Are faith and proof mutually exclusive? Must something be unprovable to permit faith in it? Is it possible to have faith in something which is certain provable fact? If something is proven beyond any doubt can you still have faith in it? How?

The much used ode to faith in the NT book of Hebrews tells us a little bit about what faith is. Here are the first couple verses:

  Hebrews 11:1-3 (ESV)
  Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen. For by it the people of old received their commendation. By faith we understand that the universe was created by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things that are visible.

The passage goes on to give many examples, but this bit helps us scope out a definition of faith that is somewhere between the two extremes you suggest in your question. First of all we see that there is assurance. True faith is not blind, it is based on evidence and knowledge. It is a kind of trust. Trust between two parties is established in past encounters but looks forward to the future knowing what to expect from the other party. Secondly it is a conviction. This doesn't have to be without any doubt (in fact many of the people listed as examples in the passage experienced doubt) but it does have to come to a conclusion and really believe/trust.

Faith is built on evidence and knowledge as well as a trust that enables us to be sure the parts we don't fully understand will work out.

Faith and proof are not mutually exclusive -- faith projects evidence of past events into the future.

It depends what you mean by "faith".

When regarding religious matters, the most typical definition of "faith", used by religious and non-religious alike--and I'd argue this is the most useful definition in these cases--is: belief in the absence of evidence (and I mean the post-Enlightenment understanding of evidence:  independently confirmed by high quality sources, objective, fits into a successful model of the way nature works, reproducible or repeatedly observed, stands up to testing, etc.)

Under this definition, then, the answers to your questions would be:

  Must something be unprovable to permit faith in it?

Either unprovable or as yet unproved.

  Is it possible to have faith in something which is certain provable fact?

With this definition, no; then it is no longer an act of holding faith, it is an act of knowing.

  If something is proven beyond any doubt can you still have faith in it? How?

No, not with this definition.


A promise in Acts 16:31? In the book of Acts, chapter 16, verse 31, reads as follows:

  They replied, "Believe in the Lord Jesus and you will be saved, you and your household." (NET)
  They replied, "Believe in the Lord Jesus and you will be saved, along with everyone in your household." (NLT)

Some say that this verse is a promise. If a relative is saved, the whole family will also be in some future. How true is this?

It is clear that the verse cited, Acts 16:31, is a promise. The question is, to whom does the promise apply? Taken in context, it is a promise to a particular individual in a specific instance. This verse is lifted from the narrative of Paul and Silas in jail in Phillipi, to which they had been delivered by the owners of a slave girl from whom they had driven an unclean spirit. In the narrative, there was an earthquake during which the doors of the jail came open, and the jailer was about to kill himself, believing that the prisoners had escaped. But Paul told the jailer that the prisoners were all accounted for, and in response to the jailer's question, "what must I do to be saved", Paul responds as quoted. The jailer took Paul to his house, and the jailer and his whole household were baptized.

So yes, the statement of Paul is a promise, and contains, in my view, a bit of prophecy about immediately following events. The jailer believed, and the whole household was baptized. However, it is less clear that this a generalized promise to all mankind, that upon believing, the whole household of the believer will be saved. Were this true, it would put Paul against the prophet Micah, and Jesus, who taught about  intra-familial discord between sons and fathers, daughters and mothers, daughters-in-law and mothers-in-law, etc. (cf. Micah 7:6, Matthew 10:21, Matthew 12:34ff, and Luke 12:52-53).

I think that the same basis requirements for salvation apply to everyone, as far as they are capable of complying. When Christ said "Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect." (Matt. 5:48), He expected all those that chose to follow Him to obey to the best os their ability. But He also knew that everyone would fall short of that goal to some degree, each individual arriving to his own level. Then Christ, through His grace would make up for the rest, to the degree that each of us have qualified. Consider the following:

In Paul's epistle to the Hebrews, he gave a very simple answer to what is required for us to be saved. He said "And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him;" (Hebrews 5:9) In other words, Christ only saves those that obey Him!

Assuming that by salvation you mean going to live in the kingdom of Heaven, Christ says very clearly, "Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven." (Matt. 7:21) In other words, to obey Christ and gain salvation, we must do the will of the Father! Otherwise, He goes on to say that even though we might believe and act in His name, if what we do is not according to the will of His Father, He will not recognize us. (v. 22) More than that, He will condemn us for doing so. (v. 23)

He goes on to explain the will of His Father, saying, "Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock: And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell not: for it was founded upon a rock." (v. 25, 26) In other words, it is the will of the Father that we learn and obey all that Christ says. According to His words, this is required to enter into the kingdom of heaven.

Obviously then, to believe in Him is not enough! We must learn and do. He made this clear when speaking to some Jews that believed in Him:"Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on him, If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed; And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free."(John 8:31-32) In other words, again to obey Him, we must learn and do all that He said, to gain an accurate understanding of the truth that we might become free [of deception].

Regarding the importance of learning the truth in order to be saved, our Saviour also said,"And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent." (John 17:3) In other words, gaining salvation or "life eternal" requires accurate knowledge of His Father and of Him. That is why we must continue studying His word under the guidance of the Spirit of Truth!

With these things in mind, then, our Saviour was probably able to make this promise to that household because He could see into their hearts and already knew that they were among those who would apply themselves to learn and live His teachings sufficiently to merit His Grace unto salvation.


Significance of Methuselah's death year This is something I noted once when reading Genesis, and am still wondering if there's any meaning to it.

Genesis tells us that Noah was 599-600 years old1 when the flood came.

  Genesis 7:11 (ESV)
  In the six hundredth year of Noah’s life, in the second month, on the seventeenth day of the month, on that day all the fountains of the great deep burst forth, and the windows of the heavens were opened.

We can also find the age difference of Methuselah and Noah in Genesis 5, and it's 187 + 182 = 369 years2:

  Genesis 5:25-29 (ESV)
   25 When Methuselah had lived 187 years, he fathered Lamech. 26 Methuselah lived after he fathered Lamech 782 years and had other sons and daughters. 27 Thus all the days of Methuselah were 969 years, and he died.
   28 When Lamech had lived 182 years, he fathered a son 29 and called his name Noah, saying, "Out of the ground that the LORD has cursed this one shall bring us relief from our work and from the painful toil of our hands."

So, if Noah was 600 when the flood happened, Methuselah was 600 + 369 = 969. That is, he died around the time of flood.

Did Methuselah die in the flood? Does the Bible refer to this anywhere else? Is this in any way significant?

1 I don't know Hebrew, so I'm not gonna guess. The tenth year of my life was technically when I was 9 years old. But even in English the phrase might also mean being 10 years old.

2 More precisely, the age difference is in the range of [369 years; 370 years + 364 days]

It is relevant that Methuselah died just before the flood. Just have a look at the names of the first 10 generations leading up to Noah:

Adam - Man (CJBPG)
Seth - Appointed
Enosh - Mortal, weak (Smith's, Hitchcock's, Nave's)
Kenan - Sorrow
Mahalelel - The Praise of Lord (Smith's, Fausset's, Easton's, Nave's)
Jared - Descend  (Smith's, Fausset's, Easton's, Nave's, Hitchcock's, ISBE)
Enoch - Dedicated
Methuselah - His death shall bring (Fausset's)
Lamech - Lamentator, the poor, brought low (Hitchcock)
Noah - Comfort

Putting this together:

Man is appointed to be mortal and sorrowful. But the Praise of the Lord will descend, dedicated that His death shall bring the desparing, low, and poor comfort.

I imaging that every time Methuselah had a cold, everybody worried.

But what a prophecy into God's plan for humanity!

Now, based on this it is my believe that Methuselah died before the flood. There is no prove for that, though.

Jewish counting works different from ours: When Jesus was dead for 3 days, that means that he died on one, was dead the next, and rose the third. (which would make it possible for him to be dead for only 27 hours: He died at 3pm, and the third day started at around 6pm the next evening.)

Therefore Methuselah could have died on his 968th birthday and still have lived 969 years.

My calculation is something like this :

Assume that the year when Lamech was born is Year 1.

Year 1 - Methuselah was 187 yo when Lamech was born

Year 182 - Lamech was 182 yo when Noah was born

The flood happen when Noah was 600 yo.
So, it's in the year 782.

Methuselah died when he was 969 yo.

969 years minus 187 years---> (Methuselah age when Lamech was born) is 782 years.

So, if Methuselah was righteous before God then he died in the same year of the flood but before the flood.

If Methuselah was not righteous before God then he died because of the flood.

Maybe :).


Why is the Old Testament included in the bible if we are no longer under those old laws? If we are no longer under old laws, why is it necessary to read the Old Testament?

Paul gives us a pretty good answer to this in his letter to the church in Rome:

  "For whatever was written in earlier times was written for our instruction, so that through perseverance and the encouragement of the Scriptures we might have hope."  Romans 15:4 NASB

The Old Testament record reveals the character of God in many different ways.  In it we see His faithfulness, His justice, His compassion, His holiness and many other things.

