How is 1 Corinthians 9:27 reconciled with the teaching that losing salvation is impossible? This question is aimed at those Christians who believe that someone saved can't become "unsaved" later.

At least in 1 Corinthians 9:27 apostle Paul says he is not sure whether he will be saved or not (AFAIK there are other verses like this, and of course other places where Paul expresses his hope he will be saved). Here it is:

  27 No, I beat my body and make it my slave so that after I have
  preached to others, I myself will not be disqualified for the prize. (NIV–1984)

Question is simple: how do those Christians interpret this?

Related:

Can a Christian walk away from their salvation?
Do parts of Hebrews 3 and 4 imply that saved Christians can become unsaved?
Once saved always saved. Is eternal security Biblical? [closed]
How does 1 John 2:19 fit with the teaching that Christians can lose their salvation

It's clear from your question that you are assuming "the prize" to be salvation, and that you believe that this verse speaks of our works earning our salvation, or at least our bad works possibly leading to the loss of our salvation.

However, to most reformed theologians, this is not the case. A deeper study of the original Greek, as well as application of sound principles of interpretation clears this up.

First, the principles of Biblical interpretation include the fact that Scripture cannot contradict itself. Paul is on record all throughout the New Testament as stating that salvation is by faith through grace, apart from any works or worthiness of man. It would make no sense for him to be saying so here, so we need to dig deeper.

Taking a look at the various commentaries on this verse, most are in agreement that the prize is not salvation.   For example:

From Scofield Reference Notes

  1 castaway

  Gr. adokimos, "disapproved." Dokimos, without the private a, is
  translated "approved" in Rom 14:18 16:10 1Cor 11:19 2Cor 10:18 2Tim
  2:15 Jas 1:12, by the word "tried." The prefix simply changes the word
  to a negative, i.e. not approved, or, disapproved. The apostle is
  writing of service, not of salvation. He is not expressing fear that
  he may fail of salvation but of his crown. See "Rewards" Dan 12:3 1Cor
  3:14.

Another view from Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible hints that the prize is simply faithfulness and remaining a faithful servant so that he can achieve the ultimate prize of expanding Christ's kingdom - avoiding becoming a "useless preacher".

  I myself should be a castaway, or rejected, or disapproved of; that is,
  by men: the apostle's concern is, lest he should do anything that
  might bring a reproach on the Gospel; lest some corruption of his
  nature or other should break out, and thereby his ministry be justly
  blamed, and be brought under contempt; and so he be rejected and
  disapproved of by men, and become useless as a preacher: not that he
  feared he should become a reprobate, as the word is opposed to an
  elect person; or that he should be a castaway eternally, or be
  everlastingly damned; for he knew in whom he had believed, and was
  persuaded of his interest in the love of God, and that he was a chosen
  vessel of salvation, that could not be eternally lost: though
  supposing that this is his sense, and these his fears and concern, it
  follows not as neither that he was, so neither that he could be a lost
  and damned person: the fears of the saints, their godly jealousies of
  themselves, and pious care that they be not lost, are not at all
  inconsistent with the firmness of their election, their security in
  Christ, and the impossibility of their final and total falling away;
  but on the contrary are overruled, and made use of by the Spirit of
  God, for their final perseverance in grace and holiness.

Calvin put the same thought this way:

  Accordingly, I strive to conduct myself in such a manner, that my
  character and conduct may not be inconsistent with my doctrine, and
  that thus I may not, with great disgrace to myself, and a grievous
  occasion of offense to my brethren, neglect those things which I
  require from others.

Finally, if you're interested, there's no shortage of commentaries from the great thinkers here: http://www.preceptaustin.org/1_corinthians_927_commentary.htm

As I read this passage, If I did not at least question my understanding of "one saved always saved", I would be intellectually dishonest. And there are quite a few verses in the bible that on face value can rightfully challenge that doctrine. This passage is one of them.

If I believe all of God word is true and without error, this verse in particular sure seems to say, "Hey, maybe salvation is a free gift, but we need to work (and work really hard!) to keep it."
Sure seems to say that a great man of God like Paul is also in jeopardy of losing that gift. (wow... what hope have I?)

But then a multitude of verses come to mind written by the same man that really make him seem out of character here. And if I'm honest I would have to say it makes the whole bible look like it really is a bunch of contradictory fables.

So this is where faith comes in, as one is tested. One must trust that the spirit will guide to truth as we seek wisdom and His answers like we would search for gold and silver.

As I seek to understand this, I first look at the context of the chapter and ask what point is Paul trying to make in all those paragraphs together. What is his point in writing this section of the letter. Here is how I see it thus far.

Paul doesn't want to take money or anything from the congregation even though he is worthy and has the right to. (v1-12) A God ordained right I may add.(v14)
He is making a defense to those who are examining (judging) him.(v3)
He seems to be rather adamant in these verses to make sure everyone knows that he is deserving of these things and no could accuse him of wrong for taking these things but he list all these things he sacrifices (endures), he endures so these things won't be a stumbling block for any coming to an understanding of Christ(v12)

  12  ...we endure anything rather than put an obstacle in the way of the gospel of Christ.

I ask myself does the suffering here have any relation to what he is saying in verse 27 (discipline my body keep it under control)?

He goes on to talk about talking about how important preaching is to him and he would do whatever it takes to win others (v15-23)

Then we go onto running the race in verse 24. I ask myself what is the race? This is of course an metaphore so you have to read into it. The word race here is only used twice in the new testament. Here in 1 Co. and Hebrews 12. Neither which explain clearly what "the race" is.

Closest I could find at this point is the word "course" which might be related to the metaphore of "race".
I assume it is safe to say Paul was not talking about a literal race but instead the path or "course" taken to get to the end of life.

Timothy actually uses "Course" and "Crown" in the same overall thought. Similar to the way 1 Co. 9 uses "Race" and "Wreath" in 24 and 25.

I really find it hard to believe how these two writers might be talking about different things. It seems to me they are just using different but similar words to express the same thing.

2 Ti 4:7-8

  I have fought the good fight, I have finished the course, I have kept the faith. 8 Henceforth there is laid up for me the crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous judge, will award to me on that day, and not only to me but also to all who have loved his appearing.

So in Timothy does "the race" have something to do with keeping the faith?

And according to Acts, is it to "testify to the gospel of the grace of God"?
Acts 20:24

  ...if only I may finish my course and the ministry that I received from the Lord Jesus, to testify to the gospel of the grace of God.

I guess I can argue that course and ministry are two separate things independent of each other, therefore course/race is not  "to testify to the gospel of the grace of God." But I don't know.

It seems that all the verses in this chapter prior to 26 are building up an argument to help support his main point here in verses 26 and 27
So putting this chapter together with the others found in the bible I ask,
Could I summarize this chapter into a paraphrase of verses 26 and 27 as

  So I do not (run) testify to the gospel of the grace of God aimlessly; I do not box as one beating the air. But I discipline my body and keep it under control. I beat it and make it a slave, (lest) so that after preaching to others I myself would not be a castaway, disapproved, disqualified from preaching the gospel, because I put an obstacle in the way of the gospel by giving those who are judging me an opportunity to discredit me by taking all your things.

Then in the very next chapter the very next sentence he says,

  And I do not wish you to be ignorant, brethren,

It seems the greek word "de" is connecting verse 27 to 10:1 and forward. It is translated "and, moreover, for, now , when". In a sense saying

  I do not want to be disqualified from preaching to you because I don't want you to be ignorant and here are some of the things I want you to know. He goes on to teach them about the lessons from Israel in the wilderness ect..

I'm sure I am not 100% correct here but I think I am on the right track.
It still troubles me how part of the metaphore in v24 ties in spiritually "but only one receives the prize". But that's OK for now. I'm gonna keep digging because these gold in them there hills :-)

I would love to hear any of your thoughts or corrections.


Which are the sins that will not be forgiven in the age to come? At Matthew 12:32 we hear some tough talk from Jesus:

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

I wish to know whether there are other sins which fall in the category of those which   will not be forgiven in the age to come , say, desecration of the Holy Euchariat , or say,  murder of an ordained priest .  What do the Catholic Church teach about the sins which may not be forgiven in the age to come.

Actually our sermon was on just that topic.  Father said the unforgiveable sin is the one that denies Jesus for in denying Jesus you deny the Father.
Thus you believe that God is not loving nor generous and can do all things.
No there is no other sin greater than that.. all sins can be forgiven but once you denied God there is really is nothing left for you. People that deny God also deny there is any hope, it all leads to despair which is where Satan wants you to be so he take your soul as his own.

Which are the sins that will not be forgiven in the age to come?

"Whoever speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come."(Matthew12:32)

From the above reference verse, it clearly distinguished the difference between sins against the Son of Man/Jesus versus the sin against the Holy Spirit.

The BIG QUESTION here is, how can you speak a word against the Holy Spirit, we all know Jesus became God-Man but the Holy Spirit did not incarnate.
Jesus addressed this to the crowd and Pharisees, saying anyone who publicly attributes the work of the Holy Spirit to the devil/satan is the "UNFORGIVABLE SIN"

As Christian we know the scriptures teaches us that our body is the temple of the Holy Spirit, and the Holy Spirit can dwell in a believer to inspire his thought,words and action.

If you are asking for Catholic perspective let me stated the reflection of St.Maximillian Kolbe about the Lourdes Apparition Mary saying "I AM" the Immaculate Conception" instead of saying I am immaculately conceived...
St.Kolbe...stated the Immaculate Conception is divine, St.Kolbe is pointing to the Holy Spirit as the Uncreated Immaculate Conception and Mary as the created Immaculate Conception (p.52 book of Fr.Gaitley 33Days to Morning Glory)

The Mystery of Truth lies in the mystical union between the Holy Spirit & Mary(as Spouse/Advocate).

