What is an overview of Protestant critiques of Swedenborgianism? Swedenborgianism, or the New Church, is a religious movement based on the writings of Emanuel Swedenborg (1688–1772).  My understanding is that he saw a series of visions, and based on what he learned in these visions and his interpretation of the Bible, he developed a system of theology that differs on some points from traditional Christianity.

What do Protestants think of this system?  I'm most interested in points of disagreement, so, what is an overview of Protestant critiques of Swedenborgianism?

Protestant critiques of Swedenborgianism first appeared shortly after the publications of his spiritual writings in the middle of the 18th century.  Protestant theologians focused most closely on his teachings and those of his followers through the 19th century, and since then have afforded Swedenborgianism relatively little attention.1
The primary Protestant critiques of Swedenborgianism can be grouped into several categories:

The source and nature of Swedenborg's visions
Inspiration and interpretation of the Bible
The doctrines of the nature of God, salvation, and the afterlife

Swedenborg's visions
Source of the visions
The source of Swedenborg's visions is a matter of some debate within Protestantism, though they are universally scorned.  Some, beginning with Swedenborg's contemporary, John Wesley, attributed the visions to insanity: Wesley wrote in his journal that Swedenborg was "one of the most ingenious, lively, and entertaining madmen that ever set pen to paper" and that his dreams were "remote both from Scripture and common sense."2
More modern treatments, however, often attribute the visions to the occult. Walter Martin and Ravi Zacharias admit that "no one can reasonably say that Swedenborg was insane," but instead call him a "medium" and "thoroughgoing spiritist," and provide several examples of "communication with the spirit world in direct violation of the express commands of Scripture."3 John Ankerberg and John Weldon say that he "fell prey to deceiving spirits" and ignored scriptural warnings against spirit contact because he "believed 'good' spirits had taught him the truth."4
Nature of the visions
It naturally follows from the preceding that Protestants view the alleged supernatural revelation of Swedenborg as novel and false.  A. H. Strong argues that "all new communications which would contradict or supersede" Scripture, including Swedenborg's, must be tested against God's Word according to 1 John 4:1.5  He also suggests the test of miraculous signs, and finds that "all so-called new prophecy, from Montanus to Swedenborg, proves its own falsity by its lack of attesting miracles."6
A. A. Hodge likewise finds that Swedenborgianism lacks the "'signs' of a supernatural revelation."  Instead, it and other similar "pretended revelations of the Spirit," like Mormonism, "are inconsistent with Scripture truth, directly oppose the authority of Scripture and teach bad morals."7 Charles Hodge finds a striking similarity between revelation in Islam and Swedenborgianism: "as to the evidence, on which they ask us to receive their professed revelation, there is very little difference in principle."8
Bible
Canon
Swedenborg's Protestant critics attack him and his followers for what they regard as a failure to properly regard the traditional Bible.  Strong and others strenuously object to his "rejection of nearly one half the Bible (Ruth, Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, Job, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon, and the whole of the N. T. except the Gospels and the Apocalypse)."9 After examining the concept of "internal sense" promoted by Swedenborg as the basis for selection, Hodge instead argues that:

The authority of Swedenborg, capriciously exercised, is the true cause of rejecting these books. [...] The truth is, this rejection of thirty-two books is an open and arbitrary act of infidelity; and no reason can be given why we may not upon like grounds renounce the whole word of God.10

Furthermore, Hodge finds that Swedenborg's followers, for practical purposes, put Swedenborg's "writings before those of the prophets" of the Old Testament.11 Martin and Zacharias claim that "Swedenborg is consistently and energetically refuted by the epistles of Paul, particularly, the book of Romans, chapters 5 through 8, which Swedenborg detested with abject horror," and that this is the real basis for rejecting the epistles: "He began with the basic assumption that he was right, and that the apostle Paul was wrong!"12
Interpretation
Martin and Zacharias call Swedenborg's method of exegesis "a spiritual mode of interpreting Scripture."13 Church historian Philip Schaff calls his allegorizing "arbitrary and fanciful, often ingenious, often absurd," going "further than Philo and Origen in their allegorical method."14 Analyzing some examples of Swedenborg's "Science of Correspondence," Hodge finds that "every thing in scripture is figurative" and through it "the scriptures are made to mean any thing that the fancy of man can invent."15
Schaff notes that Swedenborg's "new revelation and theory of Scripture interpretation [...] exerted no influence on the regular course of historical development," and mercilessly states why:

The exegesis of Swedenborg is original, but critically and theologically worthless, and hence ignored in commentaries.14

Doctrine
In commenting generally on Swedenborg's doctrine, John Wesley calls it "quite unproved, quite precarious from beginning to end" and "in many instances [...] contradictory to Scripture, to reason, and to itself."16   Hodge calls the writings of Swedenborgianism a "labyrinth":

To the sober-minded who wish evidence before faith, who exercise their judgments, and are governed by any laws of reasoning, or rules of interpretation, we can conceive of nothing more unpleasant than an attempt to read, digest or understand the doctrine.  We have called it above "a system," but we used the term for want of a better.  It is a maze, a howling wilderness, a dreary waste of confusion and impiety.17

The most commonly cited examples of doctrinal discrepancy are in regards to the nature of God, particularly the Trinity and God's method of creation; atonement and justification; and the afterlife.
Nature of God
Louis Berkhof and John Frame, two recent systematic theologians, spare Swedenborg little notice in their summaries of the doctrine of the Trinity. Frame dismisses him as a thinker "whose thought was governed more by speculation than by Scripture,"18 and like Frame, Berkhof calls Swedenborg a Modalist:

Others followed the way pointed out by Sabellius by teaching a species of Modalism, as, for instance, Emanuel Swedenborg, who held that the eternal God-man became flesh in the Son, and operated through the Holy Spirit.19

Hodge likewise sees similarity in the views of Sabellius and Swedenborg: "There is indeed considerable variation in the language used, but the substance seems to us to be the same."20 A. H. Strong summarizes Swedenborg's view as "that God exists in the shape of a man—an anthropomorphism of which the making of idols is only a grosser and more barbarous form."21
Regarding the creation of the world, Berkhof and Strong liken Swedenborg's view to that of the Syrian Gnostics: "that the universe is of the same substance of God"22 and that "[creation] originated by emanation out of the divine substance."23 Hodge cites Swedenborg's rejection of traditional creation and finds that he instead "gathered up" the "essential principles of pantheism."24
Atonement and salvation
Charles Hodge summarizes Swedenborg's view of atonement as follows:

Christ’s redemptive work does not consist in his bearing our sins upon the tree, or in making satisfaction to the justice of God for our offences. All idea of such satisfaction Swedenborg rejects. The work of salvation is entirely subjective. Justification is pardon granted on repentance.25

Elsewhere, he writes on the same topic that "doctrines more contrary to those taught by the Apostles we may safely say have never been propagated."26   Hodge also notes that Swedenborgians do not accept the justification by faith, and argues that they "greatly misrepresented" it.  Attempting to clarify, he writes:

The Christian world does not hold that the faith, which justifies, is separate from charity, or that it alone exists in the heart [...]. Faith is not meritorious but only instrumental in justification.  If Swedenborg had half the information or discernment attributed to him by his followers, he must have known that he was misrepresenting the doctrine of the Christian world.27

Strong, Wesley, and Hodge also criticize the claim that Swedenborgianism is essential to salvation.  Strong notes that in Swedenborg's visions, members of the sects that Swedenborg disliked "were in the hells, condemned to everlasting punishment."28  Wesley writes, "and the worst is, he flatly affirms, 'None can go to heaven, who believes three persons in the Godhead.'"29
Heaven, hell, and resurrection
Swedenborg's revelation regarding heaven and hell remind many Protestants of Islam, both in its marked contrast to the revelation of the Bible and in the description itself. On the first point, Archibald Alexander writes:

It is worthy of remark, that although the Scriptures express the joys of heaven, and the miseries of hell, by the strongest figures, they do not enter much into detail, respecting the condition of men, in the future world. There is true wisdom in this silence; because it is a subject, of which we are, at present, incapable, of forming any distinct conceptions. Paul, after being caught up “to paradise, and to the third heaven,” gave no account of what he saw and heard, when he returned. How different is this from the ridiculous description of the seven heavens, by Mohammed; and from the reveries of Emmanuel Swedenborg!30

John Wesley critiqued Swedenborg's view of heaven as "low, grovelling, just suiting a Mahometan paradise" and prone "to sink our conceptions, both of the glory of heaven, and of the inhabitants of it."31  Wesley's criticism of the doctrine of hell followed similar lines:

And his account of hell leaves nothing terrible in it; for, first, he quenches the unquenchable fire.  He assures us there is no fire there [...].  And, secondly, he informs you, that all the damned enjoy their favourite pleasures.  He that delights in filth is to have his filth; yea, and his harlot too!31

Regarding Swedenborg's doctrine of resurrection, Hodge writes that "it is not a resurrection at all";32 instead, "At death the outer body is laid aside, and the soul thereafter acts through the ethereal or spiritual vestment. This is the only resurrection which Swedenborg admitted. There is no rising again of the bodies laid in the grave."25
Martin and Zacharias note that this precludes the future "resurrection of both the just and the unjust [...] in conjunction with the 'appearing of the glory of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ'"33 that they see clearly taught in the book of Revelation.
Summary
Martin and Zacharias summarize Swedenborgianism by calling it "outside the pale of Christian theology [...] not only concerning the Canon, but concerning such doctrines as the nature of God, the holy Trinity, the atonement of Jesus Christ, and the doctrines of salvation and resurrection."34 In closing, they write:

The great tragedy of Emanuel Swedenborg is that he would not submit himself and his great mind to the discipline of the Holy Spirit and the Scriptures.  Because of this, and because of his deliberated preoccupation with spiritism and the occult, in direct disobedience to the express teachings of God, he was despoiled, even as Paul had warned [Colossians 2:8–9]. He was deceived by dreams and visions and the machinations of him whom the Scriptures describe as the "spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience" (Ephesians 2:2b).35

