According to the Catholic Church is it sinful to address someone who is transgender by the gender they identify as? Is it a sin against charity to confirm a transsexual lifestyle by using pronouns (such as she to address a transwoman) that the church says is an offense against the Natural Law?

There are a number of points to address in this question.

Transsexualism
Confirming someone in sin
Sins against charity

There are lots of things in this answer which many people will find objectionable or hurtful or blind or disaffirming, but the question asks for the Catholic point of view.

I’m also aware that there are always difficult cases, and this answer may well engender other questions, “But what about...?” Such questions are better asked separately, as the question asked here is succinct in itself.

And, this answer deliberately avoids answering “How can I avoid the occasion of sin?” because that’s pastoral advice.

Transsexualism

The word transsexual doesn’t appear in the Catechism as that’s not recent enough. However, it does appear in two Vatican documents and has been noted as ethically unacceptable to anthropology.

  The Holy Father, in his homily during the Inaugural Mass in St Peter’s Basilica, pointed out, with a very incisive expression, how the First World “is exporting its spiritual toxic waste” to Africa and other developing areas. One of these poisons is the so-called “gender theory”, which, heavily disguised, is starting to infiltrate associations, governments and even some ecclesial environments in the African continent, judging from what the Pontifical Council for the Family tells us.

  The agents of various international institutions and organizations start from real problems, which must be dutifully resolved, such as the injustice and violence suffered by women, infant mortality, malnutrition and famine, problems related to housing and work. They propose solutions based on the values of equality, health and liberty: sacrosanct concepts, but rendered ambiguous by the new anthropological meanings that are given to them. For example, equality of people no longer just means equal dignity and access to fundamental human rights; but also the irrelevance of the natural differences between men and women, the uniformity of all individuals, as though they were sexually undifferentiated, and therefore the equality of all sexual orientations and behavior: heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual, transsexual, polymorphous. Each individual has the right to freely practice (and change, should they wish) their choices in line with their drives, desires and preferences.

  This ideology is spread by reproductive health centers, local educational meetings and international TV programs broadcast via satellite. Collaboration of African governments and local groups, including ecclesial groups, is sought, and these groups usually don’t realize the ethically unacceptable anthropological implications of this.

  — Cardinal Antonelli, then President of the Pontifical Council for the Family, 2009

Transsexualism is a choice — even if it’s a choice which one is felt to be forced to make. It is a choice driven by preference, or desire, or a perceived need (“drive”) to reject God’s ordered creation and substitute a man-made one. The substituted creation doesn’t even need to have been surgically created: it is sufficient to say “I am not a man; I am a woman.” Cardinal Antonelli warned ten years ago that society would validate this man-made creation and even mandate its recognition — for example by forcing women to allow transwomen to compete in women’s sport, or compelling speech in the form of pronouns and the like.

As the question here indicates, such a man-made creation is contrary to the natural order as created by God, to Natural Law. The desire for it is called “disordered” for that reason. That’s not a polemical or pejorative word; it’s purely objective, meaning “outside the natural order”.

A disorder is not sinful. Although the Catechism pre-dates gender theory and transsexualism, it talks explicitly of same-sex attraction, and the principles can be applied to all sorts of disorders.

  2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God’s will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.

What is sinful is giving in to the disorder and going against God’s will for his creation. Again, in terms of homosexuality:

  2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity,¹⁴⁰ tradition has always declared that “homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.”¹⁴¹ They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.

  2359 Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.

Even though those paragraphs can be applied to any disorder, transsexualism applies another layer. By saying “I am not a man; I am a woman,” or even “I am neither male nor female,” the person is saying “God got it wrong, and I’m putting it right.” Not only is that pride, but it is supplanting God.

Thus becoming a transsexual, acting on the desire or drive, is a mortal sin:

  1874 To choose deliberately — that is, both knowing it and willing it — something gravely contrary to the divine law and to the ultimate end of man is to commit a mortal sin. This destroys in us the charity without which eternal beatitude is impossible. Unrepented, it brings eternal death.

Confirming someone in sin

On this point, the Catechism is clear:

  1868 Sin is a personal act. Moreover, we have a responsibility for the sins committed by others when we cooperate in them:

  by participating directly and voluntarily in them;
  by ordering, advising, praising, or approving them;
  by not disclosing or not hindering them when we have an obligation to do so;
  by protecting evil-doers.

  By confirming someone in their sin — by using a disordered pronoun in the question’s example — we approve it. That act is sinful in itself, and again may even be a mortal sin because we deliberately choose something which is contrary to divine law.

Sins against charity

Any sin is a sin against God. A sin against charity is a sin against divine charity.

  2093 ...The first commandment enjoins us to love God above everything and all creatures for him and because of him.

  2094 One can sin against God’s love in various ways:

  indifference neglects or refuses to reflect on divine charity; it fails to consider its prevenient goodness and denies its power.
  ingratitude fails or refuses to acknowledge divine charity and to return him love for love.
  lukewarmness is hesitation or negligence in responding to divine love; it can imply refusal to give oneself over to the prompting of charity.
  acedia or spiritual sloth goes so far as to refuse the joy that comes from God and to be repelled by divine goodness.
  hatred of God comes from pride. It is contrary to love of God, whose goodness it denies, and whom it presumes to curse as the one who forbids sins and inflicts punishments.

  The question does not ask “It is uncharitable to confirm a transsexual lifestyle?” but “Is it a sin against charity to confirm it?”

Confirming the sinful lifestyle could certainly be said to confirm the hatred of God, hatred which comes from the pride of the one who has rejected him. God loves everyone just as they are, and to accede in the rejection of that love when someone seeks to “improve” upon creation is to accede in the rejection of God.

In that regard, yes: it is a sin against charity.

It is also uncharitable. The Spiritual Works of Mercy include

counselling the doubtful
instructing the ignorant
admonishing the sinner
comforting the sorrowful

...all of which may be relevant where someone is wrestling with how they deal with being the creation of God that they are.

¹⁴⁰ Cf. Gen 19:1–29; Rom 1:24–27; 1 Cor 6:10; 1 Tim 1:10
¹⁴¹ CDF, Persona humana 8

In short:

It is prideful to not use a transgendered persons preferred pronouns. Therefore it is a sin, against charity, to deliberately mis-gender someone.

Circa 2016 Pope Francis indicated, that although the Catholic Church does not recognize gender-fluidity, that pastoral care should be extended to those who consider themselves transgender.  Deliberately mis-gendering someone is not good pastoral care!

Furthermore: 'Do not judge lest you be judged' To judge that a Trans person is living a life of sin and so decide to not use their preferred pronouns, is well prideful and 'judgy'.

So specifically to act in a prideful way, not using a trans persons preferred pronouns, "It is contrary to love of God, whose goodness it denies, and whom it presumes to curse as the one who forbids sins and inflicts punishments [ref]" Therefore it is a (Prideful) "Sin(s) against Charity" to one self to act in such a way; to someone who is transgender.

As further evidence this would be the case:

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

Would you like to be deliberately called the wrong name or have the wrong honorifics (Mr/Ms) used when someone is referring to you? Chances are no.

Therefore (show the fruit of the spirit, and) show kind(ness), by referring to people (trans or not) with their preferred pronouns and honorifics.

So from current pastoral view, being prideful canon, and from a 'do on to others commandment' point of view we should not be mis-gendering people.

Personal take:

*'Doing on to others' is the 2nd highest commandment (After, 'Love the Lord with your whole self). "All other commandments fall under these". Jesus took a very dim view of the Pharisees who followed the law precisely ('tithed down to  a tenth of a mint leaf'), but still lacked compassion.

If you are justifying being a 'd*ck' by using scripture, well that is not very Christ like, or very: 'they will know you are my disciples by your fruit and by your love for one another'
And I posit, that one's salvation is in jeopardy.


Does the Bible espouse moral absolutism or moral relativism? I believe that throughout both the Old Testament and the New Testament, the Bible espouses moral absolutism.

Yet, I recently read on this site a response to a question about slavery:

  As stated, slavery was a fact of the Ancient World, and so when the
  Bible addresses the topic, it should not be compared against the
  sensibilities of the modern world, but rather against the
  sensibilities of the ones to whom the Bible was addressed.

...

  It is an anachronism to apply questions of, for example, feminism
  or communism, to the Scriptures, because the original audience would
  have had no means of apprehending it as such.

If this statement is correct, then the Bible cannot appropriately speak to issues like slavery or women's rights because it was written in a different era. Therefore are we all left to interpret and filter the Bible through the lens of our current times and adopt moral relativism for ourselves?

P.S. Here's a quick refresher about the differences between moral relativism and moral absolutism.

