What does it mean that all scripture is God-Breathed? In 2 Tim 3:16, Paul writes

  All scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking,
  correcting and training in righteousness (NIV)

  All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for
  reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness (ESV)

Does this mean that all scripture (the whole Bible) is from God and of equal importance, or are there some parts of the bible which we need to take more seriously than others?

For example, are Jesus' words more important than Paul's?

I'm looking for a Protestant/Evangelical point of view, but I'm interested in others too.

The phrase "God-breathed" is a translation of the etymological roots of the Greek θεόπνευστος. Most English versions of the Bible translate this Greek word as "inspired by God". ("Inspire" is derived from the Latin word inspiratio, which like πνευστος, originally denoted breath or spirit.)

There is no consensus on what it means to say that all Scripture is inspired, even among Evangelical Protestants. In an essay titled How Can The Bible Be Authoritative? Evangelical Anglican scholar N.T. Wright dispenses with the notion of the Bible as a collection of "timeless truths", in which each verse is authoritative on its own.

  A regular response to these problems is to say that the Bible is a repository of timeless truth.  There are some senses in which that is true.  But the sense in which it is normally meant is certainly not true.  The whole Bible from Genesis to Revelation is culturally conditioned.  It is all written in the language of particular times, and evokes the cultures in which it came to birth.  It seems, when we get close up to it, as though, if we grant for a moment that in some sense or other God has indeed inspired this book, he has not wanted to give us an abstract set of truths unrelated to space and time.  He has wanted to give us something rather different, which is not (in our post-enlightenment world) nearly so easy to handle as such a set of truths might seem to be.

Rather, Wright recommends reading each Bible book as a book, rather than a set of verses. Only in this way can we understand the context of what God has to say to us.

  In private reading, and in informal group meetings, we need again to experiment with new ways of reading scripture.  Anyone who has heard an entire biblical book read, or even acted (think of Alec McCown on Mark, or Paul Alexander on John; I have heard the same done with Galatians, and very impressive it was, too) will realize that such things as chapter-divisions, or almost any divisions at all, can be simply unhelpful.  We need to recapture a sense of scripture as a whole, telling and retelling stories as wholes.  Only when you read Exodus as a whole (for example) do you realize the awful irony whereby the making of the golden calf is a parody of what God wanted the people to do with their gold and jewels . . . and only by reading Mark as a whole might you realize that, when the disciples ask to sit at Jesus’ right and left hand, they are indeed asking for something they do not understand.

Wright argues that thinking of inspiration in terms of inerrancy or infallibility can lead us into traps, but that we can avoid these traps by taking the Bible seriously as a whole.

  If we really engage with the Bible in this serious way we will find, I believe, that we will be set free from (among other things) some of the small-scale evangelical paranoia which goes on about scripture. We won’t be forced into awkward corners, answering impossible questions of the ‘Have you stopped beating your wife?’ variety about whether scripture is exactly this or exactly that. Of course the Bible is inspired, and if you’re using it like this there won’t be any question in your mind that the Bible is inspired. But, you will be set free to explore ways of articulating that belief which do not fall into the old rationalist traps of 18th or 19th or 20th century. Actually using the Bible in this way is a far sounder thing than mouthing lots of words beginning with ‘in—’ but still imprisoning the Bible within evangelical tradition (which is what some of those ‘in—’ words seem almost designed to do).

But rather than giving a single answer about how God speaks to us through Scripture, Wright insists that whenever we truly engage with the Bible and seek to understand what God has to say to us, we find that God not only speaks to us but transforms our lives.

  The Bible, clearly, is also to be used in a thousand different ways within the pastoral work of the church, the caring and building up of all its members.  Again, there is much that I could say here, but little space.  Suffice it to note that the individual world-views and God-views of Christians, as much as anybody else, need to be constantly adjusted and straightened out in the light of the story which is told in scripture.  But this is not to say that there is one, or even that there are twenty-one, ‘right’ ways of this being done.  To be sure, the regular use of scripture in private and public worship is a regular medicine for many of the ills that beset us.  But there are many methods of meditation, of imaginative reading, ways of soaking oneself in a book or a text, ways of allowing the story to become one’s own story in all sorts of intimate ways, that can with profit be recommended by a pastor, or engaged in within the context of pastoral ministry itself.  Here, too, we discover the authority of the Bible at work: God’s own authority, exercised not to give true information about wholeness but to give wholeness itself, by judging and remaking the thoughts and intentions, the imaginations and rememberings, of men, women and children.

I think i see it a bit differently. The scripture Jesus is talking about was the Torah. There was no NT for 300 years after Jesus was killed. When you see the term "scripture" in your NT, know that it refers to Torah and not the NT.
The NT is a collection of writings attributed to the authors' name but in reality we dont know who wrote them.
So my answer would be if its scripture your after, the OT trumps the NT hands down.


How is the ‘Resurrection of the Holy Ones’ in Mt.27:51-53 understood by those who do NOT consider it a literal, historical event? Since there are many ways to read the Bible, I wanted to understand multiple points of view, that being: 1) those who understand this as a non-literal, non-historical event (modern, liberal scholars, perhaps) – this question; 2) those who interpret this event as literal – see my other question.

  And, behold, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to
  the bottom; and the earth did quake, and the rocks rent; And the
  graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose,
  And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the
  holy city, and appeared unto many. Now when the centurion, and they
  that were with him, watching Jesus, saw the earthquake, and those
  things that were done, they feared greatly, saying, Truly this was the
  Son of God. (Matthew 27:51-54, KJV)

With phenomenal events such as an earthquake so mighty it opens a number of graves and then the righteous dead arise and interact with the community, one would expect Matthew to explicate these miracles beyond the pithy lines in his text; or, at least, expect the other evangelists to also document these incidences in their narratives. The Markan narrative denotes the temple’s rented veil and the centurion’s response, but does not make any mention of an earthquake or the resurrection of saints.  Similarly, Luke and John do not make even the slightest reference to these events.

Additionally, during Peter’s pontifical address during Pentecost, not even a nebulous reference to a powerful earthquake or the resurrection of these saints is conveyed. Pentecost occurred fifty days following Christ’s resurrection and the supposed Holy Ones’ appearance to “many.” Therefore, the omission of these events in Peter’s address, especially to an audience that were likely witnesses to these events, is a curious oversight.

Why didn't the other Gospel writers write about these? Why aren't there other extra-biblical sources for these events? It seems like more than Christ's followers would have witnessed these events.... And it certainly seems like something people would continue to talk about for ages thereafter... Are there other sources that may imply the opening of tombs and rising of the deceased? Or were only the righteous ones able to "see" these?

Just confused why no one else mentions it. (Please correct me if I'm wrong!)

Did Matthew have a reason as to why he interpolated this into the text (if we take the stance that it isn't a literal event)? If so, what role does this pericope play? How does it assist in the overall message that Matthew is conveying to his audience? Is there some symbolism? If so, what?

If Mark and/or Luke used Matthew as a source, then it seems most plausible to me to explain their omission as disagreement with Matthew---i.e., they thought it did not actually happen.  If instead they did not use Matthew as a source, then they may simply have been unaware of the tradition.  In this case, it was either an invention of Matthew, or comes from an earlier source independent of Mark and Luke.

Note that Mt 27:53 refers to a time after Jesus' resurrection.  A minority of scholars believe this should be placed, furthermore, after Jesus' second coming, or some other significantly later date than the resurrection.  However, this is a minority view and seems more speculation than anything supported by the text itself.

In the end, we just don't know the origin of this tradition, why Matthew's description is so brief and stingy on details, nor why other early Christian authors failed to mention it.  Even the best answers I've seen, in my opinion, are little more than speculation.

I have heard the following argument (which is not the traditional understanding of Christianly as far as I know):
What is described here is not a physical event: i.e., not a literal physical coming out of the graves; it is rather a description of the resurrection. The resurrection here is being a spiritual revelation - which is a one Jesus speaks about for example when he says:

Jesus answered him, “Very truly, I tell you, no one can see the kingdom of God without being born again.” (John 3).

Those who were close to Jesus received the resurrection in the context of the trauma they had following the crucifixion. Later appears the term Holy city, which again is not a physical city - in particular not Jerusalem after the crucifixion.
[I will mention, that in the broader context of this argument - namely that the resurrection is a revelation to be received before death - is contradictory to Christianity today, and akin to the stance we find in the Gospel of Philip (not in the Canon) for example:

"Those who say they will die first and then rise are in error. If they do not first receive the resurrection while they live, when they die they will receive nothing."

Another possible support for this view, some find in Luke 20:

Crispin Fletcher-Louis takes one step further. According to him,
“those worthy of resurrection” are already taking part in angelomorphic life. ... Luke is not anticipating a general
resurrection but “a present (spiritual) resurrection of Christians from
amongst a dead society.” This means that, for Luke, salvation is already experienced within the Christian community

The other side of the debate can be found in 2 Timothy 2:18:

men who have gone astray from the truth saying that the resurrection has already taken place, and they upset the faith of some.


German Bible translation like NKJV, ESV, NASB.. etc I want to buy a German Bible translation but am not sure which one is best. By "best" I mean one that takes the least amount of doctrinal liberties in translation, so no paraphrase versions (eg, "The Message"), no denominational versions (eg, the Catholic "Douay Rheims"), and so on. My preferred English translation is NKJV, but I also own ESV, NIV, and several others. My preferred Spanish translation is the Reina-Valera 1960, if that helps. I know of the following German versions: Schlachter2000, Neue Genfer, Luther 1545, Hoffnung Fuer Alle, Froschauer Bible, Zuercher Bibel, (among a few others) of which I heard the Zurich Bible was the best.

