What is the "Leviathan" mentioned in Job?

You might like to take a look at the related questions What does the Bible have to say about dinosaurs? and Are Dinosaurs mentioned in the Bible? for some dinosaur-specific ideas; and Do Catholics consider Job to be historical? for, well, exactly what the question title says.

Job is a bit of a tricky book in many ways. It is certainly held up as a preeminent example of "literary" writing in the Bible, regardless of the historicity of the events described. The content and style are sophisticated, in particular the central unresolved ambiguity of the text.1 This sort of thing makes us think that the work might be comparatively "late" (plus certain textual hints), whereas the book seems to be set in an "early" period (no mention of the Law, generally patriarchal flavour in the way Job's life is described). This leads us to a couple of tentative conclusions:

Since the book has many identifiable literary qualities, we  could also expect to see others: perhaps this passage is using hyperbole, symbolism, intertextual reference, etc. This is a short leap in the case of Job, whereas with some other Biblical texts, it's hard to say "oh yes, the author is clearly being figurative" without feeling a bit silly.
Since the book is framed as taking place either very long ago (using the tropes of patriarchal narratives) or not in any particular time (like a fable), we could compare it to other contemporary stories for help in understanding how the text works.
The main moral concept of the text is clear: as Affable Geek wrote in an earlier answer on the monsters of Job, "Basically, they are big and strong, but God is bigger." This is solid, and we can use it as a basis for understanding the detail of how the author of Job presents his message.

Monsters, like Leviathan and Behemoth, are fairly common in the epic literature of the ancient near east. The Enuma Elish, so often related to the Genesis creation accounts, recounts various beasts created by Tiamat:

  She spawned monster-serpents,
  Sharp of tooth, and merciless of fang;
  With poison, instead of blood, she filled their bodies.
  Fierce monster-vipers she clothed with terror,
  With splendor she decked them, she made them of lofty stature.
  Whoever beheld them, terror overcame him,
  Their bodies reared up and none could withstand their attack. 2

Another famous example is Humbaba/Huwawa from Gilgamesh,

  ...the warrior whose face is a lion's grimace, and whose breast is like a raging flood. No one dare approach his brow, which devours the reedbeds. On his tongue, like that of a man-eating lion, the blood never dries. You do not have enough strength for the warrior, such is his might. 3

We even get a mention of fire, though not fire-breathing precisely, in the Lugal-e of Ninurta:

  The Asag leapt up at the head of the battle. For a club it uprooted the sky, took it in its hand; like a snake it slid its head along the ground. It was a mad dog attacking to kill the helpless, dripping with sweat on its flanks. Like a wall collapsing, the Asag fell on Ninurta, the son of Enlil. Like an accursed storm, it howled in a raucous voice; like a gigantic snake, it roared at the Land. It dried up the waters of the mountains, dragged away the tamarisks, tore the flesh of the Earth and covered her with painful wounds. It set fire to the reedbeds, bathed the sky in blood, turned it inside out; it dispersed the people there. At that moment, on that day, the fields became black scum, across the whole extent of the horizon, reddish like purple dye - truly it was so! 4

All of these monsters are definitely big and scary - the terror they impart is the main point. This does match the theme of the Job passage. The reason behind mentioning Leviathan at all is to show the distance between God and Job: Leviathan is incredibly dangerous and incomprehensible to a human, but God is greater still. Other parts of God's speech to Job have a related purpose, such as to show that God knows things which are mysterious to Job, or that God's sovereignty extends over cosmic territory. So here, Leviathan - reminiscent of the famous monsters of other writings - is reframed not as a threat to the divine order, but as a subordinate part of it.

So we see a literary explanation for the supernatural characteristics of the beast. The author is appropriating a familiar image, the fearsome cosmic monster, in order to serve his purpose of teaching the unequaled sovereignty of God. Every phrase that makes Leviathan bigger and scarier also makes God bigger still. Conventional animals do not breath fire: but Leviathan is not a conventional animal. As Matthew Henry said,

  Probably these hyperbolical expressions are used concerning the leviathan to intimate the terror of the wrath of God, for that is it which all this is designed to convince us of. Fire out of his mouth devours, Ps. xviii. 7, 8. The breath of the Almighty, like a stream of brimstone, kindles Tophet, and will for ever keep it burning, Isa. xxx. 33. The wicked one shall be consumed with the breath of his mouth, 2 Thess. ii. 8. 5

These descriptions also help the reader to perceive the connection with monsters like the Asag, who are also described with a kind of "cosmic hyperbole".

It is true that other aspects of Leviathan and Behemoth are reminiscent of real living creatures (hippo? whale? serpent?) or even of dinosaurs. There may be some attempt by the author to unify the cosmic-mythological Leviathan with various known natural creatures, which would more squarely place it in the company of ostriches and donkeys (Job 39) rather than being God-like. But it goes against the spirit of the text to treat Job 41 as a zoologist's description of some existing species. The whole point is that Leviathan isn't a normal sort of creature, but an incomprehensible epic threat.

Does it matter that Leviathan is not a real creature, like an ostrich? I don't think it does. If Job were being written for the first time today, its author could perfectly well say that God eats Death Stars for breakfast and uses Barad-Dur as a toothpick. These are perfectly comprehensible cultural references that are not in the least bit harmed by being fictional.6 We get the point.

Further, there is no need to come up with any outlandish speculation about dinosaur-dragons roaming Mesopotamia. (And so Asag, Humbaba, and company would all be based on folk legends about these real creatures.) That is a theory which explains some things - the answer to "why is Leviathan said to breathe fire?" is "because he actually did". But the theory creates far more problems than it solves. In addition to the obvious archaeological problems, it is bad theology. It is far better to try to read Job as the author probably intended - as a literary, philosophical, and intertextual story about God and humanity - than to project anachronistic notions onto the book.

1. Not to be overly snotty about it, but this is one of the things that people often cite as  distinguishing "proper literary stuff" from "formulaic tripe". I'm thinking of people like Roland Barthes, who exalted paradox, enigma, unresolved tension, and in general any writing that requires the reader to do work (The Pleasure of the Text, S/Z, etc.).
2. Enuma Elish, tablet 2, translated by L. W. King (London, 1902).
3. Gilgameš and Ḫuwawa (Version B), 90-95. From the Electronic Text Corpus of Sumerian Literature, t.1.8.1.5.1.
4. Ninurta's exploits, 168-186. ETCSL, t.1.6.2.
5. Matthew Henry, Commentary on the Whole Bible, vol. 3 (1708-1710), commentary on Job 41.
6. Nitpicking about the relative sizes of Barad-Dur and the Death Star, the nutritional value of the latter, or the nature of divine dentition, misses the point. Indeed, it does not make material sense, but neither is it intended to be read in that way.


You're operating under a misconception that these are idols. Most Christians don't worship these images, statues, etc. Instead, they are considered art, something that we  create because we love the subject, not the work of art.

Asking your question is like asking if looking at a painting of my wife means that I am allowed to cheat on her by devoting my affection to an image of her. I love her, not the painting of her. Christians love Jesus, not the statues of Him.

So, the answer id no, idolatry isn't allowed in Churches.

Addressing the updates to the question, the things that people are "venerating" are likely "Sacrementals".

  Sacramentals are material objects, things or actions (sacramentalia) set apart or blessed by the Roman and Eastern Catholic
  Churches, the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox Churches, the Church of
  the East, the Anglican Churches, the Independent and Old Catholic
  Churches, and the Lutheran Churches to manifest the respect due to the
  sacraments, and so to excite good thoughts and to increase devotion,
  and through these movements of the heart to remit venial sin,
  according to the Council of Trent (Session XXII, 15).

  In Roman Catholicism, sacramentals such as Holy water, the crucifix or
  the Saint Benedict Medal are recommended as a means of protection
  against evil.

Again, the devotion is not to these things, but to the God they represent. There are, those that do worship them like idols, and many view the idea that these could protect us from evil as superstitious, the point remains that officially, these aren't idols. They aren't to be worshiped. They are reminders of the one we should be worshiping.


Should Christians come out strongly against groups that do evil in Christ's name?

There may be better or more applicable teachings, but this reminds me of Acts 4:32-5:11 wherein the Christians were living and sharing their things yet a couple was hording for themselves.

Well, it didn't turn out too well for those folks, so if the LRA is as bad as it's purported to be, it won't turn out well for them etheir.  There's no basis for accepting acts of Christians who have proven themselves anti-Christian.

But, is it up to our church leaders to denounce them?  I think so to some extent, and to some extent they do. But pastors are often more concerned with their flock than ones half a world away. It's really up to us all to bring about the Kingdom of Heaven on Earth as best we can.  Run for office, vote for good people, give money to good charities, raise good children, there's more you can do if your vocation allows for it, but that's all most of us can do.


For people who believe in Jesus and not the devil, what happened in the desert?

For people who believe in Jesus and not the devil, what happend in the desert?

There are Christians who believe in Jesus, but not in a personal Devil. For example: the Christadelphians.

  Devil

  Christadelphians believe that the Satan or Devil is not an independent spiritual being or fallen angel. Devil is viewed as the general principle of evil and inclination to sin which resides in humankind. They are convinced that, dependent on the context, the term Satan in Hebrew merely means "opponent" or "adversary" and is frequently applied to human beings. Accordingly, they do not define Hell as a place of eternal torment for sinners, but as a State of Eternal Death respectively non-existence due to annihilation of body and mind. - Christadelphian (Wikipedia)

They tend not to take the Scriptures “literally”. This includes the temptations of Christ in the desert.

  The temptations evidently cannot be taken literally:

  Matthew 4:8 implies that Jesus was led up into a high mountain to see all the kingdoms of the world in their future glory "in a moment of time" (Mk.4:5). There is no mountain high enough to see all the world. And why would the height of the mountain enable Jesus to see what the world would be like in the future? The earth being a sphere, there is no point on its surface from which one can see all the parts of the world at any one time.

