When, how, and why did the Moravians stop praying 24-7? The Moravians I speak of were a small group that established and resided in a small village named Herrnut on Count Zinzendorf's estate. They experienced a revival in 1727, and following that they did very noteworthy and significant things. Source: Wikipedia.

One of those things was establishing 24-7 prayer that went on uninterrupted for over a hundred years. Now, my question is threefold:

When did it stop? Wikipedia says that it went on for over 100 years, placing the end date past 1827. However, I'm curious to know if there's a precise date recorded.
How did it stop? Was it a sudden end, or did it peter out over the course of months or years?
Why did it stop? Was it because people just slowly got tired of it? Perhaps they were invaded and forced out of their home, an event so disruptive they couldn't continue the continual prayer unbroken? Maybe everyone left for some reason?

I realize that proving a negative is difficult, but an acceptable answer could also be that the answers to these questions were not recorded, though of course I would like to see proper justification for claiming that.

From a Moravian website in the UK:

The industrial revolution and 1870 Education Act brought changes to the settlement' way of life and the sisters' house and schools were closed in the latter half of the 19th century. The additional buildings were then converted into dwelling houses which are managed by the Unitas Estates Company. http://www.moravian.org.uk/index.php/uk-congregations-list-for-the-moravian-church/yorkshire-district/gomersal

Its only referring to the closing of a church school connected with one congregation, but it is most likely also involved in the general downturn.  After all, the inability to keep religious schools running, and their replacement by a secular school system, can very easily make a big dent in a minority denomination's numbers.
Looking up the Elementary Education Act 1870 we find on Wikipedia:

There were ongoing political clashes between the vested interests of Church, private schools and the National Education League followers. In some districts the creation of boards was delayed by local vote. In others, church leaders managed to be voted onto boards and restrict the building of board schools, or divert the school rate funds into church schools.

The vested church interests referred to there are of the Anglican church, not the Moravians.  Losing their own schools and having to send their children to secular or Anglican schools, either one, would undoubtedly have been of great consequence to the denomination's future.
Although divided by an ocean, this article about Bethlehem Pennsylvania seems to tell the same basic story:

Since 1741, Bethlehem has beckoned travelers to experience the warmth and hospitality of this delightful community. In that year, a small group of Moravians settled on the banks of the Lehigh River near the Monocacy Creek.....
On Christmas Eve of that first year, 1741, the Moravians' patron, Count Nicholas Ludwig von Zinzendorf of Saxony, Germany, visited the new settlement. In their two-room log home that housed both man and beast, the Count christened the community "Bethlehem"....
With the advent of the Industrial Revolution, Bethlehem became a center of heavy industry and trade....making the city a "melting pot" of cultures, blending one into the other.  http://www.bethlehem-pa.gov/about/history/

And again with LITITZ, PA:

Lititz was established in 1756 by the Moravian Church as an exclusive religious community until 1855, when the town welcomed people of all religious creeds. The town played an active role in the Revolutionary War, Civil War, and industrial revolution, and served as an early musical, educational, and commercial hub.  http://www.moravianmanor.org/lititz.htm

Or again :

The cottage industries of the Moravian Settlement were eventually overtaken by the Industrial Revolution and members sought work and business outside the settlement. http://www.derbytelegraph.co.uk/Hidden-past-village-founded-pioneering/story-16865225-detail/story.html#ixzz37ELK0udO

Who has time for 24/7 prayer when you've got to commute?

When I went to Israel a woman told me about this movement of the 100 year prayer. She then proceeded to tell me about the first wife of a leader of the movement, whose name I don't know. She supported what God did in  people's hearts and thus many missionaries went out into all the world and impacted it.
The first wife died and the leader took another one. The second wife had areas in her life she didn't work through with God. This caused her to be jealous and she started manipulating the intercessors hearts. When people felt called into ministry she was there to state, that it was unnecessary. She encouraged the stopping of going out into the world. So many didn't go.
I don't think that everyone just listened to her, but as the wife of the leader she had influence and she used it  to sabotage the work of God and to sow discord. Thus the prayerchain stopped eventually (so I was told).

If I don't work on my heart becoming whole by seeking God in the secret and knowing and trusting his truth and love, my heart will be hardened by various things such as fear, jealousy or bitterness. If my heart is separated from God's, I won't partner with him,  but pursue different things than he does. I might actually ruin the work that the spirit is doing by getting in the way. He asks us not to do that.


Did Jesus condemn wealth? Mathew 19 : 16 - 24

16 And, behold, one came and said unto him, Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life?
17 And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good?  there is none good but one, that is, God:  but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.
18 He saith unto him, Which?  Jesus said, Thou shalt do no murder, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness,
19 Honour thy father and thy mother:  and, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
20 The young man saith unto him, All these things have I kept from my youth up:  what lack I yet?
21 Jesus said unto him, If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven:  and come and follow me.
22 But when the young man heard that saying, he went away sorrowful:  for he had great possessions.
23 Then said Jesus unto his disciples, Verily I say unto you, That a rich man shall hardly enter into the kingdom of heaven.
24 And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.

This bible passage has really got me confused. Does this mean that Jesus condemns wealth and it is not good to be rich?.

No, it does not mean that at all.  We cannot assume that everything Jesus ever said to anyone applies to all people in all times.  Jesus gave this specific commandment to this specific person at that time.

Other places in Scripture, Jesus acknowledges that there are wealthy people and gives instructions to them--not condemnations.

  As for the rich in this present age, charge them not to be haughty, nor to set their hopes on the uncertainty of riches, but on God, who richly provides us with everything to enjoy. 18 They are to do good, to be rich in good works, to be generous and ready to share, 19 thus storing up treasure for themselves as a good foundation for the future, so that they may take hold of that which is truly life.  1 Timothy 6:17-18 ESV

The Old Testament acknowledge that God does bless with material things at times, though this is not His greatest blessings.

  Honor the Lord with your wealth and with the firstfruits of all your produce;
  10 then your barns will be filled with plenty, and your vats will be bursting with wine.  Proverbs 3:9-10 ESV

So, no, this is not a condemnation of wealth or capitalism or anything like that.  It is a specific command to a specific person who perhaps had made an idol out of his wealth which needed to be removed.

it's not just this Mt 19, it's also Mt 6 (and their counterparts in Mark and Luke) and in the 2nd chapter of Acts.

the fact is, despite the heresy of the "Prosperity gospel" most evidently displayed in the U.S., but also some other places in the west, that Jesus, while on earth, held no wealth, save for the clothes on his body.  the fact is that Jesus taught consistently to reject amassing treasure on earth in favor of the Kingdom of God.  this is not the same as rejecting people of wealth or of poverty.

material wealth is important.  without sufficient material, people starve.  or freeze.  or die of disease.

Clarence Jordon says it better than me (please forgive the sexist language from 6 decades ago):

 When God first made man, he made provision for all of man's needs.  This has been true ever since.  God has already "added all these things".  There is enough in the world today to meet all of man's needs.  The problem is not in supply, but is in distribution, not with God but with man.  Poverty and riches are the result of man's rebellion against the will of God.  When his kingdom comes, when his will is done on earth, both both poverty and riches will go!  -- Sermon on the Mount, © 1952, Judson Press.

that said, let no one self-righteously deem themselves as better than their sibling of better means.  but those with means must, if they want to be a faithful Christian and citizen of the Kingdom of God, understand their responsibility to share.


Is baptizing someone without consent valid? (Roman Catholic view) Stemming from this question Is it valid to baptize multiple persons at once?, the question gives the scenario of one person baptising multiple people on a plane that is going to crash. The bit that confused me was towards the end when it says:

  and that air pressure has been lost leaving [the one doing the baptising] as the only one conscious

There is a comment as well:

  consent doesn't matter to the validity of baptism

According to the Roman Catholic church, if you baptise an adult who is not a believer and has not asked to be baptised (has not given consent), is that a valid baptism?

I think you'll find the section on Baptism in the Code of Canon Law helpful in answering your question.

Code of Canon Law: Title 1 - Baptism

To summarize a bit (please check out the link for the lion's share of details):

There is more than one way to be baptized, not all of which require a minister or other baptized person to be present. (e.g. the Baptism by Desire referenced by @Alypius above.) One form doesn't even require the recipient to be aware, but it's a special case (infants) that assumes the guardians have the infant's best interests at heart.
Consent is mandatory, and the person must be alive. This is where Catholic baptism parts ways from Mormon baptism. In the latter, it is acceptable to baptize the dead.

So, if the people on the plane expressed a desire to be baptized, and gave their consent, it matters little that they're conscious or not when the sacrament is conferred. An infant isn't cognizant of the act, yet it is acceptable to baptize the infant (for many reasons that you'll find in "illuminated" versions of the Code of Canon Law.)

Here's another pretty decent source of info (goes into much greater detail than the Code of Canon Law): Catholic Encyclopedia

You asked:

  According to the Roman Catholic church what happens to a non-believer when they die?

I believe Rome teaches that a person must have partaken of the sacraments, and believe in Christ.

  If any one saith that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary unto salvation...and that without them, or without the desire thereof, men obtain from God, through faith alone, the grace of justification...let him be anathema (The Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent. Found in Philip Schaff, The Creeds of Christendom (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1919), Canon IV, p. 119).

In addition to this penance would also be necessary:

  Penance is...necessary because we must expiate and make reparation for the punishment which is due our sins...We make satisfaction for our sins by every good act we perform in the state of grace but especially by prayer, penance and the practice of charity (John Hardon, The Question and Answer Catholic Catechism (Garden City: Image, 1981), Question #1320).

