Do any Protestant denominations organize a canon starting from a collection of books other than the Roman Catholic Church's canon? It is my understanding that most Protestant groups recognise a 66 book canon which is entirely a subset of the Roman Catholic canon and which was developed by removing the so-called apocrypha from the Latin Church's Old Testament. Are there any Protestant denominations which started from a non-Roman canon when developing their Bible?

For example, some Orthodox churches organize their Bibles to include some or all of the following works the Catholic Church does not include in her canon. Do any Protestant denominations include any of these in their Bibles, or specifically reject these books in the formation of their canon in the same way some Protestant groups specifically reject Tobit and Baruch?

1 Esdras
2 Esdras
3 Maccabees
4 Maccabees
Prayer of Manasseh
Psalm 151
Psalms 152–155
Jubilees
Enoch 1–3
Meqabyan
2 Baruch

Protestant in this sense should be taken to be used in the broader meaning: Any western non-Catholic non-Orthodox church founded during or after the Reformation, especially those founded in the United States of America.

(List from Wikipedia)

Many of the Reformation confessions (statements of belief) mention an Apocrypha, but most do not explicitly give a list of non-canonical books. Two do however, which I have quoted below. Most of those non-canonical books are in the Catholic canon, but three are not:  the Prayer of Manasseh and 3rd and 4th Esdras (sometimes confusingly called 1st and 2nd Esdras). What marks these books out is that they were included in the Vulgate. So I think the debate over the Protestant canon was not so much about revising the Catholic canon, but evaluating the books that were well known in Europe.

I haven't found any modern statements of belief that explicitly list excluded books. Although Protestant academia is of course aware of the other canons and I'm sure you could find detailed arguments for why each book is excluded, in general there is little debate now over any of the OT apocrypha. Now the debate is over why the Pseudepigrapha were excluded.

I found one more interesting statement in the Helvetic Consensus, which I will quote last: it says that only the Hebrew of the OT is to be accepted, and that it should not be corrected (i.e. through textual criticism) by the Septuagint or Samaritan Pentateuch etc. This is a position which would be rejected by most Protestants today, and most Bible translations do frequently prefer the Septuagint over the Masoretic text. This is significant for this question because most of the books rejected by the Western church were not written in Hebrew. As the Eastern church emphasised Greek texts and preferred the Septuagint over the Hebrew, there would've been little issue with accepting additional books written in Greek. This is probably the ultimate reason why the Orthodox churches accept so many more books than the Western churches.

Dutch Reformed: The Belgic Confession (1566)

  Article 6: The Difference Between Canonical and Apocryphal Books

  We distinguish between these holy books
  and the apocryphal ones,

  which are the third and fourth books of Esdras;
  the books of Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, Jesus Sirach, Baruch;
  what was added to the Story of Esther;
  the Song of the Three Children in the Furnace;
  the Story of Susannah;
  the Story of Bel and the Dragon;
  the Prayer of Manasseh;
  and the two books of Maccabees.

  The church may certainly read these books
  and learn from them
  as far as they agree with the canonical books.
  But they do not have such power and virtue
  that one could confirm
  from their testimony
  any point of faith or of the Christian religion.
  Much less can they detract
  from the authority
  of the other holy books.

Anglicanism: The 39 Articles (1571)

  Article VI

  Of the Sufficiency of the holy Scriptures for salvation

  Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation: so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man, that it should be believed as an article of the Faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation. In the name of the holy Scripture, we do understand those Canonical books of the Old and New Testament, of whose authority was never any doubt in the Church.

  Of the Names and Number of the Canonical Books

  Genesis
  Exodus
  Leviticus
  Numbers
  Deuteronomy
  Joshua
  Judges
  Ruth
  The First Book of Samuel
  The Second Book of Samuel
  The First Book of Kings
  The Second Book of Kings
  The First Book of Chronicles
  The Second Book of Chronicles
  The First Book of Esdras
  The Second Book of Esdras
  The Book of Esther
  The Book of Job
  The Psalms
  The Proverbs
  Ecclesiastes or Preacher
  Cantica, or Songs of Solomon
  Four Prophets the greater
  Twelve Prophets the less

  And the other Books (as Hierome saith) the Church doth read for example of life and instruction of manners; but yet doth it not apply them to establish any doctrine; such are these following:

  The Third Book of Esdras
  The Fourth Book of Esdras
  The Book of Tobias
  The Book of Judith
  The rest of the Book of Esther
  The Book of Wisdom
  Jesus the Son of Sirach
  Baruch the Prophet
  The Song of the Three Children
  The Story of Susanna
  Of Bel and the Dragon
  The Prayer of Manasses
  The First Book of Maccabees
  The Second Book of Maccabees

  All the Books of the New Testament, as they are commonly received, we do receive, and account them Canonical.

Swiss Reformed: The Helvetic Consensus (1675)

  Canon II:

  But, in particular, The Hebrew original of
  the OT which we have received and to this day do retain as
  handed down by the Hebrew Church, “who had been given the
  oracles of God” (Rom 3:2), is, not only in its consonants, but
  in its vowels either the vowel points themselves, or at least
  the power of the points not only in its matter, but in its
  words, inspired by God. It thus forms, together with the
  Original of the NT the sole and complete rule of our faith and
  practice; and to its standard, as to a Lydian stone, all extant
  versions, eastern or western, ought to be applied, and wherever
  they differ, be conformed.

  Canon III:

  Therefore, we are not able to approve of
  the opinion of those who believe that the text which the Hebrew
  Original exhibits was determined by man’s will alone, and do not
  hesitate at all to remodel a Hebrew reading which they consider
  unsuitable, and amend it from the versions of the LXX and other
  Greek versions, the Samaritan Pentateuch, by the Chaldaic
  Targums, or even from other sources. They go even to the point
  of following the corrections that their own rational powers
  dictate from the various readings of the Hebrew Original itself
  which, they maintain, has been corrupted in various ways; and
  finally, they affirm that besides the Hebrew edition of the
  present time, there are in the versions of the ancient
  interpreters which differ from our Hebrew text, other Hebrew
  Originals. Since these versions are also indicative of ancient
  Hebrew Originals differing from each other, they thus bring the
  foundation of our faith and its sacred authority into perilous
  danger.

As far as I know, all Protestants adhere to the five solas, including sola scriptura, meaning that the Bible alone is the final and highest authority, the Bible being the 27 books of the New Testament and the 39 books of the Old Testament. Protestants consider this the final and complete revelation, so they wouldn't be adding any books to it.

The Protestant Bibles (as in Luther Bible and King James Version) are translated from the Received Text (Textus Receptus), namely the New Testament. The Old Testament is a translation of the Hebrew Bible.

Latin Vulgate was translated by Jerome probably from the same text line as Protestant Bibles. Nevertheless, Vulgate differs from the Received Text sometimes. The Council of Trent in 1545 added to the Romish canon many books, which Protestants don't consider inspired. This makes the Romish and Protestant canons significantly different.

Some Protestant printings include an intertestament, which isn't considered God's word, and is there just for a historical value. It usually contains the books that were added to the Romish Bible.

Btw, Mormons and Watchtower people aren't Protestants, because they necessarily reject the salvation by grace alone, through faith alone, and in Christ alone.

Edit: For the strict definition of Protestantism, my answer is no, because you seem to count the Hebrew Bible + Received Text as a subset of the Romish canon. But the broad definition of Protestantism makes it impossible to give a negative answer. "Western non-Catholic non-Orthodox churches" spring up like mushrooms in the rain.


Is 1 Corinthians 15:28 disregarded by trinitarians? International Standard Version:

But when everything has been put under him, then the Son himself will also become subject to the one who put everything under him, so that God may be all in all.

The New Living Translation:

Then, when all things are under his authority, the Son will put himself under God’s authority, so that God, who gave his Son authority over all things, will be utterly supreme over everything everywhere.

Jesus is made subject to God, under God's authority so he cannot be equal to God.
Please note this verse refers to a resurrected Christ.
I would like to know if the verse is disregarded by trinitarians or how they reconcile it with their beliefs.

That the Son (in regard to his Deity) should have a relationship with his Father, which is a matter of filial and voluntary subjection, does not mean that he is not equal in Deity to the Father.
Equal in Divine nature, or 'form', as we see in Philippians :

who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal to God, [Philippians 2:6 YLT]

Yet within that equality of Deity, the Son says :

... My Father is greater than I. [John 14:28 KJV]

One needs to understand both the matter of divine nature and also the matter of divine relationship within that nature.
And one also needs to bear in mind the fact that God is God in respect of the Son of God's divine nature but also God in regard to the humanity of Jesus Christ.

But unto the Son [God saith], Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom. [Hebrews 1:8.]

I think the premise of the question is incorrect.
Trinitarians, in general, are very well aware of the whole balance of truth in regard to both divine nature, divine relationship within that nature, and well aware of the relationship in regard to the humanity of Christ, also.
The text under discussion (1 Corinthians 15:28) is not disregarded. It is well understood.

and when the all things may be subjected to him, then the Son also himself shall be subject to Him, who did subject to him the all things, that God may be the all in all.

[1 Corinthians 15:28 Young's Literal Translation]

The question expresses an unsubstantiated opinion about the 'disregard' to the text and I do not think that opinion is correct. My experience of Trinitarian denominations over the past fifty three years of my life (I was converted at the age of sixteen in 1967) is that the text is not disregarded. It is fundamental to a proper understanding of the divine relationship of the Son of God to the Father and of the human relationship of Jesus Christ to God.