  A comparison of Matt. 4 and Luke 4 shows that the temptations are described in a different order. Mark 1:13 says that Jesus was "in the wilderness forty days, tempted of Satan", whilst Matt. 4:2-3 says that "when he had fasted forty days...the tempter (Satan) came to Him...". Because Scripture cannot contradict itself, we can conclude that these same temptations kept repeating themselves. The temptation to turn stones into bread is an obvious example. This would fit nicely if these temptations occurred within the mind of Jesus. Being of our nature, the lack of food would have affected him mentally as well as physically, and thus his mind would have easily begun to imagine things. Just going a few days without food can lead to delirium for some (cp. 1 Sam.30:12). The similarity between rolls of bread and stones is mentioned by Jesus in Mt.7:9, and doubtless those images often merged in his tortured mind - although always to be brought under swift control by his recollection of the Word.

  Jesus probably told the Gospel writers the record of his temptations, and to bring home in words the intensity of what he underwent, he could have used the figurative approach seen in Matt. 4 and Luke 4.

  It seems unlikely that the devil led Jesus through the wilderness and streets of Jerusalem and then they scaled a pinnacle of the temple together, all in view of the inquisitive Jews. Josephus makes no record of anything like this happening - presumably it would have caused a major stir. Similarly, if these temptations occurred several times within the forty days as well as at the end of that period (which they did at least twice, seeing that Matthew and Luke have them in different order), how would Jesus have had time to walk (n.b. the devil "led" Jesus there) to the nearest high mountain (which would have been Hermon in the far north of Israel), climb to the top and back down again, return to the wilderness and then repeat the exercise? His temptations all occurred in the wilderness - he was there for forty days, tempted all the time by the devil (who only departed at the end - Matt. 4:11). If Jesus was tempted by the devil each day, and the temptations occurred only in the wilderness, then it follows that Jesus could not have left the wilderness to go to Jerusalem or travel to a high mountain. These things therefore could not have happened literally.

  If the devil is a physical person who has no respect for God's Word and is interested in making people sin, then why would Jesus quote Scripture to him to overcome him? According to the popular view, this would not send the devil away. Notice that Jesus quoted a Bible passage each time. If the devil was the evil desires within Jesus' heart, then it is understandable that by his having the Word in his heart and reminding himself of it, he could overcome those bad desires. Psalm 119:11 is so relevant that perhaps it is specifically prophesying Christ's experiences in the wilderness: "Thy word have I hid in mine heart, that I might not sin against Thee".

  Matt. 4:1 says that Jesus was "led up of the spirit into the wilderness to be tempted of the devil." This was the Spirit of God which had just been bestowed upon him (ch. 3:16). It would be an extraordinary thing for the Spirit of God to lead Jesus into the wilderness so that he cftould be tempted by a superhuman being existing in opposition to God. - Digression 20: The Temptations Of Jesus

Many Christians who deny the Devil will follow similar lines: Scriptures are not to be always taken literally.


Did Moses have more than one wife in his lifetime?

About Jethro, Wikipedia states:

  There is some disagreement over the name(s) of Moses' father-in-law. In the KJV translation of Judges 4:11, a man named Hobab appears as Moses' father-in-law, while Numbers 10:29 makes him "the son of Raguel [Reuel] the Midianite, Moses' father in law". Reuel is noted Exodus 2:16, as "a priest of Midian" who had seven daughters. Exodus 2:18 "the girls returned to Reuel their father". Reuel becomes Moses' father in law in Exodus 2:21 "Moses agreed to stay with the man, who gave his daughter Zipporah to Moses in marriage."

  In Numbers 10:29, the Hebrew for the name Raguel is the same as the Hebrew for Reuel. The reason for the difference is that the Hebrew character ע (ayin) in רעואל is sometimes used merely as a vowel and sometimes as "g", "ng", and "gn", because of the difficulty of its pronunciation by European speakers. Re-u-el, with the first syllable strong accented, is nearer to the true pronunciation. Some suppose he was father to Hobab, who was also called Jethro, a likely possibility.[10]

  Another thing to consider is that there is only one Biblical Hebrew word for both "brother-in-law" and "father-in-law" (chathan).[11] It is, in fact, the word for any and all relations by marriage. If one takes into account the Biblical custom of multiple names for one person as well as Numbers 10:29 calling Hobab Reuel's son, Reuel and Jethro both appear as Moses' father-in-law,[12] while Hobab may be seen as his brother-in-law. However, this is disputed among theologians.[13][14]

An example of a theological position about the issue can be found in this paper. The author argues that the contradiction is apparent. He states (p.9):

  The   information  which  has  been  preserved  in  the   traditions   dealing   with  Hobab  can  be  best  understood  to   say  that   Hobab,   son-in-law   of   Moses,  was  a  Midianite  belonging  to  the  clan  of  Reuel  and  a  smith  by  profession.    Jethro,  priest  of  Midian  and  father-in-law  of  Moses,  was  a  member  of  the  same  clan  (Reuel).   Although  their  roles  have  been  somewhat  confused  in  later  reflections  of  the  early  Israelite  traditions,  there  is  still  enough  information  preserved  to  suggest  this  reasonable  solution  to  the  puzzle.

Details are in the paper, but for example he suggests that their profession (as stated in the Bible) were too different for them being the same person. I quote (pp.6-7):

  the  roles  of  Jethro  and   Hobab  are  entirely   different.   Jethro  appears  as  an  old  man  with  seven  daughters  (Ex 2,16),  who  advises  his  son-in-law  from  the  wealth  of  his  own  experience  (Ex  18).   Hobab,  on  the  other   hand,   appears  as a vigorous  younger  man  whom
    Moses  wishes  to  act as  guide  in  the  wilderness  (Nm  10,29-32) ...

  We  have  only  to  change  the  vocalization  from hôtën to hätän   where   Hobab is mentioned,  and our  difficulties  vanish:  render  Nm 10,29, "Hobab, son  of  Reuel,  the  Midianite,  son-in-law  of  Moses."   The  fact  that  both  Hobab  and  Jethro  belonged  to  the  clan  of  Reuel  should  cause  no  difficulty  whatsoever,  since  the  West-Semitic  nomads  were  as  a  rule  endogamous,   so one would expect  Moses' son-in-law  and father-in-law  both to come  from the  same clan.


Q. Are JWs restricted from expressing things in their own words?

A. No.

We who are members of the worldwide unified Christian congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses both can and do express ourselves / our Bible based beliefs in our own words, however, we would much rather and prefer to express ourselves / our Bible based beliefs in the way in which our Leader, King and Exemplar (Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of Jehovah God) expressed himself / his Bible based beliefs... and I quote King Christ:

"Jesus, in turn, answered them and said: “What I teach is not mine, but belongs to him that sent me. 17 If anyone desires to do His will, he will know concerning the teaching whether it is from God or I speak of my own originality. 18 He that speaks of his own originality is seeking his own glory; but he that seeks the glory of him that sent him, this one is true, and there is no unrighteousness in him. "
~ John 7:16-17

"because I have not spoken out of my own impulse, but the Father himself who sent me has given me a commandment as to what to tell and what to speak. 50 Also, I know that his commandment means everlasting life. Therefore the things I speak, just as the Father has told me [them], so I speak [them].”"
~ John 12:49, 50

Again, Christ is our PERFECT example whom we strive to the very best of our imperfect ability to imitate (1 Peter 2:21). Was Jesus Christ restricted from expressing things in his own words? We pattern our way of life and the way we teach on him.

~ NOTE: I am a dedicated and baptized member of the worldwide unified Christian Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses.


How are prayer and asking the saints to intercede distinguished?

A Catholic answer to your question would be to say that "pray" has more than one sense.

First, it means simply "ask", as you suggest. This is very obvious if we look at older styles of English. For example, from Hamlet:

  Speak the speech, I pray you, as I pronounced it to you (Act 3, Scene 2)

Here, "pray" means "ask". "I pray you" ends up basically meaning "please". This is the sense used when referring to the intercession of the saints.

Then it has a deeper meaning. Some quotes from the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

  Prayer is the raising of one's mind and heart to God ... Whether we realize it or not, prayer is the encounter of God's thirst with ours. ... Prayer is the response of faith to the free promise of salvation and also a response of love to the thirst of the only Son of God. ... Christian prayer is a covenant relationship between God and man in Christ. It is the action of God and of man, springing forth from both the Holy Spirit and ourselves, wholly directed to the Father, in union with the human will of the Son of God made man. (CCC, ¶¶2559ff.)

This is a deeper meaning, referring to the covenant, communion relationship between human beings and God. Intercession, worship, penitence, and joy (and much else!) are part of the life of prayer. It is the expression and mode of the relationship between the human being and God, and in that way it is exclusive to God.

But the key point about the Catholic idea of prayer is that it isn't primarily individual as in more Protestant understandings. Rather, it is an ecclesial task, a task in which the whole Church participates together. This is seen supremely in the offering of the Mass:

  To the offering of Christ are united not only the members still here on earth, but also those already in the glory of heaven. In communion with and commemorating the Blessed Virgin Mary and all the saints, the Church offers the Eucharistic sacrifice. In the Eucharist the Church is as it were at the foot of the cross with Mary, united with the offering and intercession of Christ. (CCC, ¶1370)

The saints are part of the Church. (The traditional "parts" of the Church are the Church Militant here on earth, the Church Suffering in purgatory, and the Church Triumphant in Heaven.(CCC, ¶962)) So we join in the prayer of the whole Church to God. In this context, we are brothers and sisters with those making their prayer in Heaven. And what could be more natural than asking their prayer for us?