References:

Alexander, Evidences of the Christian Religion (1832)
Ankerberg and Weldon, Cult Watch (1991)
Berkhof, Systematic Theology (1938)
Frame, Systematic Theology (2013)
Hodge, A. A., Commentary on the Confession of Faith (1869)
Hodge, C., ed., Biblical Repertory and Princeton Review, 1848, No. III, Art. II. (1848). This 22-page article is the most complete Protestant critique of the doctrine of Swedenborg and his followers that I've found.
Hodge, C., ed., Biblical Repertory and Princeton Review, 1870, No. II, Art. II. (1870)
Hodge, C., Systematic Theology (1873)
Martin and Zacharias, Kingdom of the Cults (2003)
Schaff, Theological Propaedeutic (1892)
Strong, Systematic Theology (1886)
Wesley, Journals
Wesley, Works (v. 4)

Notes:

A. A. Hodge, Charles Hodge, Archibald Alexander, and A. H. Strong all wrote in the late 19th century or earlier.  My searches indicate that Swedenborg is notably absent from treatments like Wayne Grudem's Systematic Theology (1994), H. Orton Wiley's Christian Theology (1940), J. Rodman William's Renewal Theology (1996), and Gregg R. Allison's Historical Theology (2011).  He merits extremely brief mention in John Frame's Systematic Theology (2013) and, rather surprisingly, William Shedd's History of Christian Doctrine (1863).
Wesley, Journals
Martin and Zacharias, 634
Ankerberg and Weldon,  171–72
Strong, I: 32
Strong, II: 712
Hodge, A. A., 60–61
Hodge, C., ed., 1848: 349–50
Strong, I: 207
Hodge, C., ed., 1848: 335–36
Hodge, C., ed., 1848: 338
Martin and Zacharias, 638
Martin and Zacharias, 633
Schaff, 226–27
Hodge, C., ed., 1848: 346–48
Wesley, Works, IV: 149
Hodge, C., ed., 1848: 350–51
Frame, 476
Berkhof, 1.1.8.A
Hodge, C., ed. 1848: 340
Strong, I: 251
Strong, II: 383
Berkhof, 1.2.3.C.4
Hodge, C., ed., 1870: 214
Hodge, C. 3.3.8
Hodge, C., ed., 1848: 341
Hodge, C., ed., 1848: 342
Strong, II: 386
Wesley, Works, IV: 149.  He appears to be quoting Swedenborg's Doctrine of the Lord.  Hodge remarks similarly in 1848: 352.
Alexander, 191
Wesley, Works, IV: 149–50
Hodge, C., ed., 1848: 345
Martin and Zacharias, 640
Martin and Zacharias, 632
Martin and Zacharias, 641

There is one thing that Protestants dislike the most about Swedenborg: the revelations, and his numerous quotations from scripture, discount and disprove that one is saved by faith alone, separate from works of charity.  Since that is the foundation of 16th century Protestant theology, everything else they say to attack Swedenborg is a straw man's argument. Swedenborg shows that the apostle Paul was talking either of the works of external Jewish rituals such as circumcision, or self-meritorious works. He was not speaking of works of charity, for love in its essence is faith, not merely believing something is true.

Source of the Visions

As Swedenborg quotes scripture after scripture to prove the point, they will not argue against the theology but create a straw man: that he was an occultist and spoke with demons.  What they fail to mention is that evil spirits do not declare Jesus Christ is Divine, and saved the human race. No demon or evil spirit would say that. His works are Christian and diametrically opposed to those who seek answers from spirits, and he warns against lying spirits. Moreover, he drew not a single teaching from any spirit or angel, but from the Lord alone while reading the Word:

"That the Lord manifested Himself before me His servant, and sent me to this office, and that He afterward opened the sight of my spirit, and so has admitted me into the spiritual world, and has granted to me to see the heavens and the hells, also to converse with angels and spirits, and this now continuously for many years, I testify in truth; likewise, that from the first day of that call I have not received any thing which pertains to the doctrines of that church from any angel, but from the Lord alone while I read the Word." (True Christian Religion, n. 779)

It is a bit odd that some, such as Hodge, require a sign or miracle as proof of a vision. Swedenborg stated that miracles should not be sought, but one should examine the teachings or revelations themselves from examining scripture, and approaching the Lord alone.  There have been other Christian visionaries and they did not show other signs of miracles.

Canon of the Bible

Protestants attack Swedenborg for distinguishing which books of the Bible are Divinely inspired, and which ones are not. The selection is not arbitrary: any book which is written by symbolic correspondence, in a series, is Divinely inspired. Each literal word must have a higher spiritual meaning behind it.  Other works are included for teaching doctrine. If one examines the canon of inspired books of the Old Testament, it closely matches the Jewish canon of the Old Testament, which is divided between the Law (Torah), the Prophets, the Psalms and the Writings.  Even Jesus followed this division of scripture (see Luke 24:44). Protestants are not familiar with this division since most modern Bibles follow the order of the Greek Septuagint, in which these books are mixed together.

The portion that Swedenborg says is not Divinely inspired is what the Jews classified as the "Writings", or Hebrew Ketuvim.  There are three exceptions: the Psalms, Lamentations, and the book of Daniel are Divinely inspired, even though made part of the Ketuvim in Jewish bibles.

However, what Protestants take most exception to is that in the New Testament, Swedenborg was shown that only the Gospels and book of Revelation are Divinely inspired. As Protestants make the doctrine of justification by faith alone the central point of their theology based on the writings of Paul, this is like taking the rug from underneath their feet. However Swedenborg never said Paul was "wrong", but rather Protestants have misinterpreted his writings, as the Catholics will also point out.  Moreover, in Swedenborg's private diary he makes clear that the writings of Paul were "Divinely influenced," but not "Divinely inspired" in the same way that the Gospels and book of Revelation are. Unfortunately, this is not well known to most people.

Protestants who characterize this as "capriciously exercised" and an "arbitrary act of infidelity" have clearly not examined Swedenborg's detailed analysis of scripture itself, showing the different levels of inspiration in the style of the words among the different books.

Interpretation of Scripture

Protestants will criticize Swedenborg for not being a literalist when interpreting scripture, and tend to be opposed to anything that suggests that scripture is symbolic in nature. This is because they tend to follow a "Biblical literalism" where everything is literally true. Swedenborg's interpretation is comprehensive, stating that the words of scripture are both literal and symbolic, with multiple levels of meaning. An example of this are the parables of Jesus. Far from being arbitrary, it is highly systematic. Each interpretation is supported by countless references to other scriptural passages.

Protestants who characterize it as "unproven" clearly have not read the proof contained in the multi-volume work, Heavenly Arcana (aka Arcana Coelestia). Protestants can point to no theologian or work that proves that scripture is Divinely inspired. Far from being a "labyrinth" or confusing, all of the theology is based on very simple principles: that God is one, and that he is love and truth itself. All of scripture, in the spiritual sense, speaks of the concepts of the two principles of love and truth. Swedenborg does not go against scripture, but rather supports it in a very remarkable way.

Nature of God

Protestants will often compare the theology of God as similar to Sabellianism or Modalism. It is different from either. Simply put, it declares that God is one person in Jesus Christ. As this goes against the definition of God as three distinct persons, as invented in the Nicene Creed of the fourth century A.D., they will again vehemently oppose the writings of Swedenborg. Swedenborg does not deny the Trinity, but rather defines the Trinity as the Divine itself, the Divine human (the Son) and the Divine proceeding (the Holy Spirit).  Swedenborg shows that the theology of three distinct persons led to the theology of faith separate from charity. This again, is the foundation stone of much of Protestant theology.

Creation

Some Protestants have mischaracterized Swedenborg's description of creation as "pantheism," which is the view that creation is of the same substance as God. This is a blatant falsehood, or a complete misunderstanding of what Swedenborg was shown of creation. Creation is distinct from the Divine. Only God is the source of life, and any created being is only a recipient of life.  Far from being primitive like the Syrian Gnostics, long before Einstein Swedenborg said that before creation there was no time and space. Modern theories of physics has actually confirmed this: before the 'Big Bang' there was no time and space. According to the visions of Swedenborg, the material universe was preceded by the spiritual world where there is no time and space, and was created from Divine order.

Atonement and Salvation

The revelations of Swedenborg indeed denies the theology of "vicarious atonement," which is the theological teaching of both Catholics and Protestants. As this again is the foundation of Protestant theology, they will attack it and label it as "Swedenborgian."  However what they fail to realize is that the theology of vicarious atonement was not known in Catholic and Protestant circles until the 11th century A.D. Moreover, the Orthodox Church does not follow the theory of "vicarious atonement," but rather believe that Jesus saved humanity by conquering sin and hell in his human form. This view is now known as "Christus Victor," and is the doctrine that is spelled out in more detail in the theology of Swedenborg's writings. Far from being "Swedenborgian," it actually follows the teaching of the Orthodox church, which preceded both the Catholic and Protestant churches. This is completely unknown to most Protestants.

As for the statement "Strong, Wesley, and Hodge also criticize the claim that Swedenborgianism is essential to salvation." This again is a complete falsehood, or a straw man argument - nothing of this sort was taught by Swedenborg.

Heaven and Hell

There is no account more detailed of heaven and hell than in the visions of Emanuel Swedenborg, who claimed to have had a full waking vision of them over a period of 27 years. He describes in detail the three heavens seen in the vision of Paul. It bears absolutely no similarity whatsoever to the sparse description of heaven by Mohammed in the Quran. This again, is a blatant falsehood by certain Protestants, or a straw man argument perhaps appealing to prejudice against Islam.

Swedenborg's visions were far ahead of their time - many of the things he saw has been confirmed by those who have had a Near Death Experience, so the criticisms in this area are those that were before the 20th century before the NDE experience was well known. This is probably now more of a minor issue among Protestant theologians, as the Near Death Experience has now become more well known among mainstream Christians.

