What is the difference between being filled by the Holy Spirit and being indwelt by the Holy Spirit? The book of Acts talks about people "being filled" with the Holy Spirit at various times.  There is also the concept of being indwelt by the Holy Spirit.  From the perspective that asserts these are, in fact, two different things, what specifically is the biblical distinction (from a biblical literalist perspective)?

Can someone be indwelt by the Holy Spirit but not filled with the Holy Spirit?

We find in Acts:

  Acts 2:2-4 (ESV)
  "And suddenly there came from heaven a sound like a mighty rushing wind,
  and it filled the entire house where they were sitting. And divided
  tongues as of fire appeared to them and rested on each one of them. And
  they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other
  tongues as the Spirit gave them utterance."

In these verses the Holy Spirit (strategically) empowered each of his apostles to speak in other tongues.

From this static experience, we can see 'filling' as a potentially recurring event in a believer's life.  Praying for God to 'fill us with Your Holy Spirit,' can be an everyday prayer.

The indwelling, seems to me, appears later in this same chapter as Peter speaks about the 'gift of the Spirit':

  Acts 2:38
  "And Peter said to them, "Repent and be baptized every one of you
  in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins,
  and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit."

Though the word 'indwelling' is not in this passage, the word 'gift' implies that each person will be receiving the Spirit for the first time - the indwelling of Him.  Indwelling and the opinion of when it occurs varies from denomination to denomination. According to this passage, when a person repents in faith, they are given the Holy Spirit as a gift, the indwelling.

Here is a launching webpage for some differing doctrines and beliefs on Holy Spirit filling and 'baptism': http://christianity.about.com/od/glossary/g/baptismholyspir.htm

My answer may be a little different than others.  I have contemplated this idea many times. Essentially I think that there is not really any major difference from most people using the terminology, except in semantics.  Most people, including ministers, quite often use those concepts interchangeably or say one when they mean the other.  Yet, the concepts are not really precisely interchangeable.

On the one hand every person is made in the image of God.  Every person has access to God if they will it.  Sometimes language can make us seem heretical when in fact we are in agreement.  For example, timf wrote: Indwelling is a living presence associated with a home, abode, or even temple.  I don't disagree with that, except in the case of the Holy Spirit we are talking about the Holy Spirit living inside our hearts and minds, because our body is the temple. So my terminology might have been more simplistic: "indwelling" refers to "The Holy Spirit" taking up residence within you.  But do you see, we're really saying the same thing, just in a different way.  timf also wrote: Being filled is more quantitative and has to do with capacity and abundance. Which again is true.  However I would have said something like: "Being filled with the Holy Spirit means to allow the Holy Spirit to work fully, to fulfill God's will."  Perhaps that might not be as explicit as the description timf gives, but the essential meaning is agreed upon.

So in essence, the "indwellment" simply refers to the fact that Holy Spirit abides within, and the "fullness" refers to the work of the Holy Spirit.  Notice that in the Acts 8:13-17 passage that timf quoted that a work happens after being filled with the spirit.  When the fullness of the Holy Spirit is prevalent an observable work is evidenced. That is the proof of the Spirit's work.  Something in the person, in the life, in the church, in the community, in the nation, or in the world has a direct noticeable shift in direction when the Holy Spirit works.

That would be the most correct usage of those two terms.  Even still many people mistakenly use one for the other, so that is where I would not get to hung up on words, but pay attention to what they are meaning more so than what they are saying.  I hope that helps. God Bless.


How can it be said that Paul taught a pre-tribulational rapture of the Church given 2 Thessalonians chapter 2? 2 Thess 2:1-3: Now concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our being gathered together to him, we ask you, brothers, not to be quickly shaken in mind or alarmed, either by a spirit or a spoken word, or a letter seeming to be from us, to the effect that the day of the Lord has come. Let no one deceive you in any way. For that day will not come, unless the rebellion comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of destruction.

Paul appears to be saying that "that day" (the day of the Lord's coming and our being gathered to him) will not come unless two conditions (the rebellion and the revelation of the lawless one) come first.  According to pre-tribulational rapture theory the rapture of the Church takes place well in advance of both of these conditions.  If he is writing to reassure his pre-trib rapture followers that the Second Coming of Christ (Day of the Lord) hasn't happened yet, why has he listed two conditions that they will not be around to witness?  Why not say, for instance, "The rapture comes first and you're still here aren't you?"

There are a few interpretations:

The falling away (or rebellion) is the word apostasia (G646). Some say this apostasia, or the apostasy, is the rapture. However, there are some problems with this interpretation: literally it would mean that the rapture comes before the gathering unto Him, which doesn't make sense (since in this interpretation the gathering is the rapture.) The other problem is that the word apostasia has a bad connotation, it is only used for a departure which is negative, not something positive like a rapture. Another argument is that the definition of apostasy is: the abandonment or renunciation of a religious or political belief or principle.
Some say the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ is the rapture, and our gathering together unto him is the second coming. Doing this makes it possible for them to interpret the next verses so that it's only talking about the second coming, so pretrib rapture not included. I have no idea what justifies it to say the coming is the rapture and our gathering is the second coming or vice versa, because it has no biblical basis.
Some say that the Thessalonians received a letter from someone claiming that the day of the Lord had already come. They say the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our being gathered together to him is only about the second coming. This would mean that Paul is just saying that the day of the Lord can't have happened since the falling away and antichrist has yet to come. The problem here is that Paul writes: or a letter seeming to be from us, if this theory would've been true, he would've written something like "a letter from someone else." To work around this issue some say that the letter that the Thessalonians received was written like it was coming from one of the apostles, ofcourse this is pure speculation. But don't get me wrong, it is possible that the Thessalonians did think that the day of the Lord had already come, since verse 2 could imply this. But if this is true, and the pretrib rapture theory is true, then how could the Thessalonians believe the day of the Lord was already at hand, since nobody was raptured?
Another argument I've heard is "the antichrist is already in this world." Which also has some problems: he, the antichrist isn't revealed yet, so that's no reason to justify the pretrib theory. Also the restrainer talked about in verse 6 to 8 is the church (or holy spirit) in the pretrib rapture theory: the church has to be raptured before the antichrist comes down to earth. This is a serious problem: if the antichrist is already here it would mean we were already been raptured.

The pretribulation and the advent of Our lord Jesus are two different meaning but of course related, where the first one has already been started from the time of the martyrdom of the Apostles and Christians in history up to this day. The verse that you have quoted relates to the advent or second coming of our Lord Jesus as Paul said in a “prophetic phrase” in which at that time apostasy was already taken place or happening and still happening in this day and age and hinted not to be alarmed or deceived by any man. First we need to know  what is “apostasy” according to Meriam dictionary is

  Definition of apostasy
  1
  : an act of refusing to continue to follow, obey, or recognize a religious faith
  2
  : abandonment of a previous loyalty : DEFECTION

  History and Etymology for apostasy
  Middle English apostasie, from Late Latin apostasia, from Greek, literally, revolt, from aphistasthai to revolt, from apo- + histasthai to stand — more at STAND

We are still seeing now in our time an apostasy or departure from the “true faith”. What is this “true faith”?  If we go back to it’s origin, it comes from our Lord Jesus and His teachings. Who holds this faith and teachings? I will leave your discretion to answer this. This apostasy is progressing until it will reach its climax, until the anti christ or the Man of sin be revealed. The passage can be interpreted literally or figuratively as we are seeing many anti christ against the “true faith” but there will be a great one one day as these mini little anti christ are just an instruments until the anti christ gain power. Please see a further bible commentary for  additional knowledge.