To be clear, I want a translation with no Apocrypha, that is easy to read (eg, NKJV is easy to read, where the KJV is not), and faithful to the original texts (I find that even the ESV makes certain doctrinal translation choices, which kind of bothers me). I don't mind the use of the Textus Receptus as a base text, as long as the translation points out where the TR diverges from the most reliable manuscripts (as most modern translations already do), but please do mention it if this is the case.

I would be extra grateful if you can include a link to buy a (cheap) soft-cover, portable version.

If its for trying to learn German, you should probably buy a parallel.  And probably the easiest to get your hands on would be the ESV-Luther 1984 Parallel from Crossway.

If you want a German Bible by itself, you can get the 1912 revision of Luther's translation from the Trinitarian Bible Society. That would be more archaic German, and its sold by TBS because they consider it to be the closest to the KJV.

Without actually knowing German it would probably be pretty hard to find any others. Although once you figure out you should search "Die Bibel" rather than "German Bible" it makes it easier.

As a German I know which is the best. Easy to read but not as accurate as Elberfelder to the basic-text is the Luther 2009.

The most accurate Version of German Bibles is the Elberfelder Bible.

The Elberfelder is the only German version that is accepted by the Catholic Church.


Are our sins of the future forgiven? (John 20:23) Catholics say that our future sins are not forgiven (unless we confess them in the future) and say that John 20:23 (and maybe other verses which I can't remember), uses the past, i.e. "forgiven", so ask how future sins can be forgiven.

Is this interpretation justified?  What information there is on the verb "forgiven" here, and in other verses, that may support or contradict this interpretation?

The OP asks:

  Catholics say that our future sins are not forgiven...and say that John 20:23...uses the past, i.e. "forgiven", so ask how future sins can be forgiven. What information there is on the verb "forgiven” here...?

Since nobody seems to have addressed the issue of verb tense here, I’ll give it a try. The verb in question is infected as a third person plural, perfect passive indicative.1

  ἄν τινων ἀφῆτε τὰς ἁμαρτίας ἀφέωνται αὐτοῖς...
  If you (pl.) forgive the sins of any (pl), they are forgiven them...

The identification of this verb as "past" in the question presumably derives from the perfect tense. However, aspect rather than time is the primary value of the Greek tenses. People argue2 about the extent to which Greek verbs contain time information at all.

Regardless of your stance on Greek tenses, the understanding of ἀφέωνται here is heavily tied up with the fact that it forms the apodosis of a conditional statement.3  The form – (ε)αν + subjunctive + any mood/tense –  is known as a third class conditional. Note in that formula the lack of specification of the mood or tense of the apodotic verb. For the purpose of framing the contingency, that is largely irrelevant.3

This is not to say that the perfect inflection is irrelevant to the meaning. Perfect verbs nearly always carry a strong aspectual component - i.e., the action is completed. Here, the relevance is that the forgiveness is complete at the time that it is realized, whenever that might be. This is known (in some circles) as a proleptic perfect. The timing is dependent on the timing of the protosis. Here the aorist subjunctive ἀφῆτε provides almost no intrinsic time information. Contextually, these are anticipated as future events, consequent to the commissioning and receiving of the holy spirit in the prior verse.

In summary, there is no "past tense" here. The combination of the verbal inflection and the conditional construction tell us that the forgiveness is complete at the time that the (apostles') forgiving occurs.4 Context tells us that these events are future to the time of Jesus’ speaking. Going beyond that (regarding timing) based on this passage alone seems to me misguided. Others have addressed external considerations that may be relevant.

Notes

1. There is a significant text variant here. This perfect quoted here from NA27/28 (=UBS4) was given a {B} ("almost certain") rating by the UBS Committee. The Textus Receptus, with the Byzantine mss, has the present ἀφίενται; Sinaiticus has the future ἀφεθήσεται (reflected also in most of the Latin tradition); the perfect adopted here is supported by Alexandrinus, Bezae, several major families of miniscules, and probably Vaticanus (although spelled differently). This decision was defended by Metzger in his textual commentary on the basis that the present and future are likely scribal simplifications of the perfect (in addition to the external evidence).

2. Passionately. This debate is sometimes referred to as the Porter/Fanning debate in recognition of two scholars who published pioneering works in the area. An introduction to the issue by D.A. Carson, published as the first chapter in a book that contained some of the most important evaluations of their theories, is a good place to start if interested.

3. The apodosis is the “then” statement of an “if... then...” contingency. The protasis (“if...”) here is introduced with ἄν, standing for ἐάν, an abbreviation that “is rare in Hellenistic Greek....but appears....John 20:23” (BDAG).

4. James Boyer has argued that "all third class conditions are essentially future contingencies". I think it’s safe to say that most people don’t agree with him completely on the all bit, but this is certainly a very common scenario.

5. It is, unfortunately, impossible to express "to be complete" and "to occur" in English as a finite verbs without any time implications. Present tense is, by my reckoning, as close as we come, but realize that these may be past, present, or future.

Its not just Catholics that reject this doctrine, but the overwhelming majority of Protestants as well.   A small yet loud minority within Protestantism do indeed believe that as soon as Jesus died all "our" (for them, "our" doesn't necessarily mean "our" as we think of it) sins were forgiven, or rather, all the sins of the elect were forgiven.  These are the so-called Hyper Calvinists who believe that Jesus only died for the elect and that as soon as he died the elect were fully saved, everything remaining being nothing but mere formality.  They deny that salvation is a process that takes place in time at all.  But scripturally, this idea simply doesn't work.  Ask yourself what sense any of the following passages can make if all our future sins are forgiven at once:

  1 John 1:7 But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus Christ, his Son, cleanses us from all sin.

"Cleanses," i.e. progressive present, keeps on cleansing, not "were cleansed."

  1 John 1:7 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and righteous to forgive us the sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.

Notice how confessing comes before being forgiven.  Of course, in the Protestant view (aside from maybe a few of the "high church" Protestant churches) this confession is understood as being made to God himself in prayer rather to a priest in a confessional.

And last, but certainly not least, the Lord's Prayer:

  Matthew 6:9 Pray like this: .... Matt 6:12 Forgive us our debts, as we also forgive our debtors.

Why should we pray for forgiveness if all our sins were forgiven in one shot?   You see, the doctrine that all our future sins are forgiven at once makes Jesus a liar and the Lord's Prayer into pious nonsense.

(All my quotations of scripture above are from the World English Bible, WEB, a public domain updating of the ASV into modern English.)


Why is the line from Seth to Noah often called righteous? The line of descendants from Seth to Noah is often called righteous, in comparison to Cain's descendants who are called evil. This comes up when discussing Methuselah who although he died in the year of the flood supposedly can't have died in the flood because he was righteous, and as an explanation of what it means when the 'sons of God' took the 'daughters of men' in Genesis 6.

But Genesis 6:9 says Noah was the only blameless person alive!

Is there any evidence in the Bible to say that the rest of his ancestors were righteous rather than just being sinful like everyone else? (Excluding Enoch of course.)

In Noah's day, the whole world was found to be wicked at such an extreme level that God decided to destroy everything.  However, it was Noah who was found to be a righteous man, blameless among the people of his day.

  The Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intention of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. 6 And the Lord regretted that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him to his heart. 7 So the Lord said, “I will blot out man whom I have created from the face of the land, man and animals and creeping things and birds of the heavens, for I am sorry that I have made them.” But Noah found favor in the eyes of the Lord.

9 These are the generations of Noah. Noah was a righteous man, blameless in his generation. Noah walked with God. Genesis 6:5-9 ESV

Noah's grandfather was Methuselah, whose name means "his death shall bring judgment".  According to the time of his death, he died the year of the flood--supposedly not from drowning but from natural causes.  His death brought judgment.

Noah's great grandfather--and Methuselah's father--was Enoch, who is noted as having "walked with God".  His walk with God was apparently so close that God took Him straight to heaven.

  When Enoch had lived 65 years, he fathered Methuselah. 22 Enoch walked with God after he fathered Methuselah 300 years and had other sons and daughters. 23 Thus all the days of Enoch were 365 years. 24 Enoch walked with God, and he was not, for God took him.  Genesis 5:21-24 ESV

So, we know that Enoch was a very righteous man.  We also know that Noah was a very righteous man.  Thus, it seems that this was a righteous lineage, where the righteous fathers passed on to their children a deep reverence for God.

The evidence is not overwhelming, to be sure.  In fact, it's largely circumstantial.  Still, the conclusion is reasonable.

This is related to alternate interpretation of Genesis 6:4

  There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.

The traditional interpretation until relative modernity was that which is found in the apocryphal book of Enoch, which church fathers like Tertullian used in explaining this passage.  That explanation is that "sons of God" means "angels" and "daughters of men" means "human women."  So angels came down and slept with women.

Entering into modernity, this explanation was seen as unacceptable, and so an alternative was needed.  Hence the "sons of God" now becomes the line of Seth, and the "daughters of men" becomes the line of Cain.  And viola, the "mythological" interpretation is gotten rid of.


Has the Bible ever been translated into Egyptian Hieroglyphics? I'm very curious to see what the Bible looks like in Ancient Egyptian hieroglyphics. There's an "ancient languages" department at one of the Universities in my city and one of the languages they offer is Egyptian hieroglyphics. When I'm learning a new language I like to refer back to a translation of the Bible into that language so that I can see how a text that I'm familiar with is translated in the language that I'm trying to learn.

I've done a bit of Googling and nothing has turned up. I'm sort of surprised that a hieroglyphics translation hasn't been done, even if just as an academic exercise. I'm not even expecting a full translation. Perhaps just one of the Gospels, or the Psalms, or the Pentateuch. I understand that there wouldn't be much demand for such a translation, but nevertheless I'm surprised it hasn't happened. Perhaps we don't understand hieroglyphics well enough?

Here is a link to a hieroglyphic "bible": https://archive.org/details/hieroglyphicbibl00mill

I don't believe you can translate the entire Bible to hieroglyphs, as there are not enough hieroglyphs to correctly translate the Bible. You would have to create many additional hieroglyphs!