Basil the Great, 330-379, who supported the Nicene Creed, had this to say about 1 Corinthians 15:28 :

So there need be no hesitation from anyone in taking this to mean that what the Father is greater than is the form of a servant, whereas the Son is his equal in the form of God

And Augustine of Hippo, 354-430, comments thus :

when every creature is made subject to God, including even the creature in which the Son of God became the Son of man, for in this created form “the Son himself shall also be subject to the one who subjected all things to him, that God may be all in all (1 Cor. 15:28).

Both Quotes are from secundumscripturas Basil and Augustine on 1 Corinthians 15:28
Athanasius of Alexandria, 297-373, writes on the same text :

For this subjection, no more involves inferiority of essence, than His subjection (Luke 2:51) to Joseph and Mary involved inferiority of essence to them.

This quote is taken from the Cambridge Bible Commentary paragraph on Biblehub - 1 Corinthians 15:28 on which page are extensive articles by Trinitarians who quote other Trinitarians in some very involved and learned discussions, dealing with the original language in precise and academic detail.
No. Not at all 'disregarded'.

It is true enough, that no one really disregards a biblical text, but over centuries of practise, every group (to varying degrees) has re-interpreted, re-imagined and re-written the text to avoid the obvious negative implications to their favourite theology. To the point that if they cannot find what they want, they inserted additional words to assist their dogma.
When one reads the simple, clear and consistent texts regarding the humanity of Jesus, recorded from Jesus' own words, his disciples'/apostles' words and the words of God via Himself and everyone else, the passage of 1 Cor 15:28 makes perfect sense when read without any special interpretation - none is required. It means what it says.
Sometimes, it's true there are difficulty passages - and we have 30+ efforts to present in readable English - each with their own (sometimes peculiar) bias.
Jesus and the others spoke to the people on the street - not in complex verbiage or difficult language. Jesus was sent to reveal the Father and the kingdom and that is what he did. He spoke the truth without guile.
The text is not disregarded. It is mis-appropriated to say that which it is not meant to convey... that somehow, against all other scripture and logic and sensible approach, the 'eternal Son' (which is nowhere to be found) is equal to the Father - yet he is not equal as the Father is greater, gives the very life to the son, appoints Jesus heir to all He has made, made him Lord and Christ and on it goes.

"As the living Father sent Me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats Me, he also will live because of Me. John 6:57

they took Him down from the cross and laid Him in a tomb. 30“But God raised Him from the dead Acts 13:30

But when everything has been put under him, then the Son himself will also become subject to the one who put everything under him, so that God may be all in all. 1 Cor 15:28

If Jesus is God (as some insist) why, how, can he be included with everyone and everything else to be "all in all", if he is already God?
The raised, exalted human Jesus, the Lamb who was slain, is shown to be not God, but sits at God's right hand, gives honour to God, shares the throne with God, speaks of the resurrected having the name of God AND the Lamb... is the Lamb God? No. IS Jesus the Lamb? Yes.
We may quote Basil and lots of other old men - none are part of scripture, but when we quote the bible we don't get to re-purpose the plain meaning of Jesus' words or those of his apostles, or of his Father and God!
'This is My son, in whom I am well pleased'. Why, for any purpose, would God say that of His equal, eternal, immortal Son?


Why is the second beast of Revelation called the Antichrist? In many denominations of modern Christianity the Antichrist is the evil world leader who forces people to take the mark of the beast. After reading through Revelation and seeing for myself that the Antichrist is not mentioned at all, I began to search where, then, in the Bible is the Antichrist mentioned.

According to 1st John 2:22, anybody who denies Christ is antichrist. Furthermore in 4:3 John tells that any spirit that denies Christ is of the spirit of antichrist. Neither of these passages make a case for the Antichrist with a capital A. To me it merely tells that there are many who oppose Christ, in the past and in the future, and they can be identified in such and such a way.

It turns out that when people talk about the Antichrist, they really refer to eg:

The son of perdition
The man of lawlesness
The beast of revelation (seemingly forgetting that there are two)

Why is it that the term Antichrist is so bluntly exchanged with these other terms? I have been unable to find the origins of this way of interpreting the Bible. Who did it first and where did it start?

Just to add an answer to Cecil's, which is solid, but to elaborate more closely on the ideal of a personal antichrist.

Anti in the context of Christ refers to not only being opposite or opposed to, but also "in place of."  Since, from Revelation, we see that this antichrist is given power and authority by the dragon (universally recognized as Satan), the antichrist is indeed a singular person -- but beyond that, he is meant to REPLACE the real true Christ, Jesus.

Just look at some parallels, again from Rev 13 as Cecil used:

  3 And I saw one of his heads as if it had been mortally wounded, and his deadly wound was healed. And all the world marveled and
  followed the beast. 4 So they worshiped the dragon who gave authority
  to the beast; and they worshiped the beast, saying, “Who is like the
  beast? Who is able to make war with him?”

Two things here -- first we see the "beast" (the one empowered by the dragon, satan, has been mortally wounded but was healed).  As a result this causes people to marvel and worship satan.  This is a simulation of Jesus Christ's resurrection from the Cross.

The one goal of this is satan is prideful and wants to be in the place of God.  Naturally his antichrist would stand to be in place of Jesus.  We see this beginning in the Old Testament, for example, Isaiah 14:

  12 “How you are fallen from heaven, O Lucifer,[b] son of the morning!
  How you are cut down to the ground, You who weakened the nations! 13
  For you have said in your heart: ‘I will ascend into heaven, I will
  exalt my throne above the stars of God; I will also sit on the mount
  of the congregation On the farthest sides of the north; 14 I will
  ascend above the heights of the clouds, I will be like the Most High.’

Let's go back to Christ in the wilderness where satan tries to tempt Jesus.  From Matthew 4:

  8 Again, the devil took Him up on an exceedingly high mountain, and
  showed Him all the kingdoms of the world and their glory. 9 And he
  said to Him, “All these things I will give You if You will fall down
  and worship me.”

Satan wants worship, that's his only price for all the nations of the world.  This is what got him thrown down from heaven, to the earth, where he has power and authority over this world until Christ's return; and this is his motivation for an antichrist.  Christ warns us in Matthew 24 to be weary of false Christs and false prophets whom perform wonders.  The dragon, the beast he raises up (the antichrist) and the antichrist's prophet itself imitates the Holy Trinity.

Again, to imitate, and be in place of, the true Godhead.  Since Jesus Christ is our personal Lord and Savior, it only makes sense the knock off attempt to take his place for non-believers would be a personal savior-like figure as well.

An antichrist is "anyone or anything that counterfeits the true gospel plan of salvation and that openly or secretly opposes Christ." (See http://www.lds.org/scriptures/gs/antichrist?lang=eng)
There are many antichrists today and they are everywhere. There will be many more who will have power to deceive those who are not firmly rooted in Christ.
Lucifer is the great Antichrist but he has many followers, both spirit and mortal beings.

We learn from (1 John 4:3-6) that anyone who teaches that Jesus Christ was not the Son of God, but just a good man who had good philosophies is an Antichrist.

Personally I have always thought of the passage found in revelations (Revelations 13:11-18) to be referring not to one particular being, but of the idea, the attitude, the philosophies that will accompany those who are Antichrists. If you think of this beast not as a man or a being but more of an idea like money, power, scientific knowledge, etc. you can get a clearer image of the beast.


Why does church tradition teach that one third of the angels fell with Lucifer when no verse supports that The verse used is Rev. 12:4, but the context takes place in the midst of the great tribulation and not before Adam sinned.  Daniel 8:10 seems to confirm that the  stars that the dragon flung down were good angels, as he trampled them.  Those are the only 2 verses in the Bible dealing with this question that I can find and both infer that the 'stars' were enemies of the dragon not his fellow angels.
Is there something that I am missing here?

@BYE points in the right direction. Some of the prophecies in Revelation look backwards to events that occurred before John lived, because the contest between Satan and God goes back to the beginning of the world.

  12 A great sign appeared in heaven: a woman clothed with the sun, with
  the moon under her feet and a crown of twelve stars on her head. 2 She
  was pregnant and cried out in pain as she was about to give birth. 3
  Then another sign appeared in heaven: an enormous red dragon with
  seven heads and ten horns and seven crowns on its heads. 4 Its tail
  swept a third of the stars out of the sky and flung them to the earth. (Revelation 12:1-4)

Verse four is interpreted by some to represent angels as stars. Thus the stars that fall to the earth are fallen angels, and they number one third of all stars, hence one third of all angels.

  Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary

  drew—Greek, present tense, "draweth," "drags down." His dragging down the stars with his tail (lashed back and forward in his fury)
  implies his persuading to apostatize, like himself, and to become
  earthy, those angels and also once eminent human teachers who had
  formerly been heavenly (compare Re 12:1; 1:20; Isa 14:12).

This commentary considers several possible meanings, including the stars being angels or martyred Christians.