  Verse 3
  2 Thessalonians 2:3-4

  First, &c.(2) What is meant by this falling away, (in the Greek this apostacy) is uncertain, and differently expounded. St. Jerome and others understand it of a falling off of other kingdoms, which before were subject to the Roman empire; as if St. Paul said to them: you need not fear that the day of judgment is at hand, for it will not come till other kingdoms, by a general revolt, shall have fallen off, so that the Roman empire be destroyed. The same interpreters expound the sixth and seventh verses in like manner, as if when it is said, now you know (3) what withholdeth, &c. That is, you see the Roman empire subsisteth yet, which must be first destroyed. And when it is added, only that he ho now holdeth, do hold, until he be taken out of the way; the sense, say these authors, is, let Nero and his successors hold that empire till it be destroyed, for not till then will the day of judgment come. A. Lapide makes this exposition so certain, that he calls it a tradition of the fathers, which to him seems apostolical. But we must not take the opinion of some fathers, in the exposition of obscure prophecies, where they advance conjectures (which others at the same time reject, or doubt of) to be apostolical traditions, and articles of faith, as the learned bishop of Meaux, Bossuet, takes notice on this very subject, in his preface and treatise on the Apocalypse, against Jurieux. St. Jerome indeed, and others, thought that the Roman empire was to subsist till the antichrist's coming, which by the event most interpreters conclude to be a mistake, and that it cannot be said the Roman empire continues to this time. See Lyranus on this place, St. Thomas Aquinas, Salmeron, Estius, and many others; though A. Lapide, with some few, pretend the Roman empire still subsists in the emperors of Germany. We also find that divers of the ancient fathers thought that the day of judgment was just at hand in their time. See Tertullian, St. Cyprian, St. Gregory the Great, &c. And as to this place, it cannot be said the fathers unanimously agree in their exposition. St. John Chrysostom (4), Theodoret, St. Augustine in one of his expositions, by this falling off, and apostacy, understand antichrist himself, apostatizing from the Catholic faith. And they who expound it of Nero, did not reflect that this letter of St. Paul was written under Claudius, before Nero's reign. According to a third and common exposition, by this revolt or apostacy, others understand a great falling off of great numbers from the Catholic Church and faith, in those nations where it was professed before; not but that, as St. Augustine expressly takes notice, the Church will remain always visible, and Catholic in its belief, till the end of the world. This interpretation we find in St. Cyril(5) of Jerusalem. (Catech. 15.) See also St. Anselm on this place, St. Thomas Aquinas, Salmeron, Estius, &c. In fine, that there is no apostolical tradition, as to any of the interpretations of these words, we may be fully convinced from the words of St. Augustine(6), lib. xx. de Civ. Dei. chap. 19. t. 7. p. 597. Nov. edit. where he says: For my part, I own myself altogether ignorant what the apostle means by these words; but I shall mention the suspicions of others, which I have read, or heard. Then he sets down the exposition concerning the Roman empire. He there calls that a suspicion and conjecture, which others say is an apostolical tradition. In like manner the ancient fathers are divided, as to the exposition of the words of the sixth and seventh verse, when it is said you know what hindereth; some understand that antichrist must come first. Others, that the beforementioned apostacy, or falling off from the Church, must happen before. And when St. Paul says, (ver. 7.) that he who now holdeth, do hold; some expound it, let him take care at the time of such trials, to hold, and preserve the true faith to the end. When the expositions are so different, as in this place, whosoever pretends to give a literal translation ought never to add words to the text, which determine the sense to such a particular exposition, and especially in the same print, as Mr. N. hath done on the seventh verse, where he translates, only let him that now holdeth the faith, keep it until he be taken out of the way. --- And the man of sin (7) revealed, the son of perdition, so that he sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself as if he were God. He is called again, (ver. 8.) that wicked one....whom the Lord Jesus Christ shall kill with the spirit of his mouth. By all these words is described to us the great antichrist, about the end of the world, according to the unexceptionable authority and consent of the ancient fathers. It is as ridiculous as malicious to pretend, with divers later reformers, that the pope, and all the popes since the destruction of the Roman empire, are the great antichrist, the man of sin, &c. Grotius, Dr. Hammond, and divers learned Protestants, have confuted and ridiculed this groundless fable, of which more on the Apocalypse. It may suffice to observe here that antichrist, is to be one particular man, not so many different men. That he is to come a little while before the day of judgment. The he will make himself be adored, and pretend to be God. What pope did so? That he will pretend to be Christ, &c. (Witham) --- St. Augustine (de Civ. Dei. book xx. chap. 19.) says, that an attack would be made at one and the same time against the Roman empire and the Church. The Roman empire subsists as yet, in Germany, though much weakened and reduced. The Roman Catholic Church, notwithstanding all its losses, and the apostacy of many of its children, has always remained the same. (Calmet) The two special signs of the last day will be a general revolt, and the manifestation of antichrist, both of which are so dependent on each other, that St. Augustine makes but one of both. What presumptive folly in Calvin and other modern reformers, to oppose the universal sentiments of the fathers both of the Latin and Greek Church! What inconsistency, to give such forced interpretations, not only widely different from the expositions of sound antiquity, but also widely different from each other! The Church of God, with her head, strong in the promises of Jesus Christ, will persevere to the end, frustra circumlatrantibus hæreticis. (St. Augustine, de util cred. chap. xvii.) --- In the temple. Either that of Jerusalem, which some think he will rebuild; or in some Christian Church, which he will pervert to his own worship; as Mahomet has done with the churches of the east. (Challoner)

[BIBLIOGRAPHY]
Nisi venerit discessio primum, Greek: e apostasia. St. Jerome (Ep. ad Algasiam. q. 11. t. 4. p. 209) Greek: Apostasia, inquit....ut omnes Gentes, quæ Rom. Imperio subjacent, recedant ab eis.

[BIBLIOGRAPHY]
St. John Chrysostom (Greek: log. d. p. 235) says that by these words, you know what hindereth, is probably understood the Roman empire, &c. and Tertullian (lib. de Resur. Carnis. chap. xxiv. p. 340) on those words, till taken out of the way, donec de medio fiat, Quis nisi Romanorum status?

[BIBLIOGRAPHY]
St. John Chrysostom (Greek: log. g. p. 232) Greek: ti estin e apostasia autoi kalei ton Antichriston. See Theodoret on this place.

[BIBLIOGRAPHY]
St. Cyril of Jerusalem (Cat. xv) says, this apostacy is from the true faith and good works: Greek: aute estin e apostasia. St. Anselm and others mention both expositions, i.e. from the Roman empire, or from the faith.

[BIBLIOGRAPHY]
St. Augustine: Ego prorsus quid dixerit, me fateor ignorare....suspiciones tamen hominum, quas vel audire, vel legere potui, non tacebo, &c. Quidam putant hoc de Imperio dictum esse Romano, &c.

[BIBLIOGRAPHY]
Greek: O anthropos tes amartias, o uios tes apoleias, o antikeimenos, &c. ille homo peccati, ille filius perditionis: the Greek articles sufficiently denote a particular man.

Reference:

Merrimack-Webster Dictionary (apostasy)


What is the message of Matthew 9:5? Matthew 9:1-8 (NIV)
  1 Jesus stepped into a boat, crossed over and came to his own town. 2 Some men brought to him a paralyzed man, lying on a mat. When Jesus saw their faith, he said to the man, “Take heart, son; your sins are forgiven.”
   3 At this, some of the teachers of the law said to themselves, “This fellow is blaspheming!”

  4 Knowing their thoughts, Jesus said, “Why do you entertain evil thoughts in your hearts? 5 Which is easier: to say, ‘Your sins are forgiven,’ or to say, ‘Get up and walk’? 6 But I want you to know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins.” So he said to the paralyzed man, “Get up, take your mat and go home.”  7 Then the man got up and went home.
  8 When the crowd saw this, they were filled with awe; and they praised God, who had given such authority to man.

What does  Matthew 9:5 mean?

Taken literally, it doesn't seem to make any sense at all. What is the verse trying to say?

Christ is using his ability to perform miracles as evidence that he is God, and therefore has the right and the ability to forgive sins.

He is saying, anyone can say "Your sins are forgiven," without any evidence that they have the authority to do so.  But only God can heal a paralytic.  So by performing such a miracle, Christ is proving that he has the authority of God both to heal and to forgive sin.

He's saying they are the same. That illness is psychosomatic, emotional, and contextual. Sins represent the man's relationship to his social world, that directly or indirectly produces his illness.

That we are interdependent and relationships determine individuals.


Where did the claim that "the Bible we have today is unreliable because of retranslation" come from? I've heard many people assert that the Bible we have today is unreliable because of a long chain of translation-of-a-translation. This seems false, because new translations can use ancient manuscripts as their source. What is the origin of this fallacy? Is there any one organization to blame in propagating it?

Here's a link to my basis for the question.

At the risk of being overly pedantic, we need to understand what Pastor Litke means by "reliable" and perhaps what he even means by "the Bible".

The Concise Oxford English Dictionary defines "rely" as (1) "trust fully; have faith in" and (2) "be dependent on".  But these definitions suppose an object:  to trust fully for what?  to depend on for what?  Do we expect, for example, that the Gospel accounts convey the literal meaning of what Jesus is purported to have said, or simply the sense of what he said?  Do we expect that the creation account(s) are scientifically accurate or in some sense allegorical?

In the article you linked, Pastor Litke seems to define "reliability" as the extent to which the true meaning of a particular verse or phrase is conveyed.  Paraphrases, he writes for example, are "less reliable, because you only know what the person doing the paraphrase thought a particular verb or phrase means."  He defines a paraphrase as:

  a less literal rendering of the Bible – restating the text to give the
  original sense but not attempting to literally translate each term in
  the original language.

He contrasts "paraphrases" with what he refers to as "translations":

  a rendering of the Bible in a language different than the one in which
  it was written ... intended to be as literal as possible and still be
  easily read

"Translations" of this sort, he maintains, are more "reliable" than paraphrases.

The following is an interesting example to consider in the context of Pastor Litke's argument.

The Greek text (Textus Receptus) of John 5:27-28 reads:

  και εξουσιαν εδωκεν αυτω και κρισιν ποιειν οτι υιος ανθρωπου εστιν μη
  θαυμαζετε τουτο οτι ερχεται ωρα εν η παντες οι εν τοις μνημειοις
  ακουσονται της φωνης αυτου

The 1900 revision to the King James Version reads:

  And [the Father] hath given Him authority to execute judgment also, because He is the Son of Man. Marvel not at this

According to Pastor Litke's definition of reliability, this translation is reliable in the sense it conveys the literal meaning of the each phrase:

και εξουσιαν εδωκεν αυτω και κρισιν ποιειν literally means "and authority gave to him also judgment to execute"
οτι υιος ανθρωπου εστιν literally means "because son of man he is"
μη θαυμαζετε τουτο literally means "marvel not at this"

But, since the original manuscripts had no punctuation, these same words can be arranged to form a different set of phrases altogether:

  He hath given Him authority to execute judgment also.  That He is
  the Son of Man, marvel not at this

According to Pastor Litke's criteria, this also would be a "reliable" translation, since it conveys the literal meaning of the underlying phrases.