To what extent does the Law of Moses still apply? Matthew 5:17-18 (KJV)
  17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. 18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

As I understand it, the Law of Moses is fulfilled in Christ. We don't make sacrifices anymore, and many other of the finer points in the Pentateuch are no longer preached.

Yet, I still see people reference these books for doctrine (for example the 10 Commandments).

How much of the Law of Moses still applies?

There are many separate views to the matter. I'll try to list the most common ones, along with sources (at the end of each section). I'll first just describe the views briefly; the sources are available for those more interested.

Catholic

The Catholic Church teaches that the Law of Moses (the Old Law) is a preparation for the Gospel, and as such no longer binding. The New Law (the Law of Gospel) is a perfection of it, given through faith in Christ.

The Law of the Gospel is presented in the Sermon of the Mount (Matthew 5-7), but also in the moral catechesis of the apostolic teachings, such as Romans 12-15, 1 Corinthians 12-13, Colossians 3-4, Ephesians 4-5, etc.

God's Law has always remained the same, and has always been available as the natural moral law (e.g. through conscience), but only Jesus could express it perfectly.

Source: Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second edition. Paragraphs 577-582 and 1950-1986. http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/ccc_toc2.htm

Reformed

The reformed teaching is that the law was given in three parts:

The moral law, which God gave first to Adam, and later to Moses on Sinai (the Ten Commandments).
Ceremonial laws, given to the people of Israel, prefiguring Christ.
Judicial laws, given to the State of Israel.

The moral law is eternal, binding Adam, the first man, as well as any Christian today.  Ceremonial laws were abolished in the New Testament. Judicial laws only concerned the State of Israel.

As noted, the moral law was delivered to Moses as the Ten Commandments. Thus the Ten Commandments apply to Christians today as such. Of other laws in the OT, the moral component applies.

Source: Westminster Confession, chapter XIX. http://www.reformed.org/documents/wcf_with_proofs/ch_XIX.html

Theonomy

Theonomy literally means "God's law". It is the notion that God's law is eternal and universally binding. That is, the entire Bible applies to Christians today.

This doesn't mean that salvation comes by keeping the law, as theonomy is often misrepresented. Salvation is granted "solely by grace through faith in the person and work of Jesus Christ".

Psalm 119:97-98 (KJV) is a good verse to show what theonomy is about:

  O how love I thy law! it is my meditation all the day.
  Thou through thy commandments hast made me wiser than mine enemies: for they are ever with me.

Source: Duncan, T.M. Theonomy: What it is; what it is not. http://www.ipc.faithweb.com/documents/THEONOMY.htm

Dispensationalism

Dispensationalism makes a distinction between Israel and the Christian church in God's plan. Its major objective is to be able to interpret the Bible consistently literally.

Dispensationalists recognize seven dispensations in the Bible:

Innocence (Genesis 1:1–3:7)
Conscience (Genesis 3:8–8:22)
Human government (Genesis 9:1–11:32)
Promise (Genesis 12:1–Exodus 19:25)
Law (Exodus 20:1–Acts 2:4)
Grace (Acts 2:4–Revelation 20:3)
The millennial kingdom (Revelation 20:4-6)

The different dispensations are different ways that God has related to people. Salvation has always been through faith.

As today's Christians are living during the dispensation of grace, or during the New Covenant, the old laws or the Old Covenant do not bind them. Because God and His will do not change, the moral law of the New Covenant hasn't notably changed from the Old Covenant.

Source: What is dispensationalism and is it biblical? http://www.gotquestions.org/dispensationalism.html (I'd like to find a better/more original source)

Paul writes that in our baptism we go down into the water with Jesus and die with him, setting us free from our old husband, the law,-then,...still in Christ, we also participate in Jesus' resurrection and we come up out of the water with Jesus into resurrected new life in Christ, and Paul writes, 'we are free to marry another', which we do, and it is Jesus.

This is the clearest picture of what happens to us as we are baptized into Christ and become married to him. Because we died, we are free from our former spouse, the law,..
....because death dissolves marriages and frees the living spouse to marry again, as Jesus taught. The law our former spouse did not change, we changed, because we died 'in Christ' we became 'free from the law'.

The law with all of its demands is still the law, but, because we died with Jesus, 'in Him', the law can no longer access us, because we, upon resurrecting with Jesus, became free to marry another, and we do, we marry Jesus, becoming His spouse.

The law is the same with its demands, we have changed. We have a new relationship with one who is all-encompassing and in whom we find our all in all, who protects us from the law and all of its effects.

Paul further writes, 'does this mean that we should sin freely, then? By all means, No!'

However, 'sin will no longer have any dominion over us.'

Romans 7:4-6King James Version (KJV)

4 Wherefore, my brethren, ye also are become dead to the law by the body of Christ; that ye should be married to another, even to him who is raised from the dead, that we should bring forth fruit unto God. (a fruitful marriage partner)

5 For when we were in the flesh, the motions of sins, which were by the law, did work in our members to bring forth fruit unto death.

6 But now we are delivered from the law, that being dead wherein we were held; that we should serve in newness of spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter.

(In other words, don't continue to sin, but for a new and different reason and with a new and different source of power)

(Romans 6, concurs)


What is meant by the punishment for Satan in Genesis 3? And the LORD God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this,
  thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field;
  upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of
  thy life: And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and
  between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou
  shalt bruise his heel.  (Genesis 3:14-15 KJV)

Is that punishment (upon thy belly shalt thou go) directed to the animal - "the serpent" - only, or does it have some symbolic meaning?

I think is important to look at this as a whole, not just "upon thy belly shall thou go". This is symbolic, as a lot is in the Holy Writ. We have the advantage over the devil, and if we desire, we can resist him, and he will flee from us.  He has no more power then we give him.

This is personal interpretation: If something/one is crawling, and I am walking, I immediately have a vantage point and power over that individual.  Satan was not given a body because of his rebellion, so he cannot literally crawl upon his belly.

If the declaration; that the punishment; ( upon thy belly shalt thou go) is directed to the "serpent" only, is a question? The answer is yes.

Or it has some symbolic meaning; if the "it" is a question about the serpent, being upon its belly,  as symbolic?  The answer is no.

If the "it" is referring to that part of the punishment as symbolic? the answer is no.

However, the punishment as established in Genesis 3;15, is in actuality, the promise of redemption.


How could David enter the congregation of the Lord when he was descended from Ruth the Moabitess? I want to ask a question about Ruth the Moabitess and King David.

  Deuteronomy 23:3
  An Ammonite or Moabite shall not enter into the congregation of the LORD; even to their tenth generation shall they not enter into the congregation of the LORD for ever:

And Ruth was a Moabitess, AND, the great grandmother of King David.

  Ruth 1:22
  So Naomi returned, and Ruth the Moabitess, her daughter in law, with her, which returned out of the country of Moab: and they came to Bethlehem in the beginning of barley harvest.

MY QUESTION IS

Logically, how can David be lawfully accepted 'into the congregation of the Lord' (let alone, be selected by the LORD to be King of Israel,) when he was clearly only 3 generations away from Moab heritage?

I am searching for any scriptural explanation, which would justify David being accepted 'into the congregation of the Lord', taking into account the clear "even to their tenth generation" prohibition of Deuteronomy 23:3.

And, doesn't Jewish heritage follow the mother?

Naomi fled from the famine in Judah to live in Moab with her husband and two sons. Her two sons eventually married Moabite wives including Ruth. Naomi’s husband and sons eventually died and she decided to return to her homeland. Ruth clung onto her with a pledge that ‘your people will be my people and your God will be my God.’ (Ruth 1:16). Though she was a Moabite, Ruth was ‘acquired’/purchased by Boaz, the guardian/kinsman redeemer of Naomi’s family (Ruth 4:9-10).  Scripture says, “the Lord enabled her to conceive, and she gave birth to a son” (see vs 13, NIV) - Obed, who was David’s grandfather. In a short genealogy of David (see Ruth 4:21-22), Boaz is listed as the father of Obed, the father of Jesse, the father of David. This was in line with Jewish culture where children are the offspring of their fathers and not their mother. Indeed throughout history, Jewish men did marry or produce children from captive or slave non-Jewish women and the off-spring became Jewish because of their fathers. So technically, Obed, the grandfather of David, was the son of Boaz and not Ruth.

What Yah showed me tin this year’s reading of these scriptures is that in effect, as it is written, no Moabite nor the child of an illegitimate child can EVER enter the congregation of Yahveh, Deu 23:2-3, which would very much affect David's stance. I am aware the rabbinate claims that it did not affect Ruth as she was a female and all but the Hebrew language, like in other languages, is inclusive of both male and female when referring to a group that includes both sexes. So the language itself denies this rabbinical posture. In addition history itself shows that, as is also claimed by the rabbis Ruth could not possibly have been a Moabite princes, daughter of King Eglon who for 18 years reclaimed  part of the Moabite territory the Amorites had taken from Moab earlier relegating Moab to south of the River Arnon. It is to be noted Israel, namely Ruben, Gad and half of Manasseh, had possession of the land between the Arnon to the River Jabbok (to Mount Hermon at some point) for over 300 years corresponding with the time of Judges and Ruth. This land under Israelite dominion included what continued to be known as the fields, plains or country of Moab. It laid east of the Jordan river slightly north of the Dead Sea.

The Moabites would have nothing to do with the Israelites (just as Muslims won’t), in fact we see how they tried to have Balack curse them. It is highly doubtful that given their history of lack of trust and hateful dislike of Israel that Moab would have allowed a Jewish family to live among them. So why would Torah call Ruth and the other lady (her name escapes me) a “Moabite”? The definition of the word "Moabite” includes ‘CITIZEN'. Ruth was indeed a citizen of the land, country, or fields of Moab! However, Israel as it often did, worshiped the pagan deities of the land which is why Yah allowed King Eglon to rule them for 18 years. It is also why Ruth did teshuva, complete repentance, turning back to the true Elohim which Judah more or less still followed. Ruth like the prodigal son, was repenting of her idolatry in a statement of faith professing trust in Yahveh.