What type of union is this? It is above all an interior union, a union of her essence with the "essence" of the Holy Spirit.The Holy Spirit dwells in her,lives in her. This was true from the first instant of her existence.It was always true, it will always be true.(p.53 book of Fr.Gaitley 33Days to Morning Glory)

What does St.Kolbe driving at his reflections.If Satan can possessed the body of a human submitting to his powers. Mary by Her FIAT and Total Surrender to God's WILL, enable the Holy Spirit to animates her thought, words & actions.In the words of St.Kolbe Mary is "POSSESSED/ANIMATED" completely and perfectly by the Holy Spirit.

Now from the approved Catholic Church Marian Apparition at Fatima in 1917. Sis. Lucia gave the five blasphemy against Blessed Virgin Mary.

The verse now in reference(Matthew12:32) and the words of Jesus pointing to anyone who publicly attributed the works of the Holy Spirit to the devil is the UNFORGIVABLE SIN.

The reflections of St.Kolbe on the Mystical Union of the Holy Spirit & Mary points to all approved Marian Apparitions clearly is the work of the Holy Spirit.

Please see the link below on the The Five Sins Against Our Lady:

The Five Sins Against Our Lady

  "My daughter, the motive is simple: there are five ways in which people offend and blaspheme against the Immaculate Heart of Mary:

  1.the blasphemies against the Immaculate Conception,

  2.against her virginity,

  3.against the Divine Maternity, refusing at the same time to accept her as the Mother of all mankind,

  4.those who try publicly to implant in the children's hearts indifference, contempt, and even hatred against this Immaculate Mother, and

  5.those who insult her directly in her sacred images.

Looking on the Five Blasphemies against Blessed Virgin Mary is a direct attack on the Holy Spirit, basing it from St. Kolbe reflections & teachings and biblically from the word OVERSHADOWED.(Luke1:35).And the Overshadowing is paralleled to the Ark of the Covenant.

Jesus affirmed this kind of direct attack when he said "Saul, Saul why are you persecuting me?"(Acts9:4)

In conclusion, Matthew 12:32 is Jesus way of protecting His Mother from all evil attacking Her Dignity and God given role as the Mother of God (Theotokos) and recently Pope Francis declared Mary as the Mother of the Church.

So those who publicly attributes the approved Marian apparitions to the devil/Satan and the five specific action directed towards blaspheming the Dignity of the Blessed Virgin Mary are the UNFORGIVABLE SIN.


What is a Christian's justification for a legal prohibition of homosexual marriage? Today President Obama came out as the first U.S. president to support gay marriage.  In his address, he even quoted scripture to support his change of view.

Love him or hate him, it seems clear that he has struggled personally over the issue, which leads me to think that Obama probably personally opposes homosexual behavior, but has come to the conclusion that permitting homosexual marriage is the right thing, and even the Christian thing to do.

This question is not about Obama's motives or his personal feelings. I simply bring this up as context, and to help explain the same intellectual struggle I'm dealing with personally.

I suspect many Christians find themselves in a similar situation of opposing homosexual behavior, but feeling caught in the debate over whether their moral/personal objection to homosexuality ought to have the force of law.

So for this question, I am seeking answers from the view point that homosexual behavior is a sin (there are many other questions that deal with this issue already, so please don't debate this issue here).

My question, then, is:

Given that homosexual behavior is considered a sin, what is a Christian's justification for the legal prohibition against homosexual marriage?

I'm hoping for answers that cite Biblical principles, or at minimum theological and doctrinal principles.  I'm not interested in "slippery slope" arguments.

Strictly "social" justifications ("I don't want my kids growing up in that sort of society," "Legal marriage benefits exist because traditional marriage helps society in ways that homosexual marriage does not," etc), may be valid reasons to have such a view, but I don't consider them Christian justification, so I would ask that such answers be omitted here (unless they can some how be tied specifically into Christian doctrine).

I'm also curious what, if anything, makes the homosexual marriage issue distinct among other moral issues that are legal, but not condoned by Christian teaching.  Adultery, sex outside of marriage, pornography, strip clubs, gambling, smoking, etc.  Should a Christian oppose the legality of all of these things as well?

From Romans 1, we understand that homosexual activity is a result of a people who know God, but choose not to glorify Him as God. In other words, it is a symptom of a society that has rejected God.

From a theological point of view, a Christian could oppose gay marriage on the grounds that his government is, acting on his behalf, calling "evil good and good evil," directly rejecting the prescribed order. It is tantamount to the society as a whole rejecting God. As one who has a vested interest in not rejecting God, I do not want my government, acting on my behalf, endorsing that which I detest.

This is an active endorsement of a sin, as opposed to mere toleration as would be the case with merely allowing activities that are otherwise sinful.  Indeed, all of what is listed could be considered adiaphora - it is clearly not good stuff, and is actively discouraged amongst those who choose to follow "The Way," but there is no justification for legal compulsion to the contrary.  In contrast, a government explicitly deriving its power from the consent of the governed is making a explicit endorsement of the normative nature of same-sex relationships in declaring marriage "equal" to heterosexual relationships.

(For the non Christians, a quick disclaimer. I understand we live in a pluralistic society. I realize I would be "imposing my beliefs" on others with this argument. I am simply answering the question, not even taking a stand - though today's news did greatly sadden me. Please vote on the theological justification, do not impose your "tolerance" and pluralism on me. You will note, I am not calling for the pitchforks. I'm just choosing to exercise my rights as a citizen to voice my disapproval, and to show that contrary to what people say, it does affect me.  )

Additionally, a Christian would argue that marriage is an institution ordained by God, not a function of the state. When Jesus said, "for this reason a man shall leave his mother and cling to his wife," it is because that is the order which God prescribed. A Christian response would ask why the state gets to (re-)define that which God has defined and put together.

Fundamentally, the real question has less to do with homosexuality itself, and far more to do with the question of whether marriage is a secular or a theological institution. As one who sees marriage as predating governments, I tend to think its none of the government's business.

What is a Christian's justification for a legal prohibition of
homosexual marriage?

For a Christian, "homosexual marriage" is a abomination, not a "marriage"; God defined what "marriage" is:

Genesis 2:24 man will leave his father and mother and be united to his
wife, and they will become one flesh

A Christian cannot accept any kind of homosexual activity, because this behavior defies God. Defiance toward God brings total depravity, death of society, and eternal sufferings - all consequences of rejecting God.

Romans 1:23-32 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images
made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.
Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of
their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with
one another.
Because of this, God gave them over to
shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for
unnatural ones.
In the same way the men also abandoned
natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one
another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in
themselves the due penalty for their perversion
Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the
knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what
ought not to be done. They have become filled with every
kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy,
murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips,
slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent
ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; they are
senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless. Although they
know God’s righteous decree that those who do such things deserve
death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve
of those who practice them.

A Christian doesn't need to assume anything or to experience consequences of the laws toleranting homosexual activities, because already has the examples in history (the bible is also a historic book):

Deuteronomy 29:22 Your children who follow you in later generations
and foreigners who come from distant lands will see the calamities
that have fallen on the land and the diseases with which the Lord has
afflicted it.
Deuteronomy 29:23 The whole land will be a burning
waste of salt and sulfur—nothing planted, nothing sprouting, no
vegetation growing on it. It will be like the destruction of Sodom and
Gomorrah, Admah and Zeboiim, which the Lord overthrew in fierce anger.

God warns the rulers, that make countries a Sodom's land:

Isaiah 1:10 Hear the word of the Lord, you rulers of Sodom; listen to
the law of our God, you people of Gomorrah!
Isaiah 1:16-17 ...wash and
make yourselves clean. Take your evil deeds out of my sight! Stop
doing wrong, learn to do right! Seek justice, encourage
the oppressed. Defend the cause of the fatherless, plead the case of
the widow.
Isaiah 3:9 The look on their faces testifies against them;
they parade their sin like Sodom; they do not hide it. Woe to them!
They have brought disaster upon themselves.
Jude 1:6-7 ... who did not
keep their positions of authority but abandoned their own home—these
he has kept in darkness, bound with everlasting chains for judgment on
the great Day. In a similar way, Sodom and Gomorrah and the
surrounding towns gave themselves up
to sexual immorality and perversion. They serve as an example of those
who suffer the punishment of eternal fire.

A Christian is prepared to submit to rulers ...

1 Peter 2:13-14 Submit yourselves for the Lord’s sake to every authority
instituted among men: whether to the king, as the supreme authority,
or to governors, who are sent by him to punish those who
do wrong and to commend those who do right.
Proverbs 29:4 By justice
a king gives a country stability

... and to support them in their actions ...

1 Timothy 2:1-2 First of all, then, I urge you to offer to God
petitions, prayers, intercessions, and expressions of thanks for all
people, for kings, and for everyone who has authority,
so that we might lead a quiet and peaceful life with all godliness and
dignity.

... only if doesn't contradicts with God's ways.

Acts 5:29 Peter and the other apostles replied: “We must obey God
rather than men!

A Christian is not judging peoples, even they call themselves homosexuals or not ...

1 Corinthians 5:12 What business is it of mine to judge those outside
the church?

... or appealing somehow to the authority justice against their persons.

1 Corinthians 6:1 Does any one of you, when he has a case against his
neighbor, dare to go to law before the unrighteous and not before the
saints?

A Christian fights against devil's schemes ...

Ephesians 6:11-12 Put on the full armor of God so that you can take your
stand against the devil's schemes. For our struggle is
not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the
authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the
spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms.