Theologically, however, there is a great gulf between these two different translations.  The ambiguity in the Greek was understood and addressed in antiquity by Byzantine Church Fathers, but seems to have been lost in most English translations.  Nor is it an ambiguity that can be addressed through a mechanical appeal to dictionaries, concordances and lexicons.  John Chrysostom recognized the pitfall in reading the verse incorrectly and highlit the problem in his 39th Homily on the Gospel According to John:

  That He is the Son of Man, marvel not at this

  Paul of Samosata rendereth it not so; but how? “Hath given Him
  authority to execute judgment, ‘because’ He is the Son of Man.” Now
  the passage thus read is inconsequent, for He did not receive judgment
  “because” He was man, (since then what hindered all men from being
  judges,) but because He is the Son of that Ineffable Essence,
  therefore is He Judge. So we must read, “That He is the Son of Man,
  marvel not at this.” For when what He said seemed to the hearers
  inconsistent, and they deemed Him nothing more than mere man, while
  His words were greater than suited man, yea, or even angel, and were
  proper to God only, to solve this objection He addeth,

  Marvel not [that He is the Son of Man] for the hour is coming in the which they that are in the tombs shall hear His voice and shall go
  forth, they that have done good to the resurrection of life, and they
  that have done evil to the resurrection of judgment.

As a result, I would say that Pastor Litke is correct in his assertion that the King James Version and the other translations he cites are "reliable", but only in the narrow sense he suggests.

There is also a somewhat insipid issue regarding what "the Bible" actually is.  Why, for example, is the Gospel according to John in any of the versions that Pastor Litke cites in the first place?  If a particular version of the Bible contains a faithful translation of the Shepherd of Hermas, would that particular Bible be considered "reliable"?  Hermas was included, after all, in the Codex Sinaiticus, which is considered by scholars to be one of the most reliable manuscript sources and is either the oldest or second oldest complete codex we have of the New Testament.

I think the problem with the basis of your question is that Pastor Litke's treatment of Biblical "reliability" is too superficial.  (I am not criticizing your question.  I personally think it is excellent.). The King James (and other) translations of John 5:27-28, are "reliable" in Pastor Litke's understanding, but convey a teaching (of Paul of Samasota) that was considered heretical by the Church in its 3rd century of existence (and is still considered heretical within the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches at least).  The Bible versions he lists exclude some books that were initially considered but later rejected by the Church for inclusion (e.g. Hermas) and exclude others that were prescribed for inclusion by the Church canons, but later excluded by reformers (e.g. some of the Deuterocanonical books).  Pastor Litke's framework for "reliability" doesn't accommodate differences of canon at all.

There are many parts to the Bible. The Old Testament, certainly the Pentateuch, is over 3000 years old. Most of the Old Testament was originally written in Hebrew.

The basis for my answer is specific to books written in Hebrew as the primary source. The problem with (biblical) Hebrew is it doesn't translate well. Here are some of the problems

There is no tense; verbs are left unconjugated
There are no "be" verbs in Hebrew: am, are, is, was, were, will be
Pronouns can be skipped, but not always
-ly adverbs can appear as their adjective roots
There are no indefinite articles {a, an}, and definite articles can be skipped--same thing with conjunctions
Written Hebrew contains no vowels or punctuation; they weren't invented until the 11th century and still aren't used today in Israel (with native speakers)

Pick up any two Bibles from different publishers and compare just Genesis 1:1-5

Now compare this to the Jewish website chabad.org

1. In the beginning of God's creation of heavens and earth: 2. Now the earth was astonishingly empty, and darkness was on the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God hovered over the face of the water. 3. And God said, "Let there be light." And there was light. 4. And God saw the light that it was good, and he separated between the darkness and between the light. 5. And he called the light day, and the darkness he called night. And it was evening, and it was morning--one day.

As you can see, a great portion of the above can be translated differently, even with a competent translator. What I really like in this translation is how the Spirit of God and the Darkness square off mono y mono--one looking down, the other looking up--and all of creation becomes a buffer between good and evil in between, battling it out every day on the surface.

Some translations simply miss the beauty and potency of Genesis 1:2. And that's just going from Hebrew to English. What about Hebrew to Greek to Latin to German to English? Small translational changes at the Hebrew end cam create massive changes in third or fourth generation translation.

There really is no blame. We are just trying to understand God to the best of our abilities. Scripture is just one of those avenues.


According to the Church of England, if humans have free will, why do we ask for things in prayer? How does the Church of England reconcile these three things, which seem at odds with each other:

The bible tells us to ask for things in prayer (ask for what we want / ask for bad things not to happen).
Humans have free will.
The universe operates according to physical laws (ignoring miracles reported in the Bible).

I don't know why it took me 30 years to realise that these three don't make sense when you consider them together. If I pray that my children won't get kidnapped or crushed in a landslide, how could God possibly grant that request without denying the kidnapper's free will, or altering the natural state of a cliff face? These might not be great examples; what about asking for someone to be healed, asking for people to survive an earthquake you've just heard about, asking for world leaders to make the right decisions? How can God grant those wishes?

Is there a single thing you can ask for, without violating the 'rules' of free will and nature? Ask for courage/patience for yourself perhaps, that might work.

To my (limited) brain it seems like this one aspect of prayer is pointless. I feel a bit stupid about all those fervent prayers I made for world peace. Why do we ever ask for anything, if it is pointless?

I understand that there are other aspects to prayer (asking forgiveness, expressing love/worship, thanking) so it is just the one aspect (making requests) that seriously troubles me. I must have got it wrong somewhere...

I don't think there's any official C of E doctrine about this.

I think it's worth remembering that prayer is not any kind of magic spell, and that the Almighty is not bound by space and time. Conversing with the Lord about what you'd like to happen is one thing; being disgruntled when you don't get what you asked for, as if the Lord were a genie from a lamp, is another. And your question makes a distinction between the natural laws of the universe and the action of God, as if they were separate things. They aren't, any more than God's work of sanctification in you is a separate thing from you trying to do good works.

The problem is the whole world is in the hands of people, and people aren't by their very nature followers of whats right.  The Bible clearly tells us this.

Some people have a very difficult job doing right and seem to revel in rebellion.
And God put the dominion of the planet into the hands of people at a time when they weren't that bad.  In other words the Garden of Eden.

I do admire you for having a heart for World Peace, it is a very noble thing to do. And I love your heart attitude for it.

Jesus taught us to pray like this ... "Thy Kingdom come, Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven".  He didn't teach us to pray for world peace.  We are living in some pretty difficult times, the best thing we can do is to follow Christ and enjoy the life he has promised for those that follow Him.

I have discovered that more of my prayers are answered when I am walking closely with the Lord.

We also have to have faith for what we ask for. There are stories of Jesus not being able to heal some people because of their unbelief.  And in another story the disciples asked why they could not deliver someone of an evil spirit. Jesus told them it was because of their lack of faith.

We also have the fact that angels are sent to change the natural order of things.
The prophet Daniel said that an angel was sent to shut the mouths of lions.
And there are many stories of people in our present times seeing angels appear to deliver them. A friend of mine had an angel appear in his room when he was being harmed by an evil spirit after he was praying against spiritual darkness. The angel struck the spirit and it ran through the wall to get away. A friend in the same church had fallen out of his wheelchair when Jesus appeared to him and he found the strength to get up.

Try to make sure the things we pray for are Gods will for us. God can change the natural order of physical laws, we just have to have faith for it.


Better safe than sorry? Should you confess if you're not sure if you've committed a sin? I’m guessing if you aren’t sure if you have committed a sin it is better to confess anyways than to be stuck in hell forever? Is there anything wrong with wrongly confessing or is it OK?

If you aren’t sure if you have committed a sin it is better to confess anyway?

If the action or deed may be a possible venial sin then one may go to Confession. It will not do any harm and one may even get some spiritual insight into leading a holy life.

If however one is not sure if one has committed a mortal sin, one should go confession. Mortal sin for a Catholic must be confessed to a priest within the Sacrament of Reconciliation.

  Mortal sin destroys charity in the heart of man by a grave violation of God's law; it turns man away from God, who is his ultimate end and his beatitude, by preferring an inferior good to him.

  Venial sin allows charity to subsist, even though it offends and wounds it. - Catechism of the Catholic Church.

If in doubt, it would be best to go to confession. If one did commit a mortal sin, one would be restored to the state of grace and the sacramental life within the Church. If one did not do a mortal sin, then one has gained insight into leading a holier life and obtained confidence in going to a priest in  the Sacrament of Confession as means to keep oneself holy.

1 JN 1:9  If we confess our sins, He is faithful and righteous to
  forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.

The book of 1st John in which the verse is pulled from above is written to believers instructing them how to have fellowship with God.  It's is NOT instructing them on how to have eternal life.  Eternal life is the main subject of the gospel of John.  The requirement for eternal life is belief in Jesus and not confession.

  16 “For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son,
  that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life.
  John 3:16

Notice that is does not say, whoever believes and confesses.  The Bible also claims that we all too often sin without being aware that we are sinning.

  Lev. 5:17  “Now if a person sins and does any of the things  which the
  LORD has commanded not to be done,  though he was unaware, still he is
  guilty and shall bear his punishment.

I don't think it's possible to confess all of the sins we'll ever commit.  God's solution to the problem of sin is not confession but a payment in the body of Jesus that is applied to our account at the moment of faith in Him.