  Expositor's Greek Testament

  Revelation 12:4. The symbolism is a
  reminiscence of an ætiological myth in astrology (cf. the cauda of the
  constellation Scorpio) and of the primitive view which regarded the
  dark cloud as a snake enfolding the luminaries of heaven in its
  hostile coils (Job 3:8; Job 26:13, with A. B. Davidson’s notes). Thus
  the Iranians (S. B. E. iv. p. lxxiii., Darmesteter) described the
  fiend as a serpent or dragon not on the score of craftiness but
  “because the storm fiend envelops the goddess of light with the coils
  of the cloud as with a snake’s fold”. The same play of imagination
  would interpret eclipses and falling stars, and, when the pious were
  compared to stars (as in Egyptian theology, Plut. de Iside, 21), it
  was but a step to the idea of Daniel 8. (cf. Sib. Or. ver. 512 f., the
  battle of the stars), where Antiochus Epiphanes does violence to some
  devout Israelites who are characterised as stars flung rudely down to
  earth (i.e., martyred, 1 Maccabees 1.) Originally, this description of
  the dragon lashing his tail angrily and sweeping down a third of the
  stars probably referred to the seduction of angels from their heavenly
  rank (so 8–9) to serve his will (Weiss). But John, in recasting the
  tradition, may have thought of the Danielic application, i.e., of the
  devil succeeding in crushing by martyrdom a certain number of God’s
  people. In this event, they would include at least, if they are not to
  be identified with, the pre-Christian martyrs of Judaism (cf. Hebrews
  11:32 f. Matthew 23:35).—ἕστηκεν, a conventional posture of the
  ancient dragon cf. e.g., Pliny, H. N. viii. 3, “nec flexu multiplici
  ut reliquae serpentes corpus impellit, sed celsus et erectus in medio
  incedens”; ibid. viii. 14, for serpents devouring children. The mother
  of Zoroaster had also a vision of wild beasts waiting to devour her
  child at its birth. This international myth of the divine child
  menaced at birth readily lent itself to moralisation, or afforded
  terms for historical applications, e.g., the abortive attack on Moses,
  the prototype of messiah (Baldensperger, 141, 142) at his birth (Acts
  7:20 f.) and the vain efforts of Herod against the messiah. The
  animosity of Pytho for Leto was due to a prophecy that the latter’s
  son would vanquish him.

This commentary also agrees that the stars are angels:

  Pulpit Commentary

  Verse 4. - And his tail drew the third part of the stars of heaven, and did cast them to the earth; draweth (Revised
  Version). Not the stars with which the woman is crowned (see ver. 1),
  but other stars. In describing the vast power of the devil, St. John
  seems to allude to the tremendous result of his rebellious conduct in
  heaven, in effecting the fall of other angels with himself (Jude 1:6).

Yes, you are right to conclude that you must include the other books o the Bible, to discern what Jesus said.  We cannot actually see spirit creatures in their natural form, including Jesus and God. It is pretty evident that 1/3 of the stars mean the wicked angels that were kicked out of heaven.  The Bible warns of the things that would follow on the Earth after being kicked out of Heaven. From King James: Therefore rejoice, ye heavens, and ye that dwell in them. Woe to the inhabiters of the earth and of the sea! for the devil is come down unto you, having great wrath, because he knoweth that he hath but a short time.”  This of course is why things on the Earth are so bad!


How do parables communicate the inspired word of God? I'm curious as to know how parables can communicate the inspired word of God. Other literary forms in the bible such as myths and psalms are able to somehow communicate it but I want to know how parables can communicate it as well. I'd like to know specifically how the parable of the sower can communicate the inspired word of God.

The parables of Jesus do not 'communicate the inspired word of God'. They, themselves are the inspired word of God. For God - that is to say the Son of God - actually spoke them on earth from his own lips.
If when one hears (or reads) the parable, if one does not perceive and hear God speaking to one's own soul then there is an explanation :
Jesus said :

Unto you it is given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God: but unto them that are without, all these things are done in parables:
That seeing they may see, and not perceive; and hearing they may hear, and not understand; lest at any time they should be converted, and their sins should be forgiven them.
Mark 4: 11 and 12 [KJV]

Some (who are within) will understand, and believe and will obey the concept of the parable.
Some (who are without) will see, yet not perceive ; hear and not understand.
Jesus also said :

And he said unto them, Know ye not this parable? and how then will ye know all parables?
Mark 4:13 [KJV]

The parable he speaks of is the parable of the sower sowing seed. Some fell in fruitful ground and flourished. Some fell on the wayside, in stony ground, among thorns - and bore no fruit.
If one does not perceive the meaning of this, first parable, one will not appreciate any other parable.
This first parable is about receiving the word of God into the heart in such a way that it flourishes there.
But if the word of God does not penetrate, and flourish within the heart, then there will be no perception or understanding of any of the parables which Jesus spoke.

God openly admits to using delusion and deception which is easier to dissemble in the form of parables, metaphors and otherwise made up stories.

  2 Thessalonians 2:11 (KJV)
  “And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie”

  Jeremiah 20:7
  O LORD, You have deceived me and I was deceived


Question about the PCUSA treatment of Scriptures I read an article the other day about the PCUSA church, and I will preface this question with the disclaimer that I have not done extensive research on the church, but it said that they hold the Bible to be doctrine and teach from it, but do not believe that it is without error. The article was written in response to the PCUSA changing their definition of marriage from "between a man and a woman" to "between two people", essentially supporting gay marriage.

  2 Timothy 3:16-17 - "All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work."

If the Bible itself says that ALL scripture is God breathed, how can one believe this is not true (by saying it is not inerrant) and yet still hold it to be doctrine?

I guess I'm just curious as to the logic behind teaching from the bible which explicitly says something is wrong, but then supporting it? The Bible doesn't really seem to me like something you get to pick and choose what of it you want to believe.

If you hold from the outset that the Bible can contain errors, then it would obviously be easy to say that the passage in the Bible that says otherwise (2 Timothy 3:16-17) is itself in error. So I suppose that's the answer. Inerrancy is not a doctrine you can derive from the Bible if you don't already believe in inerrancy, since you will simply dismiss 2 Timothy 3:16-17 as wishful thinking if you aren't already convinced of the doctrine of inerrancy.  Why do people who don't believe in the Bible not all of the sudden change their minds when 2 Timothy 3:16-17 is read to them?  Because they don't believe in the Bible, so why would a quotation from the Bible convince them?

But when you're dealing with a church that doesn't believe in inerrancy, its more than with some atheist.  They need the Bible to legitimize themselves, but they don't want to accept certain things it says.  Its just like politicians who wrap themselves behind the Constitution, or more particularly the Bill of Rights, while at the same time trying to take away some of the rights guaranteed there. When you need a document to legitimize your business enterprise, you use as much of it as you want, to your profit, and reject as much of it as you don't want.

Although I've met many who claim to do so, I've not yet met a single Christian individual who followed each and every one of God's laws explicated in the Bible without exception. Doing so, would prevent a person from wearing most garments manufactured today, as Leviticus 19:19 would prohibit all fabrics made from fabric blends (e.g., "cotton-polyester"). I've known several male persons, who, though they claim to believe and follow the whole bible, are in clear violation of Leviticus 19:27-28 (You shall not round off the hair on your temples, nor mar the edges of your beard. You shall not ... tattoo any marks upon you.), not to mention Leviticus 7:22-23 ("You shall eat no fat").

The point here is that there are few (if any) who adhere to all of God's laws, but most instead pick and choose what laws they are going to adhere to, and which they will find a reason to ignore. Further, I don't know anyone who claims to be  Christian, and supports the death penalty, who insists on following Jesus teaching with respect to that punishment (there must be one without sin to initiate the execution).

Anyone who ignores some parts of what is taught in the Bible, yet criticizes others who ignore other parts of what is taught seems to me to have forgotten Jesus' teaching about foreign objects and eyes.


Was the wine in The Last Supper fermented? I was reading "Does wine really mean wine in the Bible?" and I thought, The Last Supper was during the Passover, where the jewish was forbidden to use ferment in recipes:

  Exodus 12:15 KJV
  Seven days shall ye eat unleavened bread; even the
  first day ye shall put away leaven out of your houses: for whosoever
  eateth leavened bread from the first day until the seventh day, that
  soul shall be cut off from Israel.

This implies that the wine used in the The Last Supper was just grape juice, right?

Prior to the advent of pasteurization, fermentation was something which happened in all grape juice whether a fermenting agent was consciously introduced or not (and it happened with relative immediacy). The last supper, then, would have had wine and not plain grape juice.

It is also noteworthy to point out that wine, unless something bizarre has occurred, is not leavened bread.

I've given this more thought over the last few days, and spoke to a few people from different backgrounds. My original answer was flawed, and I'd like to take another crack at this.

The short answer is "We don't know for sure."  The original Greek recorded as Jesus' words is "gennema ampelos", which means  "fruit of the vine." This can be taken to mean either fermented or unfermented grape juice.

This topic is the matter of quite a bit of debate, and any answer you get other than "we're not sure" (including my original) is going to be based on conjecture, logic based on un-provable assumptions, and bias, rather that provable fact.  (Assuming that "provable fact" on this site would include a clear Biblical statement on the matter.)

My original statement included my opinion that this is really a non-issue.  it is a non-issue for me, but in speaking with several friends from different backgrounds. (Baptist, Catholic, Evangelical free, and Lutheran) over the last few days, I've seen that it's important to them
for other reasons.

In the "non-alcoholic" camp the issue seems to center around whether or not drinking is allowed for a Christian at all.  The bias is that drinking is an outright sin, and since Jesus was sinless, then it couldn't have been alcoholic.  If it were, then Jesus was a sinner.  For that camp, there is no compromise.

In the "alcoholic" camp, I was surprised to find that the issue was a matter of credibility of Church authority.  More than a few of the people I talked to stated (and I don't know if this is true, I just know what they told me) that their Church taught that it's alcoholic, and that they believed the Church.  When pressed, one of them got really irate and said "Are you calling the Pope a liar?"  Now I don't know what the Pope says about this, not being Catholic myself, but clearly this issue for her was a matter of importance.  Believing otherwise would undermine her rock-solid faith in the Catholic Church and the authority of the Pope.

