For those who deny the Immaculate Conception, why did Jesus not have original sin? The Westminster Confession (8:2) says Jesus is of the substance of Mary:

  The Son of God, the second person of the Trinity, being very and eternal God, of one substance and equal with the Father, did, when the fullness of time was come, take upon Him man's nature, with all the essential properties, and common infirmities thereof, yet without sin; being conceived by the power of the Holy Ghost, in the womb of the virgin Mary, of her substance. So that two whole, perfect, and distinct natures, the Godhead and the manhood, were inseparably joined together in one person, without conversion, composition, or confusion.

Calvin gives his interpretation of 1 Corinthians 15:22 in Institutes book 2 chapter 1 section 6:

  Therefore, the only explanation which can be given of the expression, “in Adam all died,” is, that he by sinning not only brought disaster and ruin upon himself, but also plunged our nature into like destruction; and that not only in one fault, in a matter not pertaining to us, but by the corruption into which he himself fell, he infected his whole seed.

If Jesus is of the substance of Mary and Mary (a seed of Adam) is infected by Adam. How can Jesus have no sin?

There are at least several ways that this is explained.  Here are three common ones.

One approach, taken by early and medieval theologians before the doctrine of the immaculate conception was widely held, is described by Thomas Aquinas:

  As Augustine says (Gen. ad lit. x, 20), Christ was in Adam and the other fathers not altogether as we were. For we were in Adam as regards both seminal virtue and bodily substance, since, as he goes on to say: "As in the seed there is a visible bulk and an invisible virtue, both have come from Adam. Now Christ took the visible substance of His flesh from the Virgin's flesh; but the virtue of His conception did not spring from the seed of man, but far otherwise—from on high." Hence He was not in Adam according to seminal virtue, but only according to bodily substance. And therefore Christ did not receive human nature from Adam actively, but only materially—and from the Holy Ghost actively; even as Adam received his body materially from the slime of the earth—actively from God. And thus Christ did not sin in Adam, in whom He was only as regards His matter. (Summa Theologica, 3rd part, Q15, Art. 1, reply to objection 2)

So to Augustine and Aquinas, the invisible, spiritual side of Christ's human nature came directly from God, not Adam.

This is somewhat similar to the view of the Anabaptists, which believe, as summarized by Louis Berkhof:

  The prevailing opinion among the Anabaptists was that the Lord brought His human nature from heaven, and that Mary was merely the conduit or channel through which it passed. (Systematic Theology, 3.2.1.B)

But in the Reformed tradition, greater emphasis is placed on Christ's human nature coming from his mother, and as a result his sinlessness is instead attributed to the sanctifying work of the Holy Spirit.  He thus has two roles in the conception of Jesus – first, as the "efficient cause" of the conception, and second:

  He sanctified the human nature of Christ in its very inception, and thus kept it free from the pollution of sin. (Systematic Theology, 3.2.1.B)

So we see that there isn't a single answer to the question, but rather a variety of ways to explain how Jesus could have human nature and yet be sinless.

Doctrine of the Immaculate Conception

The Eastern Orthodox Church denies the Roman Catholic doctrine of the Immaculate Conception, as it was proclaimed by a Bull of Pope Pius IX in 1854 (Ieffabilis Deus).  The doctrine maintains that at the moment of Her conception, the Virgin Mary was cleansed of ancestral sin.  In his encyclical, Pope Pius quotes from the 17th century Pope Alexander VII, "who authoritatively and decisively declared the mind of the Church":

  Concerning the most Blessed Virgin Mary, Mother of God, ancient indeed is that devotion of the faithful based on the belief that her soul, in the first instant of its creation and in the first instant of the soul’s infusion into the body, was, by a special grace and privilege of God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, her Son and the Redeemer of the human race, preserved free from all stain of original sin. And in this sense have the faithful ever solemnized and celebrated the Feast of the Conception.

Eastern vs. Western understanding of "original" sin and grace

From an Eastern Orthodox perspective, the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception follows logically from the Roman Catholic doctrine of original sin.  Orthodox theologian Protopresbyter Michael Pomazanski (1888-1988) explains:

  According to the Roman teaching, the burden of the sin of our first ancestors consists in the removal from mankind of a supernatural gift of grace. But here there arose a theological question: if mankind had been deprived of the gifts of grace, then how is one to understand the words of the Archangel addressed to Mary: “Rejoice, thou that art full of Grace, the Lord is with thee. Blessed art thou among women.... Thou hast found Grace with God” (Luke 1: 28, 30)? One could only conclude that the Most Holy Virgin Mary had been removed from the general law of the “deprivation of grace” and of the guilt of the sin of Adam. And since her life was holy from her birth, consequently she received, in the form of an exception, a supernatural gift, a grace of sanctity, even before her birth, that is, at her conception. Such a deduction was made by the Latin theologians. They called this removal a “privilege” of the Mother of God.1

The Eastern Orthodox understanding of "original sin" (generally referred to as "ancestral" rather than "original") is completely different from that of the Roman Catholic Church.  The difference lies in how grace is understood within Orthodox theology vis a vis Roman Catholic theology.  The Roman Catholic Church understands grace as something that is essentially created, and thereby "dispensable", whereas the Orthodox understanding that grace is something uncreated. An old edition of the Catholic Encyclopedia (1911 ed.) defined grace as

  ... not a substance that exists by itself, or even apart from the soul; therefore it is a physical accident inhering in the soul ... Sanctifying grace may be philosophically termed a 'permanent, supernatural quality of the soul'"2

The Eastern Orthodox view, on the other hand, has been summarized by  theologian Vladimir Lossky (1903-1958):

  For Eastern tradition the created supernatural has no existence.  That which Western theology calls the supernatural signifies for the East Uncreated - the Divine Energies ineffably distinct from the Essence of God.  The difference consists in the fact that the Western conception of grace implies the idea of causality, grace being represented as an effect of the Divine Cause, exactly as in the act of creation; while for Eastern theology there is a natural procession, the Energies shining forth eternally from the Divine Essence.  It is in creation alone that God acts as a cause, in producing a new subject called to participate in the Divine fullness; preserving it, saving it, granting Grace to it, and guiding it towards its final goal.  In the Energies He is, He exists, He eternally manifests Himself.3

Eastern vs. Western understanding of the consequence of the Fall

These divergences in the understanding of grace and free will lead to completely different notions of how the Fall in the Garden impacted man's posterity.

In the Western understanding, it could be said that man's nature remained the same after the fall as before the fall, but that he was impaired by the privation of sanctifying grace.

By contrast, the Eastern understanding is not this grace itself was somehow taken away, but rather that man's nature itself had become corrupted to such an extent that grace could no longer dwell within it to the extent previously.  "The deprivation of Grace is not the cause," wrote Lossky, "but rather the consequence of the decadence of our nature."4

Further divergences

I believe that practically any aspect of theology can be extrapolated from these foundational beliefs of grace and ancestral sin.

I think it is fair to say that the focus of Western Christianity is largely how to "get back" the sanctifying grace that was lost at the fall.  Roman Catholicism and Protestantism may disagree on how this is to be accomplished, but I think it is fair to say that they share the same goal.

The focus of Eastern Christianity is essence appears to be the same.  By contrast, however, the emphasis is not on how to "get God to give it back", so to speak, but rather on what one must do to one's self in order for the grace that is ever-present to return.   Hence within Orthodoxy there is a strong emphasis on synergy (i.e. cooperation of man's free will with the will of God); and on askesis - self-abnegation that shifts the individual's focus from self to God and others.  Salvation within Western Christianity lies mainly in restitution. Within Eastern Christianity it lies principally in restoration.

Although Eastern Orthodoxy is often thought to have close affinity with Roman Catholicism due to its sacramental and liturgical tradition, at the very core of their theologies, Roman Catholicism and Protestantism have much more in common with each other than either do with Eastern Orthodoxy.

Returning to the relation between original sin and the Immaculate Conception, in the Orthodox understanding there never was any privation of grace in the first place, as the Roman Catholic Church understands it.  The Immaculate Conception becomes, then, in the words of former Metropolitan Jonah of the Orthodox Church in America, "an unnecessary solution to a nonexistent problem."

1. Orthodox Dogmatic Theology (3rd ed.; tr. from Russian, St. Herman of Alaska Press, 2005), pp.193-194.
2. Vol. 6, p.705
3. The Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church (tr. from French; St. Vladimir's Seminary Press), pp.88-89
4. Ibid.


Why do many churches use grape juice in communion? Some Baptists and many other evangelicals use grape juice in communion. Is this explained on any catechism (or systematic theology available online) ?

Does the reason for not using wine have to do with keeping oneself pure or the moral problems with alcohol?

The Protestant practice of traditionally substituting grape juice for wine during communion must largely be credited to one man - Thomas Bramwell Welch

From Wikipedia:

  While some Christians consider the use of wine from the grape as
  essential for the validity of the sacrament, many Protestants also
  allow (or require) pasteurized grape juice as a substitute. Wine was
  used in Eucharistic rites by all Protestant groups until an
  alternative arose in the late 19th century. Methodist dentist and
  prohibitionist Thomas Bramwell Welch applied new pasteurization
  techniques to stop the natural fermentation process of grape juice.
  Some Christians who were part of the growing temperance movement
  pressed for a switch from wine to grape juice, and the substitution
  spread quickly over much of the United States, as well as to other
  countries to a lesser degree. There remains an ongoing debate between
  some American Protestant denominations as to whether wine can and
  should be used for the Eucharist or allowed as an ordinary beverage,
  with Catholics and some mainline Protestants allowing wine drinking in
  moderation, and some conservative Protestant groups opposing
  consumption of alcohol altogether. (emphasis added)

Anyone with basic knowledge of wine making knows that once grape juice is successfully squeezed and collected, it doesn't remain as juice for very long. Unpasteurized grape juice, if not consumed within a few days of harvest, will quickly ferment, rendering it not consumable (unless treated and stored to begin the wine making process).

As the excerpt from Wikipedia above states, prior to the turn of the 20th century "grape juice communion" was practically non-existent. Before the modern discovery of the pasteurization process, it would have taken a significant amount of effort to have enough freshly squeezed juice for a congregation readily available every Sunday (or less frequently depending on the denomination).