... and when the battle is losed, a Christian goes out from the depraved society ...

2 Corinthians 6:17 Therefore come out from them and be separate, says
the Lord. Touch no unclean thing, and I will receive you.
Genesis 18:26 The Lord said, “If I find fifty righteous people in the city of
Sodom, I will spare the whole place for their sake.”

... to let to come God's wrath early ...

Romans 12:19 Do not take revenge, dear friends, but leave room for
God's wrath. For it is written, "Vengeance belongs to me. I will pay
them back, declares the Lord."

... for the death of the sinful nature to may save the spirits

1 Corinthians 5:5 hand this man over to Satan, so that the sinful
nature may be destroyed and his spirit saved on the day of the Lord.
Revelation 18:9 When the kings of the earth who committed adultery
with her and shared her luxury see the smoke of her burning, they will
weep and mourn over her.

It can be seen on this forum, not only in this topic, that supporters of homosexuality or other sins, or the ignorants on this subject, they don't care about the sins, and souls, and God.
They need definitions for these to make text analysis, silogistic constructions, valid assertions or just nice jokes playing with words ... avoiding the essence: disastrous consequences of the sin


Romans 6:5 and "Where's Wolfius?" In order to better understand Romans 6:5, I've been doing a word study of the Greek word σύμφυτος (sumphutos), traditionally translated "planted together" or "united with". Commentators usually point out that this adjective is found only here in the New Testament. However, a verb form of the root word is found in Luke 8:7. What's more, various forms are found six times in the Septuagint (Esther 7:7,8 in the margin of Codex Sinaiticus by a corrector; in the text of Amos 9:13, Zechariah 11:2, Wisdom of Solomon 13:13, and III Maccabees 3:22). I'm trying to isolate the most basic meaning, which so far seems to be "thickly grown up together". It's not, as often thought, "grafted", though grafting can be used as an illustration for Romans 6:5 as a whole. Also, it seems to me that the plural form σύμφυτοι (sumphutoi) with the "oi" ending used in 6:5 is not rendered correctly by the traditional translation "united with Him", or even by the alternative "united with the likeness". Rather, in this instance the prefix σύμ- (sum-) doesn't mean "with", but "together", and sumphutoi describes the community of Christians, "such ones as we" of verses 1-4. This is then followed by the dative τῷ ὁμοιώματι (to homoiomati), which means that instead of the locative "'in' the likeness" the dative should be translated "'to' or 'for' the likeness". Romans 6:5 would then more literally read, "For if we have become 'thickly-grown-up-together ones' with reference to the likeness of His death..."

Along the way I found some of the most helpful information on sumphutos in Footnote 187 to Romans 6:5 in John Calvin's commentary on Romans, which was "translated and edited by the Rev. John Owen". This is not the famous Puritan John Owen (1616-1683), but rather a vicar of Thrussington, Leicestershire, UK, who lived from 1788-1867. This later John Owen wrote as "Editor" in the footnote and among other things said, "It appears from Wolfius that the word is used by Greek authors in a sense not strictly literal, to express congeniality, conjoining, union, as the sameness of disposition, or the joining together of a dismembered limb, or, as Grotius says, the union of friendship". I've wanted to read the exact words of the passage from Wolfius on this, so I've been trying to track him down. So far I've come up with three candidates:

John Wolfius, mentioned in some of The Zurich Letters  written to him in the 1500s during the English Reformation.
Christian Wolff ("Wolfius")(1679-1754), a German Enlightenment philosopher between Leibniz and Kant.
Johann Christoph Wolf (1683-1739), a German Christian Hebraist, polymath, collector of books, and master of Oriental languages and literature. I haven't found where he was called "Wolfius", but he very well could have been.

Does anyone have a clue who is the Wolfius mentioned by the editor (the later John Owen) in his footnote to Romans 6:5 of Calvin's commentary, and where the passage from Wolfius I'm looking for might be found?  Thank you all for any help, and God bless you!

The evidence supports the conclusion that the Wolfius referred  to by John Owen, Vicar of Thrussington, in his footnotes to Calvin's Commentary is Johann Christoph Wolf (1683-1739); and that the references made  are to his book  "Curae philologicae et criticae in Novum Testamentum".

This is a copy.

He studied at Wittenburg and amassed a library of some 25,000 volumes, becoming one of the foremost scholars of his age.

The Translators Preface to John Owen's volume, paragraph 12 refers to "Wolfius"  as being active in the last century, that is in the 1700s. This seems to rule out Calvin's contemporary. The other Wolfius mentioned, Christian, was an Enlightenment philosopher, rather than a specialist in the development of languages.

Footnote 187 cites Wolfius as quoting Greek authors as using the word in connection with, amongst other things the joining together of a dismembered limb. This Wolfius in his commentary on this verse quotes Antonius (i.e. Marcus Aurelias) Book 8 chapter 34. That chapter refers to dismembered limbs. He also quotes the tenth book of Plato's Legabus.

There are at least 24 references to Wolfius in Owen's footnotes to Calvin's Commentary on Romans. These relate to the translation of the Greek. In some there are specific references to Greek or Jewish literature. Here are some:

Footnote 164, in relation to chapter 5 verse 12, refers to a quote from Wolfius on Rabbi Moses Tranensis - this Moses is indeed mentioned in JCW's Curae  when dealing with that particular verse.

Footnote 197, on chapter 6 verse 17, refers to Wolfius mentioning A life of Pythagoras,  which is in JCW's Curae on that particular verse.

Footnote 254 on chapter 8, verse 15, says Wolfius quotes from the Talmud, and this is indeed to be found in JCW's Curae, on the verse in question.

Footnote 286 on chapter 9 vrse 3 quotes Wolfius referring to Photius. JCW's Curae indeed has such a reference for this very verse.

Footnote 459 quotes Wolfius as saying that Origen and Eusebius knew nothing of Paul going to Spain, and again this is indeed in JCW's Curae in reference to that particular verse.

All these corroborate that the Vicar of Thrussington, when referring to Wolfius, meant the Curae  Philologicae  et Criticae in Novum Testamentum by JC Wolf or Wolfius.

There's a decent short detailed biography of Christian Wolff here:  https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/wolff-christian/

He's generally regarded as a Philsopher & Theologian, I think that's your man.


Why did God change Jacob's name to Israel? I am reading the book of Genesis, and I have noticed that God changes certain people's names, such as Abram to Abraham and Jacob to Israel. Why does he change their names? What does it symbolize?

  Now that Jacob had returned from Paddan-aram, God appeared to him again at Bethel. God blessed him, saying, "Your name is Jacob, but you will not be called Jacob any longer. From now on your name will be Israel." So God renamed him Israel. (Genesis 35:9-10, NLT )

Names were considered to be meaningful in some way.  For example, the younger of Isaac's twin sons with Rebekah was named Jacob ("supplanter") because when he was born he was holding on to Esau's heel, as if attempting to overtake him.  (Genesis 25: 24-26)

After Jacob's wrestle with the angel, when he demanded a blessing from the Lord, the angel pronounced a blessing upon him, and a new name to go with it: Isra-El, which can mean "He who prevails with God," or "May God prevail," depending on the context.

Likewise with Abram ("Exalted father"), when he was blessed by the Lord in Genesis 17, he was given the name Abraham ("Father of a multitude"), in keeping with the promise of the Lord:

  5 Neither shall thy name any more be called Abram, but thy name shall
  be Abraham; for a father of many nations have I made thee.

  6 And I will make thee exceeding fruitful, and I will make nations of
  thee, and kings shall come out of thee.

So we see that these different names are given to people as a blessing from the Lord, to signify that something about them, their nature or their life, has changed in some way.

It is written that God’s Chosen People are the Israelites. To some Christians, they considered themselves as the new Children of Israel after most of the Jews rejected Jesus as God. But better still, this is contestable.

But with God’s divine plan, He has made it possible for everyone to be called Children of Israel without any doubt.

How? By bestowing His Very Own Divine Name to a very qualified man- a man who has defeated one of his angels. He has foreseen that man will time and time again struggle with him and thus embedded in their minds the meaning of His Name to be synonymous with struggling with God.

God is not a selfish God, he is just a very jealous God, hence, has installed ways to test men of their loyalty to Him. Jealous he is but he is also a very patient God. He can wait for days or thousand years in the eyes of men, to see how he has nurtured man by hiding his divine plans not only in the Holy Bible or the Torah but as well as the Quran.

The three holy books speak of only one chosen people, and that is the Children of Israel. They are all in agreement that the name Israel was bestowed to Jacob by an angel of God because he has defeated one of his angels.

It should be noted that Moses was forewarned by God that he sent an angel ahead of him to guide the Israelites and warned him not to rebel against the angel for His Name is in him. It can be perceived therefore that the angel sent by God ahead of Moses was the angel who guided Jacob and his descendants. This is the only angel who came before the birth of Moses who ever mentioned a name. Even if Jacob insisted on knowing the angel’s name, the angel did not give any except the name Israel. Exodus 23:20-21,

“See, I am sending an angel ahead of you to guard you along the way and to bring you to the place I have prepared. Pay attention to him and listen to what he says. Do not rebel against him; he will not forgive your ebellion, since my Name is in him.” (NIV)

Moreover, as practiced even by modern people, even by us in our times, fathers name their first born after him or a Junior. The Lord Almighty considers Israel his first born thus we can logically surmised that he named it after him.Exodus 4:22 exactly reveals this;
“Then say to Pharaoh, ‘This is what the LORD says: Israel is my firstborn son,”

This follows therefore that God’s real name is indeed “ISRAEL”. Circumstantial evidence and even biblical passages will reveal that indeed God’s name is “ISRAEL”.

