Ruling on eating pork in Christianity as per Bible? I am  very new to Christanity and so kindly bear with me if my question appears novice. I want to know what is the ruling on eating pork in Christianity as per Bible?

Unlike Judaism, Christianity has no rule prohibiting (or commanding) the eating of pork. In fact, in Acts 10:9-16, Peter has a vision where a sheet is lowered from Heaven with "all sorts of animals, reptiles, and birds" on it. He is then commanded to get up, kill, and eat the animals. To this, Peter is shocked and replies that he has never eaten anything unclean (as per the Judaic Law). To this, God replies:

  Acts 10:15 (NLT)
  15 But the voice spoke again: “Do not call something unclean if God has made it clean.”

There is of course a deeper meaning, but on the surface, God is telling Peter that nothing is unclean now (that is, no animals are unclean). This includes pigs and pork, so eating bacon and the like is perfectly acceptable (and happens quite often in the United States) among Christians. Another piece of support is that the four things still considered prohibited for Christians are listed in Acts 15:

  Acts 15:29 (NLT)
  29 You must abstain from eating food offered to idols, from consuming blood or the meat of strangled animals, and from sexual immorality. If you do this, you will do well. Farewell.

None of these four actions apply to typical ways to consume pork. So, as a Christian, it is perfectly fine to eat pork.

As noted by waxeagle in a comment, not all Christians consider it acceptable to eat pork. Some sects maintain a kosher lifestyle whereas others abstain from meat entirely. However, these don't compose a significant portion of Christianity. The best course of action is to ask the Christian group you're part of.

@gpuguy, Jesus finished with "...until all is accomplished." Since he didn't go into detail about accomplishment, it might be a point of debate as to what this means. The two ideas I've considered are:

the end of time
Based on other things, like what you've mentioned, it would be complicated to reconcile this statement with others that seem to say that the Mosaic law doesn't apply to us. It would seem that there is some sort of contradiction between being bound by the law and being freed from the law.

Jesus' mission on earth is finished.
Whereas, if the accomplishment referred to Jesus' mission as a man (cf. Jn 19:30, "It is finished."), it is very straightforward (for me) to reconcile this with Jesus' own statements and those of Paul concerning the old law and the "new way." Jesus death (and eventual resurrection) has some strong suggestions that the Mosaic law ("the law of sin and death," as Paul says it; Ro 8:2) is a thing of the past, like the veil in the temple being torn in two. Jesus came to fulfill the law (which might, in itself, suggest that the law was no longer needed).

Jesus created a new covenant, separate and distinct from the Mosaic law.

Jeremiah 31:31 (NASB)  "Behold, days are coming," declares the LORD, "when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah,
Luke 22:19-20 (NASB)  And when He had taken some bread and given thanks, He broke it and gave it to them, saying, "This is My body which is given for you; do this in remembrance of Me." And in the same way He took the cup after they had eaten, saying, "This cup which is poured out for you is the new covenant in My blood."

Paul asserts that the Law is good and had a purpose, but that it has been superseded:

Romans 8:2 (NASB)  For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has set you free from the law of sin and of death.

I'm willing to entertain arguments about how we (all Christians) are still bound by the Mosaic law, but they would need to address the requirement to obey all of the law, including animal sacrifices (which seem completely unnecessary since Jesus is our once-and-for-all atoning sacrifice), temple worship, etc.
(EDIT:Added Conclusion)
To specifically address the question of whether Christians should abstain from eating pork: There's no reason why they should abstain, since the Christians are not under the Mosaic law.


Why isn’t the soul (ψυχή) considered to be a “person” (ὑπόστασις)? From my understanding, the unity of spirit, soul, and body is considered to be a ὑπόστασις, or “person.” But, what argument is there against the soul itself (apart from the body) being a ὑπόστασις? It seems the soul possesses reason. It exists by itself. So, why is it not considered to be a ὑπόστασις? Or, if it is considered to be a ὑπόστασις, where and by whom is such an argument affirmed? I am particularly interested in an answer in accordance with Catholic beliefs.

NOTE: To clarify, I am using «ὑπόστασις» as an equivalent to the Greek πρόσωπον and Latin persona as understood in Trinitarian creeds and theology.

Humans are living souls. Soul (psyche) means the breathing existence. The body (soma) is the outward appearance and the physique of the human.
It all means the same human being. Soul more in the sense of living and ability to feel. Body more in the sense of physical existence.

The spirit, pneuma, is what moves the person, what his thoughts are and his emotions.

It all is the human as one whole living being.

The difference is regarding what of a person one is looking at. It is about aspects to the human, not about entities or compound parts.

In certain instances the soul is considered the person, but in a more impersonal way to say. (Name, onoma, would be the more personal expression.)

Person (prosopon) is used for the human encounter, the facial and bodily appearance towards one another.

The idea of dualism between body and soul is natural to the Greek world, and to the Mediterranean cultures steeped in hellenism. But such dualism does not exist in the Hebrew thought. Hence, the Corinthians seems to have balked at Paul's idea of bodily resurrection (1 Cor. 15:35-58). In the Bible, only God is Immortal (I Tim. 1:17). There is no soul that is immortal because God said, man will "surely" die (Gen. 2:17). He didn't said, "you will not surely die but go separate from your bodies and wing your way to heaven, a separate entity." Rather, we expressly find in Ezekiel 18:4,20: "the soul the sinneth, it shall die."


Was Jesus Christ crucified on the 14th of Nisan (April 3, 33) or the 15th (April 4, 33)? The Jewish calendar calculates a day from sunset to sunset, thus the Last Supper (on the Thursday evening) and Jesus' crucifixion (on Friday afternoon) happened in the same day. In John Gospel this day was the 14th of Nisan (April 3, 33 CE) of the Jewish calendar; In the three Synoptic Gospels the Last Supper is a Passover meal so Jesus' crucifixion must have taken place during the afternoon of the festival itself, the 15th of Nisan (April 4, 33 CE).

Both dates obviously can not be true. Which date is correct?

Writing in The Mystery Of The Last Supper, Professor Sir Colin Humphreys, a scientist at the University of Cambridge, proposes a new solution, based on a combination of Biblical, historical and astronomical research. He urgues that Jesus used a different calendar and crucifixion took place in the 14th of Nisan (April 3, 33 CE) of the official post-exilic Jewish calendar. He explains:

" I have worked with an expert astronomer to investigate, for the first time, the possibility that a third Jewish calendar was in use in the first century A.D. The official Jewish calendar at the time of Jesus' death was that still used by Jews today: a lunar system in which days run from sunset to sunset. This was developed during the Jewish exile in Babylon in the sixth century B.C. Before that, however, the Jews had a different system. This is referred to in the Book of Exodus, in the Old Testament, when God instructs Moses and Aaron to start their year at the time of the Exodus from Egypt.

There is extensive evidence that this original Jewish calendar survived to Jesus' time. It was used by groups such as the Samaritans, Zealots, some Galileans and some Essenes. Under this pre-exilic calendar, Passover always fell a few days earlier than in the official Jewish calendar, and the days were marked from sunrise to sunrise, not sunset to sunset.

Using our reconstruction of this calendar we can see that in A.D. 33, the year of the Crucifixion, the Passover meal was on the Wednesday of Holy Week. From the clues they give, it's clear that Matthew, Mark and Luke all used the pre-exilic calendar in their description of the Last Supper as a Passover meal, whereas John uses the official calendar in which the Last Supper was before the Passover.

Holy Thursday is the well-known day on which Christians annually commemorate the Last Supper of Jesus. But my research shows that we should really be celebrating this on the Wednesday of Holy Week. A Wednesday Last Supper with the Crucifixion on Friday also allows just the right amount of time for all the events the Gospels record between the Last Supper and the Crucifixion".

Scripture is explicitly clear that Passover is Nisan 14th. Nisan 15th is the High Sabbath of Feast of Unleavened Bread, and no work could be done, this includes cooking, buying and selling and burying a body. The question is a bit unclear, and has several assumptions built in. In the body of the original question, there are 2 assumptions, which create problems.

The assumption of the year 33 AD, and
the Assumption the crucifixion was a Friday.

The entire problem of the confusion about Christ's death, burial and resurrection comes from a lack of understanding of Jewish culture and holidays.  First off - In Hebrew, all the 7 feasts are Shabbat - the root of our word Sabbath.  So we have weekly Shabbat, and then the 7 feasts which are also Shabbat - Day of Atonement, Pentecost, Feast of Booths, etc.
All feasts are Shabbat, but not all are high sabbath, or more specifically - on some, no work was allowed all all, not even cooking.
Passover is a feast, but is there is a lot of work involved in making a fire and slaughtering a lamb, before the priests did this in the temple. Passover was the day of Preparation before the High Sabbath of Feast of Unleavened Bread in which no work could be done. The special commands of "no servile work" was not given for Passover.
https://www.blueletterbible.org/faq/crux.cfm  "Please note, the Passover is not a High Sabbath day, this important fact is often overlooked. You can tell because the usual command for a sabbath of "an holy convocation and no servile work is to be done," is not given for Passover. So while Passover is a feast day, it is not a sabbath day."
It was however given for Feast of Unleavened Bread, Nisan 15th.  This also included no buying or selling, nor burying a body.  Dick H cites 2 passages that mention "the day before the Sabbath".  He cited these passages as evidence that the crucifixion was Friday, but it's the same mistake the Church made. The church assumed this was the weekly Sabbath, but in the original Greek, Matthew 28:1 says Sabbaths plural.
"What the Bible says about After the Sabbaths (From Forerunner Commentary)
Matthew 28:1 provides additional proof of two Sabbaths occurring that week. However, the Bible's translators, confused by the Greek wording of this verse, have consistently mistranslated it. Matthew writes, "Now after the Sabbath, as the first day of the week began to dawn . . . ." The wording of the original text, though, reads, "after the Sabbaths" - plural! Richard T. Ritenbaugh"
There are two nails in the coffin of the Friday Myth.