Prayer is a lot more than asking, yet "pray" also means "ask". It has a different sense when referring to God to what it means in referring to God.

As to the verse in Deuteronomy, to my mind this is a completely different matter to intercession to the saints. Let's look at the passage in its context:

  No one shall be found among you who makes a son or daughter pass through fire, or who practises divination, or is a soothsayer, or an augur, or a sorcerer, or one who casts spells, or who consults ghosts or spirits, or who seeks oracles from the dead. (Deuteronomy 18.10f., NRSV)

The context of the prohibition clearly refers to sorcery and magic, asking the dead about the future. This is the behaviour of Saul in consulting the Witch of Endor, for example. Catholics do not say, "Mary, who should I marry?" and expect a lightning bolt answer. Instead, they would say, "Mary, by your intercession help me to determine who I should marry." They are very different things.

Moreover, there is a significant difference between the time of Deuteronomy and the modern day. The idea of an afterlife was very different in ancient Judaism to the beliefs held today. (Remember that the distinction between Pharisees and Sadducees in Jesus' time was the former's belief in a resurrection.) According to the Catholic tradition, until the Resurrection of Christ the dead were trapped in Hell, and by his Resurrection he has led them to Heaven (the Harrowing of Hell). It is precisely the saints in Heaven of whom Catholics ask prayer. Before the Resurrection there were none, so prayer to the dead was prayer to souls in Hell.(See CCC, ¶¶631ff.)


Was Paul's Relationship with Jewish Leadership Close Enough to Act as Their Agent?

At the end of Acts 7 you had Saul approve of the stoning of Stephen

  At this they covered their ears and, yelling at the top of their voices, they all rushed at him, dragged him out of the city and began to stone him. Meanwhile, the witnesses laid their coats at the feet of a young man named Saul.  While they were stoning him, Stephen prayed, “Lord Jesus, receive my spirit.” Then he fell on his knees and cried out, “Lord, do not hold this sin against them.” When he had said this, he fell asleep.
  Acts 7:57-60 NIV
  http://bible.com/111/act.7.57-60.NIV

and then the open of chapter 8 says that a great persecution began

  And Saul approved of their killing him. On that day a great persecution broke out against the church in Jerusalem, and all except the apostles were scattered throughout Judea and Samaria. Godly men buried Stephen and mourned deeply for him. But Saul began to destroy the church. Going from house to house, he dragged off both men and women and put them in prison.
  Acts 8:1-3 NIV
  http://bible.com/111/act.8.1-3.NIV

At the open of chapter 9 Saul was "still breathing murderous threats" against the Christians

  Meanwhile, Saul was still breathing out murderous threats against the Lordʼs disciples. He went to the high priest and asked him for letters to the synagogues in Damascus, so that if he found any there who belonged to the Way, whether men or women, he might take them as prisoners to Jerusalem.
  Acts 9:1-2 NIV
  http://bible.com/111/act.9.1-2.NIV

While it usually just states that those he persecuted were arrested, remember that being arrested in those days didn't mean 3 hots and a cot, it was hard labor and regular beatings and often death in prison as Paul mentions in Acts 22

  I persecuted the followers of this Way to their death, arresting both men and women and throwing them into prison, as the high priest and all the Council can themselves testify. I even obtained letters from them to their associates in Damascus, and went there to bring these people as prisoners to Jerusalem to be punished.
  Acts 22:4-5 NIV
  http://bible.com/111/act.22.4-5.NIV

In 1 Tim 1:15 he calls himself the very worst of sinners

  Here is a trustworthy saying that deserves full acceptance: Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners—of whom I am the worst. But for that very reason I was shown mercy so that in me, the worst of sinners, Christ Jesus might display his immense patience as an example for those who would believe in him and receive eternal life.
  1 Timothy 1:15-16 NIV
  http://bible.com/111/1ti.1.15-16.NIV

Even if you say at the very least, that he was merely a policeman, arresting Christians and sending them to jail, he would need the authority to do that and that would come from the Jewish leaders.

I would also say that Paul was very well known by the Jewish leaders to have been granted authority.  1st, the fact that prior to him making the request from the leaders to be given authority to persecute the church, we already had the authority to approve of Stephen's stoning. 2nd, Luke mentions Saul's pedigree in Acts

  But a Pharisee named Gamaliel, a teacher of the law, who was honored by all the people, stood up in the Sanhedrin and ordered that the men be put outside for a little while.
  Acts 5:34 NIV
  http://bible.com/111/act.5.34.NIV

  When they heard him speak to them in Aramaic, they became very quiet. Then Paul said: “I am a Jew, born in Tarsus of Cilicia, but brought up in this city. I studied under Gamaliel and was thoroughly trained in the law of our ancestors. I was just as zealous for God as any of you are today.
  Acts 22:2-3 NIV
  http://bible.com/111/act.22.2-3.NIV

and Paul mentions his pedigree again in Galatians 1 to give plenty of how he could have been trusted with such a task

  For you have heard of my previous way of life in Judaism, how intensely I persecuted the church of God and tried to destroy it. I was advancing in Judaism beyond many of my own age among my people and was extremely zealous for the traditions of my fathers.
  Galatians 1:13-14 NIV
  http://bible.com/111/gal.1.13-14.NIV

Now the the point that Paul could have been sent to modify the early church, if you were trying to infiltrate and modify the early church, the last thing you would do is send the guy who persecuted the early church the most.  You could have taken no-name Pharisees and send them.  Paul was the most zealot of them all and it took him years to gain the trust of the disciples. Also, the majority of the Christians were previously Jews.  Given that even the Pharisees would not let the Roman soldiers mess with the disciples because they were still considered Jews, they would have pursued bring the "followers of the Way" into alignment as a sect of Judaism but Paul took it the opposite way.

When false teachers began to take churches back to Jewish practices like in Galatians 1, he turned them back to the Gospel and away from Judaism

  I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you to live in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel— which is really no gospel at all. Evidently some people are throwing you into confusion and are trying to pervert the gospel of Christ.
  Galatians 1:6-7 NIV
  http://bible.com/111/gal.1.6-7.NIV

He mentions similar things at other churches but if he was sent to modify the church, he was terrible at it.


Under what circumstances is a priest supposed to deny forgiveness to a person?

For ordinary sins, the priest is supposed to deny absolution if there's no sign of contrition (see 1451-1454 here), especially when the sins are grave (mortal).

In case of excommunication, some can be lifted by any priest, some by an Ordinary (usually a bishop) or a priest appointed by an Ordinary, and some only by the pope or some priest appointed by him.
I have found some canon lawyery on this here. I can't confess I understand it fully, but I'll try to translate it: if the excommunication was explicitly declared, it can be lifted by the bishop who declared it (or someone appointed by him). If it's latae sententiae (strarted by a sin, not declared like abortion), it's under authority of the Ordinary of the diocesis where the excommunicated person lives. Priests without special authority can lift latae sententiae excommunication temporarily "if it is burdensome for the penitent to remain in the state of grave sin during the time necessary for the competent superior to make provision." I don't know what qualifies for "burdensome" here, whether it's almost automatic or just in rare situations like some known danger of death.


Gifts of the Holy Spirit according to Seventh Day Adventists

Seventh-day Adventists rely on the Bible heavily. So if asked what is our understanding and use of the gifts of the Spirit, then a verse such as 1 Corinthians 12:7-10 sums it well.

    1 Corinthians 12:7-11: But the manifestation of the Spirit is given to every man to profit withal.  For to one is given by the Spirit the word of wisdom; to another the word of knowledge by the same Spirit; To another faith by the same Spirit; to another the gifts of healing by the same Spirit; To another the working of miracles; to another prophecy; to another discerning of spirits; to another divers kinds of tongues; to another the interpretation of tongues: But all these worketh that one and the selfsame Spirit, dividing to every man severally as he will.

The gifts of the Spirit can include wisdom, knowledge, faith, healing, miracles, prophecy, discerning of spirits, tongues and interruption of tongues. Basically any talent that is good, because it is from above, by grace. These gifts however amount to nothing if it is not tempered by love (1 Corinthians 13:13), the greatest gift of all. For we know that "knowledge puffs up, but love edifies" (1 Corinthians 8:1).

  1 Corinthians 13:13 And now abideth faith, hope, charity, these three; but the greatest of these is charity.

Unlike the early church, however, God's church today displays a lessor degree the gifts manifested by early Christians. This in part is because we are living in a different period where faith without sight is expected, but also because we have grown soft, having no persecution, and lack the faith of those early Christians. However, this does not mean that these gifts are no longer accessible by the church body today. On contrary, the Bible says

  "And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams" (Acts 2:17).

One unique element about the Seventh-day Adventist church is our belief in the existence of the gift of prophecy today, this is what we often refer to as the spirit of prophecy. In Revelation, it is explained that "the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy" (Revelation 19:10). It is also shown that it is God's people "who keep the commandments of God and have the testimony of Jesus" (Revelation 12:17). Therefore the spirit of prophecy is very much alive and is a distinguishing feature. Adventists are one of the few denominations that claim to have a clear and systematic understanding of Daniel and Revelation based on history and Biblical supporting texts. Indeed these were once closed books, but it is also written, "many shall run to and fro and knowledge shall increase" (Daniel 12:4). We also believe that Ellen White had the spirit of prophecy and that the visions she claimed to have received from God were authentic. For when we test the contents of her testimony we find that it upholds the Bible, points clearly and only to Jesus, and encourages the reader to pursue a deeper relationship with God and understanding of His word. For those not familiar with her works I recommend the Desire of Ages, it is an excellent rendition of Jesus' life, enjoyed by Adventists and non-adventist Christians alike. Her descriptions of Jesus' infinite sacrifice and love is a testimony of her understanding and humble personal relationship with God.