Why didn't Adam and Eve die when they ate the fruit? God gave Adam and Eve the following command, followed by a cause

  Genesis 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.  KJV

Even so, they ate and still lived a long life, not dying in the same day

  Genesis 5:5-  And all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and
  thirty years: and he died.  KJV

Is it as simple as "day" referring to a different period of time than it refers to today?

And the Lord God commanded the man, “You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; 17 but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat from it you will certainly die.” NIV

The NIV does not make this implication. Perhaps you would get better answers on Hermeneutics.

KJV was written in English for the common man ... in the 17th century! English and many of its words have changed much since. It is entirely possible that this has to do with the KJV practically being an ancient manuscript that should be read from the perspective of its intended audience.

Since Adam and Eve did not die on that exact day it is safe to say that the translators did not intend to give that impression in Genesis 2:17. So there must be another explanation of what they meant by it. The most likely, I would say is that the word day at the time or in this context does not necessarily mean between sun up and sun down. What it means exactly in this case I cannot say. That is why I suggest the Hermeneutics site.

Some might argue that die means something other than actual death, but I really don't buy that, but that is strictly my opinion and not really part of your question. If you take one of those perspectives it could easily answer this question for you, though.


When did the "upside down cross" become a symbol of anti-Christianity? When did the "upside down cross" become a symbol of anti-Christianity?  I can find no mention of it in the Bible.  However there is, in Christian history, the story of Peter's execution – which really isn't a sign of anti-Christianity but the admiration he had for Jesus.  Is there a line in the sand date when this became an anti-Christian symbol?

Eugène Vintras (1807–1875) may be the first to use the inverted cross in a distinctly anti-Christian way.  He was a Gnostic revivalist operating in France during the middle of the 19th century.  He preached the end of the age, and claimed to have received messages from Michael the Archangel and that he himself was a reincarnation of Elijah.  He was condemned by the Vatican, and subsequently began using an upside-down cross:

Vintras, following further attacks from the Church, adopted the inverted cross as the symbol of the new dispensation of which he was the prophet, inverted because the Reign of the Suffering Christ had been superseded by the Reign of the Holy Spirit of Love.1

His masses reportedly included "chalices magically overflowing with blood," and occultist Eliphas Levi considered the inverted cross that Vintras wore as "indicative of satanic influences":2

The practices of Vintras's followers were even more bizarre, and the symbol thereafter began to be associated with the occult more generally, such as in a 1891 novel, Là-bas:

His costume was a long robe of vermilion cashmere caught up at the waist by a red and white sash. Above this robe he had a white mantle of the same stuff, cut, over the chest, in the form of a cross upside down.3

It's also used in a 1903 depiction of 17th century occultist Étienne Guibourg (link is possibly an occasion for sin). In the (cropped) image below, he is shown wearing an upside-down cross as he performs a Black Mass during the Affair of the Poisons:

I haven't found any indication that Guibourg actually wore an inverted cross, but rather that he was only depicted that way once Vintras's use of it became associated with occultism more generally.
Summary
If one includes Gnosticism within Christianity, then perhaps Vintras's use of the inverted cross would not be considered "anti-Christian." However, at the very least, his use of it and his perceived involvement with the occult caused the symbol to become generally associated with Satanism by the end of the 19th century.

Richard D. E. Burton, Blood in the City: Violence and Revelation in Paris, 1789–1945, 164
James Randall Noblitt, Cult and Ritual Abuse: Narratives, Evidence, and Healing Approaches, 161
Joris-Karl Huysmans, Là-bas, Chapter XX

Apparently the inverted cross first was associated with evil in Bloodwolf’s book “ Chaos Lord." Antiwolf jpg

But modern Satanists may have chosen it as a symbol of anti Christianity due to the use of that symbol on the album cover of a Black Sabbath album in the 1960's

Most of this is from memory going back a few years and really is nothing more than my thoughts from having looked into it some time ago.


Do Christians typically switch denominations? This question involves a few intertwined issues, but generally the question is: is it normal for Christians to switch denominations? Or is it considered "flaky"? For example, my parents went to a Baptist Church but when we moved we started going to an Episcopal Church (I think there was no Baptist Church within a reasonable driving distance). It gets more complicated when you are Baptist not by affiliation with a particular group of people but in only that you believe in baptism by choice (believer's baptism); there seem to be, in fact, Episcopal Baptists. That aside, assume my parents went to a church of a denomination clearly distinct from their later choice of Episcopalian. Do most Christian's consider the move "unfaithful" in some way? Or is it normal for Christian's to jump around from one to another at their convenience?

I ask only because I was reviewing a question I asked and I noticed Mr. Stratton say that he "currently belongs to" XYZ Church. I thought it interesting to word it that way; as if one may change their mind from time to time.

If I were to venture a guess, I'd say that people who go to Church out of convenience or more habit (like my parents) will change their Church whenever it is convenient for them. They just go to Church so they can feel good at night, it's like a weekly community service to them. However, those who go to Church for the experience and atmosphere and actually care about the views of the people will tend to only join Churches which share their views on various topics (abortion, gay marriage, etc.). But maybe there are more factors that I'm not aware of, having not been to Church too many times in my life.

The answer to this will in large part depend on how you'd answer the question of Why should I choose one particular congregation or denomination?

Christians do regularly switch congregations and denominations, but usually only within the branch of Christianity they adhere to. If they have chosen their old church on the basis of their doctrinal position, then to switch branches would mean they have changed their minds on several major doctrines. To switch between denominations within a branch might not require them to change their minds about anything, or if it does, only for small insignificant things.

For this reason it's more likely to occur for protestants, because the non-protestant branches generally only have one denomination. If you believe the Roman Catholic Church is correct, then there's only one denomination for you. I don't know enough about the Orthodox churches to know if their members would be comfortable switching between the churches they are in communion with (say between the Orthodox Church of Alexandria and Antioch) - they may or may not.

But within protestantism there are lots of very similar denominations. If you are Pentecostal there are lots of Pentecostal churches with almost identical beliefs. If you are a Calvinist then the Anglican and Presbyterian churches are almost identical except for whether you should be lead by a single person (a bishop) or a committee (session). If you're a Baptist then there are many denominations you'd be happy in. Protestants may change churches or denominations because of personal situations (such as moving house), or personal problems (not fitting in with the people in your old church.)

I believe that all Christians should eventually graduate from their denomination. A denomination for most people serves as an entry point to become believers in Christ.

But if the person continued on from being just a believer to become Christ's disciple, she/he then would be guided directly by God the Holy Spirit and in increasing measure apply the Scriptures until there are more Christ than self in her/him. At this point, the person would be so occupied with producing the fruits of the Spirit, having the mind of Christ. Here, denominational differences no longer matters, the person's witness to the world is of Christ and Christ alone.

How do we know this? Tell me what exactly is the denomination of the Apostle Peter? How about Paul? James? John? Phillip? Thomas? How about the denomination of Titus? Lydia? Cornelius? What do all of these saints have in common? They are Christ's disciples.

Graduating from a denomination does not mean turning one's back or denouncing the denomination, rather, the focus is on feeding on the Scriptures and fellowship with Christ.

I have read the writings of saints from different denominations, and at the mature level, their thinking is more similar than different, which again, is the reflection of their source of power and thinking. After all there is but one Lord, and He did not establish any of the denominations we have today.

Mature Christians no longer fight with fellow Christians defending their denominations, which is a childish behavior (ref. 1 Corinthians 3:1-4).


Is it known which seminary or seminaries produced the majority of Catholic priests who were accused of sexual abuse in the USA? Is it known which seminary or seminaries produced the majority of Catholic priests who were accused of sexual abuse in the USA?
The Catholic Church has suffered from the unfaithful and immoral priests within her ranks since the outbreak of the Sexual abuse scandals of 2001.
As concerns the seminaries within the United States of America do we know which seminary or seminaries produced the majority of priests who were accused of and\or convicted of sexual abuse in the USA?
I am also interested in the particular time period, either of accusation, conviction of the offences in question!

Is it known which seminary or seminaries produced the majority of Catholic priests who were accused of sexual abuse in the USA?
I remember when this sexual abuse scandal first hit the Church. At that time, I was living in the USA and asked several higher ranking churchmen where the majority of abusive priests were coming from? The only answer I got was St. John’s Seminary!