I can't stress enough here that I am not saying that the Pope or the Catholic church says anything on the subject. I really don't know.  I'm relating her experience to illustrate a point.

Based on the fact that the original Greek is unclear, and the arguments on either side are based on un-provable assumptions and bias, my final answer is still "We don't know for sure."

I personally still think that it was unfermented, but I wouldn't state dogmatically that it's unfermented.


How do the LDS interpret Matthew 19:12? From this verse in Matthew 19, it may appear that the Savior approved of celibacy or self-mutilation:

  "For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother’s
  womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and
  there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom
  of heaven’s sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it."
  (Matthew 19:12)

However, modern apostles and prophets have clarified “that marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God and that the family is central to the Creator’s plan for the eternal destiny of His children. … God’s commandment for His children to multiply and replenish the earth remains in force” (“The Family: A Proclamation to the World,” Ensign or Liahona, Nov. 2010, 129).

Elder Bruce R. McConkie (1915–85) of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles explained that anciently some people held the false belief that a life of celibacy was to be sought after: “Apparently those who made themselves eunuchs were men who in false pagan worship had deliberately mutilated themselves in the apostate notion that such would further their salvation. It is clear that such was not a true gospel requirement of any sort. There is no such thing in the gospel as wilful emasculation; such a notion violates every true principle of procreation and celestial marriage” (Doctrinal New Testament Commentary, 3 vols. [1965–73], 1:549).

What did Christ mean when he said, "He that is able to receive it, let him receive it."?

I figure this website says it better than I can.

  "... there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for
  the kingdom of heaven's sake..." (Matt 19:12)

There are no known scriptural or historical accounts which tell us more about these particular eunuchs. So, how are we to understand this passage? Joseph Smith said,

  "I have a key by which I understand the scriptures. I enquire, what
  was the question which drew out the answer." (Teachings, 276)

Jesus was responding to the disciples' statement that it would be better not to marry if the law was so strict.

Christ's response, in essence, declared,

  "You're right, for those who understand and receive the full meaning
  of the law of celestial marriage, it is better not to marry at all
  than to make the mistake of violating the covenants of your first
  marriage in marrying another. For example, there have been men who
  understood this doctrine and made themselves eunuchs rather than take
  the risk of violating this holy law."

This response was not meant to justify the mutilating act required to become a eunuch nor to condone a celibate lifestyle but to acknowledge their understanding of the supreme solemnity of the covenant of celestial marriage.

Those who have received a testimony of this principle are obligated to live by its precepts. For them, it would be better to live a celibate life than to violate this law, for 'he who sins against the greater light shall receive the greater condemnation' (D&C 82:3). Therefore, 'He that is able to receive it, let him receive it'-for those who are not able to receive it are not obligated to abide such a strict law.

  "If our societies were on a higher plane, then, marriage covenants
  would be held in great, sacred trust; essentially, divorce would not
  exist or be considered except for truly serious reasons such as
  adultery. I would also suggest that in a higher system, with
  individuals living in harmony with all the Lord's teachings, there
  would be no such serious problems and thus no divorce.

  Unfortunately, our societies are less than ideal. Some persons do live
  in unbearably difficult marital circumstances, suffering as victims of
  spouse abuse, substance abuse, promiscuity, and other evils that are
  sometimes addressed through divorce as a last resort. In such cases,
  the Lord in his mercy 'permits his agents to exercise the power to
  loose [to authorize divorce] as well as the power to bind.' (Bruce R.
  McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, 204)" (Jonathan M. Chamberlain, Ensign,
  Jan. 1993, p. 60)

I am a lifelong Mormon, and I read this verse Matt. 19:12 many times, and prayed to God for answers on how to understand it, and it came to me personally that to say that there will be Eunuchs in the kingdom of God is meant that all NON celestial beings shall be eunuchs.


What is the origin and development of the calender of the Western Church? Happy New Year.

So today, being the first Sunday in Advent, marks the beginning of a new year in the western church, that is the Roman Catholic Church, and those Protestant churches which are descended from it, such as the Lutherans, Anglicans, some in the Reformed tradition, Methodists, &c. How did the calender develop?

I am asking here about the more general "seasonal" calender--Advent, Christmas, Epiphany, Lent, Easter, and Pentecost seasons, not so much about the various days upon which one Saint or another is remembered.

According to a number of sources, liturgical calendars (which is what the 'church year' is more formally known) have been around in some form since the fourth century, and were fully developed (though not in  their present form) in medieval times. The liturgical seasons, and the celebration of saints days, were part of the same process. The Lutheran church and other Protestant churches retained the basic form when their division from the Roman church took place, dropping a large number of saints days but retaining others.

The actual seasons have remained largely unchanged since then, with most of the modifications (in both Protestant and Catholic circles) being to the saint days celebrated.

Some are based either on older Jewish festivals, such as pentecost that are to be no longer kept by Christians.

As far as I can tell, Christmas and Easter are both festivals that mock Christ and celebrate the victory of the false church over Christ and celebrates the killing of his disciples. Although different, elements of both are found in the book of Esther. Esther is not scriptural, never being referred to by Jesus or the apostles, and never mentioning God. The book of Esther appears to be an allegory of the murder of Jesus (Hamon) and the replacement of God's church (Queen Vashti) with one (Esther) in league with the Jews (Mordecai) who refused to worship Jesus. The festival instituted in Esther is Purim, not mentioned in the New Testament. Purim celebrates the death of the enemies of the Jewish nation (Esther 8:11-13) as well as the murder of Christ (Esther 7:10). Historically Christians recognised that Jews were mocking Christ in the keeping of this festival.

Esther 8:17 And in every province, and in every city, whithersoever the king's commandment and his decree came, the Jews had joy and gladness, a feast and a good day. And many of the people of the land became Jews; for the fear of the Jews fell upon them.

This appears to be where "good" Friday comes from. Notice also, it is about "fear of the Jews", nothing to do with the fear of God.

Christmas does not celebrate the birth of Christ but his death, that is why it is called Christ-mass, it is when Roman Catholics celebrate mass (communion) at midnight, literally (according to them) drinking blood. It is an occult reversal. It seems Easter is a reversal no mass being celebrated on Good Friday when he supposed to have died (which would be the day of the Lord's supper), but on Sunday when he is supposed to have risen.

The timing of Christmas comes from the timing of Purim in Esther, on the 13th, 14th, 15th of Adar (the twelfth month).

Esther 9:17-19 On the thirteenth day of the month Adar; and on the fourteenth day of the same rested they, and made it a day of feasting and gladness. 18 But the Jews that were at Shushan assembled together on the thirteenth day thereof, and on the fourteenth thereof; and on the fifteenth day of the same they rested, and made it a day of feasting and gladness. 19 Therefore the Jews of the villages, that dwelt in the unwalled towns, made the fourteenth day of the month Adar a day of gladness and feasting, and a good day, and of sending portions one to another.

Adar is described as being the twelfth month.

Esther 9:1 Now in the twelfth month, that is, the month Adar, on the thirteenth day of the same, when the king's commandment and his decree drew near to be put in execution, in the day that the enemies of the Jews hoped to have power over them, (though it was turned to the contrary, that the Jews had rule over them that hated them;)

Although it is celebrated around the 25th of December, this is accounted for by the 10/11 day shift from the Julian to the Gregorian calendar.

25th December is also close to the winder solstice, celebrating the death and rebirth of the sun. This appears to be why the wafers in Roman catholic masses are round, being symbols of the sun.

Secret sun worship, and other abominations have gone on in the religious community for some time. See Ezekiel 8. These were the elders that outwardly worshipped the Lord, but in secret worshipped the sun. It is no different today.

When Jesus gave us the Lord's supper, it was a reminder that we should be both eating his body and drinking his blood. These are figurative things that point at what we should be doing as Christians. Many stumble at this, not discerning the Lord's body, and not being partakers the new covenant, which you would do well to understand from scripture if you think you are in Christ.

Edit: I am no longer sure of this position. There maybe elements of truth in it. However, the feasts of Esther never seem to be encouraged or approved by God, even if God allowed them.


Why does God desire glorification? If my interpretation of the ultimate purpose of human existence according to the Bible is correct, humanity exists to glorify the existence of God. In Isaiah 43:7, it is stated "everyone who is called by my name, whom I created for my glory, whom I formed and made.” This outlines humanity's purpose as a device to glorify God.

But if God is a perfect being, why does he desire to be glorified? Normally, this characteristic would be associated with a being that is insecure or narcissistic, which are not to my understanding perfect traits.

Surely this  is a pretty fundamental attribute of God for which Christianity surely has a doctrine. In there a specific theological term used for this topic? And what do different Christian theological traditions teach about this issue? Is there there a general explanation that is broadly agreed on explaining this attribute of God or are there different explanations?

Starting from God requesting us to glorify Him is starting from the end of the order of things.
First and foremost, God deserves to be praised. Hence His request for it from us. That is the correct order of things. Not to glorify God for us is equivalent to not understanding our place in the world, and our relation to God. We are His creatures. Everything was created by God (by the Father through the Son of God, Jesus). Or do you think human beings are good and powerful enough to compare with God? The creature more than the Creator? (Ideas developed more here).
Hence, from our position as creatures, it follows that we must glorify Him. In fact, it is a basic movement of the heart in Christians (as so beautifully expressed by so many hymns and writings of Saints) to praise God for the marvelous gifts received (including life itself, nature, etc). For instance, St Paul writes to the Romans (11:33-36):

How rich are the depths of God – how deep his wisdom and knowledge – and how impossible to penetrate his motives or understand his methods! Who could ever know the mind of the Lord? Who could ever be his counsellor? Who could ever give him anything or lend him anything? All that exists comes from him; all is by him and for him. To him be glory for ever! Amen.

