In the Catholic understanding of the Eucharist, is the body and blood of Christ his living body or his deceased body? The Eucharistic miracles -which tend to be gory- suggest that the Eucharist is a corpse. Also the two-fold form: body and blood, suggest this. However, Eucharistic adoration and many other forms of devotions to the Eucharist suggest the real presence is that of Jesus in his resurrected body. How do you conform these two.

The answer to the O.P.'s question is rather straightforward: the body that is adored in the Eucharist is Jesus’ resurrected body.

As the Church solemnly defined in the Council of Trent (which simply formalized what the Church has believed from the beginning),

  Because Christ our Redeemer said that it was truly his body that he was offering under the species of bread, it has always been the conviction of the Church of God, and this holy Council now declares again, that by the consecration of the bread and wine there takes place a change of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of his blood. This change the holy Catholic Church has fittingly and properly called transubstantiation (Council of Trent, Council of Trent, Session 13, Ch. 4, Denzinger-Schönmetzer [DS] 1642, quoted in the Catechism of the Catholic Church [CCC] no. 1376.).

However, we are not to understand that the Eucharist under the species of bread is exclusively Christ’s body, nor that the species of wine is exclusively Christ’s blood. Rather,

  Christ is present whole and entire in each of the species and whole and entire in each of their parts, in such a way that the breaking of the bread does not divide Christ (CCC 1377; see also the Council of Trent, DS 1641).

In other words, the whole substance of Jesus is present—his human nature (including his body) as well as his Divine Nature. Christ, of course, only has one body, which is now a resurrected body. Therefore, it is Christ’s resurrected body—not a corpse—that Catholics (as well as Orthodox and other Christians from an apostolic Church) adore in the Eucharist.

Regarding Eucharistic miracles, I will also observe that, much as such miracles are helpful for the Faith, the ones that are actually converted into human flesh actually no longer have the Real Presence. As the Catechism says,

  The Eucharistic presence of Christ begins at the moment of the consecration and endures as long as the Eucharistic species subsist (no. 1377).

Since the appearance (species) of bread or wine is now gone, so too is the Eucharistic presence.

(This idea is masterfully expressed in the Eucharistic hymn Lauda Sion Salvatorem, attributed to St. Thomas Aquinas:

  Sub diversis speciebus,
  Signis tantum, et non rebus,
  Latent res eximiæ.

  Caro cibus, sanguis potus:
  Manet tamen Christus totus,
  Sub utraque specie.

  A sumente non concisus,
  Non confractus, non divisus:
  Integer accipitur.

  Sumit unus, sumunt mille:
  Quantum isti, tantum ille:
  Nec sumptus consumitur.

  Under diverse appearances,
  which are merely signs, not the reality,
  lies that most remarkable reality.

  The Flesh is food, the Blood is drink.
  Nevertheless, Christ in his entirety is present,
  under both appearances.

  By the receiver, he is not torn asunder,
  nor is he broken, nor is he divided.
  He is received whole.

  Let one person receive him; let a thousand receive him:
  the one receives him just as much as the thousand do.
  He is not depleted by being received.

I opted for a literation translation, which falls a bit flat poetically, but captures the meaning of the original.)

When the Catholic Priest performs the Consecration, those elements, which were formally bread and wine, become the body and blood of Christ In the state that he currently resides.

Taken from The Sacraments:  A Dogmatic Treaty Volume II

  Note, however, that the concrete manner in which our Lord becomes present in the Eucharist depends entirely on the condition of His Body at the moment of consecration. The sacred Body may be in one of three states: the state of mortality, that of death, and the transfigured state in which it arose from the grave. When Christ consecrated at the Last Supper, He became truly and entirely present in the sacred species, but His Body was there only as a body capable of dying, and His Blood as blood capable of being shed. In case the Apostles had celebrated the Eucharist during the triduum mortis, during which time Christ’s Body rested in the tomb, there would have been present in the Sacred Host only the bloodless, inanimate Body of Christ, and in the Chalice only the Blood separated from His Body and absorbed by the earth as it was shed,—both the Body and the Blood, however, remaining hypostatically united to His Divinity, while His Soul, which sojourned in Limbo, would have remained entirely excluded from the Eucharistic presence. Since the Resurrection Christ is present in the Eucharist in the same manner in which He sitteth at the right hand of the Father in Heaven, i. e., as one glorified, who “dieth no more.”
  In the light of these considerations the totality of the Real Presence may be explained as follows. The Divinity as such, being substantially omnipresent, cannot be made present by virtue of the words of consecration. Hence these words must effect a real presence of Christ’s Humanity, that is to say, primarily of His Body (Flesh and Blood), for it would be absurd to convert the species into His bodyless Soul for the purpose of bodily consumption. Only the Flesh and Blood of Christ can be consumed under the appearances of bread and wine. But by reason of a natural concomitance there becomes simultaneously present with the Body all that which is physically inseparable from it, i. e., the Soul, the Humanity, and, by virtue of the Hypostatic Union, also the Divinity, in a word—Christ whole and entire.

From the standpoint then of everyone who receives Christ in sacramental form, they receive his Glorified and raised body blood soul and divinity.


How many resurrections (raptures) will there be? Revelations 20:4-6 NIV
  4 I saw thrones on which were seated those who had been given authority to judge. And I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded because of their testimony about Jesus and because of the word of God. They had not worshiped the beast or its image and had not received its mark on their foreheads or their hands. They came to life and reigned with Christ a thousand years. 5 (The rest of the dead did not come to life until the thousand years were ended.) This is the first resurrection. 6 Blessed and holy are those who share in the first resurrection. The second death has no power over them, but they will be priests of God and of Christ and will reign with him for a thousand years.

It sounds like this is referring to the rapture.  However, it sounds like there will be more than one of these resurrections.

How many will there be?

Looking at the passage you quoted, it seems pretty clear that there are two resurrections.  The first resurrection is the resurrection of the righteous, while "the rest of the dead (the wicked) did not come to life until the thousand years were ended."

It doesn't look to me like it's saying anything about the Rapture; merely that those who were righteous in life will be resurrected quickly and be able to "be priests of God and of Christ and... reign with him for a thousand years," while the wicked remain dead until the second resurrection, at the end of the Millennium.

The Bible only states two Resurrections, one for the Righteous in Christ[Rev. 20:6], and one for "Death and Hell" [Rev. 20:11-15].  There are no explicit scriptures to support multiple Raptures or more than two Resurrections.

My theory for the reason some make up multiple raptures is because of Rev 20:4-6 including Tribulation Martyrs in with the First Resurrection.

Reason being is that you can't have a Pre-Tribulation Rapture if the Martyrs that refused to worship the Beast and his Image, and refused the Mark of the Beast, and stood up for the Word of God, are Raptured along with everyone else.


What is an overview of interpretations of the concept of "Sabbath-rest" presented in Hebrews 4? Hebrews 4:1-11 (NIV) says:

4 Therefore, since the promise of entering his rest still stands, let
us be careful that none of you be found to have fallen short of it. 2
For we also have had the good news proclaimed to us, just as they did;
but the message they heard was of no value to them, because they did
not share the faith of those who obeyed.[a] 3 Now we who have believed
enter that rest, just as God has said,
“So I declared on oath in my anger,
‘They shall never enter my rest.’”[b]
And yet his works have been finished since the creation of the world.
4 For somewhere he has spoken about the seventh day in these words:
“On the seventh day God rested from all his works.”[c] 5 And again in
the passage above he says, “They shall never enter my rest.”
6 Therefore since it still remains for some to enter that rest, and
since those who formerly had the good news proclaimed to them did not
go in because of their disobedience, 7 God again set a certain day,
calling it “Today.” This he did when a long time later he spoke
through David, as in the passage already quoted:
“Today, if you hear his voice,
do not harden your hearts.”[d]
8 For if Joshua had given them rest, God would not have spoken later
about another day. 9 There remains, then, a Sabbath-rest for the
people of God; 10 for anyone who enters God’s rest also rests from
their works, just as God did from his. 11 Let us, therefore, make
every effort to enter that rest, so that no one will perish by
following their example of disobedience.

What is this "Sabbath-rest for the people of God" that everyone should make every effort to enter, as Hebrews 4 indicates? What does this rest consist of, in simple and concrete terms? How does one enter this rest? How does one exit it? Are we to experience this rest during this life or in the afterlife? Is it temporary (e.g. every seventh day) or permanent (i.e. every day)? Are there rules/conditions governing it (in terms of things one is expected to do/not to do during the rest)?
In light of the previous questions: What is an OVERVIEW of the main interpretations the concept of "Sabbath-rest" is given in Christianity?

(**) Note: the multiple questions above are just suggested guidelines to explain the concept of "Sabbath-rest" which different denominations may interpret differently. Think of them as points to keep in mind while writing your overview, i.e., you don't have to answer each one explicitly, feel free to structure your answer as you see fit.