For one, God also changed the name of Abram to Abraham and was made a father of all nations yet the so called Chosen People were not named Children of Abraham. Unlike Abram, it was God himself who changed his name, as for Jacob it was an angel whom God has told Moses not to rebel against for His Name is in him.

Most importantly, Deuteronomy 28:10 clearly states,

“Then all the peoples on earth will see that you are called by the name of the LORD, and they will fear you.” (NIV)

If the Children of Israel is called by the name of the Lord therefore the Lord’s name is Israel. Another biblical passage is Daniel 9:19:

“O Lord, listen! O Lord, forgive! O Lord, hear and act! For your sake, O my God, do not delay, because your city and your people bear your Name.” (NIV)

Some prophets know the name of God but they were not authorized to reveal it. But men as they are, they can’t help uttering things that will more or less demystify the secret that they hold such as this prayer of Daniel. Truly Daniel knows the name of God but he cannot utter it directly, hence, metaphorically stated what he knows deep inside his heart. With this we can truly surmise that God’s name is also Israel since the name of His City and His People is Israel.

Other prophets also received clues from God of what his real name is as clearly shown in Jeremiah 25:29, to wit;
“See, I am beginning to bring disaster on the city that bears my Name, and will you indeed go unpunished? You will not go unpunished, for I am calling down a sword upon all who live on the earth, declares the LORD Almighty.” (NIV)

Lastly, during olden times, the sons and daughters of any man is called the Children of the Man. Surnames were not in used then, children are known by the first names of their patriarch. Therefore, it is just right to say that God will call his children the Children of Israel.

Now, if we will believe that His Name is indeed ISRAEL, we can now truly claim that we are also his child hence without doubt become a CHILD OF ISRAEL.

Let God be forever glorified and be it known to everyone that because of His Name’s sake he has not destroyed the world as shown in 1Samuel 12:22,

“For the sake of his great name the LORD will not reject his people, because the LORD was pleased to make you his own.” (NIV)

If we are going to call on his name, Lord God Israel, he will call us his people and we will belong to the third that will be refined like gold as prophesied under Zechariah 13:9, viz;

“This third I will bring into the fire; I will refine them like silver and test them like gold. They will call on my name and I will answer them; I will say, ‘They are my people,’ and they will say, ‘The LORD is our God.’” (NIV)


How can we be sure our specific Christian confession is true, when every other Christian group claims that it's not? I'm a recent convert to Eastern Orthodox Christianity, but I've started to doubt the faith recently, and I’m really desperate for help. The doubt I have is really one I've had since the beginning of my conversion process, and one I have never seen anyone satisfactorily answer, and it is currently the biggest impediment to my fully believing, namely: what if I'm wrong? And I don't just mean about Christianity, although that's certainly a concern too, but just about the particular Church I belong to.

Historic Christianity (and all churches that currently exist from apostolic times, i.e., the Roman Catholic Church, Eastern Orthodox Church, Oriental Orthodox Church, Assyrian Church, etc.) all claim to be the "one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church" founded by Jesus Christ, and outside of which there is no salvation. Similarly numerous Protestant groups claim that if you don't adhere to their interpretations of scripture, you're most certainly hellbound.

And my problem is this: why must I become a historical and theological scholar to believe in Jesus? Deciding between the historic Churches (Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, Assyrian churches, Protestant, etc.) requires immense amounts of historical and theological study, and at the end of the day I could still be wrong. There will ALWAYS be that doubt in my mind, “what if you’re wrong about X doctrine, and you’ve been a part of the wrong Church this whole time,” no matter where I end up, this doubt is always going to be there. There will always be people claiming that I don’t “really understand” some doctrine or historical event, and therefore my faith is completely wrong and I’m essentially damned.

Christians talk a lot about us “submitting to the Truth, and not claiming it for ourselves,” but how am I supposed to do that if everyone is claiming they have the one Truth, and everyone is saying everyone else is just being deceived by demons or something? How can I submit to the Truth, if I don’t know what it is? Even if God decided to “reveal” something to me, how could I be sure it’s of God? At the end of the day, no matter what I believe, I’m always just relying on my own interpretation of the data. What I believe is decided by me, no matter how much “evidence” I may have for it, I’m a fallible human being and I could totally be wrong. I’m not a theology expert, I’m not a historian, I’m not a philosopher, and yet even if I was, would it matter? There are scholarly theologians, historians, and philosophers who all think they have the one Truth and everyone else is wrong, while completely contradicting one another. The same is true of all historic forms of Christianity that have canonized saints claiming that their Church is only right one, and all those outside are damned.

We can’t even rely on this notion that “well our saints perform miracles, and I’ve witnessed some of these miracles,” because the same holds true in Roman Catholicism, Oriental Orthodoxy, Assyrian Orthodoxy, and even non-Christian religions, and they can’t all be right. In fact, according to each group, they’re the only ones who have valid miracles and everyone else is just being demonically deceived. I really don’t know if there’s any actual response to this question, and so far I haven’t found it, and I don’t expect to find it from anyone here but I’m desperate here. I really want to believe, I really do, but if I can’t be sure, what’s the point?

Very simply put, your assumption here is wrong:

  ... founded by Jesus Christ, and outside of which there is no salvation.
  Similarly numerous Protestant groups claim that if you don't adhere to
  their interpretations of scripture, you're most certainly hellbound.

Salvation is in Jesus Christ, not the church.  As a result of sin, everything on this earth is corrupt in some way, including the institutional church.  As a protestant, I would not condemn you for being an orthodox Christian.

Truth is in the Bible, not the interpretation.  Pursue discipleship - following Jesus.  Trust the work He did for you on the cross.  Join a church as a means of fellowship and serving Jesus.  Try to find the truest doctrine you can, but don't think that you will be condemned if your church isn't perfect.

If you have doubts, pursue them.  The study of apologetics can help you reason through them.

The Eastern  Orthodox Church, like other churches today, teaches that in order to be saved, a person must confess sinfulness and trust in Jesus’s ability to cleanse from sin, in order to go to heaven.

In other words, hell is the problem, and the solution is to get rid of the sins which caused a person's destination to be that hell.

However the problem recorded in the Bible is not hell, but death!

  Genesis 2:16The LORD God commanded the man, saying, “From any tree of the garden you may eat freely; 17but from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat from it you will surely die.”

  Luke 9:60But He said to him, "Allow the dead to bury their own dead; but as for you, go and proclaim everywhere the kingdom of God."

Just as a vehicle that will not transport you to your destination is "dead", a human being who can't function in a way, called the Kingdom of God, that completes creation, subdues it, because of separation from God, can also be described as “dead”.

  John 3:1Now there was a man of the Pharisees named Nicodemus, a leader of the Jews. 2He came to Jesus at night and said, “Rabbi, we know that You are a teacher who has come from God. For no one could perform the signs You are doing if God were not with him.”

  3Jesus replied, “Truly, truly, I tell you, no one can see the kingdom of God unless he is born again.”

So to reiterate, the problem is living without the ability to compete the purpose of our existence, and the solution is to change from living to fill our stomachs, which has no permanent  benefit, to living to gather heavenly treasure,  which does result in permanent benefits. One is called Chayei sha'ah, futile living, and the other is called Chayei olam, living for eternal benefits, eternal living.

  Chayei Olam – Eternal Life

  Quote
  An interesting insight comes from how the term “eternal life,” chayei olam (Hi-YAY Oh-LAHM) was understood by Jews in Jesus’ time.1 While the phrase often had our understanding of life after death, chayei olam often had a different emphasis, when it was contrasted with “chayei sha’ah” (fleeting life). Chayei sha’ah, fleeting life, is living a life that is only concerned about everyday things – working, making money, eating, and sleeping. Chayei olam, “lasting life” or “a life of eternity” refers to living a life focused on matters of eternal importance.

How did the focus, from seeking fulfilment in our existence, change to trying to avoid hell? Judaism pays little importance to the afterlife, and Jews are free to believe whatever they want about it, even today. Believers were introduced to the importance of the afterlife in Babylon, and to dualism by the Greeks, the dualism which taught that matter was evil and only the spirit was good, and the aim in life was to leave the evil body,  and free the spirit to ascend to heaven. This is the view that has passed down to us, because the Church shifted it's base from the East to the West, from Jerusalem to Athens and Rome.

Why does this weaken our faith?

Because if the Gospel is that God has blessed us with a way to escape hell, then proof of the blessing may not be possible to see. Then the possibility of losing faith is always present, because faith is depending only on hope, that all will be well in the afterlife, form which we are separated by an uncross-able chasm, eliminating all avenues of knowing with any certaintity.

However, faith in the Bible is dependent on proof, signs. Abraham’s faith was built up after witnessing God’s saving power from those who attacked him and Sarah. Israel’s faith was built up on seeing God’s saving power from dangers like food and water shortages, although only Caleb was born again:

  Numbers 14:24"But My servant Caleb, because he has had a different spirit and has followed Me fully, I will bring into the land which he entered, and his descendants shall take possession of it.

Abraham and Caleb witnessed signs that increased their faith so that when God called them out to be blessings to the world, they obeyed. Abraham realised that God wanted him to be obedient, so that when he was rescued, he would inspire others to follow God, so fulfilling God’s promise to him to be a deliverer. He assumed this was how the promise, that he would be the way through whom the nations of the world would be blessed. God would resurrect Isaac and people would be motivated to follow God because He could deliver from all the dangers of leaving selfish living to serve God by living selflessly for others. Because Caleb obeyed God by picking up a cross in facing the enemy, Rahab was motivated to leave serving the world to serving God.

So why aren’t we seeing signs in our lives?

Because we haven’t understood the offer of the Gospel.

It isn’t “Believe in the Lord and you will not go to hell”.