We can be encouraged to go to God in prayer, knowing that He has both the power and inclination to act on our behalf--just as we see He did in the Old Testament time and time again.

Additionally, the Old Testament contains many prophecies and pictures of Christ that gives us confidence in the truthfulness of the Gospel and also lets us see the beauty of God's dealings with mankind.  Isaiah 53 is an amazing prophecy of the suffering Messiah and the Snake in the Desert beautifully demonstrates the Gospel.

It should be noted that much of the Old Testament is actually not simply laws to follow, but stories of God's interaction with mankind.  The Law is contained in the Old Testament, but Genesis, Psalm, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon and the much of the prophets have little or nothing to do with instructions on the Law.

Why do you think we are no longer under the law? Jesus said:

Matthew 5:18  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.
Luke 16:17  And it is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the law to fail.

As far as I can tell from reading my Bible is that that happens:

Revelation 21:1  KJV And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea.

Jesus did not do away with the law:

Matthew 5:17  KJV  Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.

Every time one of us breaks any of the laws Jesus has to pay for it on the cross. The only thing different is that every time you sin Jesus may feel a new  pain, the Bible doesn't say that he does, but it also does not say that he doesn't.


What does it mean to be "weak in faith"? There have been some questions and answers which discuss the strength of one's faith such as Why do OEC discount the literal interpretation of the book of Genesis?

There is also a question which asks What is "faith?" and another which asks How do I get more faith?

How do you measure faith, and how can you identify when someone is "weaker" in it?

Romans 14 addresses this question in a practical way.  It largely assumes that the reader already understands what is meant by weak faith, but the chapter still gives insight into what Paul meant by "weak faith".

(All quotes below are NASB.)

  1 Now accept the one who is weak in faith, but not for the purpose of passing judgment on his opinions. 2 One person has faith that he may eat all things, but he who is weak eats vegetables only. 3 The one who eats is not to regard with contempt the one who does not eat, and the one who does not eat is not to judge the one who eats, for God has accepted him. 4 Who are you to judge the servant of another? To his own master he stands or falls; and he will stand, for the Lord is able to make him stand.

Paul mentions the specific case of dietary laws, but a generalization of his view presented here is that the person with weaker faith has a bigger tendency to be legalistic and the person with stronger faith is comfortable with a larger variety of activities.  The bottom line though is that neither brother should allow difference in faith to affect their view of the other.

Both in verse 3 above and verse 10 below Paul points out that the person with weaker faith tends to judge others (for their "improper" behavior) while in contrast the person with stronger faith tends to view others with contempt (for their lack of understanding of their freedom).

If you have a tendency to judge others or if you have a tendency to view others with contempt, you need to consider who the ultimate judge is.

  10 But you, why do you judge your brother? Or you again, why do you regard your brother with contempt? For we will all stand before the judgment seat of God.

  11 For it is written,

  “AS I LIVE, SAYS THE LORD, EVERY KNEE SHALL BOW TO ME,
  AND EVERY TONGUE SHALL GIVE PRAISE TO GOD.”

  12 So then each one of us will give an account of himself to God. (Emphasis added.)

So what's the practical application/result of this understanding of "weak faith"?

  13 Therefore let us not judge one another anymore, but rather determine this—not to put an obstacle or a stumbling block in a brother’s way.

  22 The faith which you have, have as your own conviction before God. Happy is he who does not condemn himself in what he approves. 23 But he who doubts is condemned if he eats, because his eating is not from faith; and whatever is not from faith is sin.

Live your life according to the convictions God has given you.
Do not judge the convictions of a brother in Christ.
Always be willing to yield your behavior to the stronger convictions of a brother so that you will not cause him to stumble.

Paul defines what being weak in the faith means for us. Its always best to use the bible to define bible terms, otherwise we are just making up our own definitions. First of all Paul is NOT critical of those who are 'weak in the faith', in contrast, he is critical of those who most would consider to be 'strong in the faith'. Rom 14:1  "Rom 14:1 "Receive one who is weak in the faith, but not to disputes over DOUBTFUL THINGS." Paul is dealing with a DOUBTFUL topic here, and it is whether we can eat meat or not. Paul does not say a person has less 'faith' or belief in God because they choose to be a vegetarian. He is not saying a person who chooses to be obedient to God as they understand it is 'weak in the faith'. There is no law against NOT eating meat. Rom 6:1-2 "What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin that grace may abound? Certainly not!"

He is using that phrase to describe their knowledge of God's word. A new believer might consider that we need to avoid meat because it's been sacrificed to an idol prior to being sold in the butcher shop. God's word, His law, does not say you can't eat meat you buy if it's been sacrificed to an idol before the butcher bought it to sell to you. The prohibition is against participating in the sacrifice itself. If the meat has no blood in it (because it hasn't been strangled as per Acts 15:20) , it is fine to buy from the butcher. But to someone who thinks it is wrong, avoid eating that meat in front of them. If they want to abstain from meat altogether, there is no law against that either. it doesn't mean they have less 'faith' as in belief in God than  you do. Pauls only criticism is for the meat eater, that they should show love to their vegetarian brother; Rom 14:15  "Yet if your brother is grieved because of your food, you are no longer walking in love". How do we become 'strong in the faith'? Paul tells us it is by hearing (hearing, learning and obeying) God's word. Rom 10:17  "So then faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God".  We need to hear God's word, so we can grow 'strong in faith' and be obedient to the faith Rom 1:5  "Through Him we have received grace and apostleship for OBEDIENCE to the faith"


Why did Jesus use the expression, "very truly I tell you"? I used to think nothing of it until someone said, "it makes you wonder what he was saying the rest of the time".

Now I don't believe for one moment Jesus was a liar, but why did He use that strange expression?

One of 26 examples exists here:

  John 16:7 (NIV)
  But very truly I tell you, it is for your good that I am going away. Unless I go away, the Advocate will not come to you; but if I go, I will send him to you.

It was likely a common expression in that day to emphasize the importance of what would be spoken immediately after that.

And, to tell you the truth, we have a similar phrase in English.  We don't mean that we weren't telling the truth before and are only now beginning to do so.

So, can I be honest with you?  I wasn't being dishonest with you before, but now my degree of openness is greater and I'm being more transparent than I would otherwise be in the course of conversations with acquaintances.

The answer is simple, it is to remind us that He is the Truth. It is a living testament that He was and He is the Truth and He was telling the truth yet people of Israel, not necessarily Jews, were blind and unable to see or hear or accept the Truth, Jesus Christ. It has nothing to do with English and or phrases in any language. "I am telling you the truth!"

To put things a bit into perspective, for example if your mom tells you 1000000000 times: "Do not touch the fire because you are going to burn yourself. I am telling you the truth!" and you still do it and you burn yourself was she telling you the truth? Well yes, she told you so!


What is the basis for the Apostles devoting themselves to prayer for nine days in Acts 1:14? We know that in Acts the Apostles prayed in the upper room consecutively until the Holy Spirit descended on them. Oftentimes I heard that this was calculated to be for nine days. How did people reach this number?

The existing answers give much valuable and interesting information. This is just to indicate, as asked, how the number of days is actually calculated.

Leviticus 23 16 gives the date of the Jewish Festival of Pentecost as occurring fifty days after the Passover Sabbath. On the basis that the Jewish Passover began on the evening of Good Friday then Pentecost was the Sunday 7 weeks after Easter Day,

This question on the Judaism stack exchange has more about this.

Acts 1 verse 3 tells us that the risen Jesus was seen by His apostles for a period of forty days. Beginning on Easter Sunday, as the first day, we get that the fortieth day was a Thursday, which the Church celebrates as Ascension Day. (In practice it is often celebrated on the following Sunday for convenience.)

Acts 2 verse 1 tells us that the Holy Spirit came on the Day of Pentecost, that is on the Sunday ten days after the Ascension of Christ. This is why Whit Sunday, or  Christian Pentecost, is always exactly 7 weeks after Easter Day.

This leaves the intervening days between Ascension Day and Whit Sunday on which the apostles prayed, as the Friday and Saturday after the Ascension and the whole of the following week, that is nine days in all.

How long did the Apostles devote themselves in prayer in Acts1:14?

The answer is Nine Days symbolizing the Latin word "novena".

How did the  people reach the  number of days as nine? Since the scriptures is silent,  the Sacred Tradition will play an important role as the Church is a depository of Truth about the faith of the Church from Apostolic to Church Fathers teachings handed thru Sacred Tradition. (1Timothy3:15 )

The Catholic Church recognized the Novena to the Holy Spirit as the first novena prayer as Jesus is the one who instructed the Apostles to wait for the  coming of the "another Advocate" and the "Spirit of Truth" in John14:16.