The mass is also necessary to cleanse from sins committed after baptism:

  In this divine sacrifice...that same Christ is contained and immolated in an unbloody manner who once offered himself in a bloody manner on the altar of the cross...This sacrifice is truly propitiatory...If any one saith, that the sacrifice of the mass is only a sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving; or that it is a bare commemoration of the sacrifice consummated on the cross, but not a propitiatory sacrifice...and that it ought not to be offered for the living and dead for sins, pains, satisfactions and other necessities: let him be anathema (The Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent. Found in Philip Schaff, The Creeds of Christendom (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1910), Doctrine on the Sacrifice of the Mass, Chp. II, p. 180, Canon III).

So, if an unbeliever did not do these things he would be hell bound according to Rome.

You also asked:

  Is there any difference for a non-believer who has been baptised compared to a non-believer who hasn't been baptised?

One must first ask the question, 'Is Catholic baptism valid?'. I do not believe it is. But even assuming that it was, according to the Catholic position, the person would still be bound to hell, as he has not partaken of baptism and has no faith in Christ.

Now, for the sake of openness, I will state that I am not a Catholic, but a reformed protestant.


Is man born in God's image, or was that just Adam? I have noticed many Christians say 'we were born in God’s image', but the scripture seems to imply that men are 'born in the image of their Father, the Devil?'

For example:

  This is how we know who the children of God are and who the children of the devil are: Anyone who does not do what is right is not a child of God; nor is anyone who does not love his brother. (1 John 3:10)

Which is it then, is man created in God’s image after the fall, or the Devils, or neither?

All of Humanity is (Individually) Made in God's Image

Genesis does not seem to leave the matter open to much interpretation.

  Genesis 1:26-27 NASB  Then God said, "Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the cattle and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth." God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.

Both Adam and Eve were made in his image, and by simple inference, it would seem to extend to all humanity. He later told them to be fruitful and multiply, then repeats the part about dominion, as if to say that their progeny would be like this.

One could perhaps argue that since the fall, man may be fundamentally different in the matter of being made in God's image. I do not think a straightforward reading of the text provides any real grounds for such a conclusion, though.

  Genesis 9:6 NASB  "Whoever sheds man's blood, By man his blood shall be shed, For in the image of God He made man."

This command to Noah after (sin, death, and) the flood I read to be an affirmation of an enduring unity between "humanity" and the "image of God" that not even the presence of sin can take away. It is as if the image of God is some sort of indelible mark on each human that cannot be marred or lost and whose value is not something we earn or lose. It is who we are. It is perhaps the thing about us that God finds valuable enough to redeem at awful cost.

The question didn't really include anything about the meaning of imaging God, so I won't attempt any discussion on that here, though it might be interesting.

The Image of Other Things

The second piece of the question mentioned being "born into the image of God or the Devil."

One definition of the word for "son" (υιος; 5207) is "used to describe one who depends on another or is his follower," and this is frequently used when biological sonship/fatherhood is not thought to be possible, "sons of the prophets," "son of hell," "son of the devil," "You are of your father the devil," etc.

Nowhere is there any link made between being a "son of" someone and being born/made "in [his] image." We are all (still) made in God's image, even if we are "sons of the devil," because imaging God is a defining human characteristic and being a son of the devil is a description of our behavior.

EDIT: I forgot about Genesis 5:3, although I would consider that tangential to the point. The question has to do with being a "son of God" or "son of the Devil," and imaging that "father." When these phrases are used in the New Testament, they are referring to behavior. I would consider it dangerous to draw too strong a conclusion from Genesis 5:3 and Genesis 6:2. Seth resembles Adam, though not only in the ways that Adam (or any human) resembles God. The language of Genesis 6 is too "wonderful for me" to speak with certainty as to its precise meaning, but I don't think it's attempting to elucidate the concept of "imaging" in any way.

All of mankind is made in Gods own image, not just Adam. We find the pronouncement early in the Bible concerning man being created in God's image:

Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. And let them have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over the livestock and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.” 27 So God created man in his own image,
in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them. (Genesis 1:26-27)

This image was both on a 'spiritual' plane and on a 'natural' plane.  For when the Trinity said in  'our likeness' it refers to the spiritual holy image of God, but the immediate application is that under that image man would 'rule over the fish', etc. This implication is also described in Palms  8. By the word 'natural' we mean not pertaining to spirit, love or communion with God, but pertaining to body, mind, feelings and will, as these may exists separate from God. Even an animal or the Devil has mind, emotion, will, creativity. 'Spiritual' pertains to Gods character and power whereby those natural features are made to reflect God's likeness/image.
One can see that the natural image and authority over nature was not fully lost in the fall for God said after the fall:

“Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed, for God made man in his own image. (Genesis 9:6)

However on the spiritual level, man no longer held the image of God for that image is perfect holiness and this is what man lost through sin.

1 And you were dead in the trespasses and sins 2 in which you once walked, following the course of this world, following the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that is now at work in the sons of disobedience — 3 among whom we all once lived in the passions of our flesh, carrying out the desires of the body and the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind. (Ephesians 2:1-3)

Spiritually we are 'born' with the image of our spiritual parents. Spiritually we reflect Gods image, only if we love Him, otherwise He is not our spiritual father:

Jesus said to them, “ If God were your Father, you would love me, for I came from God and I am here. I came not of my own accord, but he sent me. 43 Why do you not understand what I say? It is because you cannot bear to hear my word. 44 You are of your father the devil, and your will is to do your father 's desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks out of his own character, for he is a liar and the father of lies. (John 8:42-44)

Since we were 'all enemies of God', rather than loving God, our spiritual father was the Devil, and so was our image was reflecting evil.

For if while we were enemies we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, now that we are reconciled, shall we be saved by his life. (Romans 5:10)

Therefore, although God has a special love for mankind, even when they were His enemies, only Adam and Jesus Christ were born with His image. We do not regain that image again until being 'born again'.

As was the man of dust, so also are those who are of the dust, and as is the man of heaven, so also are those who are of heaven. 49 Just as we have borne the image of the man of dust, we shall also bear the image of the man of heaven. (1 Corinthians 15:48-49)

Man lost the spiritual image of God. Furthermore, it was not just 'marred', but entirely removed and replaced with the image of the Devil. The Devil is said to be the father of that image and kingdom, on account of his introducing sin into the human race. This has always been the faith of Luther, Calvin, etc. and included in the great doctrine of original sin.
For understanding the reformed view of original sin, refer here.
I have collected a couple quotes direct from Calvin and Luther, as one suggested I was introducing a private and new idea here. Evidently this is simply untrue.
Calvin said regarding this image:

Paul says that we are transformed into the image of God by the gospel. And, according to him, spiritual regeneration is nothing else than the restoration of the same image. ( Colossians  3:10 , and Ephesians  4:23 .) That he made this image to consist in righteousness and true holiness, is by the figure synecdochee; for though this is the chief part, it is not the whole of God's image. Therefore by this word the perfection of our whole nature is designated, as it appeared when Adam was endued with a right judgment, had affections in harmony with reason, had all his senses sound and well-regulated, and truly excelled in everything good....
But now, although some obscure lineaments of that image are found remaining in us; yet are they so vitiated and maimed, that they may truly be said to be destroyed. (Calvin's commentary on Genesis Ch 1:26-27)

Luther said it even more simply:

God announces the punishment: “On whatever day you eat from this tree, you will die by death,” as though He said: “Adam and Eve, now you are living without fear; death you have not experienced, nor have you seen it. This is My image, by which you are living, just as God lives. But if you sin, you will lose this image, and you will die.” (Luther's Works Volume 1, P63)


In the parable of the ten minas, why does the king kill his enemies? The Parable of the Ten Minas

  Luke 19:27 (NIV) But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them—bring them here and kill them in front of me.

Now, this is spoken in the 3rd person (of the "man of noble birth"); however, it still seems the intent of the parable is to order open carnage against those who don't follow the Abrahamic faith (see :9 & :10, that lead into this parable).

Interpretation?

This is a parable, so the fact that "a man of noble birth" is third person is rather irrelevant. It's pretty obvious he's symbolizing someone, probably Jesus.
Context. Verse 11 reads:

  As they heard these things, he proceeded to tell a parable, because he was near to Jerusalem, and because they supposed that the kingdom of God was to appear immediately.

I think it's easy to gather from this that:

The parable was being told to show that the kingdom of God would not appear immediately
This parable was about the kingdom of God.

With this in mind, and knowing that the kingdom of God in Jesus's parables often refers to the day of judgement or the end times, we can make a couple of assumptions:

Jesus is the nobleman. He often is, and he goes to "receive for himself a kingdom," something especially reformed scholars says Jesus is doing (receiving a kingdom from his Father).
The followers of Christ are the ten servants.
Those servants that pleased the nobleman with the abundance of minas are those saved by Christ who have lived out their lives "according to their calling."  They have confirmed their faith through works, as James says.
The one who fails to multiply the mina is not one of Christ's followers, but a tag-along; like the seed sown in the rocks.
Point 4 is made more obvious in verse 26, which reads:

  I tell you that to everyone who has, more will be given, but from the one who has not, even what he has will be taken away.

Those who multiplied their minas "had" - they had Christ, truly. Alternatively you could say they truly "had" their mina, because then to them more was given. Either way, they had something (salvation) and to them more (eternal life) was given. To the man who hid the mina, he had not (no salvation) and so even everything else he had (life) was taken away (cast into hell).

As to verse 27, notice that the nobleman is still talking within the parable; Jesus is not talking directly. So we're still within the parable, which is happening later (point 2.1). The nobleman (Jesus) will, on the last day, cast into Hell those who did not want him to rule over him, just as he "took away" from the man who failed to multiply his mina. (There might be a difference between what happens to these two groups, maybe, maybe not. Regardless, those rebelled against Christ are being punished).
So no, Christ isn't "ordering open carnage against those who didn't follow the Abrahamic faith", he's sounding a warning that on the last day those who rebelled against him will perish.