Any examination of the sexual abuse crisis afflicting the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Los Angeles leads inevitably to a bell-towered campus in the rolling hills of Camarillo: St. John’s Seminary.
The 66-year-old institution has trained hundreds of clerics for the archdiocese and smaller jurisdictions across Southern California and beyond. It is the alma mater of Cardinal Roger M. Mahony, Diocese of Orange Bishop Tod Brown and other prominent prelates. Former San Francisco Archbishop William Levada, now the Vatican’s chief enforcer of doctrine, taught at the school.
But St. John’s, the only seminary operated by the archdiocese, also has produced a disproportionate number of alleged sexual abusers as it prepared men for a life of ministry and celibacy, records show.
About 10% of St. John’s graduates reported to have been ordained in the Los Angeles Archdiocese since 1950 -- 65 of roughly 625 -- have been accused of molesting minors, according to a review of ordination announcements, lawsuits, published reports and the archdiocese’s 2004 list of alleged abusers. In two classes -- 1966 and 1972 -- a third of the graduates were later accused of molestation.
The St. John’s figures are much higher than the nationwide rate of alleged molesters in the American priesthood, as calculated by a church-commissioned survey. The John Jay College of Criminal Justice study found that 4% of priests and deacons between 1950 and 2002 have been accused of abuse.
“The numbers get scary,” said Patrick Wall, a former monk who works for an Orange County law firm that represents alleged abuse victims suing the church, including about 100 who have accused St. John’s graduates. “I don’t think it’s coincidental.”
Archdiocese officials deny that the seminary was in any way responsible.
Spokesman Tod Tamberg blamed intense publicity over sexual abuse in the church for the higher rate of accusations involving St. John’s graduates, and noted that a California law temporarily lifting the statute of limitations for molestation lawsuits brought a flood of allegations against Los Angeles priests.
But J. Michael Hennigan, a lawyer for the archdiocese, conceded that exaggerated claims alone cannot account for the large numbers of alleged abusers in some graduating classes.
“There were a couple of years at that seminary where lightning struck,” Hennigan said. “I doubt we’ll ever figure out why.”
Spokesman Tod Tamberg blamed intense publicity over sexual abuse in the church for the higher rate of accusations involving St. John’s graduates, and noted that a California law temporarily lifting the statute of limitations for molestation lawsuits brought a flood of allegations against Los Angeles priests.
Several former students recall a licentious atmosphere at St. John’s that might have accommodated a range of sexual behavior, especially in the years before the 1990s.
The John Jay survey determined that the quarter-century from 1960 through 1984 was particularly troublesome for alleged abuse by clerics nationwide. At St. John’s, about 15% of priests who graduated during that period and served in the Los Angeles Archdiocese were accused of sexual abuse, records show.
Some of the allegations have resulted in criminal convictions or civil settlements. Most are unresolved. The accusations lodged in civil complaints have not been formally denied because the suits are the subject of a court mediation, Hennigan said.
Typically, the suits focus on incidents that allegedly occurred after a priest left the seminary. But in a 2003 suit, Esther Miller alleges that a seminarian sexually abused her at St. John’s in the mid-1970s. - Trail of Abuse Leads to Seminary

It has to be equally true that St. John’s Seminary is not an isolated circumstance of producing a certain number of sexually abusive priests, but it is on top of the list.
Bad eggs will be found here and there, but the tentacles of St. John’s Seminary students are far reaching.

Chicago Cardinal Bernadin's seminary appointments and episcopal consecrations produced much rotten fruit.
Randy Engel, Rite of Sodomy: Homosexuality and the Roman Catholic Church (vol. 4) p. 473:

Auxiliary Bishop John G. Vlazny was one of Bernardin’s earliest appointments after Bernardin took over the Archdiocese of Chicago. In 1987,
Bernardin helped Vlazny secure the vacant Diocese of Winona giving
Vlazny automatic authority over Immaculate Heart Seminary, a virtual
hotbed of homosexuality. […] Vlazny was
one of two bishops who negotiated the Brom-Maras settlement over
sexual corruption at the Winona seminary.
Ten years later, the homosexual scandals at the Immaculate Heart
Seminary notwithstanding, Vlazny was promoted by Pope John Paul II to
the “gay-friendly” Archdiocese of Portland, Ore.
[…]
Bishop Gerald Frederick Kicanas was another Auxiliary Bishop from
Chicago made good. Kicanas was ordained by Cardinal Bernardin shortly
before Bernardin’s death.
When Kicanas was Rector of Mundelein Seminary at the University
of St. Mary of the Lake operated by the Archdiocese of Chicago, homosexuality openly flourished. Kincanas owed his appointment to Cardinal
Bernardin, who, as Archbishop of Chicago, automatically served as the
seminary’s Chancellor.
On March 7, 2003, Kicanas, a conflict management specialist, was made
the Ordinary of the Diocese of Tucson. On September 20, 2004, Bishop
Kicanas announced he was filing for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection on
behalf of yet another devastated vineyard of AmChurch.
In all, Cardinal Bernardin took part in the ordination of 28 bishops during his years as Archbishop and Cardinal

Portland was the first U.S. diocese to declare bankruptcy, and Tucson was the second.
Also, corrupted religious orders produced much homosexual rotten fruit, too; cf. ibid., ch. 16 "Homosexuality in Religious Orders", pp. 919-1002.

McCarrick was at the center of the homosexual network, which sociologists have mapped out:

Bullivant, Stephen, and Giovanni Radhitio Putra Sadewo. “Power, Preferment, and Patronage: Catholic Bishops, Social Networks, and the Affair(s) of Ex-Cardinal McCarrick.” ArXiv:2007.06606 [Cs], July 13, 2020.


Did God change the DNA and genetics of Adam's rib? I recently read an article which talked about Mitochondrial DNA, and it placed quite a bit of emphasis on how different female DNA was from male DNA. It even went so far as to say that Mitochondrial DNA could be traced back to one single female who was the source of all female DNA.

But Genesis 2 says:

  And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man. And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man. (Genesis 2:21-23, KJV)

But if God used the same DNA and Genetic signature in the rib, why would the woman not then have been an exact duplicate of Adam?

(As this is largely an issue for Creationists) How have Creationist apologists explained these verses?

Although I am not comfortable thinking of the account of God's creation of Eve as being in any way allegorical or mythical, I do, however, think of the account as a kind of artistic and symbolic version of what actually transpired when God created another human being--a female human being--in His image who would complement the male of the species whom He had already created.

Several observations:

ONE. While the people of Moses' day could not appreciate the complexities of the double helix and the human genome, they did realize that all living critters, including humans, give birth to other living critters "after their kind."

TWO. Prior to God's making for Adam a "helper suitable for him" (Genesis 2:18), God brought all the critters He had made to Adam and gave him the assignment of naming all the animals. Interestingly (but certainly not coincidentally), among the perhaps tens of thousands of animals Adam named, he found not one "helper suitable for him" (2:20).

THREE. God then "fashioned into a woman the rib which He had taken from the man and brought her to man" (2:22). Just as God had fashioned, for example, a male and female sheep, so also He fashioned a human female counterpart to the human male. God made something different, not identical, out of Adam's rib! Part of that difference was a major "tweaking" of the human genetic code. Subsequently, the man and woman would procreate "after their kind."

FOUR. At the exciting "reveal" after God's surgery on Adam,

  The man-person said, "At last! This is bone from my bones

  And flesh from my flesh.

  She is to be called Woman [Hebrew: ishah],

  Because she was taken out of Man" [Hebrew: ish] (2:23 CJB).

Contrast, then, Adam's inability to find a helpmeet among the animals, with his actually finding what he could never have found in the animal kingdom. Notice how the Complete Jewish Bible phrases his first words upon seeing his helpmeet: "At last!" It's as if Adam was saying,

  "Whew, God, I was beginning to think you didn't know what you were doing with all those boring animals you had me name. Don't get me wrong. They were wondrous to behold, but this, this lovely creature you have made is now truly "bone of my bone, and flesh of my flesh." Thank you, Lord!"

FIVE. Scripture then goes on to tells us,

  "For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother, and shall be joined to his wife; and they shall become one flesh" (2:24)

This part of my answer goes WAAAAAAAY beyond the scope of your question, but it is nevertheless germane in a prophetic and hermeneutically responsible way.

In a seminal passage on marriage, the apostle Paul lays out in Ephesians 5 the duties of wives to husbands and husbands to wives, and in doing so he quotes Genesis 2:24 in verse 31. Why? Because the marriage of one husband to one wife was God's design from the very beginning. And what pattern did God use in creating what we call today the "institution" of marriage? To answer that question I'll quote liberally from John Piper's book, Desiring God, pp.212-213 (excerpts):

  It looks as though Paul uses the relationship of human marriage, learned from
  Genesis 2, to describe and explain the relationship between Christ and the church.
  But if that were the case, marriage would not be a mystery, as Paul calls it in
  Ephesians 5:32; it would be the clear and obvious thing that explains the mystery of
  Christ and the church. So there is more to marriage than meets the eye. What is it?
  The mystery is this: God did not create the union of Christ and the church
  after the pattern of human marriage—just the reverse! He created human marriage
  on the pattern of Christ’s relation to the church.

  The mystery of Genesis 2:24 is that the marriage it describes is a parable or
  symbol of Christ’s relation to His people. There was more going on in the creation
  of woman than meets the eye. God . . . patterned marriage very purposefully after the relationship between His Son and the church, which He had planned from all eternity.

  Therefore, marriage is a mystery—it contains and conceals a meaning far
  greater than what we see on the outside. God created man male and female and
  ordained marriage so that the eternal covenant relationship between Christ and
  His church would be imaged forth in the marriage union. As Geoffrey Bromiley
  has written, “As God made man in his own image, so he made marriage in the
  image of his own eternal marriage with his people.”

  The inference Paul draws from this mystery is that the roles of husband and
  wife in marriage are not arbitrarily assigned, but are rooted in the distinctive
  roles of Christ and His church. . . ..

  This is the foundation of the pattern of love that Paul describes for marriage.
  It is not enough to say that each spouse should pursue his or her own joy
  in the joy of the other. It is also important to say that husbands and wives
  should consciously copy the relationship God intended for Christ and the
  church.

In conclusion, even more significant than God's handiwork in creating a female egg and a male sperm, each of which when united at fertilization brings half the genetic information necessary for the beginning of a new human life, is the profound reason for God's creation of male and female: 1) to reveal to us through the analogy of marriage His grand plan of redemption and His eternal covenant with all true believers; and 2)  to grant to "us in marriage the privilege to image forth . . . divine realities infinitely bigger and greater than ourselves" (ibid.).