I'd like to stand by by statement that it is an anachronism to judge the Scripture from modern biases.
One of the first rules of hermeneutics is that a text cannot mean today what it could not mean to the people who received it. This is a simple enough postulate, buttressed by the fact that not every word of God was for every time, and that the canon we retain consists of that which has proven to speak to all throughout the
ages. But, if it is to speak to us today, it had to have spoken to them then, too.
So, how then can we retain the fact that God is unchanging, and that the moral rules he laid down are transcendent?  We need to remember that God and Man are different.
1. God doesn't change, but people do
First and foremost, God doesn't change, but we do.  Imagine, if you will, one of those cheap holograms that they used to put in kid's cereal boxes.  You could hold the hologram completely still, but depending on your position, it could display two different images.  Even if God is unchanging, very few people would argue that we do. The problems that we face in the 21st Century are different from the problems that we faced in the 1st. Oddly enough, the Bible has nothing to say about the morality of nuclear power! Why? becuase any explanation would have been nonsensical to the original recipients.
The way in which we face our problems also dictates the way in which we will face God. If God were distant, the parallax would make the movement irrelevant. But God is close, and God is involved. As such, he will necessarily appear different, if he has stayed put and we have moved.
In the 1st Century, slavery was a fact of life. As such, it made sense to say, "if you're going to have slaves, treat them well."  That implied "if" is a very different beast then "you should have slaves."  In the milennia before Christ, it was permissible to have multiple wives, and so the injunction was given, if you have multiple wives, treat them all well.  That was not a command to marry multiple times by any stretch either. But in an age where silence is now equated with acquiensence, it will appear to us like a tacit endorsement. But to say that is not to make a statement about God, but rather about where we are.
Remember also that laws & principles can remain constant while their interpretation varies.  In 1787, the writers of the Constitution said that Congress should not make any law regarding the establishment of a religion or to prohibit the free exercise thereof.  That had a very specific meaning - In Virginia, the Anglican / Episcopal Church was the established church of Virginia.  The government collected taxes on its behalf, outsourced the institution of marriage, and generally proscribed that all citizens be members of that church.  Nowadays, it doesn't even occur to us to set up a federal church.  And yet, the United States interprets that clause to mean that schools cannot lead prayers, and the City of New York wants to interpret that to mean that churches cannot even pay rent to the school system to use vacant buildings on Sunday mornings. George Mason himself would have been bowled over at such a suggestion. The principle of antiestablishmentarianism itself is  thus absolute, even if its application bears no resemeblance to its former practice.
Finally, the Gospel is not a set of laws any way. It is a message that a gracious God loves us in spite of our sin.  That we are better at following certain laws at certain times and worse in others should be obvious.  Did Christians in the United States sin by holding slaves in the 17th, 18th, and 19th Centuries? Amen, yes, we did.  Did we ignore the principle that before God we are equaly? Amen, God have have mercy.  But I wonder what our great-great-granchildren we think of us.  Did we sin by driving cars like Hummers that were built in total disregard of the command that God gave us to be good stewards of the earth? Its a valid question.  I suspect in the years to come people will be asking how one can be a Christian given our long track record of being such rapacious stewards of the planet we were given to tend.
And yet, I don't think the absolute morality has changed.
2. From God's perspective, we're all sinners anyway. From our perspective, there are only degrees
From God's perspective, we're all sinners anyway. As Isaiah says,

Even our righteousness is as filthy rags.

In God's eyes, we're all sinners anyway. Much of the "law" we have been given is merely to mitigate against the fact, and minimize the harm we do to one another.
The Pharisees asked Jesus if it was ok to divorce a woman.  They knew full well that God "hates divorce" (Malachi) and wanted to trap Jesus.  But Jesus explained the whole purpose of divorce - divorce is totally legal, but not at all desirable.  As Jesus said, divorce was given "because of the hardness of your heart!"  I think we can unequivocally say that God hates slavery, for the reasons in my previous answer.  But he also is willing to meet us where we are.
Our laws, however, recognize that because man is so fallen, there are degrees of punishment that are appropriate. No more than a tooth should be taken for a tooth. No more than an eye may be taken for an eye.  The punishment for a double-homicide is necessarily different from the one for double-parking.  Just because one is not punished for doing a bad thing doesn't make it right. As Jesus said in Matthew 5:45,

"the rain falls on the just and the unjust alike."

Mere silence on the morality of slavery is not equivelant to support.
The incarnation is such a supreme act of love, because it is a holy God, in whose presence sin can not stand, doing everything He can to reach out to sinners.
Absolutely, He does not change. But relatively speaking, He will do everything He can to be with us, to take us where we are and fit us for where He would have us be.

Gnostic Light
No.
Looking at this teaching about foods sacrificed to idol

Therefore concerning the eating of things offered to idols, we know that an idol is nothing in the world, and that there is no other God but one. 5 For even if there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or on earth (as there are many gods and many lords), 6 yet for us there is one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we for Him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, through whom are all things, and through whom we live.
7 However, there is not in everyone that knowledge; for some, with consciousness of the idol, until now eat it as a thing offered to an idol; and their conscience, being weak, is defiled. 8 But food does not commend us to God; for neither if we eat are we the better, nor if we do not eat are we the worse.
9 But beware lest somehow this liberty of yours become a stumbling block to those who are weak. 10 For if anyone sees you who have knowledge eating in an idol’s temple, will not the conscience of him who is weak be emboldened to eat those things offered to idols? 11 And because of your knowledge shall the weak brother perish, for whom Christ died? 12 But when you thus sin against the brethren, and wound their weak conscience, you sin against Christ. 13 Therefore, if food makes my brother stumble, I will never again eat meat, lest I make my brother stumble.

Moral Absolutism would state that "Thou shall not eat meat". So is promoting moral relativism considering that sometimes you "can".
Also you could consider

Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God. (Romans 13:1 NKJV)

Clearly, different countries have different governing authorities. This is a clear siding with moral relativism.
However
Moral relativism discontinues when faced with an action that you would not have done to yourself. This is breaking the Law of God, and is Sin. Sin is never OK, regardless of moral perception.
So No, True Biblical Morals are not dependent on either moral absolutism or moral relativism standards without considering your neighbour(the person next to you, or the person in need) literally as yourself.
Although once you add the relation to yourself to relativism standards. The answer becomes obvious.


Which Roman Catholic figure(s) has/have accused the Church of Mariolatry? I seem to remember hearing that an early R.C.C. leader had accused the church of falling into Mariolatry—the worship of Mary. Have any popes or other leaders of the Roman Catholic Church, especially in early church history, come forth with these accusations?

*He may not have been an R.C.C. leader, but he was R.C. It seemed like it was a Pope, but I just can't remember.

Schismatics/heretics have said this. For example, the Collyridians sacrificed κολλυρίδας ("bread cakes") to her, and St. Epiphanius (d. 403) denounced this as mariolatry:

  Collyridians. Under this name [St.] Epiphanius (Haer. 79) assails certain women who had brought from Thrace into Arabia the practice of performing on certain days rites in honour of the Blessed Virgin, the chief being the offering of a cake (κολλυρίς), and the partaking of it by the worshippers. Epiphanius condemns their conduct because (a) women ought not to offer sacrifice, and (b) Mary is to be honoured, God only to be worshipped. The name Collyris (or kindred forms) is to be found in the LXX translation of Lev. vii. 12, viii. 26; II. Sam. vi. 19, xiii. 68; and the word passed thence into the Latin versions.

cf. ch. 6 article 1 of Mother of the Saviour and Our Interior Life by Fr. Réginald Garrigou-Lagrange, O.P., or the Catholic Encyclopedia article "Devotion to the Blessed Virgin Mary," § "The Age of the Fathers"

Although it might not be the only possibility, it's likely that you are thinking of Nestorius he was the patriarch of Constantinople before leading a schism based on a diverging view of Christ's nature and consequent view of Mary. He apparantly objected to the use of Theotokos (God-bearer) being used to describe her (as opposed to his preferred term of Christotokos).


What is the Biblical basis for accepting Feminist Christian Theology which says we should use female pronouns for God? Feminist Philosophy of Religion: Feminist philosophy of religion is a recent development within Western philosophy that poses feminist questions about religious texts, traditions, and practices, often with the aim of critiquing, redefining, or reconstructing the entire field in light of gender studies... And because it is feminist, it must promote the elimination of gender inequality and take into account the multiplicity of human bodies, desires, and differences that are mapped onto the site of religion. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/feminist-religion/

Christian feminism is an aspect of feminist theology which seeks to advance and understand the equality of men and women morally, socially, spiritually, and in leadership from a Christian perspective... These theologians believe that God does not discriminate on the basis of biologically determined characteristics, such as sex and race. Their major issues include the ordination of women, male dominance in Christian marriage, recognition of equal spiritual and moral abilities, reproductive rights, and the search for a feminine or gender-transcendent divine... The term Christian egalitarianism is sometimes preferred by those advocating gender equality and equity among Christians who do not wish to associate themselves with the feminist movement. Women apologists have become more visible in Christian academia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feminist_theology#Christianity

What is the Biblical basis for accepting Feminist Theology with regard to the following topic:
Replacing male pronouns for God with gender-neutral terms: Feminist theology often criticizes the use of male pronouns for God; referring to God as “He,” “Him,” or “Father” degrades the status of women. The alternative is to refer to God only using gender-neutral terms such as the Divine or to balance the offending terms with female equivalents such as She, Her, and Mother.
Linked:  What is the Biblical basis for rejecting Feminist Christian Theology which says we should use female pronouns for God?

What is the Biblical basis for accepting Feminist Christian Theology which says we should use female pronouns for God?
Pope Francis answers this question in Querida Amazonia;

“Jesus Christ appears as the Spouse of the community that celebrates the Eucharist through the figure of a man who presides as a sign of the one Priest. This dialogue between the Spouse and his Bride, which arises in adoration and sanctifies the community, should not trap us in partial conceptions of power in the Church. The Lord chose to reveal his power and his love through two human faces: the face of his divine Son made man and the face of a creature, a woman, Mary. Women make their contribution to the Church in a way that is properly theirs, by making present the tender strength of Mary, the Mother. As a result, we do not limit ourselves to a functional approach, but enter instead into the inmost structure of the Church. In this way, we will fundamentally realize why, without women, the Church breaks down”
https://wherepeteris.com/which-pope-said-this-136/

The Church Fathers also teaches God the Wisdom or the Holy Spirit as feminine;

The grammatical gender of the word for "spirit" is feminine in Hebrew (רוּחַ, rūaḥ),1 neuter in Greek (πνεῦμα, pneûma) and masculine in Latin (spiritus). The neuter Greek πνεῦμα is used in the Septuagint to translate the Hebrew רוּחַ. The pronouns used to address the Holy Spirit, however, are masculine.

