that there will be free will in Heaven.

So we will be in a sinless state with free will. However, Adam and Eve were both in this state but eventually sinned. Couldn't this happen again in Heaven?

My only idea is that since the Devil will be chained for eternity, there will be nothing to tempt us into sinning, like it happened in the garden of Eden.

I would like to get some perspectives on the matter, the better if based on Biblical verses. Thanks.

No. Here's the dime tour version.

We don't know exactly what it will be like, but we do know, as you pointed out, that there will be no sin in heaven but that we won't be robotic beings. The difference is that we will have a different nature. Something about having fallen and then being restored to glory is going to be different than the state Adam was in having never known evil and yet excersising his free will.

Exactly what defenses will make this possible we know not, but we know that one way or another the work of Christ to sanctify his people will be brought to completion and that they will never more fall away from him.

Your speculation is based on an incorrect understanding of the nature of man and sin in the first place:

  My only idea is that since the Devil will be chained for eternity, there will be nothing to tempt us [...].

Christianity's understanding of sin is not based on outside forces tempting us, but on an imperfect nature that cannot help but sin. Adam could not have helped but eventually sinning, snake or no snake. Free will is not so free as many people believe: we are bound to act according to our nature. We are not "free" to act according to a nature that we don't have. We aren't "free" to teleport just because we would will it. We are not "free" to not sin because it is part of our nature to do so.

The difference in heaven is that our natures will be regenerated into something completely different than they are now and we will be free -- but only to act according to our regenerated natures. Which won't be dragging sin into the presence of God.

God has free will.  We have been made in the image of God.  Thus, we have free will.  (Obviously, this does not directly address the arguments against this position.)  There is absolutely no reason to think that we will no longer have free will, in the next life.

Free will implies the (theoretical) possibility of evil.  As "Steven" says (approximately), it is strongly true that God will never sin, because He is holy — not just good, but positively and powerfully opposed to evil.  Conversely — having free will — it is theoretically possible for Him to do evil.  (If it were not theoretically possible for Him to do evil, then there would be little kudos or glory in Him so not doing.  (A robot that never does evil is not morally good, on account of being a (deterministic) machine.) )

As “Fofole” notes, in the question, “The Bible tells us that there will be no sin in Heaven.”

It follows that the reason for this (absence of evil) is for some reason other than that it is not theoretically possible.

My view (behind which there is a lot of thinking) is as follows.

The fact of evil arising — noting that this took place in Heaven (apart from the connotation that this denotes the next life) — was strongly anomalous — for some of the reasons that it would be anomalous in “Heaven” [here meaning the next life]. That is…  evil is bad — it has bad effects (by definition) — and this would be strongly apparent (before the deed) in Heaven.  Thus, the idea of doing evil, in Heaven, would have negative appeal.  [Actually, that is a simplification (possibly an oversimplification).]  [Of course, conversely, one must have some account of why then Satan would do this.]

Under my view, this would have even greater negative appeal in Heaven in the next life, on account of the lesson of seeing evil in action on Earth — to the point that nothing else would be needed, practically.  (One element of this is the [then now] clear historical event and illustration that there is a Fall involved — that the possibility does not exist, of simply doing one evil act.)

Over and above that, though, (under my view) anyone who attempted to sin in “Heaven” — here meaning the next life — would be instantly cast into Hell.


What is the significance of one-third in Revelation? Why is everything 1/3 in Revelation?
It comes up with the four angels, and the dragon:

8:7 The first [angel's trumpet] sounded, ... and a third of the earth was burned up, and a third of the trees were burned up, and all the green grass was burned up. 8 The second angel sounded, ... and a third of the sea became blood, 9 and a third of the creatures which were in the sea and had life, died; and a third of the ships were destroyed. 10 The third angel sounded, and a great star fell from heaven, burning like a torch, and it fell on a third of the rivers and on the springs of waters. 11 The name of the star is called Wormwood; and a third of the waters became wormwood, and many men died from the waters, because they were made bitter. 12 The fourth angel sounded, and a third of the sun and a third of the moon and a third of the stars were struck, so that a third of them would be darkened and the day would not shine for a third of it, and the night in the same way.
9:15 And the four angels, who had been prepared for the hour and day and month and year, were released, so that they would kill a third of mankind. 18 A third of mankind was killed by these three plagues, by the fire and the smoke and the brimstone which proceeded out of their mouths.
12:4 And [the dragon's] tail swept away a third of the stars of heaven and threw them to the earth.

As with any part of Revelation there are primarily four main theories.  Coincidentally most of them take the 1/3 literally regardless of the view as represented a significant judgment but minority (only 1/3) implicated result on the things in this world that otherwise sustain life. Here are the main views very briefly and overly simplified as pertaining one example:

  The first angel sounded his trumpet, and there came hail and fire mixed with blood, and it was hurled down on the earth. A third of the earth was burned up, a third of the trees were burned up, and all the green grass was burned up. (NIV Revelation 8:7)

Historicist

When barbarians attacked Rome in ~AD 410, there was burning or destroying everything in their path. Approximately 1/3 of the Roman Empire was ravaged.

Preterist

Similar to historicist but everything sandwiched around the sacking of Israel by Rome. Therefore destruction of actual vegetation in the land around Jerusalem. Let's assume around 1/3.

Futurist

The most literal of all views with everything in the future, probably a literal 1/3 of the earth destroyed by nuclear bombs or something like it in whatever kind of bombs that might exists in the unknown future.

Symbolic/Spiritual

Basically the obvious symbolism that can be imagined. For example 'whatever' kind of destruction which at any time damages the earth such as what we see on the news.  Maybe 1/3 is actually greater then what is actual but symbolism does not need to literally match the figure employed.

Note: I am a rare bird these days as I have unexpectedly switched from Symbolic to the Historicist view, which is really not that popular anymore. I started out in my teens as a futurist, moved to Symbolic, almost became a Preterist just before resting in my current view, Historicist. This is how I have became familiar with them over the last 25 years.

1/3 is not the whole, not the greater, but the lesser, and shows that God in His mercy does not destroy the greater, but the lesser, desiring to bring all to repentance.  And, throughout the entire Bible, the number three references unity, therefore when 1/3 is referenced, unity is broken.


What is the meaning and origin of bridal veils in Christian weddings? Does the practice of brides wearing veils have its origin in either the Bible or Christian tradition? If so, where exactly did it originate and what is it supposed to symbolize?

Tertullian.sayeth

Let virgins alone be veiled, and this when they are coming to be married, and not till they have recognised their destined husband
De Corona

Owing to a  lack of exact biblical instructions for the performing of rite of matrimony found on the Bible. One of the instructions clearly found in the Bible is that after a marriage is settled, it is good that a woman should cease to be a virgin. So she can take off her veil.
Mr. Tertullian goes on to explain how reason can and should play a role in keeping traditions not found in the law.

tradition has given the fashion in question to custom, to find subsequently (its authorization in) the apostle's sanction, from the true interpretation of reason. This instances, therefore, will make it sufficiently plain that you can vindicate the keeping of even unwritten tradition established by custom; the proper witness for tradition when demonstrated by long-continued observance
ibid

so, this answer is probably lacking in the pre-Christian historicity, (although he makes mention of Rebecca and Susannah) but it is probably foundational for most of Christendom, and the logic applies to much more than just wearing bridal veils.

It would seem the veiled bride (Temple) is from the Word itself!

In John 3:28,29 John the Baptist says: “Ye yourselves bear me witness, that I said, I am not the Christ, but that I am sent before him. He that hath the bride is the bridegroom”

When Christ’s work on the cross was “finished” the “temple veil was rent” (Matthew 27:51, Mark 15:38, Luke 23:45) and the “Holy of Holies” in the Temple was unveiled.

In Ephesians 5:25 “for the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the savior of the body.  Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so [let] the wives [be] to their own husbands in every thing.  Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it”

One could and if qualified one should study the nuances between “veil” and “vail”.  However, in my brief non-credentialed study “vail” is an archaic rendering of “veil”.  In both cases a veil/vail is a covering.  The vail between the Holy place and the Holy of Holies was also used as a covering over the arc of the covenant when in transit.