Why the Criticism?

In the 18th century, Swedenborg makes it clear in his visions why Protestants would utterly oppose and attack the revelations of the New Church: the declaration that God is one in person, that one must love God according to His commandments, that one must repent from sins to be saved, is directly opposed to the faith of a trinity of three persons, vicarious atonement, and justification by faith alone. This attack on the New Church is spelled out in his exegesis of the book of Revelation, where it is shown that the Protestant faith of the 16th century, which makes faith a matter of belief alone without reforming the life by repentance, is in fact the "false prophet" which appears like a lamb but "spoke as the dragon." Given this unfavorable opinion of the Protestant theology, it is no surprise to see these kinds of attacks, many containing falsehoods and mischaracterizations. Similar to the Protestants, Swedenborg does identify the woman of Babylon as the priesthood of the Catholic church, which added many traditions to Christianity that were not part of the original gospel. Despite this, as Catholics do not separate faith from charity, they were more likely to be receptive of these revelations of Christianity more so than the Protestants.

Swedenborg gives a systematic theology that is supported by numerous references to scripture. Thus Protestant works of theology may find it easier to censor or not mention the theology, as it is diametrically opposed to their own theological views.


How did Christians get from the biblical feast of Passover to Easter sunday? Can any one offer an educated answer of how the Christian Church moved from Passover on the 14th day of the first biblical month to the day we now call Easter?

(You can even pretend Passover and Easter are synonymous tittles!)

Making the question more clear:

The Bible clearly says,

Leviticus 23:5  In the fourteenth day of the first month at even is the LORD'S passover.

This is as well more elaborated in Exodus 12.

Jesus and the Apostles all would have used this date, see Luke 22, Mark 14 and Mathew 26.
Jesus disciples would have kept the Passover  according to the Jewish luni-solar and Agricultural based calendation of the day,  which calls the first month Abib,

Deuteronomy 16: 1  Observe the month of Abib, and keep the passover unto the LORD thy God: for in the month of Abib the LORD thy God brought thee forth out of Egypt by night.

Today the celebration in West now called 'Easter' is not held according to the prior calendar law of the Lord but is kept on 'Easter Sunday'.

How do Catholics and Protestants do this with scriptural authority?

Make your answer clear from the Bible.  Show where in the Bible a prophet, Jesus or his disciples/apostles tell chrisians how to keep this feast we call Easter?

Or if you believe you do not need scriptural authority please tell why in the answer you give regarding the question:

How did Christians get from the biblical feast of Passover to Easter sunday?

(Please do not give any Ishtar speculations, this question does not concern paganism...thank you.)

Easter and Passover are two different celebrations. Passover celebrates the escape of the Israelites from Egypt and the sparing of them from the plague of killing the firstborn. Easter celebrates the much more significant resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead. You will find these events described in all four of the Gospels in the New Testament, Matthew Mark Luke and John. The resurrection is foreshadowed by Passover and occurred at the same time of year.

Passover is a strictly Jewish celebration and there is no thought that non-Jews would celebrate it. Easter is a celebration for all people that believe in Jesus, whether Jewish or not. Passover celebrations waned as the church became more and more non-Jewish, and an annual Paschal celebration of the Resurrection was well established by the second century AD.

I hope that helps.

Here is the biblical answer I've come up with since observant Christians get shy when they realize their favorite time of the year is as uninspired as the Bunny that lays eggs is:

Passover never was changed in the bible, Every one in the Bible who wasn't pagan or heathen kept Passover according to the Law of YHWH God in Exodus 12... Jesus, Moses, the Apostles, the prophets, the king's of Israel, the Corinthians (1Cor 5, 10, 11) and so on. This thing called Easter Sunday or Paschal Sunday, or what ever you want to call it is a man made tradition of some sort.
The Bible clearly Tells us of Christ's practice:

Joh 2:23 Now when he was in Jerusalem at the passover, in the feast day, many believed in his name, when they saw the miracles which he did.

Joh 12:1 Then Jesus six days before the passover...

Also it is interesting to note that the ordinance of the bread and wine in memorial if the death of Christ was tied to the Paschal meal and not to Resurrection of Christ as the nominal Sunday practice replicates:

Mat 26:19 And the disciples did as Jesus had appointed them; and they made ready the passover.

Luk 22:15 And he said unto them, With desire I have desired to eat this passover with you before I suffer:
16  For I say unto you, I will not any more eat thereof, until it be fulfilled in the kingdom of God.
17  And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and said, Take this, and divide it among yourselves:
18  For I say unto you, I will not drink of the fruit of the vine, until the kingdom of God shall come.
 19  And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me.
 20  Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you.

The apostolic tradition of Paul:
1Cor 5:7 Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened. For even Christ our passover is sacrificed for us:
8  Therefore let us keep the feast, not with old leaven, neither with the leaven of malice and wickedness; but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.
1Cor 11: 23  For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, That the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread:
 24  And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me. note
 25  After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me.
26  For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come.

It is obvious that from a Sola Scriptura (Scripture alone) and Tota Scriptura (all of scripture) standing this Easter business needs Reformed and purified.

The only discipes of Jesus who don't keep Passover are Christian's that would rather keep uninspired traditions that never entered in to the mind of God to communicate for his worship.


When did Satan get cast out of heaven?  Or is that yet to come? This answer explains that it happened after Jesus ascended, and might even be something that will happen in the "End Times", but this answer says that it happened before Adam and Eve sinned.

What does the Bible say about this? I'm looking for an answer that explains all major verses about this event.

This may be an issue of semantics.  Here is my impression:

Satan sinned prior to Adam and Eve sinning, as Richard indicated in his answer (which you linked).  At that time he "fell" in the sense that DTest was asking about in his question.  (i.e. "fell from grace".)

However, after Satan's initial sin, he appears to have still had access to the realm where the angels stand before God (which we call "heaven").  This is what I was getting at in my "examples" link in my answer (which you linked).  Here are the verses from Job that I was referring to:

Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the Lord, and Satan also came among them. -Job 1:6
Again there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the Lord, and Satan also came among them to present himself before the Lord. -Job 2:1

(See also: Zechariah 3:1)  I also linked a passage from Luke in which Jesus says that He was watching Satan falling from heaven when "the seventy" were rebuking demons.  If he is still "falling from heaven" in Jesus' day, it seems logical to think he still had access to heaven, and must not have yet been banished in any ultimate sense.

The seventy returned with joy, saying, “Lord, even the demons are subject to us in Your name.” And He said to them, “I was watching Satan fall from heaven like lightning." -Luke 10:17-18

The passage from Revelation 12 seems to be describing a much more ultimate banishment in which he is forced out of heaven by Michael's armies, there is "no longer a place found for them in heaven", and he is "thrown down to the earth", resulting in "woe to the earth" because once Satan realizes what has happened, he has "great wrath, knowing that he has only a short time."  The context of this passage, which I was explaining in my answer (which you linked) seems to be about the End Times, and the casting down seems to happen after the ascension, since the resulting proclamation includes a description of how the "brethren" overcame Satan by the blood of Jesus.  It seems unnatural to interpret this as describing an event that happened back in Genesis 1-3.

Clarifications
Ezekiel 28:12-19, which may be one of the points of confusion, is a prophecy against Tyre (specifically addressed to the King of Tyre).  However, it is also partially addressing Satan, who was presumably working through the King of Tyre... for instance, in verses 12-15 it says things like "you were in Eden" and "you were the anointed cherub".  It is true that the passage also says "I have cast you as profane from the mountain of God" and "I cast you to the ground".  However, we need to read the entire passage and understand it as intended.  For instance, it also says things like "by the abundance of your trade you were internally filled with violence" and "you profaned your sanctuaries", referring to the city, not Satan.  Furthermore, there are statements like "I have destroyed you... from the midst of the stones of fire" and "I have brought fire from the midst of you; it has consumed you, and I have turned you to ashes on the earth".  I don't know of anyone who teaches that this happened to Satan - at least not yet (Revelation 20:10).
(Isaiah 14:3-21 is the same sort of story, but is about Babylon instead of Tyre.)
If there are other passages which seem to contradict this, make a note in the comments and I'll take a look.  This is just my tentative understanding based on the passages I'm aware of.  Hope that helps.

I don't have a lot of time at the moment but I have some thoughts that perhaps you will appreciate as a contribution to getting your question answered.

First of all, I'm going to clue you in on some aspects that are in the context of where I am speaking from. I mention these because they are less commonly held views. In Revelation 21 it says "and there shall be a new heavens and a new earth", so we understand that the heavens and the earth undergo life cycles where when one creation waxes old there is another birthed to continue. Just as human parents create children in their own likeness and image, so too does one creation birth a new creation after its own image and likeness to carry on. The book of Revelation taps into this as it helps us understand the dynamic or the process by which a person can know the "end from the beginning". Put another way, so that a person can understand how one cycle of creation gives way to a new cycle of creation. Knowing this assists you in coming to decipher the distinct roles of the Eternal Godhead, of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost. Each personage plays a critical role in the birth, redemption and death of a cycle of Creation. There is also a role for the adversary to fulfill in each cycle of Creation, which cycles are patterned after one another. This means what is happening now has happened already before and that it will also happen again in the future. This is why prophets can reveal past, present and future, because they know these greater cycles shall repeat and the truths they teach are timeless. Therefore, it becomes helpful to distinguish things in terms of where everything fits within the basic blueprint of a single creation. And, it becomes vastly clarified when we understand the creation account itself as the blueprint that is written in a coded manner that is easily decoded when you read Genesis 2:4 that says "These (everything just mentioned previous) are the generations..." What this is saying is all of the stuff mentioned in the days of creation pertains to generations or genealogies. This is why the "begats" are such an important part of scripture. Your lineage implies you where were organized because all creations are foreordained where certain lineages are destined to perform/fulfill various aspects of what it takes for a cycle of creation to play out. Thus, our "final judgement" is when we are foreordained to what status and role we will perform/fulfill in the following cycle, and so on and so on, as each cycle of creation has a "final judgment". The creation is all about people and who governs who, etc. and each day of creation pertains to a thousand years for us. (See 2 Peter 3:8) For example, Jesus called himself the light and life of the world and he was born in the 4th millennia. This corresponds to creation day 4 saying the "greater light to rule the day" was created. This isn't describing a physical cosmos, but rather is describing how a foreordained geo-geneo-political cosmos is going to play out among specific tribal groupings on particular portions of our planet. For example, creation day 5 talks about the creation of the fishes and this is when the movement of Christianity, who refers to themselves as fishes, was scheduled to come about. It's all in the blueprint.