N.B This answer, like many, is quite speculative. I've tried to stick to what I've heard preached and the typical Evangelical interpretation of the passage. The beauty of the votes is that they (should, anyways) show if I'm well representing that position.

Jesus is talking about the time when Jesus is back to the world as King... the second coming.
The time of grace is over by then. That time, whoever is willfully against his kingdom will be punished because they know that Jesus is God and still do not want to acknowledge him.
Jesus is talking about the guardians of faith who rejected Jesus. To prove the point, let's see how another event unfolded. Jesus healed a blind person who was blind from birth. He did not have eyes at all. Jesus made clay out of spit and spread it over his eyes. It resembled the act of creation of the first human, where God made Adam from earth. Elders in their heart... they knew this was God for sure. But they did not want to concede and lose the privileges that they were enjoying. Remember, Jesus did not allow them to do business in the temple.
At the end, Jesus said this remarkable sentence:
John 9:41 -- Jesus said, “If you were blind, you would not be guilty of sin; but now that you claim you can see, your guilt remains.
These guys did know Jesus was God, but did not want to give up their positions. By doing this, they willfully sinned against their conscience. A Muslim, a Hindu or an atheist may not be judged as severely as those Pharisees because they may not be working against their conscience.
James 4:17 -- If anyone, then, knows the good they ought to do and doesn’t do it, it is sin for them.
How much the sin will be, if you know that Jesus is son of God and you don't accept him.


Definition of "Prince" in Bible? Quite often "prince" and "princes" are mentioned in the scriptures. Of particular interest are expressions such as these:

"Prince of Persia"
"Prince of Peace"

And similar expressions - especially those found in Daniel.
I've always known a "prince" to be a future king.
Is this the definition in the scriptures? Or is "prince" a title denoting a different sort of authority?
In essense: Does prince = future king?

A "prince", literally speaking, is not necessarily a "future king". He is the son of a king, and so MAY be a future king, but may not. If a king has two sons, they are both princes, but it is quite possible that one will become king and the other never will. In English the word "prince" is also used for the husband of a queen when it is the queen who holds the power. Like the husband of Queen Elizabeth of Britain is called "Prince" Phillip.

By extension, the word "prince" is often used, in the Bible and elsewhere, as a general term for a person with power or authority.

I am not aware of any more specific meaning in the Bible as the word is used in general. Of course one could examine specific uses of the word and discuss exactly what sort of power is being described, but then we're not really talking about the word "prince", but rather about a specific person who is called a prince.

The word "prince" in English comes from Latin "princeps" (genitive principis) "first man, chief leader; ruler, sovereign," noun use of adjective meaning "that takes first," from primus "first" (see prime (adj.)) + root of capere "to take" (see capable).

So, a prince does not have to be the son of a king and doesn't even have to be of a monarchy. The Israelites had some form of princes even before they wanted a king in 1 Samuel 8.

They had princes already in Numbers. Numbers 7:2: "That the princes of Israel, heads of the house of their fathers, who were the princes of the tribes, and were over them that were numbered, offered:"

A prince is simply a head, the principal leader, similar to the word principal of a school, he is the first or highest authority figure in whatever context that is, and yes, usually political contexts at least in English.

In Numbers it seems that princes were the highest leaders or representatives from every tribe from among the families of the tribes.


Is there an example in the Bible of a human ever praying [a prayer] to someone other than one assumed to be God/god? Is there an example in the Bible of a human ever praying [a prayer] to someone other than one assumed to be God/god (i.e., whether they be a false god or true god)? In other words, is there an example of praying to something/someone who is assumed or acknowledged to be a creature rather than the Creator?

By the English verb "praying," I am referring to a conjugation of the Greek verb προσεύχομαι, and by the English noun "prayer," I am referring to the noun Greek προσευχή. Or, if in the Old Testament, I am referring to a conjugation of the Hebrew verb הִתְפַּלֵּל, or the Hebrew noun תְּפִלָּה.

As far as the Hebrew הִתְפַּלֵּל (hitpallēl) goes, I’m pretty sure1  the only example of prayer clearly directed at people (rather than God/gods) is Isaiah 45:14, which doesn’t come across as "pray" in most translations I’ve looked at, presumably because the idea is troubling.

  Thus says the LORD:
       “The wealth of Egypt and the merchandise of Cush,
            and the Sabeans, men of stature,
       shall come over to you and be yours;
            they shall follow you;
            they shall come over in chains and bow down to you (אֵלַיִךְ יִֽשְׁתַּחֲוּוּ)
       They will plead with you (אֵלַיִךְ יִתְפַּלָּ֔לוּ), saying:
            ‘Surely God is in you, and there is no other,
            no god besides him.’” (ESV)

The phrase "plead with you" uses the verb/stem of interest (hitpallēl) with the preposition אֶל (ʾel = "to", here in its emphatic form), which standardly identifies the object of prayer. The object ("you") is feminine singular and thus probably refers to Jerusalem rather than Israel (which is consistently referred to using masculine pronouns) or (more problematic still) Cyrus.  The semantically related verb יִשְׁתַּחֲוּוּ (yištaḥăwwû = "they will bow down") - makes it all the more jarring.

There is another set of occurrences of this same verb + preposition pair (hitpallēl ʾel) that is usually translated differently but involves precisely the same Hebrew construction. This is exemplified by 1 King 8:29 // 2 Chr 6:20:2

  that your eyes may be open night and day toward this house, the place of which you have said, ‘My name shall be there,’ that you may listen to the prayer that your servant offers toward this place (yitpallēl....ʾel–hammāqôm)

Here, as in other similar examples 1, hammāqôm ("this place") refers to the temple. The preposition generally translated "toward" is ʾel, the same word used to denote the recipient of prayer elsewhere.

With regard to the Greek terms, both the noun προσευχὴ and the verb προσεύχομαι are applied exclusively to the religious sphere throughout both the LXX and the NT. This distinguishes the term from εύχομαι, a more common word outside of Jewish literature where it often carries a sense of "to vow".3

1.  "Pretty sure" because this is drawn from David Clines’ Dictionary of Classical Hebrew, which comprehensively catalogues the objects of this verb + preposition combination in the entire corpus of known Classical Hebrew.

2. The notation // indicates parallel passages. See also: 1 King 8:30 // 2 Chr 6:21; 1 King 8:35 // 2 Chr 6:26; 1 King 8:42 // 2 Chr 6:32.

3. Heinrich Greeven. "εύχομαι". Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, Ed. Gerhard Kittel, trans. Geoffrey Bromiley. Eerdmans, 1964.

1 Samual 28:15
And Samuel said to Saul, Why hast thou disquieted me, to bring me up? And Saul answered, I am sore distressed; for the Philistines make war against me, and God is departed from me, and answereth me no more, neither by prophets, nor by dreams:therefore I have called thee, that thou mayest make known unto me what I shall do. Then said Samuel, Wherefore then dost thou ask of me, seeing the Lord is departed from thee, and is become thine enemy.

Saul, asking a pitition from Samuel, against the will of God and out of desperation. It is clear, that the dead hear him, and that he is making a pitition to Samuel.
Luke 1:34 Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man? And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee
Mary speaks to an Angel.
Luke 1:18
And Zacharias said unto the angel, Whereby shall I know this? for I am an old man, and my wife well stricken in years
Zacharias speaking to an angel asking a question and recieving an answer.
He is not speaking to God, or the Creator, he is asking a petition a request from an angel.

1 king 2:19-21 Bathsheba therefore went unto king Solomon, to speak unto him for Adonijah. And the king rose up to meet her, and bowed himself unto her, and sat down on his throne, and caused a seat to be set for the king's mother; and she sat on his right hand. Then she said, I desire one small petition of thee; I pray thee, say me not nay. And the king said unto her, Ask on, my mother:for I will not say thee nay. And she said, Let Abishag the Shunammite be given to Adonijah thy brother to wife

Bathshaba making a pitition to Solomon


Why do priests celebrate Mass versus populum (toward the congregation) at most Masses in the Ordinary Form? Why do priests celebrate Mass versus populum (toward the congregation) and at most Masses in the Ordinary Form?

Why do priests celebrate Mass versus populum (toward the congregation) at most Masses in the Ordinary Form?
Before getting into the crux of this question, let us see what the origin’s of this tradition might be. We can not truly understand this issue unless we can understand its’ origin.