I have really only seen two major divisions in interpreting the "rest" considered in Hebrews 4.  The first is a fragmented or parceled-out rest that can be accepted or received in stages and the second is a completed package.  In the first view, whatever is most difficult to apprehend may be left off for now while that which is "at minimum" may be availed.  In the second view, while the fullness of "rest" may escape us experientially in the present, once entered the whole package has been accessed.  I am unaware of exactly where each Christian denomination falls within these two divisions except to say that Adventists are in the first and most mainline Christian denominations are in the second.  Within the second there are those who hold that the "rest" is ultimately a future heaven and those who hold that the "rest" is both now and future.  The differences between these are tied up in differences in soteriology and not in the nature of the "rest" itself.  Both positions converge in the idea that, from God's perspective, the "rest" is and always has been completed.
Position 1
The magazine "Adventist Today", in an article analyzing Hebrews 4, has little to say regarding once per week Sabbath keeping.  Where Hebrews 4:3 says, "For we who have believed enter that rest" there is reference to the old testament sacrifices and indeed the keeping of the whole covenant of the Law but it is given in the negative:

For one thing, verse three starts by saying, “we who have believed enter that rest.” And as the English translation indicates, the form of the Greek verb “enter” does not imply a future tense in which believers “will enter that rest” but suggests either that they enter rest now or are in the process of entering. Plus, the phrase “have believed” clearly suggests an accomplished action.  In other words, the original readers were in some sense already experiencing rest in the present, at least in part. Verse ten confirms this idea by saying that those who partake of God’s rest have also rested from their own works, a phrase that almost certainly refers to their acceptance of the atonement that Christ had already achieved (1:3; 9:24-26). In that case, the “works” they had laid down would surely include the old testament sacrifices, and possibly the expectation to live out the covenant of law as a whole.

No indication is given here that the Sabbath commandment is either included in or excluded from "the expectation to live out the covenant of law as a whole".  As the article progresses, however, it becomes apparent that the Sabbath rest is seen as something that predates Sinai.  The rest that yet remains for God's people is that Edenic rest which was part of God's original creation and which was forfeited by Adam and Eve.  This rest has always been available for anyone who would "come and claim it":

Finally, the Greek word translated “remain” throughout the chapter, like the related word remnant, conveys the idea of something left over. This facet of the term’s meaning would help explain the unexpected reference to God’s finished work in creation, because it implies that the rest into which the Israelites should have entered is the same rest that Adam and Eve had forfeited in the garden. It points to the original creation rest that God established in the beginning but which had gone unused. That means the promised land was a new installment of Eden. It also means the rest that has been available since the time of Christ is a slice of creation rest too, a reinstatement of the untainted wholeness “left over” from the beginning.
Putting all these hints and allusions together, the author of Hebrews seems to be saying that from the seventh day of creation on, God’s work has been finished. And from the time of Abraham on, the homeland that God had prepared for His people had been finished too. Each of these provisions constituted a kind of rest that was in place the whole time, like a gift prepared for a friend who never arrived to pick it up. The completed rest of God – like that still-wrapped gift – has “remained” there on the shelf, so to speak, ready and waiting for people to come and claim it. Moreover, from a first-century perspective, Jesus had just added another rest, His completed, once-for-all atonement. So, spiritual rest had been provided too, though his readers were on the verge of wasting that gift as well.

This view appears to interpret "rest" in a somewhat layered fashion with the intended "rest" of creation parceled out or manifested in "installments" of physical/temporal rest available through the land promised to Abraham and in the "spiritual rest" provided by Christ.  The summary of the article encourages us that, if all of this is too difficult to accept all at once, we can "at minimum" enjoy relational peace with God now.

To sum up, the mind-blowing, mystical lesson encrypted in the fourth chapter of Hebrews is this: in some sense, everything is already done, complete, and finished; and has been from the beginning. The chapter thus imparts a vision of how to live fruitfully in the present, not in quietism or passive inaction but in the peace and power of the Spirit. It intimates a life of faith that unfolds organically, in which individuals embrace rest as their starting point and perform their work in a mindset of rest, while progressing towards ultimate rest in the kingdom. And should all that be too much to accept, then, at minimum the chapter invites believers to know relational peace with God now, confident that His work of reconciliation is indeed finished and that they too “have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all (10:10).”

Remarkably, in this Adventist treatment of Hebrews chapter 4, there is no mention of any requirement of weekly Sabbath keeping or any instruction or defense regarding which day of the week the Sabbath should be.
Position 2

For he has somewhere spoken of the seventh day in this way: “And God rested on the seventh day from all his works. - Hebrews 4:4

Hebrews 4 defines this rest that is being spoken of as that rest wherein God rested from all his works.  Verses 3 and 5 further define that rest as a possession of God:  My rest.  It is that rest with which God has rested.  In the creative act God accomplished all that He intended including those things which, in our temporal economy, appear as yet future.  In this way the coming forth of Israel's ruler (yet future) is said to be "from of old, from ancient days". (Micah 5:2).  In this way also the Lamb was slain from the foundation of the world (Revelation 13:8).  God has rested and yet His works continue to unfold.

For good news came to us just as to them, but the message they heard did not benefit them, because they were not united by faith with those who listened. For we who have believed enter that rest - Hebrews 4:2-3a

Hebrews clearly presents faith/belief in "the message" as the mechanism of entry.  In context it is the people of Israel's entry into the promised land that is treated immediately and "the message" is that God has promised to give them the land and has promised to go before them preparing the way and fighting the battles for them.  In chapter 3 we see the flip side where unbelief is categorically given as the reason some did not enter rest:

And to whom did he swear that they would not enter his rest, but to those who were disobedient? So we see that they were unable to enter because of unbelief. - Hebrews 3:18-19

The exodus generation refused to believe "the message" regarding entry into what God had promised and they spun 'round in the wilderness for 40 years and most died there because of unbelief.  The current generation, to whom Hebrews is written, are similarly in danger of falling short of belief in "the message" regarding the Christ of God.  The entire epistle appeals to them to cease going about (through religious activities and works of the Law) to establish their own righteousness and to receive the righteousness of God which is by faith.

Take care, brothers, lest there be in any of you an evil, unbelieving heart, leading you to fall away from the living God. But exhort one another every day, as long as it is called “today,” that none of you may be hardened by the deceitfulness of sin. For we have come to share in Christ, if indeed we hold our original confidence firm to the end. - Hebrews 3:12-14

It appears as though it were possible to become hardened by sin's deceitfulness into developing an evil, unbelieving heart which may lead one to fall away from the living God.  It is unclear in the text whether this falling away can occur once entry into "rest" has taken place or if developing unbelief hinders entry.  Significantly, this passage links entering God's rest with "sharing in Christ" and also links the belief needed to enter with perseverance in that belief until the end.
Note:  Theological bunny trails may begin here regarding perseverance as an act of human will or a gift of Divine grace, or some mixture of the two but they need not be entertained under this question.

So then, there remains a Sabbath rest for the people of God, for whoever has entered God's rest has also rested from his works as God did from his. - Hebrews 4:9-10

The content of the Sabbath rest that is available for the people of God to enter is not a list of prohibitions or prescriptions; it is a cessation of works.  Just as God rests in this Sabbath from His works so too, we who enter into this Sabbath rest from our works.
The report from the scouts into the promised land (Numbers 13) described all the ways that the people of Israel could not possibly enter the land and overcome the difficulties they perceived there.  In other words, their faith lay in what works they could accomplish rather than trusting in the promise of the Living God.  They were not resting from their works, they were relying on them.  This is the unbelief which hindered their entry:  Trusting in their works rather than God's.
In like manner we must not entertain all the myriad ways that we cannot possibly enter into eternal life.  We must not allow ourselves an evil, unbelieving heart by which we abandon full trust in the promise of God and we begin to try to work our way into the kingdom or count ourselves as worthy or not by virtue of our works.  God, in Christ, has done all that can be or need be done regarding reconciliation and all who enter by Him will be rested.
For Israel, entrance into the rest of God necessitated trusting in the "work" that God would do on their behalf in the promised land.   In the Gospel age entrance into the Sabbath rest now is entirely a matter of trusting that God will accomplish what He has promised in Christ.  Once entered that person has ceased from his own works.
Resting from our works is not a condition for entry into God's Sabbath, it is a description of that rest.  It is also not a motionless rest:

For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them. - Ephesians 2:10

And we also see Divine activity within this Sabbath rest of God:

And this was why the Jews were persecuting Jesus, because he was doing these things on the Sabbath. But Jesus answered them, “My Father is working until now, and I am working.” - John 5:16-17

In the following verses of John 5 Jesus explains how that He only does what He sees the Father doing.  He has just done a work of healing on the legal Sabbath (religious rest), all of which fall within the confines of the Divine Sabbath (God's rest), to demonstrate that He is Lord of the Sabbath and that good works are always permissible because they are not man's works but God's works which, in the Divine economy, are already completed.
Jesus, in doing only God's work, was "resting" from his own works.  Now we, who have believed in His Name and been saved are "in Christ" and have entered into the Sabbath rest of God with Him..  Jesus is the Sabbath rest that we may enter.

Come to me, all who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you, and learn from me, for I am gentle and lowly in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light.”  - Matthew 11:28-30

What is this "Sabbath-rest for the people of God" that everyone should make every effort to enter, as Hebrews 4 indicates?  What does this rest consist of, in simple and concrete terms?

Acts 7:49:  'Heaven is my throne, and the earth is my footstool. What kind of house will you build for me?' says the Lord. Or where will my resting place be?
This is the only other usage of the Greek word for "rest" used in Hebrews elsewhere in the New Testament (according to Strongs concordance).  I'd call it "heaven".

How does one enter this rest?

Verse 3: Now we who have believed enter that rest.
By believing in Jesus.

How does one exit it?

Revelation 12:7-9.  Satan managed to get himself cast out of heaven.  I expect that was one-off, as anyone who seeks to emulate the effort would be judged, by Jesus, as unworthy to enter.

Is it temporary or permanent?