The Holy Spirit was furthermore equated with the (grammatically feminine) Wisdom of God by two early Church fathers, Theophilus of Antioch (d. 180) and by Irenaeus (d. 202/3).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_of_the_Holy_Spirit

BIBLICAL BASIS
St. Louis de Monfort in his book "Love of Eternal Wisdom" cited scriptural passages personifying God as Mother;

I am the mother of pure love, of fear, of knowledge and of holy hope.
In me is all grace of the way and of the truth; in me is all hope of life and strength.
Come to me, all you who desire for me, and be filled with my fruits.

Divine Wisdom shows himself to be the mother and source of all good and he exhorts all men to
give up everything and desire him alone.

Eternal Wisdom began to manifest himself "outside the bosom of God the Father" when, after a whole eternity, he made light, heaven and earth. St John tells us that everything was made through the Word, that
is eternal Wisdom: "All things were made by him" (Jn. 1:3; cf. Heb. 1:2; Col. 1:16-17).

Solomon says that eternal Wisdom is the mother and maker of all things. Notice that Solomon does not call him simply the maker of the universe but also its mother because the maker does not love and care for the work of his hands like a mother does for her child (Wisd. 7: 12,21).

Source: Love of Eternal Wisdom. http://www.montfort.org/content/uploads/pdf/PDF_EN_25_1.pdf
But to understand, this mystery, one needs to ponder God's Will in eternity and St.Maximillian Kolbe and Ven. Ab. Fulton Sheen and the wisdom of the Three Great Marian Saints like St. Maximilian Kolbe, St. Louis de Montfort and St. Liguori will help us see Pope Francis wisdom behind his teachings in Amazonia Querida, saying God reveals two human faces, Son of Man in Jesus Christ and the Woman in Divine Motherhood of the Blessed Virgin Mary.
God the Father sees the image of His Begotten Son the Second Person of the Holy Trinity as the "Son of Man" existing in the "bosom of the Father" in eternity. This image was incarnated in the womb of a Woman to become flesh as Jesus Christ the Divine Mercy made flesh was incarnated and dwelt among us.
The Blessed Virgin Mary offered Her body & blood and gave face to the Logos the Second Person of the Holy Trinity.
God the Father sees the image of the Holy Spirit the Third Person of the Holy Trinity in the perfect image of a Mother, a Consoler , a Comforter and Advocate. But, unlike the Logos, the Holy Spirit will be "quasi-incarnated" in the body,blood,and soul of the chosen Woman. The Holy Spirit was quasi-incarnated and perfectly and mystically indwelt the Theotokos in the Upper Room.
The Blessed Virgin Mary offered Her Sorrowful & Immaculate Heart and gave face to the Holy Spirit, the Third Person of the Holy Trinity.
God the Father has two image, one image is the Begotten Son Jesus Christ, and the other image is a Woman. a Mother which is the perfect image of the Holy Spirit. The child in the arms of a loving Mother, is the perfect image and likeness of God, and this two human faces is the image of God shown to humanity as the image of salvation.
The icon of the Madonna, is the image God the Father looked upon in eternity, and when God the Father created "Man & Woman", it is created in the perfect image of Jesus and Mary, while the "male & female" was created in the image & likeness as "Adam and Eve" progeny, a fallen mankind.

That's why scholars had seen two creation, having Man & Woman created and the image and likeness of God, and another set of creation creating mankind both "male and female".
More biblical passages on a Feminine attribution to God in this article written by Fr. James Martin who controversially uploaded a pronoun of God using "Her".
https://www.americamagazine.org/faith/2021/03/08/is-god-a-man-or-a-woman-catholic-240173


Do any traditions hold that the Jews will return to Israel prior to Christ's Second Coming? I have heard that the Second Coming of Jesus must be preceded by Jews returning to their homeland of Israel.

Does such a view exist?
Is it a generally shared Christian belief, or is it specific to
certain Christian ideologies?

Yes! There is a tradition that came from Israel, which is now nearly 2,000 years old.

It depends on how you look at it. You could call it a Jewish tradition. You could call it a Christian tradition. You could call it an Israel tradition. The reality is, it's all 3. (There are people who are simultaneously Jewish + Christian + Lutheran. It's possible to be all 3 at once.) So the tradition is simultaneously all 3 of these: Jewish + Israel + Christian, as Jesus Christ was a Jew who was born in Israel & is the Christ (The Anointed, Promised One), of which the term Christians are derived from, as followers of Jesus Christ.

The most Famous Jewish Rabbi, Prophet, Priest & King - Jesus Christ - mentioned this. It's recorded in Matthew 23:37-39 (NKJV):

  37 “O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the one who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing! 38 See! Your house is left to you desolate; 39 for I say to you, you shall see Me no more till you say, ‘Blessed is He who comes in the name of the Lord!’ ”

So far, the Jews haven't said that as they don't all currently believe that He is the Messiah. Some do like the Chai v'Shalom congregation, but not all.

Then Jesus prophesies of the destruction of the temple in 70 A.D. when He says the following as recorded in Mark 13:2 (NKJV):

  2 And Jesus answered and said to him, “Do you see these great buildings? Not one stone shall be left upon another, that shall not be thrown down.”

Here is an article on the history of Israel from 70 A.D to 1948 A.D. and how it was not populated by the Jewish people for that period of time.

Now to follow up what will happen in the future, we can look at some more Jewish traditional history. Thus we can explore how & why Jerusalem gets restored.

An older tradition talks about the coming of the day of The Lord. It's recorded in Zechariah 14 & it's still in the future. Here are some excerpts:

Zechariah 14:1 & part of v.2 (NKJV):

  1 Behold, the day of the Lord is coming,
  And your spoil will be divided in your midst.
  2 For I will gather all the nations to battle against Jerusalem;...

Did you note that part about all the nations. When the temple was destroyed in 70 A.D. it was destroyed by 1 nation: The Roman Empire. So verse 2 discusses the future, as in post 2017... I don't know when... but in the future.

Then from 1 Thessalonians 4:16 (NKJV), where a Jewish Pharisee wrote:

  16 For the Lord Himself will descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of an archangel, and with the trumpet of God. And the dead in Christ will rise first.

This tradition from the past also talks about the return of the saints in Heaven accompanying Jesus, right before the battle of Armaggedon:

Zechariah 14:3-5 (NKJV):

  3 Then the Lord will go forth
  And fight against those nations,
  As He fights in the day of battle.
  4 And in that day His feet will stand on the Mount of Olives,
  Which faces Jerusalem on the east.
  And the Mount of Olives shall be split in two,
  From east to west,
  Making a very large valley;
  Half of the mountain shall move toward the north
  And half of it toward the south.
  5 Then you shall flee through My mountain valley,
  For the mountain valley shall reach to Azal.
  Yes, you shall flee
  As you fled from the earthquake
  In the days of Uzziah king of Judah.
  Thus the Lord my God will come,
  And all the saints with You.

Did you catch that the Mount of Olives will be split in two & replaced by a valley, next to Jerusalem? That hasn't happened yet. Neither have all of the saints in Heaven returned to Earth yet. According to the 2,000 year old tradition from Israel, which has been passed down through the ages to us today... those events are still in the future. The Mount of Olives doesn't look like a valley yet.

Then after that we see what will happen in the future, according to another tradition. This one was written down by John in Revelation 21:1-2 (NKJV):

  1 Now I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away. Also there was no more sea. 2 Then I, John,[a] saw the holy city, New Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband.

Then later in Revelation 21:10-11 (NKJV):

  10 And he carried me away in the Spirit to a great and high mountain, and showed me the great city, the holy[h] Jerusalem, descending out of heaven from God, 11 having the glory of God. Her light was like a most precious stone, like a jasper stone, clear as crystal.

Apparently, God is designing a new Heavenly city & it will be called Jerusalem. God will live here on Earth in the new Jerusalem. Imagine it looking like this rendition. If you read the Jewish traditions in the Bible, you can find out more details about it!

Here is why that's important: Revelation 21:3 (NKJV):

  3 And I heard a loud voice from heaven saying, “Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and He will dwell with them, and they shall be His people. God Himself will be with them and be their God.

Which is a pretty cool tradition about why "the Second Coming of Jesus must be preceded by Jews returning to their homeland of Israel."

Traditions which take the Bible end-times events literally tend to take prophecies regarding the Jews literally, including their return to Israel.

Isaiah 11:11 was literally fulfilled in the 20th century, since 1948:

  Then it will happen on that day that the Lord Will again recover the
  second time with His hand The remnant of His people, who will remain,
  From Assyria, Egypt, Pathros, Cush, Elam, Shinar, Hamath, And from the
  islands of the sea.

Isaiah 66:7-8 tells us that they will become a nation quickly. This occurred in one day in 1948 when the British gave the land to the Jews:

  “Before she travailed, she brought forth; Before her pain came, she
  gave birth to a boy. “Who has heard such a thing? Who has seen such
  things? Can a land be born in one day? Can a nation be brought forth
  all at once? As soon as Zion travailed, she also brought forth her
  sons.