Early evidence of Christian praying towards the east
Tertullian (c. 160 – c. 220) says that, because Christians faced towards the east at prayer, some non-Christians thought they worshipped the sun.
Clement of Alexandria ( c. 150 – c. 215) says: "Since the dawn is an image of the day of birth, and from that point the light which has shone forth at first from the darkness increases, there has also dawned on those involved in darkness a day of the knowledge of truth. In correspondence with the manner of the sun's rising, prayers are made looking towards the sunrise in the east."
Origen (c. 185 – 253) says: "The fact that [...] of all the quarters of the heavens, the east is the only direction we turn to when we pour out prayer, the reasons for this, I think, are not easily discovered by anyone."
Later on, Fathers of the Church such as John of Damascus advanced mystical reasons for the custom.
Origin of the practice
The primitive Church had no knowledge of the origin of the practice. Origen says: "The reasons for this, I think, are not easily discovered by anyone." Although the general custom among Jews was to pray towards the temple in Jerusalem, Clement of Alexandria, Origen's older contemporary, says that the custom of praying eastward was general even among non-Christians: "In correspondence with the manner of the sun's rising, prayers are made looking towards the sunrise in the east. Whence also the most ancient temples looked towards the west, that people might be taught to turn to the east when facing the images."
In 1971, Georg Kretschmar proposed a connection between the Christian custom of praying towards the east and a practice of the earliest Christians in Jerusalem of praying towards the Mount of Olives, to the east of the city, which they saw as the locus of key eschatological events and especially of the awaited Second Coming of Christ. In his view, the localization of the Second Coming on the Mount of Olives was abandoned after the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70, but the eastward direction of Christian prayer was retained and became general. Stefan Heid rejects his theory, but Lang holds that it is not without reasons to support it.
Martin Wallraff held that at the time of the formation of Christianity Jews prayed as commonly towards the east as towards the Jerusalem temple, but Lang considers that the eastward posture was rare among Jews. It was the practice, Paul F. Bradshaw says, of the Jewish sects of the Essenes and the Therapeutae, for whom "the eastward prayer had acquired an eschatological dimension, the 'fine bright day' for which the Therapeutae prayed being apparently the messianic age and the Essene prayer towards the sun 'as though beseeching him to rise' being a petition for the coming of the priestly Messiah." - Ad orientem (Wikipedia)

Celebrating the Mass facing the people is a centuries-old practice, although the vast majority historically said the Mass facing east.

After the Council, detailed directions for the celebration of the revised form of Mass were drawn up, including an instruction that the priest should celebrate Mass facing the people.
No, I am not referring to the Second Vatican Council or Inter Oecumenici or the GIRM. This was the Council of Trent (1545 – 1563), and the relevant documents were prepared under the leadership of St Charles Borromeo, the archbishop of Milan. He had not attended the Council, but he became a major implementer of the disciplinary reforms that the Council promulgated. Many of these were about removing superstitious ceremonial from the Mass; others spoke directly to the conduct of bishops and priests. The former were to avoid silken vestments, expensive furs, rings other than the episcopal ring; the latter were to exhibit restraint in their clothing and personal furnishings. Both were expected to exercise simplicity and moderation in every aspect of their lives. The splendor of faith was to be preferred to ornate display. You might say that St Charles anticipated the call for ‘noble simplicity’ of a later Council.
He also wrote extensively about the construction and furnishings of churches, in a document published in 1577, Instructiones fabricae et supellectilis ecclesiasticae. Chapter 10 speaks about the principal chapel of any church:

The site of this chapel must be chosen at the head of the church, in a prominent place and on an axis with the main entrance. The back part should face east, even if there are houses behind it. It must not face to the east of the summer solstice, but towards that of the equinox.

If this is not possible, the Bishop can decide and permit that it be built facing another direction, but in this case care must be taken at least that if possible it does not face north, but south. In any case the chapel in which the priest celebrates Mass from the high altar facing the people, in accordance with the rites of the Church, must face west.

In other words, orientem means simply “east”. When the priest celebrates at the main altar, facing the people, “in accordance with the rites of the Church”, he is to face east.
The historian John O’Malley asserts that Borromeo sought to standardize and promote a number of liturgical practices. Some were broadly adopted – for instance, placing the tabernacle in the center of the main altar. Others, which Borromeo had advocated, were not – O’Malley cites celebration with the priest facing the people as an example.
Uwe Lang speaks about Borromeo in his book about the orientation of liturgical prayer:

… the archbishop of Milan says that the capella major must be oriented, with the main altar facing east.  Where this is impossible, it can be directed towards another cardinal point (except north) but preferable toward the west, ‘as, in accordance with the rite of the Church (pro ritu Ecclesiae) the sacrifice of the Mass is celebrated at the main altar by the priest with his face turned towards the people.’

But Lang airily dismisses this as an exception:

Borromeo must have had in mind those Roman basilicas with a westward apse and an eastward entrance, where Mass was celebrated facing the people; this practice was no doubt familiar to him. Still, for Borromeo, the eastward direction was the paramount principle for liturgy and church architecture.

Celebration facing the people did not become normative, as (per O’Malley), St Charles Borromeo had wished it would. But this bit of history seems to give the lie to claims that celebration facing the people was a fabrication of the 20th century liturgical movement, or of misinterpretation of the Second Vatican Council. - Celebration facing the people: a centuries-old practice

While the current edition of the Roman Missal assumes that Masses are to be celebrated “ad orientem,” it is also permitted to celebrate “facing the people”. So, both ways are allowed.
No Vatican II document said that priests must face "toward the people" (versus populum). In fact, all Masses today can be celebrated ad orientem ("toward the east," the same direction the people face, which is toward the tabernacle). However, modern church architecture has made all but impossible to do so in many regions.
In many older churches, especially in Europe there are altars that make it an obligation for a priest to say the New Mass "ad orientem", facing east. Visit St Peter's Basilica at the Vatican for example.
There is no one correct answer as to why so many priests celebrate Mass facing the people. But some hints do exist.

The Mass versus populum is completely liturgically permitted by Rome.
Sadly, almost every church built or renovated since 1965 has significant design impediments to celebrating the Mass ad orientem. Because of confusion about what exactly the Second Vatican Council’s reform of the Mass required of sacred architecture, the traditional design of a church was radically altered in such a way that a return to the traditional posture of the priest facing liturgical East is difficult, if not impossible, in many churches. (Source)
Non-traditional Catholic seminaries need to teach their students the significance of saying the Mass “ad orientem”. Traditional gestures within the Mass need to be instilled into seminarians studying for the priesthood. Sadly this not being done in any great degree.
The faithful need to also to be taught the significance of the gesture of saying the Mass “ad orientem” so that the true symbolism of this gesture would be more easily accepted.
Some (with just cause) have reasoned that Jesus had the Apostles more or less in a circle or a U shape at the Last Supper when he instituted the Mass. Impossible to say whether or not Jesus faced east
(”ad orientem”). Jesus definitely faced his Apostles at the institution of the first mass. Source
Did Jesus have His Last Supper standing?

It should be noted that at Papal High Masses within the Roman Basilica of St. Peter, in either the Ordinary Form of the Mass or the Extraordinary Form of the Mass are both facing the people and the Sovereign Pontiff is still facing east (ad orientem).
As far as the Tridentine Mass goes the YouTube video Mass In Vatican With Pope Pius XII bears this fact out.
Part of this reason is the the actual basilica faces east.

Rome tourist attractions map
The traditional liturgical posture is to face East. That is the direction of the dawn, the new light and thus facing the direction of the returning Christ.
Most churches were built so that that the direction of worship literally faced East (traditional synogogues are also built in this manner).
However, St. Peters was not be build that way. Constantine literally had to carve into the side of Vatican Hill to get enough room to build the original basilica so that the altar was over the burial place of St. Peter. For these reasons, both Latin Rites share a common tread with the Supreme Pontiff facing east and facing the people at the same time.
A floor plan of St. Peter’s Basilica makes this unique unity between the the Roman Rite more understandable.

Why do priests celebrate Mass versus populum (toward the congregation) at most Masses in the Ordinary Form?
The answer can be found in the bible and the ending can be found in this prayer offering taught by Jesus Christ to St.Faustina.
The People of God must implore this prayer, a fitting and perfect prayer uttered by Mary a Virgin Priest at the Foot of the Cross.

"Eternal Father I offer Thee the body, blood, soul and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ truly present in the most holy eucharist in atonement for our sins and those of the whole world."

Jesus had teach all the Apostles the ordained High Priest or Bishops to celebrate the "Sacramental Mass" in "versus populum". Jesus was teaching them how to "lift-up" an offering and sacrifice.

26 While they were eating, Jesus took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and gave it to his disciples, saying, “Take and eat; this is my body.”
27 Then he took a cup, and when he had given thanks, he gave it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you. 28 This is my blood of the[a] covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins. 29 I tell you, I will not drink from this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father’s kingdom.”

Jesus is teaching all the Apostles and priest how to offer or lift-up a sacrificial offering to Eternal Father.

Jesus Predicts His Death
…In response, Jesus said, “This voice was not for My benefit, but yours. 31Now judgment is upon this world; now the prince of this world will be cast out. And I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to Myself.”(John12:31-32)

The Catholic Church sees this as the institution of the Holy Eucharistic Celebration or First Sacramental Mass.
Jesus faced the Apostles "versus populum" and not "ad orientem". But, noticed the Apostles are looking at Jesus Christ "the victim or the real sacrifice", so in reality the Apostles in the Last Supper are facing "ad orientem" when Jesus lifted-up the "bread & wine".
The Priest is alter-Christus, and by celebrating the Holy Sacramental Mass "versus populum" , they are perfectly imitating the First Sacramental Mass like what Jesus had taught the Apostles in the Last Supper.
Jesus biblically had not taught or cannot possibly show "ad orientem" because how can he faced Himself?
The one who had shown or in a way taught the Catholic Church to celebrate the Holy Mass "ad orientem" to participates more fully in offering or lifting up of the "real sacrifice of the body,blood,soul & divinity of Jesus Christ" is Mary the Virgin Priest.
For full answer please see this link;
Why do priests celebrate Mass versus populum (toward the congregation) at most Masses in the Ordinary Form?


Why did John the Baptist say he wasn't a prophet? According to John 1:21

  They asked him, “What then? Are you Elijah?” He said, “I am
  not.” “Are you the prophet?” He answered, “No.”

Why did he said he wasn't a prophet?

Moses told the people to expect in the future an authoritative, law giving prophet of at least equal stature to himself. No other prophet that followed Moses was regarded as important as Moses by the Jewish people. Thus this expected prophet would stand out.