So, contrary to the traditional presuppositions held by Temperance Movement grandchildren, the theological "roots" of sipping grape juice instead of wine during communion has more to do with pasteurization and prohibition than it does biblical exegesis.

Seventh Day Adventist Perspective

As Seventh Day Adventists, we believe it is the same reason why unleavened bread was used. Bread was a symbol of Christ, and leaven was a symbol of sin or corruption (as it is a bacteria). Jesus never saw corruption. In the same way, fermented wine is wine(the fruit of the vine, aka grape juice) after it has been fermented or corrupted. The blood of Jesus cannot be symbolized with corrupted wine.

In the Bible, both fermented and unfermented wine (grape juice) is referred to as wine. You must look at the context to figure out whether it's talking about fermented or unfermented wine.

EXAMPLES of fermented wine:

  Woe to him who gives drink to his neighbors,
      pouring it from the wineskin till they are drunk,
      so that he can gaze on their naked bodies!

  Habakkuk 2:15

  Look not thou upon the wine when it is red, when it giveth his colour
  in the cup, when it moveth itself aright.

  At the last it biteth like a serpent, and stingeth like an adder.

  Proverbs 23:31-32

EXAMPLES of unfermented wine:

  The sceptre shall not depart from Judah, nor a lawgiver from between
  his feet, until Shiloh come; and unto him shall the gathering of the
  people be.

  Binding his foal unto the vine, and his ass's colt unto the choice
  vine; he washed his garments in wine, and his clothes in the blood of
  grapes

  Genesis 49:10-11

Definitely unfermented as the wine is being squeezed from the grapes.

  And gladness is taken away, and joy out of the plentiful field; and in
  the vineyards there shall be no singing, neither shall there be
  shouting: the treaders shall tread out no wine in their presses; I
  have made their vintage shouting to cease.

  Isaiah 16:10

Same here. Unfermented as the wine is pressed from the fruit of the vine(grapes).

EDIT:
EXAMPLES WITHIN THE CONTEXT OF THE LAST SUPPER

Seeing as the Bible refers to wine as both fermented and unfermented, which was used at the last Supper?

  Matthew 26:27-29

  Then he took a cup, and when he had given thanks, he gave it to them,
  saying, “Drink from it, all of you. This is my blood of the
  covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.
  I tell you, I will not drink from this fruit of the vine from now on
  until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father’s kingdom.”

Both "fruit of the vine" and "new" are descriptions of unfermented wine, and are not descriptions of fermented wine.

  Mark 14:23-25

  And he took the cup, and when he had given thanks, he gave it to them:
  and they all drank of it. And he said unto them, This is my blood of
  the new testament, which is shed for many. Verily I say unto you, I
  will drink no more of the fruit of the vine, until that day that I
  drink it new in the kingdom of God.

Once again in Mark, Jesus makes the same mention of the fruit of the vine, and new. Luke mentions the same. There is more Biblical proof that this is unfermented, new wine (plain grape juice) than fermented. If anyone feels any different, I challenge you to show me Biblical proof that fermented wine was used in the last supper. You will find there is no Biblical support for this kind of thinking, only traditions of men.

Just ask yourself this. Why would God denounce the use of fermented wine in one part of the Bible, but allow His own Son to drink this? Isn't this inconsistent?

For more information on this, here are some great articles:

Why I Don't Drink Alcohol
Christian & Alcohol

EDIT:

Seeing as how this got negative votes, I am revisiting this answer, though I really cannot see why the votes were negative. From the Biblical perspective, it is clear that there are two types of wine. GOD AND HIS WORD DO NOT CONTRADICT. However, from the texts it may seem as if they do. Jesus was completely pure, the lambs that were slain, that were symbolic of His death, were supposed to be unblemished. How then can we say that Jesus partook of this substance that has gone through the process of putrefaction? More importantly, why would Jesus say that this substance symbolizes His blood? Let us try to reason without prejudice. Does this make sense?

It is clear that Jesus refers to untainted, pure wine, or grape juice as we call it today.

Now many made claims that, historically, this was impossible because there were no methods of preservation. This is false. There were many methods of preserving food and drink in Bible times, including grapes and unfermented wine. Some of these methods include boiling, filtration, cold storage, and sulphur fumigation. Dr. Samuele Bacchiocchi, in his book "Wine in the Bible - A Biblical Study on the Use of Alcoholic Beverages" explains many of these processes. Chapter 4 deals with a very in-depth study on the subject of the preservation of grape juice. I have included a link to Chapter 4 here.

My answer aimed to answer the question from a Biblical perspective, nevertheless, here is the counter argument for anyone that claims that there was no way to preserve unfermented wine beyond the season.


How do Trinitarians respond to syllogistic arguments against the divinity of Jesus? In a previous question in which I asked for evidence of early Christians denying the divinity of Jesus, a user posted an answer that, among other things, presents sixteen very interesting syllogistic arguments against the divinity of Jesus. The arguments are very simple and easy to read, so I thought that it would be a good idea to ask a single question introducing the sixteen arguments and let trinitarians respond to them (in a rational manner, of course). Are there any flaws in these arguments that should make us question their validity and/or soundness?
The sixteen arguments are listed below:
Argument #1

The Father is the only true God (John 17:1,3)
Jesus is not the Father (John 17:1,3)
Therefore, Jesus is not the true God

Argument #2

There is no God besides the Father (Isa. 64:8,4)
Jesus is not the Father (borrowed from previous argument, and generally accepted)
Therefore, Jesus is not God

Argument #3

Man is not God (Ezek. 28:2)
Jesus is man (John 8:40)
Therefore, Jesus is not God

Argument #4

God is spirit (John 4:24)
Jesus is not a spirit (Luke 24:39)
Therefore, Jesus is not God

Argument #5

God never wearies (Isa. 40:28)
Jesus was weary (John 4:6)
Therefore, Jesus is not God

Argument #6

God never sleeps (Ps. 121:3-4)
Jesus slept (Matt. 8:24)
Therefore, Jesus is not God

Argument #7

God never dies (I Tim. 1:17)
Jesus died (Mark 15:37)
Therefore, Jesus is not God

Argument #8

God knows everything (I John 3:20)
Jesus does not know everything (Mark 13:26, 32)
Therefore, Jesus is not God

Argument #9

God would not acknowledge another as God (Isa. 46:9)
Jesus acknowledges the Father as God (John 20:17)
Therefore, Jesus is not God

Argument #10

God has natural (inherent) authority (Job 34:13)
Jesus has acquired authority (Matt. 28:18)
Therefore, Jesus is not God

Argument #11

God has natural holiness (Lev. 19:2)
Jesus has acquired holiness (John 10:36)
Therefore, Jesus is not God

Argument #12

God has natural lordship (Ps. 100:3)
Jesus has acquired lordship (Acts 2:36)
Therefore, Jesus is not God

Argument #13

God has natural power (Gen. 17:1)
Jesus has acquired power (Acts 10:38)
Therefore, Jesus is not God

Argument #14

God has natural judgeship (Gen. 18:25)
Jesus has acquired judgeship (Acts 10:42)
Therefore, Jesus is not God

Argument #15

God has natural saviorhood (Isa. 45:21)
Jesus has acquired saviorhood (Acts 5:31)
Therefore, Jesus is not God

Argument #16

God is OVER ALL (I Cor. 15:27-28)
Jesus is UNDER God (I Cor. 15:27-28)
Therefore, Jesus is not God

These are easy to answer, specifically because they depend on logical or linguistic fallacies.
Argument 1
"The Father is the only true God"
"The only true" simply modifies "God," and as such, "God" and "the only true" are interchangable; "You are the only true God" and "Only you are the true God" are not synonymous.
To say the Father is God, or the Son is God, or the Holy Spirit is God does not contradict, but is rather predicted and required by the doctrine on the Trinity.
Argument 2
"There is no God besides the Father"
Isaiah does not say that only the Father is God, or that there is no God besides the Father, but that Yahweh is a father to Israel. Because Yahweh = God, this is consonant with the doctrine of the Trinity, according to which, obviously, the Father is God.
Argument 3
"Man is not God"
Even though I couldn't find the passage you were referring to, the doctrine of the Trinity does not teach that man is God, but that God became man (took a human nature for His Temple), and thus this can't be an objection to the doctrine — that which a doctrine would predict can't contradict the doctrine.
Argument 4
"God is spirit"
Yes, by definition, the uncreated God is spirit, not matter, but this doesn't mean that if God becomes incarnate, that He loses His spiritual nature, because He assumes a physical nature: the Incarnation is not a doctrine about God converting into flesh, but taking flesh for His Temple.
Argument 5-9
"God doesn't do things humans do"
If Jesus is the Son become flesh, then He can become weary, be ignorant, sleep etc. by definition. He can't be truly man, and not weary at once.
Jesus tells John, "I am the First and the Last, who died, and behold I live forever and I have the keys of death and hell." (Revelation 1:17-18). If God can be born of woman, then God can die. Both things pertain to the human nature He took, not the divine nature He has always had.
Argument 9
"God would not acknowledge another as God"
If the Trinity is true, the Father can acknowledge that the Son or Spirit is God. As it is written: "But to the Son [God the Father says]: Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of justice is the sceptre of thy kingdom. ... And [who also said to the Son]: Thou in the beginning, O Lord, didst found the earth: and the works of thy hands are the heavens. " (Hebrews 1:8).
After all, if the Son is God, the Father can call Him such. If He is not, then we aren't speaking about the Trinity.
Argument 10
"That which is given is not inherent"
Because the Son has everything He has because of and from the Father (John 6:57; 16:15; 17:5), He can say, "I have recieved," or "I have heard," or "I have been given." Because the Trinity predicts that everything the Son has He has fromt he Father who begat Him (to use the Scriptural anthropomorphism).
Argument 11
"God is naturally holy"
Not only can holy be meant in two ways (worthy of honor because of being holy, set apart, or simply the fact or quality of being set apart itself), but this objection is answered by the above answer.
Argument 12
"God is naturally lord"
This is true. But the Messiah, a human leader, is also a man, and also has an inherited human authority from His father David.
(The following arguments are just different ways of saying the same thing.)
Argument 16
"God is over all; Jesus is under God"
Even the trinitarian creeds say that Jesus is under God because He is man, and equal to God because He is God. These two are basic facts about the Trinity. Anyone who is man is inferior to God, and anyone who is God made man is both equal to God and inferior to God by definition.
Athanasian Creed (the Trinitarian Creed par excellence):

... Equal to the Father, as touching his Godhead; and inferior to the Father as touching his Manhood. ...