Updated section for revised scope in the question

Spiritual gifts are available to any sincere follower of God, all who are partakers of divine nature by grace through the Holy Spirit. The only condition according to Jesus is: "If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross daily, and follow me." (Luke 9:23). Spiritual gifts are for the benefit of both the person in possession of the gift and those who bear witness.

Spiritual gifts still exist in the Church but are less miraculous in nature today, for God has called us to walk in faith rather than sight.  In the last days, it is Satan who will be permitted to perform great miracles and lying wonders (2 Thess 2:9, Rev 13:14), even bring "fire from the sky" (Rev 13:13). Instead, the Holy Spirit and faith are required to discern those in possession of true spiritual gifts. The spirit of prophecy, knowledge, wisdom, faith, healing, spiritual discernment, and love will be in existence on the earth until the very last day. In addition, it will be aided further by the "latter rain" (Joel 2:23, James 5:7), a powerful outpouring of the Holy Spirit before the time of trouble and the last plagues.


Both the Gospels and the Epistles repeatedly establish the New Covenant as a non-legalistic relationship with God --a new relationship not founded in following specific rules.

However, as Paul says, not everything that is allowed is beneficial.  As a Christian, you need to be guided by your relationship with Christ and by a spirit of discernment to understand what is and is not beneficial to your mission of being an instrument of God's love in the world.  Unfortunately sometimes Christians do disagree strongly with each other on moral issues --that's just a fact of life.

In specific regards to stoning, we have additional guidance in the form of two mentions of the practice in the New Testament.  Once, when Jesus is invited to join in the stoning, and is instead merciful, and the other time, when Stephen becomes the first Christian martyr though being stoned to death by friends of Saul/Paul.  Both of these passages guide us towards rejecting stoning and the judgment that it represents.  (Some Christians, including myself, view it as guiding us away from capital punishment in general, but this is controversial).


How does OEC explain the existence of pre-fall death?

I'd encourage you to give a listen to William Lane Craigs 'Defenders' podcast series on Creation and Evolution, specifically episode 14 which touches on this (but the prior 13 episodes provide background info). This is probably the most erudite, methodical, and approachable analysis that I've ever come across on this subject.

There are several issues touched on here. What does it mean for a non-human animal to suffer? Do non sentient beings suffer in the same sense that we do? What about animals that have some self awareness? There is a lot philosophical/ethical writing on this topic. The answer is, is that although animal undoubtedly feel pain, fear and anxiety, you do not necessarily have to hold that animals suffer in the same way that humans do (having a self awareness of their own suffering).

Also, it is hard to believe that many of the creatures that exist today would have been able to exist in an environment where no death or suffering was intended. Predators come to mind; parasites and virus as well.

Finally and most importantly, how you define death? When death enters into the world does it mean death in the physical sense? Or does death mean corruption and in the spiritual sense, that humans and creatures are not living to their true potential in harmony and communion with God? Indeed, when Adam and Eve sinned, they did not immediately die in any physical sense which is evident in the text itself, but they were immediately separated from God. In other words does sin=death=physical death for humans and all creatures? The answer if you hold to evolutionary theism is that the author of Geneses, and Paul (or anyone else) when he references these things in the NT, is that they mean spiritual death. If you read 1 John closely, he is using death and sin interchangeably, and the meaning is extremely spiritual in its use.

So an OEC could believe that although the account of creation is primary metaphorical and doesn't describe a physical mechanism by which creation occurred, they can believe that Adam and Eve where historical characters (as you mention) and that they were in communion with God but when they sinned, death in the spiritual sense entered into the world, separating humans from God.


Omniscience, Omnipotence and Modern Science

There is nothing to reconcile, and I will illustrate it in two manners.

God the Almighty

Christians believe that God is transcendent. He is not bound the universe. He is not described by physics. The uncertainties described by quantum physics are no different.

You have already recognized Christianity recognized God as Almighty. Even if we gloss over that whole creatio ex nihilo thing and stick to just to a couple of Christ's miracles, we see that Christians already believe that God is not bound by the laws of physics.

Feeding of the 5000

  One of His disciples, Andrew, Simon Peter’s brother, said to Him, "There is a lad here who has five barley loaves and two small fish, but what are they among so many?" Then Jesus said, “Make the people sit down.” Now there was much grass in the place. So the men sat down, in number about five thousand. And Jesus took the loaves, and when He had given thanks He distributed them to the disciples, and the disciples to those sitting down; and likewise of the fish, as much as they wanted. So when they were filled, He said to His disciples, "Gather up the fragments that remain, so that nothing is lost." Therefore they gathered them up, and filled twelve baskets with the fragments of the five barley loaves which were left over by those who had eaten. [John 6:1-14 NKJV]

How is that to be understood under the laws of physics? Start with two small fish and five loaves of bread. Feed 5000 people and still end up with twelve baskets of bread. Conserving matter and energy does seem to limit God.

Walking on Water

After feeding the 5000, what does Christ do for an encore? Walk on water:

  Therefore when Jesus perceived that they were about to come and take Him by force to make Him king, He departed again to the mountain by Himself alone.
   Now when evening came, His disciples went down to the sea, 17 got into the boat, and went over the sea toward Capernaum. And it was already dark, and Jesus had not come to them. Then the sea arose because a great wind was blowing. 19 So when they had rowed about three or four miles, they saw Jesus walking on the sea and drawing near the boat; and they were afraid. But He said to them, 'It is I; do not be afraid.' Then they willingly received Him into the boat, and immediately the boat was at the land where they were going.  [John 6:16-21 NKJV]

Again, this is completely unacceptable to physics. For the sake of argument, let's say that God isn't required to obey the law of gravity. We could write a book full of the miracles of God (I think maybe that may have already been done), all illustrating that God is not bound be the laws of physics.

Physics is limited

In asking how can God know position and momentum at the same time, you have made a categorical error. Physics, like all science, is limited to describing what can be observed. Physics has no basis for observing the way God's knowledge works. Assuming that God must make observations, that He must interact with creation is without basis. Attempting to predict the outcome of God's actions, God's knowledge using physics is logically flawed. You can not draw a conclusion without first satisfying the premises.

Addressing a comment

You commented:

  Probably, but the bits we know, we know. And to all intents and purposes [even if just to play Devil's advocate] you should accept that things don't have definite position or velocities. How does that work with Omniscience however is my question

Again, there is nothing to reconcile. If things don't have definite position or momentum, then not knowing a definite position or momentum is not a challenge to omniscience. If you like, you can just assume that God groks the full evolution of the universe in whatever physical model you like.


Does Bible say that God created insects?

I don't know of any verse that specifically mentions insects, but at the beginning of John it says 'All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.'. JNDs translation puts it 'All things
received being through him, and without him not one [thing] received being which has received being.' So he must have created the insects...

Some other food for thought.....

Amos 7 'Thus hath the Lord GOD shewed unto me; and, behold, he formed grasshoppers in the beginning of the shooting up of the latter growth;'(be sure to get the context)

Psalm 105 'He spoke, and there came dog-ﬂies, [and] gnats in all their borders....He spoke, and the locust came, and the cankerworm, even without number;'

Psalm 50 'I know all the fowl of the mountains, and the
roaming creatures of the field are mine:'


While on the cross, was Jesus abandoned by every human?

He was in the world, and the world was made through him, yet the world did not know him. He came to his own, and his own people did not receive him. But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God - John 1:10-12

The hymn writers are employing literary devices intended, not to exaggerate Christ's suffering (for we cannot even truly imagine the anguish of that lonely cry "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me!"), but to pointedly draw our self serving attentions to it for His glory and for our edification.

It was alone the Savior prayed  In dark Gethsemane;
Alone He drained the bitter cup   And suffered there for me.
Alone, alone, He bore it all alone; He gave Himself to save His own,
He suffered,
bled and died alone, alone.
It was alone the Savior stood   In Pilate’s judgment hall; Alone the
crown of thorns He wore,   Forsaken thus by all.
Alone upon the cross He hung   That others He might save; Forsaken
then by God and man.   Alone, His life He gave.
Can you reject such matchless love?   Can you His claim disown? Come,
give your all in gratitude,   Nor leave Him thus alone.

It Was Alone The Savior Prayed - Benjamin H. Price 1914


The Pope is resigning. How does a living pope confer his authority?

Yes, as the Pope said in his resignation speech, he gives up the office and it is for those whose duty it is to convoke the conclave and elect a successor — just as it would be if he had died.

As a cardinal, he's entitled to attend the conclave (but he probably won't) but he can't vote because he's over eighty.


Why have some conservative Reformed churches objected to the Belhar Confession?

I would refer you to another article by Kevin DeYoung that is included in the belhar confession: yea or nay.   In it DeYoung points out that:

"there are a few lines that cannot be supported by Scripture" (an example DeYoung includes is "We believe that God, in a world full of injustice and enmity, is in a special way the God of the destitute, the poor and the wronged", indicating in contraposition that "God does not show partiality to the poor, nor does he defer to the great (Lev. 19:15)
some adopters assert that "support for homosexual unions and
homosexual ordination is demanded by the Confession"

DeYoung also expresses his opinion that the Belhar confession raises issues rather than settling them: many extend its reach making it "a very different document than the anti-racism confession many of us read it to be".


As a non-Christian, how to have best Christmas Day experience in Rome?

The best way to celebrate Christmas in Rome is by keeping Christ in Christmas. Most churches and basilicas will have church services on every day that you plan to be in Rome. That would include churches of other denominations other than Catholic (Anglican, Lutheran and Protestant).

Besides going to a church service, which would be open to all, even non-Catholics and non-Christians, you may wish to take advantage of the Urbi et Orbi Blessing of the Pope at Vatican City on Christmas Day. While attending Catholic religious services called the Mass, please keep in mind that only practicing Catholics in the state of grace may receive Holy Communion.