So, when this creation account as a blueprint of repeating cycles is used as a calibrating template you can come to understand more clearly what all things the Bible is talking about without all the hokus pokus mystery that turns it all into a bizzare fantasy. For example, you can come to understand Adam's real identity as a being of flesh and bone, which is a body that Paul describes by implication in Ephesians 5:30. He speaks of the people themselves as members of the church as being a part of a greater body. Eve is the church and Adam is the priesthood/governing body. The "Father's Kingdom" is Adam's dominion given to Him in the 6th millennia, which is a kingdom of kings, or put another way, a kingdom of sovereigns. We have a very good representation of such a kingdom when you look at what the founding fathers of the United states of America created. It made of its citizens sovereigns. However, just as the pattern implies, Adam and Eve transgress and succumb to "paradise lost" and are brought to a state of death. This is why we are experiencing decay and chaos on our global political scene. We are entering into the fall of Adam and Eve, prior to their redemption.

The redemption of Adam and Eve after being cast out of their garden paradise is an unfortunate part of our previous cycle's history that went missing from holy writ. The loss of this plain and precious key of information is what has caused our first Parents Adam and Eve to be viewed in such a negative way. But, They were redeemed and Adam did obtain the victory for His kingdom and He and Eve spent the remainder of their nearly 1,000 year lifespan ruling and reigning in righteousness over the dominion God gave to them.

If you look at the blueprint again we see Adam and Eve coming right at the end of day 6 and if they lived for nearly 1,000 years this means that their lifespan will significantly overlap into creation day 7, which many understand as "the Millennium", a period of peace and prosperity for the righteous as they enjoy their "rest" from all of the evils of the world, etc. Thus, this all points to Adam being the one who rules and reigns over the Father's Kingdom during the Millennium, but it's Adam after He has been redeemed from His fall. It is the redemption of Adam out of a period of chaos, darkness and destruction, that gives birth to a new cycle of creation while at the same time the old creation is taken into complete captivity and destruction by the adversary. This doesn't mean a bodily physical destruction but is rather a condition of having been subjected into the adversary's kingdom because you failed to recognize and/or rejected the Father's Kingdom. The victory of the Father's Kingdom isn't that it totally vanquishes all evil from the planet. Rather, it is that it obtains a position of complete sovereignty such that the adversary shall have no power over it or those who are citizens of that Kingdom.

Those in the Father's Kingdom shall continue to enjoy true liberty while those not in the Father's Kingdom will continue with the current trend to build up and enslave themselves into the adversary's "prison planet" system of "government knows best" tyranny. This is the state of spiritual death that scripture warns about and thus the death it warns of is the death of an individual's ability to make their own decisions in life matters.

So, at some point in the near future, when more and more people's eyes become opened to what is really going on, there will be an upsurge of people who will take courage and recognize the Father's Kingdom for what it truly is and they will stand in the face of whatever obstacles are necessary to stand fast in the liberty the Father's Kingdom gives them. In due time, all those who are in governance above these people shall cast out the spirit of Lucifer and provide godly leadership or they will be removed from their offices of authority. Casting Lucifer from "heaven" to "earth" simply means that this spirit of force, control, tyranny, etc. shall be removed from the realms of governance. Thus, the fall of Lucifer takes place upon Adam's redemption when He regains the dominion God gave to Him in victory. Then, the Lucifer of this cycle becomes the Satan of the following cycle.


Does the Bible make any allusions to life on other planets? What, if anything, does the Bible say either supporting the theory of life on other planets, or suggesting that there is none?

The Bible really doesn't have anything to say on the subject one way or another.

Historical writings suggest that some of early Christians believed that this world is only one of many that God has created, and particularly among Gnostic sects there were all sorts of interesting ideas on the subject, (for example, that the many worlds that God had created all had free interactions with each other, but not with us because this world was under quarantine, as no other people out of all God's creations were evil enough to murder their own Lord), but whatever the source of these ideas is, it's not found in the Bible.

I think the point of Scripture is to help Man deal with the world around him.  It does this by (briefly) explaining where he came from and documents various interactions between him and his Maker.

Scripture doesn't say there is life on other planets, but it doesn't rule it out either.  It's just not something that mankind needs to address day-to-day.


Are there any scholars or doctrinal schools that address the conspicuous dearth of needy people in Jesus' sayings and stories? I'm doing a research project that has involved a lot of different types of survey of the Gospels. Having noticed a surprising number of rich people in Jesus' sayings, I  surveyed for verses with elements that pertain to socioeconomic status. That is, verses where Jesus uses examples or stories that involve having something (food, clothes, a home, a job, cash, storerooms, livestock, farms, storehouses, real estate, investment property, servants, slaves, hired hands, etc.) or not having anything (for example, being a beggar). I found such elements in about 28% of his 1300-ish speaking verses.

Rather glaringly, after a handful of comments on the needy (about 30 verses) and a handful of warnings to the rich (about 30 verses again), Jesus speaks some 300 verses of unrelated parables and examples full of detailed descriptions of people who have something--often very, very rich people. (Note that I allowed for narrative overlap among the four Gospels in arriving at these figures.) I tried googling around for explanations, but I can't find anyone who talks about the preponderance of haves as opposed to the precisely one have-not in his teachings. (And to clarify, I mean the only have-not who gets to be the protagonist. Jesus does tell a few stories about slaves, but he makes them the villains, in the end having them tortured for an unfathomably long time or summarily and brutally executed for their wickedness, so you can see why I didn't count them).

So here I am, naively asking: why does Jesus spend 60-ish verses promoting charity and warning the rich, and 300-ish verses on unrelated sayings and stories with detailed descriptions of people who have something--often the very rich? Or another way of asking the question: it seems to me that any of the points he makes in these 300 verses could be made with stories about beggars and seriously needy people, but he never uses them, preferring the rich instead.

Have any scholars, Church fathers, prominent theologians, or even obscure pundits noticed and commented on this?

Edit:
You guys, I am deeply sorry to have offended anyone. I did not realize this would be inflammatory. All I did was read the Gospels, and I was just asking a question that I thought would have an obvious answer. I am very sorry.

I am confused about the complaint that I have misused the word "rich". I must point out that no matter where you draw the line between rich and poor in Jesus' words, the needy are always the furthest away from it and on the wrong side. I just figured someone would have written a book about the stark contrast between the popular, modern conception of Jesus and the character actually presented in the Gospels.

The question as posed contains an implicit assumption that needs to be challenged -- or at least teased out into the open. It is this: that numerical represention of character types in Jesus' parables ought to reflect the proportion of attention Jesus gave to them outside the parables.

This is important for the the particular case of "wealthy vs. poor" characters in the parables, since parables "about" the wealthy typically warn against wealth, and so fall into line with what one sees elsewhere in the gospels concerning Jesus and poverty. In other words, it is not sufficient to do the counts/tabulations: one must take into account the intention of the parable itself. This point grows out of a relevant study by Stephen Wright, "Parables on Poverty and Riches", in The Challenge of Jesus' Parables, ed. by R.N. Longenecker (Eerdmans, 2000), pp. 217-239.

It should further be noted that with one solitary exception (as far as I know), the characters in Jesus parables do not appear as "individuals", but as representative types: this kind of farmer, that kind of despot, Joe Samaritan, etc. Again, this has signficance for OP's interests. W.R. Herzog makes this observation and draws out some of its significance in his Parables as Subversive Speech: Jesus as Pedagogue of the Oppressed (Westminster/John Knox, 1994):

  To make sense of the parts, one must have some conception of the systematic whole. It does little good to recreate life in a peasant village unless one understands how the peasant village fit [sic] into the larger social, political, and economic scheme of things. ... These encounters [between peasants in the parables] are interpreted through "typificatory schemes"... Because the parables are full of typifications, their seemingly unique scenes and individual characters actually imply a social construction of reality in which people interact in typical ways. Even the characters found in the parables are not individuals but socially recognizable types who stand for larger social groups. (pp. 53-54)

The chapter that follows in Herzog's book explores and develops that wider social network.

In addition, assessing the balance of wealthy/poor characters in Jesus' parables should also take into account these two factors:

Of the thirty-seven parables in the gospels, I reckon about a third, maybe more, involve characters that are poor, maybe a slightly higher proportion if those "parables" that involve no human protagonists are excluded. So at least they're not absent. Here, too, as Herzog's observation suggests, recognition of characters embedded within the whole social scale is to be expected, not the isolation of any particular group. Thus we have both employers (wealthy) and day workers (poor) (Matthew 20:1-16), a rich man and a beggar (Luke 16:19-31 -- which is the case of the one "named" character in the parables), etc.
In many rural parts of the majority world today, subsistence farming is a way of life, much as it would have been for many of Jesus' listeners. What we sometimes fail to appreciate is that there are degrees of destitution. Some of the figures in the parables are hard to classify in these gradations of poverty. Given this social setting, Jesus' hearers from a broad range along the poverty/wealth scale of the time would have been able to recognize themselves in his stories -- even though they themselves might not have been "wealthy" by any measure we would recognize.