If God would not ask us to glorify Him, God would be lying to us. Jesus Himself said (John 13:13):

You call me Master, and Lord; and you say well, for so I am.

This is, saying the truth is saying well. Hence, worshiping God is doing well too. If God would not asks us to glorify Him, we would not be doing well. Hence God's call for us to worship Him as what he truly is, God our Creator.
The entry on Glory in the Catholic Encyclopedia also mention this acknowledgment:

... glory is equivalent to praise rendered to God in acknowledgment of His majesty and perfections manifested objectively in the world, or through supernatural revelation.

Notice also that a narcissist needs to be hailed e.g. to fill in self-esteem vacuums. God however needs nothing. The same entry above states beautifully:

Infinite, He possesses the plenitude of Being and Perfection; He needs nothing, and can receive no complementary increment or superfluous accession of excellence from without.

This is, our act of glorifying God does not expand God in any way. By glorifying God we are simply acknowledging the true order of things. It is just reasonable for God to asks us to recognise this true order of things.
Thus, if God is immutable to our glorification of Him, what is it's purpose? St. Aquinas touched upon this in his Summa Theologiae, Question 123:

As Augustine says on John 13:13, "You call Me Master and Lord; and you say well" (Tract. lviii in Joan.): "Self-complacency is fraught with danger of one who has to beware of pride. But He Who is above all, however much He may praise Himself, does not uplift Himself. For knowledge of God is our need, not His: nor does any man know Him unless he be taught of Him Who knows." It is therefore evident that God seeks glory, not for His own sake, but for ours. On like manner a man may rightly seek his own glory for the good of others, according to Matthew 5:16, "That they may see your good works, and glorify your Father Who is in heaven."

God created us in order to share His life with us. That was a selflessness act of Love. God, loved us first, and made us to love Him and love our brethren, and to have eternal life in Him, in perfect happiness. This is quite the opposite to the narcissist God commonly attributed to Christianity.

Notice also that the concept of glory has different meaning across Scriptures. In fact, the quote in your question refers, in my opinion, to the case of the creation of God as a sign of God's powerfulness. This sense of glory if more in line with that which is referred to in the Jesuit motto Ad majorem Dei gloriam (to the greater glory of God). This is often is explained as meaning that the glory of God is the salvation of its creatures.

The simple answer comes from the words of God's beloved daughter, the chosen Woman who is the reason why God created mankind. God desire to share His glory to a created being but there's one big problem. No created being can enter into His Glorious Presence without being glorified meaning "nothing defiled shall enter His Presence". (Revelation21:27)

To solve this problem God dreamed of a perfect creature that can enter His Glorious Presence. God painted a Masterpiece and the Key to enter His Glorious Presence lies in the Heart of a created being. God in His Omnipotent conceived a Heart worthy to enter His Presence. When God saw this Heart this beautiful Heart, God so desire to have it He even dream to have it.

The Heart that God dream to enter His Presence is a burning heart, that speaks his praises and glorifies His Mercy. What kind of heart is this?

If all of us will imitate the humble heart of Mary then all of us can enter Glory of God presence in  Heaven.

http://www.theimmaculateheart.com/

We know that in our world when we desire or dream something to have, it requires a "sacrifice."

But God in His Omnipotent sees that it is impossible for any creature to enter His Kingdom, the Divine Mercy is the only way for man to attain Theosis.

And so, this beautiful words coming from the Diary of St.Faustina speaks of the Wisdom of God before He start the creation of Mankind.

  "Mercy is the flower of Love. God is Love and Mercy is his deeds. In Love it is conceived in Mercy it is revealed." (St.Faustina)

Only by way of God Divine Mercy can one enter His Kingdom, and so the First Act of God in Heaven is to offer His INFINITE MERCY.
God gave a singular privelege to the chosen Woman by Redeeming her in an exalted fashion. Mercy is a Gift that we don't deserve and the first recipient of god Mercy is the Woman name Mary who exist in the thought of God in eternity.

If God wanted to pursue His desire or His Dream, God needed to offer a sacrifice and that one is no other than He's only Begotten Son, and the Begotten Son cannot accomplish it without the Holy Spirit anointing. The Salvation of Man to fulfill the desire of the Father requires the Work of the Most Holy Trinity.

And God perfect glorification was uttered by the lowly handmaid upon receiving the favor of God to her unceasing supplication for God to look with Mercy upon the people of God.

  My soul doth magnify the Lord.
  And my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Saviour.
  For he hath regarded : the lowliness of his handmaiden: For behold, from henceforth : all generations shall call me blessed.
  For he that is mighty hath magnified me: and holy is his Name.
  And his mercy is on them that fear him: throughout all generations.
  He hath shewed strength with his arm: he hath scattered the proud in the imagination of their hearts.
  He hath put down the mighty from their seat: and hath exalted the humble and meek.
  He hath filled the hungry with good things: and the rich he hath sent empty away.
  He remembering his mercy hath holpen his servant Israel :
  As he promised to our forefathers, Abraham and his seed for ever.
  Glory be to the Father, and to the Son: and to the Holy Ghost;
  As it was in the beginning, is now, and ever shall be : world without end. Amen.

In closing, the heart is the one who give glory to God in Heaven that's why Jesus wants our heart burning when He returns.

  "I have come to cast fire upon the earth; and how I wish it were already kindled!"(Luke12:49)

If our hearts is not yet on fire, then we cannot enter the Glory of God in Heaven, we must kindled it first in the Fire of Purgatory. That's why only few goes straight to Heaven because only a heart that was on fire can see the Glorious Majesty of God in Heaven. Look at the Seraphim the closest to God they are described as "burning ones".

The picture of the Sacred Heart & the Immaculate Heart speaks profoundly to us. The Logos Incarnate comes from the "three drops of blood from the heart of Mary" and then Jesus set His Heart on Fire doing the Will of God and Mary's Heart was lit on fire too by accepting the Will of God in Her FIAT. The Two Hearts was lit on fire and so all of us must follow the Will of God to let our hearts lit.


Was Jesus a carpenter or a rabbi? One person told me that since disciples called Jesus rabbi and since he taught in synagogues he couldn't have been a carpenter as only rabbis were allowed to teach in synagogues.

Has this matter ever been covered in Christianity? If yes, can anyone, please, give an overview on this matter?

Could Jesus have been both carpenter and a rabbi? How did a person become  qualified rabbi in those times?

The question "Was Jesus a Rabbi" is covered here.  Short version: Yes, He was.

The question "Was Jesus a carpenter" is covered here.  Short version, "yes, but in typical fashion people dispute the exact meaning of the word, which could also be translated as craftsman."  In this case, whether carpenter could mean craftsman or stonemason or whatever other occupation doesn't matter.  You're asking how he could have been a carpenter and a Rabbi.

Not to point out the obvious, but it was a career change.  In His early days, He was a carpenter. Later, He began His true calling - His earthly ministry.

There is no discrepancy in Scripture referring to Him as a carpenter in one place, and as a Rabbi in another.  Were someone to write about my life (what a boring book that would be) they could just as easily refer to me as a Restaurant Manager and a Software Developer, a Father, Husband, Satellite dish salesman, etc.

To answer the remaining point in your question, the first link above also covers how "one became a Rabbi in those times".

Jesus was the son of God my friend! Just read the bible to know that; He probably knew a thing or two, carpentry was something he practised, although the specifics aren't very mentioned to my knowledge. I believe he made tables and things for his family, and probably to earn some money as he would without a doubt have needed to labour up until the point his ministry began; being Jewish he would have abided by the commandments, after all he was sinless! 6 days of labour one of rest, the Sabbath, so he most probably would have performed an array of tasks; farming, or the like, and carpentry or joinery perhaps would have come into this! as the son of God he was the only true Rabbi (teacher) so the judgement of the term Rabbi, thereof, comes from knowledge of him. Hence, Matthew 23:8 "Don't let anyone call you 'Rabbi,' for you have only one teacher."


Do Protestants understand Jesus to be both "the son of Adam" and "the son of God"? Do Protestants understand Jesus to be both "the son of Adam" and "the son of God"?

Protestants believe that Mary was a virgin when she conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit, but they do not go along with the Catholic view that Mary herself was without sin.  The Bible says nothing about Mary being sinless.

The Protestant view is that Jesus was fully human and this came from Mary being his biological mother. Jesus alone was born of a virgin, conceived by the Holy Spirit. Jesus had no human father. The fact that Jesus was without sin is clearly stated in the Bible:

  For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God (2 Corinthians 5:21).

  You know that he appeared in order to take away sins, and in him there is no sin (1 John 3:5).

I am unfamiliar with the expression that Jesus was “in Adam” but the Bible likens Jesus to the first man Adam:

  The first man Adam became a living being; the last Adam, a life-giving spirit. The spiritual did not come first, but the natural, and after that the spiritual. The first man was of the dust of the earth, the second man from heaven. As was the earthly man, so are those who are of the earth; and as is the man from heaven, so also are those who are of heaven. And just as we have borne the likeness of the earthly man, so shall we bear the likeness of the man from heaven (1 Corinthians 15:45-49).

  Just as Adam was the first of the human race, so Christ is the first of those who will be raised from the dead to eternal life.  Adam came first on this earth and was made from the dust of the earth. While it is true that Christ has existed from eternity past, He is here called the second man or second Adam because He came from heaven to earth many years after Adam. Christ came as a human baby with a body like all other humans, but He did not originate from the dust of the earth as had Adam. He “came from heaven.”  Source: https://www.gotquestions.org/Jesus-second-Adam.html

That, as far as I am aware, is the Protestant view of Jesus being both fully human and fully God.  Mary was a descendant of Adam and, like all humans, was herself subjected to inherited sin.  Jesus was without sin because he came from heaven, from above, and no human father was involved.