Ruth was never an ethnic Moabite but rather a citizen of what continued to be known as the country of Moab. She was one of the many Israelites (possibly Rubenite) that lived the way the pagans did. Had she not been an ethnic Moabite she could not have been permitted to enter the assembly of greater Israel because of what is written both in Deu 23:2-3 and in Nehemiah 13:1. No way Ruth could have married Boaz under the levirate laws had she not been an ethnic Israelite, and no way the elders of Judah would have bestowed on her the usual blessing given to the descendants of Abraham, Yitzhak and Yacob.

Most importantly Yeshua's (Jesus) lineage on both mother and father side had to be as squeaky clean as that of the red heifer. If Noah was clean in ALL his generations, how much more so shouldn't Yeshua’s generation be to qualify as the perfect lamb of Yahveh? Yeshua’s generation were clear all the way to Adam. There was no contamination of any forbidden SEED in His lineage. While there were Gentiles that left Egypt with Israel who joined Israel when they accepted the terms of the covenant along with Israel, these did not include certain forbidden people from ever intermarrying with Israel. As you may recall Yahveh told Israel to kill ALL the people in certain areas, including at times their animals and plants. Yahveh Himself did likewise during the flood, save Noah, as He did later with Sodom and Gomorrah. So where did the Moabites come from? If Yahveh killed all the inhabitants of Sodom and then made a prohibition for Israel to allow them to join them why would He make an exception with Ruth going against His own pronouncements? That would put Yah’s word in question, moreover in this case it would put in question Yeshua Himself as the promised Messiah; exactly what satan did in the garden questioning Yahveh’s words and trying to supplant Him.


Biblical basis for the separation of church and state I know there are a lot of non-biblical arguments for the separation of church and state. Some Christians also support it on biblical grounds, but I've never looked into the matter myself. Which passages of the Bible support the idea?

Some people use Mark 12:17 towards this goal.

  17 And Jesus answering said unto them, "Render to Caesar the things
  that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's." And they
  marvelled at him.

The argument goes something like this:  The government is here to govern the society here on Earth.  God has been given to us to govern our hearts, minds, and souls.  So, we should allow the government to do what it does best and allow God to be in control of all the other things.

The argument is generally followed with the idea that we need to elect Christians into government and pray for our government officials, but that religion should be separate from the state.

Personally, I think this is a bit of a stretch.  The more solid arguments are the non-biblical ones (prevention of the majority overriding the minority, insuring freedom of religion, etc.)

Matthew 6:24 says that no man shall serve two masters for he will hate one and love the other or hold to one and despise the other.   For me this is what it means to separate church and state: we cannot be Christians and politicians at the same time unless we are truly moved in Holy Spirit.

There are too many Christians who say it is our "duty" to vote or else we have nothing to say about how our government functions.  I disagree. I do not vote because it would consume me. I would get swallowed up by the world. I would begin to serve government instead of my heavenly Father and would love one and hate the other.

Instead, I pray that all the matters of state be in the hands of my heavenly Father and his will be done. I prayed this last election for God to put it in my heart to vote if that was what he wanted of me. I did not vote and I have heard the Lord my God speak many things to me. I think if an individual is moved in the spirit to vote, then it is God's will for them to do so. However, if you vote out of duty, you do a disservice to God by serving two masters and not Him alone. If you are caught up in who this man is and what he said, and this is how you vote, then how do you serve God? There has to be a separation unless your involvement is the movement of Holy Spirit. It is only in this way that you serve God and God alone.


Are Christians required to believe the teachings of their own denomination? My friend is struggling right now to discern what is right and wrong in the Church and his Christian life.

He has been brought up in a Catholic church where he had learned about Jesus and what he did for us.

Through friends (including myself) he has visited other denominations and congregations and is noticing the differences between them. He has attended traditional Church of Scotland churches, to Baptist Churches, to Pentecostal Churches and through each Church he is being told what to believe different things by different Christians. Some Christians have told him that he should not even question the pastor/priest, and must agree with what they tell him, as they are the anointed ones.

Does my friend need to accept all the teachings of whatever denomination he chooses to be associated with?

More generally, are Christians required accept the teaching of a denomination when they commit to it?  Or is there some freedom to pick and chose their own personal belief system?

Authentic faith should never demand a sacrifice of the intellect!

From Fr. Robert Barron, Catholic priest.

  One of the signs that you're not dealing with authentic faith is that
  you've had to sacrifice your mind.

However, it's important to acknowledge the bounds of one's own intellect, giving due respect to religious traditions that have been fed with thousands of years of intelligent thought and divine revelation. Christianity ultimately started in Judaism. Hence, our founding philosophy is well over 5000 years old. And the core Christian addendums, if I may call them that, have been scrupulously pored over and tested for nearly 2000 years.

Don't be afraid to bring your intellect fully into your faith. Also, bring your experience, spiritual and otherwise. But, acknowledge regularly your own intellectual limitations, your ability to be deceived, and your tendency towards self-serving reasoning. Remember again, that your spiritual advisor is likely trained to help you recognize your self-deception!

Remember that many major traditions only "insist" on adherence to some core set of beliefs. You are generally free and encouraged to roam a vast expanse of practice and thought.

Now, since it is likely that your priest or minister will make mistakes, intellectually, spiritually, emotionally, etc., remember: If you're in one of the major traditions, your priests have been sacramentally consecrated. They perform a specific, sacramental role which is to be rightfully honored and respected, even when the priest-person is in error.

And if I may offer a personal plea: Avoid relativistic tendencies. Under the cry of being open-minded, folks sacrifice their intellect far more than most any religion ever asks of them! The human intellect is pretty insistent that the world is ordered, that reality is what it is, and that there are correct and incorrect statements -- that truth is absolute. Though you may often cede not to know the right answer, I would beg that you insist, in most cases, that there is a right answer! And that often means the other answers are wrong, regardless of how compassionately we can acknowledge it.

The New Testament church was different in that everybody participated in the meeting:

Quote

  We used 1 Corinthians 14:26 as one example of what a NT church meeting was like.

http://www.paganchristianity.org/answers.php

It's quite likely that the single person monologue seen in church today had its origin in the state backed church Constantine created.

It led to ministry and authority vested in a few, which is antithetical to the New Testament model:

  John 13:14 NET If I then, your Lord and Teacher, have washed your feet, you too ought to wash one another’s feet.

Maybe a Bible study best resembles the original church, and thus the best place for your friend to get his feet wet (and washed!). I learnt the most in discussions at studies, both online and off.

How did Jesus purify the Church? By explaining the Scriptures to them:

  Luke 24:25-27 NET So he said to them, “You foolish people – how slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken! Wasn’t it necessary for the Christ to suffer these things and enter into his glory?” Then beginning with Moses and all the prophets, he interpreted to them the things written about himself in all the scriptures.

  Ephesians 5:25-27 NET Husbands, love your wives just as Christ loved the church and gave himself for her to sanctify her by cleansing her with the washing of the water by the word, so that he may present the church to himself as glorious – not having a stain or wrinkle, or any such blemish, but holy and blameless.

Christ's work is continued by his disciples who wash each other's feet . How is this different from the one person monologue?

There are checks and balances built into the process when the disciples imitate Christ:

  Acts 17:11 NET These Jews were more open-minded than those in Thessalonica, for they eagerly received the message, examining the scriptures carefully every day to see if these things were so.

The building action spoken of here are the explanations we extract from the Scripture, which must be buttressed by other Scripture, and based on the teachings of the Apostles, Prophets, which are in turn based on teachings of Christ:

  1 Corinthians 3:12-13 NET If anyone builds on the foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, or straw, each builder’s work will be plainly seen, for the Day will make it clear, because it will be revealed by fire. And the fire will test what kind of work each has done.

  Jeremiah 23:28-31 NET Let the prophet who has had a dream go ahead and tell his dream. Let the person who has received my message report that message faithfully. What is like straw cannot compare to what is like grain! I, the Lord, affirm it! My message is like a fire that purges dross! It is like a hammer that breaks a rock in pieces! I, the Lord, so affirm it! So I, the Lord, affirm that I am opposed to those prophets who steal messages from one another that they claim are from me. I, the Lord, affirm that I am opposed to those prophets who are using their own tongues to declare, ‘The Lord declares….’

As you can see, this edification model makes up for what the monologue lacks, by having a regulating mechanism: footwashers using the water of the Word of God to expose truth or lie in claims about the meaning of God's word.


Why was it important that Isaac's wife be from within Abraham's family? In Genesis 24, Abraham tells his servant to go back to his homeland and find a wife for Isaac from Abraham's country and Abraham's relatives.

First of all, I suppose I can understand why Isaac was not allowed to marry a Canaanite.  Abraham didn't want Isaac, the son of promise, to be led astray by a wife outside the covenant, right?

But that still doesn't explain why the wife had to come from within Abraham's relatives.  Sure, the servant could go back to his hometown; but surely there were other eligible young women among other families?