First is the words of Christ himself - The only sign that Christ gave that He was the Messiah was the sign of the Prophet Jonah.  What was the sign of Jonah?

Jonah 17:1  And the Lord appointed a great fish to swallow up Jonah. And Jonah was in the belly of the fish three days and three nights."  Christ quotes Jonah and repeats the exact words from the Prophet, in Matthew 12:40 "For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the whale's belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth. (Matthew 12:40)
"What about the sign of Jonah?
"Was the prophet in the great fish's belly for a complete 72 hours? The marginal note in Bullinger's Companion Bible for Jonah 1:17 reads: "Three days and three nights. The Hebrew idiom 'three days' can be used for parts of three days (and even of years): but not when the word 'nights' is added" (our emphasis). By the addition of "nights," the expression becomes more specific, precluding the idea of "parts" of days!"
https://www.bibletools.org/index.cfm/fuseaction/Library.sr/CT/CGGBOOKLETS/k/419/After-Three-Days.htm  Multiple Jewish rabbis confirm that typical custom of "Jewish inclusive reckoning" - counting parts of a day as a whole day - does not apply in passages where the text explicitly says 3 days and 3 nights, or 40 days and 40 nights, etc.

The second nail in the coffin of the Friday myth is the spices.

The text explicitly says the "women rested on the sabbath"  and then "bought spices after the Sabbath". This is not possible at all with a Friday crucifixion - just before sundown.
In the first century, the only light besides the sun, moon and stars was candles/ torches.    It was forbidden to buy and sell on the weekly Sabbath.  Think about it.
Merchants would not have taken all their goods to the market, and set up shop in the dark after the sabbath ended on Saturday night. It was not only impractical, but a safety risk of being robbed.
This is also why a Thursday crucifixion doesn't work at all.
The women rested on the high sabbath of Unleavened bread, - Wed night & Thursday Day.

Bought spices on Friday, "After the Sabbath" -being after the high Sabbath of Unleavened bread. Then they rested on the Weekly Sabbath of Friday evening, Saturday day.

Also, the points made by multiple people that there were at least 3 calendars in use at the time are correct. Besides the calendar used by the Romans - there was a calendar used by the Essenes, the Pharisees and the Sadducees.
This is also confirmed by the Jewish historian Josephus who wrote of the hundreds of thousands of people in Jerusalem for Passover. It would have been physically impossible for all the priests to sacrifice all the lambs on one day.
This also explains the issue of how Christ and his disciples ate the Passover meal, and yet he was crucified on Passover.
A 33 AD crucifixion also is a huge problem because it makes Christ too old. He was born about 3 or 4 BC, and scripture says that he was about 30 when we started his ministry and the Gospels record 3 Passovers in his ministry, so this fits with a 30 AD date and age of 33.
Furthermore, in Jewish burial customs, it is believed that the spirit lingers near the body for 3 days, and one could be in a coma. After 3 days - the spirit does not remain, and thus making resurrection impossible.  This is why the "resurrection" cannot be explained by the "Coma theory" but most importantly, we see three examples in scripture of someone dying and being dead for at least 3 days and 3 nights.

Christ
Lazarus
and the 2 witnesses in Revelation 11:3-12.


Why would angels climb a stairway if they have wings? I was just reading about Jacob's Dream at Bethel and I had a question:
Why would angels be ascending and descending a stairway (or a ladder, in other versions of the Christian Bible) from Earth to Heaven if they possess of wings?

Jacob's Dream at Bethel
10Jacob left Beersheba and set out for Harran. 11When he reached a certain place, he stopped for the night because the sun had set. Taking one of the stones there, he put it under his head and lay down to sleep. 13He had a dream in which he saw a stairway resting on the earth, with its top reaching to heaven, and the angels of God were ascending and descending on it.
Genesis 28:10-13 | New International Version (NIV)

There seems to be no denying that in the Christian Bible, angels have wings.

There are definitely two types of angels mentioned in the Bible that have wings - cherubim and seraphim:

“The cherubim shall spread out their wings above, overshadowing the mercy seat with their wings, their faces one to another; toward the mercy seat shall the faces of the cherubim be” (Exodus 25:20).
“And the sound of the wings of the cherubim was heard as far as the outer court, like the voice of God Almighty when he speaks” (Ezekiel 10:5).
“In the year that King Uzziah died I saw the Lord sitting upon a throne, high and lifted up; and the train of his robe filled the temple.  Above him stood the seraphim. Each had six wings: with two he covered his face, and with two he covered his feet, and with two he flew” (Isaiah 6:1-2).

Hebrews 1:14 tells us that angels are spirit beings, and since angels are not bound by the laws of the physical universe, it is unclear as to why the angels would require wings. Often, angels take the appearance of men (wingless).
In Genesis 28:10-12 Jacob sees something similar to a ladder or a stairway (Hebrew word: sullam) which signifies a connection between God and man. In this instance, it was God who provided the means necessary to link Himself to man as opposed to the men of Babel in Genesis 11 who tried to reach heaven by their own actions, aside from the help of God.  Remember, this was a dream Jacob had.  It was not a physical or real ladder/stairway, but a vision used to convey a message to Jacob.

In the Gospel of John 1:51 our Lord Jesus tells us what the ladder is a picture of:

And he saith unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Hereafter ye shall see heaven open, and the angels of God ascending and descending upon the Son of man.

The ladder is Jesus.
In Jacob's dream the Angels are a picture of communication between Heaven and Earth (downward), and between mankind and God (upward).  The Angels ascending up the stairs represent the prayers of men ascending up to God in Heaven; the Angels descending represent God's gracious acts and words towards mankind.
The Angels only go up and down the staircase/ladder because it is only because of Jesus's mediation that God is willing to hear our prayers (receive the angels going Heavenward) and it is only because of Jesus's mediation that God sends gracious words and acts earthward (sends angels down the stairs).
Jesus is the only mediator between God and men (1 Timothy 2:5).  God would not be able to communicate with mankind if there had been no Lord Jesus Christ,  because our sins have cut us off from him and our sins are such an offence to God.  Jesus's life on behalf of sinners and death on behalf of sinners is the only reason God is able to listen to us and to deal graciously with us.  Outside of Christ God says to us

your iniquities have separated between you and your God, and your sins have hid his face from you, so that he will not hear.  (Isaiah 59:2)

The ladder, with its angels ascending and descending, is a picture of the Jesus's words

"no man comes to the Father except through me" (John 14:6).

Matthew Henry the English puritan, in his commentary, adds another option of interpretation before commenting specifically on why the angels need to use the ladder only:

Jacob saw a ladder which reached from earth to heaven, the angels ascending and descending upon it, and God himself at the head of it.  Now this represents two things that are very comfortable to good people at all times, and in all conditions:-
(1.) The providence of God, by which there is a constant correspondance kept up between heaven and earth.  The counsels of heaven are executed on earth, and the actions and affairs of this earth are all known in heaven and judged there.  Providence does its work gradually, and by steps. Angels are employed as ministering spirits, to serve all the purposes and designs of Providence, and the wisdom of God is at the upper end of the ladder, directing all the motions of the second causes to the glory of the first Cause.
The angels are active spirits, continually ascending and descending; they rest not, day nor night, from service, according to the posts assigned to them.  They ascend, to give account of what they have done, and to receive orders; and then descend, to execute the orders they have received.
Thus we ourselves should always abound in the work of the Lord, that we may do it as the angels do it (Psalm 103:20,21).
This vision gave very seasonable comfort to Jacob, letting him know that he had both a good guide and a good guard, in his going out and coming in, - that, though he was made to wander from his father's house, yet he still was the care of a kind Providence, and the charge of the holy angels. ... Jacob was now the type and representative of the whole church, with the guardianship of which the angels are entrusted.
(2.)  The mediation of Christ.  He is the ladder, the foot on earth in his human nature, the top in heaven in his divine nature: or the former in his humiliation, the latter in his exaltation.  All the communication between heaven and earth, since the fall, is by this ladder.  Christ is the way; all God's favours come to us, and all our services go to him, by Christ.
If God dwell with us, and we with him, it is by Christ.  We have no way of getting to heaven, but by this ladder; if we climb up any other way we are thieves and robbers.  To this vision our Saviour alludes when he speaks of the angels of God ascending and descending upon the Son of man (John 1:51); for the kind offices the angels do us, and the benefits we receive by their ministration, are all owing to Christ, who has reconciled things on earth and things in heaven (Colossians 1:20), and made them all meet in himself (Ephesians 1:10).