Permanent: See above for exiting Heaven. Hell has no exit either...
forever and ever, and they have no rest, day or night Revelation 14:11
day and night forever and ever. Revelation 20:10
the second death Revelation 21:8

Are there rules/conditions governing it (in terms of things one is expected to do/not to do during the rest)?

No.  There no sin in heaven, so rules are not necessary.
Revelation 21:27 But nothing unclean will ever enter it, nor anyone who does what is detestable or false

What is an overview of how major branches of Christianity answer these questions?

Although I, personally, am speaking from a "Protestant" interpretation of the Bible, I do not anticipate a lot of controversy on these points. Thus I am tempted to suggest all major branches of Christianity would be in general agreement on these questions.


Did Jesus help drunk people in Cana to be even more drunk? This question have a bunch of subquestions. Not sure whether I should split that.

People in Canae are drinking "Oinos" (which could mean wine/beer/grape juice). The party goers seem to prepare enough drink. Yet, the guests drink enough to deplete all "Oinos".

Jesus then went on manufacturing even half a ton Oinos.

The party leader told patron, that people usually serve the good Oinos first. Once people are "Methuo" (i.e. drunk), they give the bad Oinos. Yet the patron gave the good Oinos last.

The word Methuo means drunk. However, it's miraculously translated as "have drunk freely" or have "drunk satisfiedly" in various bible translation for reasons beyond me. Some bible translations correctly translate that as were drunk.

My question:

Did Jesus produce non alcoholic or alcoholic beverage?
Do parties at that time serve alcoholic or non alcoholic beverage?
Was there anyone getting drunk at the party?
If some people are already drunk, why Jesus produces more wine?
If no body at a party was drunk, how was that accomplished? Did Jesus create another miracle making everyone sobber?
Why many bible translations translate methuo as "have drunk freely" instead of "was drunk"?

Basically it's one simple question. Did Jesus help drunk people get even more drunk? If the answer is yes, then we got issue of whether getting drunk is sin or not. If the answer is no, then we got a lot to explain there.

The story of turning real water into real wine (most scholars would argue that the wine was real) presumes the moderation of the wedding guests.

There is no more reason to think that the guests were drunk then there is reason to think that Jesus fed 5000 gluttons a huge amount of fish and bread.  On one hand the story clearly suggests that the guests at a respectable Jewish wedding were a little 'tipsy' (the Greek word can be a little tipsy, as it just means affected by the alcohol). If they were drunk they would not be able to judge the quality of wine being served afterwards, which was comparatively good. This is why wine tasters spit out the wine.

To balance the moderate influence of the wine at the wedding we should take note that the alcohol content of wine at the time of Christ is not like today. Wine today is much stronger then it used to be. Also wine was commonly mixed with water. This was even the practice of the paschal supper back then, mixing the red wine with warm water that is.

Possibly this fact of mixing wine with water will make it clearer that moderation is assumed in the story which makes most questions about it less relevant.

  Ample evidence is available to demonstrate that wine, though always fermented, was usually mixed with water in the classical and Hellenistic world. The wine was stored in large jugs called amphorae, from which the wine was poured through a strainer into a large mixing bowl call a krater. In the krater the wine was mixed with water. Then the drinking bowls or cups were filled.
  The amount of wine per volume varied. The mixture that represented the greatest amount of water to wine was 20 to 1, apparently because the wine was so strong (Homer, Odyssey 10. 208f).  Baker Encyclopedia
  of the Bible, p2147)

From a Catholic perspective, the Wedding at Cana is indicative of many things with the two main points being listed below; neither of which are related to drunkeness of the wedding guests so the short answer to the question would be: No, Jesus did not help people get more drunk (or drunk at all).

The Wedding at Cana was about Mary's role as intercessor--or in the words of John Paul II: In the episode of the wedding at Cana, St John presents Mary's first intervention in the public life of Jesus and highlights her co-operation in her Son's mission.
The Wedding of Cana was about the significance of the Sacrament of Marriage since this is where Christ's ministry began.


What is the Bible basis for the idea of a temporary holding place? A friend once told me about the idea that there are two temporary "holding places", so to speak. If a person died and would go to Heaven, but that time had not yet come, they would go to a temporary paradisaical place and similarly for Hell (not the Catholic Purgatory). Some support is given in Luke 23:

Luke 23:40-43 (NLT)
'40 But the other criminal protested, “Don’t you fear God even when you have been sentenced to die? 41 We deserve to die for our crimes, but this man hasn’t done anything wrong.” 42 Then he said, “Jesus, remember me when you come into your Kingdom.”
43 And Jesus replied, “I assure you, today you will be with me in paradise.”'

Where did Jesus (and the criminal) go for the three days that He was dead?
There is also the fact that "Hades" refers to a different place than "Hell".
So what other Biblical evidence is there for a temporary holding place?

Remember that after the Crucifixion, when Mary Magdalene found Jesus in the garden, he told her that he had not yet ascended to his Father in Heaven.  This implies that Paradise, where he had been while he was dead, is not Heaven.

It gets even more interesting in 1 Peter chapter 3, where it says that while Jesus was dead, he went and preached to the spirits in prison, who had been disobedient while in mortality.  So here we have mention of two intermediate "holding places:" Paradise for the righteous and the spirit prison (for lack of a better name) for the wicked.

These are not to be understood as the final dwelling places of the soul, commonly known as Heaven and Hell, because we will be sent to our final dwelling places after the Judgment, which is described as taking place after the Resurrection.

In the Bible, there is no denying that there are couple of mentions that refer to the place where a person went who believed in God but died before the Christ. It says that they go to the Abraham's side.

In Luke 16 verse 22, it is written that after Lazarus died, he was carried to Abraham's side. For the people who has accepted Jesus as their christ, which is after Christ, will go to paradise.  Jesus also said this in Luke.

Also, for those people who have not accepted Jesus as their Christ will become one of Satan, or ghosts/demons, if you will. They roam around the earth until the Judgment Day.

There were plenty of references of demons in the Bible if you look close enough. In Matt 8 verse 28 through 32, he heals two demon possessed men. In here, the demons begged Jesus and asked him if he came here to torture them before the appointed time.

What would that mean? Demons are not angels who have followed Lucifer when he turned against God. These demons are souls of people who did not believe in God. They are the reasons for all kinds of sickness and disabilities. In the appointed time, they will be condemned for their actions when they lived.

The back up of this explanation is on Matt 12 verse 24. Here, Pharisees said that Jesus drives out demons with the power of the prince of demons. Note the word, drive out. Edit: Jesus has contridicted the Pharisees when they said that he was using the power of Devil.


How do those who support the perpetual virginity of Mary doctrine harmonize the Protevangelium of James with the Gospel of Matthew? I have a question concerning those who support the perpetual virginity doctrine. The Protoevangelium of James is the earliest source used to demonstrate how Joseph had children from a previous marriage. How would one go about using this document when it contains conflicting information with the Gospel of Matthew?

1) Mary’s response to the angel is different than what is recorded in Scripture. “What! Shall I conceive by the living God, and bring forth as all other women do?” (Chapter 9:12).

2) Elizabeth fled the Bethlehem region with her son John (the Baptist) to the mountains because of Herod’s wrath when he decided to kill all the baby boys around and in Bethlehem (Chapter 16:3).

3) Jesus was born in a cave outside the city of Bethlehem (Chapters 12:11–14:31).

4) Mary wrapped Jesus in swaddling cloths and hid him in a manger at the inn to keep him from the massacre by Herod’s men (Chapter 16:2).

5) Wise men came to Bethlehem and inquired of Herod where the Child was born (Chapter 21:1–2).

The harmonization would be that the Gospel of Matthew is divinely inspired Sacred Scripture, while the Protoevangelium of James is merely pious tradition. In case of nonconformity between the two, Matthew takes precedence.

The Protoevangelium of James, is an apocryphal Gospel probably written about AD 145.  The document presents itself as written by James: "I, James, wrote this history in Jerusalem." The purported author is thus James, the brother of Jesus, but scholars have established that the work was not written by the person to whom it is attributed.

Before the end of the second century there is universal acceptance of the four Gospels, Acts and twelve of the apostle Paul’s letters making up the canon of the Christian Greek Scriptures. (Only a few of the smaller writings were doubted in certain areas.) They included:
Muratorian Fragment, Italy                        AD170
Irenaeus, Asia Minor                              AD180
Clement of Alexandria                             AD190

The book of Matthew, in complete contrast to the Protevangelium of James, '...is inspired of God and beneficial for teaching, for reproving, for setting things straight, for disciplining in righteousness, so that the man of God may be fully competent, completely equipped for every good work. (2 Timothy 3:16, 17)

Those words are often correctly quoted to show that the Bible is God’s inspired Word. But what was Paul’s purpose in writing them? Paul was speaking to an elder, one with the responsibility to ‘reprove, set things straight, discipline in righteousness,’ within the congregation. Hence, he was reminding Timothy to trust the wisdom of the 'inspired Word', in which Timothy had been instructed since infancy. The lesson is clear for us also.


How long was it before Adam and Eve sinned? Do we have any idea how long Adam and Eve were together sinless in the Garden of Eden before they sinned?

They were created on the sixth day. They sinned before they had children.

Any other clues as to how long they were sinless together?

Genesis 5:3 says:

  When Adam had lived 130 years, he had a son in his own likeness, in his own image; and he named him Seth.

By virtue of this, we know that Cain killed Abel within 130 years of Adam being created, because Seth was not born until after that occurred. This means that the Fall had to occur within that time. Other than that, the Bible is silent.