  15 “The Lord your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from
  among your own brothers. You must listen to him. 16 This is what you
  requested from the Lord your God at Horeb on the day of the assembly
  when you said, ‘Let us not continue to hear the voice of the Lord our
  God or see this great fire any longer, so that we will not die!’ 17
  Then the Lord said to me, ‘They have spoken well. 18 I will raise up
  for them a prophet like you from among their brothers. I will put My
  words in his mouth, and he will tell them everything I command him. 19
  I will hold accountable whoever does not listen to My words that he
  speaks in My name. (Deuteronomy 18:15-19)

Jesus fulfills the requirements. John the Baptist does not.

Not only wasn't John the Baptist the prophet (i.e., Messiah), neither was he a prophet in the OT or NT sense. His purpose was to preach repentance, to call people to righteousness, and thus to prepare hearts for the prophet coming after him.


From a Jehovah's Witness perspective, why don't we have the option to choose whether or not to come to this world? I was one of Jehovah's witnesses and would still be one of them, but a question always disturbs me.

Sometimes I think about how life and all the pain and suffering we pass through from childbirth down the time of death, and the question I ask myself is: Why is it that when we are about to be conceived we do not have the option to choose to come into this world or not? If I were given that option I would not choose to come into this world that is filled with all of these problems, even with Jehovah's promise of a new world to come.

(Note: I would love a strong brother in the Jehovah's Witness faith to answer this question.)

Jehovah’s Witnesses, like most Christians, teach that we come into existence some time around conception. (I’m not sure that they ever pin it down exactly, and while they oppose abortion, I don’t think I’ve heard them complain about methods which prevent implantation. Let’s just say that, by Witness teaching, you become a human some time between conception and birth.)

Given that, by Witness teaching, you didn’t exist before your conception, you weren’t around to be asked. Once you did exist, it was too late to ask you: you’re already here. As such, the question does not arise.

The Witnesses do not teach ensoulment, the belief that the soul is “infused” into the body at some point during pregnancy. In fact, for most purposes, they make no distinction between soul, body, and spirit.* You are your soul. And that soul is mortal. It exists here because it does exist here: you weren’t brought into this world, as if you’d come from elsewhere — you came into existence right here: you are of this world.

* They do, actually, distinguish these terms, but none of the distinctions seem relevant for this answer; they would be very relevant if you’d asked for a Catholic perspective.

I am not a strong brother in the JW church. However, I doubt anyone would opt for a world full of pain and suffering if given the choice before birth. Jehovah's Witnesses teach the responsibility is that of both parents. It should be a very serious and weighty decision to bring a life into this evil world, which is under the influence of Satan. Unfortunately people are imperfect, and mistakes happen. And the institution of marriage and child-rearing is constantly undermined by this world, making it hard to stick to God's advice and instructions on marriage and bringing a child into this world—which is clearly promoted from the word of God: the Bible. This may be more of a comment then an answer but your question suggests that we would have adult knowledge it right when we were conceived which makes no sense since maturity comes with age and what our parents teach us you would not have the mental capacity to use your God-given free will choice


How many bilateral covenants occur in the Bible? As the title asks, how many bilateral covenants occur in scripture between God and His creation (this does not include bilateral covenants between humans and humans, e.g., a marriage covenant between a man and a woman, or the covenant between Avraham and Avimelekh).

Here is a list of the covenants which the Bible explicitly describes God making. It is possible that there are other covenants (such as with Adam), but the Bible does not use covenantal language to talk about them.

The Noahic covenant, which God made in Genesis 9:8-10 with all humans and land animals/birds, in which he promised to never again flood the earth
The Abrahamic covenant, which God made in Genesis 15:17-20 with Abram, in which he promises to give to Abram and his descendants the land of Canaan for ever
The Mosaic covenant, which God made in Exodus 19:3-8 with the people of Israel, in which he would take them to be his special people if they are faithful to him.

In a way the Mosaic covenant was made and remade a few times. Other important passages include the Ten Commandments in Exodus 20, the confirmation of the covenant in Exodus 24, the remaking of the covenant in Exodus 34 after the golden calf, and the confirmation of the covenant by the next generation in Deuteronomy

Phinehas' covenant, which God made in Numbers 25:12-13 with Phinehas and his descendants, in which he promises them peace and the priesthood

God made many exclusive promises to the priests in other places, but this is the first time that he makes a covenant with them

The Davidic covenant, which God made in 2 Samuel 7:8-16 (and called a covenant in 7:28) with David, in which he promises that one of David's descendants will always have the throne of Israel
The New Covenant, which God promised to make in Jeremiah 31:31-34, and which he did make through the death and resurrection of Jesus

There are a few references to the New Covenant in the NT, but not many. I would guess that covenants were an outdated cultural artefact by the time of the NT, so that covenantal language is one of the less common ways to talk about the gospel. But there still are some references to the New Covenant, particularly in Hebrews 8-9.

Here are fifteen covenants found in Scripture. Even though they may not be in all cases labeled as covenants, it is my opinion that they all match the following definition of a covenant:

A covenant is an agreement entered into by two or more persons. The fifteen agreements below are contracts entered into between God and man, which reveals the relationship of these persons to each other. Where certain conditions are not stated, they are certainly implied and understood between the parties themselves

The solaric covenant (Ref: Gen 1:14-18): Covenant made between God and man. God promises man eternal seasons of fruitfulness and eternal continuation in the natural state. Condition of the covenant: as long as the solar system endures.
The Edenic covenant (Ref: Gen 1:26-3:24): covenant made with Adam and Eve before the fall. The condition was that they (Adam and Eve) remain true to God (Gen 2:17). The clauses of the covenant were for man to

  Replenish the earth (Gen 1:28)
  Subdue the earth and rule the works of God (Gen 1:28; Ps. 8)
  Till the ground and be a caretaker of the Garden (Gen 2:15)
  Abstain from the tree of knowledge (Gen. 2:17)
  Understand that the punishement for disobedience was death (Gen. 2:17)

The Adamic covenant (Gen. 3:14-19): The covenant was made with Adam and Eve after the Fall and before they were expelled from the garden of Eden. There was two major parts in the covenant:

  The five-fold curse

  On the serpent (Gen 3:14-15; Isa. 65:25)
  On Satan (Gen. 3:15, Jn. 12:31; Col 2:14-17; Heb 2:14-18)
  On the woman (Gen 3:16; 1 Cor 11:3; 14:34; 1 Tim. 2:11-15)
  On the man (Gen 3:17-19; Ps. 90:9-10; Rom. 5:12-21)
  On the ground (Gen 3:17-19; Rom. 8:18-23)

  The promise (Gen. 3:15). It includes the complete redemption with the removal of the curse

The Cainic covenant (Gen 4:11-15): God made a covenant with Cain stipulating that he would be protected and avenged in case anyone found him and killed him.
The Noahic covenant (Gen. 8:20-9:29): It was made with Noah and the beasts of the field after the flood. The clauses of this covenant includes

  That while the earth remaineth, God would not curse the ground and the living creatures anymore (Gen 8:22; 9:12, 16)
  That man should replenish the earth forever (Gen. 9:1, 12, 16)
  That man should rule the earth (Gen 9:2-3)
  That animal should be eaten but not the blood (Gen. 9:3, 4)
  That there should be capital punishment for murderers (Gen. 9:5-6; Num. 35)
  That the rainbow should be the sign of the covenant (Gen. 9:12-17)
  That the covenant would be eternal (Gen. 9:12, 16)

The Abrahamic covenant (Gen. 12:1-13): after the confusion of tongues, God saw that it was impossible to deal with the whole race. He singled out one man and made a covenant with him. The clauses of the covenant are as follow:

  The seven-fold promise:

  "I will make thee a great nation" (Gen. 12:1-3; 13-16; 17:18-20; 24:34-35; Gal. 3)
  "Make thy name great" (Gen. 12:1-3; Exod. 2:24-25; 6:3-8)
  "Thou shalt be a blessing" (Gen. 12:1-3; Gal. 3:13-14)
  "I will bless them that bless thee" (Gen. 12:1-3; Mt. 25:31-46)
  "I will bless thee" (Gen. 13:14-18; 15:18-21; Gal. 3)
  "I will curse them that curse thee" (Zech. 14; Mt. 25:31-46)
  "In thee shall all nations of the world be blessed" (Deut. 28:8-14; Isa. 60:3-5; 66:18-21; Gal. 3:16; Jn. 8:56-58)

  The sign of the covenant: circumcision (Gen. 17:1-21; Isa. 24:5)

The Hagaric covenant (Gen. 16:7-14): God made this covenant with Hagar and with Ishmael, Abraham's son for many generations. The clauses of the covenant were:

  Commands

  Return and submit to Sarah (Gen. 16:9)
  Call the son Ishmael, meaning God will hear (Gen 16:11)

  Promises

  Multiply her seed beyond number (Gen. 16:10; 17:20)
  Blessings on Ishmael to become a great nation (Gen. 17:20; 21:17-18)
  Ishmael to beget twelve princes like Jacob (Gen. 17:20; 25:12-18)

  Prophetic revelation

  Ishmael to be a wild man (Gen. 16:12)
  His hand to be against every man (Gen. 16:12)
  Every man's hand will be against him (Gen. 16:12)
  He shall dwell in the presence of his brethren (Gen. 16:12)

The Sarahic covenant (Gen. 17:15-19; 18:9-15): God made a covenant with Sarah, promising her certain blessings as well as to her offspring Isaac, for many generations. The following are part of the covenant:

  Commands

  Change her name from Sarai to Sarah, which means "princess" (Gen. 17:15)
  Call her son Isaac (Gen. 17:19)