Veiling and unveiling are significant considerations as in 2 Corinthians 3:13-18: “And not as Moses, [which] put a vail over his face, that the children of Israel could not stedfastly look to the end of that which is abolished: But their minds were blinded: for until this day remaineth the same vail untaken away in the reading of the old testament; which [vail] is done away in Christ. But even unto this day, when Moses is read, the vail is upon their heart. Nevertheless when it shall turn to the Lord, the vail shall be taken away. Now the Lord is that Spirit: and where the Spirit of the Lord [is], there [is] liberty. But we all, with open face beholding as in a glass the glory of the Lord, are changed into the same image from glory to glory, [even] as by the Spirit of the Lord.”

The Law veiled the heart but Christ unveiled believers (the Church) so “with open face we can behold the glory of the Lord”.

According to John the Baptist Jesus is the Bridegroom

According to the Gospels when Christ “gave up the ghost” the temple (Church) veil was torn in half.

According to Paul there is a real parallel between Christ and the Church and husbands and wives.

According to John in Revelation the Bride is the lambs (Christ’s) wife (Ephesians 5:27) “That he (Christ) might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish.”

I have nothing outside of Scripture to make the claims that I have made, so I do not know if and when the Church adopted bridal veiling but I believe I can speak with confidence that the above verses would be the best reason for it to do so!


Are there any commentaries from Trinitarians that explain why the Holy Spirit doesn't have a throne/receive worship in Revelation? For being a co-equal member of the Godhead, it would appear that the Holy Spirit is, for all intents and purposes, absent from the major points, events, and these visions held in Revelation.

For example, let's look at Revelation 5

  5 Then one of the elders said to me, “Do not weep! Behold, the Lion of the tribe of Judah, the root of David, has triumphed to open the scroll and its seven seals.”

  6 Then I saw a Lamb who appeared to have been slain, standing in the center of the throne, encircled by the four living creatures and the elders. The lamb had seven horns and seven eyes, which represent the sevenfold Spirit of God sent out into all the earth. 7 And He came and took the scroll from the right hand of the One seated on the throne.

  8 When He had taken the scroll, the four living creatures and the twenty-four elders fell down before the Lamb. Each one had a harp, and they held the golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of the saints. 9And they sang a new song:

  “Worthy are You to take the scroll and open its seals,
  because You were slain,
  and by Your blood You purchased for God
  those from every tribe and tongue and people and nation.

  10 You have made them into a kingdom,
  priests to serve our God,
  and they will reign on the earth.”

The Lamb Exalted

  11 Then I looked, and I heard the voices of many angels and living creatures and elders encircling the throne, and their number was myriads of myriads and thousands of thousands. 12 In a loud voice they said:

  “Worthy is the Lamb who was slain,
  to receive power and riches and wisdom and strength
  and honor and glory and blessing!”

  13 And I heard every creature in heaven, and on earth, and under the earth, and in the sea, and all that is in them, saying:

  “To Him who sits on the throne,
  and to the Lamb,
  be praise and honor and glory and power
  forever and ever.”

  14 And the four living creatures said, “Amen,” and the elders fell down and worshiped.

Also see Revelation 7:9-12

  After this I looked and saw a multitude too large to count, from every nation and tribe and people and tongue, standing before the throne and before the Lamb. They were clothed in white robes, with palm branches in their hands. 10 And they cried out in a loud voice:

  “Salvation to our God,
  who sits on the throne,
  and to the Lamb!”

  11 And all the angels stood around the throne and around the elders and the four living creatures. And they fell facedown before the throne and worshiped God, 12 saying, “Amen! Blessing and glory and wisdom and thanks and honor and power and strength to our God forever and ever! Amen.”

Among others, those passages show the exaltation, worship, praise, honor, etc. all given to God and the Lamb. Not one mention of the Spirit having a throne, receiving dominion, etc. How can this be reconciled? Are there any Trinitarian commentaries available that seek to explain or offer up some sort of logical resolution as to why the Spirit, being co-equal and co-eternal, doesn't seem to be receiving the same reverence?

The visions in Revelation that you cited in support of your contention (“that the Holy Spirit is, for all intents and purposes, absent from the major points, events, and these visions held in Revelation…”)  seemed to ignore a critically relevant point in Revelation 5:6 about “the seven spirits of God” which are “the seven eyes of the Lamb", who is “the Lion of the tribe of Judah” – the glorified Jesus Christ at the centre of this one throne of God in heaven. This means that the Holy Spirit IS included in that particular scene of worship. Verse 6 is commented on by the Protestant and Trinitarian web-site below which details one possible interpretation of the phrase, ‘the seven spirits of God’:

  “The first is that the seven spirits of God are symbolic of the Holy
  Spirit. The Bible, and especially the book of Revelation, uses the
  number 7 to refer to perfection and completion. If that is the meaning
  of the “seven” in the "seven spirits," then it is not referring to
  seven different spirits of God, but rather the perfect and complete
  Holy Spirit.” https://www.gotquestions.org/seven-spirits-God.html

This would mean, then, that when the Lamb is receiving the worship of those surrounding the throne of God in heaven, the Holy Spirit is also being worshipped, as the seven eyes of the Lamb are part of his Being. There is no need for a separate throne for the Holy Spirit as he is 'within' the Lamb, Jesus, looking out from his eyes, as it were.

  Verses 13 to 14 state, “And every creature which is in heaven, and on
  the earth, and under the earth, and such as are in the sea, and all
  that are in them, heard I saying, ‘Blessing and honour and glory and
  power be unto him that sitteth upon the throne, and unto the Lamb for
  ever and ever’. And the four beasts said, ‘Amen.’ And the twenty-four
  elders fell down and worshipped him that liveth for ever and ever.”

Not only is the Father being worshipped, but also the Son (the Lamb) whose seven eyes are the seven-fold Spirit of God. There is the triune Godhead being worshipped on this one heavenly throne.

Further to the matter of the Bible supporting the idea of worshipping the Holy Spirit equally as is the Father and the Son, here is another quote from the same Trinitarian web-site:

  “The question of whether we should worship the Holy Spirit is answered
  simply by determining whether the Spirit is God. If the Holy Spirit is
  God, then He can and should be worshiped. Scripture presents the Holy
  Spirit as not merely a “force” but as a Person. The Spirit is referred
  to in personal terms (John 15:26; 16:7–8, 13–14). He speaks (1 Timothy
  4:1), He loves (Romans 15:30), He chooses (Acts 13:2), He teaches
  (John 14:26), and He guides (Acts 16:7). He can be lied to (Acts
  5:3–4) and grieved (Ephesians 4:30). The Holy Spirit possesses the
  nature of deity—He shares the attributes of God. He is eternal
  (Hebrews 9:14). He is omnipresent (Psalm 139:7–10) and omniscient (1
  Corinthians 2:10–11). He was involved in the creation of the world
  (Genesis 1:2). The Holy Spirit enjoys intimate association with both
  the Father and the Son (Matthew 28:19; John 14:16 …Since the Holy
  Spirit is God, and God is “worthy of praise” (Psalm 18:3), then the
  Spirit is worthy of worship. Jesus, the Son of God, received worship
  (Matthew 28:9), so it stands to reason that the Spirit of God would
  also receive worship. Philippians 3:3 tells us that believers “worship
  by the Spirit of God and glory in Christ Jesus.” There is one God who
  eternally exists in three Persons. When we worship God, we naturally
  worship all three members of the Godhead.”
  https://www.gotquestions.org/worship-Holy-Spirit.html

I submit these two quotes in support of Protestant, Trinitarian belief in the Holy Spirit being worshipped in Heaven, particularly as depicted in the book of Revelation. The one throne in heaven is the 'seat' of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.  It is worth noting, also, that Catholic views on the worship of the Holy Spirit would not clash with Protestant ones.

The throne of the Holy Spirit is in the heart of the Father and the Son.

The Holy Spirit dwells in the Father and the Son.