The question assumes that the story of Adam and Eve is to be taken literally, not metaphorically. The narrative of their sin begins with Chapter Three of Genesis, when the serpent enters the picture. There is no chronology attached to the narrative, so it is impossible to discern from the text how much time elapsed between Eve's creation (Gen. 2:21-25) and the sin (Gen. 3:1-6).


What does the Bible say about "bad" words? I know the Bible says not to let "unwholesome talk" come out of our mouths (Ephesians 4:29), but to my knowledge it doesn't speak specifically about "bad words."

In fact, to my knowledge, the English language (and especially American English) is somewhat unique in that it has words that are always considered bad, in any context. In my (limited) study of other languages (which is mostly Spanish), most "bad words" are perfectly good words, used in a specifically "bad" context.

Is it possible to use a "bad" word in a context that is not "unwholesome?"

I have a very close (Christian) friend, and he and I occasionally use "bad" words in our conversation, but always in a joking sense. Never out of anger or malice toward the other person. Is this okay, or should we change our behavior?

Ephesians 4:29 says:

  Do not let any unwholesome talk come out of your mouths, but only what is helpful for building others up according to their needs, that it may benefit those who listen.

Ephesians 5:4 says:

  Nor should there be obscenity, foolish talk or coarse joking, which are out of place, but rather thanksgiving.

Language is a collective memory or cultural history. In other words, the meaning of words are defined by society. Per Ephesians 5:4, there could be no obscenity, foolishness or joking apart from an audience to interpret the message. Just as words in English have no meaning to people that don't speak English, the words can have certain meanings in certain sub-cultures or circles.

If certain words are not interpreted as obscene in a given circle, then the use of these words do not violate the command in Ephesians 5:4 and they will not have the appearance of evil per 1 Thessalonians 5:22. Same thing with Ephesians 4:29. The words are not sinful in themselves.

That said, in my experience it will be very tough for someone that incorporates this kind of language into their regular routine to refrain from using it around people that might not interpret it the same way. One way or another it always slips out. Furthermore, one has to be discerning enough not to cause another Christian to stumble by using this language improperly. It's probably safest not to use it and not flirt with violating these commands.

Romans 12:2King James Version (KJV)

2 And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God.

If someone professing to be a Christian uses what the world considers to be foul language as part of everyday life ... acting like it is normal for them ... how are they not conformed to the world? How will those who have not accepted Christ as  their Savior be affected by the actions of these supposed Christians? Will they not say to themselves ... these "Christians" are no different than me ... why do I need Christ?


Perfect relationship between Trinity and other relationships in heaven - Catholic My question can sound like a question out of blue, but I am going to ask it anyway.

We can come up with many different descriptions of so called "perfect relationship", but for Christians the best example of perfect relationship (or the most "ideal" relationship) would be the relationship within the Trinity (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit).

Will every relationship that takes place in heaven (which includes heavenly relationship between God's creations, for example, a relationship between two heavenly human beings) as perfect and complete as the relationship of the Trinity?

On one hand, my logic says it is impossible for God's creatures to have such perfect and complete relationship with some other God's creation, since we as a finite and inferior being do not have capacity to receive love or to give love as much as our infinite God.
On the other hand, my logic says that because heaven is "the perfect" place, the strength of relationship/union that occurs throughout heavenly community should be equally perfect, powerful, and strong to the utmost extreme. If the heavenly relationship between God's creation are not as perfect and complete as that of the Trinity, that means unity in heaven is in a sense can be fragile.

Will every heavenly relationship (including relationship between a heavenly human and some other heavenly human) be as perfect and complete as the relationship that Trinity has? Please answer according to Catholic understanding.

Thank you,

In creatures, relations are extrinsic to the essence of the creature. For example, my essence* is humanness, but my relation to my father, mother, wife, friends, or even to God is not humanness; it's not my essence. However, in the Holy Trinity, the Divine Relations are the essence of God Himself. This is a consequence of the Trinity being supremely simple.
*Essence or quiddity is the answer to the question: "What is it?" ("Quid est?")
St. Thomas Aquinas writes, answering the question "Whether relation in God is the same as His essence?,"

…in God relation and essence do not differ from each other, but are one and the same.

cf. Fr. Gilles Emery, O.P.'s The Trinitarian Theology of St. Thomas Aquinas ch. 5 "Relations" (p. 78 f.)
Thus, it is clear that since God is infinitely perfect, and He is His Trinitarian relations, these relations are infinitely perfect.
When we behold the Beatific Vision in heaven, we do not become God; we maintain our individuality. We will know God as perfectly as His grace enables us us know him,* but not as perfectly as He knows Himself.
*There are hierarchies in heaven; not all saints (i.e., those in heaven) are equally close to God. The Blessed Virgin Mother is closest in her relation to her Son.
St. Thomas Aquinas writes in his Compendium Theologiæ cap. 106 ("Fruition of Natural Desire in the Beatific Vision [in Heaven]"):

…the most perfect way of attaining likeness with God: to know God in the way He knows Himself, by His own essence.
Of course, we shall never comprehend Him as He comprehends Himself. This does not mean that we shall be unaware of some part of Him, for He has no parts. It means that we shall not know Him as perfectly as He can be known, since the capacity of our intellect for knowing cannot equal His truth, and so cannot exhaust His knowability. God’s knowability or truth is infinite, whereas our intellect is finite. But His intellect is infinite, just as His truth is; and so He alone knows Himself to the full extent that He is knowable; just as a person comprehends a demonstrable conclusion if he knows it through demonstration, but not if he knows it only in an imperfect way, on merely probable grounds.
This ultimate end of man we call beatitude. For a man’s happiness or beatitude consists in the vision whereby he sees God in His essence. Of course, man is far below God in the perfection of his beatitude. For God has this beatitude by His very nature, whereas man attains beatitude by being admitted to a share in the divine light, as we said in the previous chapter.

Also, the classic work on how there are hierarchies in heaven is Dionysius the Areopagite's On the Heavenly Hierarchy.

Perhaps I'm out of line I am not Catholic but I would like to comment according to the bible just a thought and simply put the Scriptures say man was created in Gods image Genesis 1:26 so why would it not be possible what you're asking then again the Bible simply states God's thoughts are higher than our thoughts and his ways higher than our ways Isaiah 55:8 so we will never be like God so in that sense the perfect relationship of Catholicism trinity would be impossible


What is the biblical basis or precedent for restricting women from serving in war? In the United States, the Secretary of Defense just lifted the ban on women in combat.  Many Christians seem to oppose this idea and believe that women should not be put in combat.

What is the biblical basis or precedent for this position?

Just because there is no explicit prohibition on a thing does not mean that the Bible "endorses it."
Unwritten Expectations
There is, for example, to the best of my knowledge, no biblical prohibition cannibalism. Possibly it wouldn't fall under definition of kosher, but it is at best ambiguous! In spite of this, the author of the text rightfully expects that the reader is revolted when, (in 2 Kings 6:24-33), during a siege, two women concoct a plan to eat their children.  When the second woman reneges and the first brings it before the King, the King rends his garments to show how he too understands how appalling this situation is. That, even in the absence, of an explicit prohibition in the Torah.
Likewise, the idea of women in combat would have simply been so outrageous as to not need explicit mention.   Women simply did not fight* or if they did, something was wrong.
This is not to say that every Jewish custom is somehow holy - but "unthinkable" things don't need explicit mention in a contract between two parties - which is what the Old Testament laws were.
*But back to that "women didn't fight."  There are two notable exceptions to that rule, but both fall into the category of 'the exception that proves the rule':
1. Judith
In the apocraphyal book of Judith, for example, Judith uses sex and cunning to murder Holofernes, the invading general.  Scholars all agree, this fictional tale was written, in many ways, for its shock value. Like David defeating Goliath, this story simply assumes the incongruity of the weak defeating the strong in combat, leaving the reader to marvel at the tables being so turned.
2. Deborah and Barak
Within canonical Scripture, however, the most important story to remember is that of Deborah and Barak (no relation to the current President). Here, like in most of Judges, the Children of Israel have been beset by the enemy for their wickedness, and must now rise up and defeat the enemy. The chosen leader, however, is too reluctant.  (Yeah, it really is a different Barak!) He demands that Deborah - the woman God sent to encourage Barak, must accompany him and assist in leading.
Now, on the face of it, you might say: Hey! See - a Woman fighting in combat!  The precendent is not only absent, but wrong!
But here's the rub - God (and Deborah) bring judgement against Barak for his lack of cohones. The author writes:

8 Barak said to her, “If you go with me, I will go; but if you don’t go with me, I won’t go.”
9 “Certainly I will go with you,” said Deborah. “But because of the course you are taking, the honor will not be yours, for the Lord will deliver Sisera into the hands of a woman.” So Deborah went with Barak to Kedesh.

That Barak would have no honor from this battle is quite the indictment.  The assumption that a woman should not be in battle is so implicit as to be laughable.
Women encourage, Men fight. That's the model.  Are there exceptions? TO be sure - but the Bible is clear its not the model to follow.

I don't think the Bible mention about these. But if the Government make rules, then I think we should follow it unless it is a sin.

  Hebrews 13:17 (NIV)
      Obey your leaders and submit to their authority. They keep watch over you as men who must give an account. Obey them so that their work will be a joy, not a burden, for that would be of no advantage to you.