Why intermarriage with Canaanites was forbidden
It says in Exodus:

Observe what I command you today. See, I will drive out before you the Amorites, the Canaanites, the Hittites, the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites. Take care not to make a covenant with the inhabitants of the land to which you are going, or it will become a snare among you. You shall tear down their altars, break their pillars, and cut down their sacred poles (for you shall worship no other god, because the Lord, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God). You shall not make a covenant with the inhabitants of the land, for when they prostitute themselves to their gods and sacrifice to their gods, someone among them will invite you, and you will eat of the sacrifice. And you will take wives from among their daughters for your sons, and their daughters who prostitute themselves to their gods will make your sons also prostitute themselves to their gods. (Exodus 34:11–16, emphasis added)

And again in Deuteronomy:

When the Lord your God brings you into the land that you are about to enter and occupy, and he clears away many nations before you—the Hittites, the Girgashites, the Amorites, the Canaanites, the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites, seven nations mightier and more numerous than you—and when the Lord your God gives them over to you and you defeat them, then you must utterly destroy them. Make no covenant with them and show them no mercy. Do not intermarry with them, giving your daughters to their sons or taking their daughters for your sons, for that would turn away your children from following me, to serve other gods. Then the anger of the Lord would be kindled against you, and he would destroy you quickly. But this is how you must deal with them: break down their altars, smash their pillars, hew down their sacred poles, and burn their idols with fire. For you are a people holy to the Lord your God; the Lord your God has chosen you out of all the peoples on earth to be his people, his treasured possession. (Deuteronomy 7:1–6, emphasis added)

All of the seven nations listed except the Perizzites (whose origins are unknown) are descended from Canaan, son of Ham (see Genesis 10:15–19), who was cursed by Noah in the incident recorded in Genesis 9:20–27. This incident and curse on Canaan is the origin story for a lasting conflict between the Hebrew people, who were descendants of Shem, and the Canaanites, who occupied much of the Holy Land at the time Abraham, and later the Israelites, first entered it.
Aside from the implicit directive to avoid intermingling with the descendants of Canaan because they were seen as cursed, a more explicit reason for the prohibition on marrying them given in the above two quotations is that intermarriage with them would cause the Israelites to begin honoring and worshiping their gods, thus forsaking the God of Israel, who demanded their sole worship and obedience.
In a nutshell, then, the Hebrews, and later the Israelites, were forbidden to intermarry with the descendants of Canaan because:

Canaan and his descendants were considered cursed.
Intermarrying with them would cause them to become unfaithful to their God.

Abraham also wanted to avoid intermarrying with descendants of Canaan
Although the explicit commandment not to intermarry with the descendants of Canaan is recorded in the Bible narrative long after the time of Abraham, many of the commandments given to the Israelites after the exodus from Egypt were codifications of rules that had already long been in place. For example, the law of levirate marriage recorded in Deuteronomy 25:5–10 was already being observed much earlier, during the time of Judah (see Genesis 38:1–11).
We can therefore presume that even during the time of Abraham, intermarriage with descendants of Canaan was not acceptable for Hebrews such as Abraham. This is borne out in the opening lines of the story of Abraham sending his trusted servant to get a wife for his son Isaac:

Now Abraham was old, well advanced in years; and the Lord had blessed Abraham in all things. Abraham said to his servant, the oldest of his house, who had charge of all that he had, "Put your hand under my thigh and I will make you swear by the Lord, the God of heaven and earth, that you will not get a wife for my son from the daughters of the Canaanites, among whom I live, but will go to my country and to my kindred and get a wife for my son Isaac." (Genesis 24:1–4, emphasis added)

Here Abraham specifically mentions the Canaanites among whom he lives as not being suitable to provide a wife for his son Isaac. And though there were other, non-Canaanite nations in the region as well, they, too, would worship other gods, making it too risky to marry his son Isaac to one of their daughters. Instead, he chose to seek a wife for his son from among his own relatives.
The covenant with Abraham
Earlier in the Bible narrative, just before and just after the Great Flood, God had made a covenant with Noah, which would cover him, his descendants, and all living beings on earth. In this covenant, God promised never again to cause a flood that would destroy all living beings. See Genesis 6:18; 9:1-17.
Later, however, God made a more specific covenant with Abram, whom he renamed Abraham. This covenant is first recorded in Genesis 15, and repeated with further detail in Genesis 17. In this covenant, God promises to give to Abraham and to his descendants the land of Canaan. In return, Abraham, all of the males in his household, and all of his descendants and the males in their households must be circumcised as a sign of their covenant with God.
This more specific covenant did not apply to all of humankind, but only to Abraham and his descendants. Further, it did not even apply to all of Abraham's descendants, but only to his designated heir, Isaac, and Isaac's descendants:

And Abraham said to God, "O that Ishmael might live in your sight!" God said, "No, but your wife Sarah shall bear you a son, and you shall name him Isaac. I will establish my covenant with him as an everlasting covenant for his offspring after him. As for Ishmael, I have heard you; I will bless him and make him fruitful and exceedingly numerous; he shall be the father of twelve princes, and I will make him a great nation. But my covenant I will establish with Isaac, whom Sarah shall bear to you at this season next year." (Genesis 17:18–21, emphasis added)

This covenant, then, was very specific to Abraham and his designated heir Isaac, miraculously borne by Abraham's wife Sarah in her old age. Therefore a suitable wife for Isaac must not come from any of these other nations—even the non-Canaanite ones—but must come from as close to Abraham's own family line as possible.
Abraham therefore sent his trusted servant to his immediate relatives living north of the land of Canaan in Aram-naharaim, in the city where his brother Nahor had settled (see Genesis 11:27–32; 24:10). From there, as told in Genesis 24, Abraham's servant got as a wife for Isaac Rebekah, granddaughter of Abraham's brother Nahor, making her Isaac's first cousin once removed.

There is a linguistic explanation that fits well with the biblical accounts of the genealogies of the Hebrew patriarchs. We now know that the early Israelites were polytheistic and actually worshipped the moon god, among others - see for example, The Early History of God: Yahweh and the Other Deities in Ancient Israel, by Mark S. Smith.

We know that Isaac is not to marry any of the people he lives among, and we will also find that his son, Jacob, must be found a wife from within Abraham's family. Leon R. Kass points out, in The Beginning of Wisdom: Reading Genesis, at page 255, that when we eventually learn of Sarai’s parentage (Sarah was the daughter of Terah and sister of Abram), we will see how "the patriarchal family line is a self-contained unit, originating solely in Terah, with no pathways to or from the outer world."  In other words, the patriarchs are to be descended on both their paternal and maternal sides from the one ancestor, Terah, father of Abraham.

The one explanation that arises from a reading of the Hebrew texts is that in ancient, pre-biblical traditions, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob might have been otherworldly people. Terah, and his son Abram, came from Ur and travelled to Haran, both principal cities of the moon god, Sin. The  Hebrew root for the name Terah means either ‘moon’ or ‘month’, and in what is now northern Syria the name of the moon god was Terah.

Isaac could not marry any of the mortals in the land, so Abraham sent a servant to his former city of Haran to find a wife for Isaac. The servant found a young maiden at the nearby town of Nahor. Nahor, the name of the Abraham's brother, means 'Light' or 'Lamp', suggestive of the moon.  Rebekah, the chosen wife, was the daughter of Bethuel and Milcah, which in Akkadian was a title given to Ishtar, the moon god's daughter. Also, Laban ('white' or 'bright') and each of Terah's other male descendants have names associated with the moon, while the names Rachel and Leah seem to be associated with the goddess Asherah, or Venus.

All this points to the possibility of an earlier, pre-biblical tradition that the patriarchs were incarnations of the moon god.  As such, they could not marry ordinary humans.


Which scriptures tells us that Jesus laughed or was happy? I know that Jesus wept. Where can I find in the bible that Jesus expressed joy, laughter or happiness?

The classic book on this subject is The Humor of Christ by Elton Trueblood.  While it is true that the Scripture rarely tells Jesus' emotion, there are considerable places in Scripture where Jesus is most likely making a joke:

When the Syrophoenician woman quips back that even the dogs get the crumbs
When the Pharisees strain out the gnats but swallow a camel
When Jesus describes the Pharisees as the blind leading the blind

Additionally, we may not have 'Jesus laughed," but we know that Jesus loved a party:

His first miracle was at a party, turning water into wine (and embarrassing Baptists ever since).
Matthew 9:15 "Jesus replied, "Do wedding guests mourn while celebrating with the groom? Of course not. But someday the groom will be taken away from them, and then they will fast." - basically telling the Pharisees to lighten up about the fact that the disciples weren't fasting.
Numerous parables about wedding feasts.  This was almost a staple of the genre.

And, finally, Jesus upbraids the Pharisees for their double-mindedness on the subject of fun in Matthew 11:16 - 19:

  To what can I compare this generation? They are like children sitting in the marketplaces and calling out to others:

  17“ ‘We played the pipe for you,
  and you did not dance;
  we sang a dirge,
  and you did not mourn.’

  18For John came neither eating nor drinking, and they say, ‘He has a demon.’ 19The Son of Man came eating and drinking, and they say, ‘Here is a glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and sinners.’ But wisdom is proved right by her deeds.”

Sadly, the shortest verse in the bible is "Jesus wept." (John 11:35). So to answer your question TRUTHFULLY (John 17:17), there are ZERO scriptures that specifically mention Jesus actually/physically laughing; there is a huge difference between "laughing" & various scriptures assuming/implying Jesus was "smiling". Do you think Jesus was laughing during Numbers 31:17-18 and Mark 7:10???


What is the biblical basis for classifying the Eucharist as an offering or sacrifice? It is commonly believed in Catholicism that the Eucharist/Lord's Supper/Communion is a "sacrifice" or "offering."

For example, one website states,

  The Eucharist is a true sacrifice, not just a commemorative meal, as "Bible Christians" insist.

What is the biblical basis for this belief?