Meaning behind skull at the base of a cross? I recently visited the Museum of Russian Icons on vacation and while there I came across many icons that portrayed the crucifix with a skull at the base of cross (example).

What is the significance behind the skull at the base of a crucifix?

There seems to be two interpretations of the meaning of the skull at the base of the cross, the first is more symbolic and the second is more historical:

The skull represents Adam, the first man, along with original sin. Jesus was sent to Earth to absolve us of our sins through His death. Jesus' blood is washing away our sins by flowing across the skull of Adam and that Jesus is above sin. (Source: http://ricklobs.blogspot.com/2009/03/have-you-ever-noticed-skull-at-base-of.html)
The hill that Jesus was crucified on was called Golgotha, or Skull Hill. This is where Adam was reportedly buried and the Lord was crucified where Adam lay. (Source: http://mysite.pratt.edu/~wburg/paint/p3skull.html) (Source 2: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golgota)

According to Dr. Hugh Farrell who was head of a catholic seminary in the USA the reason the skull is there is when the roman soldiers dug the socket for the cross the hole was a bit too large, this caused the cross to be unstable so the soldiers looked around for a boulder to jam in the socket, they didn't find any but they did come across a skull which turned out to be Adam's skull, this meant that when Jesus' blood flowed it poured onto the skull thus washing away Adam's original sin


According to Catholicism, what did St Paul mean by "a thorn in the flesh"? We see St Paul writing at 2 Corinthians 12:7 (RSVCE)

  And to keep me from being too elated by the abundance of revelations, a thorn was given me in the flesh, a messenger of Satan, to harass me, to keep me from being too elated.

What exactly was St. Paul referring to here ? Was he telling an idiom of his time in order to show that he was undergoing some painful medical condition ? Or, was he referring to the temptations of flesh? Are there any authentic interpretations from the side of Catholic Church on the saying of St Paul?

The Catholic Haydock Commentary on 2 Cor. 12:7 says:

  A sting of my flesh,[1] an angel, or a messenger of Satan, to buffet me. The Latin word [stimulus] signifies any thing that pricks or stings, the Greek word [σκόλοψ] a sharp stick or pale: he speaks by a metaphor, as also when he says to buffet me; that is, by causing great trouble or pain. Some understand by it a violent headache or pain, or distemper in the body. St. Augustine mentions this opinion, and does not reject it, in Psalm xcviii. tom. 4. p. 1069.; in Psalm cxxx. p. 1465. St. Jerome also speaks of it in chap. iv. ad Galatas, tom. 4. p. 274, Ed. Ben. But St. Chrysostom, by the sting, and the angel of Satan, understands that opposition which St. Paul met with from his enemies, and those of the gospel; as Satan signifies an adversary. Others understand troublesome temptations of the flesh, immodest thoughts, and representations, suggested by the devil, and permitted by Almighty God for his greater good.

In your question you have a scope of the Catholic Church, but sorta.  If you don't mind, I have taken the liberty to add the perspective of the Latter-day Saints.
The King James Version of the verse you reference is: (The translation I am working with)

7 And lest I should be exalted above measure through the abundance of the revelations, there was given to me a thorn in the flesh, the messenger of Satan to buffet me, lest I should be exalted above measure.
8 For this thing I besought the Lord thrice, that it might depart from me.
9 And he said unto me, My grace is sufficient for thee: for my strength is made perfect in weakness. Most gladly therefore will I rather glory in my infirmities, that the power of Christ may rest upon me.
10 Therefore I take pleasure in infirmities, in reproaches, in necessities, in persecutions, in distresses for Christ’s sake: for when I am weak, then am I strong.

A "Thorn in the Flesh" is a weakness or weaknesses to remind us of our dependence on God.  He recognizes why the thorn is there and is fine with his weakness so the Power of Christ can rest upon him.

The Lord seems to have several purposes in giving us trials: First, to test and prove us, to see if we are loyal to Him and to our beliefs. Second, to give us the opportunity to prove that we love Him more than any other thing. Third, to teach us something about ourselves and our commitment to remain true and focused on the eternal nature and possibilities of our lives, our families, and the mission of the Church.
When we understand the principle of opposition in all things, reasons for adversity and disappointment, and the blessings of trials, we can accept the daily events of our lives with greater hope and desire to endure well and to look unto Christ, that His power may rest upon us and see us happily through our mortal lives. Is it any wonder then that Paul glories in his infirmities or takes pleasure in reproaches, persecutions, and distress? These are among the vital means of growth and the development of true Godlike character.

Our Thorns in the Flesh, Elder Ray H. Wood, February 2003


Was the Book of the Law (Torah) ever kept inside the Ark of the Covenant? Deuteronomy 31:24-26 (NIV) After Moses finished writing in a book the
  words of this law from beginning to end, he gave this command to the
  Levites who carried the ark of the covenant of the Lord: “Take this
  Book of the Law and place it beside the ark of the covenant of the
  Lord your God. There it will remain as a witness against you.

This verse indicates that the Torah was placed beside the Ark of the Covenant and stood there as a  witness.  But this Wikipedia mentions the Torah as once kept inside the Ark.

Was there any chance ever that the Torah was kept inside the Ark? Is there any verse supporting it? (If the information in Wikipedia is not credible, someone must update it)

Note: Readers should not be confused between Torah (book) and the stone tablets (10 Commandments). The question here is about the Book, not the tablets.

The rabbis debate the meaning of the verse in Bava Batra 14b. מִצַּד is a rare combination, but it certainly means "beside" in Jos. 3:16, Jos. 12:9, Ruth 2:14, 1 Sam. 20:25. I see no instances where it can unequivocally be asserted to mean "in," "inside," or "within." Had Moshe intended to say that it was placed "inside" the Ark, why wouldn't he have written ב or בקרב instead?

For example, using the same verb that is found in Deut. 31:26 (a conjugation of the verb שׂוּם, meaning "to put" or "to place"), Isaiah writes (Isa. 63:11),

  ...Where is He who put His Holy Spirit within him?

The prophet uses the prepositional phrase בְּקִרְבּוֹ (bekirbo). The context makes it clear that God puts or places His Holy Spirit inside an individual.

Another example is Deut. 10:2 where we find, again, the same verb, but this time, Moshe uses the prepositional prefix ב.

  And I will write on the tables the words that were on the first tables which you broke, and you shall put them in the Ark.

Here, God commands Moshe to put the tables (which have the Ten Commandments written upon them) in the Ark, which is translated from the Hebrew phrase בָּאָרוֹן (ba'aron).

So, the tablets are placed בָּאָרוֹן, "in the Ark." Why not write the same for the Torah scroll if indeed it was located "in the Ark"? There's simply nothing which explicitly confirms that it was indeed located in the Ark. Again, the prepositional phrase מִצַּד is never used in a context meaning "inside" or "in."

There are 2 books: The Book of the Covenant and the Book of the Law.

The book of the covenant is inside the ark, the book of the law is on the outside.

Exodus 25:16 says you shall put INTO the ark the Covenant "law" (book of the covenant) Everything from Gen 1:1 - Exod 24:11

This includes: the Feast Days--these are not JEWISH they are GOD'S, the dietary commandments, and the "10 words" on stone that Moses broke.

Deut 31:26 says to put the book of the law beside the ark of the covenant as a testimony AGAINST the children of Israel because they sinned and YHWH (GOD) was upset with them. (book of the law)   Ex. 24:12 - Deut

The Promise belongs to Abraham's seed. Those who do the work of Abraham will be saved...not to Aaron/Levi's seed. It is not about genealogy, the only blood that matters is Jesus's blood.

Abraham wasn't a Jew, he didn't go to a temple and he never knew a Levite.

Abraham paid tithe to Melchizadek.

Jesus is in the order of Melchizadek Hebrews 6:20.


What does Revelation 6:12 mean? I've always thought that in Revelation 6:12 where it says:

  I watched as he opened the sixth seal. There was a great earthquake. The sun turned black like sackcloth made of goat hair...

... that the sun would actually turn black. But about a week ago I found in Genesis:

  "As long as the earth endures, seedtime and harvest, cold and heat, summer and winter, day and night will never cease." - Genesis 8:22

So I guess that won't happen. What does it mean, then?

The darkening of the sun (and the other signs) are repeatedly emphasised as heralding the day of judgement, by the prophets and in the New Testament, including by Jesus himself.
Regarding your Genesis 8:22 reference, I think an important part of that verse is the first bit: "As long as the earth endures". All of these prophecies are about the end of the world, so the condition no longer holds. (Admittedly, the Revelation chronology does not have the actual end of the world occurring at this precise moment - but I would tend to see the end of the world as a single "event" regardless of how long it takes to accomplish.)
This section of Revelation draws heavily from Isaiah, who prophesied that on "the Day of the Lord", (13:4, NJB)

The sun will be dark when it rises, and the moon will no longer give its light.

Similarly, Ezekiel 32:7 prophesied against Pharaoh, saying:

When I extinguish you I shall cover the skies and darken the stars. I shall cover the sun with clouds and the moon will not give its light.

Joel (2:10, 4:15) uses language similar to Isaiah above, and specifically (3:4 or 2:31 depending on your Bible) says:

The sun will be turned into darkness, and the moon into blood, before the Day comes, that great and terrible Day.