The  Catholic Church associated the nine days prayer to the following,

  " Overtime,  members of the Roman Catholic faith began to associate novena with Christian themes such as the nine months of Jesus spent in the womb,  the giving up of His spirit at the ninth hour,  and the event occured in the Upper Room with Twelve Apostles and the  Blessed Virgin Mary when they prayed for nine days until the Holy Spirit descended on the Feast of the Pentecost.

  In the New Testament this biblical event  is often quoted from Acts1:12 - 2:5. The Church Fathers also assigned special meaning to the number nine,  seeing it as a symbolic of imperfect man turning to God in prayer. ( due to its proximity with the number ten,  a symbolic of perfection and God)
  https://en. m. wikipedia. org

The  mysterious question is who lead the Apostles to a novena prayer invoking the Holy Spirit to come.  Nobody among all the Apostles knew the manifestation of the Holy Spirit and most especially how to prepare the Apostles heart to become the temple of the Holy Spirit.

The Pentecost also will reveal who is the "another Advocate" and the "Spirit of Truth". The  Holy Spirit will anoint all the Apostles & Disciples to testify to the Truth of who Jesus is, to spread the  gospel of Christ.

Book of Acts describes all who received the anointing appear to be drunk?  Did the Apostles celebrate the First Holy Mass in the Upper Room and eat & drink the "bread & wine"?

The prayer of the Apostles in the Upper Room was only possible by the intercession of the Theotokos as She is the only person who experienced the  overshadowing of the Holy Spirit and can lead the Apostles to Novena prayer.

And since the Holy Spirit anointing will impart wisdom to all the Apostles, the heart of all the Apostles must resemble the heart of Mary as wisdom will not dwell in a body subjects to sins:

Jesus breathing initially the Holy Spirit in ( John 20:22-23 ) gave all the Apostles the power to forgive sins,  to prepare their hearts to celebrate the First Holy Mass in the Upper Room and be worthy to partake the Holy Eucharist.

  " For wisdom will not enter into malicious soul,  nor dwell in a body subject to sins. " (Wisdom 1:4 )


When did Sarah call Abraham "lord"? Peter says that Sarah called Abraham "lord" (i.e., master) and that it was a good thing.

When did she do this? And how does Peter know this? I can't find it anywhere in scripture.

  1 Peter 3:5,6 ESV For this is how the holy women who hoped in God used to adorn themselves, by submitting to their own husbands, as Sarah obeyed Abraham, calling him lord. And you are her children, if you do good and do not fear anything that is frightening.

The first verse that comes to my mind is in Genesis 18:12-

  Therefore Sarah laughed within herself, saying, After I am waxed old shall I have pleasure, my lord being old also?

This is the only verse I can really remember in this context, and it is probably what Peter is referring to.

Peter is incorrect. When Abraham tried to ignore the situation, God spoke to Abraham and instructed him to listen to his wife. Because of this Hagar was driven off. God said man and woman would be one flesh. There are accounts in the bible where prudent women made better decisions than men did.


How do modalists understand the role of Jesus as mediator? The Bible calls Jesus our mediator:

Christ Jesus is the one who died—more than that, who was raised—who is at the right hand of God, who indeed is interceding for us. (Romans 8:34, ESV)
For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, (1 Timothy 2:5, ESV)
Consequently, he [Jesus] is able to save to the uttermost those who draw near to God through him, since he always lives to make intercession for them. (Hebrews 7:25, ESV)

Trinitarians believe that Jesus intercedes with the Father on our behalf. He can do this because he is a distinct person, and he is the only competent mediator because only God can truly mediate with himself.
Modalism teaches that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are "different modes or aspects of the One God, as perceived by the believer, rather than three coeternal persons within the Godhead." (Wikipedia)
If God is not multiple people, how can Jesus intercede with the father? How do modalists understand the role of Jesus as mediator?

Who are the modalists?

The ancient modalists were condemned heretics such as Noetus, Sabellius, and Praxeas. We don't have much record of their own writings, and what we do know of them is based on what men like Tertullian and Hippolytus wrote in response to them. So we know very little of their actual theology.

In modern times, Oneness Pentecostalism has revived modalism. Though some of them reject the term modalism, many do not, and it's just about universal that that's exactly what they teach.

Note that Unitarianism is the opposite heresy. Oneness believers say that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are all the same person, while Unitarians say that only the Father is fully God.

Jesus' role as mediator to Oneness believers

In researching this question, I emailed Jason Dulle of OnenessPentecostal.com. Here's what he said:

  Yes, Jesus is our mediator.  I think different Oneness adherents have
  different understandings of this.  Some would say his mediatoral role
  is limited to the crucifixion.  Others, such as myself, would say that
  role, while based on the atonement, is ongoing and will continue until
  the consummation of all things.  This is no more problematic for our
  position that the issue of Jesus' communication with the Father while
  on Earth.  The response is the same to both.  For more information on
  how I understand the Father-Son distinction, see Avoiding the Achilles
  Heels of Trinitarianism, Modalistic Monarchianism, and Nestorianism:
  The Acknowledgement and Proper Placement of the Distinction Between
  Father and Son, A Oneness View of Jesus' Prayers, and Jesus' Prayers:
  It Doesn't Take Two Persons to Tango.

Dulles seems to summarize the differences between various Oneness views pretty well. His own views are rather unusual within that schema (positing two minds within the Godhead), but you can see a fuller discussion of them by accessing the revision history for this post.

Other Oneness theologians I contacted are consistent with each other in how they understand Jesus' role as mediator, though as Dulles said, they demonstrate disagreement over how "intercession" is to be understood.

For example, on the Oneness Q&A site Glorious Church, they affirm that "his mediatorial role is limited to the crucifixion:

  1 Timothy 2:5-6 says, 'For there is one God and one Mediator between
  God and men, the Man Christ Jesus, who gave Himself a ransom for
  all....' From a Oneness perspective, we point out that the Mediator is
  specifically identified as 'the Man.' This agrees with Colossians
  1:21-22, which says, 'And you, who once were alienated and enemies in
  your mind by wicked works, yet now He has reconciled in the body of
  His flesh through death.' Clearly the mediation and reconciliation
  between God and men was accomplished by means of the death of the Man,
  Jesus Christ, on the cross. We see the crucifixion as the once and for
  all intercession. We do not believe the Man Jesus is continuing to
  intercede in a literal way. We also believe that the Man who was
  crucified was God the Father in the flesh. We can make a distinction
  between God and His humanity, but we never want to think of them as
  two separate beings.

But in other ways, they agree with Dulles and the other theologians I contacted, all of whom believe that Jesus still intercedes for the church.

I also emailed William B. Chalfant, who has published Ancient Champions of Oneness as well as a number of historical novels about Sabellius. Chalfant engaged in a lengthy discussion of the key verses. Here are the highlights:

  Of course, in my view, the term "Mediator" usually refers to someone
  fulfilling a designated role or position rather than necessarily
  dictating a discrete, substantive individual.

  ...

  We can admit that a "mediator" is a "mediator" between two parties,
  but, as Paul wrote, we must still conclude that "God is One" (Gal.
  3:20).

  It must be, then, that God has "mediated" through His incarnation as
  the Messiah."God was in Christ": that is the incarnation.

  The "mediator" is the "man Christ Jesus" and not a second divine
  person as some would have it.

  ...

  Notice in this passage [1 John 2:1-2] that Jesus is identified as
  the "Paraclete" by John, who also wrote the Gospel of John, where
  Jesus promises, after his earthly demise and resurrection, the coming
  of the "Paraclete". Oneness teachers identify Jesus as the "Paraclete"
  (that is, the Spirit of Christ is the Holy Spirit". Paul affirms that
  in teaching that there is "one Spirit" (Ephesians 4:4). And so we
  would see if there is any post-resurrection "mediation" is will be
  done by the Spirit of Christ (the Holy Spirit).

  ...

  Again, "mediation" seems to refer to the earthly ministry of the
  Incarnation (God the Father manifested in the flesh), while
  "intercession" is again accomplished by the risen Christ (who is God
  the Father manifested in the glorified flesh).

  In short, the terms "mediator", "intercessor", "reconciliation", when
  expressed in relation to the exigencies of the "incarnation"
  (enfleshment of God the Father), who now subsists as the Eternal
  Spirit in the glorified Man Christ Jesus, in a substantive henosis
  or union.

I also emailed Stan Hallett of Apostolic-Voice.org. His words serve as a decent summary of Chalfant's:

  In my view He is intercessor or mediator because He is the door (John
  10:9).  No man comes to the Father but by Him (John 14:6).

  I do not believe that He needs to go a talk to the Father on our
  behalf as some other person of a Trinitarian Godhead, for all power
  was given to him in heaven and in earth (Matthew 28:18).

  ...

  God needed to come to redeem man unto himself (Titus 2:13,14). The
  annual shedding the blood of bulls and sheep could not redeem us
  (Hebrews 10:4). Therefore the scripture says that God redeemed us with
  His own blood.

  ...

  God did not send someone else to pay the price for sin, He came
  Himself.