Note:

"offering": προσφορά
"sacrifice": θυσία

Among other scriptures, the biblical basis for the Eucharist/Communion/Lord's Supper being an offering (προσφορά) or sacrifice (θυσία) is derived from 1 Cor. 10.
In 1 Cor. 10:18, the apostle Paul wrote,

Consider Israel according to the flesh. Are not those who eat the sacrifices partakers with the altar? 1
βλέπετε τὸν Ἰσραὴλ κατὰ σάρκα οὐχὶ οἱ ἐσθίοντες τὰς θυσίας κοινωνοὶ τοῦ θυσιαστηρίου εἰσίν

"Israel according to the flesh" refers to those Israelites physically descended from the patriarch Israel (Jacob) and his son Levi who participated in offering and eating the sacrifices at the altar in the Temple (cp. Deu. 18:1; Lev. 7:15-18).
The apostle Paul was concerned with the Corinthians partaking of heathen sacrifices offered to demons. By doing so, they would be partaking of the same sacrifices with demons.
In 1 Cor. 10:20, he wrote,

But [I say] that the things that the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to demons and not to God. But I do not desire for you to be partakers with the demons.
ἀλλ᾽ ὅτι ἃ θύει τά ἔθνη, δαιμονίοις θύει καὶ οὐ θεῷ οὐ θέλω δὲ ὑμᾶς κοινωνοὺς τῶν δαιμονίων γίνεσθαι

The apostle Paul describes how sacrificing to an entity causes one to be a partaker of that sacrifice with the entity. Ergo, because the heathens sacrifice to demons, they become partakers of that sacrifice with the demons. One of the fundamental beliefs concerning sacrifices was that the entity to whom the sacrifices were offered also participated in the sacrifice, this by means of the altar upon which the sacrifice was offered. The altar in Judaism, as well as heathen cultures who practiced sacrifices, represented the deity to whom the sacrifices were offered.
In Synonyms of the Old Testament: Their Bearing on Christian Faith and Practice, Ch. XVI, p. 310, Robert Baker Girdlestone wrote,

The altar, θυσιαστήριον, is mentioned in about twenty passages, in most of which the Jewish altar is referred to. In 1 Cor. 10.18, St. Paul reminds the Corinthians that in the case of Israel those who eat the sacrifices becoming in so doing partakers with the altar. By this he evidently means that while the altar (which represented God) had part of the victim, the sacrificer had another part; thus the sacrifice, being consumed partly by God (through means of the fire on the altar) and partly by man, forms a bond of union between the one and the other.

Finally, in 1 Cor. 10:21, the apostle Paul wrote,

You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons. You cannot partake of the table of the Lord and the table of demons.
οὐ δύνασθε ποτήριον κυρίου πίνειν καὶ ποτήριον δαιμονίων οὐ δύνασθε τραπέζης κυρίου μετέχειν καὶ τραπέζης δαιμονίων

The Greek word τράπεζα, translated as "table," is a synonym for "altar" (θυσιαστήριον). For example, in Mal. 1:7, it is written,

You offer polluted bread 2 upon My altar. And you say, "Wherein have we polluted You?" When you say, "The table of Yahveh is contemptible."
מַגִּישִׁים עַל מִזְבְּחִי לֶחֶם מְגֹאָל וַאֲמַרְתֶּם בַּמֶּה גֵאַלְנוּךָ בֶּאֱמָרְכֶם שֻׁלְחַן יהוה נִבְזֶה הוּא

In his commentary on Mal. 1:7, Franz Delitzsch wrote,

The table of Jehovah is the altar, upon which the sacrifices (i.e., the food of God) were laid.

Likewise, in his commentary on Mal. 1:7, Rabbi David Kimchi wrote,

"The table of Yahveh" - It is the altar, and so it said in Eze. [41:22] regarding the altar, "This is the table that is before Yahveh."
שלחן יהוה - הוא המזבח וכן אמר ביחזקאל על המזבח: זה השלחן אשר לפני יהוה

Having established that "table" = "altar," how does one partake of the table of demons (1 Cor. 10:21)? Evidently, it is by offering sacrifices to demons (1 Cor. 10:20). If one partakes of the table of demons by sacrificing to demons, how does one partake of the table of the Lord (i.e., table of Yahveh)? By analogy, one partakes of the table of the Lord by offering sacrifices to the Lord.
partake of the table of demons : offer sacrifices to demons ::
partake of the table of the Lord : offer sacrifices to the Lord
Of course, what are these sacrifices to the Lord? There can be no doubt that the apostle Paul is referring to "the cup of blessing which we bless," that is, "the communion of the blood of Christ," and "the bread which we break," that is, "the communion of the body of Christ" which he mention only two verses earlier (1 Cor. 10:16). In other words, the cup and bread of the Eucharist are indeed sacrifices offered to God on His altar/table.

Footnotes
1 Henry Alford: "in a strict and peculiar sense,—the altar having part of the animal, the partaker another part; and by the fact of the religious consecration of the offered part, this connexion becomes a religious connexion."
2 Franz Delitzsch: לֶחֶם, bread or food, does not refer to the shew-bread, for that was not offered upon the altar, but is the sacrificial flesh, which is called in Lev. 21:6, 21:8, 21:17, the food (לֶחֶם) of God

It's anachronistic to ask the question "What is the biblical basis for this belief" because the belief came before the Bible itself. The Bible was written with the conviction in mind that Jesus had sacrificed Himself on Calvary and He had instituted a sacrament (liturgical celebration) equivalent to the Jewish Passover ceremony (seder meal) commemorating that sacrifice. Furthermore, the apostles were convinced that they were ordained by Jesus in that very ceremony to continue reenacting it so as to allow His disciples to participate in that sacrifice analogous to the Passover sacrifice.

All four gospels make a point of specifying that the Last Supper was, indeed, a Passover seder. The seder is explicitly a meal in which a sacrificial lamb is consumed during a liturgical reenactment of God's salvation of the Jews from the slavery of Egypt. There is some controversy about a couple of ambiguities in the gospel of John, but properly understood, he too indicates that it was a seder meal. John 13:1-4 is awkwardly sequenced, but should be understood as saying after the disciples had reclined for the seder meal (which is at the very start of the first day of the seven day Passover festival), but before they began to eat, Jesus rose from the table and washed the feet of the disciples. (It wouldn't really make sense for Jesus to do it during the meal or after it since it is customary to wash feet of guests upon their arrival.) These verses are best translated by the Jerusalem Bible as follows:

  It was before the festival of the Passover, and Jesus knew that the
  hour had come for him to pass from this world to the Father. He had
  always loved those who were his in the world, but now he showed how
  perfect his love was.

  They were at supper, and the devil had already put it into the mind of
  Judas Iscariot son of Simon to betray him. Jesus knew that the Father
  had put everything into his hands and that he had come from God and
  was returning to God, and he got up from table, removed his outer
  garment and, taking a towel, wrapped it around his waist; he then
  poured water into a basin and began to wash the disciples' feet and
  wipe them with the towel he was wearing.

Later, beginning in John 13:21 the actual betrayal of Judas takes place. Note John's explanation of "That thou doest, do quickly" in verse 29: "For some of them thought, because Judas had the bag, that Jesus had said unto him, Buy those things that we have need of against the feast; or, that he should give something to the poor." Judas being sent out in the middle of the night to give something to the poor only makes sense on the night of Passover, the night when the seder is celebrated, because only on that night the gates of the temple were opened at midnight and the poor congregated to receive alms.

The other problematic passage is John 19:14, repeated in 31 and 42 "And it was the preparation of the passover" or simply "preparation". Properly understood, this means Friday of the week long festival of Passover, not the eve before the seder was eaten. Preparation was always the day before a Sabbath (Saturday). Note that in verse 31 it is specific that the following day is a Sabbath, and not just any Sabbath, but the Sabbath during a high festival week. The day before the start of a festival is erev in Hebrew, meaning eve, just like in English. Equivalent Greek terms would be hespera or opsia, or possibly paramoni which is not attested in the Bible and therefore may be only modern Greek.

Matthew 26:26-29, Mark 14:22-25, Luke 22:15-20 and 1 Cor 11:23-25 all attest that Jesus says “Take, eat; this is my body.” and “Drink of it, all of you, for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.” He does this in a very special context, a paschal supper, already understood sacramentally by His Jewish audience. In Luke and 1 Cor he also says "do this in remembrance of me". Now, a paschal meal was a remembrance of God's bringing the Israelites out of Egypt, but it was never understood by the Jews as a mere symbolic remembrance. It was a liturgical recreation of the event that put the participants back in that original last night in Egypt, ready to be rescued from slavery. This was Jesus's last night before His death, and by His sacrifice the next day they were rescued from the slavery to sin. The parallelism was not lost on the apostles. It was very clear to them that he was not asking them to eat merely a symbol, but the actual food of His sacrifice, just as the lamb of the seder was the holy substance of a sacrifice. Furthermore they understood Him to be ordaining them to a new priesthood, one that required that they repeat this event over and over for the new Christian community.

John doesn't record the institution of the eucharist at the Last Supper since by the time he wrote his gospel it had already been set down in writing four times. Instead, he recorded sayings of Jesus in Chapter 6 that can only be properly understood in light of the eucharist as a sacrificial meal analogous to a Passover seder. Note verse 4: "And the passover, a feast of the Jews, was nigh." There follows the miracle of the multiplication of the five loaves and two fish in verses 5-14. The miracle of Jesus walking on the sea comes in verses 15-25.