Was Jesus crucified naked? Wikipedia's article on crucifixion says

  While a crucifixion was an execution, it was also a humiliation, by
  making the condemned as vulnerable as possible. Although artists have
  traditionally depicted the figure on a cross with a loin cloth or a
  covering of the genitals, the person being crucified was usually
  stripped naked.

Is there a scholarly consensus that Jesus was also crucified naked?

How have Christian traditions and scholars explained this?

He most likely was crucified naked - this is consistent with the biblical narrative of the guards casting lots for his garment and with standard historical practice.

In the paintings, the artists wanted to preserve some of the dignity and not turn the Lord's body into something that puerile youngsters might be titilated by. It is a condescension to the viewer, intentionally not in accord with the scriptures.

He was naked on the cross - that was part of the shame of crucifixion.

As J. Vernon McGee (Thru the Bible) says:

  He was crucified naked. It is difficult for us in this age of nudity and pornography to comprehend the great humiliation He suffered by hanging nude on the cross. They had taken His garments and gambled for ownership. My friend, He went through it all, crucified naked, that you might be clothed with the righteousness of Christ, and so be able to stand before God throughout the endless ages of eternity.

If it is a fact that the Romans believed in giving a fair trial to the charged one, they would also ensure that the punishment awarded was justified in the eyes of the beholders. (See that Jesus was offered vinegar to drink, which served as a pain-killer.) Jesus was charged with blasphemy and organizing the Jews against the Roman government. Hanging someone in the state of nakedness does not appear to be a commensurate  punishment for the said crimes.

By the way, there were also punishments of more cruel nature in the days of Jesus. One for instance, involved binding of the convict back on  back to a dead body and deserting him in  a deep valley to die of hunger and thirst in the company of the rotting cadaver !
So, there is no reason to believe that Jesus went through the ultimate penalty.


Judah, Joseph, and Jacob's birthright Jacob had twelve sons, the firstborn of whom was Reuben.  Yet, the birthright that should have passed on to Reuben did not due to Reuben's sin against his father (1 Chronicles 5:1-2).

Naturally, one would assume that the next in line would be Simeon, the second-oldest.  It did not pass to Simeon either.  In fact, Jacob passes over all of his sons until he gets to Joseph.

Now, he essentially passes on the birthright and blessing to Ephraim, the younger of Joseph's sons.

I have a few questions regarding this.

First, why does Jacob pass the birthright to Joseph's sons, and not Joseph himself?  In fact, before doing so, why does Jacob essentially say that Joseph's sons are now considered to be his sons?  What is the meaning of this?

Second, what is the significance of choosing Ephraim, the younger, over Manasseh, the older?

Finally, even though Ephraim has the birthright, the lineage of Jesus comes through Judah.  Why then, does the birthright not pass to Judah?  Why is there a disconnect between this birthright and the importance of Judah in Jesus' lineage?

Honestly, there are a lot of questions there and rather than skip around I'm going to give one really long background on the birthright and blessing. Just be glad I'm not also giving a treatment to the meaning of firstborn.

There is a TL;DR Conclusion at the end, where I will revisit each specific question.

But first there is a lot of groundwork to lay.

Birthrights and Blessings

First we must understand the meaning of the birthright and blessing.

Birthright gave the son a double portion of the inheritance (Deut 21:17). He also received authority over his father's house and carried the family name. A sort of patriarchal succession. These are very physical, earthly rewards.

The blessing is a bit less specific and often varied. But the first blessing always seems to be the greater. It also often has prophetic meaning, though the people at the time probably thought of it the other way around. That receiving a good blessing ensured the future it promised. They may have physical results, but the giving of the blessing is spiritual in nature.

Covenant with Abraham

There is a third aspect here, however, specific to Abraham's family: God's covenant with him.

Along with the land of Canaan and a promise to be the God of his children, God promised Abraham (Gen 12)

Great number of descendants (Physical)
All the families of the world be blessed through him (Spiritual)

Isaac

Isaac was recognized as Abraham's firstborn, though Ishmael was technically first, but not God's firstborn.

God pledged to establish this same covenant with Isaac specifically in Genesis 17:21, thereby leaving Ishmael out (though Ishmael does receive a lesser blessing of his own).

God also then gives Isaac a blessing when Abraham dies. Whether this was a separate blessing unique from God or this was God honoring the blessing Abraham passed to him, we cannot know for sure. Gen 25:11

  After the death of Abraham, God blessed Isaac his son.

Jacob

The pattern continues with Isaac's sons, Esau and Jacob, with Esau as the firstborn.
However, God told Rebekah that the younger would serve the older, implying that the younger would receive the birthright and/or blessing. Gen 25:23

Jacob, in fact, does get both the birthright and the blessing. This is where we first see the birthright and blessing clearly distinguished.  Esau sells his birthright, and is later cheated out of his blessing and refers to them both as separate things. Gen 27:36

  He took away my birthright, and behold, now he has taken away my blessing.”

This is also the first time the Covenant has had two legitimate sons to pass to, but instead of passing to Esau or to both Esau and Jacob, it goes solely to Jacob.

Which begs the question:
Did Abraham's Covenant follow the birthright or the blessing?
Or is it both or neither one? Well let's see:

This is Isaac's to blessing to Jacob. Gen 27:27-29

  “See, the smell of my son
  is as the smell of a field that the LORD has blessed!

  May God give you of the dew of heaven
  and of the fatness of the earth
  and plenty of grain and wine.

  Let peoples serve you,
  and nations bow down to you.
  Be lord over your brothers,
  and may your mother’s sons bow down to you.
  Cursed be everyone who curses you,
  and blessed be everyone who blesses you!”

Emphasis added by me. Do those parts sound familiar?
Genesis 22:17

  I will surely bless you, and I will surely multiply your offspring as the stars of heaven and as the sand that is on the seashore. And your offspring shall possess the gate of his enemies,

Genesis 12:3

  I will bless those who bless you, and him who dishonors you I will curse, and in you all the families of the earth shall be blessed.”

Also in this blessing we have bountiful wealth and the authority over his family.
So we see the birthright AND elements of Abraham's covenant being passed in Isaac's blessing.

Jacob later receives a renewal of Abraham's covenant from God himself (Gen 28:14)

  Your offspring shall be like the dust of the earth, and you shall spread abroad to the west and to the east and to the north and to the south, and in you and your offspring shall all the families of the earth be blessed.

So Jacob receives four promises:

Double inheritance from Isaac (Birthright)
Authority over his father's house. (Blessing and Birthright)
Descendants/Fruitful (Blessing and Covenant)
Bless the nations (Covenant

Quite the haul! So we see Abraham's covenant following those who receive both the birthright and the blessing in the cases of Isaac and Jacob.

Jacob's Sons

Judah was the fourth born son, but due to his older brothers Reuben, Simeon and Levi's failures he rose to the top of the legal "firstborn" rankings. (Genesis 34:25, 35:22)

Meanwhile, Joseph was given visions by God showing him that his father's household would bow down to him. Which his brothers clearly understood as a claim to the birthright's authority. However, Jacob takes note that it isn't just the brothers bowing to Jospeh but Jacob as well! This is highly unusual, for the authority of the birthright has not superseded the father's before ("mother's sons will bow").

It ends up making sense though, as Jacob and his household do end up bowing down to Joseph in Egypt under entirely different circumstances than they could have ever expected. So it seems the vision was not speaking of the birthright's authority, but was only prophetic of Joseph ruling in Egypt.

Then at the end of his life Jacob summons Joseph and his two sons, Manasseh the elder and Ephraim the younger (Gen 48). Jacob declares that they will be counted as his own sons. Not just as his own sons, but as Reuben and Simeon are. Remember who Reuben and Simeon are? The oldest two sons!

Jacob is not just adopting them into his inheritance, he is proclaiming them to be counted as the eldest! This detail is often overlooked (1 Chr 5:1)

Jacob continues on to give them their firstborn blessing, but not satisfied to have upset the normal order just once in placing them ahead of Reuben and Simeon, he crosses his arms and places his right hand on Ephraim, the younger!

First, Jacob proclaims a blessing over Joseph, which we can understand as both sons: Gen 48:15,16

  15And he blessed Joseph and said,
  “The God before whom my fathers Abraham and Isaac walked,
  the God who has been my shepherd all my life long to this day,

  16 the angel who has redeemed me from all evil, bless the boys;
  and in them let my name be carried on, and the name of my fathers Abraham and Isaac;
  and let them grow into a multitude (or fullness) in the midst of the earth.”

Which of the four that Jacob received do we see here?

Many descendants

I will also note that Jacob says "in them let my name be carried on, and the name of my fathers Abraham and Isaac".
It is speculation, but one can say at the least that this ensures their inclusion as equal sons and future tribes of Jacob/Israel. One could also take it to be prophetic in that the name Israel does very much carry on in Ephraim and Manasseh throughout history. Even during David's time, before the division of the kingdom, the army of the north, led by Ephraim, are called the army of Israel, while the army of the south is the army of Judah (1 King 2:32). And of course, when the kingdom is divided God says to Jeroboam the Ephraimite that He is going to be "king over Israel" and indeed the northern kingdom keeps the name of Israel, apart from Judah (1 King 11:37)

Finally, Jacob turns to bless Ephraim and Manasseh specifically, giving Ephraim the greater blessing, a prophecy of becoming great nations (Gen 48:19). Thus Jacob reinforces that while both will receive the blessing from Abraham's covenant, Ephraim receives the first and greater share.