The Holy Spirit is the love of the Father and the Son.

THE HEART A THRONE A Discourse on the Mystery of Holy Communion


Did Jesus know how to read and write? Is there any biblical evidence that suggests Jesus read or wrote anything, and was he literate?

Jesus read Isaiah 61 in a synagogue:

  Luke 4:16-22 (ESV)
  16  And he came to Nazareth, where he had been brought up. And as was his custom, he went to the synagogue on the Sabbath day, and he stood up to read. 17  And the scroll of the prophet Isaiah was given to him. He unrolled the scroll and found the place where it was written,   ...
  20  And he rolled up the scroll and gave it back to the attendant and sat down. And the eyes of all in the synagogue were fixed on him. 21  And he began to say to them, “Today this Scripture has been fulfilled in your hearing.” 22  And all spoke well of him and marveled at the gracious words that were coming from his mouth. And they said, “Is not this Joseph's son?”

Jesus wrote on the ground:

  John 8:6-8 (ESV)
  6  This they said to test him, that they might have some charge to bring against him. Jesus bent down and wrote with his finger on the ground. 7  And as they continued to ask him, he stood up and said to them, “Let him who is without sin among you be the first to throw a stone at her.” 8  And once more he bent down and wrote on the ground.

In addition to the direct implications of these, we have less direct but still strong evidence in events such as his delivery of the Sermon on the Mount. (Matthew 5-7). Also, if you are a Christian, you believe he co-authored the entire Bible (Hebrews 1:1-2).

John 8:6 would appear to show that Jesus could write:

  John 8:6: This they said, tempting him, that they might have to accuse him. But Jesus stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground, as though he heard them not.

However, this passage, known as the Pericope Adulterae is regarded as inauthentic by the great majority of biblical scholars, being absent from most early manuscripts, as well as being found in different locations when it does occur. It provides no reliable biblical evidence that Jesus could write, and the presence of this verse could merely indicate a desire among later scholars to prove that Jesus could indeed read and write.

In The Birth of Christianity, pages 234-5, John Dominic Crossan cites evidence from rabbinic sources that support a conclusion that the literacy rate in the Jewish homeland was less than 3 per cent. He says this literacy rate, though low by modern standards, was not low at all taking into account the needs of a traditional society in the past.

Crossan points out Jesus was a peasant from a peasant village. Therefore, for Crossan, Jesus was illiterate until the opposite is proven.  It is not proven but simply presumed by Luke, when he has Jesus read from the prophet Isaiah in the synagogue at Nazareth in 4:16-20 (Remembering that Luke, if he was the author of the gospel that now bears his name, appears never to have met Jesus). Jesus did not write, and in the opinion of Crossan, could not write.


How does one discern a calling to the vocation of religious life? Approaching this from a Catholic perspective, I'd like to ask believers how they came to know that they were called to join the religious life (as a brother or nun), as opposed to the other vocations (priesthood, marriage, single life etc). Rephrasing the same question, what should a believer look for when discerning whether they are called to the vocation of religious life?

Here are some resources:

Vocation to the Religious State by St. Alphonsus de Liguori
Vocations Explained: Matrimony, Virginity, the Religious State and the Priesthood by A Vincentian Father.
Vocations by Rev. William Doyle, S.J.
Religious Vocation: An Unnecessary Mystery by Fr. Richard Butler, O.P.

See also Pope Pius XII's apostolic constitution Sede Sapientiæ on vocations to the religious life says (part II.) that two necessary conditions must be met when discerning a vocation: that one is called by God and called by the Church.

Why? This will be the question asked most often. "Why do you want to be a...?" And related: "What can you do as an ordained person that you cannot do as a lay person?"

The theology of 'calling' is pretty low in my Diocese (Episcopal). That is to say, it's less of a calling and more of an offering. An offering of where one is and what gifts one has and how God can make use of what you bring.

Here's this.

  The saying is trustworthy: If anyone aspires to the office of
  overseer, he desires a noble task. Therefore an overseer must be above
  reproach, the husband of one wife, sober-minded, self-controlled,
  respectable, hospitable, able to teach, not a drunkard, not violent
  but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money. He must manage his
  own household well, with all dignity keeping his children submissive,
  for if someone does not know how to manage his own household, how will
  he care for God's church? (1 Timothy 3:1-13)


Is there a hierarchy in the Trinity? It seems that there is some form of hierarchy within the Trinity.
For example, these passages seem to indicate that the Holy Spirit is subservient to the Father and Jesus:

John 14:26 (NIV)
But the Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you.
John 15:26 (NIV)
When the Advocate comes, whom I will send to you from the Father—the Spirit of truth who goes out from the Father—he will testify about me.

Also, it seems that the Father has control over Jesus:

Matthew 26:39 (NIV)
Going a little farther, he fell with his face to the ground and prayed, “My Father, if it is possible, may this cup be taken from me. Yet not as I will, but as you will.”

My understanding is that the Trinity is three persons in one God.  Therefore, each person in the Trinity is equal to the other two.  Yet, the verses above seem to indicate that there's a hierarchy.

Is there a hierarchy (and my previous understanding flawed) or is there a deeper understanding of what's going on in those verses above?
I'm seeking a Mainstream Protestant exegesis and viewpoint on this issue.

It's a role-delineation, not a "hierarchy" (at least, not in the way it is used in common English).

God has distinct persons making up His one self - Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

They have distinct roles, as revealed in the Bible (more I'm sure can be added):

Father

Creator (Genesis 1:1, Romans 1:25, etc)
Judge (Genesis 15:14, Genesis 18:25, 1 Samuel 2:10, Job 21:22, Psalm 7:8, Luke 18:7, etc)
Initiator of Covenants (Genesis 3:15, Genesis 8:21-12, Genesis 9:9-17, Genesis 12:1-3, etc)
Elector of the those who will be Saved (Luke 18:7, John 6:65, Romans 8:33, Romans 9:13, etc)

Son

Instrument of Creation (John 1:3, Colossians 1:16, etc)
Way to the Father (John 10:9, John 14:6, 1 John 5:20, etc)
Propitiatory Sacrifice for Salvation of Man (Romans 3:25, Hebrews 2:17, 1 John 2:2, 1 John 4:10)

Holy Spirit

Enabler of Creation (Genesis 1:2, Psalm 104:30, etc)
Comforter (John 14:16-17, John 14:26, John 15:26, John 16:7, Romans 8:26, etc)
"Component" of God who lives in the Elect (John 14:17, Philippians 2:12-13, etc)
Revealer of Truth (John 16:13, 1 Corinthians 2:14, 1 Corinthians 2:16, etc)

It seems that most of us echo the teachings that have been passed on through the ages.I feel that scripture points to a definite hierachy within the Trinity.Scripture points to the fact that Jesus was sent to draw us back to the Father.Our worship is to the Father and our prayers should be addressed to Him as when Jesus taught His disciples - "Our Father which art in heaven.Hallowed be THY name.THY kingdom come, THY will be done ..."
The death on the cross was Jesus being obedient to the will of the Father -"Father remove this cup of suffering from Me - not My will but THY will be done." The decision was made by the Father and the Son was obedient to the will of the Father.
Jesus Himself says, " For the Father is greater than I am."
The Holy Spirit seems to take instruction from the Son - " I will send the Holy Spirit."
The oneness of the Trinity is a oneness of thought and mind.


Is God the Son's blood divine and infinite or human and finite (Protestant interpretation) Something I hear a lot is "Jesus has to be God because it took an infinite sacrifice to appease the infinite anger of an infinite God", or something like that.

My question concerns whether God the Son's blood is human or divine.

If human, then I don't understand how it was infinite enough to be an acceptable sacrifice, why he needed to be God, and how this is not an abomination.

If divine, then it must carry the supposed qualities of divinity (infinite, eternal, and unchangable) so that he is not a real human.

According to Protestant trinitarianism, when God the Son's blood was shed, was this a shedding of human, finite blood, or was it divine, infinite blood?