This would seem to be the most fundamental part of grasping the doctrine in the first place, and not an objection.

[...] a user posted an answer that [...] presents sixteen [...] syllogistic arguments [...]

Answers are allowed to contain, within the same post, more than one approach to addressing a question. Likewise, a question is allowed to have more than one answer.

I thought that it would be a good idea to ask a single question introducing the sixteen arguments [...]

You thought wrongly (Proverbs 14:12). Posting a (relatively) large number of (sub)questions (in this case, well over a dozen), within the same (main) question, is not allowed (not  merely on this particular [sub]site, but on Stack Exchange as a whole).

Are there any flaws in these arguments that should make us question their validity and/or soundness ?

Yes; indeed, it is somewhat trivial to notice that they don't really seem to generalize over very well to other similar situations:

Take Isaiah 46:9, mentioned in Argument #9, for instance; were these words to have come from the lips of an ordinary human king, would one feel tempted or inclined to interpret them as implying an afront to the social and political status of the members of one's own royal family, or rather as a declaration of supremacy over and against the claims of rival kings ?

How about 1 Corinthians 15:28, mentioned in Argument #16 ? Does the fact that sons are bound, by the Decalogue, to obey their father's authority, mean that they are somehow less human than their parents ? (As an aside, feminist theology seems to fall prey to the same fallacy, arguing that a wife's biblically advised obedience to her own husband derogates her to a lesser or inferior status as a human being).

Arguments #10 to #15 seem to reason that, were one to acquire something from someone else, then the two cannot be members of the same group; thus, if one acquires one's human nature (along with everything that it entails) from one's own parents, then one cannot possibly be human as well (!)

Arguments #3 to #8 appear to (unwittingly) espouse reductionism, by (naively) asserting that something cannot be an heir to natures of opposite characteristics; thus, if animals are (mere) physical bodies, and angels are (just) spirits, therefore humans cannot possibly exist (!), since one cannot be both material (the flesh) and immaterial (the soul) at the same time.

All the above-listed examples show the logical flaws inherent in the various arguments; now let us turn our attention to scriptural ones:

The abovementioned logical flaw in Argument #6 is further strengthened by passages such as Song of Songs 5:2, which famously reads I sleep, but my heart is awake; is one perchance to infer that one's heart is not part of one's own being ? If it is biblically possible for Solomon to be both asleep and awake at the same time, why would the same not apply to his descendant, Jesus, as well ? Whence this disharmony and incongruity ?

Likewise, as above, but this time with regards to the preceding Argument #5, it is quite possible for ordinary human beings to be both (physically) exhausted and (spiritually) elate at the same time (such as when one, for instance, after a long struggle and tedious effort, has finally been able to accomplish something extraordinary and much desired, in which one's heart finds much joy, delight, and fulfilment); why, then, would something similar not apply to Jesus' case as well ?

The quote from Isaiah 64:4, 8, employed in Argument #2, seems to (conveniently) ignore parallel passages, such as, say, Proverbs 8:22-31, wherein a (poetically) personified wisdom is depicted as having assisted the divine Being (from which it ultimately originates) in the act of creation, both elements (mediated creation, and personified attributes) being present in the initial chapters of Genesis, wherein, on one hand, God calls all things into being, and then proceeds to subsequently order them, by means of His commanding word(s), and, on the other, the first woman is named after one of Adam's (and God's) main attributes: Life, the meaning of the Hebrew term Eve.

In continuation of the above-listed bullet point, let us recall that, while Adam (meaning Man) may not have been the only human in the Bible, he certainly is the only one to have borne the name of our entire species in his own person; with all of this in mind, let us now focus our attention on Argument #1, and adduce the following reasoning: Just as Adam's (Man's) humanity does not infringe upon that of the beings descended from his own flesh and blood (Genesis 2:23), despite his being the only person in the entire Scripture to have ever borne the name Man as his own personal name, in virtue of his being the one father of all mankind, so also the divinity of the one God and Father does not necessarily deter other possible divine persons (personifying His various divine attributes, as Eve did with Adam's) from possibly sharing in the same divinity; notice also how the very next verse (Genesis 2:24) perfectly mirrors or resembles Christ's own idea of family unity, expressed in John 10:30.


Why does God resort to genocide and destruction? According to this answer, God does not want to destroy sinners. And yet, there are several accounts in the Bible of God doing just that. Sodom and Gomorrah is one example, another one is the flood or the numerous atrocities against the Egyptians in Exodus, just to mention a few.

Now, with God being omnipotent, and thus with presumably an infinite number of ways of dealing with these situations, why does he resort to the most cruel and barbaric methods like genocide and murder? It doesn't seem like something a god who loves everyone would do, especially one with the power to resolve these situations in more peaceful ways.

Remember that God is completely loving, but that he is also completely just.
A truly just God who already decreed that the punishment for sin is death is morally obligated to follow through on that punishment.

As an example, remember in Daniel 6 that Daniel broke the law about praying to any 'god' other than Darius. Despite the fact that Darius liked Daniel, when Daniel [disobeyed], Darius was obligated to throw Daniel into the lions den.

To do any less is to turn God into a liar (something which he by definition is not). He is tautologically constrained by goodness, justice, and omnipotence to act.
Indeed, the real question isn't "Why did God punish these towns (Sodom, the death of the firstborn in Egypt, the inhabitants of Canaan, the world right before the flood)?"  but rather, "Why doesn't he wipe out more civilizations?"
Is God merciful ?
The answer to that is his mercy, as evidenced by Jonah.
Jonah, as you will remember, was sent to Ninevah by God to demand they repent. Jonah did his duty, however grudgingly, simply telling telling them "Thirty days and Ninevah shall be destroyed." When Ninevah heard this, however, it repented.  As a result, God changed his mind and decided to wipe them out.
That's when Jonah gets upset.  Here's what he says in Jonah 4:2:

He prayed to the LORD, O LORD, is this not what I said when I was still at home? That is why I was so quick to flee to Tarshish. I knew that you are a gracious and compassionate God, slow to anger and abounding in love, a God who relents from sending calamity.

In response, God gives Jonah a living parable:

Then the LORD God provided a vine and made it grow up over Jonah to give shade for his head to ease his discomfort, and Jonah was very happy about the vine. But at dawn the next day God provided a worm, which chewed the vine so that it withered. When the sun rose, God provided a scorching east wind, and the sun blazed on Jonah's head so that he grew faint. He wanted to die, and said, It would be better for me to die than to live.
But God said to Jonah, Do you have a right to be angry about the vine? I do, he said. I am angry enough to die. But the LORD said, You have been concerned about this vine, though you did not tend it or make it grow. It sprang up overnight and died overnight. But Nineveh has more than a hundred and twenty thousand people who cannot tell their right hand from their left, and many cattle as well. Should I not be concerned about that great city?

Why does justice demand death ?
Finally, it is reasonable to ask, why should a just God demand death for sin. After all, he is the one who pronounced originally that "in the day you shall eat thereof, you shall surely die."  (Here, I'm quoting Gen 2:17. Yes, Romans 6:23 is where I can unequivocally state the wages of sin is death, but I'm trying to stay in chronological order here!)
Here I want to delve into a bit of (hopefully informed) speculation.  The Jews understood that one could not look upon God and live.  (That's why (a) Jacob was amazed that he wrestled with God and lived, and (b) Moses, who asked to see God's face was told that he could not see it and live, but God did deign to show him his back.)
I don't think it is an unreasonable jump to suggest that when sinful man looks upon a completely holy God, he becomes so aware of his own inferiority that he cannot live with that knowledge.  (Its like that feeling of coming back to work after a wonderful Christmas vacation. The shock is killer!)
To look, unfettered upon the face of God, would be to literally die of shame.
Indeed, Dante says that the gates of hell are locked from the inside - Its not that God cannot abide man in heaven, but that sinful man cannot abide God.

Some people think that God doesn't spoke never. The atheists.
Some people think that God spoke to humans only until Abraham. These are the muslims, disconsidering all the profets after and their prophecies, Jesus, Son of God, the Father, the apostles, saints after them. Rejecting every information about Kingdom of Heaven, staying in the same dark as people from the 4000 years ago, believing instead the tricks of Mohammed.
Some people think that God spoke to humans only until Moses. They miss-interpret or dis-consider all reveletions after Moses. These are jews.
Some people think that God spoke to humans until apostle Paul wrote his last letter and apostle John wrote Revelation book. They ignore all the saints after apostles. These are the protestants, the "Sola Scriptura" believers.
Some people think that God spoke to humans until to holy fathers in 7-th ecumenic council from Nikea, or until around 1054. They ignore all the real saints after this council. These are the catholics.
Some people think that God spoke to humans until around the first world war, or until 1923. They lost the apostolic way, ignoring all the saints from the last centuries. These are orthodox new-calendarists.
Some people think that God spoke to humans until nowadays, and He will speak uninterrupted until the end of the world, as the loving Father. Who are these people?!

If you are an atheist, you will think that Sodom and Gomorrah story is a genocide, is not an act of God, and cannot be any acceptable God like this.
If you are jew or muslim, you will think that what happened to Sodom and Gomorrah, was an act of justice.
If you are a protestant, you will understand that what happened to Sodom and Gomorrah, was a logic act of the God.
If you are orthodox, keeping with discernment all He revealed to humans in all times, you will know that what happened there was an act of love.

The opinions regarding the narration of Sodom and Gomorrah, as with every biblic narration, variates based on this diversity in receiving of God's revelation.
The different views on this subject comes from the understanding of the subjects: "What is a human?", "What is the purpose of human life?", "Which is the will of God?" .

To answer to these questions, an atheist will consider everything the science has recorded about humanity along the time: medicine, anatomy, astronomy, physics, maths, ... Because he will not perceive anything beyond the 5 human senses and the scientific tools as their extensions (microscope, telescope), the atheist will conclude: Sodom and Gomorrah is a genocide story as other stories from bible.

The muslim and the jew will think: From God is everything: life, death, health, disease, food, starvation, etc. Everything is decided by Him. God is just. So, what happened to Sodom and Gomorrah is an act of justice.