Now Jacob gathers all his sons and gives each their own blessing, as we saw Isaac still give Esau his own blessing apart from Jacob. He gives the blessings in order of birth, not importance.

Judah is given a unique blessing in Gen 49:10

  The scepter shall not depart from Judah,
  nor the ruler’s staff from between his feet,
  until tribute comes to him;fn
  and to him shall be the obedience of the peoples.

Judah appears to be given the authority to lead. 1 Ch 5:2 affirms that though Joseph received the birthright, Judah lead the nation.

Then Joseph receives his blessing which once again affirms descendants, fruitfulness, and the blessing of God.

The Breakdown

So let's check the score:

Joseph

Fruitful Inheritance, Double Portion in Two Tribes - Birthright (Jos 17:14-18)
Great Descendants - Covenant (Also Jos 17:17)

Judah

Authority - Birthright

There is only one part missing, that all nations will be blessed through him.

Peter identifies the link in Acts 3 and Paul agrees in Galatians 3 that it is Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the Son of David of the tribe of Judah who has both received the ruler's staff and in whom all the families of the earth are blessed.

TL;DR Conclusion

  First, why does Jacob pass the birthright to Joseph's sons, and not Joseph himself? In fact, before doing so, why does Jacob essentially say that Joseph's sons are now considered to be his sons? What is the meaning of this?

As I hope to have displayed above, Jacob adopted Joseph's sons as his own and as his firstborn. As for why, we can't be sure, but by doing so and by counting each as full fledged sons, he ensured Joseph received the double portion (one in each) of the birthright. Joseph is 11th in line to be the physical firstborn, but Jacob chooses him above the rest.

  Second, what is the significance of choosing Ephraim, the younger, over Manasseh, the older?

God chose Ephraim just like he chose Isaac, the son of a free woman, over Ishmael, the son of a bondservant (Gal 4). Just like God chose Jacob over Esau before he was born (Romans 9). Ephraim is God's firstborn (Jer 31:9) not man's. This is seen by the New Testament writers to show how God chooses who he wills and that he can adopt anyone as his son or daughter regardless of our physical state of birth.

  Finally, even though Ephraim has the birthright, the lineage of Jesus comes through Judah. Why then, does the birthright not pass to Judah? Why is there a disconnect between this birthright and the importance of Judah in Jesus' lineage?

Joseph is said to receive the birthright, but it is clear he does not quite get all of it. Judah receives the authority. Whilte Ephraim and Judah were the two alpha tribes of Israel , chiefs and later kings came from Judah. (1 Ch 5:2)

Jesus does come from the line of Judah, one cannot help but believe it was for David's sake (2 Ch 21:7). Whether that means God knew David would come from Judah, or whether David was who he was (a king) only because he came from Judah is up to the reader.

Ephraim, through Joseph, receives the double portion half of the birthright and the great descendants half of the Covenant (same as half the Blessing if you agree that the Covenant follows the blessing and birthright). Ephraim is God's spiritual firstborn (Jer 31:9) like Isaac and Jacob were, despite not being physical firstborns according to law.

Judah receives the authority half of the birthright and the half that blesses all the families of the earth through the Covenant. He is the physical firstborn according to law.

The spiritual and physical parallelism of Ephraim and Judah is quite evidence. Judah physically provided, or delivered, the source of blessing in Jesus and Ephraim displays God's ability to spiritually adopt and bless firstborn children from among all the families of the earth through him.

In the Southern Baptist faith; and I suspect that in most other Christian faiths, the Birthright has nothing to do with the descendants of Jesus.

The line of passage of the Birthright is a device of man, while the line of Christ is a device of God.

The birthright is a result of happenstance, but the line leading to Christ is through obedience to God.

Since Birthright was a fabrication of man it could and was molded by the whims of man, while the descendants of Christ was determined by God and therefore unchangeable.

The Books of the Bible are a carefully scripted plot, and each is a vital and telling part of God's Grace and plan of salvation The Old testament tells the story of man's separation from God and the New testament is the story of God's path of renewal and reclamation of his creation.

That is my understanding of the Southern Baptist faith, and my understanding of the Scriptures.

It is difficult if not impossible to completely understand any part of Scripture, without taking it in the concept of the entire story. Jesus himself often referred people to the Old testament as a backing for his actions in the New testament. When you find a difficult passage it often is helpful to research a good concordance and then consider all similar Scriptures.

It appears that we will never completely understand Scriptures this side of Heaven; but a vigilant study can and will clear up a multitude of misunderstandings. Jesus' statement in:

  Matthew 22:29  "Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God."

might well be applied to all of mankind.


What did the original Christian writings look like during the 1st century CE? It is said (from what I've read), from a few Google searches related to "when was the new testament first written", that the New Testament was written down somewhere between 30CE and 150CE, rough ballpark. Wikipedia says the phrase "New Testament" in Koine Greek (the original Greek dialect it was written in) is pronounced "Ἡ Καινὴ Διαθήκη", which was used "to describe a collection of first and second-century Christian Greek scriptures ... traced back to Tertullian in his work Against Praxeas." By the 4th century, there was a canonical collection of the New Testament texts collected. By the 5th century, a Latin translation of the New Testament was created. These first complete Bibles were written in the Uncial Script.

By my question is what happened between 30CE and 300-400CE? What were all these fragments of Christianity referred to casually as the "New Testament" written in? What sort of punctuation and formatting did they use? Was it all in Koine Greek? Even so, what did it look like is my main question. Was it all written by scribes who used the Uncial style? Or did the scribes have other fonts/typographic styles they used?

The earliest Biblical manuscripts were almost certainly written on papyrus. We know of over 130 Biblical papyri dating from the second to the eighth century. These were written in majuscule case, and I think usually without spaces or much punctuation. They were not written in the uncial script as it was developed only in the fourth century for use on parchment and vellum, not papyrus.

What did the original manuscripts look like?  Here's a link to a digital library.
Center for the study of NT manuscripts


How Does Catholicism Refute the Reasons Muslims Claim That Jesus Was Not Crucified? Muslims say Jesus didn't claim to be God.

My question is Twofold:

1) When a Muslim objects to the teaching that Christ was crucified, what is their given reason that anyone ever attempted to crucify Jesus?

2) What proof does the Catholic Church present to refute or nullify those reasons Muslims give that anyone tried to crucify Jesus?

Muslims say that Christians changed the words of Jesus over time, hence inserted false statements into the Bible where Jesus claimed to be God. (See http://www.answering-islam.org/Morin/changed.html) This claim was made long ago, before the discoveries of ancient Bible manuscripts, hymnals, fragments, the Dead Sea Scrolls and other strong evidence that no changes have been made except minor typos and a few passages that may or may not have been in the originals, none of which change any doctrines of Christianity, especially the divinity of Christ and the reality of the crucifixion and resurrection.

Some Muslims hold to the swoon theory (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swoon_hypothesis) - that Jesus was still alive when taken down from the Cross, but had passed out and looked dead. The flow of water from Jesus' side described in the Gospel of John when he was stabbed with a spear indicates that he had suffered pericardial effusion (see http://www.compellingtruth.org/blood-water-Jesus.html). You can't survive that. Such a telling detail is strong evidence of eyewitness testimony, not a later invention by someone who had never witnessed a real crucifixion.

As for why people were crucified, the Romans executed thousands of people using this method, including common criminals. Claiming to be a God might upset the Romans, who maintained that Caesar was a God.

Matthew 26:39
And going a little farther he fell on his face and prayed, saying, “My Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me; nevertheless, not as I will, but as you will.”

If muslims are wrong ,why [the father] as a part of the trinity  didn"t fulfill jesus call?


What is the prayer of faith as recorded in James 5:15? James 5:15 says that the prayer of faith will save the sick. Is there a specific prayer of faith?

The verse is not referring to any specific prayer, but rather to the prayer of faith (ευχη της πιστεως) as opposed to prayer that is undertaken without faith.  For this reason James emphasizes a verse later:

  The entreaty of a righteous man hath much strength

He further provides Elijah as an example (v.17-18):

  Elijah was a man subject to like passions as we are, and he prayed earnestly that it might not rain: and it rained not on the earth by
  the space of three years and six months. And he prayed again, and the
  heaven gave rain, and the earth brought forth her fruit.

The prayer of faith is not the "Prayer of Faith". This means, that there is not a specific prayer that a person can recite in order to heal someone else. God listens to His children. And He answers according to His will and to the measure of faith of the person asking. This is the prayer of faith that James is talking about.

A prayer is not something to be repeated without understanding, as Jesus said in His template of a prayer, now known as the Lord's Prayer; which oddly enough is repeated today throughout the world without understanding and just as vain repetition.

It can be found in Matthew 6:

  7 And when you pray, do not use vain repetitions as the heathen do.
  For they think that they will be heard for their many words.

  8 “Therefore do not be like them. For your Father knows the things you
  have need of before you ask Him. 9 In this manner, therefore, pray:

  Our Father in heaven, Hallowed be Your name. 10 Your kingdom come.
  Your will be done On earth as it is in heaven. 11 Give us this day our
  daily bread. 12 And forgive us our debts, As we forgive our debtors.
  13 And do not lead us into temptation, But deliver us from the evil
  one. For Yours is the kingdom and the power and the glory forever.
  Amen.[c]

Prayer is meant to bring you in communion with God. It is meant to grow your faith and relationship with the Father and Christ. It is not to let God know something, as He already knows.