Jesus's blood is strictly part of his human nature

According to Chalcedonian Christians in the incarnation Jesus took on a complete human nature which was united to the divine nature of God. Jesus's body is part of his human nature and was created in the incarnation. The divine nature of God is spirit, uncreated, non-physical. The Chalcedonian definition says that the two natures of Christ are united without separation, but also without mixture or confusion. Jesus has two distinct natures, not one hybrid nature, which means that his blood is strictly human, not divine.

The infinite nature of sin

I think the infinite nature of sin could be better referred to as the total, complete, and unquantifiable nature of sin. Under the Jewish law there was a sense in which individual sins were to be atoned for by individual sacrifices, that certain sins needed certain sacrifices. But none of these sacrifices could actually deal with the sinful nature we possess (Hebrews 10).

Our sinful nature is all-encompassing - none of us are only partially sinful, we just are sinful. We don't need partial saving, we need complete saving. We aren't partially dead, we are dead, and Jesus doesn't make us partially alive, he makes us alive. So when we consider the atonement Jesus brings us, it's not like we count up our sins and subtract them from Jesus's sacrifice. Jesus brings us complete redemption, regeneration, and reconciliation.

If there is an "infinite anger" (a phrase I haven't heard before) then it would be in the same sense: as we are totally unquantifiably sinful, so God is totally unquantifiably angry at our sin. But God is not only angry at us. Though we may not be able to understand how, at the same time as God is unquantifiably angry with us, such that he can even call us his enemies, he loves us enough to die for us to save us (Romans 5:6-10).

The infinite nature of the atonement

While there is a debate within Protestantism over the scope of the atonement as it applies to humanity (the debate over so-called "limited" atonement), all would agree that Jesus's sacrificial atoning death was of infinite capacity, sufficient to cover every sin of every human who has ever existed.

While the blood of Jesus is important, because Jesus paid the blood debt we all owed (or the blood punishment for those who are okay with that terminology), we shouldn't think of the atonement being accomplished solely or even primarily by his blood. The 5 litres of his blood don't need to be distributed among humanity as if we need one red blood cell each. While we Western Christians like to think individually, and while it is necessary that we do each have a personal faith and receive salvation ourselves, the atonement was for the church as a group.

On the cross Jesus received the condemnation which the whole world deserved. He destroyed the power of sin and death, and he initiated the end of the time of Adam. In his resurrection he is like a new Adam (Romans 5, 1 Cor 15), bringing new life to a new humanity. His death is the end of the old and his resurrection the beginning of the new, although we are waiting for judgement day when the beginning will be completed. We receive this not through an individual gift or transfer but because we are united to Christ, we are "in Christ" as the NT frequently says. I think we can say that we are in effect one step removed from the blood of Jesus: Jesus sheds his blood in the judgement of the old humanity and destroys sin and death, and then receives vindication, new eternal life, and initiates the new humanity in his resurrection. We die and are raised in him (Romans 6), so that the death of one man can cover us all because we are united to him.

In the olden days, people believed that the fetus received the mother's blood.  Since Jesus' blood was pure that must mean, they thought, Mary's blood must be pure.  This led to the doctrine* that Mary must have been conceived without sin (immaculate conception, Roman Catholic) or she became pure at the annunciation (Eastern Orthodox).  But this was bad science that led to divisive doctrine.

The baby in fact creates its own blood**.

Now, we also know that the virgin conceived and bore to term the baby.  So, it was divine blood, which is to say, not of the fallen Adam nature, not of Mary.  Yet, Christ did have flesh, so it was human blood, but again, without sin or its consequences (death), which is why Christ resurrected on the third day.

*https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immaculate_Conception
**http://www.justanswer.com/pediatrics/1f2ym-does-baby-s-blood-father-mother.html
**https://www.babble.com/pregnancy/anatomy-fetus-placenta/
**many other references are available


How many of each species went onto the Ark? "The animals went in two-by-two, hurrah, hurrah!" - we're taught this nursery rhyme from a young age, and go throughout life believing that one male, and one female of each species was present on the Ark in order to re-populate the world after the flood.

  Genesis 6:19 - "You are to bring into the ark two of all living
  creatures, male and female, to keep them alive with you. 20 Two of
  every kind of bird, of every kind of animal and of every kind of
  creature that moves along the ground will come to you to be kept
  alive."

  Genesis 7:2 -"Take with you seven pairs of every kind of clean animal,
  a male and its mate, and one pair of every kind of unclean animal, a
  male and its mate, 3 and also seven pairs of every kind of bird, male
  and female, to keep their various kinds alive throughout the earth."

I find the verses above somewhat confusing with regards to how many of each species would have been present on the Ark. How do people who take the Ark narrative literally interpret this?

In the KJV it might be hard to understand, but in the translation you used above I think its very clear.

There was "one pair" of each unclean animal, i.e. 2 of each of those species.

There were "seven pairs" of every clean animal and bird, i.e. 14 of each of those species.

So they did essentially go in "two-by-two" but for some species there was only one pair, and for others there were seven pairs.

If the problem is that Genesis 6:19 does not mention the seven pairs like Genesis 7:2 does, that is easily overcome by assuming that God would give Noah more specific instructions closer to the event than the general overview he gave earlier.  After all, notice that Noah is not tasked with rounding up the animals, but Genesis 6:19 says all these animals "will come to you."  So God may have initially made it sound like to Noah that only 2 of each animal would come, but for whatever reason later sent 14 of certain species, and explained it to Noah again when the animals arrived.

Two pair of each unclean kind (cross-bred)
Seven pair of each clean kind (purebred)

The answer to your question rests on the length of a cubit and the size/strength of Gopher wood. Neither of these items are known today.
This leaves a path open for those who teach hatred of the Bible to deceive with intent.

So let go of any of their limited restricted irrational critical thinking garbage you may have because it hinders your ability to understand.

A common misunderstanding is that a cubit was about 20 inches and gopher wood was as small and weak as today's trees.  But that is just an assumption that doesn't fit the Bible text.

In measurements before the flood the cubit was most likely significantly larger than 20 inches. A Gopher tree could have made a Redwood look like a toothpick. The strength of Gopher wood could have been much stronger than steel.
Those characteristics would make Gopher wood highly desirable for all manners of construction. Without proper management a wood like that would be cut to extinction.  Just like the Redwoods almost were.

Hopefully now the confusion is lifting and you can allow yourself to understand that the Ark was as large as needed to fit as many kinds clean and unclean (or specie variations) that existed.  It had ample room for the people, the food, the animals, and maybe even a dance floor for entertainment after the days chores were complete.


Is there a biblical reason to limit information about creation to Genesis? Here's a debate between Hugh Ross of "Reasons to Believe" and Ken Ham.  These men are popular spokesmen for each of Old Earth and Young Earth Creationism, respectively. In the hour-long discussion, Ken repeatedly shuts down any use of passages other than Genesis to get information about the details of creation. For example, he didn't want to talk about how Job (9:8) or Psalms (104:2) speak of God "stretching the heavens"

Setting aside the whole YEC/OEC debate for the moment, is there a biblical reason to limit creation-detail information to the book of Genesis?

There is no reason to limit information about the creation week to Genesis, but...

1) There are a number of good reasons to limit information about the creation week to Scripture. For instance, philosophically, the word of God is truth, and all men are corrupt and limited, which makes the revealed word of God the only reliable source for truth.

2) There is good reason to give preference to historical narrative over image-rich, emotional songs, etc. If it is a psalm, its purpose may be to praise God, but may not be to relay historical information about the creation week in a straightforward and sequential manner. (See, for example, Psalm 6:6)

3) Whenever you interpret Scripture, it is always wise to consider the purpose of the passage in question. Genesis 1 is the only passage in Scripture whose primary purpose is clearly to provide information about the creation week.

4) There is good reason to believe that most (if not all) of the information about the creation week that appears subsequent to the first two chapters of Genesis is based on the first two chapters of Genesis.

For these reasons, Genesis can easily be regarded as the best source of information about the creation week, and is certainly the first place I would go in studying the topic.