Zechariah 8:4-5 tells us that they will once again inhabit Jerusalem, which, of course, is true today:

  “Thus says the Lord of hosts, ‘Old men and old women will again sit in
  the streets of Jerusalem, each man with his staff in his hand because
  of age. ‘And the streets of the city will be filled with boys and
  girls playing in its streets.’

Many Christians who believe that the Lord is coming soon use these and similar verses as forerunners to that event. Due to these and other prophecies of the end times, Israel must be a literal nation prior to Christ's return in order for the prophecies to make sense.

Christians who hold to a pre-tribulation view accept the literal aspect of these verses.

One source: http://christinprophecy.org/articles/the-jews-in-end-time-bible-prophecy/


What was Anselm's biblical basis for his theory of atonement by satisfaction? Upon which Bible verses did Anselm base his satisfactory theory of atonement?

Anselm's satisfaction theory of the atonement is developed in his book, Cur Deus Homo, and, as presented, is not "based on the Bible" like we might expect.  Instead, Anselm relies heavily on logic, and largely avoids citing Scripture to make his case.
However, he is forced to rely on it in a few places, and he also tangentially mentions it in others.  For example, he assumes the existence of God, and accepts the historicity of the Fall of Man as described in Genesis 3.  While arguing that sin makes mankind a debtor to God, he mentions several texts (I'm quoting the NABRE here):

Colossians 2:14 obliterating the bond against us, with its legal claims, which was opposed to us, he also removed it from our midst, nailing it to the cross
John 8:34 Jesus answered them, “Amen, amen, I say to you, everyone who commits sin is a slave of sin.
Matthew 6:12 and forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors

Elsewhere, he argues that the God-man (Jesus) had to die voluntarily, and in support of this he cites a few more:

Isaiah 53:7 Though harshly treated, he submitted and did not open his mouth; Like a lamb led to slaughter or a sheep silent before shearers, he did not open his mouth.
John 10:18  No one takes it from me, but I lay it down on my own. I have power to lay it down, and power to take it up again.

For a few other examples, he cites Psalm 51 ("I was born in guilt, in sin my mother conceived me") to demonstrate the sinfulness of man, and uses language reminiscent of Deuteronomy 32:35 ("Vengeance is mine and recompense") to argue for God's superiority to man.
There are several more passages referenced by Anselm, but they are best explained in the context of his entire argument.  A summary of that argument, along with additional Scripture references, follows.

As mentioned above, Anselm's purpose in Cur Deus Homo is to provide a rational argument, presupposing as little as possible and not relying on proof texts:

We have made it our aim to discover by reason alone whether [Christ's] coming was essential for the salvation of mankind. (1.20)

Thus, in order to provide a reasonably comprehensive answer the question, it will be necessary to outline Anselm's argument, briefly discussing its logic, and citing the biblical passages that he references along the way.
Anselm presents his ideas through a conversation between himself and an interlocutor named Boso.  Anselm and Boso do not typically cite their sources when quoting from the Bible, and the wording they use doesn't always match modern translations.  Below, the Bible quotes are all directly from the text of Cur Deus Homo, not a "standard" translation of the Bible, but the links point to the NABRE.
Anselm's argument takes the following form:

Human sin dishonours God in such a way that repayment is required
It is unfitting for God to forgive sin without punishment or satisfaction
Humanity cannot make the required satisfaction
God has a purpose for humanity that it is necessary for him to complete
A God-man must be born with the power, obligation, and will to make the satisfaction
The death of the God-man outweighs all sins

Human sin dishonours God and makes mankind his debtor
Anselm defines sin as "nothing else than not to render to God his due" (1.11). Anselm summarizes the consequences of sin:

Therefore, everyone who sins is under an obligation to repay to God the honour which he has violently taken from him, and this is the satisfaction which every sinner is obliged to give to God. (1.11)

Commentators call this understanding "feudal in origin" (xviii), and Anselm provides only indirect biblical basis.  First, Boso, cites Colossians 2:14 ("bond of the decree") and John 8:34 ("slave of sin") as evidence that man is not a slave to the devil, but a slave to God's decree, and, by extension, to God himself (1.7).  Later, in 1.19, Boso and Anselm interact over the implications of "forgive us our debts" in the Lord's Prayer (Matthew 6:12).  In neither case does Anselm attempt to refute Boso, and in 1.20, he too adopts the word "bondslave" to describe man's relationship to God.
God cannot forgive sin without punishment or satisfaction
In 1.12, Anselm argues that God cannot simply overlook this debt that mankind owes him: it would be against his nature to do so. In such a case, sin would "slip by unregulated." Anselm says that "everyone knows" that righteousness is rewarded by God (cf. Deuteronomy 5:33), and on this basis argues if sin is neither paid for nor punished, it is not subject to any law (1.12). Furthermore, he says, "nothing is more intolerable" than sin, and therefore, "nothing [...] is more unjust to tolerate than the most intolerable thing" (1.13).
In challenge, Boso refers to the language of Matthew 6:12 ("forgive us our debts"), and wonders why man must simply forgive without repayment, but God cannot.  Anselm responds:

There is no contradiction in this, because God is giving us the teaching in order that we should not presume to do something which belongs to God alone.  For it belongs to no one to take vengeance, except to him who is Lord of all.

Here Anselm reflects the language of Deuteronomy 32:35 ("Vengeance is mine and recompense"), which is repeated in the New Testament in Romans 12:19 and Hebrews 10:30. (1.19)
Humanity cannot make the required satisfaction
Anselm next addresses the issue of man's attempts to repay God.  Good works cannot repay the debt, because God created man "out of nothing" and is his Master, and a slave's obedience to his master is expected:

In obedience, when truth is told, what are you giving God that you do not owe him, seeing that it is your obligation to give him, at his command, all that you are and all that you have and all that you are capable of?  (1.20)

Boso appeals to Galatians 5:6 ("faith which operates through love") and Ezekiel 18:27 ("if the wicked man turns from his wickedness and does what is right"), that faith is the means of obliterating wicked acts, but Anselm reminds him of the assumptions made so far in the argument: that, so far, Christ and the Christian faith do not exist.
Anselm argues that if given the choice between disobeying God, and allowing the destruction of the universe and everything in it, that the former option is still a sin: and that this gives us an idea of how bad sin is in God's eyes. (1.21)
He also refers to the "insult" that man gave God in the Garden of Eden (Genesis 3), when he "allowed himself to be conquered" by the devil through "persuasion alone," and thereby acted "contrary to the will and honour of God."  In order to repay God for this insult, man must now do the opposite: being weak and mortal, he must "conquer the devil through the difficulty of death, and in so doing to sin in no way."  But there's a problem: man is "born in sin" (cf. Psalm 51) and cannot accomplish this. (1.22)  God recognizes man's incapacity, but since it is self-inflicted, his punishment should be increased, not reduced. (1.24)
It is necessary that God brings to completion his purpose for humanity.
Next, Anselm turns to the necessity of God completing his purpose for mankind.  He argues that God's purpose for mankind includes filling heaven with a predetermined number of angels and men.  The salvation of men, he says, does not depend on the Fall of angels, and there will be more elect men than fallen angels.  He interacts with objections based on the "angels of God" reading found in the Septuagint of Deuteronomy 32:8 ("determined the limits of the peoples according to the number of the angels of God"), and argues that men can be considered "angels of God" in the same way that Judas was called a "devil" in John 6:70. (1.18)
But Anselm doesn't use explicit biblical support to defend what he sees as the overarching purpose of mankind:

Rational nature was created righteous to the end that it might be made happy by rejoicing in the highest good, that is, in God.  Man, being rational by nature, was created righteous to the end that, through rejoicing in God, he might be blessedly happy. (2.1)

When man fell, this purpose was apparently thwarted, leaving God with two options: either dispose of his creation, or "complete what he has begun."  Anselm argues that it is "totally foreign to [God] to allow any rational type of creature to perish utterly," and therefore, God must finish what he started with respect to mankind. (2.4)
A God-man must be born with the power, obligation, and will to make the satisfaction
The problem, Anselm summarizes, is that no one is capable of paying the debt except God, and only mankind has the obligation to pay it.  Thus, a God-man is logically necessary to pay this debt.
Anselm argues that the only one who can pay the debt is "someone who would make a payment to God greater than everything that exists apart from God," who thus, logically, "must himself be superior to everything that exists apart from God." (2.6)  At the same time, the God-man must be of the same race as Adam, because otherwise he is under no obligation to pay the debt. (2.8) To deal with objections based on Psalm 51 ("conceived in sin") and Romans 5:12 ("all have sinned"), which teach that all mankind is inherently sinful, he appeals to the "cleanness" of his virgin mother, which was made possible by his sacrifice. (2.16)
Simultaneously, the God-man must be willing to make the sacrifice.  Anselm cites Isaiah 53:7 ("He was made a sacrifice, because he willed it") and John 10:18 ("power to lay down his life and take it up again") to argue that Jesus did in fact sacrifice himself voluntarily (2.17), and contends that other passages, like Philippians 2:8–9 and Matthew 26:39, do not contradict this understanding (1.9).
The death of the God-man outweighs all sins.
Finally, the satisfaction is achieved by the death of the God-man.  Anselm argues that the God-man's life is worth more than all sins, and that thus his death outweighs them all. (2.14)  Against the challenge that the sin of killing the God-man cannot be outweighed, Anselm responds by citing 1 Corinthians 2:8 ("if they had known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory"), arguing that the killers' lack of knowledge rendered the sin less severe, and thus it too was outweighed by the God-man's death. (2.15)

Citations, including all book/chapter numbers for Cur Deus Homo, refer to Anselm of Canterbury: The Major Works (Oxford World's Classics).
Book/chapter numbers can also be used in reference to public domain translations, such as this one, though there may be translation differences.