Steps to Christ p. 93

  Prayer is the opening of the heart to God as to a friend. Not that it
  is necessary in order to make known to God what we are, but in order
  to enable us to receive Him. Prayer does not bring God down to us, but
  brings us up to Him.

  When Jesus was upon the earth, He taught His disciples how to pray. He
  directed them to present their daily needs before God, and to cast all
  their care upon Him. And the assurance He gave them that their
  petitions should be heard, is assurance also to us.

For further information of prayer, I encourage you to read this small e-book:

https://www.amazingfacts.org/media-library/book/e/50/t/teach-us-to-pray


Why the name Evil-merodach Is it a title?

And why is merodach written with a lower case "m"?

PS: I came across this name from Jeremiah 52:31 of an NLT Bible

The King James Version and the English Standard Version use the name Evil-merodach, as does the New Living Translation.  Clearly, using lower-case m is not a typographical error!  However, as to why the second part of the name does not have a capital letter M, there is no explanation.

The New International Version uses the name Evil-Merodach and notes he was also called Amel-Marduk.  He was Nebuchadnezzar's successor.

History records that Nebuchadnezzar was a follower of the Babylonian gods Nabu and Marduk.

The 'Enuma Elish' describes a great clash between various gods of the Babylonian pantheon:

  The two most important characters are the god Marduk and the goddess Tiamat. After Tiamat prepares many monsters and lesser gods to destroy the remainder of the pantheon, and a few younger gods have already failed at challenging her, Marduk offers to destroy Tiamat in return for being made highest among the gods. The other gods readily accept this offer, and Marduk becomes locked in mortal combat with Tiamat. After killing Tiamat, Marduk splits her body in two, making one half the sky and one half the earth. He makes humans from his own flesh and bone and brings order to the universe.
  Source: http://www.sacred-texts.com/ane/stc/index.htm

The Enuma Elish is one of the oldest creation records ever discovered, likely dating to 1100 BC (Genesis, which is older, was written around 1400 BC).

As to why older Bible translations record the king's name as Evil-merodach, no explanation is given.  But Ken Graham's fulsome answer sheds light on his character, which may account for the prefix of Evil.

It’s a slight. Like said above the God Marduk of Babylon was a rival god to Israel and YHWH.  The king in question, named Evilmerodach in the KJV, to make the man evil unconsciously; Auyl-Mrdk in Hebrew, Fool Marduk; and Amēl Marduk in Akkadian, The Man Of Marduk. The Bible actually does this quite well and frequently. The rhyming of words to rhyme/match other Hebrew words is astute and enjoyable. This one just isn’t esoteric so everyone gets some amusement.


Were all Nephilim evil? The Bible speaks of the Nephilim as the offspring of the “sons of God and daughters of men” in books such as: Genesis, Enoch, and a couple others. It does explain that they bred from evil beings, but it doesn’t specify if they themselves were evil or not, and even if they were supposed to be “evil”.

Were they all evil?

Were all Nephilim evil?

Impossible to say, but I doubt it.

Let us start by seeing who the Nephilim of the Scripture may truly be:

  The Nephilim (Hebrew: נְפִילִים) were the offspring of the "sons of God" and the "daughters of men" before the Deluge, according to Genesis 6:1-4.

  A similar or identical biblical Hebrew term, read as "Nephilim" by some scholars, or as the word "fallen" by others, appears in Ezekiel 32:27.1

  When people began to multiply on the face of the ground, and daughters were born to them, the sons of God saw that they were fair; and they took wives for themselves of all that they chose. Then the Lord said, "My spirit shall not abide in mortals forever, for they are flesh; their days shall be one hundred twenty years." The Nephilim were on the earth in those days—and also afterward—when the sons of God went in to the daughters of humans, who bore children to them. These were the heroes that were of old, warriors of renown. — Genesis 6:1–4, New Revised Standard Version

  The word is loosely translated as giants in some Bibles and left untranslated in others. The "sons of God" have been interpreted as fallen angels in some traditional Jewish explanations.

  According to Numbers 13:33, they later inhabited Canaan at the time of the Israelite conquest of Canaan.

  The Lord said to Moses, "Send men to spy out the land of Canaan, which I am giving to the Israelites" ... So they went up and spied out the land ... And they told him: "... Yet the people who live in the land are strong, and the towns are fortified and very large; and besides, we saw the descendants of Anak there." ... So they brought to the Israelites an unfavorable report of the land that they had spied out, saying, "The land that we have gone through as spies is a land that devours its inhabitants; and all the people that we saw in it are of great size. There we saw the Nephilim (the Anakites come from the Nephilim); and to ourselves we seemed like grasshoppers, and so we seemed to them." — Numbers 13:1–2; 21; 27–28; 32–33. New Revised Standard Version.

And now let us look at what the Sons of God may mean:

  Sons of the God (Hebrew: בני האלהים) literally: "sons of the Gods") is a phrase used in the Hebrew Bible and apocrypha. The phrase is also used in Kabbalah where bene elohim are part of different Jewish angelic hierarchies.

  Hebrew Bible

  Genesis 6

  And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them, That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose. And the LORD said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years. There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown. — Genesis 6:1–4, KJV

  The first mention of "sons of God" in the Hebrew Bible occurs at Genesis 6:1–4. In terms of literary-historical origin, this phrase is typically associated with the Jahwist tradition.3

  This passage has had two interpretations in Judaism:

  Offspring of Seth: The first references to the offspring of Seth rebelling from God and mingling with the daughters of Cain are found in Christian and rabbinic literature from the second century CE onwards e.g. Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai, Augustine of Hippo, Julius Africanus, and the Letters attributed to St. Clement. It is also the view expressed in the modern canonical Amharic Ethiopian Orthodox Bible. In Judaism "Sons of God" usually refers to the righteous, i.e. the children of Seth.
  Angels: All of the earliest sources interpret the "sons of God" as angels. From the third century BCE onwards, references are found in the Enochic literature, the Dead Sea Scrolls the (Genesis Apocryphon, the Damascus Document, 4Q180), Jubilees, the Testament of Reuben, 2 Baruch, Josephus, and the book of Jude (compare with 2 Peter 2). This is also the meaning of the only two identical occurrences of bene ha elohim in the Hebrew Bible (Job 1:6 and 2:1), and of the most closely related expressions (refer to the list above). In the Septuagint, the interpretive reading "angels" is found in Codex Alexandrinus, one of four main witnesses to the Greek text.

  Rabbinic Judaism traditionally adheres to the first interpretation, with some exceptions, and modern Jewish translations may translate bnei elohim as "sons of rulers" rather than "sons of God". Regardless, the second interpretation (sons of angels or other divine beings) is nonexistent in modern Judaism. This is reflected by the rejection of Enoch and other Apocrypha supporting the second interpretation from the Hebrew Bible Canon.

Using Scripture to interpret Scripture is a very common practice in our day and as such the New Testament in the person of St. Luke shows us that the Sons of God were the descendants of Adam.

According to Scripture “sons of God” means “persons who are begotten independently of any creature’s decision”. All angels can appropriately be called “sons of God”, but not all characters called “sons of God” in the Bible can appropriately be considered angels. The “sons of God” in Genesis 6:1-4 are undoubtedly human, and it is fitting to consider that they were created directly by God through transformation of human-like animals into persons.

  Who was the son of Enos, who was the son of Seth, who was the son of Adam, who was the son of God. - Luke 3:38

Thus if the Nephilim were the descendants of the Sons of God (sons of Adam) and the "daughters of men" surely not all of them were evil. Some of them would have had good and upright souls.

The suggestion is that Fallen Angels are alluded to as "the sons of God", came down to earth and procreated with the daughters of men.

Jesus made it clear this is an impossibility, when He stated:

  In the kingdom of heaven they, the redeemed, neither marry, not are
  they given in marriage, but they are like the Angel's!

Therefore Jesus made it clear angels cannot reproduce.  The Sons of God, referred to here refers to the godly line, the sons of Shem who began to marry the ungodly daughters of men.  The giants referred to here does not describe their physical stature but their gross immorality.  Their offspring became giants in sin!


How did the early church respond to the accusation that Christianity forbid ‘all uses of images’ even if only ‘representing the Divine Being’? Origen, in Contra Celsus, Book VII, responds to an attack from Celsus: that Christians are just like Jews in rejecting all forms of images without exception.

In this rebuttal by Origen, we clearly see that Greek philosophers, specifically Celsus, did not think of idols as 'actual Gods' made of wood, for stone, but as just representations of them only, dedicated to them, in order to facilitate worship. The Greek worship of the gods did not terminate on the physical object or icon, but through them passed into the actual god never resting on the mere medium or icon.

The Greek view of images as facilitating higher worship is ridiculed by Origen:

  For what reasonable man can refrain from smiling when he sees that one who has learned from philosophy such profound and noble sentiments about God or the gods, turns straightway to images and offers to them his prayers, or imagines that by gazing upon these material things he can ascend from the visible symbol to that which is spiritual and immaterial.

Celsus in turn ridicules Christians because they “despise without exception all images” and so do not even have any form of God to facilitate their worship. He further argues that this is contradictory the Christian claim that man was made in the mage of God, therefore God can be represented by physical images and Christians have no excuse not to have images.

The question is how did Origen respond to this claim that Christian despised all images without exception just like Jews? Did origin admit such was the case and argue why, or did he think there were actually some images used in the Church to facilitate worship, like Mary or the Cross and that Celsus was simply unaware of them?