This is kind of a pet topic of mine, and one thing I've learned is that what you accept as worth looking at for insight will be almost wholly dependent on what you already think. For example, I grew up realizing the importance of trusting God, and trusting that He will tell the truth is an important part of that. Because of this, I immediately allied myself with young-earth creationism when I encountered it.

For me, Genesis is really the only book that can be relied on to give any sort of accurate timeline, considering it was written as history. On the other hand, I also recognize a lot of support for young-earth creationism outside of Genesis. One prime example is in Exodus, where a 7-day creation is re-affirmed as the example the Israelits should follow.

Some big reasons why it can be important to stick to Genesis in debates is that arguments based on other books are often taken out of context, can be explained very simply, and inherently reject ideas that YEC's consider unarguable. I'll give an example of the latter: YEC's (especially Ken Ham) argue that it is impossible to argue against an atheist evolutionist because the YEC's entire point is based on the Bible, which he considers indisposable, but the atheist will reject all arguments from Scripture. In the same way, verses from non-Genesis books often have the appearance of dodging the issue or ignoring things that should be taken as granted.


Crucifixion -- torture stake or cross? The Jehovah's Witnesses state that Jesus was not nailed on a cross, but on a torture stake. The New World Translation of the Bible is phrased accordingly. For example:

Matthew 10:38 (NWT)
And whoever does not accept his torture stake and follow after me is not worthy of me.

(All the other translations (that I know of) translate cross instead.)
What is significant about the difference between a torture stake and a cross, and on which one was Jesus crucified?

An illustration of what might be a torture stake:

Crux Simplex by Justus Lipsius (1547-1606). Wikimedia Commons.

There is comparatively little evidence in the NT for the shape of the object. There is not much etymological help from the Greek words σταυρός or ξύλον, which do not clearly indicate either shape.
Some of the textual hints we do have are:

  But [Thomas] said to them, “Unless I see the nail marks in his hands and put my finger where the nails were, and put my hand into his side, I will not believe.” (John 20:25, NIV)

This suggests that there was more than one nail placed through the hands, which is more likely on a cross than on a stake - though I could imagine a nail through each hand, with the hands side by side. But the JWs assert that the plural is referring to two nails, one through both hands and the other through both feet. The Greek reads "ἐν ταῖς χερσὶν αὐτοῦ τὸν τύπον τῶν ἥλων", which is "in his hands the imprint of the nails", clearly linking multiple nails to the hands specifically.

  Above his head they placed the written charge against him: THIS IS JESUS, THE KING OF THE  JEWS. (Matthew 27:37, NIV)

If Jesus were crucified as in the picture, the sign would be obscured by his arms. If it were also placed above his hands, Matthew could have written "Above his hands..." - but he didn't.

  Carrying his own cross, he went out to the place of the Skull, which in Aramaic is called Golgotha. (John 19:17, NIV)

Several different crucifixion methods were used by the Romans, including the traditional cross and the simple vertical stake. But the reference to carrying suggests that Jesus carried the crossbeam or patibulum of his cross - contemporary sources indicated that condemned people could be made to carry their own patibulum, but not the entire cross or stake, and of course a stake has no crossbeam at all. (Now-familiar depictions of Jesus carrying the whole cross come along later.)

It is common ground between Jehovah's Witnesses and the rest of us that for most of Christian history, Christ's crucifixion has almost always been regarded as being on a cross. The problem that the JWs have with it is that they think that the cross is a pagan symbol which was mistakenly (or maliciously) adopted early on in Christian history, as Christian belief and practice departed from its original form. As a restorationist group, they believe that in rejecting the cross shape they are returning to Christianity as it was meant to be. Insistence on the 'torture stake' is not particularly important in itself, but it is a prominent reminder of their distinctiveness, and of the error into which they think others have fallen.

Denial of the cross goes hand in hand with the denial of Christ. There is one very important factor that is missing when trying to understand why it's so very important to reason about the cross vs a stake. Satan himself was defeated at Calvary by Jesus' crucifixion.

Does it matter if it is a stake or cross? Most definitely! Satan is called many things. Deceiver being one. Liar another. A wolf in sheeps clothing. To focus so dramatically on a symbol of the very defeat of the devil and to diminish its significance can only come from the Devil himself. To claim the cross is a pagan symbol to explain why it shouldn't be called a cross, rather a stake only proves the Devil's intent to minimize his defeat.

There isn't one single Christian who wears a cross that declares allegiance to paganism. There isn't one single Christian church that has a cross inside or outside their place of worship that does so to worship paganism. It is an outward declaration of the defeat of satan at Calvary. It is the very death of Jesus on this cross that sets every human being on earth free from SATAN'S trap!!!

To say a Christian who calls it a cross is paganistic is calling God a liar. And we all know God is not the Liar. Satan is. You can reason it away as much as you want to, but the truth is, only the devil hates the cross more than Jehovah's Witnesses. If you can't see the correlation here, then you have already been deceived.


According to Catholic Church tradition, where, when, how and by whom did the devotion of the Stations of the Cross begin? Lent is approaching and during Holy Week, it is my understanding that every year at the Colosseum, the Pope leads the faithful in a devotion called the of the Way of the Cross [cf. this photo gallery].

According to Catholic Church tradition, where, when, how and by whom did the devotion of the Stations of the Cross begin?

Seeking answers from Catholic documents/sources. Please note the question is asking when, according to Church Tradition did the devotion start. Who , according to the Church Tradition did it first, when, and where?

If you are asking specifically about The Stations of The Cross as we know them today in the West, that is to say: the practice of placing symbolic artwork around a worship space depicting the events of Jesus' final hours and the practice of moving about from station to station in prayer, you can probably pin it on The Franciscans (and by extension St. Francis of Assissi) sometime near the end of the 17th century in central Europe.

Taken in this regard The Stations are a symbolic representation of a physical, bodily pilgrimage to the purported locales of said events, which may have begun within a generation or two of Christ's crucifixion.

  Tradition asserts that the Blessed Virgin used to visit daily the
  scenes of Christ's Passion and St. Jerome (c.  347 – 420) speaks of the crowds of
  pilgrims from all countries who used to visit the holy places in his
  day. (The Catholic Encyclopedia - 1907)

Fast forward to The Middle Ages and The Crusades. (The military campaigns enjoined by The Catholic Church to re-establish Christian access to said holy places.)

  In 1342, Pope Clement VI, by the Papal bulls Gratiam agimus and Nuper
  charissimae declared the Franciscans as the official custodians of the
  Holy Places in the name of the Catholic Church. (The Bull of Clement VI - 1342)

Then, in central Europe during the 15th and 16th centuries, Franciscans started to create outdoor sculptures and shrines that would replicate these holy places of Jerusalem. These were usually placed, often in small buildings, along the approach to a church, as in a set of 1490 by Adam Kraft, leading to the Johanneskirche in Nuremberg. (1)

But to get to what - I think - is the crux of your question:

  Realizing that few persons, comparatively, were able to gain these by
  means of a personal pilgrimage to the Holy Land, Innocent XI, in 1686,
  granted to the Franciscans, in answer to their petition, the right to
  erect the Stations in all their churches, and declared that all the
  indulgences that had ever been given for devoutly visiting the actual
  scenes of Christ's Passion, could thenceforth be gained by Franciscans
  and all others affiliated to their order if they made the Way of the
  Cross in their own churches in the accustomed manner.

  Innocent XII
  confirmed the privilege in 1694 and Benedict XIII in 1726 extended it
  to all the faithful. In 1731 Clement XII still further extended it by
  permitting the indulgenced Stations to all churches, provided that
  they were erected by a Franciscan father with the sanction of the
  ordinary.

  At the same time he definitely fixed the number of Stations
  at fourteen.

  (The Catholic Encyclopedia - 1907)

(1) Schiller, Gertrud, Iconography of Christian Art, Vol. II, p. 82, 1972 (English trans from German), Lund Humphries, London, ISBN 0-85331-324-5

At least since the times of Constantine, the Via Dolorosa was practiced at Jerusalem. See this.