But understanding starts to work, to have some kind of logic, when a human is considered in his integrity as a living being. If the human is composed only from a zillions of cells, that can be seen on microscope, then YES: was a genocid. But if a human has: body, soul and spirit, then NO: what happened there is only a small part of a big picture. Some bodies burned there, but what happend with the souls? What happened with the spirits of these people? What significance has the 2000 years later Resurrection from Death of Jesus Christ, regarding of them? etc...

In Holy Tradition of Orthodoxy is known that God revelated His knowledge to the saints and lets other humans to learn about His revelations from them, by applying in the same time: faith and discernment.

In the year 1389, on June 15, the serbian prince Lazarus died in lost battle against Turkish Emperor Amurat, a battle between christians and muslims. On night before the battle, Lazarus was visited by one of the great angels of the God to offer a choice between an earthly or a Heavenly kingdom. Lazar opted for the Heavenly kingdom, saying immortal words:

  "perishable is earthly kingdom, but forever and ever is Kingdom of
  Heaven!". (orthodoxwiki.org/Lazar_of_Serbia)

Before to die, being in death agony, he start to bend about his choice made in the name of his country, invaded now by muslims. The angel came again and answered to all his questions which torture his soul. One of the question was:

  what is the most necessary thing for a man at death's door to ask of
  his God?

The angel of God answered him:

  "At the end and at the beginning of the earthly journey, as well as on
  every step of that journey, it is most important for the earthly
  wayfarer to ask God for two things: first, the forgiveness of sins;
  and second, the bestowal of the Spirit of God. Everything that is full
  must first be emptied in order for it to be filled. It must be cleaned
  first, and then adorned. The Spirit of God does not enter a house
  occupied by a demonic slave of sins, and He does not adorn an unclean
  home with either His presence or His heavenly gifts."

And then the angel explained to him, and to all humans through Lazar, the complete anatomy of the human, having body, soul and spirit, how important are each of them, which are their roles and component parts they have ... reveling many other mysteries about: proto-parents Adam and Eve, about Heaven, love, superior minds, gold freedom, significance of cross, ... http://tzarlazar.tripod.com/

In this light can be seen that people of the Sodom and Gomorrah, or people from the Noah times, they lost the purpose of their life completely, and decadence or their souls were continuous growing, reversing the values of life from truth to lie, from freedom to slavery, from joy to suffering, from real love to carnal lusts, all these translated in separation of God, ie eternal suffering.

Only in the light of Traditional Orthodoxy, somebody can understand that what happened to Sodom and Gomorrah, or in Noah times, and in all the times, are acts of a loving God. And His love for humanity is overwhelming, cannot be understood entirely or comprised by a human mind.


What is the Biblical basis against the Calvinist doctrine of Irresistible Grace? The question of what the Biblical basis is in favor of Irresistible Grace has been asked here.  However, the question regarding the Biblical argument against it does not seem to have been addressed yet.  So, that's the question.

What is the Biblical basis or argument against the Calvinist doctrine of Irresistible Grace--that is, the doctrine that God's grace to the elect prior to their conversion is irresistible.  The elect person can't help but be drawn into salvation and a relationship with God.

The argument against irresistable grace is centered in the Biblical teachings that, on the one hand, God desires everyone to be saved and has made his grace available to all people.

1 Timothy 2:3-4
This is right and is acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, who desires everyone to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.
2 Peter 3:9
The Lord is not slow about his promise, as some think of slowness, but is patient with you, not wanting any to perish, but all to come to repentance.
Titus 2:11
For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation to all.

On the other hand, we are asked to make a choice and salvation is said to be contingent on our response.

Joshua 24:15
Now if you are unwilling to serve the Lord, choose this day whom you will serve, whether the gods your ancestors served in the region beyond the River or the gods of the Amorites in whose land you are living; but as for me and my household, we will serve the Lord.
Ezekiel 18:21-22
But if the wicked turn away from all their sins that they have committed and keep all my statutes and do what is lawful and right, they shall surely live; they shall not die. None of the transgressions that they have committed shall be remembered against them; for the righteousness that they have done they shall live.
John 1:12
But to all who received him, who believed in his name, he gave power to become children of God.
Romans 10:9
[I}f you confess with your lips that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.

The flip side of this coin is that if we don't respond or don't follow through, we won't be saved.

Matthew 7:21
Not everyone who says to me, "Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father in heaven.
Matthew 24:12-13
And because of the increase of lawlessness, the love of many will grow cold. But the one who endures to the end will be saved.
1 Corinthians 9:26-27
I do not run aimlessly, nor do I box as though beating the air; but I punish my body and enslave it, so that after proclaiming to others I myself should not be disqualified.

If we can "be disqualified" or fail to "endure to the end", it stands to reason that God's grace can be resisted.
Summary
If:

God wants everyone to be saved, and
He has made his grace available to everyone, and
He asks us to respond to his grace, and
He promises salvation to those who respond but not to those who fail to respond or fail to follow through, then

it's hard to make the case that God's grace is irresistible.

Agapē does not compel ("It does not insist on its own way" – 1 Cor 13:5b ESV)
Irresistible grace insists on its own way.
God's means of loving us is grace.
God's form of love is agapē.
Irresistible grace is not agapē.
That God saves us is his ultimate expression of love.
This expression of love cannot utilize irresistible grace.
Irresistible grace is not how God saves us. □


Did those feet in ancient time walk upon England's mountains green? (Origin of the story) William Blake's preface to Milton, commonly called Jerusalem and set to a famous hymn tune by Hubert Parry, questions whether the child Jesus might have visited England.

  And did those feet in ancient time
  Walk upon England's mountains green:
  And was the holy Lamb of God,
  On England's pleasant pastures seen!

This apparently refers to an old tradition, not originated by Blake, that Joseph of Arimathea took Jesus to Glastonbury; after the crucifixion, Joseph returned, possibly carrying the Holy Grail.

Whether this actually happened is not my question.

What I would like to know is: what is the origin of the story? According to Wikipedia, Robert de Boron wrote about Joseph and the Grail, but it does not mention if he wrote about an earlier visit by Jesus himself. So how and when did the story get started?

With reference to the story of Jesus' visit to England with Joseph of Arimathea, OP asks:

  So how and when did the story get started?

There is, so far as I know, one scholarly article on just this question which has recently had some scrutiny. The article is: A. W. Smith, "'And Did Those Feet...?': The 'Legend' of Christ's Visit to Britain", Folklore 100.1 (1989): 63-83. Smith works carefully, investigating a number of questions related to the central one, and so really needs to be read in full by anyone interested. The leading findings are these (citing Smith's own form of the questions, "it" refering to the legend of Jesus-in-England):

  What current form or forms does it take? How far back can it be traced?

Smith documents a wide variety of forms of the story, with many details differing based on locale. They share, minimally, Joseph (usually as a metal merchant) coming to England, and Jesus coming with him. Beyond that, Smith finds the welter of changing detail to indicate a "weak and fugitive" tradition that is "far from" unvarying.

  How far is it the creation of identifiable literary and clerical authors, and how far rooted in oral folk tradition?

Smith traces documentary evidence in sketchy form to the late 19th C, and much more from the 1920s, and attributed to a trio of energetic clerics who boosted the legend. One of these sources, H. A. Lewis, Christ in Cornwall? (3rd edition, 1948) is available online.

Beyond that, Smith argued, it was a matter of hazy oral tradition and local lore, and that demonstrable only into the 1890s.

  Is the assumption that it "was known to William Blake and is alluded to in his lyric 'Jerusalem'" in fact correct?

According to Smith, the short answer is "No" (see pp. 71-72). In his own words:

  [T]o return to our starting point, does Blake's lyric attest a knowledge of or a belief  in a literal visit by Jesus to Britain? I would suggest it does not. I have searched Blake's  poetry, prose and ephemera for any evidence that he knew this story and can find none.... (p. 72)

Moreover, not only is there no written documentary evidence to suggest it, but Smith goes on to adduce some positive considerations explaining why it would be unlikely that Blake should be read this way.

  Is there any historical context or religious system of thought which could account for its origin and its spread?

Smith thinks there is, and he locates it in the developing British Israel traditions of the growing Empire in the early and mid-nineteenth century. These, he suggests, picked up medieval hints along these lines (interestingly, associated with the apostle Paul), which mutated into the "legend" as we now see it (pp. 76-80).

I mentioned there was some "recent scrutiny" of Smith's article. It comes in a fascinating book: William John Lyons, Joseph of Arimathea: A Study in Reception History (Oxford: OUP, 2014). He devotes a chapter to "The 'Jerusalem' Joseph" which considers Smith's article at some length. Lyons writes cautiously of it, but (so far as I can see), is broadly approving. (Unlike his remarks on Dennis Price's fanciful The Missing Years of Jesus: The Extraordinary Evidence that Jesus Visited the British Isles [Hay House, 2010].)

But Lyons's work is ultimately pursuing a different agenda. Smith has assembled the data, sorted and sifted it, and considered the matter carefully -- whether he has placed the most compelling construction on the evidence he has uncovered may be up for debate, but it looks cogent to me.

The short answer is William Blake. It is all in the reading of the poem and understanding Blake. He wished that instead of Israel, Jesus was born in England. Why were the Jews the chosen people and not the English? Because of the 'dark satanic mills'. Jesus will not come to England unless the social injustices are removed. After Blake a supposed legend about Jesus visiting England started. There is no earlier legend.


Why does the Battle Hymn of the Republic say Jesus was born "in the beauty of the lillies"? A seldom-quoted stanza of the "Battle Hymn of the Republic" says

  In the beauty of the lillies Christ was born across the sea
  with a beauty in his bosom that transfigures you and me.
  As he died to make men holy, let us die to make men free,
  while God is marching on.

My question is, what does it mean when it says that Jesus was born "in the beauty of the lillies"?  I thought the story was that he was born in a manger, not among lillies.  Is there any reference to lillies in the Biblical description of Jesus' birth?

Or does the "in" mean "with", i.e. is it saying that Jesus was as beautiful as a lily when he was born?  That could be a reference to the line in the Bible about how King Solomon was not arrayed so finely as the lillies of the field.