Additional information regarding the Baptist view of Jesus being without sin:

  The Baptist Confession of Faith (1689)  Section 8: Christ the Mediator
  The Son of God, the second person in the Holy Trinity, being true and eternal God, the brightness of the Father's glory, of the same substance and equal with Him;

  Who made the world, and who upholds and governs all things which He has made,
  did, when the fullness of time had come, take upon Himself man's nature, with all its essential properties and common infirmities, with the exception of sin.
  He was conceived by the Holy Spirit in the womb of the Virgin Mary, the Holy Spirit coming down upon her and the power of the Most High overshadowing her, so that He was born to a woman from the tribe of Judah, a descendant of Abraham and David, in accordance with the Scriptures.
  Thus two whole, perfect and distinct natures were inseparably joined together in one person, without conversion, composition, or confusion;
  So that the Lord Jesus Christ is truly God and truly man, yet He is one Christ, the only Mediator between God and man.
  http://www.romans45.org/creeds/bcof.htm#part8

The New Testament writers had to combat a form of Gnostic teaching that denied the full humanity of Christ.  They believed flesh was evil but spirit was pure, therefore God would never have incarnated as a fleshly human.  They said Christ only appeared to be human, but it was an illusion – he was actually spirit.  The New Testament declares Jesus was human and also God incarnate.

The concept of being FULLY HUMAN and FULLY GOD isn’t really that hard to understand as long as we remember that;

  John 4:24  KJV God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.

Spirits have no material characteristics. We have no problem believing that we have a physical body and a Soul.
The soul has no material characteristics just as God has no material characteristics. Also we as Protestants are well aware that we are human and descended from Adam.
We understand that human bodies are separate from our souls and yet our fully human bodies and our souls abide together even though both are separate parts of our being.
We also fully understand that our minds contain knowledge of both good and evil; no thanks to Adam and Eve.
What we have the hardest time understanding is that Jesus had the mind of God. So what does having the mind of God actually mean?

  Genesis  2:9  KJV And out of the ground made the LORD God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil.

In the above Scripture we find that God knew of good and evil before even making mankind. Knowing good and evil is not the same as sin. God did not say to Adam that if he gained the knowledge of good and evil he would die, but instead said:

  Genesis  KJV 2:17  But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

God in his foreknowledge knew that Adam would willfully disobey since Adam was not fooled.

So therefore if Jesus knew both good and evil; yet did not disobey God he would remain sinless. So we must know if Jesus being fully human was without original sin. This can be established only if we know that Jesus did have all knowledge and yet was totally obedient to God, and was not guilty of the sin that Adam committed.

  Luke 10:18  KJV  And he said unto them, I beheld Satan as lightning fall from heaven.

In the Scripture above Jesus tells us he was present when Satan was ejected from Heaven, He could only have done that if his mind were present on that occasion. Since it is gained knowledge, or as in this instance a part of Omniscience.  Since Omniscience is of God then God must be present in Jesus, and since God is Spirit, then Jesus must have had the spirit of God and not the spirit of man, and not the soul of mankind since the Soul is also Spirit.

This is just a quick look at a few of the pertinent Scriptures, and must be accompanied by more study in order to fully comprehend the concept of the God man inter connection of Jesus. Much of this relationship is scattered throughout the entire Bible.


If Orthodox Christians must repent of any act of violence, how does this not entail pacifism? I have heard from many Orthodox that one should repent of any act of violence, including violence committed in self-defense or in the service of military duties.

As I understand it, true repentance includes a genuine belief that facing the same situation again, one would act differently.

How can this be squared with the church's non-pacifism? The church plainly is not pacifistic and has recognized in several places the unfortunate need for violence in this world.

For Catholics there is no inconsistency, for one doesn't repent of just violence. But this seems to be a problem for the Orthodox, at least from my reading. How does Orthodox Theology resolve this apparent contradiction/paradox?

First, I would say that your premise:

  ... true repentance includes a genuine belief that facing the same
  situation again, one would act differently

does not accurately represent the Orthodox Christian understanding of "repentance".  This notion of repentance accords with the conventional dictionary definition of feeling remorse or regret (e.g. Concise Oxford English Dictionary, 6th ed.), but it does not agree with how repentance is viewed by Orthodox.

The Greek word in Scripture for "repentance" is metanoia.  Metanoia, explains Metropolitian Kallistos Ware, "means literally 'change of mind'."

  In approaching God, we are to change our mind, stripping ourselves of
  all our habitual ways of thinking. We are to be converted not only in
  our will but in our intellect. We need to reverse our interior
  perspective, to stand the pyramid on its head.

  The Orthodox Way (Kindle Locations 167-169)

As Metropolitan Kallistos further explains,

  Correctly understood, repentance is not negative but positive. It
  means not self-pity or remorse but conversion, the re-centering of our
  whole life upon the Trinity. It is to look not backward with regret
  but forward with hope—not downwards at our own shortcomings but
  upwards at God's love. It is to see, not what we have failed to be,
  but what by divine grace we can now become; and it is to act upon what
  we see. To repent is to open our eyes to the light. In this sense,
  repentance is not just a single act, an initial step, but a continuing
  state, an attitude of heart and will that needs to be ceaselessly
  renewed up to the end of life. In the words of St Isaias of Sketis,
  “God requires us to go on repenting until our last breath.” “This life
  has been given you for repentance”, says St Isaac the Syrian. “Do not
  waste it on other things.”

  Ibid., Kindle Locations 2053-2060

Thus, the Orthodox understanding of repentance lies not in the context of physical acts that one may or may not commit, but rather in the disposition of the heart.  Military service - especially in combat - is a great spiritual burden for Orthodox Christians because it invites spiritual warfare and calls for a passionlessness that is almost impossible to attain.  This is perhaps one reason that almost every single Orthodox service includes prayers for the country's armed forces.

There is, however, a great number of soldiers who are included in the Synaxaria of the Orthodox Church, including St. George the Victory-bearer, who served in the Roman Army under the emperor Diocletian, and Theodore the Recruit.  Among latter day saints, we might include the recent Russian martyr Yevgeny Rodionov and the recently-reposed Archimandrite Kyrill, a decorated Red Army veteran who fought at Stalingrad.

Nonetheless, your point is taken.  Basil the Great advocated for Christians to abstain from communion for a time after participating in a war:  "Our fathers did not think that killing in war was murder; yet I think it advisable for such as have been guilty of it to forbear communion three years" (First Canonical Epistle, Canon XIII).  A Question & Answer dialog on the Orthodox Church of America website suggests that pacifism is preferred, but perhaps impractical:

  But still, if a man will be perfect and give his life totally to
  Christ, he will of necessity renounce military service as well as any
  political service which always and of necessity is involved with
  relativistic values and greater and lesser evils and goods. Such a man
  will also renounce his possessions and follow Christ totally and in
  everything.

  Thus total pacifism is not only possible, it is the sign of greatest
  perfection, the perfection of the Kingdom of God. According to the
  Orthodox understanding, however, pacifism can never be a social or
  political philosophy for this world; although once again, a
  non-violent means to an end is always to be preferred in every case to
  a violent means.

  When violence must be used as a lesser evil to prevent greater evils,
  it can never be blessed as such, it must always be repented of, and it
  must never be identified with perfect Christian morality.

  Also, one final point of great importance is that Christians who are
  involved in the relativistic life of this world must resist military
  conscription when the state is evil. But when doing so they must not
  yield to anarchy, but must submit to whatever punishment is given so
  that their witness will be fruitful.

(This is offered as an opinion and not dogma by the OCA, but I thought I would include it as an item of interest)

I'm not a scholar, but as I understand it from 40 years as an Orthodox Christian:  We as Christians must strive to become ever more like Christ in every facet of our lives.  Being only human, though, we are subject to temptation and may backslide.  So, while Sin is seen in Orthodoxy as "missing the mark" or turning away from God, rather than as a specific crime that requires specific punishment, repentance in Orthodoxy is seen not as a one-shot, once-and-for-all deal, but as a life-long process of striving towards God, sometimes succeeding, sometimes failing, but always striving again, with the help of God and those around us.  Regarding pacifism of the Church as a worldly institution, it is generally NOT the case for any of the Orthodox Patriarchates to support violence - there's always a call for peace. And yet, we pray for soldiers - but for them as individuals facing horrible moral questions.  Nevertheless, there's really no doctrine that I've heard of similar to Just War, or about whether it is just to kill in any circumstance...  only that one must repent of that act, "justified" or not.


Is it known who first associated the Beast of Revelation with the Antichrist, and when? I am NOT asking the similar question "Why is the second beast of Revelation called the Antichrist?" Rather, my question is specifically, when was the first connection made between the two--equating one of the beasts in Revelation with THE Antichrist--and if known, who made the connection?

I am looking for a firm connection here. For example, Justin Martyr spoke of "the man of apostasy, who speaks strange things against the Most High". This is a clear reference to Revelation 13, but he never uses the title "Antichrist".

Does Irenaeus, writing between about 175 and 185 AD make the connection? If so, was there someone before him?

Reading the new testament texts within a systematic eschatology, readers could conceivably equate the 'antichrist' of the Johannine epistles with either of the beasts from the Revelation, or the 'man of lawlessness' from Paul, but this is purely reader inference; such connections are not made explicit within these individual texts (e.g. the author of 1 John does not make any verbal references that he has 'the beast' of Revelation in mind).