Peter quotes this passage in Acts 2:20. Most importantly, Jesus himself said (Matthew 24:29, also Mark 13:24):

Immediately after the distress of those days the sun will be darkened, the moon will not give its light, the stars will fall from the sky and the powers of the heavens will be shaken.

These signs demonstrate the sovereignty of God over the heavens, and show that his Day is literally a universe-changing event. It is not confined to any one group of people, but affects the entire world. Here, the reference to sackcloth brings to mind mourning garments, a poignant reference for what is about to happen: the sun itself is in mourning.
After the judgement, there will be no need for the sun and moon in any case. Their transformation or disappearance at this time shows us that the New Jerusalem is on its way.

No more will the sun give you daylight, nor moonlight shine on you, but Yahweh will be your everlasting light, your God will be your splendour. Your sun will set no more, nor will your moon wane, for Yahweh will be your everlasting light and your days of mourning will be over. (Isaiah 60:19-20)
I could not see any temple in the city since the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb were themselves the temple, and the city did not need the sun or the moon for light, since it was lit by the radiant glory of God, and the Lamb was a lighted torch for it. (Revelation 21:22-23)

the sixth seal (rev 6:12-13) are prophecies that have already been fulfilled, it is the sign of the opening and establishment of the new world., where people went to escape religious prosecution.

verse 12 gives us three signs signifying the sixth seal being opened.

  "and lo there was a great earthquake"

Great earthquake of Lisbon 1755 which killed a huge amount of people and was one of the biggest earthquakes in history

  "and the sun became black as a sackcloth of hair, and the moon became as blood"

the dark day of New England may 19th 1780 it was dark in the daytime, and the moon was red.

  "and the stars of heaven fell unto the earth , even as a fig tree casteth her untimely figs"

The great meteor shower of 1833 when countless meteors shot across the sky, and the meteors appeared to fly in all directions, and has been one of the biggest meteor showers in recorded history.

notice how all these events happened in the order that rev 6:12-13 puts them in.

But these are only telling us that we are close, but we will never know how close.
Because we cannot guess when the day will come, because he comes as a thief in the night, and people will not be prepared for his coming.
we can only look to the signs and prophecies that signify that his coming is close, but not yet.

may peace be upon you all, and i pray that each and every one of you who read this will stay fervent seekers of truth, and will come to understand the truth more and more.
do not pray to god to be right in what you say, but pray that you will find what is right instead. and continually seek for truth, and to understand it.
Because even an 80 year old man who has studied the bible for almost his whole life, still finds, and comes to understand more things the more he studies it.

god speed.


Was there a sacrifice in the Old Testament for intentional sins? When reading through the law in the Old Testament it seems that there are only sacrifices for unintentional sins. Is this true? How does the New Testament handle intentional sins such as drunkenness, lust, bad habits, etc? And, how does the Old Testament deal with these sins as far as forgiveness goes?

The Old Testament is clear that only unintentional sins can be atoned for:

  One and the same law applies to everyone who sins unintentionally, whether a native- born Israelite or a foreigner residing among you.
   “‘But anyone who sins defiantly, whether native- born or foreigner, blasphemes the Lord and must be cut off from the people of Israel. (Numbers 15:29-30, NIV)

The idea of 'intentional' is better understood as 'defiant' or 'high handed'. Unintentional therefore includes many sins committed due to want of knowledge, through weakness, or where the offender did not really understand his guilt. Intentional sin, is not that you were consciously aware of sinning, like when King David committed adultery, rather it is more of a public defiance against the covenant, like the man stoned for picking up sticks on the Sabbath (Num 15:32), just after God had declared that the whole camp should not work on the Sabbath.  This open rebellion during the establishment of the ceremony was like a spirit of mutiny on a ship at sea. This is what 'intentional' means in this context.

The punishment of 'cut off' is understood differently by various ancient and modern commentators. However as many 'high handed' sins were punishable by death, the term should not be confused with excommunication as some sins incurred but as in literally being put to death. Naturally their is no atonement for that.

In the New Testament this 'cutting off'' is referred to in three ways.

First as 'intentional sin' is actually open unrepentant rebellion to God. This has a corresponding reality in blasphemy against the Holy Spirit (Heb 6:4).

  And so I tell you, every kind of sin and slander can be forgiven, but blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven. Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but anyone who speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come. (Matthew 12:31-32, NIV)

Second in showing when people commit great sins that seem like blasphemy but are not due to 'ignorance', such as Peter's sermon in Acts which implied many Jews killed Christ 'in ignorance' (Acts 3:17). Peter is saying, 'Even though it seems that you have 'intentionally' sinned when killing Christ, many of you did not actually blaspheme the Holy Spirit because you did it in 'ignorance', so I offer you today atonement even for that sin through Christ.'

Third, for sins where capital punishment was the penalty but not necessarily implying a 'high handed' full rebellion from the covenant, the New Testament provides an atoning sacrifice in Christ, including murder, adultery, etc.   Therefore being put to death for sin in the Old Testament is not to imply that each offender could not be forgiven by faith, just not forgiven by Mosaic Law.

  Through him everyone who believes is set free from every sin, a justification you were not able to obtain under the law of Moses. (Acts 13:39, NIV)

To suggest that all sin, both intential and not were not forgiven after a proper sacrifice was offered, simply because the word, "intential" is not used, places the forgiving power of God at odds with His mercy.   Remember, the word, "trinity" is not found in scripture yet it exists.
On another note-the comment made that the sacrifices of the ot were useless is just a total misunderstanding of scripture.  To say they only pointed toward Christ ia again another misunderstanding of scripture.  There is a clear and present lack of theological understanding on your part.  You strive to show yourself knowledgeable by quoting passages but your logic is flawed.
Be blessed and rethink your theology for the good of yourself and others.


What evidence exists for post-Biblical miracles? I think any Christian will agree that real-life miracles happened at the time of the Old and New Testament.  I've also heard that modern day miracles are more common in developing countries than they are in western cultures.  But in these places, verifiable evidence is usually much harder to come by.

What evidence exists for miracles that occurred after the Bible was written?

I'm interested in miracles on par with those performed in the Bible, especially the New Testament--changing water into wine, healing of the obviously and terminally ill, feeding of the 5,000, someone being raised from the dead, walking on water, etc.

I'm not interested in stories of the healing of a fever, or finding $20 "just in time", etc. These may well be miracles, but they're easily debatable, so I'm more interested in obvious miracles.

I see miracles all the time. there's a secret though: "Without faith it is impossible to please God, for those who come to God must believe that HE is, and that He is a rewarder of those who diligently seek Him." - Hebrews 11:6. Allot of people seem to think that faith is just believing God exists, and aren't quit sure that He will actually reward them for seeking Him, they think things like He'll only reward you if it's His will at the time. But having faith is defined as believing God will reward you for seeking Him.

Some of the miracles I have personally seen:

Cancer healed. (prayed for a few people who were given an expiration date, they went back to the doctor and were cancer free)
Irreparable nerve damage healed (instantly). There was a woman staying with my parents who had been shot in the leg. The bullet just missed one of her arteries, but it did do nerve damage. her specialist doctor said she would never have use of that leg again. When I came home to visit she started saying how she just can't take it any more. Me and her friend prayed, God instantly healed the nerve damage, she took of the brace and put down the crutches and started walking around praising God and dancing. My mom took her back to her doctor, while they were walking back to the office the woman ask the doctor if he noticed anything. He looked stunned for a moment and said, your off your crutches? that's not possible, he took her back an examined her and said, well I'm not sure what I can do for you, you're completely better.
Missing knuckle bone replaced and repaired. I was out in the park with a group that feeds and ministers to the homeless. One guy started talking to me, and mentioned that his knuckle had been smashed when he was a child, and showed me that it was gone. I asked him if he wanted it to be healed. He looked at me puzzled and said 'There's nothing to heal, my knuckle is missing, there's nothing there!' I told him, well originally before God created the world there was nothing, and then God spoke everything into existence. He thought about and said well I guess your right. I prayed for him, he felt something, and then a few weeks later I see him again. He comes running up to me all excited and pointing to his brand new knuckle. I later found out he had several other problems, like a bad leg, a plate in is head, and severe dyslexia so that he could only read a page a in a day. Other people ministered to him, all those problems where solved. He got off the street, stopped using his 'medical marijuana' and started leading a bible study at the mission(when before he couldn't read more than a page of text all day).
Missing breastbone grown back. A lady came up for prayer after a church service and explained that due to either a birth defect or childhood illness (I don't recall which) she did not have a breastbone, and that her ribs where stitched together with wire that needed to be checked and changed every few years. I prayed for her, next day she came back and reported the bone was there.
Met someone raised from the dead after being dead  and locked in a morgue. I was with a group of people and God impressed upon us to stop at a certain house and ask if we could pray for the person. So we knocked on the door and asked and the lady that answered the door. She thought we had come for her to pray for us, she then explained that people from all over the world had been drawn to her house to hear her testimony. She explained how she had died, explained in great detail the sights of heaven, all matching Revelation's description, and how Jesus had sent her back because it wasn't her time yet. She then woke up in the morgue and started just as the coroner came in and saw her sitting up and of course was scared silly. She had been clinically dead since the day before.