There follows many sayings of Jesus alluding to the future sacrament of the eucharist. I will bold the key words and phrases:

  26 Jesus answered them and said, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Ye
  seek me, not because ye saw the miracles, but because ye did eat
  of the loaves, and were filled. 27 Labour not for the meat
  which perisheth, but for that meat which endureth unto
  everlasting life, which the Son of man shall give unto you: for him hath God the Father sealed. 28 Then said they unto him, What
  shall we do, that we might work the works of God? 29 Jesus answered
  and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him
  whom he hath sent. 30 They said therefore unto him, What sign
  shewest thou then, that we may see, and believe thee? what dost
  thou work? 31 Our fathers did eat manna in the desert; as it is
  written, He gave them bread from heaven to eat. 32 Then Jesus said
  unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Moses gave you not that
  bread from heaven; but my Father giveth you the true bread from heaven. 33 For the bread of God is he which cometh down from
  heaven, and giveth life unto the world. 34 Then said they unto him,
  Lord, evermore give us this bread. 35 And Jesus said unto
  them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never
  hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst. 36 But I
  said unto you, That ye also have seen me, and believe not. 37 All that
  the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I
  will in no wise cast out. 38 For I came down from heaven, not to
  do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me. 39 And this is the
  Father’s will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I
  should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day.
  40 And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which
  seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting
  life: and I will raise him up at the last day. 41 The Jews then
  murmured at him, because he said, I am the bread which came down
  from heaven. 42 And they said, Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph,
  whose father and mother we know? how is it then that he saith, I
  came down from heaven? 43 Jesus therefore answered and said unto
  them, Murmur not among yourselves. 44 No man can come to me, except
  the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at
  the last day. 45 It is written in the prophets, And they shall be
  all taught of God. Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath
  learned of the Father, cometh unto me. 46 Not that any man hath seen
  the Father, save he which is of God, he hath seen the Father. 47
  Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath
  everlasting life. 48 I am that bread of life. 49 Your fathers did eat manna in the wilderness, and are dead. 50 This is the
  bread which cometh down from heaven, that a man may eat thereof, and not die. 51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven:
  if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and
  the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for
  the life of the world. 52 The Jews therefore strove among
  themselves, saying, How can this man give us his flesh to eat?
  53 Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except
  ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his
  blood, ye have no life in you. 54 Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise
  him up at the last day. 55 For my flesh is meat indeed, and my
  blood is drink indeed. 56 He that eateth my flesh, and
  drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him. 57 As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me. 58 This is that
  bread which came down from heaven: not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead: he that eateth of this bread shall live for ever. 59 These things said he in the synagogue, as he taught in Capernaum. 60 Many therefore of his disciples, when they had
  heard this, said, This is an hard saying; who can hear it? 61 When
  Jesus knew in himself that his disciples murmured at it, he said unto
  them, Doth this offend you? 62 What and if ye shall see the Son of
  man ascend up where he was before? 63 It is the spirit that
  quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto
  you, they are spirit, and they are life. 64 But there are some
  of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who
  they were that believed not, and who should betray him. 65 And
  he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me,
  except it were given unto him of my Father.

  66 From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more
  with him. 67 Then said Jesus unto the twelve, Will ye also go away? 68
  Then Simon Peter answered him, Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast
  the words of eternal life. 69 And we believe and are sure that
  thou art that Christ, the Son of the living God. 70 Jesus answered them, Have not I chosen you twelve, and one of you is a devil? 71 He
  spake of Judas Iscariot the son of Simon: for he it was that should
  betray him, being one of the twelve.


Is baptism by water necessary for salvation? John 3:5  Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

If the Kingdom of God is inside you (Luke 17:21), does this mean that one cannot have true inner peace with God unless he is baptized by both water and the Holy Spirit?

And does this mean that a person cannot receive salvation into the Kingdom of Heaven without baptism in both water and the Spirit first?

No, it is not necessary for salvation. Either Christ's work is complete at the cross or it is not.

Lets go to scripture.

Act 11:16  Then remembered I the word of the Lord, how that he said, John indeed baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost.
Water Baptism is merely a symbol of the Holy Spirit which baptizes.

No man made tradition provides salvation.

Also , Apostle Paul when he was In prison.
Act 16:30  And brought them out, and said, Sirs, what must I do to be saved?
Act 16:31  And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house.

He didn't tell him, go get baptised and then you will be saved.


What is the difference between the Roman Catholic and Greek Orthodox churches? What is the difference between the Roman Catholic and Greek Orthodox churches?

The differences are almost too great to list in an answer like this! The real problem in answering your question is that it isn't just a list of "things Roman Catholics believe" and "things Greek Orthodox believe". (NB that "Greek" Orthodox probably isn't accurate here: it's more accurate to talk in terms of "Eastern" Orthodox.) The problems are much more fundamental and enormous than that, and ultimately amount to entirely different methods of theology, theological reasoning, ecclesiological assumptions, thinkings about authority, worship, etc. A major factor is the simple fact that the Western Church (which became the Roman Catholic Church) spoke and wrote in Latin, whereas the Eastern Church used Greek. Translation (particularly of theology) is hard.

But here are some headlines:

Authority The Roman Catholic Church believes in the infallible teaching authority of the Church. This most famously means the doctrine of papal infallibility, though the concept of the infallibility of the ordinary magisterium (teaching office of the church) is also stated. This is a concept foreign to the Eastern Orthodox, who see the authority of the Church as stemming from the Holy Tradition, seen most fully in the Ecumenical Councils. But the Orthodox would be careful not to pin the question of "infallibility" down: it's not a concept that really works in Eastern thought.

Papacy For the Roman Catholic Church, the Bishop of Rome, the Pope, has universal jurisdiction over all the Church. This is not true in Eastern Orthodoxy. They recognise the Bishop of Rome as being primus inter pares, first among equals, but as essentially equal to the other major patriarchs (Constantinople, Antioch, Alexandria, Jerusalem).

The filioque clause The famous cause of the Great Schism of 1054. This was a modification to the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed. The question was whether the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, or from the Father and the Son. (filioque means "and from the Son".) For the Catholics, it is important that the phrase is used; for the Orthodox, it is breaking with tradition and perverting the doctrine of the Trinity. This problem is closely related to the above problems.

Church unity What is necessary for the Church to be one? For Roman Catholics, it means participation in the organisation headed by the Pope. For the Orthodox, it means membership in one of the Orthodox churches, which are fully in communion with one another.

These are all "dividing" issues, which contribute to the continuing division between the Orthodox and the Catholics. There are other differences as well, which aren't divisive in the same way:

Liturgy The Roman Catholic Mass is very different to the Orthodox Divine Liturgy.
Married clergy In the Roman Catholic Church, priests may not be married (except in some narrow circumstances, and in some Eastern Catholic Churches). For the Eastern Orthodox, married men may become priests, but not bishops.
Bread and the Eucharist Roman Catholics typically use unleavened bread (wafers) whereas the Orthodox use leavened bread. This is due to a very old dispute about the precise date of Easter, and whether the Last Supper was a Passover meal.

And, moreover, culturally there are very different attitudes. A summary would be that Catholics tend to systematise things (e.g. the Summa Theologica of Thomas Aquinas) whereas the Orthodox tend to prefer a more discursive, poetic, less precise way of doing theology.

"less precise" is not a good term to use. For example:
Orthodox say that the Holy Spirit stem from the  "Father through the Son", whereas Catholics say that the Holy Spirit stem from the "Father and the Son", but with the same meaning like Orthodox.
For your info, Pope John Paul II accepted the lack of accuracy in this expresion, which was the main issue why Catholics split from Orthodox in 1054. The Pope said this expression exactly like Orthodox in 1995 together with the Orthodox patriarch. Because of this correction, Catholics and Orthodox should be already the same church.
Sir/Madam, please don't disinform people for what is precise in saying in regard to God. God wants all Christians to be united, and all Christians should contribute  for this goal.


How does the New Testament define a Christian and a non-Christian, a brother in Christ and not a brother in Christ? How does the New Testament define a brother in Christ? According to the New Testament, what makes a human a brother in Christ? And also, according to the New Testament, which people are definitely not Christians, definitely not brothers in Christ?

I would want to have a set of key critical conditions-prerequisites (elicited from the New Testament) that would be necessary conditions for a person to be considered a Christian or a brother in Christ (I mean, if a person lacks at least one of those conditions, he is definitely not a Christian and definitely not a brother in Christ)

(I am not requesting here others' personal views. I really want to know how this very important matter is presented in the New Testament.
This matter is in fact a fundamental matter pertaining to Christian faith. It's not like "Is smoking cigarettes good or bad according to the New Testament?" While smoking may not be an important issue in Christianity, the matter that I am concerned about here definitely is)

Nowhere in the New Testanment is there a clear, condensed definition of a Christian or a Brother in Christ. The definition is written throughout the new testament. But there are a few things which are stated that make it fairly clear. A Christian can be defined as someone who:

Accepts Jesus Christ as the son of God and their Lord and Savior.
Accepts and follows the Bible, as it's the infallible Word of God.
Has faith and trusts God with all his heart.
Loves the Lord.
Bears fruit (produces positive results)

I think the answer lies in the soul of each person n particular, so we cannot distinguish between a Christian and a non-Christian. Only God thoroughly knows each person, and is the only Judge. We probably should not try to identify certain people as non-Christians.


Where does the concept of "unconditional love toward others" come from? What tradition or theology does the concept of "unconditional love toward others" derive from, and how is it reconciled with the need of repentance for absolution along with a similar process for brothers and sisters of the faith described in Titus?

Most will probably know a certain candidate thanked his mother for it recently (could indicate Baptist origins), and it was also brought up on the radio today:  http://www.keylife.org/player/works .

I would submit that the numerous times God forgave Israel, the love he expressed to David even after sinning, and ultimately the very fact that a plan of salvation was established from the very beginning, all point to and demonstrate unconditional love
The need of repentance and "process", assuming you're speaking of Titus 3:4-7, is that plan of salvation in which demonstrated/demonstrates unconditional love.

Isaiah 54:10
Though the mountains be shaken and the hills be removed, yet my unfailing love for you will not be shaken nor my covenant of peace be removed,” says the Lord, who has compassion on you.
Psalms 78:36-38
But then they would flatter him with their mouths, lying to him with their tongues; their hearts were not loyal to him, they were not faithful to his covenant.
Yet he was merciful; he forgave their iniquities and did not destroy them.  Time after time he restrained his anger and did not stir up his full wrath.
Matthew 18:21-22
Then Peter came to Jesus and asked, “Lord, how many times shall I forgive my brother when he sins against me? Up to seven times?”
Jesus answered, “I tell you, not seven times, but seventy-seven times.