It is God’s Way of saving:  “Stop serving the world/mammon/self for self interest, and start serving others because this is how you follow God, and you will be a blessing to the world”. By living the life eternal, with benefits that are permanent, a life with real purpose, that Adam was supposed to live.

  Genesis 1:28God blessed them; and God said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it; and rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over every living thing that moves on the earth."

  Genesis 3:17Then to Adam He said, “Because you have listened to the voice of your wife, and have eaten from the tree about which I commanded you, saying, ‘You shall not eat from it’;
              Cursed is the ground because of you;
              In toil you will eat of it
              All the days of your life.

  Genesis 3:15And I will put enmity Between you and the woman, And between your seed and her seed; He shall bruise you on the head, And you shall bruise him on the heel."

  Genesis 22:18"In your seed all the nations of the earth shall be blessed, because you have obeyed My voice."

  Isaiah 35:5Then the eyes of the blind will be opened and the ears of the deaf unstopped.

  Isaiah 61:1The Spirit of the Lord GOD is on Me, because the LORD has anointed Me to preach good news to the poor. He has sent Me to bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives and release from darkness to the prisoners,

  Matthew 8:27The men were amazed, and said, "What kind of a man is this, that even the winds and the sea obey Him?"

  Matthew 11:5The blind receive sight, the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed, the deaf hear, the dead are raised, and good news is preached to the poor.

All Scripture from the NASB


What is the basis for the practice of Intinction (the dipping of the bread into wine during the Eucharist)? I understand that Catholics and Methodists employ the practice of Intinction, that is, the dipping of the bread into the wine during the Eucharist.

In my experience, the bread and the wine are always served separately, which seems to follow the pattern set forth in the Bible.

  23 For I received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you,
  that the Lord Jesus in the night in which He was betrayed took bread;
  24 and when He had given thanks, He broke it and said, “This is My
  body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of Me.” 25 In the same
  way He took the cup also after supper, saying, “This cup is the new
  covenant in My blood; do this, as often as you drink it, in
  remembrance of Me.” 26 For as often as you eat this bread and drink
  the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until He comes.  1 Corinthians 11:23-25 NASB

So, what specifically is the basis/reasoning/biblical foundation for taking the elements simultaneously rather than individually, with the bread first followed by the wine, which to me appears to be the pattern set forth in Scripture?  When did this practice originate and by whom?

There's an article here that covers the history of intinction quite extensively.  (I apologize that it's a PDF reference.  It's the best article I could find.)

The article starts out like this:

  The common wisdom among opponents of intinction is that it arose after
  the doctrine of  transubstantiation, and was a method of preventing
  Christ's blood from spilling, and that it is associated primarily with
  Roman Catholicism. Although there are elements of truth in this
  assessment, the true history of the practice is a fair bit more
  complicated than that.

In summary, as far as the history goes, there's no consensus on why the practice as started.  The earliest mention of the practice was in the writings of Julius I in 340 A.D.

  In the context of rejecting several irregular  practices regarding the
  Eucharist, he states the following:  But their practice of giving the
  people intincted Eucharist for the fulfillment of communion is not
  received from the gospel witness, where, when he gave the apostles his
  body and blood, giving the bread separately and the chalice separately
  is recorded

There is no mention of the reason for the practice, just that it occurred.

Further, the article states:

  It is not clear how or why intinction first was introduced into the
  church. According to William Freestone, the possibility exists that it
  was a convenience directed towards the administration of the Eucharist
  to the sick, making the bread easier to swallow. However, this was
  usually not our modern practice of intincting the bread into the wine,
  but rather of dipping bread into unconsecrated liquid.  According to
  the Ohio Presbytery Report, the first mention of it is connected to
  paedocommunion, to make the bread easier to swallow by an infant.
  Freestone thinks it more likely that the practice  originated from the
  fear of accident, and then passed over into communion of the sick

The remainder of the paper goes on to document various historical disputes over the practice, some of which are quite fiery.  The dispute isn't really on-topic to the question, but it is worth a read.

In the Catholic Church, intinction seems to be something that is not meant to be common.  I've found several articles (like this one) that state that it " is permitted when done according to Church directives".  It also states "The Church provides that when Communion is given by intinction, it must be planned beforehand.", indicating that it's not something to be taken lightly.  But nowhere does it outline why it should be given, and in what cases.

The only article I could find that had any sort of official support for there answer was this one.

  With reference to the previous section on the theology of intinction
  (i.e., responses to Questions 2 and 3), this study committee found
  strong, compelling biblical and theological support for the practice
  of partaking of the elements separately – of “eating” AND of
  “drinking”. Therefore, intinction is out of accord with Scripture.

  Practical considerations appear to be the primary reasons for
  intinction. During this study, the committee heard a variety of
  pragmatic reasons for the practice, including: (a) it is one of the
  “touch points” for a more meaningful worship, (b) it saves time, (c)
  it takes longer, (d) it may better appeal to those who come from
  church traditions that practice intinction (e.g., Catholic, Orthodox),
  (e) it avoids the Congregationalist practice of distributing the
  elements in the pews, (f) it better enables communion in the
  battlefield, and (g) it is practiced in the PCA.

Again, it points to convenience, or practicality as a reason.

From the Anglican Church:

  Resolutions from 1948

  Resolution 118

  Administration of Holy Communion

  The Conference holds that administration from a common chalice, being
  scriptural and having a spiritual meaning of great value, should
  continue to be the normal method of administration in the Anglican
  Communion; but is of opinion that there is no objection to
  administration of both kinds by the method of intinction where
  conditions require it, and that any part of the Anglican Communion by
  provincial regulation according to its own constitutional procedure
  has liberty to sanction administration by intinction as an optional
  alternative to the traditional method, and that the methods of
  intinction to be adopted or permitted should not be left to the
  discretion of individual priests.

The only guideline appears to be "where conditions require it".  Implying some special set of circumstances where the traditional method is inconvenient or impractical.

I did manage to find one specific example that lists a specific reason:

  Q.      Why does St. Peter’s intinction, rather than using the cup
  like other parishes?

  A.      There are several reasons. We have had some difficulty in the
  past getting a sufficient number of EMHC. And even if we had them,
  numerous EMHC sometimes make for a rather cumbersome crowd in the
  Sanctuary at Communion time. There is the additional problem of
  preparing the proper amount of wine for the Offertory. When the
  Precious Blood is then distributed, we either run out before all have
  received, or have much remaining, which then must be consumed by the
  Priest and/or EMHC. Many people also refrain from receiving the
  Precious Blood of the Lord from the Cup because of hygiene concerns.
  Intinction eliminates these problems.

So (and I'm repeating myself)  it is a matter of practicality for them as well.

Catholics no longer practice intinction, and have not  done so in any recent time. I have never once seen it done in a Roman Catholic Mass, though I have participated in it at Eastern Orthodox services.

This article explains more:
http://catholicism.about.com/b/2009/10/16/reader-question-communion-and-intinction.htm


What were the disciples afraid of? In Mark 10:32 it says

  32 And they were in the way going up to Jerusalem; and Jesus went
  before them: and they were amazed; and as they followed, they were
  afraid. And he took again the twelve, and began to tell them what
  things should happen unto him,...

and got my attention that Disciples were afraid of something and cant figure out what they were afraid of?

We should not so much look for what the disciples were afraid of, but look at how the story in Mark's Gospel unfolds and why the disciples are being described as afraid, without apparent reason. David Rhoads, Joanna Dewey and Donald Michie say in Mark as Story, page 1,  that the composer of Mark's Gospel has used sophisticated storytelling techniques, developed the characters and the conflicts, and built suspense with deliberateness, telling the story to generate certain insights and responses in the audience.

In the case of this passage, the author is building suspense in preparation for the following verses, in which Jesus foretells his crucifixion:

  Mark 10:33-34: Saying, Behold, we go up to Jerusalem; and the Son of man shall be delivered unto the chief priests, and unto the scribes; and they shall condemn him to death, and shall deliver him to the Gentiles: And they shall mock him, and shall scourge him, and shall spit upon him, and shall kill him: and the third day he shall rise again.

I would try to present an emotional approach to explain this situation.

First of all, I guess it's sensible to describe disciples' feelings about their life and their Master. Let me try:
1. Dissapointment - their faith in Jesus was touched by events of His death, taking into account: hope for continous friendship with Master, elevating words of Jesus that made them 'Disciples' instead of being just simple fishermen, and so on.
2. Loss of faith in 'better world' driven by Jesus' good deeds and His words of justice, brotherhood and acceptance.
3. Their social position (as disciples) was cut because of not fulfilled wishes of many people of Israel (including being freed from Roman occupation).
4. Feeling of being lost and confused inside their own lives (they put on a stake lots of things, including what we would call 'careers').

That said, I understand their behaviour (being afraid) as:
1. Being mentally separated from other people (because of being ashamed of lost of their 'cause') made them being afraid of people.
2. As Jesus' disciples they may be afraid of someone that would deliver them to soldiers to punish them for taking part in 'rebellion' (as occupants may see it).
3. If they recognized Jesus, they may be afraid of His words about not helping Him against Orthodox Jews and Romans (I know that from our point of view it may be nonsense, but still, these are emotions, not a logical approach).
4. There are some psychological terms that describe our feelings as defence mechanisms, some may apply here.

Last, but not least, we may not be able to fully understand how really felt disciples (translation problems).

I guess that we can try to search for similiar feelings in our inner life. I believe that taking disciples' emotional life may bring some light here.
(I'm sorry if my english in not sufficient).


Is there any biblical support for copyright law? There are people and organisations that state that copyright is wrong, and that copyright law should be deprecated. I think the same way but as a Christian I want to be sure that such thought is not be against the will of God.