What is an overview of the main interpretations of "day" in Genesis 1? In the Creation account in Genesis 1 (and 2), God's work of Creation is famously split into 7 "days". For example, the first "day" occurs in verse 5:

  Genesis 1:5 (NLT)
  God called the light "day" and the darkness "night."

  And evening passed and morning came, marking the first day.

I have seen claims that "day" refers to a literal 24-hour period, which is supported by the fact that the same Hebrew word is used for both occurrences of "day" in that verse. I have also seen claims that "day" just refers to some long period of time, which is in agreement with scientific evidence. Hence, my question is:

Considering context and wording, what are the main interpretations of "day" in Genesis 1?

There are three primary views that explain the meaning of the word "day" in Genesis 1. I will describe each one, and some of the purported Biblical evidence supporting each, briefly here. After all, this is a topic on which many books have been written.

24-hour Day Theory

This view, which is held by many Young Earth Creationists states that each of the 6 days were 24-hours long. Although they admit that the Sun was not created until the third day, this does not mean that the first two days could not have been 24-hours long, just the same.

A small sample of Biblical evidence to support this theory includes:

Genesis 1 mentions the passing of "morning" and "evening", this suggests literal days
A study of other Biblical texts which use the phrase "evening and morning" (38 not counting Genesis 1) all refer to 24-hour days
The Hebrew word for day (Yom) used in Genesis 1, whenever attached to a number elsewhere in scripture, it refers to a 24-hour day

See the book Creation and Time: A Report on the Progressive Creationist Book by Hugh Ross by Mark A Van Beber and Paul S. Taylor for more discussion on this, and relevant topics. Note: not to be confused with the book Creation and Time by Hugh Ross, to which the aforementioned book is a rebuttal.
1000-year Day Theory

Another view held by many Young Earth Creationists, it is essentially the same as the 24-hour Day Theory, with the exception that it acknowledges that God's perspective of time is different than the human perspective of time, in light of 2 Peter 3:8:

  But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day.

Therefore, the Genesis 1 days may refer to 1000-year time periods, rather than 24-hour time periods.
Day-Age Theory

This view, a subset of Old Earth Creationism, is the view that the word "day" in Genesis 1 is metaphorical, and represents an arbitrary amount of time. Consistency with scientific evidence is frequently cited, but also often criticized by Young Earth Creationsts as taking too liberal a view of scripture.

A small sample of Biblical evidence to support this view includes:

The Hebrew word for day (Yom) used in Genesis 1 has many meanings: (a) Some portion of the daylight (hours), (b) Sunrise to sunset, (c) Sunset to sunset, (d) A segment of time without any reference to solar days (from weeks to a year to several years to an age or epoch) [i.e. "In my grandfather's day" or "in the day of the dinosaurs]
In rebuttal to point #2 above, the argument is made that none of these 38 mentions of "evening and morning" use the same Hebrew word for day (Yom), so drawing parallels is inappropriate
In rebuttal to point #3 above, the argument is made that when used elsewhere in the singular (as it is in Genesis 1) the Hebrew word (Yom) is always in reference to human activity, therefore drawing parallels to this usage in Genesis 1 in this case is also inappropriate
The fact that the seventh day never ended suggests that we are still living in the seventh day, which would clearly indicate that the seventh "day" is many years long.
The Genesis 2 re-account of creation has Adam naming "all the wild animals and all the birds" (Genesis 2:19-20 NIV) between his own creation and before Eve was created, thus all on the 6th day. This would be impossible in a 24-hour period (Young Earth creationists often argue that God may have given Adam supernatural speed or abilities, or that prior to the fall man naturally had greater abilities that might allow this task to be completed in one day.)

See the book A Matter of Days by Hugh Ross for additional discussion of these topics.

My understanding, is the "Day" refers to a certain period of time and not necessary 24 hrs or 1000 years.  It could be 1,000,000 years, or it could be 1 hour, we'll never know. For God, time is irrelevant and time doesn't apply to Him the same way as it does to us here on earth.  In fact, if you read the Bible carefully, each day (time period) of creation starts with evening and ends with morning (there was evening and there was morning, day one).  What I think evening refers to is darkness, chaos, non existence of something, and morning refers to completion/creation of something, visibility, light.  Thus, it describes time period that only God knows how long it was, translating into earthly hours, days or years.  We can clearly see this in creation of light (day one).  At first, there was darkness and after the light was created, God called this period of creation time "day" one.  We also see that the 7th day (day of rest) still continuities even at present time.  The Bible does not say "there was evening and there was morning" about the 7th day.

Peter, when he says that for God, one day is like a 1000 years simply states that a period of day for God could be any length of time.  Notice, he says "like" and not exactly 1000 years.


What is the basis for the belief that Eve was created on the sixth day, like Adam? I have always thought that Eve was created on the sixth day, a bit later in the day than Adam.  However, I recently discovered that some believe Eve was created on a later day.

What, then, is the basis for the believe that Eve was, in fact, created on the sixth day, a bit later in the day than Adam?

The basis for the belief that Eve was created on the 6th day is a literal interpretation of Genesis 1.

Genesis 1:26-28 ESV Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. And let them have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over the livestock and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.” So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them. And God blessed them. And God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it, and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over every living thing that moves on the earth.”

Genesis 1:31 ESV And God saw everything that he had made, and behold, it was very good. And there was evening and there was morning, the sixth day.

I bolded the keys words. It's important to note that the word "man" in this passage can both refer to a single human male or it can refer to mankind, male and female. Note the use of "them".
Also, it sure would be tough to tell a single male to "be fruitful and multiply."

Here is my theory. Let's look at Gen 2 vs 5. This coincides with Gen 1 vs 10 down to 13. If we look deeply, Adam was created on the 3rd day.
Then let's see Gen 1vs 24 and then look at Gen 2 bs 19. This happens on the 6th day.
So Eve was created alongside everyone else on the 6th day which puts the time line as;
3rd day- Adam
6th Day animals, Eve and everyone else.
Gen 2 is a more details account of Gen 1vs 10 down to the end.


Why does Jesus not want people to repent and be forgiven in Mark 4? This is in response to the disciples asking why Jesus teaches in parables:

  He said to them, "The secret of the kingdom of God has been given to you. But to those outside, everything is in parables, so that although they look they may look but not see, and although they hear they may hear but not understand, so they may not repent and be forgiven." -Mark 4:11-12 New English Translation

Why does he say this? Why is he teaching at all if his intent is actually that the people not see, not understand, and not repent. It seems troubling.

Your Bible is missing the double quotes.  Jesus is quoting Isaiah:

  Then I heard the voice of the Lord saying, “Whom shall I send? Who will go for us?” “Here I am,” I said; “send me!” And he replied: Go and say to this people:
  Listen carefully, but do not understand!
  Look intently, but do not perceive!
  Make the heart of this people sluggish,
  dull their ears and close their eyes;
  Lest they see with their eyes, and hear with their ears,
  and their heart understand,
  and they turn and be healed.

Isaiah 6:8-10 (NABRE)

I think He's describing the process shown in the OT and exemplified throughout human history, not issuing a command.

According to the intratext in the NABRE, this is also quoted in

John 12:40; Acts 28:26; and Romans 11:8.

I can't say that I particularly understand the meaning of Jesus' words, but hopefully it'll point you in the right direction.

Why does Jesus not want people to repent and be forgiven in Mark 4? He DOES want people to repent and be forgiven, your translation is inaccurate. Your same New English Translation says "No, I tell you! But unless you repent, you will all perish as well!" -Luke 13:3 New English Translation

It Should Say He told them, “The secret of the kingdom of God has been given to you. But to those on the outside everything is said in parables 12 so that, “‘they may be ever seeing but never perceiving, and ever hearing but never understanding; otherwise they might turn and be forgiven!’”  -Mark 4:11-12 (NIV)

Why does he say this? HE DOESN"T the New English Translation translated what he said incorrect.

Why is he teaching at all if his intent is actually that the people not see, not understand, and not repent. It seems troubling. It would be troubling if that is what he was teaching, but that is not what he was really teaching.