The mother of one of my classmates has seen a small pot of spaghetti multiplied to feed many hundreds of people on several occasions in Africa, when they didn't have enough to feed the people they were ministering to.

People who travel to 3rd world countries do tend to see more miracles than they do in the states mainly because people tend to be more hungry for supernatural activity there. There is usually a lot of blatant demonic activity in those countries so people are used to the supernatural. In the west there is hardly any demonic activity comparatively because the enemies strategy is to make people think he doesn't exist. and there are many churches in the west that claim God stopped doing miracles because we have the Bible, so we don't need them anymore. They think this is faith, just believing what the bible said happened and not needing any proof. Miracles aren't about needing proof, Miracles are about God demonstrating  His extravagant love.  That's why when Jesus was walking around doing mighty works, he didn't do them for the pharisees. The pharisees were questioning Jesus identity as the Son of God, when they said show us a sign, Jesus had been showing signs all along by healing people, but the pharisees where asking him to prove He was God. So Jesus didn't indulge there unbelief.  I see it all the time, God will allow someone demonstrating unbelief to be completely blind to something that really can't be argued with. So in closing, To me this is all about Hebrews 11:6. Faith is not just believing what God said, without any tangible proof(but that is a requirement), it's believing that God will reward you for seeking Him, if you don't meet both requirements, it's not pleasing to him. That doesn’t mean your damned for it, it just means your not fully trusting Him.

How about living testimony Benny Prasad?

He was in wrong medication for Asthma from young age, because of which his  60 % lung and immune system damaged. Medically he cannot achieve whatever he has achieved.

World record holder for the fastest person to Travel to 245 nations in 6 years, 6 months , great musician and inventor of Bentar


Why does the Mosaic Law demand the death of so many innocent people? What do these Bible verses mean? Why does it demand the death of so many innocent people in the Bible?

Leviticus 20:13 – demands the death of homosexuals.

“If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads."

Exodus 35:2 – demands that we kill everyone who works on the Sabbath day.

For six days, work is to be done, but the seventh day shall be your holy day, a day of sabbath rest to the Lord. Whoever does any work on it is to be put to death

Deuteronomy 21:18-21 – demands that we kill disobedient teenagers.

"If someone has a stubborn and rebellious son who does not obey his father and mother and will not listen to them when they discipline him, his father and mother shall take hold of him and bring him to the elders at the gate of his town. They shall say to the elders, “This son of ours is stubborn and rebellious. He will not obey us. He is a glutton and a drunkard.” Then all the men of his town are to stone him to death. You must purge the evil from among you. All Israel will hear of it and be afraid"

Your real question is really why do the sins in these three instances deserve Death in God's eyes?

Leviticus 20:13,  Exodus 35:2, Deuteronomy 21:18-21.

The answer to that is the same as why God demanded death for when Adam and Eve disobeyed God, and ate from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

Genesis 2:17  KJV

  But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that
  thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

God had created man in his image, and he had created both man and woman. In that original creation God did not give them or any of their prosperity the knowledge of good and evil.

Genesis 2:7  KJV

  And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

Eve was created to be Adam's helper:

Genesis 2:18, 21, & 22  KJV

  18  And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.

  21  And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof;

  22  And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.

God created them differently for a reason, and that reason was:

Genesis 1:26 through 28 KJV

  26  And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

  27  So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

  28  And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.

Man was not created as an after thought God had specific plans for man. When God  created Adam, before he created Eve he gave Adam an assignment.

Genesis 2:5 & 15 KJV

  5  And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground.

  15  And the LORD God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it.

God had also created Adam as an eternal being.

Genesis 2:16 &  17 KJV

  16  And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:

  17  But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

So when Man disobeyed God and ate from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, lost that eternal life, and also marred what God had already pronounced as good.

Genesis 1:31  KJV

  And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.

So now that man had given up his eternal life, when Adam died there would be left no one to tend the earth and till the soil.

Therefore in order for those duties to be carried on man had to procreate, and so God told man to be fruitful and multiply and fill the Earth. So man even though he had given up life eternal on the Earth, God still needed to fulfill his overall plan.

As for the part about homosexuality, For that you have to consider that God meant for man to procreate for several reasons, and one purpose was to have Adams posterity to care for his creation, that is why he gave sex to mankind in the beginning, and his explicit instructions were to multiply and fill the Earth. Sex was given to mankind for that reason, not for his pleasure. God made it pleasant so that man would not think of it as strictly a duty to him, even though it was. And there is no procreation in homosexuality, and it is therefore an abomination to God in that it is relegated to a place of pleasure only and not to fulfill God's edict to fill the Earth.

Leviticus 20:13  KJV

  If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an
  abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

But you have singled out only one of many sexual deviations for which God has pronounced physical death and all of those are for the same reason and that is the misuse of sex.

As for the punishment of physical death for breaking the Sabbath God gave man a specific command;

Exodus 20:10 & 11 KJV

  10  But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates:

  11  For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.

God blessed the Sabbath and made it holy and is to be observed as a covenant to the LORD.

Exodus 31:15 & 16  KJV

  15  Six days may work be done; but in the seventh is the sabbath of rest, holy to the LORD: whosoever doeth any work in the sabbath day, he shall surely be put to death.

  16  Wherefore the children of Israel shall keep the sabbath, to observe the sabbath throughout their generations, for a perpetual covenant.

We do not have the right to degrade the Sabbath and ignore it's significance.

As for the last part of your question, concerning disobedient children.

Again God gave a specific command in the 10 commandments, and with this command, and none of the others, God gave the reward for obedience.

Exo 20:12  KJV

  Honour thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long upon the land which the LORD thy
  God giveth thee.

Deuteronomy 21:18 through 21 KJV

  18  If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them:

  19  Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place;

  20  And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard.

  21  And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die: so shalt thou put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall hear, and fear.

So it only stands to reason that if you do not honor your parents you should expect that your days will not be long, and matter of fact the less you honor them the shorter you should expect them to be right up to the point of not having any more days.

It's important to remember that in many instances the people weren't actually physically killed. Their names were put on the "to be stoned" roster and they were given sufficient time to gather their rightful belongings and allowed to leave that society in search of another place to live. There were established cities known as cities of refuge that they could flee to in order to preserve their lives.

The main point of these commandments that have loss of life as a penalty is to provide a context for society where people can live in liberty, per the commandments given. This is a society under a covenant with their God. Those who are a party to this covenant represent a group of souls who wish for things to be just as the commandments prescribe. So, when you have individuals doing things that this societal group deems critically disruptive, they are to be purged because they want that type of society to persist for the benefit of their posterity. If certain people persist in imposing their perversions, etc. upon the society instead of leaving, that is when they are actually put to death.

If the people become lax and do not perform judgment as they are responsible to do and start to implement and conform to the ways of their surrounding nations, then God considers the entire society guilty of adultery against Him. What does He do about it? He carries out the provisions of the law they are under covenant to obey. What is that? God has the entire society "stoned to death" for their adultery against Him. This is in fact what happened and is why the ancient nations of Israel/Judah spent such a long time in dispersion as if they were the scattered bits and pieces of a dead (societal) body. They were "stoned to death" as a society for their adultery against Jehovah. (See Ezekiel 23:47)

The resurrection (gathering) of Israel is literally when they are established again as a covenant society and they again implement in its purity the laws they formerly were given. It will be a society where the patriarchal unit will shoulder the responsibility to govern. There will be no need of governmental agencies to extract taxes in order to dole out welfare. All individuals in need of welfare will get it by coming into association with a patriarch who is the head of a household. The fathers are the mayors, supervisors, governors, presidents, etc. When you understand that Jehovah's governmental system relies almost solely upon functional family units instead of state sponsored agencies, then you will understand why His laws concerning how families are to function are so vital to the well-being of their society.


Is the Catholic faith based purely on the Bible? I have heard that, although Catholics use the Bible, their faith is not solely based upon it. I have heard it said that for Catholics, tradition precedes the Bible, and that is why there are some practices and doctrines that the Church has that cannot be found in the Bible. The alleged reasoning behind this is that tradition predates the Bible and it's the tradition that influenced the making of the Bible. I'm not sure about this though. Is it true that the Catholic Church has some beliefs that override the Bible, or are not based upon it? I'm sorry if this sounds stupid, but I don't really have a clue.

Is the Catholic faith purely based on the Bible?  No.  Is it largely based on the the Bible, and is the Bible the most sacred text in the Catholic faith? Yes.

There are lots of important parts of Catholic theology that are extrabiblical traditions, and generally not believed by Protestant congregations who consider themselves "purely" based on the Bible.  Protestants are not "purely" based on the Bible, either.  It is entirely possible both churches would be purely based on the Bible, but the Bible doesn't answer every question people like to ask.

Here is one belief that deviates from the Bible in both churches: the virginity of Mary after giving birth to Jesus.  If someone believes anything on that subject, they have exceeded the scope of the Bible.