This all fits into the wider biblical witness. A certain distrust of wealth on the one hand, and God's "option for the poor"1 on the other, runs through the Christian Bible -- Old and New Testaments alike. The challenging presence of the theme inspired the early monastic movement, with its embrace of "poverty, chastity, obedience", so it is no new idea for the Christian church.

For that broader context, an Old Testament perspective is provided by a recent book by David Baker, Tight Fists Or Open Hands?: Wealth and Poverty in Old Testament Law (Eerdmans, 2009). The study by Ronald J. Sider, Rich Christians in an Age of Hunger (IVP, 1977; later edition Nelson, 2005) has had prolonged influence, and brings the story into the New Testament.2

But the literature on this is, in fact, vast, and runs pretty much throughout the two millennia of the church's existence.3

Notes

As it has come to be known in some circles, associated especially with liberation theology and Gustavo Gutiérrez, although used much more widely now.
Original sub-title: "A Biblical Study", but in the latest edition: "Moving from Affluence to Generosity".
See also the literature cited in the Q&A on poverty in Luke's gospel.

I don't mean to hurt your feelings, but the other guys answering your question are just too polite to come right out and say it. Don't take this the wrong way; I'm just boiling down what the other guys are politely telling you.

You have grossly misinterpreted and/or misrepresented the bible. Your numbers are not indicative of any real, observable, statistical trend in the Gospels. You are either promoting an agenda, or your survey is ill conceived, or you're simply incompetent at counting verses. Not to mention that you shouldn't automatically assume that such measures of the bible have any meaning.

If there were something worth noting, someone in the VAST literature on Jesus during the last 2000 years would have said something, and something that remarkable would be common knowledge.

Your basic premise is misstated. Your question is inappropriate and baseless, and as such does not warrant an answer. But all the other answers here will help you with interpreting your statistics differently so you can see how fundamentally flawed your question is. I mean, it was thoughtful, don't get me wrong, but seriously, you just missed the point.

And no hard feelings. I'm just giving it to you straight, as you seem like a smart guy who would appreciate a straight answer.


Is there evidence that Isaiah 53 was viewed as a Messianic prophecy within Judaism, or is it an exclusively Christian interpretation? The modern Jewish interpretation of the so-called suffering servant song of Isaiah 52:13-53:12 is that it is a prophecy referring to the nation of Israel, not the Messiah.  As such, it is sometimes suggested that Christians invented the idea that this is a Messianic prophecy.

What evidence is there that (at least some) Jews saw the passage as having Messianic implications?  Do such interpretation predates the advent of Christianity?  When did the nation of Israel interpretation become common?

The existing answer provides a learned and fascinating discussion for tracing the interpretative history of Isaiah 52:13-53:12 (often conveniently abbreviated to "Isaiah 53", the so-called "Fourth Servant Song") from roughly the 1st C. CE. Thus, the conclusion...

  We can ... be confident that first century converts to Christianity did not invent the idea that Isaiah 53 has Messianic tones.

...can be placed on a stronger footing if we also modify this claim:

  [w]e have no data at all on interpretations for the first 500+ years after the passage was written.

There are three, at least, sources of evidence for this period: (1) the Hebrew Bible itself; (2) the Septuagint (Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible from the 3rd-2nd C. BCE); and (3) the Dead Sea Scrolls.

(1) Martin Hengel (towering scholar of late Second Temple Period and early Christianity) drew attention to later texts in the Hebrew Bible that, he argued, showed the influence of Isaiah 53 and pointed in a messianic direction.1 He argued for lines of connection and relationship between Isaiah 53 and (a) Zechariah 12:9-13:1 and 13:7-9, and 12:10 in particular; and (b) the book of Daniel 11:33-35 and 12:2-3. This is explored and stated with some care, especially the Zechariah connection, but for Daniel, Hengel points to the study of H.L. Ginsberg arguing that it is "the oldest interpretation of the suffering servant" (pp. 91-92).2

(2) The Septuagint actually doesn't offer much in this passage, but it does need to be mentioned. Its overall "messianism" has been much discussed,3 so it might be surprising (in light of later history) that any messianic overtones there might be in Isaiah 53 are subdued in the pre-Christian Greek translation.4

(3) The Dead Sea Scrolls give us more, especially in the "Great Isaiah Scroll", 1QIsaa. Among other considerations, Hengel draws attention to two variations in particular that point to a "messianic" understanding for this "Servant Song":1

52:14 includes an obscure hapax legomena מִשְׁחַת that appears in 1QIsaa as משׁחתי which pointed would be מְשַׁחְתִּי məšaḥtî, "I anointed". This, in conjunction with the added definite article on ʾadam, results in a text which Hengel translates: "I have anointed his appearance beyond that of any (other) man, and his form beyond that of the sons of humanity [the human]". This has other textual overtones bringing the passage into an explicit connection with "anointing".

53:10 in the MT includes what is widely regarded as a textual corruption, הֶחֱלִי "he made him sick". Here, the Isaiah Scroll has ויחללהו, "he pierced him" (and 1QIsab has a gap). Hengel notes and discusses the connections back to Isa 53:5 where "pierced" is also used, and the further connection to Zechariah 12:10 (see also above).

In summary, the OP's "self-learner" conclusion looks to be sound after all: there are indications that a pre-Christian understanding of Isaiah 53 included some sense of its association with an (or "the") "anointed one", i.e., mashiach. It is admittedly not pronounced, but neither is it absent. Further exploraton of this body of evidence would further reinforce this impression. (Anyone minded to follow-up the secondary literature cited will find more than enough to substantiate this claim.)

Finally, we must bear in mind Hengel's own caveat (p. 103):5

  [W]e must remember that in the second century B.C.E., we do not yet possess any fixed Jewish doctrine of the Messiah—there basically never was one—but must rather deal with various ideas of anointing and the Anointed One.

Notes

M. Hengel with D. Bailey, "The Effective History of Isaiah 53 in the PreChristian Period", in The Suffering Servant: Isaiah 53 in Jewish and Christian Sources, ed. by Bernd Janowski & Peter Stuhlmacher (Eerdmans, 2004), pp. 75-146. This chapter should be read by anyone interested in the subject; other chapters in this volume also have relevance for this discussion.
H. L. Ginsberg, "The Oldest Interpretation of the Suffering Servant," Vetus Testamentum 3 (1953): 400-404.
See e.g. this review of R.F De Sousa, Eschatology and Messianism in LXX Isaiah 1–12 (2010) and the literature cited there. Also, substantially and recently, Abi T. Ngunga, Messianism in the Old Greek of Isaiah: An Intertextual Analysis (Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2012).
For details, see David A. Sapp, “The LXX, 1QIsa, and MT Versions of Isaiah 53 and the Christian doctrine of atonement,” in Jesus and the Suffering Servant: Isaiah 53 and Christian Origins, ed. by William H. Bellinger Jr. and  William R. Farmer (Trinity Press, 1998), pp. 170-192.
This with reference to the Great Isaiah Scroll in particular, but it is true of all the evidence for a pre-Christian understanding of the "messiah".

In Judaism there isn't any reason to see it as messianic. Reading it without a pre determined conclusion paints the picture that Israel is the suffering servant. Judaism doesn't have a concept of a second coming, but Christianity has an entirely different take on it because of belief in a second coming, and you could say Jesus suffered, making the verse sound feasible to be messianic to the Christian

The passages leading up to Isaiah 53 describe Israel as a servant.

Isaiah 41:8-9:

  But you, Israel, my servant, Jacob, whom I have chosen, the offspring of Abraham, my friend; you whom I took from the ends of the earth, and called from its farthest corners, saying to you, “You are my servant, I have chosen you and not cast you off.”

Isaiah 44:1

  But now hear, O Jacob my servant, Israel whom I have chosen!"

Isaiah 44:21

  "Remember these things, O Jacob, and Israel, for you are my servant; I formed you; you are my servant; O Israel, you will not be forgotten by me."

Isaiah 49:3

  And he said to me, “You are my servant, Israel, in whom I will be glorified.”

It's understandable how Christians love to look at it as messianic. But the passage speaks for itself if you read a good bit before the verse, and after it, then come up with a conclusion. Not taking any ones word for it, but to look at the whole picture.


Is the dignity of man pertains to his soul only or to the wholeness of his being meaning body & soul? The Teaching of Tradition that support the Council of Trent interpretation on death penalty cited the reflections or teaching of St. Thomas Aquinas and St. Augustine:

"They will never be beasts, but they can behave like beasts. "And if they behave like beasts, their dignity will suffer loss", while their personhood remains. Therefore we destroy the body, and leave the soul in God's hands, it is an appeal to the Highest Court. There is a difference between the dignity we have being made in God's image and the dignity of our bodies which are NOT made in God's image, and aka Catholic underlines it." – (St. Thomas Aquinas himself and St. Augustine himself quoted from comment of other user)

From above teachings, I found a lot of reflections not yet certain or are open for better understanding like:

They will never be beasts, but they can behave like beasts. (Is an admission of conditional behavior).

"And if they behave like beasts, their dignity will suffer loss,” while their personhood remains. (The words "will suffer loss" again is not certain and will have difficulty to guarantee that a soul really has lost its dignity in the absence of human faculties as we are commanded not to judge in Matthew7:1).

Therefore we destroy the body, and leave the soul in God's hands, it is an appeal to the Highest Court. (The wordings can be clearly seen "as an appeal a prayer only subject to the Wisdom & Providence of God", so they are recognizing that Tradition does not have a Final Say on ending one's life).

But, the most troubling one is the teaching separating the dignity of man soul to the dignity of the his body.

“There is a difference between the dignity we have being made in God's image and the dignity of our bodies which are not made in God's image,"

This particular phrase on Tradition seems emphasizing the physical body is not made in God's image only the soul.
My understanding is the soul animates our body and while it is our soul that will be judge in the end by God,the Church teaches the resurrection of our bodies.So, our judged soul will be reunited to our resurrected bodies.
My question, what is the scriptural basis of the teaching that the dignity of the soul is separate from his body?
I'm looking for Catholic Church Teaching that will expound and put clarity on the issue of the inherent dignity of man (body & soul), which the Council of Trent said "will suffer loss" that is put now to better understanding under Pope Francis "that man's dignity is not lost even after committing a very serious crimes."