For practicing Catholics, the Urbi et Orbi Blessing is an occasion to obtain a plenary indulgence. For those actually in Rome, those attending the actual ceremony will have the opportunity to see the pope.

  The Urbi et Orbi address and blessing are given each Easter and Christmas from the central loggia of Saint Peter's Basilica in Rome, at noontime, and are broadcast worldwide through the European Broadcasting Union and other linkups. The address concludes with greetings in many languages in relation to the feast celebrated.

  The Roman Catholic Church grants a plenary indulgence by the willful grace and intent of the Pope, on the usual conditions, to those who "devoutly receive" the blessing that the Pope imparts Urbi et Orbi.

  Since 1985, this indulgence is granted not only to the people in Saint Peter's Square, but also to those who though unable to be physically present, "piously follow" it by radio or television. - Urbi et Orbi (Wikipedia)

While in Rome one may chose to visit the Basilica of St. Maria Maggiore  which for those who believe contains a relic of the Holy Crib of Jesus.

  The Holy Crib

  In the crypt under the high altar lies the celebrated relic known as the Holy Crib. A statue of Pope Pius IX kneeling before the ancient wooden pieces of the manger serves as an example to the faithful who come to see the first humble crib of the Savior. Pius IX's devotion to the Holy Crib led him to commission the crypt chapel, and his coat of arms is visible above the altar. The precious crystal urn trimmed in silver, through which the faithful can venerate the relic, was designed by Giuseppe Valadier. The Papal Basilica St. Maria Maggiore


Are there different views on the nature or/and understanding of the Trinity among Trinitarians?

Yes there are several important subdivisions of Trinitarian theology. If we start with the Nicene Creed as the baseline definition of the Trinity, then there were three early positions concerning Christology and the incarnation: Nestorianism (two persons in Christ), monophysitism/miaphysitism (one joined nature of Christ), and dyophysitism (two natures in the one person of Christ.) Dyophysitism is the position of the great majority of Christians today, but Nestorianism survives into the present in the Church of the East, and miaphysitism in the Oriental Orthodox Churches. A few centuries later, the debate developed into the debate over monothelitism, whether Jesus had one will or two. This may all seem like a debate over Christology, not the Trinity, but with monothelitism we saw that our Christology is dependent on questions of the Trinity: whether the faculties of God such as his will are possessed by the divine nature or by the persons of the Trinity, although at the time of Chalcedon they would not have phrased the debate in that way.

A second aspect in which Trinitarian theology can be distinguished is through the immanent and economic views of God. The immanent Trinity focuses on how God knows himself, while the economic Trinity is how God shows himself to us in his actions. Can we know anything of God as he truly is? If the economic Trinity is entirely arbitrary and the Spirit or the Father could have equally become incarnate then that implies the names or titles of God reflect only his roles and not his true identities. But if the economic reflects the immanent then the roles reveal the immanent to us, with questions of the nature by which the Father is the source of the Son or the Son is submissive to the Father. In this the categories are less well defined and debate continues.

One modern development is called Social Trinitarianism. I don't really understand it properly, so I'll quote Wikipedia to explain how it reinterprets the single divine essence of classical Trinitarianism: "this one essence can be thought of as the loving relationship between Father, Son, and Spirit." Debate continues on how strong a model and explanation this is and how compatible it is with the Nicene Creed.


What, according to Jesus, is the primary purpose and objective of sending the Holy Spirit at Pentecost?

The very words of Jesus on that matter are clear and are repeated below:

John 15:26-27: “When the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you
from the Father, the Spirit of truth who proceeds from the Father, he
shall testify of me. And you also shall bear witness, because you have
been with me from the beginning”.
John 16:8-14: “And when he is come, he will reprove the world of sin,
and of righteousness, and of judgment; of sin, because they believe
not on me; of righteousness, because I go to my Father, and you see me
no more; of judgment, because the prince of this world is judged...
when he, the Spirit of truth is come, he will guide you into all the
truth, for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear
shall he speak, and he will show you things to come.  He shall glory
me; for he shall receive of mine, and shall show it unto you.  All
things that the Father hath are mine.  Therefore said I, that he shall
take of mine, and shall show it unto you.”

The primary, foremost role of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost was NOT to imbue believers with miraculous gifts of a more spectacular nature than 'mundane' gifts of hospitality, administration etc., as if that would prove that those with spectacular gifts were somehow superior to those with 'mundane' gifts.  The words of Jesus show that the Holy Spirit does not speak of Himself - he points to, and glorifies, Christ.  Therefore, when the disciples at Pentecost found they could speak in other languages, they used that amazing gift to point thousands to the resurrected Christ. They preached Christ crucified and risen. They did not talk about themselves, but witnessed (testified to) having seen the resurrected Christ, and explaining how the prophecies about Messiah were fulfilled in Christ.
An illustration might be helpful. When thousands go to a sporting event in a huge outdoor stadium at night, and the flood-lights suddenly come on, does anybody turn around and admire the flood-lights?  Of course not!  The illumination is to enable them to see what is happening before their eyes.  So at Pentecost.  In that dark night of sin, when thousands gathered at Jerusalem to celebrate, the Holy Spirit suddenly flooded the city with the light of the gospel of Christ, so that all eyes were turned - not on the Holy Spirit - but on the disciples’ preaching, which was inspired by His power, for they could speak in other languages to reach those from other countries. They stood up and preached Christ crucified and risen in glory, and how the people could be delivered from their sin! They pointed to Christ, not to themselves or how wonderful their linguistic gifts were! All attention was drawn to the risen Christ.
Today, there are some who seem obsessed with having "the spirit", including power of spiritual gifts. But if any such ones promote self as exhibiting "the spirit", they cannot be denying self and pointing others to Christ. They have not learned the vital lesson of the Spirit bestowed at Pentecost - to work through saved believers to explain the gospel of Christ to others, so that those others might then be saved and experience the convicting power of the Holy Spirit, realising their sin and the need to repent and put all their faith in the risen Christ.


Can the human spirit remember anything without a physical body? (LDS perspective)

Yes.

Gospel Fundamentals Chapter 35: Life after Death

  In the spirit world our spirits will have the same form as when we lived on the earth with bodies of flesh and bones. We will look as we do here. We will think the same way and believe the same things as we did here. Those who are righteous in this life will still be righteous. Those who were unrighteous will still be unrighteous. We will have the same desires after we die as we had while on this earth.

Pay attention to "We will think the same way and believe the same things as we did here."  What we think and believe stem from our experiences in mortality. Those experiences are stored in our memories. If we couldn't remember until after the resurrection, we wouldn't be the same person as a spirit. We would be a void so to speak until we regained our memories.

Alma 34:34

  34 Ye cannot say, when ye are brought to that awful crisis, that I will repent, that I will return to my God. Nay, ye cannot say this; for that same spirit which doth possess your bodies at the time that ye go out of this life, that same spirit will have power to possess your body in that eternal world.

The same spirit we have now, will remain with us.  This includes our memories.

I hope this answers your question.


What is the meaning of the word "ONE" in the Bible?

Working in unison, living in unity.

Mark 10:8 8

  and the two will become ·one body [as though they were one
  person; T one flesh; Gen. 2:24]’. So they are no longer two, but one.

John 10:16

  16 I have other sheep that are not in this ·flock [fold; pen; C a
  reference to future Gentile followers of Christ], and I must bring
  them also. They will listen to my voice, and there will be one flock
  and one shepherd.

John 10:30

  30 The Father and I are one.”

Judges 20:11 (ASV)

  11 So all the men of Israel were gathered against the city, knit
  together as one man.

Oneness usually implies oneness of mind, actions, and so forth.

1 Corinthians 1:10 (In contrast to modern setting.)

  10 But I urge and entreat you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus
  Christ, that all of you be in perfect harmony and full agreement in
  what you say, and that there be no dissensions or factions or
  divisions among you, but that you be perfectly united in your common
  understanding and in your opinions and judgments.

Colossians 3:13-14 (Note relationship between love and unity (oneness))

  14 And above all these [put on] love and enfold yourselves with the
  bond of perfectness [which binds everything together completely in
  ideal harmony].

In a deeper sense, just as a Husband and Wife are ONE through a God-ordained arrangement, the Christ is ONE with the congregation. This principle is especially important, because its necessary in saving through unity:

1st Corinthians 7:14 (Note the saving aspect of oneness)

  14 For the unbelieving husband is sanctified in the wife, and the
  unbelieving wife is sanctified in the brother: else were your children
  unclean; but now are they holy.

In this way the congregation (Christ's bride, loved as his own body) is also cleansed by the Christ due to marital contract and attains everlasting life.

Conversely, the "Harlot" separating, disuniting from the Christ, unifying with Satan's world, becomes one with the world, and they share sins all the way back to Abel's murder.  Luke 11:51, Revelation 17:2 COMPARE TO: 1 Corinthians 6:16


Can theological trends explain reasons for male / female divide in (US) worship?

The apparent discrepancy in the male to female ratio apparently does not stem from theological or ideological precepts, but from historical happenstance.

Until World War 2 most of the duties around the church were performed by the men of the church.

World War 2 being waged both in Europe and the Pacific required so many men that most if not all churches, were left with to few men to maintain the Buildings and grounds, let alone prepare for services.

Most of the duties around the church were assumed by women, and the churches became a gathering place for them where they met and exchanged news about how the men were faring in the war. There was ample news about battles and such, but things concerning local men, could only be gotten from the letters received by their wives, or parents.

Churches not only became the center for local news but also a place to gather and pray for the men who were serving in the Armed services.

There was also a shortage of many things needed by families, due to the necessity of supplying the troops.

So many lives were lost  in the War that there was virtually no community which went untouched.

The women of the church would comfort and aid the families who lost their husbands, sons, and fathers.