It doesn't really make sense to try to reconcile DNA and Genesis.  The only way to combine them is to awkwardly shoehorn our understanding of DNA into the Genesis account, and simply say, God made the DNA to look different than Genesis says it should look.

For example, Genesis 1 has land plants being made first, then water creatures and birds, then land animals.  That's simply not compatible with our understanding of DNA.

As a couple people have brought up questions on this in the comments, here is more information:

We know that birds came after land animals, not the reverse.  See this graph of the Phylogenetic relationships of crocodiles, turtles, lizards, and tuataras based on mitochondrial DNA sequences. (Another source: Molecular evidence for the origin of birds).  While we can't put animals at the branch points of the graph based on DNA (because those animals are long since extinct so we don't have their DNA), we can use the fossil record to fill in the gaps, and the evidence strongly shows that birds come from land dinosaurs (more 1, more 2).

Further, we know that some sea creatures such as whales are a result of land animals returning to the ocean, as shown in this easy-to-absorb youtube video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lIEoO5KdPvg. (Note again the position of birds in the graph at 20s, near dinosaurs). At 7:15 of the video, DNA shows that whales are closely related to hippopotamuses (which you can verify using this science project procedure using online an DNA database (it's free, ignore the 'cost' listed)) and would have split off from a common ancestor about 54 million years ago.  Fossils show us that those were land animals, and the fact that whales still have small leg bones inside their bodies backs this up (not to mention, the extremely awkward transition-species-like feet/flippers of modern seals and sea lions).

You can also see on Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_plant_evolution -- see the first simple graph) that land plants (and even multi-cellular life) are relatively new compared to life itself (which started in water), so the Genesis account of land plants being first doesn't work.

Here is another list of the evolutionary order of life, which puts land plants after fish, and birds after mammals, chronologically: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_evolutionary_history_of_life.  This also says that flowers are relatively recent, which means that when Genesis says that fruit-bearing trees were also created before sea life and birds, it does not match the evidence.

But anyway, the answer to your question about Adam and Eve is, assuming the Genesis story is real, their DNA must have been different, and the reason it's different is because God made it that way (after all, dust doesn't have human DNA, so where did Adam's DNA come from? If Adam's DNA could be created spontaneously, then surely Eve's could, as well, despite the source being a part of Adam).

Or, maybe they had the same DNA, but were physically different, because of some reason we don't know about.  Maybe they had DNA that covered both male and female, but over time the DNA of individuals changed so that now male and female are different.  But that doesn't match our understanding of DNA.

But, in the end, the story of Adam and Eve and the creation in Genesis is simply not compatible with our scientific understanding of life and DNA.


What is the source of the tradition that animals can speak on Christmas Eve? If one Googles animals talking on Christmas Eve a wide number of hits will mention this practice.

I get the connection to the animals in the manager, but I'm trying to ascertain the origin of this Christmas legend.

Who practiced it first and when?

How widespread is it?

And, at what time does it work?

Further research found this page with interesting highlights:

This is primarily a Northern European/Scandanavian myth, based in the Christmas story

This is a syncretic pagan tradition that melded with the Christmas story

I imagine that the talking animals business is somehow connected to the general "world turned upside down" idea of traditional winter solstice festivals, e.g. Twelfth Night:
In medieval and Tudor England, the Twelfth Night marked the end of a winter festival that started on All Hallows Eve — now more commonly known as Halloween. The Lord of Misrule symbolizes the world turning upside down. On this day the King and all those who were high would become the peasants and vice versa. At the beginning of the Twelfth Night festival, a cake that contained a bean was eaten. The person who found the bean would rule the feast. Midnight signaled the end of his rule and the world would return to normal. The common theme was that the normal order of things was reversed. This Lord of Misrule tradition dates back to pre-Christian European festivals such as the Celtic festival of Samhain and the Ancient Roman festival of Saturnalia.

True to the "magnificat" animals get the upper hand, and humans often do not like what they hear. It is often used as a lesson to be kind to those lesser than themselves.

It apparently works from sunset until midnight, although some variations put it at once every hundred years.

Its not Christmas eve, its the 12th Night or eve of Epiphany were all beasts were gifted with speech until the dawn of Epiphany.  I don't know where it came from, but this is a common belief in most of europe.  We celebrated this when I was a child.


What did salvation mean to the Israelite people of the OT? Modern Christians have various ideas of salvation since Jesus came (going to heaven when you die; free from the curse of the law; set free from the flesh, the devil and the world; adopted into God's family, etc.).

What did salvation mean to the Israelites of the OT?

Throughout the narrative parts of the Old Testament, there is very little mention of any afterlife. That idea arises mostly later on, in the books of the Prophets.

During the bulk of Old Testament times, salvation had little or nothing to do with:

Heaven or the afterlife, since there was little or no belief in such
a thing.
Being freed from the curse of the Law. The Law was seen as a blessing, not a curse.
Being set free from the flesh. Physical enjoyments were not
considered evil as long as they did not violate the law.
Being set free from the Devil. The Devil was not a well-developed concept
in Old Testament times.

And as for being set free from the world, it was just the opposite. As we will see, salvation meant being blessed in the world.

Of all the possibilities raised in the question, only being adopted into God's family has any real bearing on salvation as understood by the ancient Israelites. They saw themselves not exactly as God's family but as God's people. So in that sense, being God's specially chosen people does relate to their concept of salvation.

Now, if few to none of the common Christian understandings of salvation had any meaning to the ancient Israelites, what did salvation mean to the Israelite people of the Old Testament?

Quite simply, to them it meant literal, physical salvation from human enemies, and from material-world "enemies" such as poverty, disease, and death. And on the positive side, it meant having wealth, power, and victory over their enemies, all of which were seen as blessings from God.

In the Hebrew Bible, aside from a poetic use Genesis 49:18, the first use of the word "salvation" (יְשׁוּעָה, yĕshuw`ah) occurs in Exodus 14:13-14:

  And Moses said to the people, "Fear not, stand firm, and see the
  salvation of the Lord, which he will work for you today. For the
  Egyptians whom you see today, you shall never see again. The Lord
  will fight for you, and you have only to keep still."

The scene is the Israelites camping by the Red Sea, and the Egyptian army pursuing them with horses and chariots.

The salvation of the Lord was the Lord's drying up the sea so that the Israelites could pass over on dry ground and escape from the Egyptian army, and then the Lord's closing the waters back over the pursuing Egyptian army, drowning and destroying them, and thus saving the Israelites from their power.

So here in the first narrative use of the word "salvation" in the Old Testament, it means God saving the people from literal, physical, human enemies who were bent on recapturing and carrying them back to slavery in Egypt.

This use of "salvation" as being physically saved from human enemies is common throughout the Old Testament. For a few more examples, see Judges 7 (note the word "saved" in verse 2); 1 Samuel 11 (note "salvation" in verse 13); 2 Samuel 23:8-12 (the word "victory" is a translation of the Hebrew word for "salvation").

When speaking of the people as a whole, then, for the ancient Israelites "salvation" meant especially being saved from enemies who wished to kill, conquer, and enslave them. "Salvation" was synonymous with victory in battle against enemies.

Less commonly, "salvation" was used of individuals who were saved from sickness, enslavement, loss of property, death, or other material calamity.

For example, the prayer of Hannah, the mother of Samuel, in 1 Samuel 2:1-11, which celebrates the Lord's salvation of her from the terrible condition (for an ancient Israelite woman) of barrenness, opens with these words:

And Hannah prayed and said,

"My heart exults in the Lord;
    my horn is exalted in the Lord.
My mouth derides my enemies,
    because I rejoice in your salvation."

And David's song of praise in 2 Samuel 22 similarly speaks of the Lord's salvation (mentioned specifically in verses 3, 36, 47, & 51) not only of his people and his army from their enemies, but of himself (David) personally from Saul's attempts to kill him because he was rival aspirant to the throne.

So whether it is speaking of the nation as a whole or of individual people, "salvation" in the narrative of the Old Testament most commonly means salvation from and victory over physical, human enemies and over material-world sufferings and setbacks.

By extension, the Lord's threats and promises to the Israelites almost invariably involved physical and material ruin, defeat, and death on the one hand, vs. victory, health, prosperity, and long life on the other.

The narrative of Deuteronomy 26:16-30:20 is a long series of physical and material curses, defeats, and calamities that would befall the Israelites if they disobeyed God's commandments, and of blessings of victory, health, and prosperity that they would enjoy if they obeyed God's commandments. It concludes with these famous words:

  See, I have set before you today life and good, death and evil. If you
  obey the commandments of the Lord your God that I command you today,
  by loving the Lord your God, by walking in his ways, and by keeping
  his commandments and his statutes and his rules, then you shall live
  and multiply, and the Lord your God will bless you in the land that
  you are entering to take possession of it. But if your heart turns
  away, and you will not hear, but are drawn away to worship other gods
  and serve them, I declare to you today, that you shall surely perish.
  You shall not live long in the land that you are going over the Jordan
  to enter and possess. I call heaven and earth to witness against you
  today, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and curse.
  Therefore choose life, that you and your offspring may live, loving
  the Lord your God, obeying his voice and holding fast to him, for he
  is your life and length of days, that you may dwell in the land that
  the Lord swore to your fathers, to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob, to
  give them. (Deuteronomy 30:15-20)

As shown in the entire narrative sequence that concludes with these words, the life and death, good and evil that the Lord set before them was physical and material life and death, good and evil.