Anselm based his theory of satisfactory atonement on Isaiah 53:11. KJV, which was later than Anselm, may perhaps not wholly mislead us. 'He shall see the travail of his soul and be satisfied.' I believe that Anselm read that as if the Father saw the the travail of the soul of the Son, and was satisfied. He then introduced the concept of honor. He did so from medieval jurisprudence. A king or lord of a manor, holding a court and calling his slaves to account, may not let any offense go undischarged. A fine may be imposed to end the matter. Any one may pay the fine who is able and willing. The honor of God, namely that every rational creature should obey his word, was offended by the disobedience of Adam, in which all men were involved. The infinitely worthy Second Person of the Trinity freely offered himself as a sacrifice to appease the offense. God first approved of the plan and then saw it put into effect and was satisfied. In Cur Deus Homo, which means Why Did God Become Man, Anselm deliberately put his Bible in the shelf and the Church fathers also. He wanted to appeal to pagans by reason alone. He did so without Bible verses, as he himself admits, but that is not to say he was not thinking of one, although we must needs guess which one. It is, however, unlikely that he made his proposal without any Biblical foundation at all. How could he? How could you or I?
When, however, I look up the Isaiah verse in the Vulgate, the Latin Bible that Anselm was reading, it seems, to my little knowledge, to say, in effect that "Jesus who died shall be satisfied," as the hymn sings it, and not God the Father, and it also uses the verb saturabitur rather than satisfacere. So my theory is pretty shaky but I have not the heart to give it up entirely.

God being satisfied, according to Anselm himself, enabled him to be compassionate to man, which he was not able to be before. Since there is a good bunch of space left to write this, I might as well ask here whether the reader is satisfied with such a God! John Calvin does not seem to have been entirely happy. He admits that the sacrifice of Christ satisfied both the righteousness and the wrath of God, but vehemently rejects the idea that the satisfaction made God love us. Is Calvin simply overwhelmed by it that God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son, that he allows the clear logic of Anselm to be swamped by the lovingness of God? I found this a memorable part of Calvin's Institutes of the Christian Religion, his great work.


Can we pray from any position? I enjoy praying lying in bed just before I sleep ... until I fall asleep. In church I usually pray with my hands simply by my side or even with my hands in my pockets. I just let them stay wherever they are.

However I have seen that many people change positions before they pray, often clasping their hands together or opening them towards something.

Is there anything particularly wrong with praying lying in bed or with your hands in your pockets? Is there any particular reason one must change positions to begin praying?

No, you don't have to put you hands together.  People usually put their hands together either as a sign of reverence or to help focus and get into a correct spiritual posture fir prayer or both.

You can pray in just about any manner you see fit, though.  I'll often pray while driving (with my eyes open).  I often see people praying with their hands raised.  You can even lay flat on the floor with your hands spread out.

I think its import that you take a position that makes you comfortable, shows reverence to the Lord, and postures your heart to communicate with God.

Questioning the significane of externals is a rather new phenomenon. Those familiar with Christian art and history know, that for literally thousands of years the Saints of God naturally tried to match their outward position with their inward disposition.
A lot gets lost today: Men pray with baseball caps on their heads, wearing T-shirts with inappropriate printing on them, hands in their pockets. Women come to church likewise, uncovered with questionable attire (1Co 11 turned upside down, right?) Of course no one kneels anymore; - but where is awe, reverence, the sense of God's majesty? There are unseen, spirtual and divine realities that are to be made visible by our behavior.
Since God's word is quite specific on these issues we don't have to guess about it, nor "invent" any new practice. What's been in use for thousands of years in the whole church cannot be classified as a matter of "ancient custom", but - indeed - as Christian.


What does the Bible say about life before conception? I recently spoke with a friend of mine and he was wondering if we are alive before conception. We know that there is life after death according to the Bible, but what does the Bible say about "life" before birth?

All I could dig up was this:

  Jeremiah 1:4-5 (ESV)
  4  Now the word of the Lord came to me, saying, 5   “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you,
  and before you were born I consecrated you;
  I appointed you a prophet to the nations.”

And this:

  Psalm 139:15-16 (NIV1984)
  15 My frame was not hidden from you
     when I was made in the secret place.
  When I was woven together in the depths of the earth,
  16 your eyes saw my unformed body.
  All the days ordained for me
     were written in your book
     before one of them came to be.

Any insight?

Edit: It is clear that we do not have physical being before birth but is there something in the Bible that might prove or disprove the existence of our souls before conception?

The Bible doesn't explicitly say whether or not we exist prior to conception.  The Psalm 139 passage you referenced indicates that God knew us before we were born and saw our unformed body.  However, this is not a definitive statement that we existed prior to birth.  Contextually, it seems much more probably to be referring to the omniscience of God (from whom I cannot hide, and who is with me wherever I go...)

It could be instructive to ask what would need to be in the Scriptures to give sufficient evidence for the belief in pre-conception existence.  If there were a verse that indicated God spoke to us or heard our prayers prior to conception or indicated we had made a decision prior to conception--those would be quite significant.  No such verses exists, though.

In Psalm 51, David asserts that "I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me"--but not before is mother conceived him.  This is quite a significant distinction.

Finally, if it were true that we existed prior to conception, we must wonder why nothing in the Bible explicitly or definitively states this.  On the contrary, we are given reasons to disbelieve this doctrine, but not conclusive reasons to believe it.  For a doctrine or idea that is characterized by such evidence it seems prudent to retain skepticism regarding it.

I don't want to seem as if I am addressing a different subject, but to clarify let me list a couple of verses.
Heb 12:9 suggests we should be in subjection to the Father of our spirits (That is why we pray to the Father)
Zech 1:12 says the Lord formeth the spirit of man within him.
James 2:26 says the body without the spirit is dead.
With that information let us look no further than Genesis to address the prior life of God's children.
In Gen 1:26-27 God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness...So God did...vs. 27 So God created man in His own image, in the image of God created He them; male and female created He them.

This account of the creation is the account of a spiritual creation!!  Otherwise why the explanation of creating male AND female.  See Gen 2:1 which says The Heavens and the earth were finished, and all the HOST of them.  Host refers to people (Isa.45:12).

Please read on because in Gen 2:6-7 There went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground. And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

Now we can make use of the definitions we started with that explain God is the Father of our spirits; There is a spirit within man's physical body; and the body without the spirit is dead.  Knowing this please follow Gen 2:7 where 1)God forms Adam's physical body from the dust of the ground 2)God breathed into Adam's nostrils the breath of life OR SPIRIT (explanation to follow) 3)Only after both spirit and body are together does God proclaim man as a living soul.
Explanation of 2) the breath of life or Hebrew Ruach can be and is translated in the Bible as breath, wind OR SPIRIT.  The best translation for this is spirit. In John 3:6-8 Jesus refers to being born of the spirit. I won't include it here as I am getting too long but please read it.

I see no other explanation of the recounting of two different versions of the creation in Genesis than they are two different creations.  Ephesians does say we were chosen before the foundation of the world or BEFORE THE WORLD WAS.  Peter says God forknew us NOT as an idea but he KNEW us.  The Bible is like a deep mine so if you do not find it's truths on the surface God wants us to keep digging or else it would suffice to just read it once and be done.


What reasons does the Bible give for why the tribe of Levi was chosen to have the priesthood and temple duties? What reasons does the Bible give for why the tribe of Levi was chosen to have the priesthood and temple duties?

In Genesis 49:5-7 when Jacob was telling his children what will happen to them, he told Simeon and Levi that they were violent and that they would be scattered among the descendants of Jacob and they would be dispersed among Israel. Could this have been something like a prophecy and could this be the reason?

Audrey's answer is correct, and here is the quote. The Levites remained loyal and restored order when the people were worshiping the Golden Calf. They killed 3,000 of their fellow Israelites, which set them apart.

19 When Moses approached the camp and saw the calf and the dancing,
his anger burned and he threw the tablets out of his hands, breaking
them to pieces at the foot of the mountain. 20 And he took the calf
the people had made and burned it in the fire; then he ground it to
powder, scattered it on the water and made the Israelites drink it.
21 He said to Aaron, “What did these people do to you, that you led
them into such great sin?”
22 “Do not be angry, my lord,” Aaron answered. “You know how prone
these people are to evil. 23 They said to me, ‘Make us gods who will
go before us. As for this fellow Moses who brought us up out of Egypt,
we don’t know what has happened to him.’ 24 So I told them, ‘Whoever
has any gold jewelry, take it off.’ Then they gave me the gold, and I
threw it into the fire, and out came this calf!”
25 Moses saw that the people were running wild and that Aaron had let
them get out of control and so become a laughingstock to their
enemies. 26 So he stood at the entrance to the camp and said, “Whoever
is for the Lord, come to me.” And all the Levites rallied to him.
27 Then he said to them, “This is what the Lord, the God of Israel,
says: ‘Each man strap a sword to his side. Go back and forth through
the camp from one end to the other, each killing his brother and
friend and neighbor.’” 28 The Levites did as Moses commanded, and that
day about three thousand of the people died. 29 Then Moses said, “You
have been set apart to the Lord today, for you were against your own
sons and brothers, and he has blessed you this day.” (Exodus 32:19-29)

You are also correct about Genesis 49:5-7 being relevant. This was the time when their violence served the Lord, and the curse upon them was turned into blessing. They received no inheritance of land, but instead inherited the priesthood.