The common view of each of these theologians can be summarized as:

Being a separate person is unnecessary for mediation. The game-changer of the incarnation accomplished enough on its own. I believe each of them would affirm this statement whole-heartedly, with the possible exception of Dulles, who would give it a bit more nuance.

Mr.Bultitude's answer is correct that a distinct person is unnecessary for mediation. In the original Nicene creed (325) they conflate hypostasis and ousia as identical.

  But those who say: 'There was a time when he was not;' and 'He was not
  before he was made;' and 'He was made out of nothing,' or 'He is of
  another hypostasis' or 'ousia,' or 'The Son of God is created,' or
  'changeable,' or 'alterable'—they are condemned by the holy catholic
  and apostolic Church.

  Last part from the original Nicene creed (325).

Even St. Jerome prefer Greek word prosopon rather than hypostasis to describe the distinction between Godhead. This is because early Christians were transitioning from Miahypostasic into Diahypostatic and later Trihypostasic Triadology. Sabellius for example while championing Miahypostatic Triadology didn't confuse the Father from the Son by rejecting Theopaschism. That when the Son was crucified on the Cross the Father didn't suffer. It's the Son alone as the one mediator between God and man who suffered and died on the Cross not the Father. We need to remember that prior from 362 St. Athanasius still conflate hypostasis and ousia as synonym. This is why historically speaking Arians accused Nicene council to be a Sabellian council.

The role of mediatorship of Christ rested solely on incarnation and nothing else. If the whole Godhead incarnate then the Father suffered on the Cross and then Christ's mediator role would be jeopardized. Sabellius overcome this by distinguishing the Logos as anhypostasis who is being enhypostasized by the Father. By distinguishing the Father from the Son, Sabellius evaded Theopaschism. Because of this the role of Christ as mediator in Sabellianism is indistinguishable from that of Nicene Christology. The story will be completely different with other groups within Modalism. Other groups unlike Sabellius don't consider the Logos as a distinct mask but simply God's impersonal power. Because of this, when Christ died the Father suffered. This forfeited the mediator role of Christ.


Who said "he would be called a Nazarene"? Matthew 2:23 NIV

  and he went and lived in a town called Nazareth. So was fulfilled what was said through the prophets, that he would be called a Nazarene.

From what research I have done, it does not seem that any of the prophets who are recorded in the old testament said this, or anything similar. Even the apocrypha does not seem to make reference to this prophecy.

Even more troubling, is Matthew saying the prophets, plural, have predicted this, making it even more vexing that it is not written in anywhere in the canon today. What was Matthew referencing here?

My response comes from this article about OT prophecy about Jesus from Nazareth.

It basically states that there is no direct Old-Testament reference to Nazareth. The article postulates two explanations:

1) It was a reference that Jesus would be despised.

  He says 'prophets,' plural. It could be that Matthew was referring to several Old Testament references to the despised character of Jesus (i.e., Psalm 22:6, 13; 69:10; Isaiah 49:7; 53:3; Micah 5:1). Nazareth held the Roman garrison for the northern areas of Galilee.1 Therefore, the Jews would have little to do with this place and largely despised it

2) It might be a play on words for the Hebrew word for branch.

  there could be a play on words that Matthew was referring to. In Isaiah 11:1 it says, "Then a shoot will spring from the stem of Jesse, and a branch from his roots will bear fruit." In Hebrew, the word for "branch" is netzer, "NZR" which letters are included in NaZaReth.

Wow, you are really confused.

First, when the Brit Chadasha (New Testament) was translated from Aramaic to Greek, the scribes mistranslated the singular navi for the plural veviim. Matthew actually said in Aramaic, "...as foretold by the prophet..." - singular. Who was the prophet. In Hebrew everyone knows "the prophet" refers to Yeshayahu - Isaiah. And Mattityahu (Matthew) is referring to Isaiah 11:1-3. Bear in mind "netzer" means root and branch.

You are correct that Netzari (Nazarene) has nothing to do with a physical location but is actually poetically pointing to the spiritual. So what did Isaiah say?

1 "A (netzer) shoot will come up from the stump of Jesse; from his roots a (netzer) Branch will bear fruit.
2 The Spirit of YHWH will rest on him-- the Spirit of wisdom and of understanding, the Spirit of counsel and of might, the Spirit of the knowledge and fear of YHWH.
3 and he will delight in the fear of YHWH. He will not judge by what he sees with his eyes, or decide by what he hears with his ears;

Isaiah is speaking of this Netzer having humble beginnings in the "stump" of Jesse - it was cut down (off) but this tiny shoot came forth that would eventually branch out to encompass the entire earth with the glory of YHWH.

While Netzarit (Nazareth) means "City of the Branch", it actually has nothing to do with what Mattityahu is speaking of.

This is one example of lost understanding, mis-translation and misinterpretation because of reliance on the Greek translations of the original Aramaic.


Why is purple the color of Lent? I was just reading Mark 15:17-20 (ESV) (emphasis mine):

  And they clothed him in a purple cloak, and twisting together a crown of thorns, they put it on him.  And they began to salute him, “Hail, King of the Jews!” And they were striking his head with a reed and spitting on him and kneeling down in homage to him. And when they had mocked him, they stripped him of the purple cloak
  and put his own clothes on him. And they led him out to crucify him.

Is this why purple is the color of Lent?

It's actually kind of a contradiction.  Which isn't surprising as Christ was a sign which would be contradicted (see Luke 2:34).  Purple is a kingly color, which is why they put it on Jesus to mock Him.  Purple is also, or has become, the penitential color for the Church, it is also the color worn and used to decorate churches during Advent.

Purple is certainly penitential in contrast to Rose, which is the color of Joy, worn on Laetare in Lent and Guadete sunday in Advent. But, the only other person to wear Purple clothes in the New Testament was the rich man (who went to Hell) in the parable of Lazarus (Luke 16:19). But his wearing purple is a sign of his wealth and vainglory.

Each of the ways the soldiers mocked Jesus have become for Christians a sign of His eternal glory.

As we walk with Christ during Lent, we are to meditate on the Christ's glory as well as suffering and sacrifice. each resistance to temptation is a victory, but his successes could not prevent his death on the cross and suffering prior to this. We are called to never forget this strength and the depth of.suffering Jesus experienced for our sins, earning our Grace in the eyes of God. The purple signifies Jesus' dual role as king and the son of God as well as his humble life as a carpenter, lived in poverty and service to others.
During Lent we will experience mockery and misunderstanding by others, but if we.keep our eyes.on Christ and our desire to grow closer to him, our rewards will be immeasurable. Nothing we experience.on earth can compare to Christ's sacrifice, and if we always keep this in mind, we will remain grounded, humble, thankful,loving, and forgiving.


Why do some Protestants divide the Blood of Christ into individual cups? A related question asks about Catholic practice (of using a common cup).

In some Protestant Churches — I’ve experienced this myself in both Baptist and Free Churches — the wine at the Communion service is poured into small glasses and distributed amongst the congregation. Everyone drinks their glass at the same time.

The Biblical account tells us that Jesus used a single cup at the Last Supper. While it seems many Protestant Churches attach paramount importance to the Biblical account, why do they not follow suit in using a common cup?

Because they want to.

As stated already in other answers, they may use more than one cup for sanitary or efficiency purposes. But the real answer is that the issue of whether or not the communion liquid* is distributed in one vessel or several is a non-doctrinal, purely preferential issue with most Protestants. Jesus may have used one cup, but most Protestants don't believe this was meant to be a strict representation of how the Lord's Supper must be performed.

Personal Anecdote: I grew up in a church body that used little plastic cups. We probably did that because it would have taken forever to get everyone through a line to one liquid source. I'm in a church body now that does communion in smaller groups, so we each break off a piece of bread and dip it in one cup of wine. To Protestants it's just a matter of preference.

*Protestants don't believe it's literally Christ's blood. They believe it's just juice/wine that is meant to be symbolic.

Luke 22;11,15,17,19,20

11 And ye shall say unto the goodman of the house, The Master saith unto thee, Where is the guestchamber, where I shall eat the passover with my disciples?

15 And he said unto them, With desire I have desired to eat this passover with you before I suffer:

17 And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and said, Take this and divide it among yourselves:

19 And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in rememberance of me.

20 Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you.

I believe verse 17 answers the question, apparently they were told to divide what they were given.


Who represented "the Lord" in Exodus 4:24-26, and what's the deal with the foreskin? In Exodus 4:24-26:

  At a lodging place on the way, the LORD met Moses and was about to kill him. But Zipporah took a flint knife, cut off her son’s foreskin and touched Moses’ feet with it. “Surely you are a bridegroom of blood to me,” she said. So the LORD let him alone. (At that time she said “bridegroom of blood,” referring to circumcision.)

I have 2 questions about these passages:

Who was the person referred to as "The LORD"? Was it The Holy Spirit Himself appearing in human form? Was it Jesus? Or someone else?
Why did the circumcision and touching of foreskin to Moses' feet apparently satisfy Him?