According to this site, the first draft of the song actually had the words

  In the whiteness of the lilies he was born across the sea

And then the final version of the song, which was first published in 1862 had the words

  In the beauty of the lilies Christ was born across the sea

That same site references a book by Edmund Wilson entitled Patriotic Gore: Studies in the Literature of the American Civil War (New York: Oxford University Press, 1966).  On page 96 of that book, the author suggests that the lyrics may be referring to Easter lilies (which are associated with the death and resurrection of Jesus).

Absent any reason given by Julia Ward for choosing those words, we can merely speculate as to why she chose them.  Based on the context, though, she was clearly wanting to convey the hope portrayed in Jesus' birth and the beauty of what He accomplished in stark contrast to the darkness underlying the rest of the song.

I thought the word in the Battle Hymn of the Republic is not "born" but "borne", meaning "carried".  The idea is that, in His death and resurrection, Christ crossed the sea that separates this life from the next.  So the reference would be to Easter, not to Christmas, and lilies are a traditional decoration for Easter celebrations.


Why is use of the phrase "for God's sake" often considered sinful? I often hear this on some people even in games, who use the phrase "for God's sake" or something similar ("for God's sakes," etc.)

I don't see how this can be considered sinful or blasphemous, considering passages like Isaiah 43:25 and Matthew 10:22:

  Isaiah 43:25
  "I, even I, am he who blots out your transgressions, For My [God] own sake, and remembers your sins no more.

  Matthew 10:22
  You will be hated for my name sake

Here's the meaning of Sake -

The no.3 definition used this phrase. My question is:

On what basis is it said that a sin is committed when using this phrase?  Why is it blasphemous?

I suspect that this will be considered "taking God's name in vain."  But how could that be distinguished from me saying "For His name sake I will repent or I will do this and that."  In the back of my mind, I know this depends on how strong the phrase is delivered and the context / circumstances. I just want to a little enlightenment to this.

Violating Commandments is commonly linked to sin

For an official teaching, the Catholic Church's teaching is that careless references to God violates the Second Commandment (Third Commandment in some other denominations).  Other denominations may have similar points of view, but to keep this answer concise I confine it to the Catholic view.

Exodus 20:7

  You shall not take the name of the LORD, your God, in vain. For the
  LORD will not leave unpunished him who takes his name in vain.

From the Catechism ...

  CCC 2143  "The Lord's name is holy." For this reason man must not
  abuse it. He must keep it in mind in silent, loving adoration. He will
  not introduce it into his own speech except to bless, praise, and
  glorify it.

See also Psalm 29:2 (KJV)

  Give unto the Lord the glory due unto his name; worship the Lord in
  the beauty of holiness.

And Psalm 113:2-3 (KJV)

  Blessed be the name of the Lord from this time forth and for evermore.
  From the rising of the sun unto the going down of the same the
  Lord's name is to be praised.

To use "For God's sake" per your definition 3 -- as a sign of annoyance, impatience, or urgency -- does not bless, praise or glorify God.  That usage also goes against the principle of Christian Charity1.

  CCC 2146 The second commandment forbids the abuse of God's name, i.e.,
  every improper use of the names of God, Jesus Christ, but also of the
  Virgin Mary and all the saints.

Pay respect where respect is due

In closing, St Augustine lays out the respect due to the Lord

  [God's] name is great when spoken with respect for the greatness of
  his majesty.  God's name is holy when said with veneration and fear of
  offending him.  ~ St. Augustine, De serm. Dom. in monte 2, 5, 19: PL 34, 1278.

1 388. What is charity?
From CCC 1822-1829, and 1844)

  Charity is the theological virtue by which we love God above all
  things and our neighbor as ourselves for the love of God. Jesus makes
  charity the new commandment, the fullness of the law. “It is the bond
  of perfection” (Colossians 3:14) and the foundation of the other
  virtues to which it gives life, inspiration, and order. Without
  charity “I am nothing” and “I gain nothing” (1 Corinthians 13:1-3).

Since it is God, Himself, who enables us 'to do,' (or exist at all for that matter), it would be impossible for us to do anything for His "sake," - i.e. to "help," God.  For any person or "thing," to think it could "help," God is an insult ("blasphemy").

Philippians 2:13 - For God is working in you, giving you the desire and the power to do what pleases Him.

John 15:5 - I am the vine; you are the branches. If you remain in me and I in you, you will bear much fruit; apart from me you can do nothing.

Colossians 1:16 - For in Him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through Him and for Him.


Why is the name Jehovah not used more in the Book of Mormon? In Jewish history around 150 years before Christ came Jews began taking the name Jehovah out of the Bible. In the book of Mormon, the record of the bible is on brass plates claimed from Laban 600 BC. Why is it that in the 600 BC version the name Jehovah only appears once when quoting the Bible, when in the old testament manuscripts it appears over 7,000 times? My question is relating mainly to when books of the old testament are quoted in the Book of Mormon. Mostly in 2 Nephi.

It's pretty simple. The Book of Mormon translation follows in the KJV tradition, which in turn follows in the Jewish tradition.
(1) Out of reverence, Jews never pronounced יהוה when reading scripture.

The original pronunciation of this name has possibly been lost, as the Jews, in reading, never mentioned it but substituted one of the other names of God, usually Adonai.
"Jehovah", Bible Dictionary

(Thus "Jehovah" is actually just a modern day guess at a transliteration of the Hebrew יהוה.)
(2) The King James Version did something similar. It was partly out of a similar tradition of reverence, and partly because they could't really write Jhvh, and they didn't want to guess at a transliteration. So in the KJV, you will find יהוה rendered as LORD or GOD.

For the LORD GOD will help me; therefore shall I not be confounded: therefore have I set my face like a flint, and I know that I shall not be ashamed.
Isaiah 50:7

(3) The Book of Mormon (or, more properly, the English translation of the Book of Mormon) did the same thing: יהוה  becomes Lord or God.

For the Lord God will help me, therefore shall I not be confounded. Therefore have I set my face like a flint, and I know that I shall not be ashamed.
2 Nephi 7:7

In fact, almost anytime Lord appears in the KJV Bible (or in the Book of Mormon), it is a translation for יהוה.

In the LDS faith, there's no need to avoid pronouncing or writing Jehovah (or Jahveh, Yahveh, etc.). Jehovah is regularly used, particularly when referring to Jesus before his mortal birth. The reason that it appears this way in scripture is just a custom with an interesting history.

This answer is not correct. יהוה Is translated LORD or GOD with all caps in the KIV. When Lord is found in the KJV, the Hebrew word is Adonai אָדוֹן and when God is found in the KJV the Hebrew word is Elohim אלוהים. I am currently reading the BoM and am wondering why Lord isn't all caps (LORD) which is how God's name has been translated into English for the last 400 years. Even in chapters that are basically identical to chapters in the Bible
2 Nephi/Isaiah, the Bible has the all caps but the BoM doesn't. It causes a real problem in phrases like "they crucify the God of Israel" because that translates to Elohim. But, according to LDS doctrine Elohim is Heavenly Father and Jehovah is Jesus, so they wouldn't be crucifying Elohim. The BoM should be clearing all of the confusion up since it's the keystone of the religion and the truest book on Earth, but it only makes matters worse which is why reading the BoM after studying the Bible for 10 years is only confirming for me that Joseph Smith was one of the many false prophets Jesus told us would come.


What properties does Christianity attribute to God What are the claimed properties of God that define Christianity, and what is the basis or reason for each attribution?

This is a pretty broad question, and you have to understand that there are varying views within Christianity.  There's no one, single understanding, but here is a fairly comprehensive list.  Assume in this list that it applies to most groups within Christianity unless otherwise noted.  I'm going to ignore such groups a s "Christian Atheists" (Who would answer with one attribute: "Imaginary".) or "Christian witches" and focus on more mainstream commonly accepted Christian circles.

Also, in the interest of brevity, I'm going to NOT directly include "what is the basis" for each.  Instead, I'm linking on each to an article that explores each attribute in further detail.  The basis for each attribute is, ultimately, Scripture.  Most of the articles linked to offer several verses supporting each attribute.

Omniscient:  God is all knowing, without limitation - even as far as past/present go.  He knows all that has ever happened and all that will.  He knows each star that he created, by name.
Omnipotent:  God is infinite in His power.  He can do anything.

Some would say that this means Intrinsically possible.  Misunderstandings of the definition of "Omnipotent" lead to foolish questions like "Can God create a rock so big He can't lift it?"
Others believe that this limitation doesn't apply, and God id limited only by His own perfect nature ans will.

Omnibenevolent - God is purely good.  There is no evil in Him.  Note that this doesn't mean purely kind.  He is not limited to our personal understanding of what "good" is.  Put simply, God knows more than we, in our limited capacity do.  What we might consider "cruel" or "not fair" may be good.  Just like a child might not understand why his parents discipline him for dangerous behavior, we may not understand why God does what he does.

  Side note #1: Taking a break in the list here, many atheists use the above three attributes to come up with arguments that God couldn't
  possibly be all three, or evil wouldn't exist.  That's addressed
  here.

Sovereign:  God is completely sovereign.  he answers to nobody, and everybody answers to Him.

There is some debate on what this means for free will.  Some say that free will is an illusion because if we had any free will, Cod's sovereignty would be nullified  In other words, He is in complete and total control.  Others say that He grants us free will, but he could assert His sovereignty at any time.  There are other views as well.
Some also use god's sovereignty to show that God is evil because He allows suffering.  Again, see side note #1.

Infinite:  God is without limits.  He is limited only by His will and what is intrinsically possible.
Patient (aka longsuffering):  God is slow to anger, quick to forgive.  Which is good, because when I look at my own behavior over my lifetime, I can't help but think that, were I in God's place, I'd have been a crispy critter long ago.
Holy: God is separate from sin and is completely, utterly, incorruptible.
Impeccable:  Strongly related to holiness, God is completely unable to sin.
Immutable: God Cannot change.

Side note, skeptics sometimes point to verses that showed that God repented and decided not to smite this group or that.  That's addressed here.