Is there any historical evidence that would indicate where exactly the ark of the covenant is now located? The Ark of the Covenant was presumably located in the Holy of Holies in the Temple in Jerusalem in 70 A.D. when Titus conquered the city and destroyed the Temple.  Is there any historical indication of what happened to the Ark of the Covenant and the other items inside the Temple at that time, such as Aaron's budding staff, the two tablets of the testimony (10 Commandments), the Brazen Altar, and the Table of Bread?

Were the Jews able to hide these things or were they captured?

(Assuming, of course, that Indiana Jones and The Raiders of the Lost Ark was not a documentary.)

There are several historical hints to the location of the Ark.  Many of them are contradictory.  The problem isn't so much finding historical evidence that points to possible current locations of the Ark, it's that we have no way of determining which, if any, are valid, true, and reliable.

For example, ChristianAnswers.Net gives several possible locations.  The Church of Ethiopia claims to have it.  This is backed up by the writings of Abu Salih the Armenian in the late 1100s.  WND.com has a page indicating it might be beneath the temple Mount, and claims "compelling evidence" points to the theory.

However, the introductory statement to the article at WND.com pretty much backs up what my original paragraph claims.

  WASHINGTON

  It would almost inarguably be the greatest archaeological
  find in history.

  Movies have been made about it.

  Voluminous books have explored its whereabouts.

Those voluminous books are filled with historical and archaeological hints to the whereabouts.  But, to this day, if anyone truly knows where it is, they sure aren't offering proof.  Until the actual Ark is revealed, I doubt the world at large will know where it is, regardless of how many hints exist.  The volume of hints actually helps to ensure that it remains safe, hidden, as it lays all sorts of false trails for those searching for it.

I don't know exactly where the Ark is, but I know ruffly where it is and who has it?

Everyone is asking the wrong question. If you ask the wrong question you will never get the answer you need. The question is not where the Ark is, the question is, who has it? Because it can be moved very easily.

And yes there were many false trails. Some look very good and the Ethiopian trail was hatched by the wisest of all. Solomon. Think about it for a moment. Would Solomon the wise really send such a sacred item so far from the Temple? Where he could lose control of the Ark?

The answer is simple based on the real history. What are some of these facts?

The Ark was once stolen by Israels enemies, who were killed by the hundreds of thousands and begged the Israelites to come take the Ark back. So this cuts out all the theories that the Romans or someone else stole it. They or anyone else do not have the authority to handle the Ark.

Who kept the records of the Israelites?
Who is authorized to handle the Ark?

The LEVITE'S   Very simple, they still have it. There are many Rabbi's in the world, but if a Levite  walks into any synagogue, he immediately has the authority to lead. This is his right. The Levite's are pretty much hidden in Society outside of Judaism, and it is deliberate. They have all the Jewish Records, and the Ark and everything else. It was removed by the Levite's before anyone had a chance to damage the Ark.

It is also my understanding that only 3 Levites at any one time know the location. And if you are wondering, I am not a Levite. I will also state this, you won't find the Ark because they don't want you to.


Does the Minimal Facts Argument have the potential to the biggest Christian revelation over the last thousand years? I recently came across the "Minimal Facts Argument" by Dr Gary Habermas. In short, the argument is that there are a half dozen reliable historical facts (even for those who'd judge the NT as unreliable) showing that the disciples of Jesus went through a powerful transformation based on their experience of the resurrected Jesus, from which we can conclude that the resurrection of Jesus is historically defensible.

I've been a Christian for 26 years and it struck me very very hard and it occurs to me that this line of reasoning has already adjusted the academic majority view substantially over the last 40 years (since its inception).

My question is: does the argument have the potential to be as long term ground breaking within the church (and it's Christian theology) as it is largely not common knowledge among Christians, whereas it has been able to utterly revolutionise academia (where it turned a whole myriad of cynics' presuppositions upside-down) i.e. could it end up being the biggest landmark "discovery" of the last thousand years?

I must say it has markedly increased my emphasis on the historicity of the gospels.

Although I admit I hadn't heard of Habermas prior to this question, it can't be denied that he is an important figure in Apologetics, as evidenced by him being in the top 14 authors by number of index references in Groothuis's textbook Christian Apologetics.

The Minimal Facts Argument (MFA) does not exist in isolation. It is a specific form of apologetic argument in the broader approach of Evidential Apologetics. Habermas is not the only proponent of this approach, and though I don't know who first developed it as a distinct approach to apologetics, Habermas is the youngest of the proponents listed in Wikipedia, making me think it's pretty unlikely that he was its founder.

Evidential Apologetics itself is really a development of so-called Classical Apologetics. Groothuis explains their relationship as follows: Classical Apologetics has a two-step strategy: arguing first for a monotheistic God, and then for the particulars of Christianity, focusing on miracles, the incarnation, and the death and resurrection of Jesus. Evidentialism has a one-step strategy, jumping straight to the argument of the historicity of Christ and the resurrection, its proponents arguing that the fact of the resurrection is enough to bring someone directly from atheism to faith in Christ, without needing to be convinced of theism first.

It is natural for Christian apologists to give a heavy focus to the death and resurrection of Jesus - it is the centre of our gospel of course! More than that, it seems to me that the MFA is really just a particular formulation of another common argument, often called the Transformation of the Disciples. Two popular pop-level apologetics books, Josh McDowell's Evidence Demands a Verdict and Lee Strobel's The Case for Christ each include it as part of their Cumulative approach to apologetics. McDowell quotes none other than John Stott saying "Perhaps the transformation of the disciples of Jesus is the greatest evidence of all for the resurrection", and Strobel interviewed J. P. Moreland who says that his first line of evidence for the resurrection is the transformation of the disciples.

Furthermore, it is also quite common for apologists to present first the extra-Biblical evidences for Jesus. Though many have written on these topics, few do it as well as John Dickson's The Christ Files, which considers in order the secular Greco-Roman sources about Jesus, then the hostile witness of Jewish sources, before finally considering the Christian witness.

In summary, The Minimal Facts Argument is unlikely to be revolutionary within Christianity because it is far from a revolutionary argument. The ideas it conveys are actually well recognised and are given a place of top importance by many apologists. (For this reason I'm highly doubtful that you can attribute the change within secular academia of almost universal acknowledgement of the historicity of Jesus to the MFA.) The MFA is one way of building an argument on these facts, but it is not the only way to do so. And because most apologists do not subscribe to the Evidentialist approach, I think the specific form of MFA may end up being overlooked compared to those who present the very similar Transformation of the Disciples argument within a Cumulative approach.

The answer to your question is . . .  No.

There has been no 'christian revelation' over the past thousand years. The period of revelation ceased with the departure of the apostles of Jesus Christ. Twelve only were chosen through whom all was revealed in the holy scriptures.

Each generation is built on that initial foundation.

  For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ. I Corinthians 3:11.

Every time there is a departure from this initial foundation (and there have been many) it is necessary not to seek 'further revelation' it is needful to return to that which was initially founded.

This is what John the Apostle does when there has been a departure. He writes :

  That which was from the beginning That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life; I John 1:1.

Your encouragement to follow a new revelation is ill advised.

Especially when that 'new revelation' is built on 'minimal facts' rather than this fact :

  My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me: John 10:27.


On the validity of the anticipated absolution in absence of the related confession According to Catholic Church, what are the cases in which the absolution can be anticipated and the confession left for a time in which it will be possible to make it?

Also, in cases of anticipated absolution, supposing that for some reason the confession cannot take place, will that absolution be valid and effective to go to Heaven?

Two questions seem to be asked:

1) When can absolution be anticipated to actual confession?, and

2) What happens if the "postponed" confession does not come to pass?

In regards to when our sins are forgiven in anticipation to confession, The Church teaches that this should happen only in cases of physical or moral impossibility (CCC 1484, in part):

  "Individual, integral confession and absolution remain the only ordinary way for the faithful to reconcile themselves with God and the Church, unless physical or moral impossibility excuses from this kind of confession."