Would being an advocate for the deprecation or abolition of copyright law run contrary to any Biblical or Christian principals? Is there any justification for copyright stated in Bible or other Christian sources?

It's a very good question, and not one which is easy to answer. But we are all called to make use of our talents, which I think may vary from gifts. Information is not necessarily subject to copyright - only literary / dramatic / musical works, films, broadcasts and sound recordings - basically, works where the author/creator has expended skill and effort to create it. And surely we as Christians should support those authors and musicians who clearly have a talent and a gift for their area to continue to write/create so that the greater Church benefits?

As a Christian, personally I feel that copyright should not be abolished, though I do feel the term of protection is rather too long. I would be upset if Christians got into copyright court battles, as it is right if we want something to buy it through the correct and lawful channels, but not if we download it free from a torrent site or similar. There are of course flaws in copyright law - the exceptions, for example, should be wider and allow for non-profit institutions to do more with copyright works, but the general principle of others being remunerated for their work I think fits with the Christian faith insofar as it is not exploited.

It's hard to answer while stuck in manmade-law, in end-time "Babylon" with secular govt (not to be obeyed*) ruled by phoney money loaned at interest from the Fed Res conspiracy creators: a kind of treadmill to keep most folks working (for Conspirators & game players), not freed, as was original Eden for Adamites (sons of God, Luke 3:23-38). Not all humans are Adamites (some are pre-Adamites Cain built a city of); or Satan's brood, Gen 3:15, the force at top of the Conspirators, and game-players. Jesus returns to impose his Order (Zech 14:9) over all Earth (Adamites rule other "living" as in Gen 1:26-28), with a ("man's") Adamite's role set by how well he kept God's laws & prophecy orders, Mat 5:17-19. REWARDS to some for their great actions toward this! Rev 22:12. Grace will save (resurrect) called ones who at least recognize Jesus as KING and got baptized (if not tied on cross!), but rewards and your position in the Kingdom depend upon ACTIONS. (Don't "rapture"/"grace" yourself into conforming to world and doing nothing!) Leave Babylon! Seek its destruction Rev 18. We're to have OUR OWN COURTS: I Cor 6:1-6 logically of Bible Law (perfect Ps 19:7)

So "higher powers" to obey (incessantly misused Romans 13:1-2) are NOT MANMADE-LAW MEN, but Jesus and the Power (Father) descending from above in clouds (Mat 26:64) and his law! Heb 13:7 speaks of ones with rule over you - being ones who spoke God's Word! (not man's)

While we are not to covet/steal what is our neighbor's - used to justify severe private property rights, patents, copyrights - at no time is CORPORATE LAW established by God for having any (often hidden) persons or cartel owning an artificial person (= corporation), contrary to God's order NOT to make stuff in likeness of what he made! Not only is it a technical violation of Second Commandment, but it allows non-Adamites to rule Adamites, and even Satan's brood to gain control, and enslave Adamites - as warned. Our world now! See?

Oddly, after Jesus ascended, as a model for our end-time stuggle, the Holy Ghost instructed Christ's folks (told to get out of Babylon in end of end time, Rev 18) to live together as a brotherhood; own all things in common. Act 4:31-5:20 [Vastly different from 1917 Marxism, a Conspirator's scam for a small related group to rule all others with the excuse it would be paradise. Study Trotsky (Lev Davidovich Bronstein) got vast funds & guns from Rothschild banker Warburg to push revolution ostensibly for workers. Trotsky was in cahoots with cabal of hundreds who were inner circle of USSR power enslaving others in humanist Marx's name.]

So now we really are in end of end-times. Time to depart Babylon, set up godly communities, courts & defenders; live in close-knit ethnos brotherhoods of Bible Law. In that grouping is no use for patents or copyrights to become personally/corporately rich. Do do research, create POWERFUL technologies to be free of paper $ economy and stop manmade regime force. Write great things and give it freely! Make music/film to teach our folks the way (freely)! If enemies of God oppose us, and then get pushed out of your area. What of their stuff? Mechizedek got a tithe of what Abraham took from God's enemies (Gen 14); he's like a separatist group's leader. Form brotherhoods. Act. Get rewards. Vast media networks pander to advertisers of lies to bewitch/enslave us. Do they have a right to this "private" stuff?


How could Christ offer His blood to those under the Law, when He was forbidden by heritage? Christ being from the tribe of Judah, could not offer blood as a Levitical priest to those under the Law (Hebrews 7:14)  Christ is the Melchizedekian high priest offering His blood for those who are under the NT covenant.  How could Christ's blood flow to those under the Law?  Hebrews 5:9-10 "And having been made perfect,He became to all those who obey Him the source of eternal salvation, being designated by God as a high priest according to the order of Melchizedek."

Jesus was a rabbi who was adept at the law. The unique thing about Jesus is that he frequently and routinely used the rules of the talmud in order to spar with the pharisees. The way Jesus typically "won" these sparring matches was instead of falling victim to the legalism of the law, he would examine the moral behind the law.

In order to avoid the same traps, we too will need to examine the moral behind the law too. Before we begin to address the authority for offering the sacrifice of Christ's blood and how Jesus was not a high priest in the order of Aaron, we should take a step back and look at the Law's prohibitions against the sacrifice itself. First, in Leviticus, it was forbidden for anyone to consume the blood of any living thing. How then, could Jesus offer his blood to his Disciples, saying "Drink from [this cup,] all of you,  for this is my blood"? Seccondly, there were prohibitions in the law against human sacrifice, so how could Jesus offer himself as a sacrifice?

The answers comes from the explanation of these prohibitions. For example, Leviticus 17:11 notes

  For the life of every living thing is in the blood. So I myself have
  assigned it to you on the altar to make atonement for your lives, for
  the blood makes atonement by means of the life.

Since Jesus is described as the giver of life and living water, this uniquely qualifies Jesus as the only allowable source of drinkable blood. This is because the prohibition on drinking blood was to remind us that we should only be seeking life through God.

Likewise, the reason that God prohibits human sacrifice is that he is seeking to restore us from our fallen broken state. Substitutionary atonement is God's attempt to save us from death. Therefore by sacrificing those which God seeks to save from death, it defeats his purpose. On the other hand, offering Jesus as the sacrifice does nothing but serve God's purpose.

As we can see, keeping righteousness under the law using a wide array of technicalities in order to keep the spirit of the law is an art that Jesus was adept in. This then brings us the the heart of your question. Under the law, Jesus could not officiate his own sacrifice because he was not a Levite Priest. This is why Paul goes to great lengths to explain that Jesus was a priest in the Order of Melchizedek.

In order to understand why this important, we must first understand who Melchizedek was. In Genesis 14, the Bible notes that Melchizedek, King of Salem was a pries of the most high God. What you notice from this passage is that he is making offerings on behalf of Abram. What this means is that there was a priesthood which existed before the 12 tribes of Israel and therefore the tribe of Levi did. Melchizedek is often noted as being the Kind-priest. Paul is trying to make the point that because Jesus is the King of Kings, then he is qualified as a priest in the order of Melchizedek, since he is King of even Melchizedek the king-priest. As such, for yet another reason (according to Paul,) this Makes Jesus not just a priest, but the High Priest because he leads even other priests just as he is King of other kings. And oh, by the way, since Melchizedek wasn't a Levite, Jesus needn't be either. In fact, this qualifies him even more, because he is a priest in the original order of priests , an older order which predate even the Aaronic Priesthood.

(Interestingly, several note that Melchizedek was the basis of the Samaratin's claim to priesthood Authority as well)

And so we see that Jesus is yet again using his expert knowledge of the law and all of its' loopholes in order to save us from our sins.

The following is a direct quote from Barnes' Notes on the Bible

For it is evident that our Lord sprang out of Judah - It is well known: it cannot be a matter of dispute. About the fact that the Lord Jesus was of the tribe of Judah, there could be no doubt; compare Matthew 1:3. But probably the apostle means here to refer to more than that simple fact. It was a doctrine of the Old Testament, and was admitted by the Jews, that the Messiah was to be of that tribe; see Genesis 49:10; Isaiah 11:1; Micah 5:2; Matthew 2:6. This was an additional consideration to show that there was to be a change of some kind in the office of the priesthood, since it was declared (Psalm 110) that the Messiah was to be a priest. The fact that the Messiah is to be of the tribe of Judah is still admitted by the Jews. As their distinction of tribes now, however, is broken up, and as it is impossible for them to tell who belongs to the tribe of Judah, it is held by them that when he comes this will be made known by miracle.
Of which tribe Moses spake nothing concerning priesthood - That is, in the Mosaic laws respecting the office of priest, this tribe is not mentioned. All the arrangements pertain to the tribe of Levi.
(source)

Now here is Logic
The Law of Motion states the opposite and equal reaction. However the other Law of Motion states an object in motion remains in motion unless acted on by an outside force.
The governmental structure based off the one law is set free when applying the other law. Not meaning that the first law no longer exists. Indeed the opposite and equal reaction will still occur to the flesh. Yet the opposite of forgiveness is forgiveness. It is like passing through the air. Because there is no resistance, the opposite and equal reaction does not take place. Then the body remains in motion for all of eternity never dying. For this is the Law of Existence.
Therefore it is first for the people to understand the opposite and equal reaction, then they can understand the object remaining in motion. And the bible is how you teach farmers with a second grade education.


In what sense is the bible is "clear"/perspicuous? What do protestants mean when they say that the bible is "clear"? I would assume that it would mean that people reading the Bible or any part of it generally come up with more or less the same idea of what it says, but that doesn't seem likely to be what protestants mean, because the different protestant cults regularly and consistently dream up radically different interpretations of the Bible as a whole and even different members of the same denomination rarely agree on the meaning of various passages.