To understand these verses it's helpful to read them in context. I'm using the King James Version, which seems a bit easier to understand (in particular the part about "touching" Moses' feet).

EXODUS 4:22-26 (KJV) And thou shalt say unto Pharaoh, Thus saith the LORD,
Israel is my son, even my firstborn: And I say unto thee, Let my son
go, that he may serve me: and if thou refuse to let him go, behold, I
will slay thy son, even thy firstborn. And it came to pass by the way
in the inn, that the LORD met him, and sought to kill him. Then
Zipporah took a sharp stone, and cut off the foreskin of her son, and
cast it at his feet, and said, Surely a bloody husband art thou to me.
So he let him go: then she said, A bloody husband thou art, because of
the circumcision.

Moses was on his way to tell Pharaoh that this time, if he didn't let Israel go, he would slay Pharaoh's firstborn. On the way, the Lord met Moses () to take his life for not fulfilling His commandment to Abraham to circumcise every male. The statement "the LORD met Moses" may have been spiritual: perhaps Moses suddenly became very sick and Zipporah discerned the cause. At any rate, the LORD was there to take Moses' life. (Note that the KJV renders LORD in all caps when referring to Jehovah, {God Above Us}, and Lord when referring to Adonai, {God With Us}).
As the King James Version reads, Zipporah cast the foreskin at Moses' feet because she was a bit of a fireball (in the best sense), and wasn't too happy with Moses at the moment. "A bloody husband thou art, because of the circumcision!"

Question 1 - It was an 'Angel of the LORD'. Question 2 is also answered by these verses from the 'Book of Jasher':

78 "9 And Zipporah conceived and bare a son and he called his name Gershom, for he said, I was a stranger in a foreign land; but he [Moses] circumcised not his foreskin, at the command of his father-in-law."
79 "7 And Moses hearkened to all that the Lord had commanded him, and he returned to his father-in-law and told him the thing, and (he) said to him, Go in peace.
8 And Moses rose up to go to Egypt, and he took his wife and sons with him, and he was at an inn in the road, and an angel of God came down, and sought an occasion against him.
9 And he wished to kill him on account of his first born son, because he had not circumcised him, and had transgressed the covenant which the Lord had made with Abraham.
10 For Moses had hearkened to the words of his father-in-law which he had spoken to him, not to circumcise his first born son, therefore he circumcised him not.
11 And Zipporah saw the angel of the Lord seeking an occasion against Moses, and she knew that this thing was owing to his not having circumcised her son Gershom.
12 And Zipporah hastened and took of the sharp rock stones that were there, and she circumcised her son, and delivered her husband and her son from the hand of the angel of the Lord."

Most scholars are blinded and working with limited material because they did not read the Apocrypha books and wrongly assumed that everything was captured in the Canonized works. They spend so much time debating vague lines in the KJV versus NIV versus Hebrew, versus Greek translations etc. Such a waste of precious time. What I think they could have done is cry out to God for days and days and not stop until He explained it to them or pointed them in the direction of the Apocrypha like the book of Jasher Chapter 78 & 79 (pasted above) which clearly explains that it was not a case of God trying to kill Pharaoh’s son, but Moses himself. Why is that so hard for them to believe?  The Book of Jasher is an apocryphal book of the Bible that has been considered by some to be the original beginning to the Bible and is referenced in both the Book of Joshua and the Second Book of Samuel. “Is not this written in the Book of Jasher?” -Joshua 10:13. “Behold it is written in the Book of Jasher” 2 Samuel I:18.  It fills in many of the details concerning biblical protagonist and their stories. I recall it being a very interesting read and it is indeed note-worthy that two biblical writer's mentioned it as a reference; a source of authority in that day (two witnesses).  A must read for serious students of antediluvian and end times research. This extra biblical text helps to flesh out some of the more skeletal accounts in Scriptures.


If Jesus was Emmanuel why was he named Yeshua? It was foretold that a virgin shall give birth and the new born will be named Emmanuel then why was Jesus named "Yeshua". (Isaiah 7:10) Please explain...

You are confusing titles with proper names.

Yesh'ua (Heb.) is rendered "Jesus" or "Joshua" today. It is his given name. It means "Jehovah Saves."
Christos (Greek) is a title translating the Hebrew "Messiah" or "Annointed One."  It highlights his annointed and special status.
Immanuel (Heb.) is a simple Hebrew construction that says "God is with us."  It is as much sign as name. It signifies that in coming to Earth, God has chosen to dwell among us.

It would be akin to asking "Why is Obama referred to as POTUS when his parents called him Barak and his friends call him Barry?"  Each title, name, and construct reveals more information about the identity of this man, or in the case of Jesus, this God who became Man and dwelt among us.

First let us understand this so called name Emmanuel

  Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a Son, and shall call His name Immanuel. (Isaiah 7:14 NKJV)

Now upon closer examination of the Hebrew you will see that this name Emmanuel comes from two words.

  עמנו אל

The First Word
Uses the Hebrew letters (Ayin - Mem - Nun - Vav), these letters represented through English characters (Omnu).

This word gets translated as "with us"

The Second Word
Uses the Hebrew letters (Aleph - Lamed), these letters represented through English characters (Al)

Al gets translated as God
with us God

If Jesus was Emmanuel why was Christ named Yeshua?
He wasn't named "Yeshua". Yeshua is so a translation attempt however it cannot be correct. The English Y stems from a Hebrew Vav not the Hebrew Yud.

The Prophet was to come in his Name

  I will raise up for them a Prophet like you from among their brethren, and will put My words in His mouth, and He shall speak to them all that I command Him. 19 And it shall be that whoever will not hear My words, which He speaks in My name, I will require it of him.

It was foretold that a virgin shall give birth and the new born will be named Emmanuel then why was Jesus named "Yeshua". Please explain...
The poorly translated word Emmanuel means "With us God". The Father's name is so composed from the four Hebrew letters Yud Hey Vav Hey. However simplified often to two letters Yud Hey. Now to get the correct pronunciation we can refer to the rules of Hebrew pronunciation and the example given to use by the Greek usage of the name of Jesus.

The Beginning I to Iesou the Greek rendition of the holy name represents the Yud. Another way to pronounce a Yud is so yodh. The Greek Iota is so the same letter. That's how we got the English I. The letter J transformed from the letter I during the 1800s. It got its J sound through French influence in romantic dialect.

The Greek Epsilon represents the Hebrew Hey. Therefore the Je in the beginning of the name of Jesus actually represents the holy name for God. However in pronunciation the Greek ie can carry the sound of the letter i for the word "in".

The next Greek letter the sigma sounds like an S.

In Hebrew form of the name of Jesus the final letter is so the Ayin, a silent letter. So the name of the "I am" is so also "Is".

Also the holy name we find both with the aleph prefix and also the Yud prefix. So in most cases where it is so translated as Lord would mean "he am" not "I am" therefore more appropriate to English and the holy name "Be", for it also says Holy "Be" thy name, "he Is". - it is what it is, it will be what it will be, I am that I am. Amen (so Be it).


What is the Roman Catholic interpretation of John 3:16? For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that
  whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.
  (John 3:16, NIV)

What is the Roman Catholic way of interpreting John 3:16, the most popular verse in the Bible? What does the word "perish" mean?

I can't answer for the Catholic interpretation of Perish in John 3:16, but I can give you the Catholic approach to reading the Bible and my opinion of that.  It's all pretty obvious and doesn't help, but should shed light on why this is an unanswerable (yet good) question.
The four senses of scripture

Literal
John 3:16 literally means "shall not perish", the same way Jesus said to Peter later in the Book that the disciple whom He loved might live until He returns.

Moral
John 3:16 instructs the faithful just how much God the Father loves His children. If you love someone you will make the ultimate sacrifice for them.

Metaphorical
Perish could mean die a spiritual death as easily as it means die a physical death.  To die in ones sins, would be a metaphorical interpretation of the word perish.

Eternal
Here's where perish means, suffer the fire of hell and that would be true too.

So, there's 4 legitimate ways of looking at the same piece of scripture neither of which negate the other, neither of which are authoritative.

Let us not forget context. Much error can be avoided if we remember the context in which Scripture verses are written. John 3:16 is the continuation of Yeshua's conversation with Nicodemus that began in John 3:1. It is Pesach (Passover), and the conversation Yeshua and Nicodemus are having involves the nation of Israel. In John 3:3, Yeshua says, unless one is born again he cannot see the Kingdom of God. The word "again" is G509, and it means "above", not "again". So, the verse should read, unless one is born from "above", he cannot see the Kingdom of Elohim (God). The phrase, "The Kingdom of Elohim" (God) is a reference to the Throne of David, the House of Jacob, which is the Kingdom of Elohim (Luke 1:32-33). Where is the site of David's throne? It is Jerusalem (I Chronicles 14-17).