Certainly the Bible says that Mary was a virgin when she conceived, through the time when she gave birth to Jesus (see Matthew 1:23-25).  The Bible does not talk about her sex life after that.  In Protestant churches, many people believe Mary would have had a normal sex life with her husband Joseph, even going on to bear more children.  Evidence: Jesus has siblings.  In the Catholic church, the official belief is that Mary was eternally a virgin -- that is, throughout her entire life, she never had sex.  Jesus' siblings are explained away by other extrabiblical traditions: perhaps Joseph was a widower, and had children from another wife; perhaps the translation is incorrect, and the words for "brother" or "sister" should truly be translated as "cousin".

Both beliefs are based on things outside of the Bible.  Because the Bible doesn't say one way or another.

The Catholic church is a organization made up of parts of many old pagan religions, many of the "traditions" come from hindu, Christianity, Greek, and many other religion's all combined into one religion with the purpose of separating men from God. Basically they took the favorite parts from many other religion's and combined them to suit their needs. The Catholic church uses the bible but does not use the whole bible. Any church that does not teach the whole bible as it is does not warrant you going there. For one they changed the Sabbath and made it sunday, the bible clearly says man can not do that. Do some research on the Catholic church and the anti-Christ you may not sleep another night, but most important, anything you read or are told, pick up your bible and read and research that information first, the Bible is never wrong, no matter what men distort its words to be.


Prominent Theologians' answer to: What is "The Parable of the Shrewd Manager" about? The Parable of the Shrewd Manager (full text below) is perhaps one of the hardest parables to interpret. At first glance it seems to be about rewarding dishonesty!
What lesson is Jesus teaching His followers with this parable? Has any prominent theologian (eg Matthew Henry, NT Wright) explained this parable?

Luke 16:1-14
Jesus told his disciples: “There was a rich man whose manager was accused of wasting his possessions. So he called him in and asked him, ‘What is this I hear about you? Give an account of your management, because you cannot be manager any longer.’
“The manager said to himself, ‘What shall I do now? My master is taking away my job. I’m not strong enough to dig, and I’m ashamed to beg. I know what I’ll do so that, when I lose my job here, people will welcome me into their houses.’
“So he called in each one of his master’s debtors. He asked the first, ‘How much do you owe my master?’
“‘Nine hundred gallons of olive oil,’ he replied.
“The manager told him, ‘Take your bill, sit down quickly, and make it four hundred and fifty.’
“Then he asked the second, ‘And how much do you owe?’
“‘A thousand bushels of wheat,’ he replied.
“He told him, ‘Take your bill and make it eight hundred.’
“The master commended the dishonest manager because he had acted shrewdly. For the people of this world are more shrewd in dealing with their own kind than are the people of the light. I tell you, use worldly wealth to gain friends for yourselves, so that when it is gone, you will be welcomed into eternal dwellings.
“Whoever can be trusted with very little can also be trusted with much, and whoever is dishonest with very little will also be dishonest with much. So if you have not been trustworthy in handling worldly wealth, who will trust you with true riches? And if you have not been trustworthy with someone else’s property, who will give you property of your own?
“No one can serve two masters. Either you will hate the one and love the other, or you will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and money.”
The Pharisees, who loved money, heard all this and were sneering at Jesus.

From Mathew Henry's Concise Commentary:

Whatever we have, the property of it is God's; we have only the use of it, according to the direction of our great Lord, and for his honour. This steward wasted his lord's goods. And we are all liable to the same charge; we have not made due improvement of what God has trusted us with. The steward cannot deny it; he must make up his accounts, and be gone.
This may teach us that death will come, and deprive us of the opportunities we now have. The steward will make friends of his lord's debtors or tenants, by striking off a considerable part of their debt to his lord. The lord referred to in this parable commended not the fraud, but the policy of the steward. In that respect alone is it so noticed. Worldly men, in the choice of their object, are foolish; but in their activity, and perseverance, they are often wiser than believers.
The unjust steward is not set before us as an example in cheating his master, or to justify any dishonesty, but to point out the careful ways of worldly men. It would be well if the children of light would learn wisdom from the men of the world, and would as earnestly pursue their better object.
The true riches signify spiritual blessings; and if a man spends upon himself, or hoards up what God has trusted to him, as to outward things, what evidence can he have, that he is an heir of God through Christ? The riches of this world are deceitful and uncertain. Let us be convinced that those are truly rich, and very rich, who are rich in faith, and rich toward God, rich in Christ, in the promises; let us then lay up our treasure in heaven, and expect our portion from thence.

My understanding from this commentary is that the manager's goal didn't change - he wanted a comfortable lifestyle without working too hard - and used his Master's resources for his own purposes. Even when he was caught - and was about to lose the position that enabled him to achieve his nefarious goal easily, he made another plan, a very clever plan, and tried to win the affections of his master's debtors by slashing their debts - probably guaranteeing that someone would give him free board and lodging for a while.
Jesus is certainly not holding this man up as a shining example of morality, but of using his brains to try every possible method of achieving his aim. The aim was not noble, but his persistence and shrewdness in pursuing the aim was. What should we take from this then? We should learn from anyone - even those we want to label as "worldly" or "sinful" - to work hard and be shrewd in how we pursue God's aims.
The other aspect of this parable is using the stuff of this world for eternal purposes - In the first fraudulent scheme the manager was simply skimming the master's funds and putting them in his own pocket. His thinking was entirely in the pleasures of the here and now. Once he saw his cushy position coming to an end he started using the money to make friends to provide for him at the end of his present "life" when he no longer had any control.

First, understand that a Christian cannot serve God and money at the same time. This teaching has been watered down in Christian circles.

The manager is compared to the Christian who has still not given up his property: yes, you. And me.

Does this mean we are not allowed access to the Kingdom of God? NO. There is another option. You can make friends with those who have access. Then when your time runs out, THEY will help you get in.

To answer the question, the lesson that Jesus taught is that we should use our brains just as the manager used his. Look for the other options.

Jesus taught that those who helped even the most insignificant of his disciples would receive their reward.

He taught that no one could enter the Kingdom unless they gave up everything and followed Him.

Put those lessons together, and figure out that Jesus was offering a second way to access the Kingdom.

Hope this helped.

ETA Jon Ericson's questions and my answers to the questions.

Jon Ericson wrote:
Hi there and welcome to our Christianity Q&A site!

Hi, Jon, and thanks for the welcome.

You wrote:
That's an interesting interpretation, but it really doesn't jive with the way I read the rest of scripture. For instance, the parable of the weeds (Matthew 13:24-30) indicates that believers and unbelievers will "grow" side by side.

When are the tares ”outed”, not allowed to grow or survive?

When they lose their camouflage. When they don't have wedding garments on. (Matt 22:1-14).

What are the wedding garments that protect?

Right living. Apparently, if you don't do stuff that reveals your old nature, you'll not face temporal judgement: Acts 5:4

Studious living. If you bear fruit, formulate a correct understanding of God's Word: Luke 13:7

Productive Living. If you live out your lessons: Matthew 10:39-42

You wrote:
2 John warns about deceivers who will come knocking on our doors. (Or as my Sunday School teacher taught, "Just because you're in McDonald's, doesn't mean you're a Big Mac.)

You will only know them by their fruit (incorrect understanding of God's word) if you yourself possess the right understanding.

If someone knocks on my door and tells me that Jesus has revealed the way to be found pleasing to God ( Luke 12:32-33 NET
“Do not be afraid, little flock, for your Father is well pleased to give you the kingdom. Sell your possessions and give to the poor. Provide yourselves purses that do not wear out – a treasure in heaven that never decreases, where no thief approaches and no moth destroys.),

I would receive them as a prophet. Hope this helped.


Is the Golden Rule really the Gold Standard? Does the Golden Rule, often stated as "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" originate from the Bible and the teachings of Jesus? If not where does it come from? If so how  was it originally used? How it is supposed to be applied today?

Consider a case where the thing somebody would want you to do for them is to sin. As a simple example, many people will lie to keep their friends out of trouble. They expect their friends to do the same for them. If the Golden Rule was the only rule employed between them, their sin would just continue to multiply. What's to prevent this?

Matthew 7:12 (NIV) sounds a lot like the Golden rule:

  So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets.

But it also says it's only a summary of the Law and Prophets, not that it's actually a hard-and-fast rule.

The problem with your example is it puts "others" at odds with each other... There are two "theys"--your friends, and those you would lie to.  The Golden Rule is not far-reaching enough to address these sorts of ethical situations.

I think the true "Gold Standard" is to love God and people (Luke 10:27). The Golden Rule is intended to provide a sort of definition of what it means to love others.  That doesn't mean it's air-tight in a logical sense.  But even so, if we all practiced the Golden Rule to the letter (even lying for our friends, as in your example), I suspect the world would be a much better place than it is now.

the Golden Rule is considered the universal maxim for a reason;

"do unto others as you would have them do unto you"

lie for (the sake of) others as you would have others lie for (the sake of) you; this example violates the golden rule by virtue of entailing (implicitly including) "lying to others"

in other words, your example (clever i admit) would be violating the Golden Rule by virtue of yourself not wanting others to lie to you.

Pax Christi


Why was the Apostle Paul seemingly not that interested in baptizing believers? Paul does not seem to put the same importance on baptism as he does on other things:

  For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel—not with wisdom and eloquence, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power. (1 Corinthians 1:17, NIV)

If Paul was so focused on the gospel as it was the means of 'eternal salvation', why put baptism in the back seat of the process? Baptism does generally seem important in Acts and other parts of scripture.