From Wikipedia:

The books of Exodus, Leviticus and Numbers maintain that Aaron received from God a monopoly over the priesthood for himself and his male descendants (Exodus 28:1).
The family of Aaron had the exclusive right and responsibility to make offerings on the altar to the God of Israel. The rest of his tribe, the Levites, were given subordinate responsibilities within the sanctuary (Numbers 3). Moses anointed and consecrated Aaron and his sons to the priesthood, and arrayed them in the robes of office (Leviticus 8; cf. Exodus 28-29). He also related to them God's detailed instructions for performing their duties while the rest of the Israelites listened (Leviticus 1-7, 11-27).
Aaron and his successors as high priest were given control over the Urim and Thummim by which the will of God could be determined (Exodus 28:30). God commissioned the Aaronide priests to distinguish the holy from the common and the clean from the unclean, and to teach the divine laws (the Torah) to the Israelites (Leviticus 10:10-11).
The priests were also commissioned to bless the people (Numbers 6:22-27). When Aaron completed the altar offerings for the first time and, with Moses, "blessed the people: and the glory of the LORD appeared unto all the people: And there came a fire out from before the LORD, and consumed upon the altar the burnt offering and the fat [which] when all the people saw, they shouted, and fell on their faces" (Leviticus 9:23-24). In this way, the institution of the Aaronide priesthood was established.


Why did God make the "Forbidden Fruit" available in Eden? If the 'Forbidden Fruit' was 'forbidden', why did God keep it in Eden?

If God had the intention of keeping Adam in Eden, why did he keep that stupid fruit there?

Why was a test necessary that was bound to be failed by Adam?

Who is the best one, other than God, to know that Adam is going to fail the test?

If God wanted Adam to be fallen, why didn't He drop Adam on the face of the earth in the first place? Why did He apply the trick? Why was that trick necessary?

A Heart Conducive to Understanding

Before addressing the question, it seems appropriate to address the proper spirit in which such answers should be sought.  There is a very important principle in Scripture which we need to remember;

  You will say to me then, “Why does [God] still find fault? For who resists His will?” On the contrary, who are you, O man, who answers back to God?  -Romans 9:19-20

It is inappropriate to critique God, or to accuse Him of injustice or trickery.  Furthermore, it will not lead to understanding, as the following  verse explains:

  A scoffer seeks wisdom and finds none, But knowledge is easy to one who has understanding.  -Proverbs 14:6

To learn the answers to such difficult questions, we need to seek the Lord.

  Evil men do not understand justice, But those who seek the LORD understand all things.  -Proverbs 28:5

What We Know About God

When we seek answers about the tough subjects of Scripture, it is important to start with what we know.

The first thing to recognize up front is that God is good.  Everything good was created by God, and everything created by God is good.  To say it another way, God did not (and cannot) "create evil."  (I'll answer the obvious questions in a moment.)

Secondly, it is clear from Scripture that God would do anything for His people.  He made salvation available to everyone, and He desires that everyone would be saved.  So it would be severely inappropriate to think that God would put a stumbling block before Adam, tempting him to fail - all for the purpose of personal benefit.  That doctrine is severely inconsistent with Scripture.

Defining Evil

At this point, many wonder, "If God didn't create evil, then why does evil exist?"  I think we need to be careful with semantics here.  Evil is not a substance to be created or destroyed - it is a way which is contrary to God's ways.  For instance, if I become conceited, that would be evil (sin) because that is contrary to God's good ways (love, humility, etc.)  But it wouldn't really make sense to ask "Why did God decide to create my conceitedness?" because it obviously isn't a substance to be created, and if it were, He obviously wouldn't have created it.  Evil only sounds like a substance due to clever wordplay.

What God did is speak a perfect, good creation into existence, complete with beings who have the capacity to love and receive love.  Obviously love involves choice, so men were created with a capacity to willingly love Him.

Why The Tree?

God created man with the capacity to choose to love God and walk in His good ways.  That would be absolutely pointless if man was never presented with an opportunity to make a choice of any kind!

Enter "the tree."  When we're talking about the forbidden fruit, we really need to take a moment and reflect on the situation prior to Genesis 3.  God has just created an entire "very good" universe and essentially handed it all over to man.  He made celestial objects for signs and seasons, filled an entire planet with creatures and plants, and prepared a paradise garden to walk with them in.  There was one thing they weren't allowed to do.  One rule.  One little ol' tree in the middle of the whole big creation which they were told not to eat from.  We're not talking about the Levitical Law here... this was a pretty reasonable boundary!  Let us keep this in mind as we continue.

As I mentioned, the tree provided them with an opportunity to choose.  With this one tree being off-limits, they now had an awareness of "right and wrong."  Make no mistake - they knew it was wrong to eat the fruit - God made that very clear.  That is not to say that they "knew" (had a personal experiential understanding of) evil; just that they "knew" (had the knowledge of) right and wrong.

Q & A

"If the fruit was 'forbidden', why did God put it in front of man?"  Answer: "Forbidden" means it was a boundary which God set.  He could have chosen any boundary He wanted - He could have said "don't stand over there."  He chose the fruit, hence "forbidden" fruit.  (Why did He choose the fruit?  That's another question!)

"If God wanted Adam in Eden, why did he keep the fruit there?"  Answer: The tree represented the choice which made willing love possible.  The proximity allowed them a continual choice, which made continual love possible.  It's not that God planted "temptation" and "wickedness" before man's eyes, but rather, that He planted "a choice" in their midst.

"Why was it necessary to present Adam with a test which he was bound to fail?"  Answer: This question is based on a misunderstanding.  Adam had a choice, and chose to sin.  The idea that he was "bound to fail the test" is false.  (Consider the angels - some fell, some did not.)

"Who knew better than God that Adam would fail the test?"  Answer: This line of reasoning assumes that foreknowledge necessitates fatalism, and eliminates accountability.  Both assumptions are false.  Yes, God knew what Adam would choose - but it was Adam who chose.

"If God wanted Adam to fall, why was it necessary to trick him first?"  Answer: The premise of this question is a false assumption.  God didn't want Adam to fall.  Also, God didn't trick him.

Hope that helps!

There is a Rabbinic tradition (but one that I cannot find right now) that essentially states that God's desire was either:

That they would eat of the Tree of Life first

or

That God's desire all along was that they eat of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil.

In the first case, had they eaten of the Tree of Life, the tradition goes that they would have "passed the test."

In the second case (and the one my OT prof. preferred), it should be pointed out that Adam and Eve gained exactly what God said they would gain - knowledge of what was good and what was evil.  In doing so, they also gained mortality - that they would die.  In gaining mortality, however, they also had to "grow up", in a sense. They were no longer naive dependent creatures, but rather self-aware, self-responsible beings whom God could treat more as equals than mere choiceless animals.  In a sense, it is the difference between a toddler and a teenager.  Teenagers break rules out of a unique will that a parent desires to nuture.  Toddlers simply don't know any better.


Why is the book of Hebrews named that? The book of Hebrews in the New Testament shares a name with the Hebrew people of the Mosaic Law. Why was that book named Hebrews?

It's called that because it was written as a letter to Hebrews.  Most of the Epistles are titled after the group they were written to.  (Corinthians was written to the Church at Corinth, etc.)

From http://christianity.about.com/od/newtestamentbooks/a/Book-Of-Hebrews.htm

  Date Written:

  Hebrews was written before the fall of Jerusalem and the destruction
  of the Temple in 70 A.D. Written To:

  Hebrew Christians who were wavering in their faith and all future
  readers of the Bible.

There's more similar information all over, including Wikipedia.

(I made a substantial change to this answer since first posting it. I apologize for my initial confusion.]

It is called the Book of Hebrews because the one who titled it recognized something I believe the Holy Spirit is trying to reveal to all the followers of Messiah Jesus today. Namely, that all of us - Jew and "gentile" alike - must be Hebrews! That is, in our human lineage we must all be physical seed of Abraham! Otherwise the letter would not apply to us and would be speaking only to the Jewish followers of Jesus. Gentile believers would be excluded. And that is an impossibility since every book in the NT is speaking to the entire body of Messiah. There are no promises just for the Jews. Or just for the so-called gentile believers. "For all the promises have their amen in Jesus" (2 Cor. 1:20).

This revelation of our true lineage, although affirmed throughout the letter, is seen most clearly in Hebrews 2:11-16. We are informed that "both he who sanctifies (Jesus) and those who are sanctified (all who are his, both Jew and non-Jew) are "all from one Father" (italicized because not in text); for which reason he is not ashamed to call them brethren." The "one" who is the father of all believers is revealed in the OT quotes that follow to be our Heavenly Father - God Himself. As "children of God" we are all spiritual brethren. But the text goes even further and gives another reason for Jesus to call us brethren. For we are told he "partook of the same flesh and blood." That "he had to be made like his brethren in all things."  In other words we all have the same earthly father as well. And he is identified in verse 16 as Abraham. "He [Jesus] only gives help to the seed of Abraham." This eliminates Adam as the father who gives us our commonality of the flesh that makes us all brothers.

If this seems a bit shocking it's only because we forget that the hope of Abraham was to become "the [physical] father of many gentiles/nations" (Rom. 4:18). That's why God changed his name from Abram (meaning "exalted father) to Abraham (meaning "father of many gentiles/nations"). We know his seed was scattered all over the world when ten of the twelve tribes were exiled by Assyria in 722 BC after God turned them into "gentiles" for their idolatry (see Hos.1. 2 Kings 17:18). So the ones whom the Father leads to Jesus for salvation (John 6:37,44), who are not Jewish, must be that scattered seed. Once this understanding is gained it is readily seen throughout Scripture, unifying the whole Bible into one story about the promises made to one man - Abraham. Galatians 3:29 says it most succinctly: "If you belong to Messiah, you ARE Abraham's seed, heirs according to promise."