In John 3:14, Yeshua mentions Moses and the serpent in the wilderness. Who was that story about--the nation of Israel. So, when Yeshua speaks of the world, in v.16, He refers to Israel. The word "world" is G2889. Yes, it does mean the world, as in the global world itself, but it also means an orderly arrangement, a region with borders; a territory. And in this case, it refers to Israel, since that is the territory Yeshua and Nicodemus were talking about. They were talking about Israel, not the world at large. The word "perish" is G622. It means destruction, but it also means to sever from its source. So, Elohim so loved Israel, that He gave Israel His Begotten Son (Yeshua is the Kinsmen Redeemer of Israel only), that whosoever IN ISRAEL, believeth in Him will not be severed from the nation of Israel, but will have everlasting life...


How do Cessationists expect people to believe without seeing miracles today? Classical Cessationism asserts that the "sign gifts" such as prophecy, healing and speaking in tongues ceased with the apostles and the finishing of the canon of Scripture. They only served as launching pads for the spreading of the Gospel; as affirmations of God's revelation.

If those people who lived around Christ's time witnessed miracles, and thus believed in God after seeing miracles, how is it that we who are living in the present age are expected to believe in God if we don't see any miracles?

In the present day, why is it that we have to believe the humans, normal people who don't perform miracles, that preach the Gospel, that what they say is true? Isn't it "unfair" that we humans today have to believe on what other people preach without seeing any miracles, but people in Christ's time got to see miracles and thus it was easier to believe in God?

A cessationist belief is best understood by finding out why miracles and wonders were performed:

  We must pay the most careful attention, therefore, to what we have heard, so that we do not drift away. For since the message spoken through angels was binding, and every violation and disobedience received its just punishment, how shall we escape if we ignore so great a salvation? This salvation, which was first announced by the Lord, was confirmed to us by those who heard him. God also testified to it by signs, wonders and various miracles, and by gifts of the Holy Spirit distributed according to his will. (Hebrews 2:1-4, NIV)

Here we have the order. Salvation was first announced (i.e. the gospel), then God performed miracles to confirm and testify his approval of this new doctrine that was preached.  More directly God's testimony did not only affirming the truth of what Christ and the Apostles preached, but was a heavenly vindication and seal of approval on their very persons and ministry as infallible guides on establishing the remaining canon of scriptures.  Once these scriptures were completed, they became the final authority in all matters of church practice and Christian living.  In fact the only reason why we believe miracles to have occurred is because the scriptures say so.

Now in the context of Hebrews the author is showing the differences and similarities between the Old Covenant and New Covenant.  Although Jesus is the same, yesterday, today and forever, we find God never continuously performed miracles anywhere in the Bible, but only on occasions as he chose. Especially in the founding of each covenant, did he show many wondrous signs.

Looking back at what God did it seems reasonable.  Miracles do not cause people to believe in God (eg. Pharaoh) but they do allow for mammoth shifts in Salvation history, taking people 'by storm' as it were.  It should not be surprising then to see that God used:

  some divine work to be established amongst men, by virtue of a new and never-before-heard-of revelation of God’s will, or a restoration of the same, when collapsed and corrupted by the sin of men. ... This we may see in Moses and (after Jesus Christ, anointed with the oil of gladness above his fellows to preach the gospel) the apostles. But this may pass, for nothing in such a way shall ever again take place, God having ultimately revealed his mind concerning his worship and our salvation, a curse being denounced to man or angel that shall pretend to revelation for the altering or changing one jot or tittle of the gospel. (John Owen's Works, Vol 13.31)

The facts that the Jews wickedly expected miraculous signs (Matth 16:4, 1 Cor 1:22) as though without which it might be considered 'unfair of God' to expect obedience to his word without them, may have partly been due to the history of miracles that God performed in establishing the Old Covenant. The parable of the rich man in hell talking to Abraham was one way in which Jesus tried to expose foolish human thinking that miracles were needed for faith:

  “He said to him, ‘If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead. ’” (Luke 16:31, NIV)

A wicked expectation of miracles, is due to a want of belief in the power of scripture and the Holy Spirit's ability to convict men of sin and bring them into salvation thereby.  Clearly this lack of faith and desire for miracles in carnally minded and to be loathed if any fear of God should properly quicken a man's soul from death.

This begs the question, if miracles do not cause faith, but only God's word does when believed, why do miracles 'confirm' God's word then? To answer we need too look at Moses or Christ and see the effects they had.  When considering how difficult it would be for a person without God's power to arrest the attention of a large body of people and introduce to them a whole new practice of worship and doctrine, we can see the miracles helped just that.  Even Pharaoh had to stop and give attention to Moses and question his own beliefs and decisions.  Also in the life of Christ, his popularity helped spread his fame. Miracles simply overwhelm human opposition so that even those who hate God and who would never believe, they are yet arrested even if for a moment to allow God's changing of the course of history and establishing of his kingdom as he sees fit. They never were no ever have been God's regular mode of operation.

This leads us to the last question.  Will God ever perform miracles again, not to bring in a new teaching as various cults demonically attempt and sometimes do, but to reform the church, if ever crushed under a mountain of sin? He did after Moses so why not after Christ? The again the prophets kept prophesying of Christ but after the book of revelations there is no more prophecy in terms of additional scripture. Still what about a possible future time?  Although historical cessation views, such as the views of Luther and Calvin did not absolutely believe this could 'never occur', most have simply stated the facts that it has 'not occurred’. In fact the reformation, when one would have expected it, if it were to happen, did not include any miraculous signs.  Having said this however it is recognized that the antichrist in the last days would pretend to perform miraculous wonders, so what is important for believers is to test anyone who claims to have extra ordinary miraculous gifts.  If God ever does see fit to bring about a ‘restoration ministry’ that including miraculous signs (and we have no basis for assuming he must) both the miracles would be undeniable and the teaching fully biblical and believed throughout history. This has not occurred since the times of the Apostles as a matter of common sense and observation. After all, nobody ever denied Christ's miracles they were easy to believe. That is why they were provided. They did not deny his miracles, they denied him.

  Do not believe me unless I do the works of my Father. But if I do them, even though you do not believe me, believe the works, that you may know and understand that the Father is in me, and I in the Father.” (John 10:37-38, NIV)

Cessationism is more of a practical awareness of the cessation of extra ordinary miraculous gifts, rather than a doctrine that they should have ceased. If they did not cease it would be obvious to all of us.  I think it is equally obvious that some gifts such as discernment, knowledge and wisdom never did cease as various men, endued by the Holy Ghost have continued to proclaim the gospel throughout the centuries with wisdom and power surpassing all human abilities. Finally almost every person in history has come to faith in Christ without ever witnessing a miracle, so why would we ever think miracles were required?

The simple answer is found in Mark 4. The sower sows the word. Here is the word: these gifts are given to you. They are yours to use if you believe they are; if not, you stomp them under your feet. The gifts have not gone away, but you have stopped believing in them. Your fields are growing with unbelief. Whose will are you doing if you don't believe? God trusts his word to work, Jesus knows God's word works and he gave it to you, Satan knows God's word works and he steals it from you.

Sow the word, you speak it out your mouth. Get your fields growing God's word so the gifts will come out. That is a harvest of God's will. They are signs for the unbeliever. Who is an unbeliever? Those who don't believe in the signs. We're not talking about salvation, we're talking about the gifts of the spirit.

Run stop signs and it won't be long before your car is in a wreck. Is your life a wreck because of your unbelief? If it is, attack. Use the word to stop it. If you don't believe it works, then may God have mercy on you.


Do Pope Francis' recent comments on atheism represent a change in doctrine? Pope Francis made some recent comments in a letter, which are being summarized in headlines like, "Pope Francis tells atheists to abide by their own consciences."

Does the full context of the Pope's remarks represent a change in doctrine?

A change in doctrine, if it is possible at all, can only be expressed with a definitive statement ex cathedra. The Pope wrote in his letter

  Le accolga come la risposta tentativa e provvisoria,
  Please accept this as a tentative and provisional response

so no, it does not express any change in doctrine.

In the English translation, the Holy Father writes

   Each of us is called to accept the view and the choice of love made by Jesus, become a part of his way of being, thinking and acting.

That is a definitive statement of what God expects of mankind.

He goes on,

   First of all, you ask if the God of the Christians forgives those who do not believe and do not seek faith.  Given that  —  and this is fundamental  —  God's mercy has no limits if he who asks for mercy does so in contrition and with a sincere heart, the issue for those who do not believe in God is in obeying their own conscience.  In fact, listening and obeying it, means deciding about what is perceived to be good or to be evil.  The goodness or the wickedness of our behavior depends on this decision.

This is saying much the same thing as Benedict XVI did when he spoke about the use of condoms in combatting AIDS. Consideration of one's actions and the reasons for them is the first step on the road to faith.