  For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. (1 Corinthians 1:18, NIV)

Why does Paul not think it important to follow up on all his converts and make sure they are properly baptized as though their eternal life depended on it?

1 Corinthians 1:10-14, 16-18 NET I urge you, brothers and sisters, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, to agree together, to end your divisions, and to be united by the same mind and purpose. For members of Chloe’s household have made it clear to me, my brothers and sisters, that there are quarrels among you. Now I mean this, that each of you is saying, “I am with Paul,” or “I am with Apollos,” or “I am with Cephas,” or “I am with Christ.” Is Christ divided? Paul wasn’t crucified for you, was he? Or were you in fact baptized in the name of Paul? I thank God that I did not baptize any of you except Crispus and Gaius, (I also baptized the household of Stephanus. Otherwise, I do not remember whether I baptized anyone else.) For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel – and not with clever speech, so that the cross of Christ would not become useless.
For the message about the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.

The ideas in that passage are that each person was boasting about the superiority of their teachings, when all of them were in fact disciples of the same teaching, which was again, an "inferior“  (foolish) teaching. They had absolutely no grounds for boasting, either in terms of uniqueness or superiority.
Baptism is the equivalent of recognising a person can now have table fellowship with  God's People. That status must be maintained, just as the observant Jew needed to maintain his clean status and act to rectify any impurity, whether caused accidentally or through carelessness .

1 Corinthians 5:11New International Version (©1984) But now I am writing you that you must not associate with anyone who calls himself a brother but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or a slanderer, a drunkard or a swindler. With such a man do not even eat.
Matthew 18:17 NET If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church. If he refuses to listen to the church, treat him like a Gentile or a tax collector.
Acts 8:13, 20-23 NET Even Simon himself believed, and after he was baptized, he stayed close to Philip constantly, and when he saw the signs and great miracles that were occurring, he was amazed.
But Peter said to him, “May your silver perish with you, because you thought you could acquire God’s gift with money! You have no share or part in this matter because your heart is not right before God! Therefore repent of this wickedness of yours, and pray to the Lord that he may perhaps forgive you for the intent of your heart. For I see that you are bitterly envious and in bondage to sin.”

In that sense, baptism is an acknowledgement of the suitability of the candidate. The Ethiopian eunuch's request was based on that reasoning.
The Corinthian church had distorted that teaching.

Why ==> He didn't put it that way. Baptism is important.

Paul just said that He is GLAD for not baptizing the Corinthians (in question). Other wise they would follow him instead of Christ Jesus. Those Corinthians (in question) were notorious for following idols.

This is also how denominations think: If I get baptize in the Catholic church then I am a Catholic. BUT, According to the scripture in question, If I really get baptize in the name of Christ INSIDE a Catholic chruch, then no only should I be a Catholic, BUT also a Mormon, Jehova Witness, Mormon, a Pentocastal, etc, since they also baptize in the name of Christ.

Or the OPPOSITE would be that am only a Catholic because I was baptize in the name of the Pope.

In anyway, the scripture in question is a rebuke to the Corinthians (in question). Not us right.

thanks for reading


What were Jesus's last words on the cross? I've been comparing the same events written across different gospels recently, and although I was aware of the differences between the gospel accounts of Jesus's very last moments before death I really was stuck when I started to look at them in depth.

Mark and Mathew are very similar, though once you get to Luke, then John seem to diverge.

Mark 15:33-37

  At noon, darkness came over the whole land until three in the afternoon. And at three in the afternoon Jesus cried out in a loud voice, “Eloi, Eloi, lema sabachthani?” (which means “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?”).
  When some of those standing near heard this, they said, “Listen, he’s calling Elijah.”
  Someone ran, filled a sponge with wine vinegar, put it on a staff, and offered it to Jesus to drink. “Now leave him alone. Let’s see if Elijah comes to take him down,” he said.
  With a loud cry, Jesus breathed his last.

Matthew 27:45-50

  From noon until three in the afternoon darkness came over all the land. 46 About three in the afternoon Jesus cried out in a loud voice, “Eli, Eli,[c] lema sabachthani?” (which means “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?”).
  When some of those standing there heard this, they said, “He’s calling Elijah.”
  Immediately one of them ran and got a sponge. He filled it with wine vinegar, put it on a staff, and offered it to Jesus to drink. The rest said, “Now leave him alone. Let’s see if Elijah comes to save him.”
  And when Jesus had cried out again in a loud voice, he gave up his spirit.

Luke 23:44-46

  It was now about noon, and darkness came over the whole land until three in the afternoon, for the sun stopped shining. And the curtain of the temple was torn in two. Jesus called out with a loud voice, “Father, into your hands I commit my spirit.” When he had said this, he breathed his last.

John 19:28:-29

  Later, knowing that everything had now been finished, and so that Scripture would be fulfilled, Jesus said, “I am thirsty.” A jar of wine vinegar was there, so they soaked a sponge in it, put the sponge on a stalk of the hyssop plant, and lifted it to Jesus’ lips. When he had received the drink, Jesus said, “It is finished.” With that, he bowed his head and gave up his spirit.

Its easy to reconcile many events in the gospels using telescoping (they just skipped over large sections of time, without mention) but here they are talking about such discrete moment in time that its hard to use that explanation. Also, there is a clear cause and effect sequence, especial with Luke ("When he had said this...") and John ("With that..."), its hard to reconcile.

Is there an answer other than at least two gospel writers just got it wrong? Or they weren't reporting on Jesus's actually words but only making theological points?

And a secondary question is, if presumably Luke had a copy of Mark when he was writing and perhaps a copy of Matthew as well, then why would he deviate when it was right in front of him? And of course John may or may not have had a copy of any of the others in front of him.

I don't see how to answer this without copying and pasting the entire resolution from the other site, but in summary, each person documented what they heard, and in total we can deduce what he actually said, which is, all in a loud voice, "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?", then "Father, unto thy hands I commend my spirit:"and finally, "It is finished:"

From an apologetics site dedicated to showing possible resolutions to Bible discrepancies:
http://contenderministries.org/discrepancies/contradictions.php#17

  First, John was nearer to the cross and probably heard things the
  others didn't. John is referred to in scripture as the disciple that
  Jesus loved (John 13:23). Notice he is mentioned as being near the
  cross of Jesus.

  John 19:25  Near the cross of Jesus stood his mother, his mother's
  sister, Mary the wife of Cleophas, and Mary Magdalene. When Jesus saw
  his mother there, and the disciple whom he loved standing nearby, he
  said to his mother, "Dear woman, here is your son," and to the
  disciple, "Here is your mother." From that time on, this disciple took
  her into his home."

  Notice, in the verse above, Jesus is speaking only to Mary and John
  who are directly below the cross.

  When John recounts the events at the cross, he's focusing on what was
  said privately to him at the foot of the cross and what's said to
  those standing close by - the plea of thirst, the statement of
  completion, and the turning over of responsibility for Jesus' mother
  to John.

  Matthew focused on the words Jesus said "in a loud voice" to all that
  were there (the crowd).

  The Last thing Matthew heard was "My god, my God, why hast thou
  forsaken me? Then a loud cry before giving up the ghost.

  Luke hears the same loud cry that Matthew mentions, but also hears
  after that, probably because he's closer, "Father, unto thy hands I
  commend my spirit". It makes sense that he would say "My God, My
  God..." in a louder voice than he would say his last words commending
  his spirit into the father's hands.

  When Jesus asked for something to drink, he was speaking to those
  below the cross where John was standing. John heard what the others
  farther back heard, but also heard the dialogue about asking the
  people near the cross for water and his quieter statement, "It is
  finished".

  Here are the three accounts put together:

  "And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, 'Eli,
  eli, lama sabachthani?' that is to say, 'My God, my God, why hast thou
  forsaken me?'....Jesus, when he had cried again with a loud voice said
  , 'Father, unto thy hands I commend my spirit:' (notice the cry with a
  loud voice is separated from Jesus commending His spirit, probably
  quieter), then he said softly, 'It is finished:' and he bowed his
  head, and gave up the ghost."

Note that this is from one apologetics website, and is an interpretation rather than something we know as absolute fact, but it is answered using the basic principles of resolving Biblical discrepancies.

I must disagree with all of these possible sayings.  Ultimate death from crucifixion is caused by suffocation which would have made any coherent speech impossible.  At best there might have been some gasping or wheezing sounds but that wouldn't have made a good story.


How have Protestants explained how Jesus could be born of mankind and be sinless? Very simple question really. If the sin of Adam is passed down through the generations, so that all of us are born with a sin nature, how can it be that Jesus was born of Mary (a human being), yet sinless?

I'm from a Protestant (specifically Baptist) background, and would be interested in knowing how we explain it. Most churches have rather vague doctrinal statements that don't address subtle issues like this. So I am wondering if there are any common answers to this issue. Good answers will show that the position proposed is accepted by more than just the poster.

The only argument I've beard before is that sin is passed via the seed of man, but I find no Biblical support for this, and it sounds like an artificially constructed argument to oppose some Catholic answers to this question which may require the sinlessness of Mary (which would be contrary to the Bible from the Protestant point of view).