Omnipresent: God is everywhere, always, all at once.
Transcendent: God exists outside space and time or anything else he has made.  he is not limited by either.
Immanent: Closely related to "Omnipresence":  God is always near.
Jealous:  God is jealous of glory due Him being given to another god, and righteously so.  This is to be distinguished from petty jealousy (envy).
Righteous: God is completely Right, or Just.  It is His righteousness that demands that sin not go unpunished.  (Would you consider a judge to be righteous if he let a murderer go free out of love?  No, you'd call that a corrupt judge.  in the same way, God cannot be righteous if he allows sin to go unpunished.)
Wrathful:  God's wrath, when unleashed, is unparalleled. His wrath is directed toward sin, evil, unrighteousness.
Love:  While God's wrath is terrifying, his love is amazing.  It is his love that is expressed in the fact that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.  The cross is the ultimate expression of his love for us.
Incorporeal: Scripture tells us that god is spirit, and has no physical body.

Note that this is something that some groups, such as the LDS church disagree with.

Triune: God exists in three persons: The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

Pretty much undisputed in mainstream Christianity, understood differently in LDS theology, and refuted utterly by other groups such as Jehovah's Witnesses.

And finally....

Incomprehensible: God is so far above us that we can never know or understand Him fully.  All we can know or understand is what He has revealed, and even that is filtered through our own interpretations.

The word of God is the first reference for All questions. (the bible) Gods word is the root of the vine which bears his fruit. Afterwards comes the harvest which is when he will separate the light from the darkness. (the wheat and the tares, Matthew 13:24-30)

Gods attributes are found throughout all scripture from the beginning of the bible (genesis) to the end (revelations).

In corinthians we find that God is love, however Jesus says the greatest commandment is to love you neighbor. (Mark 12:31)

If you want to embrace God and find his true heart, become rooted in the scripture (his word, the bible).

If you seek you will find, but you must (should) initiate the first step, i promise he will be faithful to answer those who genuinely seek him

search this (Matthew 7:24-27)


Why does Intelligent Design reject evolution, even intelligently designed and executed evolution? Intelligent Design is a current brand of natural philosophy that at its simplest holds that the Universe (ie, everything) has been designed intelligently. It opposes ideas like a spontaneous beginning or an eternal universe.

But the proponents of ID, eg Behe, Dembski, Discovery Institute, Center for Science and Culture.. all seem to be explicitly against any form of (macro) evolution, even if intelligently designed and executed. Why reject theistic evolution?

The Intelligent Design Debate is all about getting people to admit there is some creator of the universe rather than Evolution.  Its not about saying this creator is God or some other such deity.
IMHO it is used as a stepping stone as people who don't want to believe there is a God can swallow the idea easier.
To summarise the ID theory:

Irreducible Complexity: Even when you reduce biological organisms down to their most basic systems they are still too complex to happen randomly.
Specified Complexity: Biological organisms are not just complex but they are specified or ordered complexity. Since the pattern (or order) specified to make biological organisms they can't happen randomly.
Intelligent Designer: When both the above are true there must be an Intelligent designer.

(DISCLIAMER: I may have gotten parts of the ID thoery wrong in my attempt to simplify it please help correct me if I have.)
EDIT:- To address the (macro) Evolution stance:
I can't say for certain as I am not associated with any ID organisation but my theory would be that if macro Evolution was the method that the Intelligent designer used to create organisms it would give rise to the ability that it could be done again (evolve). (ID theory was brought out of an anti-evolution philosophy. Does that make it biased? I'm not sure but I like when we question long held blind-beliefs.)
Keep in mind that both Evolution theory and the Intelligent Design theory are still theories.  Neither of which (no matter how many people believe it is true) have any substantial proof either way.

Most of the intelligent design proponents you are talking about are Christians who have a somewhat literal interpretation of genesis.
Because they consider genesis literal, for them to admit it's not correct would mean (to them) that there is a mistake in the Bible, and the rest of their faith (including the existence of God) would be up for debate.

tl;dr they are inflexible with their beliefs, so they must disregard any theory that contradicts their beliefs.


Is there biblical evidence of seraphims being angels? I have heard angels and seraphim being used interchangeably. is there any biblical evidence that they are different or the same? The only verse I know off the top of my head is Isaiah 6:2

  Isaiah 6:2 Above it stood the seraphim: each one had six wings; with twain he covered his face, and with twain he covered his feet, and with twain he did fly. (KJV)

My question is whether angels and seraphim are the same thing or not, and why.

Bible Gateway (RSVCE)  - Quick Search: Seraphim return results that show that in the Bible, seraphim is only mentioned in Isaiah 6: A Vision of God in the Temple.

If angel is understood from

  Used in Scriptural translations for Hebrew mal'akh (yehowah)
  "messenger (of Jehovah)," from base l-'-k "to send."

Only the action of the one of the seraphim in Is 6:6-7 (RSVCE) can be that of a messenger.

  6 Then flew one of the seraphim to me, having in his hand a burning coal which he had taken with tongs from the altar. 7 And
  he touched my mouth, and said: “Behold, this has touched your lips;
  your guilt is taken away, and your sin forgiven.”

Other than that the seraphim are above God's throne, one calling to another

  “Holy, holy, holy is the Lord of hosts; the whole earth is full of his
  glory.”

This appears to be their sole function and purpose in scripture.

  Meaning | SERAPHIM | Jewish Encyclopedia The passages cited
  furnish conclusive evidence against the idea, popular for a time, that
  the seraphim belong to the same category as angels. They have nothing
  whatever to do with the "messengers of God"; in the Jewish conception
  the two have always been distinguished.

Gabriel is a seraphim as when he came to Zachariah announcing his wife Elizabeth would bear John the Baptist:

Luke 1:19 - And the angel replied to him, I am Gabriel. I stand in the [very] presence of God, and I have been sent to talk to you and to bring you this good news.

The Amplified Bible. (1987). (Lk 1:19). La Habra, CA: The Lockman Foundation.

I myself have met and spoken with Gabriel a number of times with once unknowing and three times revealed to me that it was him.


How long was Jesus's ministry? I've always heard, over in over, in Church and elsewhere that Jesus's ministry on Earth was only three years. However, it doesn't seem that there is much supporting Biblical evidence for this, or at least direct evidence. Nowhere does it say an exact period of time the events in the gospel where taking place over.

Is there evidence in the New Testament that we can reconstruct how long Jesus ministered for? If not then where does the three year figure come from?

Scholars who have attempted a synchronized harmony of the Gospels seem to indicate the Jesus went up to Jerusalem on three different occasions. From this, the tradition has grown up that his ministry was three years.

Beyond this interpolation, however, there is nothing to suggest how long his earthly ministry actually lasted. As such, it is probably best to say his ministry lasted at least three years.

Then again, after reading Mark keep saying "and he went immediately", you have gotten the impression it was just a few days :). But, overall, it does seem that the various times Jesus shows up in Jerusalem lend weight to at least 3 years.

According to New Advent's Catholic Encyclopedia, Yeshua's ministry lasted about one year. See the writings of the early Church fathers Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Origen and Lactantius. It was Eusebius, in the 4th century, who suggested a duration of 3 1/2 years, trying to align it with his interpretation of the prophet Daniel's vision in Chapter 9:20-27.

See "Chronology of the Life of Jesus Christ", under the heading "Relative chronology", sub-headed "The public life of Jesus: its duration".


Multiple wives and concubines | male and female "original" intent Matthew 19:1-6 New International Version (NIV)

  1 When Jesus had finished saying these things, he left Galilee and
  went into the region of Judea to the other side of the Jordan. 2 Large
  crowds followed him, and he healed them there.

  3 Some Pharisees came to him to test him. They asked, “Is it lawful
  for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?"

  4 “Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator
  ‘made them male and female,’[a] 5 and said, ‘For this reason a man
  will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the
  two will become one flesh’[b]? 6 So they are no longer two, but one
  flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.”

When Jesus said “Haven’t you read, that at the beginning the Creator made them male and female" I believe he was referring to Genesis 5:2.

  Genesis 5:2

  2 He (God) created them male and female and blessed them. And he named
  them “Mankind” when they were created.

In regards to the unity of one man and one woman, how did the Pharisees as well as others listening to Jesus (Matthew 19:2-3) interoperate what Jesus meant (Matthew 19:4-6) when they would have also known that Abraham and King David had multiple wives and/or concubines?

NOTE: I don't want this to be about how Christians view polygamy today but rather how did those listening think/feel/interperate (through 1st century "eyes") what Jesus was now saying compared to the "views/actions" of their forefathers. Prior to Jesus referencing Genesis 5 and clarifying that the unity of male and female was orignially intended for one man and one woman, did those practicing Judaism and those following Jesus recognize a difference in what was once practiced and what is now being said; or did everyone already know the original intent of male and female, specifically in terms of how Jesus stated it to be in Matthew 19?

I think the Pharisees understood quite well that their ancestors were not perfect. The fact that they did X does not make X right. The example of David that you bring up is a case in point: He was guilty of adultery and murder. The Bible is unusual in that it holds someone up as a hero at the same time that it freely recounts his character flaws -- sometimes big ones like this. I don't think the Pharisees supposed that murder was okay because David did it, or would have found this in any way confusing.

(Ever notice that most history books and biographies tend to present their heroes as 100% good? Their character flaws are often whitewashed: he was forced into it by circumstances; this was accepted practice at the time, etc. There are exceptions, of course, but I see this a lot. But the Bible goes to rather the opposite extreme, being quite emphatic about its heroes’ sins.)

That said, the Old Testament does seem to at least tolerate polygamy. There are some clues in the OT that indicate that God intended marriage to be monogamous. For example, Gen 2:24 "Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and they shall become one flesh." Note "wife", singular, not "a man shall be joined to his wives". Etc. But these are subtle enough that one could debate them, and I don't know of anything in the OT that clearly, explicitly mandates monogamy. There are plenty of places where a person's sin is called out, and I don't know of anyplace where polygamy is called out as a sin. I'm interested if anybody else here can point to such a verse.

As Flimzy notes, Jesus was condemning divorce, not polygamy. That doesn't mean polygamy is okay, of course, I'm sure there are lots of sins that the Bible does not record Jesus discussing. But that's not what he was talking about here.

Jesus is speaking of the children involved.  One flesh is the offspring of the man and woman and the resulting family it creates.  He is admonishing them not to separate the family.  He goes on to say that this is not for eunuchs because they do not have children.  This pericope ends with the little children coming unto Jesus.


Are there Old Testament references to the length of Jesus earthly ministry? The Old Testament references Jesus death and resurrection.