The short answer: universal atonement.  It is a doctrine which, as far as I can tell, has been systematically edged out of the western church as the doctrines of Calvinism have become the de facto standard.  Personally, my beliefs reflect a bit of each of Calvinism and Arminianism.  Universal atonement is a fundamental part of the Arminian system and has a LOT of strong support in scripture.

Please don't confuse it, though, with universal reconciliation.  Universal atonement refers to the efficacy of Christ's sacrifice for all men.  We have been forgiven and must therefore repent and believe (ie. turn from our sins and live by faith) in order that God might consider us reconciled through his son.  Universal reconciliation is the more radical view that all will be saved due to God's great 'love.'

When you put your Arminian hat on, verses like John 3:16 look quite a bit different.  God so loved the world to give his only son... but he also fought pretty ferociously with that same world when he arrived.  Particularly with the religious leaders of the day.  Did God love those men and wish them to come to repentance?  I believe so.  Did he make blind their eyes and deaf their ears that they could not hear and repent?  I believe he did that too.

'Unconditional love' is a pretty broad and ill-defined notion that our society loves to throw around.  In the political arena especially, we worship the idea of acceptance and inclusion of all orientations and creeds.  It seems to me that it stems from the radicalized view of God's love and grace rather than the time-honored doctrine by which the church used to abide.  Can I love those people thanks to the example God has given me on the cross?  Absolutely.  Do I need to consider all people to be co-laborers and fellow heirs of our glorious inheritance?  Not for a moment.

P.S. I just got that radio soundbyte to play on my computer.  Crap like that is NOT biblical teaching.  It's just a bunch of wishy-washy feel-good nonsense to keep you tithing and/or buying their books ;)  Check out a guy named Paul Washer for more critical commentary on the state of the modern church.  Just remember that he's a pretty hard-core Calvinist so I don't agree with everything he says.


How many languages did apostle Paul speak? Of course, he could speak Hebrew and from such examples like preaching the gospel in Athens it seems that he had no problem speaking Greek. He also wanted to visit Rome, while there were no Jews living in Rome at that time, so does it mean that he could also speak Latin? Also he wanted to go to Spain. Does it mean that he could also speak Spanish? Was Spanish existent at that time?

We know that he spoke Greek, Hebrew, and maybe Latin. The Latin conjecture is based on the fact that he was Roman and the official language of Rome was Latin.

Proof text for Hebrew:

  And when we had all fallen to the ground, I heard a voice saying to me in the Hebrew language, ‘Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting me? It is hard for you to kick against the goads.’ (Acts 26:14, ESV)

Proof text for Greek:

  As Paul was about to be brought into the barracks, he said to the tribune, “May I say something to you?” And he said, “Do you know Greek? (Acts 21:37, ESV)

I want to point out that my answer is going to be long since it is a long explanation.

The language of Apostle Paul (who was a Pharisee - Philippians 3:5) was Aramaic. Not Hebrew and Greek.

In Acts 1:19, Field of Blood was known to all the inhabitants of Jerusalem in their own language as Akeldama which is the transliteration of Aramaic words "Haqal Dama." (Source - Book "What do Jewish People think about Jesus?" by Dr. Michael Brown, Page 39)

According to First century Jewish Priest & Historian Josephus, Greek wasn't spoken in first century Israel. Josephus also points out the extreme rarity in terms of a Jew knowing Greek in first century AD.

Josephus wrote:

"I have also taken a great deal of pains to obtain the learning of the Greeks, and understand the elements of the Greek language, although I have so long accustomed myself to speak our own tongue, that I cannot pronounce Greek with sufficient exactness; for our nation does not encourage those that learn the languages of many nations, and so adorn their discourses with the smoothness of their periods; because they look upon this sort of accomplishment as common, not only to all sorts of free-men, but to as many of the servants as please to learn them. But they give him the testimony of being a wise man who is fully acquainted with our laws, and is able to interpret their meaning; on which account, as there have been many who have done their endeavors with great patience to obtain this learning, there have yet hardly been so many as two or three that have succeeded therein, who were immediately well rewarded for their pains." —Antiquities of Jews XX, XI.

Dead Sea Scrolls Archaeologist Yigael Yadin also agrees with Josephus' testimony, pointing out that Aramaic was the lingua franca of this time period (Source - Book "Bar Kokhba: The rediscovery of the legendary hero of the last Jewish Revolt Against Imperial Rome" Page 234).

You may ask how is it possible that Apostle Paul didn't speak Greek since he was writing to people living in Greek regions. Apostle Paul was actually writing to Jews and Arameans who lived in Greek regions who spoke Aramaic.

Although Greek NT and the translations of Greek NT contradict the testimony of Josephus by saying that there were Greeks who communicated with Jesus and Apostle Paul, still Aramaic NT supports the testimony of Josephus by saying that they were either Aramaean(s) or Pagan(s).

Below are some examples.

Mark 7:26 (NIV Translation) - "The woman was a Greek, born in Syrian Phoenicia. She begged Jesus to drive the demon out of her daughter."

But in Mark 7:26 (Book "The Original Aramaic New Testament in Plain English", Page. 68) - "But she was a pagan woman from Phoenicia of Syria, and she was begging him to cast out the demon from her daughter."

John 7:35 (NIV) - "The Jews said to one another, "Where does this man intend to go that we cannot find him? Will he go where our people live scattered among the Greeks, and teach the Greeks."

But in John 7:35 (Book "The Original Aramaic New Testament in Plain English", Page. 153) - "The Judeans were saying among themselves, "Where is This Man prepared to go that we cannot be? Is He prepared to go teach the pagans?"".

Acts 16:1 (NIV) - "Paul came to Derbe and then to Lystra, where a disciple named Timothy lived, whose mother was Jewish and a believer but whose father was a Greek."

But in Acts 16:1 (Book "The Original Aramaic New Testament in Plain English", Page. 199) - "And he arrived at the city Derby and at Lystra, but a disciple was there whose name was Timotheus, son of a certain Jewess believer, and his father was an Aramaean."

Romans 1:16 (KJV) - "For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek."

Romans 1:16 (Book "The Original Aramaic New Testament in Plain English", Page. 218) - "For I am not ashamed of The Gospel, because it is the power of God for the life of all who believe in it, whether of The Judeans first, or of the Aramaeans."

Acts 20:21 (NIV) - "I have declared to both Jews and Greeks that they must turn to God in repentance and have faith in our Lord Jesus."

Acts 20:21 (Book "The Original Aramaic New Testament in Plain English", Page. 206) - "While I was testifying to the Jews and to the Aramaeans about returning to God and the faith in Our Lord Yeshua The Messiah."

Acts 19:17 (KJV) - "And this was known to all the Jews and Greeks also dwelling at Ephesus; and fear fell on them all, and the name of the Lord Jesus was magnified."

Acts 19:17 (Book "The Original Aramaic New Testament in Plain English", Page. 204) - "And this became known to all the Jews and Aramaeans dwelling in Ephesaus and great fear fell upon all of them, and the name of Our Lord Yeshua The Messiah was exalted."

1 Corinthians 1:24(NIV) - "but to those whom God has called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God."

1 Corinthians 1:24 (Book "The Original Aramaic New Testament in Plain English", Page. 238) - "But to those who are called, Jews and Aramaeans, The Messiah is the power of God and the wisdom of God."

Galatians 2:3 (KJV) - "But neither Titus, who was with me, being a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised:"

Galatians 2:3 (Book "The Original Aramaic New Testament in Plain English", Page. 269) - "Even Titus, an Aramaean who was with me, was not compelled to be circumcised."

According to Dead Sea Scrolls archaeologist, Yigael Yadin, Aramaic was the language of Jews until Simon Bar Kokhba tried to revive Hebrew and make it as the official language of Jews during Bar Kokhba revolt (132-135 AD).

Yigael Yadin noticed the shift from Aramaic to Hebrew during the time of Bar Kokhba revolt.

In Book "Bar Kokhba: The rediscovery of the legendary hero of the last Jewish Revolt Against Imperial Rome" Yigael Yadin notes, "It is interesting that the earlier documents are written in Aramaic while the later ones are in Hebrew. Possibly the change was made by a special decree of Bar-Kokhba who wanted to restore Hebrew as the official language of the state"(page 181).

In Book "A Roadmap to the Heavens: An Anthropological Study of Hegemony among Priests, Sages, and Laymen (Judaism and Jewish Life)" by Sigalit Ben-Zion (Page 155), Yadin remarked: "it seems that this change came as a result of the order that was given by Bar Kokhba, who wanted to revive the Hebrew language and make it the official language of the state."

According to Book "Naming the Witch: Magic, Ideology, and Stereotype in the Ancient World" written by Kimberly B. Stratton (p. 232), Yadin suggests that Bar Kokhba was trying to revive Hebrew by decree as part of his messianic ideology.

You may ask what about mentioning Hebrew in NT. Whenever they saw Hebrew in first century Israel, they are referring to Hebrew tongue which was Aramaic.

John 19:17 (KJV) - "And he bearing his cross went forth into a place called the place of a skull, which is called in the Hebrew Golgotha."

John 19:13 (KJV) - "When Pilate therefore heard that saying, he brought Jesus forth, and sat down in the judgment seat in a place that is called the Pavement, but in the Hebrew, Gabbatha."

Words "Golgotha" and "Gabbatha" are Aramaic (Source - Book "The Words of Jesus in the
Original Aramaic" Page. 114-115 by Stephen Andrew Missick & John 19:17 and John 19:13 of NIV). "tha" in "Golgotha" and "Gabbatha" is the Aramaic definite article on a feminine noun in an emphatic state (Source - Book "Introduction to Syriac" by Wheeler Thackston, Page 44).

For script tampering in Greek NT, check this link - http://en.metapedia.org/wiki/New_Testament