In explaining that God's mercy has no limits, Pope Francis writes "if he who asks for mercy does so in contrition and with a sincere heart". That presupposes that the person asking for mercy is asking of a God he believes in [or who is he addressing?] and with sorrow for not having believed in the past. The Pope has not contradicted the tenet that belief in God is necessary; far from it. What he has done, though, in directing people to obey their conscience — their God-given sense of good and evil — is to point them in the direction of God.

Both Popes are encouraging that first step in searching out the truth.

  [Truth is not] variable and subjective ... it is given to us only as a way and a life.  Was it not Jesus himself who said:  "I am the way, the truth, the life"?  In other words, the truth is one with love, it requires humbleness and the willingness to be sought, listened to and expressed.

Seek the truth; find it and repent; and you will enter heaven. This is consistent with the teaching of the Church.

I will quote the Council of Florence and let you draw your own conclusions.

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, “Cantate Domino,” 1441,

  “The Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that
  all those who are outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans but
  also Jews or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life
  and will go into the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil
  and his angels, unless they are joined to the Church before the end of
  their lives; that the unity of this ecclesiastical body is of such
  importance that only for those who abide in it do the Church’s
  sacraments contribute to salvation and do fasts, alms giving and other
  works of piety and practices of the Christian militia produce eternal
  rewards; and that nobody can be saved, no matter how much he has given
  away in alms and even if he has shed blood in the name of Christ,
  unless he has persevered in the bosom and unity of the Catholic
  Church.”

Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, Vol. 1, p. 578; Denzinger 714.


What's the significance of hyssop in John 19:29? There is just one verse in the New Testament that refers to hyssop and is not referring to the Old Testament:

  John 19:29 (NLT)
  A jar of sour wine was sitting there, so they soaked a sponge in it, put it on a hyssop branch, and held it up to [Jesus'] lips.

Why is the fact that a hyssop branch was used significant enough to mention it by name?

Hyssop represents common faith. Hyssop was a weed that grew practically anywhere. The blood is applied by common faith in God's word.

  EXODUS 12:22 And ye shall take a bunch of hyssop, and dip it in the
  blood that is in the bason, and strike the lintel and the two side
  posts with the blood that is in the bason; and none of you shall go
  out at the door of his house until the morning.

In many of the Old Testament sacrifices (the two turtle doves for the cleansing of the leper, and especially the sacrifice of the red heifer), hyssop was burned in the fire, with the sacrifice, along with scarlet and cedar.

  Numbers 19:6 And the priest shall take cedar wood, and hyssop, and
  scarlet, and cast it into the midst of the burning of the heifer.

Hyssop represents the first step of salvation, believing on the Lord through common faith (justification).

Scarlet represents the blood sacrifice which atones for our sins, and being set aside for service (sanctification).

Cedar represents a Holy God coming to dwell in our hearts (baptism of the Holy Ghost).

The reference to hyssop in John 19:29 ties together the Old Testament prefigure of the red heifer (who died for the sins of the people) with the death of Christ (who died "once for all"). There on Golgotha was Hyssop, the Blood Sacrifice (Scarlet), and Emmanuel (God with Us, Cedar).

Significant to note here as well is what was being offered here.
Something I have yet to find someone ready to admit is that in
John19 it says ..."and when He had received it...".

Jesus refused the same drink moments earlier according to the other gospels
but accepts it now.  Why?  I'm not going to debate wether our Lord
partook of fermented  beverages but what needs to be understood
is what is referenced.  Jesus spoke about the wine making process
in Matt. 9.  This was not something he was ignorant of but he had a clear
knowledge of how to make wine and not just miraculously.  When
grapes are allowed oxygen during the fermentation process, the
product will not make good wine.  It will turn to VINEGAR.

Jesus's reference to old wine being put into new wineskins was an allegory
between the old and new covenants.  As he hung there dying,  the
old covenant was in the ruination process.  The old wineskin was about
to burst because it would not hold the new wine or new covenant.

The hyssop is symbolic of the blood being applied to the doorposts, but
the blood was not to be applied to Jesus,  only a bitter cup of a cheap
attempt at winemaking(christianity).  This was the last fulfillment of
prophecy because it was the last thing Jesus would do before He
said "it is finished" or in Greek "paid in full".


Do you have to have a certain amount of intelligence to get into heaven? Is there a certain level of intelligence required to get into heaven?  I would expect someone to be able to understand at least some of scripture to be saved, but how much intelligence is needed to understand what you need to be saved?

No intelligence is required.

The Bible assures us that even a fool won't go astray on the Way.

  Isaiah 35:8 (ESV)
  And a highway shall be there,
      and it shall be called the Way of Holiness;
  the unclean shall not pass over it.
      It shall belong to those who walk on the way;
      even if they are fools, they shall not go astray.

What is this Way, then?

  John 14:6 (ESV)
  Jesus said to him, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.

So even a fool following Jesus will be saved.

Jesus also states that the kingdom of God belongs to those such as children. Now, children can be intelligent at times, but certainly this doesn't sound like there's an intelligence requirement.

  Mark 10:14 (ESV)
  But when Jesus saw it, he was indignant and said to them, "Let the children come to me; do not hinder them, for to such belongs the kingdom of God.

All who sin apart from the law will also perish apart from the law…
  ~ Romans 2:12.

  He will punish those who do not know God… They will be punished with everlasting destruction…
  ~ 2 Thessalonians 1:8-9

Yes - There is a minimal level of intelligence required to get into Heaven because one must at least understand what it means to:

Follow Jesus, even if imperfectly.
Follow the 10 Commandments, even if imperfectly.
Love thy neighbor as thyself, even if imperfectly.

Ignorance of these three things would necessarily prevent entrance into Heaven because these are the very things that define a Christian. Without a rudimentary awareness of these concepts (even if not from the Bible) one may be rightfully labeled a "non-believer" (though not necessarily a disbeliever, because ignorance of the Truth doesn't necessarily imply a rejection of it).

EDIT: In response to a comment, I'd like to add that the above does not apply to a baby who dies before Baptism. While I can't speak to every denomination, I know that the Catholic Church has changed it's position several times on this matter, but the current teaching holds that:

  "...Infants who die without baptism are entrusted by the Church to the mercy of God..."

EDIT 2: Indeed, I am drawing an important distinction between someone who perished before they had a chance to experience God (or someone who was mentally incapacitated) and someone who either carelessly or willfully remained ignorant of God throughout their entire full life.


Does specific authorship of a given book of the Bible "matter"? Based on a variety of previous questions, it seems that specific authorship of many parts of the Bible are not known for sure.
For example (though I realize there are traditions of who wrote what):

Job
Ruth
Esther
Hebrews

Question(s):
Why is specific authorship considered important (eg the on-going scholarly debates over who wrote the epistle to the Hebrews)?
Is it important?
When is it important?

note - I am not looking for direct answers to canonicity, but for whether specific authorship is important

Author means the person who wrote a book, put pen to paper and signed his name to the work. As far as books of the original "bible:" what has been found are only copies of books. Some have been signed by the copier - a few early copies have been dated - and we can discover something about who authorized the copy. But as we have found no original writings, we cannot know who might have been the originator of the text we do have. Since we cannot know who was the author, this topic is not important.

But if you want to know who wrote the translations of the Bible as we have them in our various Bibles, that's another topic, and worth discussing.


Why are people traditionally buried facing east? During a burial today, I noticed the coffin was buried facing east.

Where does this Christian tradition come from?

It's not a purely Christian tradition.  Other religions practice this as well.  There's an article here on ehow.com that gives an overview of the origins of the practice.  Some highlights:

According to "Ethnicity and the American Cemetery," the feet of the deceased face east as well. This tradition is based on the belief that when Jesus returns, the departed will rise from the grave already facing his direction.
According to Northumberland County Council, the tradition began when Pagans buried the dead so they would face the rising sun.

Also note that it's not universal.  We have a cemetery tied to a Church a few miles from here where the graves all point to the North, and several others I've visited have some facing one way, and others at right angles - those graves are laid out to maximize use of the land.

Some people believe that God moves east to west. At the second coming of Christ at the end of the tribulation He will come in from the East moving to the west. The idea was too bury the bodies facing east so that when the rapture happens they  will already be facing toward His coming. This is more tradition than it is biblical but they did it for that reason.

On the other hand as a Jew you always approached God as at the tabernacle moving east to west. This was important as the pagans always worshiped facing east so in a way you should bury them facing west as not to face the pagan rising sun. How a Jew in the Old Testament or a Christian in the church age and how they are buried is not important..


Are non-Catholics allowed to go to confession? As an Episcopalian, we technically have the rite of Confession and Reconciliation as one of the things we are supposed to do, but I've never seen it done in actual practice.

In contrast, I know that most Roman Catholics do regularly incorporate the practice, and it seems like a wonderful thing—tangibly hearing the sacramental words of absolution from a man who is understood to speaking in God's stead. As one who deals with abstract things all day long, it would be nice to hear "God with flesh" sometimes.