I've always wondered why did Jesus have only 3 years of time (or 3 1/2 ) as a preacher and teacher. I suppose you could say the time was enough to spread God's message.

Is this duration predicted in the OT ?

Yes the duration of Christ’s ministry was prophesied under the Old Testament to be 3.5 years

  25 “Know and understand this: From the time the word goes out to restore and rebuild Jerusalem until the Anointed One, g the ruler, comes, there will be seven ‘sevens,’ and sixty-two ‘sevens.’ It will be rebuilt with streets and a trench, but in times of trouble. 26 After the sixty-two ‘sevens,’ the Anointed One will be put to death and will have nothing. The people of the ruler who will come will destroy the city and the sanctuary. The end will come like a flood: War will continue until the end, and desolations have been decreed. 27 He will confirm a covenant with many for one ‘seven.’ In the middle of the ‘seven’ he will put an end to sacrifice and offering. And at the temple he will set up an abomination that causes desolation, until the end that is decreed is poured out on him.”  (Daniel 9:25–27, NIV).

This question is related to this post: Does the Old Testament foretell the time in history in which the Messiah would come (the first time)?

There are many possible interpretations according to the seventy weeks of Daniel followed by one half of a week where Messiah would be ‘cut off. I prefer the view that each day of the weeks are 1 year and the basic idea is this:

The period is 490 years ending 3½ years after Christ’s death. The 490 years begin with the decree by Artaxerxes I. (Ezra 7) The appearance of Messiah at the end of the 483 years is when Christ is baptized. This is where his ministry begins at which point ½ a week later (3.5 years) he is ‘cut off’ through his crucifixion. Therefore Christ put an end to sacrifice and offering as the inner curtain of the temple as torn top-to-bottom.  Through the Holy Spirit for another 3½ years after His crucifixion Christ offers salvation principally to the Jews but having generally rejected him thereby sealing the cause of the future destruction of Jerusalem [abomination of desolation], which occurred several years later. This final destruction of Jerusalem as a result is also a final ending of the sacrifices and offering but the true end was in Christ's death, the second part of it is more penal and judiciary against those who rejected him.

There are many variants and debates about the exact years, some even think the 3.5 years is the last of the ½ week. However in either case it does seem that Jesus came around the time he should have and his ministry lasted for around the 3.5 years that it should have. Regardless of the view you take it is compelling and believable.

Exod 12:5 Your lamb shall be without blemish, a male of the first year: you shall take it out from the sheep, or from the goats:

"a male of the first year"

Obviously Jesus was older than one year; but the verse can be understood as the "age" of His ministry was one year.


Where does the communication between God and Satan take place? In the book of Job, it is stated many times that Satan questioned (in His presence) the righteousness of God's servant Job and challenged Him to put Job to the test. Does this imply that Satan can withstand in the presence of God and can freely talk to Him at any time?

Luke 1:19 implies that angels are fully capable of being in the presence of God.

  The angel said to him, "I am Gabriel. I stand in the presence of God,
  and I have been sent to speak to you and to tell you this good news.

Satan, as an angel, would thus be able to commune with God in such a fashion.

I think God is present everywhere, and everywhere is in God's presence; God knows and hears all created beings, even Satan.


Does Jude 1:9 mean that Moses went to hell? Jude 1:9

  Yet Michael the archangel, in contending with the devil, when he
  disputed about the body of Moses, dared not bring against him a
  reviling accusation, but said, “The Lord rebuke you!”

What!? Michael and Satan are disputing about the body of Moses? What does this mean? Did Moses go to hell because he hit the rock twice and not just once as was ordered? What's going on here?

This question presumes that the devil only exists in hell, which is clearly a false presumption.

If we look at Jesus' temptation in the wilderness (in Matthew 4:1-11), we see that Satan exists here on earth as well:

  Matthew 4:1-3 (NIV)
  Then Jesus was led by the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted by the devil. After fasting forty days and forty nights, he was hungry. The tempter came to him and said, “If you are the Son of God, tell these stones to become bread.”

It's clear and obvious that the devil exists here on Earth from the above passage.  However, if you read the full passage, it's even more clear.

Therefore, this verse does not indicate that Moses went to hell.

Before the crucifixion of Jesus everyone who had died went to hell,Satan believed all those souls belong to him.Until when Christ had died and went to hell took away the keys from Satan and left him powerless, On the 3rd day when Jesus Resurrected many of the saints awake with him ,SATAN LOOSE. Read St Matthew 27:51,52,53 TO OUR GOD BE THE GLORY.


Context for Paul and Solomon's usage of "heap burning coals on his head." Romans 12:20 - "On the contrary: "If your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink. In doing this, you will heap burning coals on his head."
Proverbs 25:22 - "In doing this, you will heap burning coals on his head, and the LORD will reward you."

Do these two verses have the same contextual meaning or are Paul and the author of Proverbs saying different things?  And what might the meaning be given their context?

It seems that the issue here may be due to differing metaphorical purposes of burning coals.

Coals can be used to burn and harm, but they can also be used to resharpen and temper as in a forge.

From looking at the context of the verse from Paul, it would seem that his usage of the quote would have the latter purpose of to temper or reforge.  Earlier he says:

  Romans 12:9 - "Love must be sincere. Hate what is evil; cling to what is good"

I should think that doing good to one's enemies for the mere purpose of actually doing them harm later wouldn't be very "sincere."

The author of Proverb's contextual meaning on this verse seems to be more likely the former (harm) than the latter (tempering).  This is from his earlier verse:

  Proverbs 25:15 - "Through patience a ruler can be persuaded, and a gentle tongue can break a bone."

"Breaking bone" seems to have more in common with doing damage to one's enemies than bringing them into a state of righteousness.  In addition, the verse in Proverbs has the the part, "and the LORD will reward you." added on where Paul does not.  This statement of contrast with the burning coals again makes me think that he was meaning the coals would undermine or harm one's enemies.  Though, it is entirely possible that the two authors could have been saying the same thing.

Coals when burning fire red and this is not literal but when you do good to an enemy or someone that hates you they become embarrassed and their face turns red because we are to imitate Christ. The woman caught in adultery, what did J esus say to the leaders,:who is without sin cast the first stone and they all walked away embarrassed. Now Jesus was trying to teach them this, I desire mercy not sacrifice.


Why Jeremiah 10:5 was changed from palm trees to scarecrows So, I was interested in reading Jeremiah 10:1-5 as it referred to Christmas trees. I found the comparison is very striking in the King James Version. As I was looking into this, however, I noticed that some other bible translations compared the tree to a scarecrows in a cucumber field, which I found very odd.

When and why was this changed?

My other question is in regards to the first sentence of Jer 10:5. I get the first part, "They are upright as the palm tree, but speak not:", but I don't understand the second part "they must needs be born because they cannot go". What does this mean and how does it relate to a palm tree?

I generally agree with another answer and comments that “modern translations are better”, but I will elaborate a bit on how the variant translations came about. The Hebrew of interest:

  כְּתֹ֨מֶר מִקְשָׁ֥ה הֵ֙מָּה֙
  kətōmer miqšâ hēmmâ
  They [the idols] are like a tōmer of a miqšâ

Both tōmer and miqšâ are somewhat obscure. Tōmer appears only here in the OT. The KJV assumed an emendation to tāmār = palm tree (occurs 12 times in the OT), supported by the Vulgate: palmae. The Greek Septuagint doesn’t include this statement at all, so it’s not helpful. However, it is a Greek text that pushed translators in the direction of “scarecrow”. From the Epistle of Jeremiah 69(70):1

  Ὥσπερ γὰρ ἐν σικυηράτῳ προβασκάνιον οὐδὲν φυλάσσον, οὕτως οἱ θεοὶ αὐτῶν εἰσιν ξύλινοι καὶ περίχρυσοι καὶ περιάργυροι.
  Like a scarecrow in a cucumber bed that guards nothing, so are their gods of wood, overlaid with gold and silver.

Προβασκάνιον (probaskanion) is a reasonably well-attested word for "scarecrow". This secures the meaning of tōmer in Jer 10:5 because it coheres with the context: the other term there, miqšâ, means cucumber field.2

  If the object stands in a cucumber field, it has to be a scarecrow.3

Consistent with the sense of the verse, Lundbom goes on to cite evidence from classical writers about statues of gods being used as scarecrows.

As to your second question, the KJV actually says,

  they must needs be borne4  because they can not go

There’s no reason to work with the meaning “palm tree” at this point, but whether it’s a palm tree or a scarecrow, the point is that they are inanimate and therefore lame; they must be carried (“borne”).

Summary
The KJV translators were uncertain the meaning of tōmer in the Masoretic text, so they accepted an emendation of the vocalization toward the reading of the Vulgate, arriving at "palm tree". In light of external evidence, translators now nearly universally accept that the meaning is "scarecrow".

1. Deuterocanonical for Roman Catholics and Orthodox; Apocryphal for Protestants. The earliest manuscripts, from Qumran, and are in Greek. The letter is a harangue against idols that is loosely based on the book of (proto)canonical
Jeremiah.

2. See also Isaiah 1:8, where the KJV agrees. The Greek is σικυήρατον in both Is 1:8 (LXX) and Ep Jer 70(69), from σίκυς (sikus) = cucumber.

3. Jack R. Lundbom, Jeremiah 1-20. (The Anchor Yale Bible; New Haven: Yale University Press, 1974), 586.

4. Not born as in the question. To be borne is the passive form of a somewhat archaic use of the verb “to bear” meaning “to support the weight of”. The Hebrew term is often glossed “to be carried”.

Jeremiah 10:5 KJB - “THEY ARE UPRIGHT AS THE PALM TREE”

ESV - “THEIR IDOLS ARE LIKE SCARECROWS IN A CUCUMBER FIELD.”

NIV 1978, 1984 editions - "Like A SCARECROW IN A MELON PATCH, their idols cannot speak"

NIV 2011 edition - "Like A SCARECROW IN A CUCUMBER PATCH, their idols cannot speak"

Jeremiah 10 is speaking about the idols of the heathen and tells the children of Israel not to be like them.

“2 Thus saith the Lord, Learn not the way of the heathen, and be not dismayed at the signs of heaven; for the heathen are dismayed at them.

3 For the customs of the people are vain: for one cutteth a tree out of the forest, the work of the hands of the workman, with the axe.