The earliest known use of the term 'antichrist' outside of the Johannine epistles comes from a letter from Polycarp, a student of John, to the church in Philippi. He wrote some ten or fifteen years after the Johannine epistles, but clearly is working within the teaching represented by 1 and 2 John. With corroborating material from Polycarp's fellow student of John, Ignatius, the context of each of these three men's letters highly suggests 'antichrist' was originally used to describe some manner of docetism.

That I can find, Irenaeus was the earliest one to explicitly connect 'antichrist' to the beast of Revelation. In his Against Heresies, written around 180 AD, Irenaeus says the following:

Such, then, being the state of the case, and this number being found in all the most approved and ancient copies, and those men who saw John face to face bearing their testimony; while reason also leads us to conclude that the number of the name of the beast, according to the Greek mode of calculation by the the letters contained in it, will amount to six hundred and sixty and six. (5.30.1)
We will not, however, incur the risk of pronouncing positively as to the name of Antichrist for if it were necessary that his name should be distinctly revealed in this present time, it would have been announced by him who beheld the apocalyptic vision. For that was seen no very long time since, but almost in our day, towards the end of Domitian's reign. (5.30.3)

Here 'the name of the Antichrist' is identified with some passage of 'the apocalyptic vision'. Irenaeus is talking about the 'name of the beast' from Revelation 13.16-18. Contextually, Irenaeus is clearly talking about the first beast, from the sea, not the second beast, from the earth.
Other points in this chapter of Irenaeus' book also equate 'the Antichrist' with the first beast of Revelation, such as applying Revelation 13.5 or 17.8 to him.

It was John the Revelator–the same who authored The Revelation–but he doesn't say it in The Revelation.

  "Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that
  antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; [...] *Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ?*
  He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son." (1 John 2:18-22)

  "And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the
  flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye
  have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the
  world..." (1 John 4:3-6)

  "For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that
  Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an
  antichrist." (2 John 1:7)

John very strongly emphasized in his epistles that an antichrist is a deceiver and would lead people away from worshiping Christ.

  And I beheld another beast coming up out of the earth [...] And he
  exerciseth all the power of the first beast before him [...] And he
  doeth great wonders [...] And deceiveth them that dwell on the
  earth [...] and cause that as many as would not worship the image of the beast should be killed... (Revelation 11-17)

John made it clear that any who would deceive the people and have them worship anyone but the Saviour was Antichrist. The second beast used great wonders and power to force the people of earth to worship the image of the beast or be killed, and caused all to receive the mark of the beast-a symbol of their worship.

This beast is textbook antichrist. The connection would not have required explanation at the time The Revelation was given to the church.


Why did Jesus use parables to teach? At first, Jesus taught by direct instruction and expounding the scriptures. For example, Luke 2:46-47:

  46 And it came to pass, that after three days they found him in the temple, sitting in the midst of the doctors, both hearing them, and asking them questions.
  47 And all that heard him were astonished at his understanding and answers.

Also, Matthew 5:3-5:

  3 Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
  4 Blessed are they that mourn: for they shall be comforted.
  5 Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth.

But then, as He got closer to the end of His life, He began to teach in parables. Why?

James E. Talmage discusses this in his book "Jesus the Christ" (read online here)
An excerpt from this chapter:

To the chosen and devoted followers who came asking the Master why He had changed from direct exposition to parables, He explained that while it was their privilege to receive and understand the deeper truths of the gospel, “the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven” as He expressed it, with people in general, who were unreceptive and unprepared, such fulness of understanding was impossible. To the disciples who had already gladly accepted the first principles of the gospel of Christ, more should be given; while from those who had rejected the proffered boon, even what they had theretofore possessed should be taken away. “Therefore,” said He, “speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand.”
...
There is plainly shown an element of mercy in the parabolic mode of instruction adopted by our Lord under the conditions prevailing at the time. Had He always taught in explicit declaration, such as required no interpretation, many among His hearers would have come under condemnation, inasmuch as they were too weak in faith and unprepared in heart to break the bonds of traditionalism and the prejudice engendered by sin, so as to accept and obey the saving word.
Another example of the merciful adaptation of the word of truth to the varied capacities of the people who heard the parables is found in the psychological fact, that the incidents of an impressive though simple story will live, even in minds which for the time being are incapable of comprehending any meaning beyond that of the common-place story itself. … And then, when time and experience, including suffering perhaps, had prepared them for deeper thought, they would find the living kernel of gospel truth within the husk of the simple tale.
(Talmage)

In short, listeners of varying spiritual maturity could be taught that which they needed to hear.

The spiritual eyes and ears of the Jewish leaders were closed during the earthly ministry of Jesus. He was standing at the door of their heart, knocking for them to open the door and let him in. He wasn't going to kick it down and force his way in, they had to open it themselves. The words Jesus spoke were spiritual and could be perceived by the human mind using spiritual senses not physical. see Rev.3:20, John 6:63


The "eye of the needle gate" today There is a great set of answers that covers some of my question regarding the interpretation of this passage over on the Biblical Hermeneutics site, but it didn't answer all of my questions.

Today I heard an old pastor speak about when he saw one of those gates for himself in Jerusalem. If I understand it right, the gate he saw was even labeled with "The eye of the needle" or something similar (though his interpretation was not the classic, because he was sure of that there was no way a camel could get through the gate he saw).

What gate (which obviously exists today) is this pastor speaking about?
Is there really any part of the Jerusalem walls left since Jesus time? Weren't all of the walls destroyed after the siege of Jerusalem 70 A.D?

Update 1

Even since before asking this question, I never doubted that Jesus was speaking about a real "eye of the needle", and not a gate. Even though I marked one answer (which was really clarifying) as accepted, it would be really interesting to nail this myth and go down to the details. According to the New Bible Dictionary, third Edition, p. 562, there is one remaining ancient wall "at the present-day Damascus Gate". What does "ancient" mean in this context? Could it have survived since the days of Jesus? In that case, how big is this part? Are there other ancient walls that could be from the days of Jesus? And are there any "gates" in these ancient walls that have been suggested as the "needle eye gate"?

Minor clarification. While the Temple of Jerusalem was destroyed in 70AD, the city of Jerusalem retained its general street plan until 135 AD.  In 135 AD, after the Bar Jakova Revolt, the already damaged city was razed to the ground. In its place, a Greek city called Aelia Capitolina was put in its place.

As such, when Constantine's mother, Helena visited the city in the 300s, there was nothing left, except new settlements which bore no relation to the extant city. This why Golgotha, for example - the outskirts of the town in the day - are, if you believe Helena, now inside the Church of the Holy Sepelchure, smack dab in the center of the city.

Indeed, the city itself has migrated over time. The "City of David," extends south of the current city walls. That one would now exit the "Dung Gate" to go to where David's palace was shows how fluid city layouts can be.

The Temple, which was at the northern end of the city, is now central to it.  The "beautiful gate" (or the "Golden Gate", next to the Temple) was sealed off in 1541, and most of the existing walls date to the Ottomans, built in the 1500s.

As such, if there ever was an "eye of the Needle" gate, (which in my mind is highly doubtful) it certainly no longer exists today. Additionally, any understanding of where the gate was in relationship to the city would be of no use, because there is no context for it.

Update

The Damascus Gate has been the historic main entrance to the city. The actual edifice, however dates to 1547, and was built on the ruins of a 2nd Century AD gate,

There is a gate called the Eye of the Needle. It is large enough for a man to pass through by ducking and squeezing, but a camel could never fit through, much less one with a person riding on it. But the gate is named because getting through it is like putting thread through the eye of a needle. http://hethathasanear.com/Needle.html has some information on said gate.
I do not think the Romans razed the whole city to the ground. If you recall, the only walls that were important were the city walls; we take them for granted nowadays, but they were the defense of the city. But you must also remember that even in Jesus' time the walls had been expanded a few times, so there are probably a couple of different tiers of walls and I do not believe the Romans leveled everything.


According to Catholic doctrine, is every woman that has an abortion automatically going to hell? This is something I've just heard but never verified. Does the Catholic church teach that every woman who has an abortion automatically earns hell no matter what?

If so, then why? And how are other murderers in the bible granted eternal life--like David and Paul?

Au Contraire

There is no exception to the sin the Church is able to  absolve a penitent from1, even if they should sin until the last moment of their lives:

  Catechism of the Catholic Church | ARTICLE 10: "I BELIEVE IN THE
  FORGIVENESS OF SINS" | II. THE POWER OF THE KEYS,
  979
  In this battle against our inclination towards evil, who could be
  brave and watchful enough to escape every wound of sin? "If the Church
  has the power to forgive sins, then Baptism cannot be her only means
  of using the keys of the Kingdom of heaven received from Jesus Christ.
  The Church must be able to forgive all penitents their offenses, even if they should sin until the last moment of their lives."[524
  Roman Catechism I, 11,4.]

The only unforgivable sin is the sin against the Holy Spirit - matter for another answer.

  Mark 16:8-10
  (RSVCE)
  [...] Jesus Appears to Mary Magdalene   9 Now when he rose early
  on the first day of the week, he appeared first to Mary Mag′dalene,
  from whom he had cast out seven demons. 10 She went out and told
  those who had been with him, as they mourned and wept.