Did Jesus wear tefillin? Tefillin1 are boxes containing Torah verses, worn by Jews on the head and the upper arm, in accordance with instructions in Exodus 13:9, 13:16, and Deuteronomy 6:8, 11:18. There is a great deal of commentary in the Talmud and elsewhere about exactly how this should be done.

Jesus says that the Pharisees were ostentatious in their wearing of tefillin - Matthew 23:5  (NIV) reads:

  Everything they do is done for people to see: they make their phylacteries1 wide and the tassels on their garments long.

It seems from Mt 9:20, 14:36, Mk 6:56 that Jesus may have worn the same kind of fringes or tassels (tzitziyot), similarly commanded in the Law, albeit presumably his were not as long as those of the Pharisees.

Would Jesus also have worn tefillin, and why/why not?
If he did (and his disciples too?) then when did Christians stop? If he didn't, then was this unusual or scandalous?

1 Tefillin (תפילין), or totafot (טוטפת), or phylacteries (φυλακτήρια)

In the first council of Jerusalem (In the Acts of the Apostles), we see an outline of the practices which the Jews did that they thought were reasonable to ask of the Gentiles. The wearing of Tefillin is not among them.

In all likelihood after the destruction of Jerusalem and certainly after the Muslim incursions into the middle east, the number of culturally Jewish Christians was probably close to zero, and thus the practice of wearing Tefillin too would have disappeared.

Jesus may have worn Tefillin, we don't have a solid answer for that question. It is reasonable to assume that he didn't given his criticism of the practice. There are no records of him having worn them. It also would have been redundant.

Apparently, the straps of the Tefillin can be identified as wrapped around the Jesus's arm in the Shroud of Turin. A small box above his head has been identified as well. If this is true, this means his body was placed in the tomb with Tefillin. Now if he was buried with Tefillin, this leaves us little room to doubt he would have worn them while living. A lot of the evidence suggests that Jesus lived as an essene, just like John the Baptist. Recently, there was a find in Qumran that revealed the essene's wore Tefillin. All of this seems to converge on the conclusion that Jesus did indeed wear Tefillin. Probably not because he thought it was literally required (the Karites argue the command for the Shema on the head and heart is symbolic) but because the Tefillin is an external sign/sentiment of having a commitment to God's Torah...And what's wrong with that?


Why did God kill a man for picking up sticks on the Sabbath? Now while the sons of Israel were in the wilderness, they found a man gathering wood on the Sabbath day. Those who found him gathering wood brought him to Moses and Aaron and to all the congregation; and they put him in custody because it had not been declared what should be done to him. Then the Lord said to Moses, “The man shall surely be put to death; all the congregation shall stone him with stones outside the camp.” So all the congregation brought him outside the camp and stoned him to death with stones, just as the Lord had commanded Moses.  - Numbers 15: 32-36 (NASB)

Why did God order the execution (and a brutal execution, at that) of a person for picking up sticks on the Sabbath?  Surely what this man did was nothing worse than what Jesus' disciples did when they picked heads of grain on the Sabbath:

And it happened that He was passing through the grainfields on the Sabbath, and His disciples began to make their way along while picking the heads of grain. The Pharisees were saying to Him, “Look, why are they doing what is not lawful on the Sabbath?”
...
Jesus said to them, “The Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath. - Mark 2:23-27

Such a harsh punishment doesn't seem necessary if the Sabbath truly was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath.
Also, how does this align with the justice of God?  God forbids the punishment of those who beat their slaves:

If a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod and he dies at his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, he survives a day or two, no vengeance shall be taken; for he is his property. - Exodus 21:20-21

... yet He requires those who pick up sticks on a certain day of the week to be executed in the most unimaginably painful and cruel way.  In our 21st century minds, it seems that justice would demand that the punishments for these two crimes be switched.  What was God's reason for having such an inverted justice system?

Sometimes, God's Punishment for Disobedience is Death.

This is a simple fact. The severity of the punishment often corresponds to the severity of the offense, so why was this offense so severe? The text doesn't say this explicitly, but if we assume that God could have sufficient justification for execution, then it's likely that he was knowingly and defiantly disobeying a command he knew.

God places a high value on community and example. He seems to want to protect the community by insisting that everyone be a good example and that individuals who would do things that would lead their neighbors astray should be removed from the community (typically, executed).
Is disobedience a severe enough offense to warrant execution? To God, the answer is sometimes yes. The majority of these instances are examples to the community so that the people would take God seriously when he gives them commands.

God insisted that Israel be different from the nations around them and wanted them to do things the way he had prescribed. We are not told precisely why these details about his prescribed methods are important, only that obeying them is. Two of Aaron's sons are put to death for "offering strange fire" (Le 10:1). The priest Uzzah was killed (by God) for touching the Ark of the Covenant (2 Sa 6), even though he had good intentions of saving the ark from accident, he knew full well that touching the ark was something he was not permitted to do. Ananaias and Saphira were killed (by God) for lying. Is lying that bad or was it important to demonstrate to the early church that God is both powerful and serious?

Though God is willing to forgive people, and punitive death is not synonymous with eternal damnation, he insists that we understand that he is not to be trifled with. His patience with us might be great, but in the end, his wrath is just as great.

Example

You compare the situations in Numbers 15 and Mark 2.

One obvious difference I see between these two is that of the motivation of the people who are doing the work. The disciples are doing this because they have been about God's work and are hungry. The man in Numbers 15 is not described as such. Though the text doesn't say one way or the other, it might be reasonable to assume that because the punishment is severe, so was the offense. He surely knew that he was supposed to do all that work the day before. It would be reasonable to conclude that he must have had selfish motivations for doing what he was doing. Work was certainly permitted on the Sabbath if the motivation were correct. (Mt 12:11)

`I don't think the Sticmann's comment seems like a fabricated story. He knows his information about the Bible, so long as we can trust his is telling us facts about these sacrifices (which we could look up ourselves), and this gives the story of the man gathering sticks greater depth.

I too, Kaques, shared the same questions you posted. If it weren't for Yahshua (Jesus) stating that the Sabbath is made for man, I wouldn't question why, then, the penalty for breaking the Sabbath is death?

I have come to no real conclusion, but I have circled around some concepts that I think have a lot to do with this:

(1) Sabbath keeping - How many Christians today keep the Sabbath from sundown Friday to sundown Saturday as they should? Even my own husband doesn't! Christians are grafted into the vine of Israel (we are spiritual Israel), and so we partake of the same covenant as they (one God, one law). The Israelites were not told that breaking the Sabbath would lead to death until AFTER they had broken the Sabbath. They were not supposed to try to collect manna on the Sabbath day, but they did. Did God have them stoned? No, they were told to stay in their homes the next time. After that, they were told that breaking the Sabbath would result in a stoning, and sure enough, someone was caught breaking the Sabbath. This serves as an example that God is as serious about the Sabbath as He is about the other commandments. You can be stoned for committing adultery and you can be stoned for breaking the Sabbath.

(2) The man gathering sticks on the Sabbath stands out to me like the woman caught in the act of adultery brought before Yahshua. You see, Moses and Aaron weren't the ones who went out and found the man who was guilty of sin, and neither did Yahshua go out to find the woman committing adultery. John 3:17 says that Yahshua did not come to condemn the world but to save it. Who then, are the accusers of this world? Each other and Satan. Yahshua tells us that if we forgive each other, we will be forgiven. The man gathering sticks was in the wrong time and place - he was not brought before Yahshua, he was presented to the judges in Israel's early life as God's chosen people who were about to receive all of God's laws and commands and needed to prove themselves to Him.

(3) Spiritual vs. physical death and punishment - Sin separates us from God spiritually. God uses physical punishments and penalties for sin because they symbolize the spiritual death that we partake in when we sin. People live by sin and they die by sin. We sometimes think it's "so unfair" for someone to suffer a physical death without realizing how trivial the physical life and death are. The real life is the spiritual life. If physical death is a tragedy, then spiritual death is more so, and yet no one who actively engages in sin realizes that they are choosing true death over true life.

(4) Justice - Even though it seems like God in the OT is angry and mean, He is being just. The wages of sin are death. He is always good and always just, even in the OT. How would He demonstrate the penalty of sin if no one ever died for it? When God could have shown that man mercy, He did not, and now WE understand that the penalty for breaking the Sabbath is death and so did all the Israelites who had been told by Moses what the penalty was. It is wonderful for us that we are redeemed by Yahshua's sacrifice of life, but some have not been so lucky, and in fact, it was still merciful to those who realized through another person's punishment that the wages of sin is death and that YHWH takes the Sabbath seriously.

Anyone else have any other thoughts on this subject? I am sort of where the poster is in just wondering, when and where did Sabbath keeping become something "for man"? Is this a bad Biblical translation, or is Yahshua saying that after the first 6 days of creation, God designated the Sabbath to be a day of rest for man as a sign between them and to serve them? (Again, sin is what separates us from God, nothing more, nothing less, so choosing not to keep the Sabbath after being told that you should as a sign between you and God is something that separates you from Him and is rightfully considered sin even if it was created "for man.")


Is it possible to achieve a life without sin on earth? Based on the biblical doctrines, is it possible to achieve a completely holy life without any sin during our lifetime after salvation?