For the ancient Israelites, then:

Salvation meant being physically saved from their human enemies, and enjoying peace, prosperity, fruitfulness, and long life in their own sovereign nation, as well as having many descendants to carry on an individual's name, and the long-term flourishing of the Israelite nation as a whole.
Being cursed, or to use a later term, damned, meant being physically killed, captured, and enslaved by their human enemies, and suffering loss of property, crop failure, infertility, disease, and early death, along with the dying out of an individual's family lineage, and the cutting off and destruction of the Israelite nation as a whole.

The more abstract versions of salvation and damnation that came later, in the Prophets and especially in the New Testament, used these earlier pragmatic and earthly meanings of salvation and damnation as symbols and representatives that foreshadowed and depicted spiritual salvation and damnation.

Before and even after the Incarnation, the Jewish people have considered themselves to be set apart (Holy).  Set apart not by Works, or by lineage or even by Ethnicity, they were set apart, made Holy, by Covenants made by God with man.  This action done solely by the Grace of God set the people of God apart from all others.  They were God’s Chosen people, Chosen to do Gods will and Chosen for the Promises given to Abraham through Isaac.

How they interpreted this relationship with God, differentiated between different sects of Judaism, some believed in a bodily resurrection, some did not, some believed in the continuation of the soul after death, some did not.  These differences exist even today in Judaism as many make a mark for themselves in this life and not in the next.

As Christians we have various ideas of what salvation is, so do the Jews of then and now.  One thing however has not changed, that is how we perceive those covenants and apply them to ourselves but do not live up to them.  I think of Ecclesiastes and the Vanity of Vanities,  “There is no remembrance of former things; neither shall there be any remembrance of things that are to come with those that shall come after.”   Ecc 1: 1-11 As the Jews were set apart, they saw themselves (presumed) as favored by God, many Christians who in the same manor consider themselves share this favored status, (being saved) by God presumptuously.

What it meant to the Israelite people of Old Testament was that Salvation to them, via the Law and the Promises of Grace to the seed of Isaac, was a forgone conclusion whatever eschatology they adhered to, Regardless of how they lived their lives.  This vanity continues in Christianity today.

“If thou be the Son of God, cast thyself down: for it is written, He shall give his angels charge concerning thee: and in their hands they shall bear thee up, lest at any time thou dash thy foot against a stone” Math 4:6

compared to

“All you need to do is have faith and you will be saved, leap and worry not, for you are saved by faith alone, Christ will bear you up”  (Reference Mine)

What is needed then and now, is to be aware of the sin of presumption.  “Thou Shall not temp the lord thy God” Mathew 4:7


How do we identify false teachers? But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will also be false teachers among you, who will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing swift destruction upon themselves. -2 Peter 2:1

My question is: How can you tell if a teacher is a "false teacher"?

Please support your answer with Scripture.

1 John is really the 'discernment' Epistle showing many ways that false teachers can be identified.  The main thing is to look at the life and doctrine of a teacher to ensure they stick to the basic Christ centred ideas and life of love. The basic rules are:
False teachers do not love Christians and they live in wickedness. Real Christians know how sinful they are, confess their daily sins, but do not love the world. Real Christians love God, as proven in their love of those who believe in Christ for the forgiveness of their sins, that is God's children.

If we claim we have not sinned, we make him out to be a
liar and his word is not in us. (1 John 1:10)

The Lord's daily prayer included 'forgive us our sins' (Math 6:12). Every Christian knows that they sin every day because nobody loves God with all the heart, soul and mind, which is the greatest command. (Math 22:37)

Whoever says, “I know him,” but does not do what he commands is a liar, and the truth is not in that person. (1 John 2:4)

Some may seem correct in doctrine, but live in open sin. For example they may say it is alright to commit adultery, practice homosexuality, or the worship of someone other than God, which is idolatry, etc. Such a person is like the Devil appearing as an angel in word, but betrayed in action.

Anyone who claims to be in the light but hates a brother or sister is still in the darkness. (1 John 2:9)

A Christian cannot hate another person in the intense way that this implies. It is impossible for a born again; regenerate should to be filled with hate because God’s Spirit remains in them. This especially holds true for our attitudes towards any who belie in Christ for the forgiveness of their sins. This is the ‘brother or sister’ being mentioned. Therefore churches and cults, that consider their denomination as the only group that will be saved, are built upon false teachers. Paul says; let such teachers be ‘accursed’ even if they were a Pope, Saint, Apostle, or even an Angel. (Gal 1:8) Anyone who genuinely believes in Christ, proven by their love of all the others who also believe, will have eternal life. (John 3:16, 1 John 5:11-13)

Do not love the world or anything in the world. If anyone loves the world, love for the Father is not in them. (1 John 2:15)

Anyone who puts money, sex, career, worldly status, or religious status before the gospel loves the world and is not a Christian.  (1 John 2:16)

Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love. (1 John 4:8)

This cuts to the spirit of all true Christians. The Holy Spirit is a loving Spirit so if that Spirit is within a soul, that soul will love others.  When somebody loves us we can tell. Not only does this help us discern our own attitudes but if somebody seems right in doctrine but is always angry, impatient, not kind, jealous of others, bragging all the time, always argumentative, selfish, or any other non-loving characteristic, the Bible seems to say we should switch channels and listen to someone else. They are clanging gongs (1 Cor Ch 13)

False teachers deny the incarnation of Christ in one way or another. They either deny the Father, Son, or Holy Ghost, or they deny the incarnation, or atoning sacrifice of sin on the cross. They might deny the whole gospel by thinking their good works will save them rather than Christ.  Real Christians believe that God assumed human nature in Christ, and that by faith in Christ alone we have eternal life.

Who is the liar? It is whoever denies that Jesus is the Christ. Such a person is the antichrist—denying the Father and the Son. (1 John 2:22)
This is how you can recognize the Spirit of God: Every spirit that acknowledges that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God. (1 John 4:2)

The gospel hinges on believing that the eternal Son of God took on human nature to offer his soul and body for the punishment of your sin, and my sin. In fact faith is this one statement determines who Christians are and who liars are.

And this is the testimony: God has given us eternal life, and this life is in his Son. Whoever has the Son has life; whoever does not have the Son of God does not have life. I write these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God so that you may know that you have eternal life. (1 John 5:11–13)

A Christian can be sure they have eternal life by relying on the death of Christ for their forgiveness. If they rely on their own works by being a good moral person, or being baptised into a specific church, they may still yet go to hell.

In the end, discernment is easy for those who have the Holy Spirit. Jesus said:

By their fruit you will recognize them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? (Matt 7:16)

The Bible lists the fruit of the Spirit as love, joy, peace, etc. (Gal 5:22) The nature of fruit corresponds to the type of tree from which it grows, and all Christian have been engrafted into Christ as the root, who’s life is our sap and nutrient. Naturally this fruit is not just the attitude but also the doctrine of justification in Christ by faith apart from the works of the law, as is the argument of the entire Bible.

The Bible clearly talks about the "fruit of the Spirit" (Gal 5:22). It is the outcome of peoples beliefs that mark them for what they are.

Do the outcomes of their beliefs result in the kind of things we see Jesus doing and that we see throughout the New Testament? (John 14:12, Acts 2:17)

My own experience is that those who are true to their Father carry the power and authority of Heaven (as befits those who are adopted by the Father into His kingdom). It makes them interesting and often uncomfortable people to be around! (It's not just in Acts you can see this stuff happening but throughout the world today)

Unfortunately, it is not only easy to hide wrongdoing but also easy to step off the right path as happened to a church that I used to go to. So it is important for all of us who consider ourselves "citizens of Heaven" to keep watch over the Church and those who claim the authority of God and to hold them accountable. Just as they should hold us accountable for our actions.

As an aside, I believe that we should be doing this as Earthly citizens too - something which would go a long way towards fixing some of the ills of our democratic governments.

EDIT: Jas, sorry I clearly didn't explain everything I needed to. I am absolutely in agreement with you about the dangers. I also totally agree with you regarding the importance of 1 Cor 13, thanks for highlighting that. You are right that, without the evidence of God's infinite love, everything else is not only pointless but extremely dangerous. In fact, that is the point I was trying to make - sadly I didn't manage to.

To expand then, the outcomes that I am talking about include the demonstration of and the act of God's love. A Christian who demonstrates the "Gifts of the Spirit" as often recognised (tongues, healing, etc.) without also demonstrating the Love and discernment that also characterises God's interactions with us clearly has something wrong. This was evident in one of the big US churches recently where they were seeing many signs and wonders but were drifting away from the love and intimacy - they ended up with some of the church leaders getting into trouble. I also made reference to this in my fourth paragraph, another case where a strong, dynamic church went horribly wrong.

None-the-less, this does not excuse us from taking hold of the responsibilities that come with being a prince of the ultimate kingdom. God, through Jesus and the Holy Spirit, has given us a lot of power and authority. It is not just church leaders who have been given this power, we all have. And so we all have the tools already - to discern right from wrong - to discern good from bad. To make sure we keep these things in perspective, we submit ourselves to the examination and accountability of our fellow Christians as they did in the early church. We also choose to study God's Word to see if what we are thinking and doing matches what He has passed to us through that medium.


Why did the soldiers go backward and fall down when Jesus said "I am he" in John 18:6? I really don't get it. Why did the soldiers trying to arrest Jesus go backward and fall to the ground in John 18:6? Was it because they realized that he was the I AM? If so, then why did they arrest him anyway?