Even after the war ended casualties had been so great that most churches either did not have enough men left to take over church duties, or many of those who returned from the war had sustained injuries that precluded them reassuming those duties.

After World War 2 women kept most of the duties in keeping up the churches, and continue to do so today.

Today women still feel like the church is like family more than men do, and to this day the camaraderie among the churches women, is far greater that that of the men.


Consulting of fortune tellers, palmists and astrologers

Deuteronomy 18:10: “There shall not be found among you . . . anyone who practices divination or tells fortunes or interprets omens.”

Compared to God’s truth, divination is false, deceitful, and worthless. See Acts 16, as well.

Divination is a sin. Any form of it. Stay clear. Wisdom only comes from God.


Does the Bible forbid a man from dressing like a woman?

In the Mosaic Law, God strictly forbids this:

  A woman shall not wear man’s clothing, nor shall a man put on a woman’s clothing; for whoever does these things is an abomination to the Lord your God.  Deuteronomy 22:5 NASB

It must be stated, however, that this was specifically in the Mosaic Law, so it cannot necessarily be extended outside of the Jewish people and that covenant.  In this case, however, it does not seem to be an issue of covenant, but an actual abomination to God.


Why is Christ often shown with long hair in Christian iconography?

It is true that Our lord Jesus Christ is most often portrayed as having long hair. In the New Testament, no reference is made about the outward appearance of Jesus. St. Paul himself was not a fain of long hair as one can read in 1 Cor. 11:14-15.

  14 Does not the very nature of things teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a disgrace to him, 15 but that if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For long hair is given to her as a covering.

Let us remember that St. Paul was a Roman citizen and the Romans had shorter hair.

The men at the time of Jesus definitely had long hair and the Jewish Encyclopedia bares this out.

  Fashion Among Men.

  From the Old Testament it may be gathered that it was customary for the men to have their hair cut from time to time. The Nazarites allowed theirs to grow uncut for religious reasons. Absalom, proud of his thick head of hair, had it cut once a year only. But generally the hair was cut oftener. It was never shaved save on special occasions; the high priests and the priests in general were expressly forbidden to have theirs shaved. They were neither to shave their hair according to heathen custom, nor to allow it to grow uncut like that of the Nazarites (comp. Ezek. xliv. 20). There is no other information in the Bible concerning the care of the hair.

Not all images of Jesus have Him with long hair, but all modern ones do. In fact the first images found in the Catacombs of Rome have Jesus portrayed with short hair.

Rome, Catacombs of Priscilla – The Good Shepherd

  The Good Shepherd in the catacombs. One of the images represented the in the art of the catacombs is the Good Shepherd. While the model is taken from pagan culture, it immediately takes on a Christological significance inspired by the parable of the lost sheep. Christ is thus represented as a humble shepherd with a lamb on his shoulders as he watches over his little flock that is sometimes made up of only two sheep placed at his sides. - THE CHRISTIAN CATACOMBS

But why did this imagery of a Christ with short hair to a Christ with long hair come about? Well, the men in Jesus' time historically had long hair. There may have also been other factures involved as to why we only see Christ having long hair in Christian iconography. Among these are the Shroud of Turin, the Veil of Veronica, the Manoppello Image and so on, all of which are seen with Jesus as having long hair.

Shroud of Turin

Veronica holding her veil, Hans Memling, c. 1470

Manoppello Image


What biblical (scriptural) basis does a Christian have to command the blessings?

There is none to support commanding our God to do anything. Would you walk into court and command a judge to reduce your sentence? Absolutely not, you would ask respectfully and explain your circumstance.

The same would go for your fleshly father. If you needed something all you have to do is ask respectfully. What father wouldn't give his children something they needed? How much more so our heavenly father. This is demonstrated by Jesus at Luke 11:11-13:

  "Indeed, which father among you, if his son asks for a fish, will hand him a serpent instead of a fish?12  Or if he also asks for an egg, will hand him a scorpion? 13  Therefore, if you, although being wicked, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more so will the Father in heaven give holy spirit to those asking him!”

Then at Matthew 6:32

  "For all these are the things the nations are eagerly pursuing. Your heavenly Father knows that you need all these things."

So we see that God knows what we need and is eager to give it to us when we ask. If we want to show our love for god we show "fear" or respect for him. This means asking and not demanding. When we command something to happen, it is as if by our own hands or power we can make it happen. When we do that we take away from the glory of our father. Look at the example made of Moses when he didn't glorify god at numbers 20:10. We don't want to take the credit for something god does. We show humility and meekness by just asking and those are qualities God finds very favorable.


Ressurection is mentioned many times in the Bible. Job also said "And after my skin has been destroyed, yet in my flesh I will see God" (Job 19:26).

According to this article, the Sadducees based their doctrine only from the Torah(Pentateuch), rejecting all Jewish Oral Laws and gave no importance to the writing of the Prophets.

In Matthew 22:23-33, Sadducees wanted to test Jesus on the topic of resurrection. Knowing that they accepted only the Pentateuch, Jesus replied them from the Pentateuch itself that resurrection is mentioned(perhaps indirectly). This reply from Jesus silenced the Sadducees.

  Hearing that Jesus had silenced the Sadducees, the Pharisees got
  together. One of them, an expert in the law, tested him with this
  question: (Matthew 22: 34-35, NIV)

Their silence would probably mean that Jesus was quoting correctly from the same Scripture that Sadducees were reading. Otherwise they should have argued about the tense used in the Scripture like the one you mentioned from the Samaritan Pentateuch. Also there was no reason why Sadducees would read from the Samaritan Pentateuch because Jews at that time abhorred the Samaritans.

So, to answer your question, "Is the Doctrine of Resurrection of the Dead expressed in Pentateuch?", the answer is definitely YES! according to Jesus or Christian Scripture. But if you ask "Is it mentioned in the Samaritan Pentateuch?", the answer could be 'No' but I think that is irrelevant for Christians because our Scripture is different from what the Samaritans have.


Who may receive Holy Communion in a Catholic Church?

Catholics

The main requirement for a Catholic who has received First Communion is that the person must be in a state of grace (the person has been to confession since committing a mortal sin). As for divorced and remarried persons, non-marital intercourse is a mortal sin and divorces are not recognized by the Catholic Church so...

The person must also believe in the doctrine of transubstantiation. This is one of the major differences in Communion between the Catholic Church and Protestant churches, and the words used in the Communion Rite reflect it (the Eucharistic minister declares "The Body of Christ" as the host is given, and the person receiving it answers with an affirmative "Amen").

The person also must have observed the Eucharistic fast (only water and medicine within an hour before Communion).

Another important requirement that almost goes without saying is that the person must not be under an ecclesiastical censure (e.g. excommunicated). This might also apply to a divorced and remarried person.

Catholic children are admitted to Communion once they have received their First Communion.

Non-Catholic Christians

The person may be allowed to receive Communion depending on the Christian denomination the person belongs to. In the missals at a Catholic Church you will find a message like this one:

  We welcome our fellow Christians to this celebration of the Eucharist as our brothers and sisters. We pray that our common baptism and the action of the Holy Spirit in this Eucharist will draw us closer to one another and begin to dispel the sad divisions which separate us. We pray that these will lessen and finally disappear, in keeping with Christ's prayer for us 'that they may all be one'. Because Catholics believe that the celebration of the Eucharist is a sign of the reality of the oneness of faith, life, and worship, members of those churches with whom we are not yet fully united are ordinarily not admitted to Communion. Eucharistic sharing in exceptional circumstances by other Christians requires permission according to the directives of the diocesan bishop and the provisions of canon law...

If the Christian belongs to a denomination that the Catholic Church is considered "fully united" with then that Christian will be admitted to Communion. Otherwise, the person is generally not admitted, although there are exceptions. The Guidelines for the Reception of Communion from the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) provides a list of the denominations whose members are permitted to receive Communion:

  Members of the Orthodox Churches, the Assyrian Church of the East, and the Polish National Catholic Church are urged to respect the discipline of their own Churches. According to Roman Catholic discipline, the Code of Canon Law does not object to the reception of communion by Christians of these Churches (canon 844 § 3)

Non-Christians

Non-Christians are not admitted to Communion.

The message in the missals from above continues:

  We also welcome to this celebration those who do not share our faith
  in Jesus Christ. While we cannot admit them to Communion, we ask them
  to offer their prayers for the peace and the unity of the human
  family.

Scriptural Basis

The scriptural basis for the Catholic Church's teaching is mainly based on 1 Corinthians 11:27-29:

  So then, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord. Everyone ought to examine themselves before they eat of the bread and drink from the cup. For those who eat and drink without discerning the body of Christ eat and drink judgment on themselves.

Clearly, these verses indicate that Catholics must be in a state of grace when receiving Communion. Also, non-Christians do not acknowledge Christ as Lord and would therefore receive it in an unworthy manner. Similarly, non-Catholic Christians who do not believe in transubstantiation would receive Communion in an unworthy manner according to Catholic teaching.

You can find more details, including exceptions, at Catholic Answers and the USCCB Guidelines for the Reception of Communion. The above missal quotes are derived from the USCCB guidelines.


In his Dialogue with Trypho the Jew, 2nd century Christian apologist Justin Martyr states that the Magi in the Nativity account came from Arabia, relating them to Isaiah's prophesy:

  Isaiah 8:4  (Brenton LXX)

    For before the child shall know how to call his father or his mother, one shall take the power of Damascus and the spoils of Samaria
    before
    the king of the Assyrians.