Only Jesus was perfect. The notion that one has become sinless can only be thought from a heart blinded by wicked pride.

  The heart is deceitful above all things and beyond cure. Who can understand it? (NIV Jeremiah 17:9)

The bible makes the model prayer to be a daily confession of our daily sins. The moment any man thinks they have gone a day without sinning is the moment this prayer becomes insincere hypocrisy of the self-righteous.

  Give us today our daily bread. And forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors. And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from the evil one. ’ (NIV Matthew 6:11-13)

Even the most holy men that have ever lived never thought for a moment were were free from sin but bitterly complained about the sinfulness.

  So I find this law at work: Although I want to do good, evil is right there with me. For in my inner being I delight in God’s law; but I see another law at work in me, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin at work within me. (NIV Romans 7:21-23)

Of course John Calvin, Luther and all the reformers understood these verses by Paul was a description of his 'Christian' experience.

Sufficient to say there is no biblical warrant to suppose we can for a moment be without sin. If I ever met a person who loved God with all their heart, which is the greatest command, I would ask them to sign my bible and I would sell everything I have and follow that person.

Of course we know that would not happen as only Jesus was perfect.

To achieve a holy life in this life? David said "Thy word have I hide in my heart that I might not sin against thee". Today we have that word , the very word that is God (Jesus)John 1:1, in our hearts!

Paul said in Romans chapter 7 that he was in a wretched war with the flesh, but chapter 8 tells us his great victory through faith in Jesus Christ in the spirit! Verse 9, "But you are not in the flesh but in the spirit, if indeed the spirit of God dwells in you." Thats a big if, but not impossible! Paul in Titus 2:11-13 gives us instructions. "...teaching us that, denying ungodliness and worldly lust, we should live soberly, righteously, and Godly in this present world." Well how do we do that? Verse 13 By "Looking for that blessed hope and glorious appearing of our great God and savior Jesus Christ."

If we are conscience of Him and in expectation of Him, we will live accordingly.There is great reward for those that keep oil in their lamps (the spirit and the word). These will go to the marriage supper of the lamb, Matthew 25:1-13, especially verse 13,"Watch therefore..."

Again, if holy living is impossible, then why did Peter say in 1 Peter 1:15,16 "But as he which has called you is holy, so be you holy in all manner of conversation; Because it is written, Be you holy; for I am holy."


Biblical era gesture signifying peace between two parties? I am working on a painting set in the Biblical era which shows a military group confronting another group.

I am trying to find a gesture which the leader of one army would make to indicate that they are at peace with, or have peaceful intentions toward the other party.

Does anyone know of anything like that?

Specifically I am thinking of a gesture which would be understood this way in the first century, but a gesture from previous biblical eras would probably also work.

Typically in the Old Testament, they would send emissaries to negotiate covenants with their enemies.

  Luke 14:31-32 "Or what king, when he sets out to meet another king in battle, will not first sit down and consider whether he is strong enough with ten thousand men to encounter the one coming against him with twenty thousand? "Or else, while the other is still far away, he sends a delegation and asks for terms of peace.

Other references:  Josh 9:6, 2 Samuel 3:12-13, 1 Kings 15:19, 2 Kings 18:23, Genesis 23:8-9, and others.


Why was taking census a bad thing? In Chronicles, David took a census on the people of Israel. However, God became angry at this, and he proceeded to destroy about 70,000 people in result.

  1 Chronicles 21:1-16: 1Satan rose up against Israel and caused David to take a census of the people of Israel. 2So David said to Joab and the commanders of the army, “Take a census of all the people of Israel—from Beersheba in the south to Dan in the north—and bring me a report so I may know how many there are.”
   3But Joab replied, “May the Lord increase the number of his people a hundred times over! But why, my lord the king, do you want to do this? Are they not all your servants? Why must you cause Israel to sin?”

  4But the king insisted that they take the census, so Joab traveled throughout all Israel to count the people. Then he returned to Jerusalem 5and reported the number of people to David. There were 1,100,000 warriors in all Israel who could handle a sword, and 470,000 in Judah. 6But Joab did not include the tribes of Levi and Benjamin in the census because he was so distressed at what the king had made him do.

  Judgment for David’s Sin
  7 God was very displeased with the census, and he punished Israel for it. 8Then David said to God, “I have sinned greatly by taking this census. Please forgive my guilt for doing this foolish thing.”
   9Then the Lord spoke to Gad, David’s seer. This was the message: 10“Go and say to David, ‘This is what the Lord says: I will give you three choices. Choose one of these punishments, and I will inflict it on you.’”

  11So Gad came to David and said, “These are the choices the Lord has given you. 12You may choose three years of famine, three months of destruction by the sword of your enemies, or three days of severe plague as the angel of the Lord brings devastation throughout the land of Israel. Decide what answer I should give the Lord who sent me.”

  13“I’m in a desperate situation!” David replied to Gad. “But let me fall into the hands of the Lord, for his mercy is very great. Do not let me fall into human hands.”

  14So the Lord sent a plague upon Israel, and 70,000 people died as a result. 15And God sent an angel to destroy Jerusalem. But just as the angel was preparing to destroy it, the Lord relented and said to the death angel, “Stop! That is enough!” At that moment the angel of the Lord was standing by the threshing floor of Araunah the Jebusite.

  16David looked up and saw the angel of the Lord standing between heaven and earth with his sword drawn, reaching out over Jerusalem. So David and the leaders of Israel put on burlap to show their deep distress and fell face down on the ground.

But this passage does not state the reason for God doing this. What was so wrong about taking census of people of Israel?

You're right in that the Bible does not state why it was a sin, so we won't be able to cite verses to support any answer to this.

However, the one thing  that is clear is that Satan provoked David to take the census. The Bible doesn't explain why this is, and the there are several theories, but no Biblical statement on the matter. Clearly, however, it was Satan that provoked David to take the census, and following Satan's leading is almost certainly a sin.

The explanations that I've heard on why it was bad had to do with the motivation of David's heart in the matter.

One theory is that he was taking the census to determine the might of his army, because he was counting on this, rather than God to provide military victory and strength.  (I'm not sure I buy that one.)
Another says that it may have been pride.  David wanted to know how mighty a kingdom he had.  (Knowing how God hates pride, this is at least feasible to me.)

Unfortunately, the Scriptures don't give an answer, so in all honesty, I don't think this question is answerable in the usual sense.

the census is an attack on the promise to Abraham to multiply his seed as the sand of the seashore and stars of heaven. It is a violation of the promise of God and a demonic counteraction to the blessings promised. I have seen that whenever this is done there is a migration of people out of the place that it is conducted or serious deaths that take place. Census is demonic and is not a kingdom thing. No where in the bible is there ever an accurate number concerning people it is always given as approximates like 5000 men besides women and children or in the case of angels one third of the stars of heaven or in the case of those saved a number that no man can number. census is simply wrong.


Acts 11:26 regarding the word Christian? Referring to Acts 11:26: Did the people (unbelievers) of Antioch call the "Believers" Christian, or did the Believers start calling themselves Christian first in Antioch?

Here is what I mean: Acts 11:26 The disciples were first called Christians at Antioch.
Acts 26:28 Then Agrippa said to Paul, “You almost persuade me to become a Christian.”
I have this feeling in the tone of these two verses that the word "Christian" was more of a mockery since it came from unbelievers, like we have "goody-two-shoes", especially the way Agrippa said it to Paul, I could almost hear the rest of Agrippa's audience laughing at this!?
And 1 Peter 4:16 "Yet if anyone suffers as a Christian, let him not be ashamed, but let him glorify God in this matter." sort of supports my argument!?

It seems that this mock-name Christian was getting around, and the disciples were resenting it, so 1 Peter 4:16 tells them not to be ashamed (for they mocked our Lord also) but that they should glorify God in this matter!?
Your thoughts fellow Believers?

Strictly speaking, the reference in Acts is to "disciples" (μαθητὰς) and not "believers" (πιστεύοντες), though the latter word seems to be used elsewhere synonymously in Acts (e.g. 5:14).

The Greek literally says (in different word order) "the disciples were called first Christians" (χρηματισαι τε πρωτον ... τους μαθητας χριστιανους).  Perhaps it may be true that the Christians called themselves Christians, but the Greek text does not supply the reflexive (i.e. "the disciples called themselves Christians").

It seems that even after the disciples/believers were called "Christians", it was still more common to refer to them as those who were of "the Way" (e.g. 19:9, 19:23, 24:14, 24:22).  This is also found in The Didache (English translation here), where the essentials of a Christian life are described as "The Way of life".  The word "Christian" (Χριστιανός) only appears three times in the entire New Testament (including the passage cited; the other two are Acts 26:28 and 1 Peter 4:16).  It is even rare in the writings of the Apostolic Fathers, where it only appears 5 times (once in Ignatius' Epistle to the Magnesians, once in the Epistle concerning the martyrdom of Polycarp, and 3 times in the Epistle to Diognetus).

This is a interesting question and one that I believe can be answered by looking at a prophecy in the Old Testament. In Isaiah 62 the prophet has been speaking of the glorious blessings to be received when the Messiah comes. Verses 1-2 tell us that righteousness will go forth and shine the light of truth not only to the Jews but also to the Gentiles. After the Gentiles receive the light of the truth the Lord will call His people by a new name, a name that He will give. Acts 10-11 we see the Gentiles receiving the gospel and right after that they are called Christians. Isaiah 56:1-5 is another passage that can be used to answer the question as well. Since unbelievers would not have a way of knowing God's will by His Spirit the believers named themselves Christians.