4 They deck it with silver and with gold; they fasten it with nails and with hammers, that it move not.

5 THEY ARE UPRIGHT AS THE PALM TREE, but speak not: they must needs be borne, because they cannot go. Be not afraid of them; for they cannot do evil, neither also is it in them to do good.”

The Hebrew word here for “PALM TREE” is # 8560 tohmer, and is only used twice in the O.T.  The other instance is in Judges 4:5 where we are told about the prophetess Deborah “And she dwelt under the PALM TREE”.  Even versions like the ESV, NIV, NASB etc. translate the word as “palm tree” in that place.

The Catholic Connection

However in this place the ESV, NIV, NASB, NET, Holman, and the modern Catholic versions like the St. Joseph NAB 1970 and the New Jerusalem bible 1985 read - “They are like SCARECROWS IN A CUCUMBER PATCH.” - or “Scarecrows in a melon patch.”

Likewise, the Jehovah Witness New World Translation reads: "They are like A SCARECROW OF A CUCUMBER FIELD, and cannot speak."

However the previous Douay-Rheims 1610 and Douay 1950 both read “palm tree” and now the 2009 Catholic Public Domain Version has gone back to - “They have been fabricated in the likeness of A PALM TREE”

Agreeing with the King James Bible’s “they are upright as THE PALM TREE” are Wycliffe 1395, Coverdale 1535, the Great Bible 1540, Matthew’s Bible 1549 - “It standeth as styfe as the PALMTREE”, the Bishop’s Bible 1568 - “It standeth as stiffe as the Palme tree”,  the Geneva Bible 1599 - “The idols stand up as the PALM TREE”, Lamsa’s translation of the Syriac Peshitta - “They are set upright as PALM TREES”, Julia Smith Translation 1855, Noyes Translation 1869, the Revised Version 1881 - “They are like a PALM TREE,”  Darby 1890, Young’s 1898 - “As A PALM they are stiff”, the ASV 1901 - “They are like a PALM-TREE”, Rotherham’s Emphasized Bible 1902, The Word of Yah 1993, God's First Truth 1999, The Judaica Press Tanach 2004, the Context Group Version 2007, the Orthodox Jewish Bible 2011 - “They [the idols] are upright as the tomer (palm tree]”, the KJV 21st Century 1994, the Third Millenium Bible 1998, Green's Literal 2005, Bond Slave Version 2008, the Concordant Literal Version, the 2012 Natural Israelite Bible - “They are upright, like A PALM TREE”, the Hebraic Transliteration Scripture 2010, the Holy Scriptures VW Edition 2010, the New European Version 2010, the Online Interlinear 2010 (André de Mol), the Jubilee Bible 2010, the Biblos Interlinear Bible 2011 - "They are UPRIGHT AS THE PALM TREE", The Work of God's Children Illustrated Bible 2011, the World English Bible 2012,   .

Foreign language Bibles that follow the Hebrew text and also read “PALM TREE” are the Spanish Sagradas Escrituras 1569, Cipriano de Valera 1602, the Reina Valera 1909-1995 and Reina Valera Gómez 2004 - “Erguidos están como PALMERA”, the Portuguese Almeida Corrigida E Fiel 1681 and A Biblia Sagrada em Portugués - “Säo como a PALMEIRA”, the Tagalog Ang Dating Biblia - “Sila'y gaya ng puno ng PALMA”, the Italian Diodati 1649 and La Nuova Diodati 1991 - “Son tratti diritti, a guisa di PALMA”, the Albanian bible - “Idhujt qëndrojnë drejt si një palmë”, the Lithuanian Bible - “Jie yra tiesūs kaip palmė”

AND The Modern Greek Bible - Ειναι ορθια ως φοινιξ, αλλα δεν λαλουσιν· = "They are straight as THE PALM TREE (φοινιξ) , but they do not speak."

And the Hebrew Rashi Complete Tanach 2004 - “Like a PALM TREE” and the Hebrew Interlinear Old Testament - “כתמר as the palm tree, מקשׁה upright המה They”

Where does this weird change from “a palm tree” to “a scarecrow in a cucumber patch” come from? Not the so called Greek LXX  (It is really messed up in this section - it omits verses 6, 7, 8 and 10, and has two verse fives, neither one of which reads like the Hebrew or these modern Vatican Versions) nor the Syriac Peshitta, which reads just like the KJB has it - “They are set up straight as PALM TREES, but they do not speak.”

The Pulpit Commentary tells us - “They are upright as the palm tree; rather, they are like a pillar (i.e. a scarecrow) in a field of cucumbers. This is the interpretation given to our passage in Ver. 70 of the apocryphal Epistle of Jeremiah (written in the Maccabean period, evidently with reference to our prophecy), and is much more striking than the rival translation, "like a palm tree”.

So, in other words, it has nothing to do with the Hebrew text, which reads “palm tree” but with some APOCRYPHAL book that is not even in the Bible, and it is “an interpretaion” they like it because “it is much more striking” than that dull old “palm tree”.   Folks, this is how modern scholarship works.

John Gill comments: “They are upright as the palm tree, Being nailed to a post, or fastened to a pillar, or set upon a pedestal, and so stand erect without bending any way; and are like a palm tree, which is noted for its uprightness.”

Jamieson, Fausset and Brown comment: -“5. upright—or, "They are of turned work, resembling a palm tree" [Maurer]. The point of comparison between the idol and the palm is in the pillar-like uprightness of the latter”

John Calvin translated it into Latin as “palm tree” - “Sicuti palma aequalis” and then comments: “They are indeed erect as the palm-trees; and thus there appears in them something remarkable: but they speak not.”

Adam Clarke Commentary - “They are upright as the palm tree - As straight and as stiff as the trees out of which they are hewn.”

Matthew Poole’s Commentary - “They are upright as the palm tree; the nature of which is to grow upright and tall, without any branchings, till it comes to the top, thereby possibly representing majesty.”

Some Other Weird Versions (so you can get a better sense of the meaning, don't ya know ;-)

The Ancient Roots Translinear bible 2008 says: "HAMMERED TO A DATE-PALM, it speaks nothing"

Interlinear Hebrew Scriptures 2012 (Mebust) - "LIKE A ROUNDED POST, THEY ARE, and they cannot speak"

The King James Bible is right, as always.


Does a comprehensive list for apostolic succession exist? I'm actively studying apostolic succession and am trying to make a website (with API) that would try to make a timeline. However, finding the links between two bishops/priests is very hard to do.

I've tried using Catholic Hierarchy but the results don't show whose consecrated who, and thus the link between them gets a bit iffy.

Of course, what I'm asking for might be something that I still don't yet understand entirely, but any help is appreciated. :)

I believe that Catholic Hierarchy is currently the best tool for showing apostolic succession.

Keep in mind that written records only exist going back to the Renaissance, and they get spottier as we go back in history.

However, looking at (for example) the page for Cardinal Timothy Dolan of New York, scrolling down past the “events” table and “micro-data summary,” we see that Cardinal Dolan was ordained a bishop by then-Archbishop Justin Rigali. Clicking on (now) Cardinal Rigali’s link, we see that he was ordained a bishop by Pope St. John Paul II, and so forth.

There is another complication to keep in mind with regard to apostolic succession: most episcopal ordinations are acually concelebrations. That is, a minimum of three bishops lay their hands on the ordinand, and all three pronounce the essential words of consecration. The apostolic succession, therefore, could just as legitimately be traced through the so-called co-consecrators (visible just under the “principal consecrator” field). Moreover, there are often more than three concelebrants, and these do not make it into the records.

(The custom of having multiple consecrators—however it arose—has the advantage of removing, for all intents and purposes, all possible doubt as to the validity of the episcopal ordination.)

If you keep clicking, you will note that the vast majority of Western bishops can trace their lineage to a certain Cardinal Scipione Rebiba. (This happened because Pope Benedict XIII, who traced his line to Cardinal Rebiba, consecrated no less than 139 bishops, for dioceses across Europe.) Unfortunately, we do not know who ordained Cardinal Rebiba a bishop (though there is no doubt that he was an auxiliary bishop in Chieti, Italy, and later archbishop of Pisa), so the written records largely stop there.

Here is your answer from the Orthodox Church:
https://www.saintgeorgekearney.com/apostolic_succession
The Orthodox Church goes all the way back to the apostles and has never been broken.


Should Christians marry non-Christians? The new testament talks of not being yoked with unbelievers -

  2 Corinthians 6:14 "Do not be yoked together with unbelievers."

The old testament forbids intermarriage with other nations -

  Deuteronomy 7:3 "Do not intermarry with them. Do not give your
  daughters to their sons or take their daughters for your sons."

For modern day Christians, is there any reason where marrying a non Christian is a good idea?

No, there are no reasons that would make this a good idea.

In the Old Testament we see an explicit prohibition on people inside God's chosen people marrying those outside of it on the grounds that it would cause them to turn away from serving their God.

  Deuteronomy 7:3-4 (ESV)
  3  You shall not intermarry with them, giving your daughters to their sons or taking their daughters for your sons, 4  for they would turn away your sons from following me, to serve other gods.  Then the anger of the Lord would be kindled against you, and he would destroy you quickly.

We see no change brought to this concept in the New Testament, however it should be noted that the outlook on "nations" is a little different now than it used to be.

Originally, it was primarily to the nation of Israel to whom God extended the offer of grace and salvation. There were some exceptional cases where outsiders were brought into that covenant, but the marriage restrictions were indicative of the fact that national lines were also belief lines.

With the actual coming of Christ, the floodgates are opened in a new way and gentiles are grafted into the people of the promise. The national boundaries are no longer important because they do not symbolize a difference in reception of God's grace. The terminology is now to be understood in light of the spiritual family of those that have been called by God.

Marrying outside of (and becoming one with) someone outside of God's family WILL cause a rift in your fellowship with God.

  2 Corinthians 6:14 (ESV)
  14  Do not be unequally yoked with unbelievers. For what partnership has righteousness with lawlessness? Or what fellowship has light with darkness?

Marrying a person who does not believe in God is not against the sculpture. The good answer can be found in second commandment (see Matthew 22:37-40):

  Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with
  all your soul and with all your mind. This is the first and greatest
  commandment. And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as
  yourself'.

According to this the man/hunsband is 'the neighbor'.