Justin counters Trypho's objections that the prophesy relates to Hezekiah and not Jesus:

  But show me yourselves [i.e. "you Jews"] first of all how it is said
  of Hezekiah, that before he knew how to call father or mother, he
  received the power of Damascus and the spoils of Samaria in the
  presence of the king of Assyria. For it will not be conceded to you,
  as you wish to explain it, that Hezekiah waged war with the
  inhabitants of Damascus and Samaria in presence of the king of
  Assyria. For before the child knows how to call father or mother,
  the prophetic word said, He shall take the power of Damascus and
  spoils of Samaria in presence of the king of Assyria. For if the
  Spirit of prophecy had not made the statement with an addition,
  "Before the child knows how to call father or mother, he shall take
  the power of Damascus and spoils of Samaria," but had only said, "And
  shall bear a son, and he shall take the power of Damascus and spoils
  of Samaria," then you might say that God foretold that he would take
  these things, since He foreknew it. But now the prophecy has stated it
  with this addition: Before the child knows how to call father or
  mother, he shall take the power of Damascus and spoils of Samaria.
  And you cannot prove that such a thing ever happened to any one among
  the Jews. But we are able to prove that it happened in the case of our
  Christ. For at the time of His birth, Magi who came from Arabia
  worshipped Him, coming first to Herod, who then was sovereign in your
  land, and whom the Scripture calls king of Assyria on account of his
  ungodly and sinful character. For you know,” continued I, “that the
  Holy Spirit oftentimes announces such events by parables and
  similitudes; just as He did towards all the people in Jerusalem,
  frequently saying to them, Thy father is an Amorite, and thy mother a
  Hittite [Ezekiel 16:3].

  Dialogue with Trypho the Jew, Chapter LXXVII

No other ante-Nicene Church writing that I am aware of associates the Magi of the Nativity account with any other and/or more specific location.


According to Roman Catholicism, what does "proceeds' mean in the Nicene Creed?

Divine Procession
Fr. Hardon, S.J., gives a good definition of "divine procession:"

The origin of a divine person from another through the communication of the numerically one divine essence. There are two internal processions in the Trinity: the begetting of the Son from the Father, and the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son. It is divine persons, not the divine nature, who are the subjects of the internal divine procession. The second divine person proceeds from the intellect of the first divine person by generation, and therefore is related to him as Son to a Father. The third divine person proceeds from the will or mutual love of the Father and the Son as from a single principle through spiration.

The Catechism of the Council of Trent on this part of the Creed

“Who Proceedeth from the Father and the Son”
With regard to the words immediately succeeding: who proceedeth from the Father and the Son, the faithful are to be taught that the Holy Ghost proceeds by an eternal procession from the Father and the Son, as from one principle. This truth is proposed for our belief by the Creed of the Church, from which no Christian may depart, and is confirmed by the authority of the Sacred Scriptures and of Councils.
Christ the Lord, speaking of the Holy Ghost, says: He shall glorify me, because he shall receive of mine. (John 16:14). We also find that the Holy Ghost is sometimes called in Scripture the Spirit of Christ, sometimes, the Spirit of the Father; that He is one time said to be sent by the Father, another time, by the Son—all of which clearly signifies that He proceeds alike from the Father and the Son. He, says St. Paul, who has not the Spirit of Christ belongs not to him. (Rom. 8:9). In his Epistle to the Galatians he also calls the Holy Ghost the Spirit of Christ: God hath sent the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying: Abba, Father. (Gal. 4:6). In the Gospel of St. Matthew, He is called the Spirit of the Father: It is not you that speak, but the Spirit of your Father that speaketh in you. (Matt. 10:20).
Our Lord said, at His Last Supper: When the Paraclete cometh, whom I will send you, the Spirit of truth, who proceedeth from the Father, he shall give testimony of me. (John 15:26). On another occasion, that the Holy Ghost will be sent by the Father, He declares in these words: Whom the Father will send in my name. (John 14:26). Understanding these words to denote the procession of the Holy Ghost, we come to the inevitable conclusion that He proceeds from both Father and Son.
The above are the truths that should be taught with regard to the Person of the Holy Ghost.

The procession of the Holy Spirit
The procession of the Holy Spirit is one of the four relations in the Holy Trinity (cf. St. Thomas Aquinas's Summa Theologica I q. 28 a. 4).

paternity (the relation of the Father to the Son)

filiation (the relation of the Son to the Father)

active spiration of the Holy Spirit (the relation of the Father and the
Son in respect to the Holy Spirit)

passive spiration of the Holy Spirit (the relation of the Holy Spirit in
respect to the Father and the Son)

There are two processions in the Trinity:

Generation (the Son proceeding from the Father)
Procession (the Holy Spirit proceeding from the Father and from the Son)

Relations are depicted in green:

(original image source)
St. Thomas Aquinas describes the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and from the Son in his Compendium Theologiæ cap. 49:

We should recall that the act of understanding proceeds from the intellectual power of the mind. When the intellect actually understands, the object it understands is in it. The presence of the object known in the knower results from the intellectual power of the mind, and is its word, as we said above. Likewise, what is loved is in the lover, when it is actually loved. The fact that an object is actually loved, results from the lover’s power to love and from the lovable good as actually known. Accordingly the presence of the beloved object in the lover is brought about by two factors: the appetitive principle and the intelligible object as apprehended, that is, the word conceived about the lovable object. Therefore, since the Word in God who knows and loves Himself is the Son, and since He to whom the Word belongs is the Father of the Word, as is clear from our exposition, the necessary consequence is that the Holy Spirit, who pertains to the love whereby God is in Himself as beloved in lover, proceeds from the Father and the Son. And so we say in the Creed: “Who proceeds from the Father and the Son.”

For more information, see Fr. Gilles Emery, O.P.'s works on the Trinity, e.g., The Trinitarian Theology of St. Thomas Aquinas ch. 5 "Relations" (p. 78 f.); cf. this answer.


Did Jesus have a divine biological Father?

A tenet of the Christian faith (and I speak from an Evangelical point of view) is that, in the words of Christ,

  "'God is spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth'" (John 4:24 NASB Updated).

The very suggestion that God somehow possesses in his being DNA with which he could cause the Virgin Mary to conceive, violates this key tenet of Christian faith. God, who out of the fullness of his being created the human race out of one man and one woman, cannot have DNA. He is, rather, the creator of DNA. In other words, DNA was God's idea.

The primary reason for the incredible complexity of the human genome is the infinite creative genius and power of God, who spoke the universe into existence by the word (or Word) of his power (John 1:3). The One who created all things did so when there was literally no thing besides himself (except perhaps the angels, though that is an entirely different matter).

In Psalm 94, the psalmist asks a good question. I'll include the context for the question:

  "Pay heed, you senseless among the people; And when will you understand, stupid ones?   He who planted the ear, does He not hear? He who formed the eye, does He not see? He who chastens the nations, will He not rebuke, Even He who teaches man knowledge? The LORD knows the thoughts of man, That they are a mere breath" (vv.8-11).

The psalmist expressed poetically a profound truth regarding the personhood of God; namely, the God who created the ear can also hear; the God who created the eye can also see. Hearing and seeing originated in the God who hears all and sees all. The senses of hearing and seeing are but metaphors, which originate in the eternal attributes of God. Our human ears and eyes, in other words, tell us metaphorically something about who God is.

Just as language as a platform for human understanding is filled with metaphorical expressions, such as "I see" as an alternate way of saying "I understand," so also in similar fashion the created, material universe is a platform for insight into the being of God, who is the creator and sustainer of all things.

  "For since the creation of the world His [i.e., God's] invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse" (Romans 1:20 NASB).

In conclusion, the point I have been making is simply this: There is a great (infinite?) divide between who God is by nature and what he has created out of the fullness of his creative power and genius. While God is pleased with "man to dwell, Jesus our Emanuel,"
as the Christmas carol puts it, he was and always will be transcendent vis-à-vis his creation.

By the same token, however, God through his Christ is also immanent, since Jesus revealed God in all his fullness in the vehicle, so to speak, of an eternal "flesh and bone" body, the body of the God-Man (see Colossians 1:15-20). Exactly how God invested both divinity and humanity in the person of Jesus is, I believe, quite mysterious. That Jesus was conceived of the Holy Spirit is the reason why Jesus could become the perfect, sinless, and spotless Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world (John 1:29 and 36).


How do seventh day Sabbatarians explain the lack of Sabbath observing following Spirit led revivals?

This is actually the same time that the Seventh-day Adventist church began.  It came out of revivals in the 1800's
Starting in 1844 after the disappointment of the millerite movement.
Joseph Bates who was one of the first to be convinced of the Sabbath and was a revivalist preacher. See: (Joseph Bates (8 July 1792 – 19 March 1872)
This combined with the understanding of Revelation 12:17 that there would only be a remnant of the church that would keep the commandments and have the testimony of Jesus.

And the dragon was wroth with the woman, and went to make war with the
remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the
testimony of Jesus Christ. - Rev 12:!7


What was Jesus' view on the authority of Scripture?

My own personal answer would be no different than the one found here:

http://www.greatcom.org/resources/reasons_skeptics/ch_06/default.htm

Here are some excerpts.

He considered it to be divinely inspired:

  Jesus believed that the Old Testament was divinely inspired, the veritable Word of God. He said, "The Scripture cannot be broken" (John
  10:35). He referred to Scripture as "the commandment of God" (Matthew
  15:3) and as the "Word of God" (Matthew 15:6). He also indicated that
  it was indestructible: "Until Heaven and earth pass away, not the
  smallest letter or stroke shall pass away from the law, until all is
  accomplished" (Matthew 5:18). Notice that he mentions even the words
  and letters!

Since He considered it to be inspired by God, He considered it authoritative.

  When dealing with the people of His day, whether it was with the disciples or religious rulers, Jesus constantly referred to the Old
  Testament: "Have you not read that which was spoken to you by God?"
  (Matthew 22:31); "Yea; and have you never read, 'Out of the mouth of
  infants and nursing babes thou hast prepared praise for thyself'?"
  (Matthew 21:16, citing Psalm 8:2); and "Have you not read what David
  did?" (Matthew 12:3). Examples could be multiplied to demonstrate that
  Jesus was conversant with the Old Testament and its content. He quoted
  from it often and He trusted it totally.