  Promises

  Bless Sarah with a son (Gen. 17:16-19; 19:10-15)
  Make her a mother of nations (Gen 17:16)
  Make her a mother of many kings (Gen. 17:16)
  Continue the Abrahamic covenant with Isaac (Gen. 17:19)
  Continue the Abrahamic covenant with Isaac's seed forever (Gen. 17:19)

The Healing covenant (Exod. 15:26; 23:25): God made this covenant with Israel as well as with all who desire to come under the covenant as given to Moses. The covenant comprises:

  Commands:

  Diligently harken to God's voice (Exod. 15:26; Lev. 26:14-15)
  Do what is right in His sight (Exod. 15:26)
  Give ear to his commandments (Exod. 15:26)
  Keep all His statutes (Exod 15:26; Lev. 26:3; 14-15)
  Serve the Lord (Exod. 23:25)

  Promises

  I will put none of the diseases upon thee (Meaning I will allow none of them to come upon you) (Exod. 15: 26)
  I am the Lord that healeth thee (Which is also God's redemptive Name, Jehovah Rapha) (Exod. 15:26)
  I will take away sickness from the midst of thee (Exod. 23:25)

This covenant is included in the New covenant: Christ took our infirmities and bare our sicknesses (Isa. 53; Mt. 8:17; 1 Pet 2:24)

The Palestinian covenant (Deut. 27:1-30:20): God made this covenant with Israel through Moses and its condition was the obedience of Israel (Deut 11:8-32; 27:1-30:20; Lev. 26:1-46). It is made of the following clauses

  Dispersion for disobedience (Deut. 30:1; 28:63-68)
  Repentance while in dispersion (Deut. 30:2; Zech 12:10-14)
  The return of the Lord (Deut. 30:3; Acts 15:14-17; Zech 14)
  Restoration in the land (Deut. 30:5; Isa. 11:1-12; Mt. 24:31; Ezek. 37)
  National conversion (Deut. 30:6; Rom. 11:26-27; Zech. 12:10-13; Isa. 66)
  Judgment of Israel's oppressors (Deut. 30:7; Mt. 25:31-46; Zech. 14)
  National prosperity (Deut. 30:9-10; Rom. 11)

The covenant of Levi (Num. 25:10-14): God made a covenant with Levi's son Phinehas, who was jealous for the Lord and executed judgment upon rebels (Num. 25:1-9). It comprises two major promises

  A covenant of peace and blessing to Levi's house (Num. 25:12)
  An everlasting priesthood (Num. 25:13)

The covenant of Salt (Lev. 2:13; Num. 18:19): God made this covenant with Israel concerning the sacrifices they were to offer forever. Salt was used in making covenant in Palestine and the surrounding countries, and the worst enemies would become friends if they ate the same food with salt in it. This covenant expressed everlasting friendship between God and His people.
The Davidic covenant (2 Sam. 7:1-17): God made this covenant with David through the intermediation of prophet Nathan. The condition was obedience as in other covenant and it comprises the following blessings:

  A Davidic house forever (2 Sam. 7:13-16; Ps. 89:20-37; Lk. 1:32-35)
  A Davidic throne forever (2 Sam. 7:12-16; Isa. 9:6-7; Lk. 1:32-35)
  A Davidic kingdom forever (2 Sam. 7:12-16; Isa. 9:6-7; Lk. 1:32-35)
  A sure land for Israel forever (2 Sam. 7:10; Gen. 17)
  No more affliction from the nations forever (2 Sam. 7:10; Deut. 28:1-30:10)
  The fatherly care of God forever (2 Sam. 7:14; 2 Cor 6:15-18)
  An eternal covenant (2 Sam. 7:10-16; Isa. 9:6-7; Lk 1:32-33)

And of course the Old covenant and the New Covenant. Christ fulfilled the Old covenant law before he abolished it and enforced the New Covenant (Mt. 5:17-18; Jn 1:17; Gal 5:19-21; Acts 15:5-29, Eph 2:15; Col 2:14-17,...)

Ref:
- Dake's God's plan for man (Lessons thirty-six, Fifteen great covenants of Scripture and british-israelism)


What did Peter, James and John see on the Mount of Transfiguration? During a Bible discussion for seekers last week, one of them asked a question that led me to ponder this questions.

As I understand it, the body of Moses (not Elijah since he never died) should still have been in the grave at the time of the Transfiguration of Jesus--and would be pretty decomposed at that point.  However, his spirit (and probably souls) would have been in Paradise at that time--still separated from his body until the resurrection at the last day.

  And after six days Jesus took with him Peter and James, and John his
  brother, and led them up a high mountain by themselves. 2 And he was
  transfigured before them, and his face shone like the sun, and his
  clothes became white as light. 3 And behold, there appeared to them
  Moses and Elijah, talking with him.   Matthew 17:1-3 ESV

If that is true, then what exactly did Peter, James and John see on the Mount of Transfiguration?  Did they see the spirit of Moses?  Can our spirits be seen with physical eyes?  Were the disciples perhaps allowed to see spiritual things as Elisha appears to have done in 2 Kings 6?

  When the servant of the man of God rose early in the morning and went
  out, behold, an army with horses and chariots was all around the city.
  And the servant said, “Alas, my master! What shall we do?” He said,
  “Do not be afraid, for those who are with us are more than those who
  are with them.” Then Elisha prayed and said, “O Lord, please open
  his eyes that he may see.” So the Lord opened the eyes of the young
  man, and he saw, and behold, the mountain was full of horses and
  chariots of fire all around Elisha.  2 Kings 6:15-17 ESV

As a side note, the rich man and Lazarus presumably "saw" each other as well.

I'm looking for the Protestant understanding of this.

In Jude 9, we read:

  But Michael the archangel, when he disputed with the devil and argued about the body of Moses, did not dare pronounce against him a railing judgment, but said, “ The Lord rebuke you!”

This is often taught as the body of Moses was taken into heaven.

We also know that Elijah ascended in a fiery chariot in a whirlwind:

  And as they still went on and talked, behold, a chariot of fire and horses of fire separated the two of them. And Elijah went up by a whirlwind into heaven

This would mean that the bodies of those mean would have been kept in heaven, so it could very well be that the two men were actually physically present.

Trying to understand this from the human perspective is not the right way for God is spirit. Just like trying to understand how Mary became pregnant without having any sexual intercourse.
I would say that this is a demonstration of God promise that on His second  return, those who died in faith will rise along with the living.


According to Catholicism, does the Old Law justify? According to Catholicism, does the Old Law justify? Or is Christ, faith, and the New Law necessary to justify even those who lived before Christ?

Those who lived before Christ waited for Christ in "Abraham's Bosom"—also called the "Limbo of hell or of the Patriarchs" (limbus inferni seu patrum), and Christ conducted them to heaven at His Ascension.

The Council of Trent was convened in order to combat the errors and heresies of Protestantism. The Council's Sixth Session (13 Jan. 1547) was on justification. It affirms that not even the Old Law could justify (ch. 1):

  The holy Synod declares first, that, for the correct and sound understanding of the doctrine of Justification, it is necessary that each one recognize and confess, that, whereas all men had lost their innocence in the prevarication of Adam,—having become unclean [Isa. lxiv. 6] and as the apostle says, by nature children of wrath, [Ephes. ii. 3] as (this Synod) has set forth in the decree on original sin,—they were so far the servants of sin, [Rom. vi. 17, 20] and under the power of the devil and of death, that not the Gentiles only by the force of nature, but not even the Jews by the very letter itself of the law of Moses, were able to be liberated, or to arise, therefrom; although freewill, attenuated as it was in its powers, and bent down, was by no means extinguished in them.

but Christ is necessary (ch. 2):

  Whence it came to pass, that the heavenly Father, the Father of mercies, and the God of all comfort, [2Cor. i. 3.] when that blessed fullness of the time was come, [Gal. iv. 4] sent unto men, Jesus Christ, his own Son—who had been, both before the Law, and during the time of the Law, to many of the holy fathers announced and promised—that he might both redeem the Jews who were under the Law, [Gal. v. 4] and that the Gentiles, who followed not after justice, might attain to justice, [Rom. ix. 30] and that all men might receive the adoption of sons. Him God hath proposed as a propitiator, through faith in his blood, [Rom. iii. 25] for our sins, and not for our sins only, but also for those of the whole world. [1 John ii. 2.]

The Council of Trent in this session famously condemns Protestants' sola fide ("faith only") teaching on justification:

  CANON IX.—If any one saith, that by faith alone the impious is justified, in such wise as to mean, that nothing else is required to cooperate in order to the obtaining the grace of Justification, and that it is not in any way necessary, that he be prepared and disposed by the movement of his own will: let him be anathema.

Thus, the Old Law did not justify.

Christ, faith (cf. Heb. 11:6 quoted in ch. 8), and works (cf. James 2:24 quoted in ch. 10) are necessary for justification.

We are told in Hebrews 11 and James 2 that those who lived under the Old Covenant, and even before the Old Covenant was given, were justified by their faith.  Their faith was, and ours still is today, made alive and perfected in their works.  James 2:24 says we are "justified by our works, not by faith alone."

They were responsible to live by the commands they had received at the time, but it is the Blood of Jesus that passes from the Cross back through all of history, and forward to all of the future, to cleanse the sins of all who obey, and live faithfully (Heb 9:11-28).


John 1:18 - "No one has ever seen God" - How do Trinitarians reconcile this scripture with the belief that the Lord Jesus Christ is God? In John 1:18, it states

  θεὸν οὐδεὶς ἑώρακεν πώποτε
  "No one has ever seen God."

Trinitarians believe that the Lord Jesus Christ is God [the Son], the second person of the Trinity. That being said, how do Trinitarians reconcile the belief that the Lord Jesus Christ is God with the statement in John 1:18, "no one has ever seen God"?