The Bible is very clear that Jesus did not begin to exist in the womb of Mary.  As the Second Person of the Trinity, He exists outside of the physical universe of time, space, and matter and with the Father and Spirit created the physical world.

He is holy, was holy, and will always be holy... and sinless and righteous and pure and blameless.

When Mary conceived, the eternal Son of God became flesh and entered into the physical universe.  That act did not require that He become sinful.  He retained His holiness, as He is the same yesterday, today and forever.

His being born of a virgin is an important part of this, of course.  The doctrine indicates that without a human father, Jesus did not inherit the sin nature.

When He was born, He was given the name of Jesus (The Lord saves) because He Himself was the Lord who was saving His people from their sins.

He was sinless because he was born of a virgin. In other words, he was not born of sexual desire.

  Psalm 51:5 Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother
  conceive me.

No matter how perfect a life lived, we were all born "the wrong way". Instead of being born from God (like Jesus was), we came into the world by sexual desire, a process started in the garden of Eden when Eve disobeyed God's word.

  John 3:6-7 That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is
  born of the Spirit is spirit. Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye
  must be born again.

Because we were conceived in sin, the perfect antidote had to be conceived without sin (born without sexual desire, i.e. a virgin birth), paving the way for us to be reborn, but this time not by the flesh, but by the Spirit of God.

Jesus was sinless because He was born of God, not of man. Joseph and Mary had nothing to do with his conception.

  Mathew 1:18 Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as
  his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she
  was found with child of the Holy Ghost.

  Matthew 1:20 But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel
  of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of
  David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is
  conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost.


How can Heaven exist if we know that people in Hell will suffer? Suppose for the following scenario that both the Christian Heaven and Hell exist.

My mother is a good Christian and loves me dearly.

I am an atheist, and will therefore go to hell upon death. [If you don't agree that I will go to hell for being an atheist, simply consider me a sinner who will go to hell.]

When my mother dies she will go to Heaven.

How can my mother possibly experience eternal happiness with the knowledge that her beloved son is being tortured for eternity?

Note: I do not know the originator of this argument. I know that Matt Dilahunty has made it before, though do not know if he came up with it. I ask because I think it poses a valid inconsistency and I would to hear the Christian response.

Short answer: We don't know for sure.  The rest of this answer explores various "Christian answers", but the conclusion is "we don't know for sure".

This is a question that I struggled with when I was an atheist, and it's a question that Christians have grappled with and that has never been answered in a way that would have been intellectually satisfying to me as an atheist.  There are several attempts to give answers, some okay, some blatantly out of line with what we do know of Heaven.

Some have theorized that we will not know of the suffering of the lost.  That God may remove that knowledge from us.  This would be inconsistent with the nature of God, and also 1 Corinthians 13:12, which teaches us that we will have increased knowledge, not decreased.
Some have theorized that Heaven is so wonderful that the thought of our loved ones will seem insignificant.  That hardly fits with the Christian message of Agape (selfless) love being the ultimate expression and reflection of God.

Christianity.ca adds this:

  A second possibility boldly suggests that this awareness will be a
  cause for joy and praise rather than pain. Shocking though it may
  sound, this position has been defended by many theologians including
  Thomas Aquinas, Jonathan Edwards and, more recently, J. I. Packer. As
  Edwards put it, the redeemed “will not be sorry for the damned; it
  will cause no uneasiness or dissatisfaction to them; but on the
  contrary, when they have this sight, it will excite them to joyful
  praises.”

  Grisly though this may sound, it has some impressive scriptural
  support. The imprecatory psalms (such as Psalm 139:21-22) seem to
  anticipate with great relish the demise of the wicked. And one might
  reasonably infer that the saints who plead for their blood to be
  avenged (see Revelation 6:10) will extract satisfaction once this
  judgment on “the inhabitants of the earth” is underway.

I don't buy that interpretation, either.

Alwaysbeready.com says this:

  The thought of being apart from your friends and family who do not
  know the Lord is a heart wrenching thought. But God assures us in His
  Word that in Heaven our joy will be absolutely full.

  Psalm 16:11 says, “In Thy presence is fullness of joy; in Thy right
  hand there are pleasures forevermore.”

  All who go to Heaven will experience “fullness of joy.”

  Revelation 21:4 tells us, "He [God] shall wipe away every tear from
  their eyes; and there shall no longer be any death; there shall no
  longer be any mourning, or crying, or pain; the first things have
  passed away."

  Quoting C. S. Lewis again, "If you are concerned about your loved
  one's that won't be in Heaven, the most irrational thing you could do
  if you are truly concerned about those on the outside is to remain
  outside yourself."

  The best thing you could ever do is to make sure you’re going to
  Heaven and then do all that you can to help wake up your loved ones!

Finally, this nugget from Ray Comfort is, perhaps, both the least intellectual, but closest to my belief:

  "How can people be happy in Heaven, knowing that their unsaved loved ones are suffering in Hell?" Those who ask question such as these
  fall into the category of those who asked Jesus a similar question.
  They said that a certain woman had seven consecutive husbands, whose
  wife will she therefore be in Heaven (Mark 12:23)? Jesus answered them
  by saying that they neither knew the Scriptures nor the power of God.
  The unregenerate mind has no concept of God's mind or His infinite
  power. If God can speak the sun into existence; if He can see every
  thought of every human heart at the same time; if He can create the
  human eye with its 137,000,000 light-sensitive cells, then He can
  handle the minor details of our eternal salvation.

As for me, personally, my answer would be close to what Mr. Comfort stated.  Quite frankly, I don't know for sure.. And neither does anyone else.

But what I do know is that for the longest time, I thought that God was a lie.  I thought that Jesus was an invisible friend for weak-minded fools that were too weak to face life without some invisible friend helping them along.  I thought that the Bible was a bunch of hooey, made up by a bunch of creeps that wanted to manipulate people for their own gain.

And I was wrong.  God has proved Himself to me in ways that I would have never imagined.  He has earned my trust.  His word is trustworthy, and if His word says we'll be happy in Heaven, even with the knowledge of our loved ones suffering, I trust Him.  I trust His word.

I know that the above is not going to be satisfying on any level to an atheist.  I realize what it sounds like, but for some questions, there are no easy answers.  Sometimes the only correct answer is "we just don't know for sure".  But to make it a "Christian answer" we have to allow for that component of faith that says that even if we don't know, we trust in God.

Assuming you think there is an immortal soul and you will spend eternity in either Heaven or Hell:

"Can Heaven really exist?"

There really is only one way to answer this: It's not going to bother you if you are in Heaven. In many places in the Bible, Heaven is described, and in most of them it paints a picture where there is no suffering, pain, tears, or other crappy feelings. Rev 21:4 stands out the most. After that it is a matter of faith that God is strong enough, good enough, and true enough that Heaven will really be like that despite anything else.

Assuming you think there is no immortal soul and you will not spend eternity in Hell but might in Heaven:

Let's say your question actually read "Can Hell really exist?"

There are quite a few Christian sects that think no one is tortured forever. Jehovah's Witness's and 7th Day Adventist are the most well known, although after that they are quite dissimilar.

For those groups it is a lack of belief in the 'immortal soul' that leads them to interpret certain verses differently. Rev 14:9-12 most notable. Their biggest point on the idea that there is no such thing as an immortal soul is two fold: 1 Tim 1:17 in the only place where the word immortal exists in the Bible and it is describing God (there are many other verses that imply it like 'I am Alpha and Omega' and 'I do not change'), and the other point is that the words immortal and soul are not even in the same sentence anywhere in the Bible.

Groups like the ones above generally describe Hell like an event, rather than a place, where the wicked are destroyed and die. Because there is no immortal soul they are simply dead and think and feel nothing, much like when you are asleep, save dreaming.

Other, more liberal sects, simply do not want to reconcile with the conundrum you have laid out so simply do not talk about it or have theologies that allow everyone to go to heaven at some point; this is usually called universalism.


Moses - did he kill thousands? Someone said that Moses was a mass murderer having killed thousands of of his own people out of anger and frustration.  Where in the Bible does it state this, if anywhere?

It doesn't and he didn't.

It does say he killed A man. And murder is murder whether you kill one or a thousand,  so he was a murderer.

  Exodus 2:12 (ESV)
  12  He looked this way and that, and seeing no one, he struck down the Egyptian and hid him in the sand.

In my experience, the accusation of 'mass-murder' usually stems from a gross misinterpretation of the Exodus story caused by the presupposition that God was not involved.

If you rule out supernatural intervention, the plague episodes and the Red Sea drownings become folk tales. While nobody expects all the details of such legends to be real, they do assume such tales were based of a 'kernel of truth', and in this case that must have been a temperamental, vindictive and cruel Moses who terrorized the Egyptians in order to achieve his own political ends. It's amazing how twisted a story Exodus becomes if you do not assign God the role he claims for himself in the narrative.

Moses first killed a Egypt soldier, then by Exodus 32:27–28 killed 3000 men, then he and Aaron have killed two hundred and fifty men related with Korach.
In total written 3251 kills by Moses.
Then Numbers 31:14-18 it is not documented how many children and woman killed Moses.
Then the genocide of 60 cities, Deuteronomy 3:2-7.
And of course, first born babies Exodus 11:4