Here are a few commentaries on this verse from Christian Bible scholars. To a large extent, they agree with your suspicion that the men were reacting to Messiah's use of the words "I AM," and the authority with which he spoke them. Parenthetical notes are the original authors'.

From Elliot's commentary for English Readers:

  They went backward, and fell to the ground.—There is nothing in the narrative to suggest that our Lord put forth miraculous power to cause this terror. The impression is rather that it was produced by the majesty of His person, and by the answer which to Jewish ears conveyed the unutterable name, “Jehovah” (I AM). (Comp. Note on John 8:24-25.) Guilt trembled before the calmness of innocence. Man fell to the ground before the presence of God. To Judas the term must have been familiar, and have brought back a past which may well have made him tremble at the present. To the officers the voice came from Him of whom they had been convinced before that “Never man spake like this man” (John 7:46). They have come to take Him by force, but conscience paralyses all their intentions, and they lay helpless before Him. He will surrender Himself because His hour is come (John 17:1); but His life no one taketh from Him. For this sense of awe in the presence of Christ, comp. the account of the cleansing of the Temple in John 2:14 et seq.

From MacLaren's Expositions of the Holy Scriptures:

  ‘I am He!’ When the Band were thus doubly assured by the traitor’s kiss and by His own confession, why did they not lay hands upon Him? There He stood in the midst of them, alone, defenceless; there was nothing to hinder their binding Him on the spot. Instead of that they recoil, and fall in a huddled heap before Him. Some strange awe and terror, of which they themselves could have given no account, was upon their spirits. How came it about? Many things may have conspired to produce it. I am by no means anxious to insist that this was a miracle. Things of the same sort, though much less in degree, have been often enough seen; when some innocent and illustrious victim has for a moment paralysed the hands of his would-be captors and made them feel, though it were but transiently, ‘how awful goodness is.’ There must have been many in that band who had heard Him, though, in the uncertain light of quivering moonbeams and smoking torches, they failed to recognise Him till He spoke. There must have been many more who had heard of Him, and many who suspected that they were about to lay hands on a holy man, perhaps on a prophet. There must have been reluctant tools among the inferiors, and no doubt some among the leaders whoso consciences needed but a touch to be roused to action. To all, His calmness and dignity would appeal, and the manifest freedom from fear or desire to flee would tend to deepen the strange thoughts which began to stir in their hearts.

From Barnes' Notes on the Bible

  hey went backward ... - The cause of their retiring in this manner is not mentioned. Various things might have produced it. The frank, open, and fearless manner in which Jesus addressed them may have convinced them of his innocence, and deterred them from prosecuting their wicked attempt. His disclosure of himself was sudden and unexpected; and while they perhaps anticipated that he would make an effort to escape, they were amazed at his open and bold profession. Their consciences reproved them for their crimes, and probably the firm, decided, and yet mild manner in which Jesus addressed them, the expression of his unequalled power in knowing how to find the way to the consciences of men, made them feel that they were in the presence of more than mortal man. There is no proof that there was here any miraculous power, any mere physical force, and to suppose that there was greatly detracts from the moral sublimity of the scene.

Other commenters give similar commentary. As for your second question, "why did they arrest him anyway?" I'll give another sample from MacLaren, though the emphasis is mine:

  Thus, then, we may see in that picture of our Lord’s surrendering Himself that His trembling disciples might go free, an emblem of what He does for us, in regard to all our foes. He stands between us and them, receives their arrows into His own bosom, and says, ‘Let these go their way.’ God’s law comes with its terrors, with its penalties, to us who have broken it a thousand times. The consciousness of guilt and sin threatens us all more or less, and with varying intensity in different minds.
  He died because He chose; He chose because He loved. His love had to die in order that His death might be our life, and that in it we should find our forgiveness and peace. He stands between our foes and us. No evil can strike us unless it strike Him first. He takes into His own heart the sharpest of all the darts which can pierce ours. He has borne the guilt and punishment of a world’s sin. These solemn penalties have fallen upon Him that we, trusting in Him, ‘may go our way,’ and that there may be ‘no condemnation’ to us if we are in Christ Jesus.

In summary, MacLaren's answer is that they still arrested him because it was his divine will to be arrested in place of his disciples, and also to suffer and die in their place, and indeed in our place.

"I" look at the passage as these soldiers were "a band of men and officers FROM the chief priests and pharisees" (ref John 18:3).  This "band of men" probably didn't know who Jesus was and were fully expecting a battle of sorts.  These men were going on a command from the chief priests.  The chief priests were not there, as they were too afraid and sent soldiers instead.  I'm sure the nerves of these men were on a VERY high alert as were all involved, with the exception of Jesus.  "I" think the "falling to the ground" was a way of describing their surprised action when Jesus, without hesitancy, admitted who he was, without any sort of aggression or doubt.  These were somewhat scared soldiers expecting a fight, and their reaction was of alarm.  "I" think this was just the best way the writer could describe the soldiers reaction, as we also can't take other passages in the scriptures literally.


Were the friends of Job, who came to him when he was in pain, of another religion? Friends came to Job during his pain and did stay with him for days and nights.
(Book of Job)

But who were they? Were they of the same religion and faith as Job?

God said that their advice was wrong and that Job should give an offering for their sins. That might tell us that they where of the same religion, but the Jews did also offer for the sins of the nations (70 nations), so not sure.

(In the Talmud it says they did travel from far away to meet Job.)

Scripture is not clear, giving us not only preciously few details on Job’s friends, but on Job himself.  Apart from telling us he was from the East (East of what?  How far to the East?), it does not tell us when he lived, nor even when the book itself was composed.

The only hints we have are sketchy circumstantial ones: their names and elements of cultural context, such as customs, material descripions &c.  But even that could easily have been adapted from an older original story, as for instance Adam and Eve names could be Hebrew translations (or evolutions) of their original names in humankind’s universal prediluvian language.

The Talmud is largely irrelevant to Christian opinion, specially on something presumably so much older than itself; it is not authoritative, it is known to contain much incorrect information, sometimes even as anti-Christian polemics.

In Ancient times there were hardly religions as organised, doctrinal systems as we understand them; polytheism was the norm, and it was hardly distinguishable from animism.

What is obvious is that they had at least a concept of Yahweh related to the one Job (and his chronicler) held.  So, yes, it seems that they had more or less the same ‘religion & faith’ as Job.

Of course they believed in the same God!

The most Righteous man on Earth would not be a friend to Devil-Worshippers!

The problem was that no one knew very much about God at that time.

The Purpose of this Trial (I say,) was that Job attain Enlightenment, and permanently disenfranchise Satan.

This Job failed to do.

This would have proven to God that Man would never strain The Truth by themselves, therefore prompting Him to deploy His Covenant-making Protocol.


Why is there no marriage in Heaven? Why did Jesus said there is no marriage in Heaven?

Mark 12:25 NIV

  When the dead rise, they will neither marry nor be given in marriage;
  they will be like the angels in heaven.

Is it because Heaven's better than even joyous things like marriage?  Or is it because marriage is to procreate and sex is, well, a bit too 'earthly'?

I assume you're refering to Mark 12:25 where it says:

  When the dead rise, they will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven. (NIV)

First a couple of notes on context. This was the answer to a trick question from a group of Sadducees. The Sadducees were an elitist liberal group similar to the Pharisees, who were an elitist conservative group. Among their many beliefs was a rejection of the resurrection. Their question from Mark 12:18-23 is an attempt to make Jesus look ridiculous for believing in the resurrection.1

  Then the Sadducees, who say there is no resurrection, came to him with a question. “Teacher,” they said, “Moses wrote for us that if a man’s brother dies and leaves a wife but no children, the man must marry the widow and raise up offspring for his brother. Now there were seven brothers. The first one married and died without leaving any children. The second one married the widow, but he also died, leaving no child. It was the same with the third. In fact, none of the seven left any children. Last of all, the woman died too. At the resurrection whose wife will she be, since the seven were married to her?”

So back to the original question. "Why did Jesus say there will be no marriage?"

The first answer, from the Pulpit Commentary on Mark 12:18, is that if she'd been the wife of only one or all seven brothers someone it would cause problems and after the resurrection there's not supposed to be any problems.

The second answer, also from the Pulpit Commentary this time on Mark 12:25, states:

  There will be no necessity for marriages in heaven. Here, on earth, the father dies, but he lives on in his children after death. In heaven there is no death, but every one will live and be blessed for ever; and therefore it is that St. Luke adds here, "Neither can they die any more." St. Augustine says, "Marriages are on account of children; children on account of succession; succession on account of death. But in heaven, as there is no death, neither is there any marriage."

1 Remember that this was (and still is) a conservative Jewish belief. It's not something Christ introduced.

I don't believe Jesus was saying there will be no marriage in Heaven.  First of all, the issue of Jesus' debate with the Sadducees was about whether there will be a resurrection or not.  The Sadducees, who didn't believe in resurrection, only asked whose wife the woman would be "At Resurrection."  In other words, whose wife she would be the moment she rose from the dead.  Jesus answered their question the way they asked it and said no one would be getting married "At Resurrection."  Nowhere was Heaven or the New Earth ever mentioned.

Had the Sadducees really wanted to know whose wife the woman would be, Jesus would have taken them to the story of creation.  He would have shown them that life and marriage was originally made to last forever before sin entered the world. He would have shown them the temporary thing God had to make to accommodate for the things sin brought about, such as allowing widows to remarry.  Most of all, he would have shown them that it is part of God's plan to restore everything to its original purpose, including marriage.