I've heard people say that the bible is clear enough that anyone can read it and immediately understand the "Core doctrines", but this is demonstrably false: Protestants don't agree on core doctrines because they don't even agree on what the core doctrines are in the first place. Some people read it and conclude that baptismal regeneration and infant baptism is the go, some people read it and come up with transubstantiation, some people read it and come away denying the trinity, some people read it and think that all you need to do is believe in Jesus to be saved, while other people read it and reckon that you need to do works as well. Protestants say that the Core Doctrines are "salvation issues", but they can't even come to an agreement of what those salvation issues are.

I've heard people respond to this by saying something along the lines of "Scripture is clear, but we are sinful humans and our sin gets in the way of us understanding it", but to me that seems to just come across as a flat contradiction: If scripture is clear, then it should be so clear that our sin doesn't get in the way of us understanding it. However if sin still has the power to cloud our understanding of the bible, then the bible is not clear enough to cut through our sin, and is therefore for all intents and purposes not clear at all.

Taking all this into consideration, what does it mean for Scripture to be "Clear" and "Sufficient"?

This is probably a "no win" situation attempting to answer such a question and this will, in no way, be considered a comprehensive answer for such a simple question that has been so complicated by so many people with so many varying agendas.
Many years ago, one of my Bible professors stated that the best commentary on the Bible is the Bible.  In the nearly 40 years past since then, I have found this to be, "a faithful saying".
That being said, I would like to address this question initially with what God has to say about it:

"The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse." (Rom. 1:18-20)

Now this passage is referring to 'natural revelation' and not particularly to Scripture but can certainly be construed as establishing a pattern.  If His eternal power and divine nature which can be "clearly seen" through  His creation, is it such a leap to consider that it is equally clear through His word, His divine revelation? The questioner is questioning the how "clear" the Bible actually is.  Peter asserts, " We also have the prophetic message as something completely reliable, and you will do well to pay attention to it..." (2 Peter 1:19).  He also asserts, " Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet’s own interpretation of things. 21 For prophecy never had its origin in the human will, but prophets, though human, spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit." (2 Peter 1:20).

Let's take a moment to consider the "Romans Road to Salvation" (the first part of which has already been noted), as an example, to gauge a level of clarity:

"For all have sinned, and fall short of the glory of God." (Rom. 3:23), "For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord." (Rom. 6:23), "But God demonstrates His love toward us, in that, while we were still sinners, Christ died for us." (Rom. 5:8) and "That if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved. For with the heart one believes unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. (Rom. 10:9,10).

Now one may dispute this, but these verses are pretty clear in their message.  There are certainly passages which are somewhat more ambiguous.  Here is one that has puzzled me for many years, "There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown." (Gen. 6:4).  In this case the ambiguity is not so much in the text but in the questions it raises.

Now, in light of my initial statement, consider this:  " For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like a mortal human being and birds and animals and reptiles.

24 Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25 They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen."

Based on this information and years of experience, I feel comfortable making the following statements as to the clarity of the Bible.

The message of the Bible is clear.
Many verses in the Bible are not so clear.
God Himself has stated that there are those who purposely exchange "the truth about God for a lie...)
When someone says, "The Bible is clear on this topic.", the legitimacy of that statement would depend greatly on the topic.
Though the Bible is clear in its message, the continual efforts of those who would 'put a lie in its place' or interpret it to their own benefit have confused many.
I would not want to be one of the culprits referred to in verse 5.

Sometimes it helps to understand the words one uses.  Like cult (religious veneration of someone or to something) or perspecuity.

I won't delve into the word cult or the problems of using Traditions that so often conflicts with other Traditions, but instead will focus on the OP's conundrum of the word perspecuity.  It is not saying all things Biblical are understandable, but just those things necessary for salvation.

  All things in Scripture are not alike plain in themselves, nor alike clear unto all; yet those things which are necessary to be known, believed, and observed, for salvation, are so clearly propounded and opened in some place of Scripture or other, that not only the learned, but the unlearned, in a due use of the ordinary means, may attain unto a sufficient understanding of them.
  -source-

Confusion as to what the word means probably arises from those whose Traditions are not clearly found in Scripture.  But again I digress; just hope to point out something.  So, let's see if there is any confusion to salvation.

  But we [Jewish] believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved, even as they [Gentile believers].
  Acts 15:11

That was Peter speaking.  Here is Paul

  For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
  Eph 2:8

Now it would be probably someone's Tradition brought to the table of salvation that muddies the clarity of Scripture that says we are saved by grace through faith in Christ Jesus, but for us who trust God's witnesses, Scripture, as records the two apostles Peter and Paul, is clear enough.


"How do I get more faith?" - how to understand Jesus' answer? The question, "How do I get more faith?" has been posted here. When I read it, my mind went to the time the disciples and Jesus had a similar dialogue:

Luke 17:5-6
The apostles said to the Lord, “Increase our faith!”
He replied, “If you have faith as small as a mustard seed, you can say to this mulberry tree, ‘Be uprooted and planted in the sea,’ and it will obey you.

It sounds like the disciples are asking Jesus "How do I get more faith?" (or perhaps they are demanding?) but Jesus' answer sounds to me like He is saying, "Yes, it would be great if you had more faith." But His answer doesn't help people with little faith.
So, how should I interpret His answer?

Jesus was saying to the apostles that they didn't need more faith.

Faith is not an act, although it can be demonstrated by the way you act.  Rather, faith is an attitude, an understanding that things will work out as they should, under God's plan.

There are many places in the Bible that basically say not to try and do things all by yourself.  "Rely not on your own understanding," but on God's.  Faith doesn't require effort; it requires surrender.  Surrender is hard, not because it is something we must "do," but because it is something we do not always allow.

Faith is not something you can "measure."  In a very real sense, there is no such thing as "more faith."  You can not surrender "more," you can only surrender completely.

I found that the christian that desires to further their faith for a closer relationship with him is to except the whole teaching of the holy spirit. As he commanded us to go out and heal the sick and lay hands and make disciples. Literally go do it 1 Timothy 4 : 14 tells us to practice the gifts and grow in them. What I'm getting at is though talk of this sort can become a stumbling block to a cultural christian. This is one of the things that makes us really reflect his image. This is something that is gifted to you through your faith and as you do good works and fill yourself with the word, your faith becomes self efficient.


How would miaphysites approach the question of monothelitism versus dyothelitism? I realize that monothelitism arose in the context of Chalcedonian dyophysitism, and that non-Chalcedonians have not been forced to deal with the distinction of monothelitism versus dyothelitism historically.

According to this answer the heresy of monothelitism according to the Catholic church may essentially be attributed to making our Lord Jesus only appear human, in effect similar to monophysitism.

I only recently started to learn about the history of the church, and lack formal education in the matter, but I wonder if dyothelitism does not risk becoming similar to Nestorianism. Simply put "two wills" sounds to me like it necessitates two separate persons. The Catholic church clearly disagrees, since they do not consider themselves Nestorian (note that this question is not about why the Catholic church disagrees).

On the other hand miaphysites have traditionally considered Chalcedonian dyophysitism as Nestorian heresy. According to this answer and what I have been able to find elswhere, the difference between dyophysitism and miaphysitism is however smaller than one may initially be led to believe, lying mainly in how the full humanity and full divinity of our Lord should be considered.

Would miaphysites consider dyothelitism an expression of Nestorian heresy in dyophysitism, when confronted with the question in theory? Since, to my knowledge, no corresponding issue has been raised within miaphysitism, I suppose there is an (oriental) orthodox view. It seems reasonable to me that since in Christ the divine and the man exist unseparably without blending, diluting, or diminishing; there should be one will that is an expression of this perfect union. Is this correct according to miaphysites?

Miaphysitism is very similar to the Hypostatic Union.

  Miaphysitism (sometimes called henophysitism) is the Christology of
  the Oriental Orthodox Churches. Miaphysitism holds that in the one
  person of Jesus Christ, Divinity and Humanity are united in one
  "nature" ("physis"), the two being united without separation,
  without confusion, and without alteration. (Source)

The term miaphysic is best understood as ''one united nature'' i.e. two natures united in Jesus Christ and thus, it is different from monophysitism (''one nature'' not two natures in Jesus Christ).

  Contrariwise, the Chalcedonians saw the Oriental Orthodox as tending
  towards Eutychian Monophysitism. However, the Oriental Orthodox
  persistently specified that they have never believed in the doctrines
  of Eutyches, that they have always affirmed that Christ's humanity is
  consubstantial with our own, and they thus prefer the term Miaphysite
  to be referred to as, a reference to Cyrillian Christology, which used
  the phrase "μία φύσις τοῦ θεοῦ λόγου σεσαρκωμένη", "mía phýsis toû
  theoû lógou sesarkōménē". The term miaphysic means one united
  nature as opposed to one singular nature (monophysites). Thus the
  Miaphysite position maintains that although the nature of Christ is
  from two, it may only be referred to as one in its incarnate state
  because the natures always act in unity.

  In recent times,leaders from the Eastern Orthodox and Oriental
  Orthodox churches have signed joint statements in an attempt to work
  towards reunification. Likewise the leaders of the Assyrian Church of
  the East, which venerates Nestorius and Theodore, have in recent times
  signed a joint agreement with leaders of the Roman Catholic Church
  acknowledging that their historical differences were over terminology rather than the actual intended meaning.(Source)

In my research, myaphisitism is indeed compatible with the dyothelitism of Chalcedon.