If you heard what you asked from one who has suffered from abortion, the above should be consoling and encouraging for them. The number 7 has a very significant meaning in Judaism. My take is that St. Mary Mag′dalene had sin in its totality [completely under the power of those 7 demons - inciting the seven deadly sins? - as far as God would allow them]. The LORD appeared to her first. First step is go, show yourself to the priest2 = confession [a good shepherd should be able to guide once there cf. MattGutting's answer esp. on excommunication, etc.]: “Take heart; rise, he is calling you.” [cf. Mk 10:49]

  Si 17:24
  (RSVCE)
  Yet to those who repent he grants a return,
  and he encourages those whose endurance is failing.

Rachel's Vineyard: This or the like may be of interest to women suffering after having had an abortion.

1. [cf. CCC 982]↩

2. [Matthew 8:4 (RSVCE)]↩

Abortion is a mortal sin.  Mortal sins can also be referred to as a grave sins, grave matter, or serious sins.  Those who die in mortal sin go to Hell, there is not some middle place between Earth and Judgment where you can be baptized or learn the Catholic faith as some assert.

  Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, “Letentur coeli,” Sess. 6, July
  6, 1439, ex cathedra: “We define also that… the souls of those who
  depart this life in actual mortal sin, or in original sin alone, go
  straightaway to hell, but to undergo punishments of different kinds

There are many mortal sins including viewing pornography and using contraception and many others.  For a mortal sin to be contracted there are three requirements.

Grave matter
Full knowledge
Deliberate consent

Full knowledge means that you knew you were taking the action.  For example there is a man who surreptitiously mixed an abortion pill into his girlfriend's drink.  Because she did not have full knowledge, she did not contract a mortal sin.  Some people incorrectly redefine "full knowledge" to be "full knowledge of how much God would be offended" or "full knowledge that the Catholic Church considers this action a mortal sin" thereby making the requirements impossible to meet or making it a disservice to teach someone the Faith.

To get absolution for a mortal sin the options are
1) Baptism
2) Confession
3) Perfect Contrition

1) In the case of Baptism which can only be performed once, the sin is fully forgiven and  you do not have to suffer in purgatory for it.

2) Confession.  To get absolution one must be Catholic, go to a validly ordained priest (should be a Catholic priest, but in the danger of death the Orthodox is acceptable), one must have the firm commitment that they will not commit the offense again, or else the confession is invalid.  Even if are forgiven of a mortal sin you might suffer in the fires of purgatory for it, unless your actions merit its avoidance.

St. Theresa of Avila said that the Majority of Catholic are damned because of bad confessions.

3) Perfect Contrition.  For a valid confession one must only fear Hell, but it is possible for one to be absolved via "perfect contrition" which is motivated instead by love for God.

  Council of Trent, Sess. 14, Chap. 4, On the Sacrament of Penance: “The
  Council teaches, furthermore, that although this contrition sometimes
  happens to be perfect through charity and to reconcile man to God
  before this sacrament is actually received, nonetheless this
  reconciliation ought not to be ascribed to the contrition itself
  without the desire of the sacrament which is included in it.”


Is there a name for believing but not obeying? Although it is a theoretical question, it is still very interesting for me.

Is there a system of beliefs or at least a name for people who believe in the existence of God and that events described in the Bible did take place, but refuse to obey God and his commandments?

I think the closest fit would appear to be Deism:

  Deism (i/ˈdiːɪzəm/ US dict: dē′·ĭzm) in the philosophy of religion is the standpoint that reason and observation of the natural world, without the need for organized religion, can determine that the universe is a creation and has a creator. Furthermore, the term often implies that this supreme being does not intervene in human affairs or suspend the natural laws of the universe. Deists typically reject supernatural events such as prophecy and miracles, tending to assert that a god (or "the Supreme Architect") does not alter the universe by (regularly or ever) intervening in the affairs of human life. This idea is also known as the Clockwork universe theory, in which a god designs and builds the universe, but steps aside to let it run on its own. Deists believe in the existence of a god without any reliance on revealed religion, religious authority or holy books. Two main forms of deism currently exist: classical deism and modern deism.

What I think the OP is asking for is a scholarly term to describe someone who believes that God exists, but denies that God is actively involved with his creation in any meaningful way.  Such a disinterested God would not issue any "rules" for his created beings to obey.  Further, such a person would deny that the Bible (or any religious text) is in any way a communication from God and would feel, therefore, no obligation to it's moral, ethical or sociopolitical code.

The definition of Deist seems to fit that rather well.

Uncomfortable?
Jesus offers a relationship (think major upgrade from belief system). See Rev 3:20
See Roman 3:23
If you stop at belief system its like owning a car and never using it.


What does Matthew 5:27-30 ("Cast off your eye/hand/etc") mean? For reference, here's the text of Matthew 5:27-30:

  “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart. If your right eye causes you to stumble, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell. And if your right hand causes you to stumble, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to go into hell.

Does this mean literally? Aside from the obvious issue that you'd get locked up pretty fast for self-harm, I don't think anyone's limbs or eyes (or anything really) would survive very long under a literal interpretation of this...

I don't think its meant to be interpreted literally. I take it as "Do everything you possibly can to avoid sinning."

relevant example: I have a co-worker of refuses to go to the beach since he would be tempted to engage in lust-related activities.

Whether you agree with my coworker's interpretation and level of devotion to the literal word is not my point. My point is he is making some sacrifices to lead what he thinks is a good life.

" The  Bottom Line is.."      I " believe"  most  of  the   Objectors  and  Nit-pickers.  yeah NIT  PICKERS !     Go  pick some...        OK  .   The  real issues  are;  you just  want to  find  ways  to  avoid  becoming a  Christian.  So in your  mind  you can  tell yourself;  " It's  just a  a  fable"  but  Christ  is  real and  IF  you end up  going to  hell..  Do you  think  The  people  who  tried to  convince  you  on this  site  are  going to be  losing  any sleep over it ? No;  because  they gave a  good  effort.  We  usually  get  what  we   ask for  (  God  offers  grace  and  forgiveness.  But  You Resist !  if  you  want  separation from  God, that's  what you'll get.      Just  realize  He  holds  the  universe  together.  So  where  does  that leave  you ?   " But the children of the kingdom will be thrown outside into the darkness. People there will be weeping and grinding their teeth.”  and   It is better for you to enter the kingdom of God with one eye than with two eyes to be thrown into hell,   ‘where their worm does not die and the fire is not quenched."     How  would  you like to end up there ?  But just  keep UP  your  arguments:  When you  find  yourself  gnashing your  teeth  for all eternity...     maybe  then  you'll think again       but  it  will be too late


When did the church in the city of Rome first try to impose a tradition on other churches? Just wondering in what year the first historical record of the Church in Rome, against the wishes of other churches, that she should impose her tradition on them?

Note: I am simply looked for the first factual recorded date in history. I am not making an inquiry into whether the church in Rome had a right, or not, to do so.

I'm frankly dumbfounded. Unless I'm reading wrongly, @Mike has asked this question, and then provided his own answer.

To answer your question, though it hardly seems necessary since you knew your answer before asking your question, before "the church in the city of Rome" tried "to impose a tradition on other churches", whatever that means, other churches were querying the church of Rome for guidance. Pope St. Clement (+AD 96) wrote to the church of Corinth in response to complaints from its leadership. The presbyters and bishop of Corinth had been deposed and chased out of the city and they wrote to Rome asking its bishop to validate their authority as appointees of the apostles. And this happened perhaps while St. John was still even alive.

It is wise, when wondering how Rome started "imposing traditions other churches," to remember that while Rome had armies, the church of Rome had none. How, precisely, is the Bishop of Roman supposed to have imposed anything on anyone?

The appeal to Rome is always an appeal to moral authority. Even in the heyday of her power, the Church of Rome and the Papal States were by-and-large reliant on other nations' for their military protection. When patriarchs in Constantinople and bishops in North Africa ask for the support of the Pope, they are not asking for his armies - at his most militarized he had precious few - they are asking for his endorsement.

The earliest record I have been able to find was between 189-199 AD. This occurred when a dispute over what day the celebration of Easter should occur. This happened betwwen the Christians at Rome and those from the province of Asia. Victor, the bishop of Rome decided to act dictatorial actually trying to excomminicate whole churches over an extremely non essential matter, naturally greatly offending other bishops.

Victor called a meeting of Italian bishops at Rome, which is the earliest Roman synod known. He also wrote to the leading bishops of the various districts, urging them to call together the bishops of their sections of the country and to take counsel with them on the question of the Easter festival. Letters came from all sides: from the synod in Palestine, at which Theophilus of Caesarea and Narcissus of Jerusalem presided; from the synod of Pontus over which Palmas as the oldest presided; from the communities in Gaul whose bishop of Irenaeus of Lyons; from the bishops of the Kingdom of Osrhoene; also from individual bishops, as Bakchylus of Corinth. These letters all unanimously reported that Easter was observed on Sunday.  Victor, who acted throughout the entire matter as the head of Catholic Christendom, now called upon the bishops of the province of Asia to abandon their custom and to accept the universally prevailing practice of always celebrating Easter on Sunday. In case they would not do this he declared they would be excluded from the fellowship of the Church.
This severe procedure did not please all the bishops. Irenaeus of Lyons and others wrote to Pope Victor; they blamed his severity, urged him to maintain peace and unity with the bishops of Asia, and to entertain affectionate feelings toward them. Irenaeus reminded him that his predecessors had indeed always maintained the Sunday observance of Easter, as was right, but had not broken off friendly relations and communion with bishops because they followed another custom. (Catholic Encyclopedia as posted here)

So it seems around 90-100 years after the last Apostle died, did the the first historical record appear when church of Rome tried to impose its tradition on other churches who resisted that attempt. This was around the year 195 AD.