This is only speculation, but they may have been drawing their ideas from Paul's words in 1 Corinthians 5, when he was addressing the issue of a serious sin among the congregation that was being glossed over:

  1 It is actually reported that there is sexual immorality among you,
  and of a kind that even pagans do not tolerate: A man is sleeping with
  his father’s wife. 2 And you are proud! Shouldn’t you rather have gone
  into mourning and have put out of your fellowship the man who has been
  doing this? 3 For my part, even though I am not physically present, I
  am with you in spirit. As one who is present with you in this way, I
  have already passed judgment in the name of our Lord Jesus on the one
  who has been doing this. 4 So when you are assembled and I am with you
  in spirit, and the power of our Lord Jesus is present, 5 hand this
  man over to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, so that his spirit
  may be saved on the day of the Lord.

Apparently there is debate on the precise meaning (or, for that matter, the proper translation) of the Greek that here appears as "destruction of the flesh."  The 2011 NIV supplies these notes on the text:

  a. 1 Corinthians 5:5 In contexts like this, the Greek word for flesh
  (sarx) refers to the sinful state of human beings, often presented as
  a power in opposition to the Spirit.

  b. 1 Corinthians 5:5 Or of his body

Regardless of that question, in v.5 Paul is clearly drawing a line between "the flesh" and "the spirit" -- and just as plainly declaring that it's "the spirit" which is of paramount importance, so much so that "the flesh" may, and even should, be "destroyed" if need be to save the spirit.  In this regard his priorities were in line with Jesus' words from Matthew 5:

  29 If your right eye causes you to stumble, gouge it out and throw it
  away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your
  whole body to be thrown into hell. 30 And if your right hand causes
  you to stumble, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to
  lose one part of your body than for your whole body to go into hell.

Looking to a modern RC commentary on the 1 Corinthians 5 passage, the current interpretation looks to be a command of excommunication merely, and not the inflicting of any kind of physical punishment.  This still makes sense, in that by ejecting this young man from the protection of the church (spiritual as well as physical), he would be exposed to both human and demonic threats.

http://www.usccb.org/bible/1corinthians/5

  Deliver this man to Satan: once the sinner is expelled from the
  church, the sphere of Jesus’ lordship and victory over sin, he will be
  in the region outside over which Satan is still master. For the
  destruction of his flesh: the purpose of the penalty is medicinal:
  through affliction, sin’s grip over him may be destroyed and the path
  to repentance and reunion laid open. With Paul’s instructions for an
  excommunication ceremony here, contrast his recommendations for the
  reconciliation of a sinner in 2 Cor 2:5–11.

But in ancient times, the standards and interpretations may have differed.  It'll need someone with a deeper knowledge of church history and tradition to respond on that point.

Is the dignity of man pertains to his soul only or to the wholeness of his being meaning body & soul?

Thou hast made him a little less than the angels, thou hast crowned him with glory and honour. - Psalm 8:5

The short answer is that the human person is composed of a soul and body, thus the dignity of the human person applies to both man’s soul and body.

"God did not make death, and he does not delight in the death of the living. For he has created all things that they might exist ... God created man for incorruption, and made him in the image of his own eternity, but through the devil's envy death entered the world, and those who belong to his party experience it" (Wis 1:13-14; 2:23-24).
42So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption, it shall rise in incorruption. 43It is sown in dishonour, it shall rise in glory. It is sown in weakness, it shall rise in power. 44It is sown a natural body, it shall rise a spiritual body. If there be a natural body, there is also a spiritual body, as it is written: 45The first man Adam was made into a living soul; the last Adam into a quickening spirit. 46Yet that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; afterwards that which is spiritual. 47The first man was of the earth, earthly: the second man, from heaven, heavenly. 48Such as is the earthly, such also are the earthly: and such as is the heavenly, such also are they that are heavenly. 49Therefore as we have borne the image of the earthly, let us bear also the image of the heavenly. -  1 Corinthians 15 42-49

Separating man’s body from his soul man him a living being other than man? This is what happens to each and everyone of us at the moment of death, until our bodies are reunited with our souls at the Last Judgement.
Does the Catholic Church believe that we become just souls after we die?
This is why the Church technically refers to souls in Heaven as saints and not as persons. For the human person is technically composed as having a soul united with an earthly body! This will all change at the end of times!
Nevertheless, many refer to the saints in Heaven as saints. The souls in purgatory are interestingly enough referred to as the Souls in Purgatory!
Man is made in the image of God and God is Spirit. The second person of the Holy Trinity in the person of the Only Begotten Son, Jesus Christ is both truly man and truly God. Truly man because he is in his human nature composed of a human body and an immortal human soul.

Every individual, precisely by reason of the mystery of the Word of God who was made flesh (cf. Jn 1:14), is entrusted to the maternal care of the Church. Therefore every threat to human dignity and life must necessarily be felt in the Church's very heart; it cannot but affect her at the core of her faith in the Redemptive Incarnation of the Son of God, and engage her in her mission of proclaiming the Gospel of life in all the world and to every creature (cf. Mk 16:15).

52 Man, as the living image of God, is willed by his Creator to be ruler and lord. Saint Gregory of Nyssa writes that "God made man capable of carrying out his role as king of the earth ... Man was created in the image of the One who governs the universe. Everything demonstrates that from the beginning man's nature was marked by royalty... Man is a king. Created to exercise dominion over the world, he was given a likeness to the king of the universe; he is the living image who participates by his dignity in the perfection of the divine archetype".38 Called to be fruitful and multiply, to subdue the earth and to exercise dominion over other lesser creatures (cf. Gen 1:28), man is ruler and lord not only over things but especially over himself, 39 and in a certain sense, over the life which he has received and which he is able to transmit through procreation, carried out with love and respect for God's plan. Man's lordship however is not absolute, but ministerial: it is a real reflection of the unique and infinite lordship of God. Hence man must exercise it with wisdom and love, sharing in the boundless wisdom and love of God. And this comes about through obedience to God's holy Law: a free and joyful obedience (cf. Ps 119), born of and fostered by an awareness that the precepts of the Lord are a gift of grace entrusted to man always and solely for his good, for the preservation of his personal dignity and the pursuit of his happiness. - Evangelium Vitae

John J. Coughlin Goes on to give us many insights in the following:

The mystery of the human being's creation in the image of God means that the human person has been endowed with creativity. The definitive creation of the human being is incomplete until the creation of Eve. When Adam recognizes Eve•as. a32 human being like himself, "flesh of my flesh," he is filled with joy. They are embodied spirits for whom thinking, acting, and expressing depends on the body, which is not accidental but integral to human nature.33 The divine command to the first parents-to "[b]e fruitful and multiply" - Pope John Paul II and the Dignity of the Human Being


Scriptural Basis for different kinds of marriage Consider two types of marriages: a marriage ceremony in a church with a certified priest/pastor (but without any government recognition) and a courthouse marriage.

What scriptures would imply that one or the other is preferable, assuming for some reason you couldn't do both?

(The other question only asks about a religious ceremony, not a courthouse marriage)

There is no mention in the Bible either of clergy-officiated marriage ceremonies or of state-officiated marriage ceremonies. That's because neither of them existed in Judaeo-Christian society until relatively recently.

Marriage ceremonies officiated by a priest or minister emerged only in the 1500s, and took another two or three centuries after that to become accepted as the norm in all Western Christian countries. State involvement in marriage developed during the same time period in Europe. (Quick reference: Marriage -> History of Marriage, from Wikipedia. For an extensive history of marriage, see: Marriage, a History: How Love Conquered Marriage, by Stephanie Coontz.)

Since the Bible itself is silent on both clergy-officiated marriages and state-officiated marriages, which one is preferable or proper is a matter of church doctrine and interpretation, and of social and legal custom, rather than of specific Biblical teaching or narrative. So aside from opinion-based answers, which are not supported on Christianity.SE, the only way the question could be answered would be to refer to the teachings of particular branches or denominations of Christianity.

However, to provide a some biblical background, in Bible times marriage took place primarily in the context of family, social, and inter-tribal or international relationships. Most commonly marriages were arranged by the families of the bride and groom in order to form alliances, solidify inter-family ties, and benefit both parties (families, tribes, or nations) economically. Money or valuables commonly changed hands at the time a marriage was contracted, usually in the form of a bride price. The marriage became legally binding at the time it was arranged, and came fully into effect at the time it was consummated—at which time there was often a feast in celebration of the union.

The most detailed account of marriage practices in the Bible occurs in the story of the marriage of Isaac and Rebekah in Genesis 24. In line with the customs of the time, the marriage was arranged between the two families before the bride and groom even saw one another. The family of the groom gave expensive presents both to the bride herself and to the bride's family. The union was completed when Rebekah was brought back to Isaac and the marriage was consummated in the tent of Sarah, the deceased mother of the groom. (The consummation is implied rather than explicitly stated.)

Another account providing insight into ancient Hebrew marriage customs occurs in the marriage of Jacob to Leah and Rachel in Genesis 29:14–30. Since Jacob had brought no wealth with him, and was at that time cut off from his family, the arranged bride price was seven years of labor. However, there was a bit of trickery involved. Jacob had contracted to marry Rachel in return for seven years of labor. But her father Laban substituted Leah, Rachel's older sister, at the time the marriage was to be consummated. (Apparently there was plenty of good wine at the wedding feast!) Since his marriage with Leah was now consummated and could therefore not be undone according to the marriage customs of the time, Jacob was obliged to perform another seven years of labor for Laban as a bride price for Rachel.