  The identity of the original human being was known by name. God named
  the first human beings , the male and female, with a singular name
  'Adam'. Scholars say that the name 'Adam' applied to Eve in Genesis
  5:2 was a designation of her equality with the male in human nature as
  stated in Genesis 2:23 where the male said that the female was the
  flesh of his flesh and the bones of his bones. In this case, God was
  treating human beings, male and female, as one.

  The union of the divine nature and human nature in a singularly named person called 'Jesus' was similar to the spirit being united with flesh
  which was called singularly as soul (cf. Genesis 2:7).

  Consciousness existed in the mind. In Jesus, the human mind and the
  divine mind were one i.e. in unity/united. This meant that in Him
  was united minds or one consciousness. This one consciousness  had two
  distinct divisions in which similar but not identical to the Perichoresis of the Trinity, the divine part had full access to the human part whilst the human part had varying access to the divine part -- from limited access
  during his ministry before the crucifixion to full access post-Easter.

  If the divine mind and human mind were two consciousness in Jesus, it
  would mean two separate persons (Nestorianism) which would be akin to
  Multiple Personality Disorder (MPD) wherein there existed ''split
  identities'' (www.webmd.com) in which there was multiple names for
  each person existing in one body. This was not the case in Jesus
  Christ. (Jesus Christ: one person with two minds based on biblical
  Anthropology and the Perichoresis of the Trinity, R. Brown, 2020)


What is the difference between Lust and Love in the heart? How does one know the difference between Lust and Love?

For example (Hypothetically speaking, of course):•if someone has sex before marriage but they have true love only God knows if it's sin or not. •if someone has sex after marriage but they never loved the person just lusted the person it is a sin, because LUST is a sin.
•if someone has sex after marriage and they loved the person it is NOT a sin, because, even if there was minor lust (which of course, with hormones there always will be), Love covers a multitude of wrongs.

How does that "someone" know whether they have love or lust (in their heart)?

*Side-note: My main focus with this question is about the differences between lust and love, not the topic of premarital sex— that was just an example I used to help further get my point across! Thankyou!

To answer this from a doctrinal perspective requires a doctrinal perspective on love.  So we ought to turn to 1 Corinthians, chapter 13, Paul's famous homily on Charity (Christian love):

  4 Charity suffereth long, and is kind; charity envieth not; charity
  vaunteth not itself, is not puffed up,

  5 Doth not behave itself unseemly, seeketh not her own, is not easily
  provoked, thinketh no evil;

  6 Rejoiceth not in iniquity, but rejoiceth in the truth;

  7 Beareth all things, believeth all things, hopeth all things,
  endureth all things.

By contrast, the word lust has a wider meaning than simply "unwholesome sexual desire."  For example, from Mark 19, where Jesus explains the Parable of the Sower:

  18 And these are they which are sown among thorns; such as hear the
  word,

  19 And the cares of this world, and the deceitfulness of riches, and
  the lusts of other things entering in, choke the word, and it becometh
  unfruitful.

We see "lusts" (plural) used here in the company of "the cares of this world" and being deceived (led astray) by seeking after riches.  It speaks not of unwholesome sexual desire, but of unwholesome desires in general, not too different from gluttony or covetousness.  The essence of lust is greed.

Contrast this greed with the attributes of Charity as described by Paul.  Longsuffering, kindness, an absence of envy, ostentation and flashiness.  "Not easily provoked," bearing and enduring all things with faith and hope.  Distill all of these virtues down to their essence, and you get selflessness, the very antithesis of greed.

Greed is a hunger. It consumes in order to enlarge itself.  But charity, pure Christian love, is selfless.  It builds up those around it.

So how can this be applied to matters of the heart?  What is the difference between real love, and lust?

Lust is greed.  Lust says "this person is desirable, and I desire to have them, to further my own interests through interaction with them.  I want to take pleasure from them, because it will make me feel good."

Love, on the other hand, is constructive.  It says, "there is good in this person, and I want to work with them, to build something together with them that is greater and more beautiful than what either of us could accomplish alone, and I would wish to put forth the effort required to see it through, even if it requires some personal sacrifice on my part."  Lust would never dream of that last bit!

Quick and short Lust vs Love

Lust is LOVE for myself(through sex, food, other pleasures).
Love is not "LUSTING", but desiring God more than anything and finding PLEASURE in each of His commands


When does a tradition become a Tradition? When does a tradition became a Tradition, equally accepted and honored as the Bible? Or is a Tradition instigated by the Pope? Can anyone provide a specific example of a Tradition they hold equally viable with the scriptures?

From The Catholic Catechism:

  82 As a result the Church, to whom the transmission and interpretation of Revelation is entrusted, “does not derive her certainty about all revealed truths from the holy Scriptures alone. Both Scripture and Tradition must be accepted and honoured with equal sentiments of devotion and reverence.”

So the Catholic Church bases its beliefs on the truths revealed to it by God; that is, on Revelation from Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit. This revelation comes in two parts: Scripture, which has been written down, and Tradition, which has been passed along by word of mouth.

In keeping with the Lord’s command, the Gospel was handed on in two ways:

orally “by the apostles who handed on, by the spoken word of their preaching, by the example they gave, by the institutions they established, what they themselves had received—whether from the lips of Christ, from his way of life and his works, or whether they had learned it at the prompting of the Holy Spirit”;

in writing “by those apostles and other men associated with the apostles who, under the inspiration of the same Holy Spirit, committed the message of salvation to writing.”

(Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraph 76. The quotes are from the dogmatic constitution Dei Verbum of the Second Vatican Council, paragraph 7.)
Christ established his apostles, and their successors, to shepherd the Church; and he promised to be with it always, guiding and guarding it. The Church as a whole, therefore, and in particular the order of bishops in communion with the Pope, ultimately decide what is and what is not revealed truth. The God-given ability to do this rightly, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, is called the Magisterium of the Church:

“The task of giving an authentic interpretation of the Word of God, whether in its written form or in the form of Tradition, has been entrusted to the living, teaching office of the Church alone. Its authority in this matter is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ.” This means that the task of interpretation has been entrusted to the bishops in communion with the successor of Peter, the Bishop of Rome.

All the faithful share in understanding and handing on revealed truth. They have received the anointing of the Holy Spirit, who instructs them and guides them into all truth.

“The whole body of the faithful... cannot err in matters of belief. This characteristic is shown in the supernatural appreciation of faith (sensus fidei) on the part of the whole people, when, ‘from the bishops to the last of the faithful,’ they manifest a universal consent in matters of faith and morals.“

(Catechism of the Catholic Church. The quotes are from Dei Verbum paragraph 10 section 2, and from the dogmatic constitution Lumen Gentium of Vatican II.)
Tradition in the sense I'm speaking of is not a liturgical or devotional practice handed down through the ages. Helpful as these may be for private and communal worship of God, they are not things passed along to the whole Church, as needful for our salvation. As you've asked for examples, we're talking about things like the various beliefs regarding the Mother of God, the understanding of the nature of the Trinity, the belief in Purgatory, and so on. Indeed, the decision regarding which books were to be included in the canon of the Bible is itself a matter of tradition, though not proposed as dogma until the 16th century.
Tradition can be developed in a number of ways. Sometimes, as with the Assumption or the Immaculate Conception, it begins with a very widespread belief and practice of the whole Church. Sometimes (as with the Trinity) it begins with a rather abstract theological discussion. Often, though not always, these are eventually set out formally as in the Creed, or propounded as a dogma:

The Church’s Magisterium exercises the authority it holds from Christ to the fullest extent when it defines dogmas, that is, when it proposes, in a form obliging the Christian people to an irrevocable adherence of faith, truths contained in divine Revelation or also when it proposes, in a definitive way, truths having a necessary connection with these.

(Catechism, paragraph 88)
So if the question is literally When does a tradition become Tradition? the answer is, it doesn't; either it is, all along (because it was given us by the Holy Spirit), or it never was. If the question is When do we know that a tradition is Tradition? the answer is more or less As soon as we see that the whole body of the Church must, has, and does accept it.

There is more than one type of Tradition.  Some form over time, like the Rosary or abstaining from meat on Fridays.  Others come from the deposit of Faith of the Apostles and Christ himself.

An example of Sacred Tradition working hand-in-hand and having equal sentiments of devotion and Reverence would be the Eucharist and how it's celebrated in the Mass.

The teachings of our Lord who through his apostle taught in a manner derived from Old Testament Judaism the method of how to celebrate.  Reading scripture, praising God, humbling, repenting, singing songs and offering sacrifice, in this case, joining in Christ's Sacrifice.  Every action in the Catholic Mass has a purpose and reflects the 2000 year old traditions of the Church.

Other traditions are adopted as the faithful as one body, pray, fast, and Worship the Lord our God.

Another example of Tradition would be the Canon of Scripture.  Adopted hundreds of years after Calvary in the Catholic Church and over 1500 years after for the Protestant Church, the traditions are accepted as true even though those traditions are not specifically outlined in the Scriptures themselves.


Does Paul ever actually quote Jesus anywhere? Is it true that Paul did not quote Jesus a single time in the entire New Testament (of which he wrote 50%)?

1 Corinthians 11: 23-26
  For I received from the Lord what I also handed on to you, that the Lord Jesus, on the night he was handed over, took bread, and, after he had given thanks, broke it and said, “This is my body that is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.” In the same way also the cup, after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.” For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the death of the Lord until he comes.

This is a pretty straight forward question that deserves a straight forward answer.

In the books of the canonized New Testament, I can find no place where Paul ever directly quotes any sayings of Jesus that are recorded from any other source than himself.

On several occasions, Paul attributes to Jesus what he claims to have heard in his visions (see the above answers) but he never reaffirms any of the direct teachings of Jesus as recorded in any other source.