Celsus believed in the logos that transcended images and idols, so he admits that worshipping mere idols, without understanding the spiritual nature of what an image represented was meaningless. His problem with Christians is that they have no kind of image in their own religion so they are like the Persians who worship ‘no god’ because to Celsus an invisible god is nothing, for the gods must have some physical form, as represented by the images of them:

Let us now see what follows. "Let us pass on," says he, "to another point. They cannot tolerate temples, altars, or images. In this they are like the Scythians, the nomadic tribes of Libya, the Seres who worship no god, and some other of the most barbarous and impious nations in the world. That the Persians hold the same notions is shown by Herodotus in these words: 'I know that among the Persians it is considered unlawful to erect images, altars, or temples; but they charge those with folly who do so, because, as I conjecture, they do not, like the Greeks, suppose the gods to be of the nature of men.' (Origen quoting Celsus)

Celus also admits that philosophers do not confuse the mere ‘wood, brass, or gold’ with the actual god but are merely ‘representing the Divine Being.’  It is this refusal to allow physical objects as something to represent the Divine being that most infuriates Cesus against the Christians. Furthermore, not only so but Christians in their rejection of worshiping the one and true invisible God with images actually believe that the Greeks who use images actually only facilitate a worship of demons through them.

Heraclitus also says in one place: 'Persons who address prayers to these images act like those who speak to the walls, without knowing who the gods or the heroes are.' And what wiser lesson have they to teach us than Heraclitus? He certainly plainly enough implies that it is a foolish thing for a man to offer prayers to images, whilst he knows not who the gods and heroes are. This is the opinion of Heraclitus; but as for them, they go further, and despise without exception all images. If they merely mean that the stone, wood, brass, or gold which has been wrought by this or that workman cannot be a god, they are ridiculous with their wisdom. For who, unless he be utterly childish in his simplicity, can take these for gods, and not for offerings consecrated to the service of the gods, or images representing them? But if we are not to regard these as representing the Divine Being, seeing that God has a different form, as the Persians concur with them in saying, then let them take care that they do not contradict themselves; for they say that God made man His own image, and that He gave him a form like to Himself. However, they will admit that these images, whether they are like or not, are made and dedicated to the honour of certain beings. But they will hold that the beings to whom they are dedicated are not gods, but demons, and that a worshipper of God ought not to worship demons." (Origen quoting Celsus)

Although later church history would show otherwise concerning the use of images in worship, Origen admitted that Christians were ‘exactly like Jews’ in this rejection of all graven images:

But Christians and Jews have regard to this command, "Thou shalt fear the Lord thy God, and serve Him alone;" and this other, "Thou shalt have no other gods before Me: thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth: thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them;" and again, "Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and Him only shalt thou serve." It is in consideration of these and many other such commands, that they not only avoid temples, altars, and images, but are ready to suffer death when it is necessary, rather than debase by any such impiety the conception which they have of the Most High God. (Origen)

The reason why Origen thinks an image has no place in the worship of God is that he says God is invisible and so we must shut our physical eyes to worship him in spirit and truth. He calls this using the yes of the soul:

But a Christian, even of the common people, is assured that every place forms part of the universe, and that the whole universe is God's temple. In whatever part of the world he is, he prays; but he rises above the universe, "shutting the eyes of sense, and raising upwards the eyes of the soul." And he stops not at the vault of heaven; but passing in thought beyond the heavens, under the guidance of the Spirit of God, and having thus as it were gone beyond the visible universe, he offers prayers to God. (Origen)
All true Christians therefore have the eye of the mind sharpened, and the eye of sense closed; so that each one, according to the degree in which his better eye is quickened, and the eye of sense darkened, sees and knows the Supreme God, and His Son, who is the Word, Wisdom, and so forth. (Origen)

Conclusion: Therefore being that God is invisible Origen defends Christianity for not using images by saying we really need to shut our eyes, not use physical things to help our thoughts, but deny such use of icons and images in the pure worship of God. In this way we can see with the eyes of the mind and soul.

The Jews "worshiped" the book, the Torah, the Temple(building), the land, and the race.  "Everybody realized that this was the one most sacred place on earth, the one place on earth where somehow heaven and earth meet" Temple Culture. https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/religion/portrait/temple.html

Yes, they did not have an image of creatures, but the Temple Culture, the race(people) the land, all together can be called idolatry. In the Jewish service, they parade the Torah around like it represents G-d.
In modern times, when very few Jews are tempted to worship idols in the older sense, Jewish thinkers have called attention to different forms of idolatry‑-the worship of the State, for instance, as in totalitarian regimes, or the worship of causes, persons, and “isms” of various kinds. For Jews to substitute Jewish nationhood for the Jewish religion would be a species of idolatry in this wider sense.

In the Jewish tradition, even the Torah is to be seen as a means to God, never as an object of worship. Some authorities go so far as to forbid Jews to bow to the Torah since this might seem to treat the Torah as an object of worship. The custom is to bow to the Torah but only as one bows as a token of respect, to a human being. The Torah in Judaism [in that it is not viewed as itself divine] is more akin to Muhammad in Islam than to Jesus in Christianity.
 https://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/idolatry-the-ultimate-betrayal-of-god/


How does dispensationalism reconcile Romans 11? From my understanding of dispensationalism, at some point in the future, I believe either prior to or just after the rapture, the temple on Moriah will need to be rebuilt.

However, presumably, the reason for rebuilding the temple would be to resume the temple sacrifices that were going on there until the Romans destroyed it. This motivation seems even more likely (to me), given the imagery of the Millennial Temple in Ezekiel 40-48, where animal sacrifices are taking place.

But, if, as Paul seems to be saying below that all Israel will be saved, then what would the motivation be to rebuild a temple, given "sacrifice for sin is no longer necessary" (Hebrews 10:1-18) ?

Romans 11:25-26a

  I do not want you to be ignorant of this mystery, brothers and
  sisters, so that you may not be conceited: Israel has experienced a
  hardening in part until the full number of the Gentiles has come in,
  and in this way all Israel will be saved.

How do adherents of dispensationalism explain this? Where is my confusion?

all Israel will be saved

The phrase above lends itself to several possibilities.

Every descendant of Jacob will eventually end up in heaven.
All those of Israel who were "blinded" will be saved.
Israel is a metaphor for all those of faith who are Abraham's children.
The Israel that will be saved is the faithful remnant that remains at the end of the tribulation.

I favor the remnant view in that I see the time element of the fulfillment of the new covenant.

Rom 11:26-27  And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob:   For this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins.

Jerimiah 31:33  But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.

Daniel 9:27  And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.

Matthew 24:15-16  When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand:)   Then let them which be in Judaea flee into the mountains:

Revelation 12:14  And to the woman were given two wings of a great eagle, that she might fly into the wilderness, into her place, where she is nourished for a time, and times, and half a time, from the face of the serpent.

Rom 9:27  Esaias also crieth concerning Israel, Though the number of the children of Israel be as the sand of the sea, a remnant shall be saved:

I think your confusion comes from defining "Israel".

In Romans 9:6 it says "Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel:"
Just being ethnically a member of Israel, does not make you a part of Israel that Paul talks about in Romans 11:26.

In order to be "Israel" you had to follow the law laid out by God in Genesis-Deuteronomy.


Do any Protestant denominations practice meditative or contemplative prayer? Having read David's answer to How much are psalms and other prayers from Bible understood as actual prayer in Protestantism?, I wonder whether any Protestants practice meditative or contemplative forms of prayer, even if not so-called or even considered to be forms of prayer.

  2723 Meditation is a prayerful quest engaging thought,
  imagination, emotion, and desire. Its goal is to make our own in faith
  the subject considered, by confronting it with the reality of our own
  life. 2724 Contemplative prayer is the simple expression of
  the mystery of prayer. It is a gaze of faith fixed on Jesus, an
  attentiveness to the Word of God, a silent love. It achieves real
  union with the prayer of Christ to the extent that it makes us share
  in his mystery. (Expressions of Prayer, In Brief)

Meditation, in Catholic terms, is an focusing of the mind beyond simple verbal, communicative constructs. It's an uplifting of the mind to God on a level beyond that of normal verbal conversation. It's an attempt at focusing thought, emotion, imagination, and desire on scripture, God, God's Truths, and is sometimes aided by a sort of mantra or rote prayer like the rosary, the Name of God, a particular verse, etc..

Contemplation, in Catholic terms, might be accurately thought of as the "falling" part of falling in love with God. It is sometimes the "next step" after a period of meditation. It's considered to be 100% grace -- you can't induce contemplation, you can only be "invited" in by God. The mechanics of focus in meditation are generally lost, and the pray-er submits God's awesome, perfect, unifying dialogue (not generally verbal though).

Do some/any denominations condone meditative and/or contemplative practices? If so, do they tend to refrain from calling these practices prayer -- and if so, why are they not considered prayer?

I am unaware of any protestant denominations that have a special focus on contemplative prayer, but I'm also unaware of any that outright ban it. In my experience it is practiced only by a minority of Protestants, and that they are spread throughout many denominations. Of course it is practiced only by a minority of Catholics too.

A good place to start is the book Celebration of Discipline, by Richard Foster. In many ways its the primary handbook for Protestants not just of contemplative prayer, but other 'neglected' (by Protestant) disciplines such as fasting and confession. It has sold over a million copies and was named by Christianity Today as one of the top ten books of the twentieth century.

The Ignatian Spiritual Exercises are also used by a significant minority of Protestants.

Some evangelicals do practise biblical meditation (Selwyn Hughes, for instance, was very keen on the practice).