The question is, would a Roman Catholic priest technically be able to hear the confession of a non-Catholic?  I mean, since I'm not a Papist (I don't mean that pejoratively, I promise!), technically I'm a heretic.  As such, could a Roman Catholic priest hear my confession even if he wanted to? More importantly, can he pronounce absolution?

Perhaps surprisingly, Canon Law appears to allow it.

  Can.  959 In the sacrament of penance the faithful who confess their sins to a legitimate minister, are sorry for them, and intend to reform themselves obtain from God through the absolution imparted by the same minister forgiveness for the sins they have committed after baptism and, at the same, time are reconciled with the Church which they have wounded by sinning.

So who are "the faithful"? Naturally, that question is answered, too:

  Can. 204 §1. The Christian faithful are those who, inasmuch as they have been incorporated in Christ through baptism, have been constituted as the people of God. For this reason, made sharers in their own way in Christ’s priestly, prophetic, and royal function, they are called to exercise the mission which God has entrusted to the Church to fulfill in the world, in accord with the condition proper to each.

The issue, therefore, is whether the penitent regards the priest as competent (in the legal sense of that word) — does he regard the priest as a priest and able to forgive sins? Many in other denominations would not; it may well be that they do not regard such an earthly representative of the heavenly as necessary at all.

Supplementary issue: if the penitent does regard the priest as competent, and presumably does not wish to approach clergy of his own denomination, why is he not a Catholic? That may be a basis for another question.

Disclaimer: Although I know where to find things in Canon Law, I'm not a lawyer. We could do with a Catholic priest in these hallowed halls.

Non-Catholics, being spiritually dead,  are also permitted to enter the confessional, but they are obligated to reveal that they are not Catholics. There is no question of receiving Sacramental absolution: that is possible only for members of the Catholic Church. Entry to the Church involves various rites, including formal abjurations of heresies. Of course, a traditional priest would quickly realize that he was dealing with a non-Catholic. Now, I am talking about a traditional priest. A modernist Novus Ordo would probably be perfectly happy giving absolution to just about anybody, if they even use that ritual. The real answer is that non-Catholics are not permitted to go to Confession; they must first enter the Church through Baptism.


In Catholic theology is Yehovah the Father or all three persons? When reading the Hebrew scriptures and one encounters a reference to Yehovah, does that map in the NT to the Father? Or to the Father, Son and Holy Ghost? For example, in this passage can we be certain that the "I" is the Father? Or could it be all three persons?

  English Standard Version
  Exodus 3:7 Then the LORD said, “I have surely seen the
  affliction of my people who are in Egypt and have heard their cry
  because of their taskmasters. I know their sufferings,

Since יהוה or "He who is" (the name which St. Thomas Aquinas, the 'Angelic Teacher' of the Church, arrives at by logic as the only apt name for the kind of Creator we must needs acknowledge as responsible for creation) can only refer to the Eternal Creator, it must mean the Divine Nature and as such can be used of the Father, the Son, or the Holy Ghost equally.
Since the Fourth Lateran Council states:

Fourth Lateran Council, Canon 2.
...there is one supreme entity, incomprehensible and ineffable, which is truly Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, together (simul) three persons and each one of them singly. And thus in God there is only trinity, not quaternity,1 because each of the three persons is that entity, namely, substance, essense, or divine nature, which alone is the principle of the universe and besides which there is no other.
...
thus the Father and Son as well as the Holy Ghost proceeding from both are the same entity.

Without question "divine nature," "one supreme entity...alone the principle of the universe" etc. corresponds to "the one who is"  (יהוה) and thus all three Persons are equally and rightly called יהוה.
As far as early Church Fathers go, they variously interpret certain passages where God (יהוה) speaks to be either the Father or the Son or Holy Ghost. A good example is this passage from St. Justin:

Justin Martyr, First Apology, 37-39
And that this too may be clear to you, there were spoken from the person of the Father through Isaiah the Prophet, the following words: "The ox knows his owner, and the ass his master's crib; but Israel does not know, and My people has not understood. Woe, sinful nation, a people full of sins, a wicked seed, children that are transgressors, you have forsaken the Lord." And again elsewhere, when the same prophet speaks in like manner from the person of the Father, "What is the house that you will build for Me? Says the Lord. The heaven is My throne, and the earth is My footstool." Isaiah 66:1 And again, in another place, "Your new moons and your sabbaths My soul hates; and the great day of the fast and of ceasing from labour I cannot away with; nor, if you come to be seen of Me, will I hear you: your hands are full of blood; and if you bring fine flour, incense, it is abomination unto Me: the fat of lambs and the blood of bulls I do not desire. For who has required this at your hands? But loose every bond of wickedness, tear asunder the tight knots of violent contracts, cover the houseless and naked, deal your bread to the hungry." Isaiah 1:14, Isaiah 58:6 What kind of things are taught through the prophets from [the person of] God, you can now perceive.
And when the Spirit of prophecy speaks from the person of Christ, the utterances are of this sort: "I have spread out My hands to a disobedient and gainsaying people, to those who walk in a way that is not good." Isaiah 65:2 And again: "I gave My back to the scourges, and My cheeks to the buffetings; I turned not away My face from the shame of spittings; and the Lord was My helper: therefore was I not confounded: but I set My face as a firm rock; and I knew that I should not be ashamed, for He is near that justifies Me." Isaiah 50:6 And again, when He says, "They cast lots upon My vesture, and pierced My hands and My feet. And I lay down and slept, and rose again, because the Lord sustained Me." And again, when He says, "They spoke with their lips, they wagged the head, saying, Let Him deliver Himself." And that all these things happened to Christ at the hands of the Jews, you can ascertain. For when He was crucified, they did shoot out the lip, and wagged their heads, saying, "Let Him who raised the dead save Himself." Matthew 27:39
And when the Spirit of prophecy speaks as predicting things that are to come to pass, He speaks in this way: "For out of Zion shall go forth the law, and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem. And He shall judge among the nations, and shall rebuke many people; and they shall beat their swords into ploughshares, and their spears into pruning-hooks: nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more." Isaiah 2:3 And that it did so come to pass, we can convince you. For from Jerusalem there went out into the world, men, twelve in number, and these illiterate, of no ability in speaking: but by the power of God they proclaimed to every race of men that they were sent by Christ to teach to all the word of God; and we who formerly used to murder one another do not only now refrain from making war upon our enemies, but also, that we may not lie nor deceive our examiners, willingly die confessing Christ. For that saying, "The tongue has sworn but the mind is unsworn," might be imitated by us in this matter. But if the soldiers enrolled by you, and who have taken the military oath, prefer their allegiance to their own life, and parents, and country, and all kindred, though you can offer them nothing incorruptible, it were verily ridiculous if we, who earnestly long for incorruption, should not endure all things, in order to obtain what we desire from Him who is able to grant it.

1 In context, this is against the heretical notion that the Father (actually, and not only as a matter of speaking) 'has' the Divine Nature, which is then made 'other'—that there is Father, Son and Holy Ghost, which 'have' a fourth Thing, the Divine Nature.' No heretic actually worshiped a quadrinity, but the Council rightly rejected this as the obvious conclusion of the heretical understanding of the relationship between the Divine Nature and what it means that the Persons are that Nature.

Yehovah is one of the names of God, like Elohim, Sabaoth, Adonai, Ancient of Days...
Therefore the name Yehovah (as well as other names of God) can be applied to the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, Trinity consubstantial and indivisible.
See also Saint John of Damascus, "An Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith", book 1, chapter 12:

The Deity being incomprehensible is also assuredly nameless. Therefore since we know not His essence, let us not seek for a name for His essence. For names are explanations of actual things. But God, Who is good and brought us out of nothing into being that we might share in His goodness, and Who gave us the faculty of knowledge, not only did not impart to us His essence, but did not even grant us the knowledge of His essence. For it is impossible for nature to understand fully the supernatural. Moreover, if knowledge is of things that are, how can there be knowledge of the super-essential? Through His unspeakable goodness, then, it pleased Him to be called by names that we could understand, that we might not be altogether cut off from the knowlege of Him but should have some notion of Him, however vague. Inasmuch, then, as He is incomprehensible, He is also unnameable. But inasmuch as He is the cause of all and contains in Himself the reasons and causes of all that is, He receives names drawn from all that is, even from opposites: for example, He is called light and darkness, water and fire: in order that we may know that these are not of His essence but that He is super-essential and unnameable: but inasmuch as He is the cause of all, He receives names from all His effects.
... God then is called Mind and Reason and Spirit and Wisdom and Power, as the cause of these, and as immaterial, and maker of all, and omnipotent. And these names are common to the whole Godhead, whether affirmative or negative. And they are also used of each of the subsistences of the Holy Trinity in the very same and identical way and with their full significance. For when I think of one of the subsistences, I recognise it to be perfect God and perfect essence: but when I combine and reckon the three together, I know one perfect God. For the Godhead is not compound but in three perfect subsistences, one perfect indivisible and uncompound God.