The role of marriage in international relations can be seen in the later story of Solomon taking "700 wives, who were princesses [from the surrounding nations], and 300 concubines" (1 Kings 11:3). This built up Solomon's wealth by establishing treaty and trade relationships with the surrounding nations. But it ultimately led to the downfall of the unified kingdom of Israel under his son Rehoboam because Solomon began building shrines to the gods and goddesses of his foreign wives, contrary to the commandments of the God of Israel. For the story in its context, see 1 Kings 10–11.

The story of the wedding at Cana in John 2:1–12 offers a peek into wedding practices in New Testament times. Here there is mention of the wedding feast, which was a common practice in the ancient world. But as we would expect, there is no mention of any officiating priest, nor of any involvement of the state, since as mentioned earlier, these involvements did not develop until 1,500 years later. The Parable of the Wedding Feast in Matthew 22:1–14 and The Parable of the Ten Virgins in Matthew 25:1–12 provide additional insight into wedding practices in New Testament times and culture.

Yes, there are laws in the Bible about marriage and adultery, both in the Old Testament and in the New Testament. But none of these laws require or assume any clergy or state involvement in the wedding. Marriages were simply accepted as valid when they were formed according to the social customs of the day, as described briefly above.

About the most we can conclude from the Bible's descriptions of and laws concerning marriage, then, is that marriage is generally to be done according to the social, legal, and religious customs of the time, and that once the marriage is so formed, recognized, and accepted, the laws relating to it become binding upon the couple, and upon society in relation to them as a married couple.

“Preferable” using what as a standard?  It is difficult to judge unless we know what yardstick to use.  Are you asking which one God would look more favorably on?  Or which one would bring you greater benefit?  If the latter, it depends on what you count as more important.

The consequences of having the first type of marriage is that you would be denied certain financial or legal benefits that married couples enjoy.  The consequences of the second are...what?  Without God to seal the union there is no marriage and any sex which occurs as a result of the relationship is fornication.  At least, according to the New Testament.  How that sort of thing applied to concubines (was a man considered to be “married” to his concubines?) and such…I’m not even going to try to guess.

So…can one be married in the eyes of God if no religious ceremony occurs?  Many branches of Christianity would say no.  The ceremony is required to create the union.  Certainly it would be the case with the more “orthodox” branches, but it might be that there are some who believe you can declare your marriage before God without the presence of a religious representative.

I don't remember coming across anything about what constitutes a marriage ceremony in the eyes of God.  There is no doubt that God recognizes marriage, but it largely seems the consequence of intent and acquiescence on the part of whoever the woman in question "belongs" to (usually involving a monetary transaction).  Did Jacob have a priest join him to Rachel (or Leah) after he had worked out his years?  There is no reason to assume that he didn’t, but nothing was specifically mentioned.  What that means for us in our more enlightened age where women most often are allowed to belong to themselves...who can say?  Marriage has always been defined by the customs of the particular culture; God has never set a requirement for how it is accomplished, only that it must be accomplished before sexual relations can be considered non-sinful.

Marriage as a sacrament and marriage as a legal condition really are two different things, although it is unfortunate (IMHO) that our society has always stacked the two together so closely that many people can't see the distinction.  Once

The Old Testament seems to treat marriage as a contract, with all that implies.  A contract that has some pretty steep penalties if either of the parties breaks the contract.  There were also prohibitions about who could marry (a man can’t marry his father’s wife, no Canaanites, etc).  In the New Testament, scriptures distinguish between three different kinds of marriage:
   1. Between two believers
   2. Between a believer and an unbeliever
   3. Between two unbelievers

The first and second marriages would seem to be dissolvable in cases of infidelity, and the second if, for any reason, the unbeliever wants out.  Nothing is specifically said about the third, I think it wouldn’t be unreasonable to assume that the Bible would consider a “marriage” between two unbelievers as a legal arrangement, like any other contract.

If you make the assumption that a marriage can be a marriage in God’s eyes without anything but intent on the part of the man and woman who “marry”, then you might consider the passages that advise us to follow the customs/laws of the land so that we do not “offend”. (Matthew 17:25-27)  Other than for religious reasons people are seldom offended by people living together without marriage.  But then we read in Romans 14:20-22 that we should not do anything to make our brothers stumble.  Even if you truly believe that the ceremony is not required in order for marriage,  there are many who believe that it is required and in their eyes a marriage without a church ceremony is just "living together".


What do Catholics believe about Yom kippur and judgment? Yom Kippur is the Day of Atonement,
The Lords feast as Leviticus says. In Judaism, this is the day where God or Hashem will judge the future, what will happen the next year is decided on Yom Kippur. After a week of Thesuva(repenting) from the Feast of Trumpets /Rosh Hashana to Yom Kippur.Yom Kippur, a day of fasting as the Scripture says.

What is the Catholic doctrine or understanding on Yom Kippur?

Is it anything like or related to the Jewish understanding that the events taking place in the world for the year to come are sealed on Yom Kippur every year? Who will live or who will die, who will get sick and who will become rich and so on. (As Judaism says)?

ref: Lev 16

(The question has nothing to do with eternal salvation!)

It is not the practice of the Catholic Church to have doctrines or precepts about particular Jewish Holy Days or celebrations. If the Church did, it would be easily found in the Catholic Encyclopedia. Here is what the Catholic Encyclopedia actually has to say about Yom Kippur.

  The rites to be observed on the Day of Atonement are fully set forth in the sixteenth chapter of Leviticus (cf. Exodus 30:10; Leviticus 23:27-31, 25:9; Numbers 29:7-11). It was a most solemn fast, on which no food could be taken throughout the whole the day, and servile works were forbidden. It was kept on nineteenth day of Tischri, which falls in September/October. The sacrifices included a calf, a ram, and seven lambs (Numbers 29:8-11). But the distinctive ceremony of the day was the offering of the two goats.

  "He (Aaron) shall make the two buck-goats to stand before Lord, in the door of the tabernacle of the testimony: and casting lots upon them both, one to be offered to the Lord and the other to be the emissary-goat: That whose lot fell to be offered to the Lord, he shall offer for sin: But that whose lot was to be the emissary goat he shall present alive before the Lord, that he may pour out prayers upon him, and let him go into the wilderness . . . After he hath cleansed the sanctuary, and the tabernacle, and the altar, let him offer the living goat: And putting both hands upon his head, let him confess all the iniquities of the children of Israel, and all their offences and sins, and praying that they may light on his head, he shall turn him out by a man ready for it, into the desert. And when the goat hath carried all their iniquities into an uninhabited land, and shall be let go into the desert, Aaron shall return into the tabernacle of the testimony." (Leviticus 16:7-10, 20-23) -
  Catholic Encyclopedia.

The Church does however uses Melchisedech, Yom Kippur, Manna, and the Paschal Lamb to represent the Eucharist in one fashion or another.

  The Church recognizes many and various realities from the Old Testament as figures for Christ’s gift of himself in the Most Holy Eucharist. On the Solemnity of Corpus Christi in the Ordinary Form, the Church read from the book of Exodus – how the people were cleansed and the covenant ratified through animal sacrifice at the foot of Mount Sinai.

  There are so many images and figures for the Eucharist in the Old Testament – the Manna, the bread and wine offered by Melchisedech, the sacrifice of the Day of Atonement (Yom Kippur), the Paschal Lamb, etc.!

  Yom Kippur and the sacrifices of the Old Law

  "But Christ, being come an high priest of the good things to come, by a greater and more perfect tabernacle not made with hand, that is, not of this creation: Neither by the blood of goats, or of calves, but by his own blood, entered once into the holies, having obtained eternal redemption." (Hebrews 9:11-12)

  While all the sacrifices of the Old Law point to the perfect sacrifice which Christ would offer in his own blood upon the Cross, that expiatory sacrifice of Yom Kippur (the Day of Atonement) is the chief figure of the Crucifixion of our Savior.

  On this day, the only time in the year, the high priest would enter into the Holy of Holies and, taking the blood of sacrifice, would sprinkle this blood in the direction of the Ark of the Covenant. Further, the blood would be sprinkled in several other places in the Temple. The priest, on this single day, invoked the Most Holy Name of the Lord – seeking mercy for himself and for the people.

  This was the only day of the year in which anyone entered the Holy of Holies, which was the most sacred part of the ancient Temple. This Holy of Holies was a sign and figure for the eternal sanctuary of heaven, which Christ opened through the shedding of his own Most Precious Blood. - Melchisedech, Yom Kippur, Manna, and the Paschal Lamb: Figures of the Eucharist

The Association of Hebrew Catholics has this to say about celebrating Jewish feasts and holidays:

  As Hebrew Catholics, we can recognize this same teaching technique in the parables of Jesus and the Sacraments which He initiated. Bread and wine, water and oil, incense and candles, prayers and songs are all rich and integral parts of Catholic liturgy and tradition.

  By celebrating the Hebrew feasts in light of Catholic truth, we can pass on to our children the great heritage of Faith, the wonder of God’s actions in the history of His people, and the enduring promise of salvation through Yeshua haMashiach.

Here is what they say about Yom Kippur:

  Yom Kippur, the Day of Atonement, is the day when God’s judgment is believed to be sealed for the coming year. The ten days between Rosh Hashonah and Yom Kippur are called the Days of Penitence. It is a time to repent of and to correct those things we have done wrong, especially to our neighbor, and to ask God’s forgiveness.

  For everyone thirteen years and older, Yom Kippur is a day of fasting. Fasting encourages humility and repentance, disciplines the body and clarifies the mind as we examine our conduct and thoughts.

  In the synagogue, the ancient Kol Nidre (Absolution of All Vows) is chanted and confession of sins as commanded in Leviticus 26:40 is made. At home, memorial candles are lit for members of the family who have died. The Mourner’s Kaddish and final blowing of the Shofar conclude the day.