From a Trinitarian standpoint there is nothing to reconcile.

As with most things, the answer is found in the context. The whole of John 1:18 reads:

"No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him." (NASB)

The person John refers to here is the same one Jesus exclaims in John 6:46:

"Not that anyone has seen the Father, except the One who is from God; He has seen the Father." (NASB)

Jesus explicitly states that he is "the One" when he says, "I came forth from the Father and have come into the world; I am leaving the world again and going to the Father." (John 16:28 NASB)

I'm not aware of any arguments to the contrary, though I think it would be quite extraordinary if John were contradicting his own testimony from John 1:1 by excluding Jesus as the one from God who is God.

The problem with our  comprehension of the Scriptures lies in the fact that we are trapped in the twenty first Century. By that what I mean is that we are now forced to understand the Scriptures from the standpoint of what we have available, which is in most cases what someone understands them to mean in relationship to the present.

In some cases that is an advantage as in the case of:

  Luke 17:34,35 and 36 KJV  I tell you, in that night there shall be two men in one bed; the one shall be taken, and the other shall be left. 35  Two women shall be grinding together; the one shall be taken, and the other left. 36  Two men shall be in the field; the one shall be taken, and the other left.

Now we know that because the World is a globe part of the World will be night while another part will day, but at the uttering of this the populous did not know that. So did they find those statements to be at odds? We do not know for sure since the Scriptures do not elaborate.

Therefore; the true answer to your question would only be possible if we had the advantage of being able to travel back to those incidents in time and also be able to understand the language used at those times. To translate those sayings from the language of the time to our present language is monumental task, and one that will be subject to the understanding of the interpreter.

Taking all of that into consideration, we can gain some insight into things by the studious comparing all Scriptures which address some facet of the subject. That means that we must research all instances where some facet of God is covered, and also all instances where Spirit, soul, and eternal property of the tripartite God is elaborated upon.

We are required to consider those instances where God is depicted in both the Old and New Testaments; from his appearance in the pillar of fire in Exodus to his appearance as judge in the Great white throne judgment in Revelation.

Bible students over the ages have come to varying conclusions, to this question and in some cases has spawned differing Denominations, none of which are provable. For instance some have concluded that Jesus is entirely human, while others have concluded that he is totally Spirit and only appeared on earth as an apparition, and still another has determined that Jesus was God in his entirety come down to Earth from Heaven.

Having entertained this very question at various times in my Christian journey, I have concluded that the human body in which Jesus abode while on earth was similar to a suit of clothing which we take on to go to Church; in that God in all three of his manifestations is Spirit. This concept is further supported in my mind by:

  John 1:1,2,3,4 & 5  In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2  The same was in the beginning with God. 3  All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. 4  In him was life; and the life was the light of men. 5  And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.

If as John portends that Jesus is eternal and existed before creation, then the human body which Jesus inhabited was only a temporary abode, in the material realm which according to John was Jesus own creation. Which in turn necessitates that that human body was also a creation of the Spirit Jesus himself.

In short there is no EARTHLY answer to your question.


Blaspheme one part of the Trinity but not the whole? Luke 12:10 NIV

  And anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man, it will be
  forgiven him; but to him who blasphemes against the Holy Spirit, it
  will not be forgiven

How is it possible to blaspheme the Son of Man but not the Holy Spirit since the trinity is one?

While the three persons of the Trinity are one God, they are three persons. If it is possible to talk about one of the persons alone (and it clearly is) then it is also possible to blaspheme against only one.

"God is one" refers to the fact that all angels from heaven, and all 7 Spirits of God, the Father, and Christ, are one in that they agree with one another and there is a chain of authority that is upheld by all parts of God.

You can blaspheme angels as well, and you aren't supposed to. (Jude)

You can declare that God deceived you, and according to Ezekiel 14:9, God might destroy you for that, but that isn't an unforgivable sin according to most interpretations.

sinning against one part of God isn't the same as another.


Does the Bible say anything about what demons *are*? I've thought all my life that demons (and evil spirits) were fallen angels, but I recently encountered the viewpoint that these demons are actually the souls of men who have already died but wouldn't go to Heaven. Hence, what does the Bible say about this?

Specifically, what biblical references speak to whether or not demons originate as human or as another species?

The concept of fallen angels is based on the following scriptures.

  MATTHEW 25:41 Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand,
  Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the
  devil and his angels:

  Luke 10:17-18 And the seventy returned again with joy, saying, Lord,
  even the devils are subject unto us through thy name. And he said unto
  them, I beheld Satan as lightning fall from heaven.

  Jude 1:6 (KJV) And the angels which kept not their first estate, but
  left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains
  under darkness unto the judgment of the great day.

  Revelation 12:8-10 (KJV) And there was war in heaven: Michael and his
  angels fought against the dragon; and the dragon fought and his
  angels, And prevailed not; neither was their place found any more in
  heaven.  And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called
  the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out
  into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.

Regarding the belief that you become an angel when you die, the following scriptures come to mind.

  Romans 8:16-17 The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that
  we are the children of God: And if children, then heirs; heirs of God,
  and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we
  may be also glorified together.

If we are joint heirs with Christ, then one day we shall be like him.

  I John  3:2 Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet
  appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we
  shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is.

After his resurrection He was made "better than the angels". If we are to be like Him, then we also will be "better than the angels".

  HEBREWS 1:4-5 Being made so much better than the angels, as he hath by
  inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they. For unto which
  of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I
  begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be
  to me a Son?

The idea that we would become angels (either 'good' or 'fallen') when we die originated from a misinterpretation of Matthew 22:30 and Mark 12:25.

  Matthew 22:30 (KJV) For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor
  are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven.

  MARK 12:25 For when they shall rise from the dead, they neither marry,
  nor are given in marriage; but are as the angels which are in heaven.

The context of these verses is the subject of marriage. Angels do not have wedding ceremonies, and neither will we in heaven. Using these verses as the basis for the belief that we will one day be angels is a bit of a stretch.

As I have answered here, I will repost it.

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.

Some of you will say that the bible verse I have used only proves that there are demons. However, there is no reference in the bible as far as I can see that says that angels can control a person.


What is the scriptural basis for a monarchical episcopate? What scriptural basis has traditionally been put forth by the Catholic and the Orthodox Churches to support the idea of monarchical episcopate (the idea that there must be only one bishop over a city or a region)?

The scriptural basis on which Catholicism support the church polity of monarchial episcopate are the following scriptural passages:
Acts 21:18

On the following day Paul went in with us to James, and all the
elders were present-(ESV)

In Catholicism, being an elder and being a bishop are two different offices.Futhermore, in Catholicism, St. James was believed to be a bishop. Therefore, Acts 21:18 is an explicit Bible verse that supports monarchial episcopate when understood in terms of overall Catholic teachings.
Titus 1:5

This is why I left you in Crete, so that you might put what
remained into order, and appoint elders in every town as I
directed you—(ESV)

Catholics believe that bishoprick and eldership aren't the same.Catholics believe that St. Titus was a bishop.In this verse, St. Titus appoints elders. In Catholicism, appointing elders is the function of a bishop.When read in Catholic lenses, Titus 1:5 is an another Bible verse that clearly supports monarchial episcopacy.
1 Timothy 5:17-22

Let the elders who rule well be considered worthy of double honor,
especially those who labor in preaching and teaching. 18 For the
Scripture says, “You shall not muzzle an ox when it treads out the
grain,” and, “The laborer deserves his wages.” 19 Do not
admit(you-singular) a charge against an elder except on the evidence
of two or three witnesses. 20 As for those who persist in sin, rebuke
(you-singular) them in the presence of all, so that the rest may stand
in fear. 21 In the presence of God and of Christ Jesus and of the
elect angels I charge you to keep these rules without prejudging,
doing nothing from partiality. 22 Do not be hasty in the laying on of
hands(you-singular), nor take part in the sins of others; keep
yourself pure -(ESV).

St. Timothy is a bishop according to Catholicism.In this text, he possesses exclusive authority over the Ephesian elders.1 Timothy 5:17-22 supports monarchial episcopacy when read in light of Catholic theology.
Conclusion
Ample scriptural passages provided cogent biblical evidence for monarchial episcopate. This is only true when read in light of Catholic interpretation of eldership and bishoprick, though.

References:
http://www.biblicalcatholic.com/apologetics/a80.htm
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02581b.htm

Acts 1:20 speaks of what to do with the office of a heretical bishop (Judas Iscariot in this particular case):

  For it is written in the book of Psalms [108:8]. Be their habitation made desert, and be there none to dwell in it. And his Bishopric* let another take.

{*A bishopric can refer to the province of a bishop (diocese) or to his office.}

Thus, a heretical bishop is to be replaced, leaving only one bishop to occupy a bishopric at a time.


Why does God promise descendants for Hagar? Why does God promise Hagar that she'll have a lot of descendants?

If God had planned on fulfilling his covenant through Isaac, the promised son of Abraham, and knew that the strife between Jews and Arabs would be so destructive, why does he instruct Hagar to return and submit to Sarah?

Paul writes in Galatians 4 that Ishmael represents slavery and bondage while Isaac represents the promise and faith and deliverance.  Only Isaac would receive the inheritance while Ishmael would not.

Later on, Ishmael is cast out.  So, I am just wondering: why does God increase their descendants, when he knows that they're not recipients of the new covenant?

God's promise to Abraham was that he would have descendants as numerous as the Stars, what he did not promise is that they would all be his chosen people only that Isaac would.

All Scripture is quoted from the King James translation unless otherwise noted.

  Genesis 12:7  And the LORD appeared unto Abram, and said, Unto thy seed will I give this land: and there builded he an altar unto the LORD, who appeared unto him.