When absolution of one's sins is absolutely needed --- dangerous circumstances that could lead to death --- and access to a priest for confession is a physical or moral impossibility, The Church advises to make a perfect act of contrition.  As noted in other answers to this question (CCC 1451-1452):

  Among the penitent's acts contrition occupies first place. Contrition is "sorrow of the soul and detestation for the sin committed, together with the resolution not to sin again."

  When it arises from a love by which God is loved above all else, contrition is called "perfect" (contrition of charity). Such contrition remits venial sins; it also obtains forgiveness of mortal sins if it includes the firm resolution to have recourse to sacramental confession as soon as possible.

So, what happens if the anticipated confession does not come to pass?

Well, a close examination of CCC 1452 reveals that, as long as we have made a perfect act of contrition: a) venial sins are forgiven, regardless of whether we confess later or not; b) mortal sins are forgiven provided that, in addition, we make a "firm resolution" to go to confession as soon as possible.  Note that only a "firm resolution" to confess as soon as possible is needed, and not necessarily the actualization of such a resolution --- this covers the cases where we die before finding a priest!  Of course God knows whether our firm resolution is sincere or not, and he can act accordingly.

As for imperfect contrition: well, in that case we are out of luck if we don't have access to confession.  The only ordinary way that The Church knows how to deal with that is through confession --- though God may still in act in extraordinary ways which we do not know --- (CCC 1453):

  The contrition called "imperfect" (or "attrition") is also a gift of God, a prompting of the Holy Spirit. It is born of the consideration of sin's ugliness or the fear of eternal damnation and the other penalties threatening the sinner (contrition of fear). Such a stirring of conscience can initiate an interior process which, under the prompting of grace, will be brought to completion by sacramental absolution. By itself however, imperfect contrition cannot obtain the forgiveness of grave sins, but it disposes one to obtain forgiveness in the sacrament of Penance.

As far as I know, the traditional Catholic doctrine on forgiveness of sins apart from confession is as follows.  Perfect contrition, meaning sorrow for one's sins because of one's love for God, results in forgiveness even before confession, and even if one is legitimately impeded from going to confession later.  The love of God that is involved in perfect contrition must, however, include in particular the intention to receive sacramental absolution when possible.  So I cannot just forget about confession and expect all my sins to be forgiven on the basis of perfect contrition --- by ignoring the sacrament, I would make my contrition imperfect.  (On the basis of my own experience, it is difficult to tell whether my contrition is perfect or not.  I love God, but I may also have other motives for being sorry for my sins, and it's hard to accurately assess the relative importance of the various motives.)

A couple of additional points. (1) For a valid confession, the penitent must have contrition for a supernatural motive, but it need not be perfect contrition.  For example, fear of hell is a supernatural motive. Fear of the police is not. (2) All that I wrote here refers to people who are already baptized and therefore capable of receiving other sacraments, in particular the sacrament of penance.  If someone is not yet baptized, then the way to forgiveness is to receive baptism.


What is the Biblical basis for the idea that creation will applaud the damnation of a sinner? Paul Washer has often said this. For example:

  From heaven’s perspective, those who break God’s Law are vile and worthy of all loathing. They are a wretched lot, justly exposed to divine vengeance, and rightly devoted to eternal destruction. It is not an exaggeration to say that the last thing that the accursed sinner should and will hear when he takes his first step into hell is all of creation standing to its feet and applauding God because He has rid the earth of him. Such is the vileness of those who break God’s law, and such is the disdain of the holy towards the unholy. (Paul Washer, "The Cross of Christ," HeartCry Magazine)

Now, although this quote sounds logical, I can't find biblical support for it. The closest I can find is:

  And the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever: and they have no rest day nor night, who worship the beast and his image, and whosoever receiveth the mark of his name.
  Revelation 14:11

  And after these things I heard a great voice of much people in heaven, saying, Alleluia; Salvation, and glory, and honour, and power, unto the Lord our God: For true and righteous are his judgments: for he hath judged the great whore, which did corrupt the earth with her fornication, and hath avenged the blood of his servants at her hand. And again they said, Alleluia. And her smoke rose up for ever and ever. And the four and twenty elders and the four beasts fell down and worshipped God that sat on the throne, saying, Amen; Alleluia. And a voice came out of the throne, saying, Praise our God, all ye his servants, and ye that fear him, both small and great. And I heard as it were the voice of a great multitude, and as the voice of many waters, and as the voice of mighty thunderings, saying, Alleluia: for the Lord God omnipotent reigneth.
  Revelation 19:1-6

Neither verse directly supports Washer's quote.

Sometimes we may be quick to judge another brother, not knowing exactly what they mean, so I will not argue for or against this quote, but I will show a way that it is not true, and a way that it could be true.

In contrast, if it is implied that God, or the saints, rejoice in the destruction of sinners, that cannot be true.

  Do I take any pleasure in the death of the wicked? declares the Sovereign LORD. Rather, am I not pleased when they turn from their ways and live?
  Ezekiel 18:23 (NIV)

In support, if it is merely implied that creation is nature and has been put into bondage by the sin of Adam and groans to have sinners and sin to be taken out of it, this is a personification of nature that seems to be supported by the Bible and may be true.

  For the creation was subjected to frustration, not by its own choice, but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope  that the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the freedom and glory of the children of God. We know that the whole creation has been groaning as in the pains of childbirth right up to the present time.
  Romans 8:20-22 (NIV)

This is a euphemism! When he said the "Last thing", it is a figure of speech meaning that it will never happen, as in, "I would never do that! That would be the last thing I would ever do!" Washer was not saying that people or God cheer when people go to hell. It is God's will that none should perish but all come to knowledge of the truth. Washer knows this. You just took his quote out of context because he used an American euphemism. Listen to this rest of the sermon and recognize the context in which the statement was made.


What is meant by "love covers over a multitude of sins"? And above all things have fervent love for one another, for “love will cover a multitude of sins.” (1 Pet 4:8, NKJV)
Hatred stirs up strife, But love covers all sins. (Prov 10:12, NKJV)

What does it mean for "love to cover a multitude of sins"? Does it mean one of the following?

Love prevents you from seeing or noticing sins at all?
Love allows you to see sins, but you overlook/ignore them?
Love allows you to see sins, but you forgive them?
Something else?

Also, in these two verses, the teaching/admonition seems to be directed toward man for human-to-human relationships, but how does "love covering a multitude of sins" play out in God's love toward man?

Love certainly does not mean ignoring sins or not noticing them at all. It is unloving for us to notice a fellow Christian living in sin and not help them. And when they sin against us, we are not to act like nothing happened in all cases, but we are to confront them Biblically when appropriate.

R.C. Sproul Jr. wrote an excellent article on the subject here. In summary, he said:

  When we are wronged our calling is to practice a careful moral calculus. Is this offense one I should let go of? Is it among the multitude that love covers? Or is this offense grievous enough that love means confronting in grace my brother? Sadly what we usually do is think we are practicing the former while actually holding grudges and putting miracle-grow on roots of bitterness. Peace in the church calls us to under-accuse, over-repent and over-forgive. Let us not be afraid to call sin sin, but let us not be slow to forgive it and to look past it.

There are cases where we are to overlook. If they were inconsiderate and bothered us, in many cases it is better to simply overlook and move on. But if the sin is greater, then we should confront them using the model presented in Matthew 18:15-19. In all cases, we should have an attitude of forgiveness towards them, willing to forgive the wrong when they ask for forgiveness.

In relationship to God's love towards man (and you could probably ask a second question on this part), we are to love because God first loved us. He paid the price for our sins on the cross, and forgave us our sins:

  For as high as the heavens are above the earth, So great is His lovingkindness toward those who fear Him. As far as the east is from the west, So far has He removed our transgressions from us. (Psalm 103:11-12)

God's justice demands there must be a payment for our sins. But because Christ died on the cross for them, God forgives us if we truly repent. Sometimes, God confronts us with our sins using some earthly method. But God always forgives, and we should too.

It simply means , that all the act of hatred and sins will be washed away if you learn to forgive. You can't forgive and be forgiven if  you don't know how to love and accept your mistakes. Loving one another is the stairway to heaven. Through this , we will be saved .