  I have continued to keep Yom Kippur as a day of fasting and repentance, not for myself but for the Jewish people, especially those who have turned away from God. I also light candles and have Masses offered for departed relatives. It is the only holiday that makes itself known by the absence of food and festivities. We offer our prayers as we conclude the fast at the evening meal. - Yom Kippur

The Association of Hebrew Catholics has the ecclesiastical support of Archbishop Raymond L. Burke.

Christ's New Law has abrogated the Old Law's ceremonial precepts (if Yom Kippur is even a ceremonial precept of the Old Law or an invention of Talmudic Judaism, which is a different religion than Judaism before the destruction of the Temple in 70 A.D.). St. Thomas Aquinas Summa Theologica I-II q. 103 a. 3 ("Whether the ceremonies of the Old Law ceased at the coming of Christ?") c.:

All the ceremonial precepts of the Old Law were ordained to the worship of God as stated above (Question [101], Articles [1],2). Now external worship should be in proportion to the internal worship, which consists in faith, hope and charity. Consequently exterior worship had to be subject to variations according to the variations in the internal worship, in which a threefold state may be distinguished. One state was in respect of faith and hope, both in heavenly goods, and in the means of obtaining them—in both of these considered as things to come. Such was the state of faith and hope in the Old Law. Another state of interior worship is that in which we have faith and hope in heavenly goods as things to come; but in the means of obtaining heavenly goods, as in things present or past. Such is the state of the New Law. The third state is that in which both are possessed as present; wherein nothing is believed in as lacking, nothing hoped for as being yet to come. Such is the state of the Blessed.
In this state of the Blessed, then, nothing in regard to worship of God will be figurative; there will be naught but "thanksgiving and voice of praise" (Is. 51:3). Hence it is written concerning the city of the Blessed (Apoc. 21:22): "I saw no temple therein: for the Lord God Almighty is the temple thereof, and the Lamb." Proportionately, therefore, the ceremonies of the first-mentioned state which foreshadowed the second and third states, had need to cease at the advent of the second state; and other ceremonies had to be introduced which would be in keeping with the state of divine worship for that particular time, wherein heavenly goods are a thing of the future, but the Divine favors whereby we obtain the heavenly boons are a thing of the present.

Since the Old Law has been abrogated by the New, it follows that to the extent that Yom Kippur was prescribed by the Old Law, there is no requirement either to celebrate it or to hold any particular belief concerning it; whereas if it was not prescribed by the Old Law, the same is true a fortiori.


What is the interpretation of the bow in the cloud after the Flood? After the Flood abates, God reassures Noah that it was a one time event:

Genesis 9:13 (ESV)

  I have set my bow in the cloud, and it shall be a sign of the covenant between me and the earth.

The most obvious interpretation is that this is a rainbow, and that it was something new.  But rainbows are a physical consequence of having rain and sun.

God spells out the significance of the sight: the earth will not be flooded again.  But should we interpret this as an already-familiar sight being used as a reminder, or did He somehow change things then, and rainbows had not appeared before the Flood?  Or was it not actually a rainbow at all, but some other phenomenon with which we are no longer familiar?

Jesus spoke in parables that were full of very familiar imagery to his hearers, turning them into spiritual lessons.

The Lord commanded Abraham to circumcise all his male descendants, a custom which was already being practiced before the time of Abraham, but God made it a token of his covenant with Abraham.

Likewise, there's no reason to believe that rainbows, being a natural phenomenon, did not exist before the Flood.  But as a part of God's covenant with Noah, he gave them a new, special significance.

He (God) was referring to the milky way arch. It arches over the earth. Notice in the King James bible it clearly said "set My bow in the cloud; not clouds but cloud. Also that this was over the earth and not in the earth. This was purposely hidden because when you find the milky way you also find Orion which was mentioned twice in the book of Job. 9:9 & 38:28 I think. Definately in Job 38 though. A rainbow is seen when water drops meet the sunlight and again clearly the word in Genesis chp 3 says the rains had stopped and the ground was dry.


Denominational adherence to "The New Perspective On Paul" To be honest, I'd never heard about the New Perspective on Paul before today. Does anyone know of denominations that subscribe to the NPP interpretation, in part or in full?

Specifically, the following concepts, taken from this article:

Covenantal Nomism

  Briefly put, covenantal nomism is the view that one’s place in God’s
  plan is established on the basis of the covenant and that the covenant
  requires as the proper response of man his obedience to its
  commandments, while providing means of atonement for transgression

I read this to mean "God saves us by providing atonement, so long as we keep up our end of the bargain."

This of course, would be different than Sola Fide.

The righteousness of God

  Proponents of New Perspectivism argue that the righteousness of God,
  spoken of by Paul in Romans, is refering to God’s faithfulness rather
  than the positive imputation of Christ’s righteousness.

Justification

  According to Wright, justification isn’t merely an initial means by
  which someone is right with God, but rather a mark of who already is.

Denial of imputed righteousness

  N.T. Wright reinterprets texts classically used as prooftexts for
  imputed righteousness. He understands 2 Corinthians 5:21, for example,
  to refer to God’s covenant faithfulness. While many still profess
  agreement with the substance of the doctrine of imputed righteousness,
  the classic (or traditional) interpretations of texts relating to
  imputation have more or less been removed

The jury is still out on this one.

As a doctrinal perspective that is relatively new on the scene, theologians are still busy hashing out where they fall on the matter and denominations are examining how it compares to their established teachings. I know of no denominations that have officially embrassed it as their standard teaching. In fact I don't know of any yet who officially allow even partially, however there are quite a few thinkers these days that have gone this direction and many of the churches

While there may not be official adherence, there is certainly official rejection. Several denominations* have made statements against the teachings, and several have gone so far as to require all new ordination candidates to write their own refutations as part of their examination process.

* The OPC and several other Reformed / Presbyterian denominations.

NPP is more an academic movement than a denominational teaching. To the extent that any denominations use it, it would be only to help inform their understanding of Paul's teachings, and not as a denominational doctrine itself.


How can we identify, sometimes, the angel of the Lord as God if the prophets also spoke as God? I am not saying the prophets are God. What I am saying is that the prophets have a tendency to speak like God in the first person. Which can make it difficult to use the OT when discussing the premises of the Trinity.
This was an argument used by Muslims.

The key to identifying the difference between the two lies in the appearance of the one making the statement. Prophets were ordinary men who were known members of the community. Their presence was not a one time or sudden event. Whereas with the Angel of the Lord appeared at the moment of the announcement, and most often only for a few minutes.

Since you mentioned the Book of Isaiah the Angel of the Lord only appears once in the book of Isaiah. That is in Chapter 37 verse 36, and that particular chapter is most indicative of the point I am making.

When King Hezekiah was about to acquiesce to the king of Assyria Isaiah sent a message to Hezekiah which you will notice begins with Thus saith the LORD God of Israel. While in verse 36 we find:

  Isaiah 37:36 KJV  Then the angel of the LORD went forth, and smote in the camp of the Assyrians a hundred and fourscore and five thousand: and when they arose early in the morning, behold, they were all dead corpses.

What we find in this verse is a quick and decisive action by the Angel of the Lord.

In all 63 instances of The Angel of the Lord appearing in the Old Testament you will find that the Angel appeared and only remained as long as necessary to accomplish the will of God.

Hope this helps.

Deuteronomy 18:22 "If the prophet speaks in the name of the Lord, and the thing does not occur and does not come about, that is the thing the Lord did not speak. The prophet has spoken it wantonly; you shall not be afraid of him."

If they speak of something that never happens they're not a prophet. With this it's not always completely clear because you have to look at the details. Like if the person gives a timeline for when they say it'll happen. Like before that generation dies out, or something that can be used as a proof it happened like they said in the time period they said, or it didn't. Something that can be verified.

What ever the person says would have to agree 100% with what god already established, because it's everlasting and unchangeable. (Deuteronomy 13, Ezekiel 37:26)

So if they speak any objection to what god taught they do not speak for God.

Miracles are not evidence that they speak for god. Deuteronomy Ch 13 describes how even false prophets can do miracles. God allows it because he says he's testing to see if you love him with all your heart and soul.


Where did the concept of Christians attending a church building come from? Christians attend church on Sundays, they sing, listen to a pastor speak, etc.
When did such a concept first appeared?
Did the early Christians practice this?  or is this 'attending church' a medieval tradition from the Roman Catholic church?

In the earliest days of the church Christians met in the Temple in Jerusalem and in each others homes. (Acts 2:26)

The Apostles would preach in the Jewish synagogues, often evangelistically, but sometimes even at the invitation of the other Jews. (See Acts 13 for example)

They would meet in lecture halls, such as the Hall of Tyrannus in Ephesus. (Acts 19:9)

The New Testament doesn't mention purpose built church buildings, and in the New Testament era the most common meeting place for Christians was in each others' homes.

The earliest known church building is the Dura-Europos church, which was converted from a regular house in around 233-256AD.

This was a Comment but seems relevant to the question.

Saturday is actually the Sabbath day, the day in which God Rested.

Sunday is the first day of the week.

Sunday was the traditional day for Studying God's word.
They didn't attend church on Saturdays because they rested on that day and attended church on Sunday for study and fellowship (mostly fellowship) this is why they met in other people's homes.

Addition

Believers came together in homes and temples and fields on the day they would have normally been in Synagogues and other places of learning (places teaching about Jewish religion).  They did this to learn about the things that Jesus was all about, that is the reason for "Church".  this is one of the stepping stones into why we have "Church" and "Church buildings", and why we go to "Church"

the thing of it is that they really had this ritual of Studying on the first day of the week all along, the Christians just decided to do it where the teacher was,  when Jesus went to prepare a place for us, the believers of that time decided they needed a more permanent place to fellowship.  so really what happened was a change of Religion, not a change in the meeting habits.

even today when new church is formed it usually starts as a weekly meeting of a group of people that meet in each other's homes, and when there are too many people to meet inside of one person's home then they start thinking about buying a building and making a "Church Home" for their group to meet in.

The Meeting has always been the same, the Place is what changes between groups.