This is not the promised land it is the middle east, (or what is now the Arabic nations), this is the promise God made to Abraham:

  Genesis 15:1 through 6  After these things the word of the LORD came unto Abram in a vision, saying, Fear not, Abram: I am thy shield, and thy exceeding great reward. And Abram said, Lord GOD, what wilt thou give me, seeing I go childless, and the steward of my house is this Eliezer of Damascus? And Abram said, Behold, to me thou hast given no seed: and, lo, one born in my house is mine heir. And, behold, the word of the LORD came unto him, saying, This shall not be thine heir; but he that shall come forth out of thine own bowels shall be thine heir. And he brought him forth abroad, and said, Look now toward heaven, and tell the stars, if thou be able to number them: and he said unto him, So shall thy seed be. And he believed in the LORD; and he counted it to him for righteousness.

(This should also answer your other question concerning Isaac)

  Genesis 15:13 through 16  And he said unto Abram, Know of a surety that thy seed shall be a stranger in a land that is not theirs, and shall serve them; and they shall afflict them four hundred years; And also that nation, whom they shall serve, will I judge: and afterward shall they come out with great substance. And thou shalt go to thy fathers in peace; thou shalt be buried in a good old age. But in the fourth generation they shall come hither again: for the iniquity of the Amorites is not yet full.

Even though this was many years before Jacob became Israel it is clearly the Nation of Israel that God is referring to. This not only shows that God is precognizant of events, but that he has a particular path upon which he intends his blessings to flow.

As for showing compassion to Hagar let's take a look at that:

  Genesis 16:7 through 13  And the angel of the LORD found her by a fountain of water in the wilderness, by the fountain in the way to Shur. And he said, Hagar, Sarai's maid, whence camest thou? and whither wilt thou go? And she said, I flee from the face of my mistress Sarai. And the angel of the LORD said unto her, Return to thy mistress, and submit thyself under her hands. And the angel of the LORD said unto her, I will multiply thy seed exceedingly, that it shall not be numbered for multitude. And the angel of the LORD said unto her, Behold, thou art with child, and shalt bear a son, and shalt call his name Ishmael; because the LORD hath heard thy affliction. And he will be a wild man; his hand will be against every man, and every man's hand against him; and he shall dwell in the presence of all his brethren. And she called the name of the LORD that spake unto her, Thou God seest me: for she said, Have I also here looked after him that seeth me?

By that last statement it is evident that she has not served God, since she is asking why are you looking out for me, have I served you in some way I am not aware of? Also sending her back to be subjected to Sari after the way Sari treated her doesn't seem much like  compassion to me.

  Genesis 16:3 through 6  And Sarai Abram's wife took Hagar her maid the Egyptian, after Abram had dwelt ten years in the land of Canaan, and gave her to her husband Abram to be his wife. And he went in unto Hagar, and she conceived: and when she saw that she had conceived, her mistress was despised in her eyes. And Sarai said unto Abram, My wrong be upon thee: I have given my maid into thy bosom; and when she saw that she had conceived, I was despised in her eyes: the LORD judge between me and thee. But Abram said unto Sarai, Behold, thy maid is in thy hand; do to her as it pleaseth thee. And when Sarai dealt hardly with her, she fled from her face.

So it was Sari who caused Hagar to be cast out into the wilderness to start with, and that after setting up Hagar to bear Abraham's child in her place since she could not have children of her own.

  Genesis 16:1 and 2  Now Sarai Abram's wife bare him no children: and she had an handmaid, an Egyptian, whose name was Hagar. And Sarai said unto Abram, Behold now, the LORD hath restrained me from bearing: I pray thee, go in unto my maid; it may be that I may obtain children by her. And Abram hearkened to the voice of Sarai.

The descendants of Ishmael are the Arabic Nations, the descendants of Esau are the Palestinians, and the descendants of Jacob is the Nation of Israel: and this is the fulfillment of the covenant God made with Abraham. There was no promise made to Hagar, and matter of fact she was always harshly treated by her mistress. So I fail to understand why you feel that God had compassion on Hagar.

In a nutshell, to have her child know of the Lord, and spread it to lands beyond promised(Wadi of Egypt to the great river, the Euphrate) to Abram(note that he is not Abraham until he is given a second child by the Lord). Hagar holds a special place due to the fact she borne a child of Abram.  While Sarai(not Sarah yet) was blessed with a child, bore into the house of Abraham and granted the inheritance of the conventant, by/from birth.
The Lord's demands of cutting the foreskin on the 8th day could not be fulfilled with Ishmael, due to being 13yr when it was established. Therefore, while he smiled on him, and thus his mother, he couldnt rightfully rule the lands promised to Abraham. Yet, he would be blessed, and spread the only teachings he knew of, outside of the promised lands.  Most likely this was in Egypt/Africa, beyond the Wadi of Egypt(the Nile). As that's where his mom took him as a child, where they were saved and told by the Lord that Ishmael would usher in his own great line, and found an Egyptian wife for Ishmael.

side notes - Ishmael wasn't a loved son. He was conceived to prevent Eliezer, his slave, from inheriting Abram's possessions.
Abram and Sarai we're half brother and sister. A non-divine 2nd gen. inbred birth at +90yr is not conceivable.  They weren't Sons of God like Adam to Nuh/Noah&sons, whom would walked/talked with the Lord and live 100s of years.  Their years were numbered to 120 and no more, as all Sons of Man are...


Did Satan unwittingly create his eternal punishment by instigating the fall of man? God is omniscient and therefore nothing that happens takes him by surprise, and so that Adam and Eve ate from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil must have been something that God expected. And for that matter ordained.

All Scripture is quoted from the King James translation:

Everything I have learned about God from my study of the Bible, tells me that evil has no part in God, and therefore when God created His Kingdom, there would have been no evil. As far as I can determine Evil came into being with Lucifer's rebellion.

Up until the fall there was no such thing as death, and we are told that Satan and his minions were expelled from Heaven, not that they were sentenced eternity in the lake of fire.

  Revelation 12:7 through 9 And there was war in heaven: Michael and his angels fought against the dragon; and the dragon fought and his angels, And prevailed not; neither was their place found any more in heaven.  And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.

God being the loving God that he is had only expelled Satan and the fallen Angels to the Earth, which seems a mild punishment for starting a war in Heaven.

Since there was no death there was also no second death:

  Revelation 20:14  And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.

Since the second death is being cast into the lake of fire, it seems that Satan by enticing man to sin thereby providing his own eternal punishment.

The Bible is only a partial map of God's whole creation (universe) in that The Bible provides us with very little information about other worlds/realms and other creations and occasionally shows us that other creations are able to move into this world but not vice versa. Yet The Bible is sufficient for us and this world. So at best we can only speculate/debate on the other things. In this case The Bible's narrative gives us some hints that Satan already knew about the tree because Satan's first words to Eve reveals that. So more likely Satan and his cronies may have taken the fruits of the Tree in another realm and moreover also from the Tree of Life and thus injected evil into themselves but at the same time negated the side effect of the fruits (death) and achieved immortality. So having lost God's trust in their realm the next thing Satan and his cronies would want to do is to gain allies and numbers. Thus the generous advice to Eve. Here, an important thing is that the sly Satan never told Eve to also take the fruits of the Tree of Life. Once the fruits were taken, the cascading/butterfly effect started including the arrival of sin and death and the domino effect continues to this day till the end days.

God is omniscient in that God can surely preview everything and every possibility to its end, infinitely more than a programmer who created a program and claims to know its every logic, or a chess master who begins a new game and tries to model all possible moves and endings. God already saw the future and gives us a view of it in Revelation. The thing is that because God already knew it, God also gave the warning beforehand in Eden, then gave us the commandments generations later, and finally God gave us Jesus Christ and the Revelation. It was up to Adam and Eve to not take the fruits, and it is up to us to accept Jesus Christ, but then God already knows who will and who won't, but then again we don't know. The decisions/actions we take are ours because we have the freedom, but God already knows our actions/decisions but God didn't/doesn't make them. God already knows the endgame but the moves we make are ours and ours alone, and it's up to us to be held accountable (judgement) for our moves or instead move in sync with Jesus Christ and escape the accountability, but then God already knows who will and who won't. God 'knows' doesn't mean God 'wills' it, 'knowing' and 'willing' are entirely different. So Satan's actions/decisions are Satan's and Satan's alone though God may have already previewed it.

PS: I understand this to be a general category, so please forgive me if my way of answering is wrong.

God is, as you mention, omniscient. However, something in your question hints that God somehow wanted men to fall. If that question should ever come to your mind, just remember that Christianity preaches that Jesus (God, The Son), suffered a horrible death to save you. This should quickly clear out any doubts regarding God's true intention as it plainly reveals that God wishes nothing but the happiness and joy of His creation.

Now, back to your question, God needs to allow for a certain degree of freedom in us in order to allow us to love Him. Think about this. Let's say a guy meets a girl and falls in love with her, so then he proceeds to kidnap her and lock her up in his house, he marries her in secret and they live together until either one dies. As ridiculous as this may sound, true love cannot exist in such scenario. For true love to be possible, the girl has to be able to leave, or choose someone else, or cheat, or just not date him, and, being able to do all these things, she freely chooses to stay with him.

God doesn't really need us to love Him, He wants us to, but His glory is not affected simply because we choose not to. BUT, it is US that need to love God. God is love. Christianity teaches that true fulfillment in life comes from the exercise of charity and love. If God hadn't put that tree in the garden of Eden, the scenario would be like that of the kidnapped woman, unable to leave. However, in order to make us truly happy, God let us disobey, and when we did, He came to rescue us from out mistake at the expense of His own life and suffering.