  When confronted by Satan, Jesus appealed to the Old Testament as a
  source of authority by stating, "It is written," (Matt. 4:4, 7, 10).

  Jesus appealed to Scripture when correcting false doctrine stating,
  "You are mistaken, not understanding the Scriptures nor the power of
  God," (NASB, Matt. 22:29).


What is the biblical basis for the forgiveness of sins for very evil persons?

Yes, the bible says that some sins are not forgiven. There are three sins that I know of:

the Blasphemy of the Holy Spirit (Matthew 12:31), which many scholars simply consider to be a lack of saving faith in Jesus;

refusing to forgive, or not valuing the forgiveness offered to you freely (Matthew 6:15); and,

"backsliding" (Hebrews 6:6), which is again, apparently, despising the forgiveness offered by Jesus on the cross.

I remember a story about a famous prison minister (I think it was Chuck  ?    of the Watergate scandal) who said that he was suprised by the reaction of Christians when he told them that an infamous serial killer (I think it was the Son of Sam) had confessed and become a Christian before his execution.  But Christians should remember that we have all sinned, and Jesus' Easter sacrifice is cheapened if it only covers some of the our sins.  I know that there is the possibility for murderers (e.g. one of the thieves on the cross next to Jesus) and even mass murderers can be saved, but as with any sin, it is very difficult to become sincere about your sorrow (see post above) if you have expected to use God's forgiveness as an escape clause just before you die.  One possible test of sincerity of the deathbed confession is this; if you somehow don't die (e.g. the Governor pardons you), will you change your life?


How does the mainstream Christian view of the physical body differ from that presented in The Gospel of Thomas?

Mainstream Christianity views the body as the temple of Christ. The tool with which God uses to do good on the Earth He created.

1st Corinthians 6:18-20 my friend...

  18 Flee immorality. Every other sin that a man commits is outside the body, but the immoral man sins against his own body. 19 Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit who is in you, whom you have from God, and that you are not your own? 20 For you have been bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body.

God told us that He lives within us, doing His works through the Holy Spirit which has come down upon us.

The Holy Spirit decending on His followers...

(Acts 2:2-4)

  Jesus sends the Holy Spirit in the form of fiery tongues on His Apostles and disciples.

Catholic Church in Nicene Christianity...

The Roman Catholic Church (a main part of Nicene Christianity) does not regard the body as inherently evil, but rather, prone to distractions and temptations. It is with the Spirit that one must cleanse his mind and try to do what Jesus would have done. Since He was without sin, the ultimate goal in our faith is to be examples of Our Savior.

This is not only the belief of the Catholic Church, but of nearly all Nicene Christianity denominations. It happens to be very clear in one of the oldest Christian churches, and is acted upon regularly in the Catholic Faith.

With little faith, the body is extremely harmful to the soul. Therefore, we as Catholics do Penance and examine our conscience for faults.

http://www.ewtn.com/library/prayer/examconscience.htm

In contrast to Gnosticism...

Gnosticism believes that all matter itself is evil of its own nature.

This shows that there is a great dualism between Gnosticism and Nicene Christianity.

  The principles of Gnosticism contradict what it means to be a
  Christian. Therefore, while some forms of Gnosticism may claim to be
  Christian, they are in fact decidedly non-Christian.

Read more: http://www.gotquestions.org/Christian-gnosticism.html#ixzz3FkyexRXP

Quote from http://www.religioustolerance.org/gnostic2.htm :

  [Gnosticism believes] Duality of spirit and body: Spirit is of divine origin and good; the body is inherently earthly and evil. Gnostics were hostile to the physical world, to matter and the human body.

Here's an entry on the New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia discussing what Gnosticism is (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06592a.htm) One can see that the prevailing argument negatively labels it in relation to mainstream Christianity.

In contrast to the 'Gospel of Thomas'...

One person's interpretation of the 'Gospel of Thomas' from Misericordia University (http://users.misericordia.edu/davies/thomas/faq.htm):

  Is the Gospel of Thomas Gnostic?

  It all depends on what you mean by Gnostic. If you mean by Gnostic the
  belief that people have a divine capacity within themselves and that
  they can come to understand that the Kingdom of God is already upon
  the earth if they can come to perceive the world that way then Thomas
  is Gnostic. But if you mean by Gnostic the religion upon which the Nag
  Hammadi texts are based, a religion that differentiates the god of
  this world (who is the Jewish god) from a higher more abstract God, a
  religion that regards this world as the creation of a series of evil
  archons/powers who wish to keep the human soul trapped in an evil
  physical body then no, Thomas is not Gnostic. This differentiation is
  very important, because some scholars reason that if Thomas is Gnostic
  (in the first sense) then it is Gnostic (in the second sense) and, as
  they believe, Gnosticism (in the second sense) is a second or third
  century heresy, they conclude that the Gospel of Thomas is heretical,
  late in date, and without very much historical value in regard to
  Jesus of Nazareth.

While this quote may be heavily biased, it brings to light somewhat of a split within Gnosticism that is believed by many Gnostic people even though no documentation is given to support it. This separation of 'modern' Gnosticism is the distancing from heretical teachings that have been nearly universal in Gnostic beliefs (probably in order to gain acceptance).

To clear up the Catholic Church's perspective on the Gospel of Thomas, you might read these two questions 1 2 on http://www.catholic.com/

It can be seen that the Gospel of Thomas is not recognized as canonical scripture by Catholicism. Also, it is rather more apparent that the 'Gospel of Thomas' is a Gnostic book and that Gnostic books are heretical to mainstream Christianity.

To sum it up...

Nicene Christians believe that the body must be used in a way that is directed by, and pleasing to God Almighty. God sent His Son to redeem us from our faults, and sent His Holy Spirit to watch over us from within. Gnosticism is not Christianity and is entirely contrary to Nicene Christianity in this respect. We must only pray that He may give us the strength to ratify our actions.


What is the meaning of the strange fire in Leviticus 10:1?

In Jewish times, the source of the fire in the sanctuary was from God. Initially, when they first laid the sacrifice as an offering at the alter, fire was literally sent from God and consumed it (Leviticus 9:24). Since then it was to be kept continually burning. (Leviticus 6:12-13).

Thus Nadab and Abihu displayed wanton presumptuousness by lighting fire themselves in the censer (instead using fire from the alter) and offering it to the Lord. As if such a disingenuous act would go unnoticed and accepted by God Himself. They rejected God's mercy for the last time, and were stricken down.

Finally, the smoke of the censer represent the cleansing of the prayers of the believers before it reaches God (Revelation 8:4). For them to use human means at a time when divine fire was available and required was incredibly profane.


1Sa 15:23  For rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft, and stubbornness is as iniquity and idolatry. Because thou hast rejected the word of the LORD, he hath also rejected thee from being king.

  Strong's Hebrew word translated Idolatry

  H8655

  תּרפים

  terâphı̂ym

  ter-aw-feme'

  Plural perhaps from H7495; a healer; Teraphim (singular or plural) a family idol: - idols (-atry), images, teraphim.

  Strong's Hebrew word translated iniquity

  H205

  און

  'âven

  aw'-ven

  From an unused root perhaps meaning properly to pant (hence to exert oneself, usually in vain; to come to naught); strictly nothingness; also trouble, vanity, wickedness; specifically an idol: - affliction, evil, false, idol, iniquity, mischief, mourners (-ing), naught, sorrow, unjust, unrighteous, vain, vanity, wicked (-ness.) Compare H369.

  Gen 31:34  Now Rachel had taken the images, and put them in the camel's furniture, and sat upon them. And Laban searched all the tent, but found them not.

  2Ki 23:24  Moreover the workers with familiar spirits, and the wizards, and the images, and the idols, and all the abominations that were spied in the land of Judah and in Jerusalem, did Josiah put away, that he might perform the words of the law which were written in the book that Hilkiah the priest found in the house of the LORD.
  2Ki 23:25  And like unto him was there no king before him, that turned to the LORD with all his heart, and with all his soul, and with all his might, according to all the law of Moses; neither after him arose there any like him.

In the Old Testament the Hebrew word for idolatry is translated often as image. The images are of false gods, busts, images of ancestors or sometimes of things shown to Moses from Heaven.  It is important to remember the lesson from 1 Samuel 15:23 that stubbornness, idolatry and iniquity are all related. Stubbornness is universally understood but iniquity might cause some hindrance so I included its Strong's definition as well.

The earliest instance of idolatry in Christianity is the time Rebecka stole the idols of her father Laban. Various scholars disagree on why she stole them:

Pulpit Commentary

  (Virg., 'AEn.,' 3. 148-150). Rachel's motive for abstracting her father's teraphim has been variously ascribed to a desire to prevent her father from discovering, by inquiring at his gods, the direction of their flight (Aben Ezra, Rosenmüller), to protect herself, in case, of being overtaken, by an appeal to her father s gods (Josephus), to draw her father from the practice of idolatry (Bazil, Gregory, Nazisnzen, Theodoret), to obtain children for herself through their assistance (Lengerke, Gerlach), to preserve a memorial of her ancestors, whose pictures these teraphim were (Lightfoot); but was probably due to avarice, if the images were made of precious metals (Pererius), or to a taint of superstition which still adhered to her otherwise religious nature (Chrysostom, Calvin, 'Speaker's Commentary ), causing her to look to these idols for protection (Kalisch, Murphy) or consultation (Wordsworth) on her journey.

New Testament View

  Act 17:16  Now while Paul waited for them at Athens, his spirit was stirred in him, when he saw the city wholly given to idolatry.

  Strong's Greek Word for Idolatry from Acts 17:16

  G2712

  κατείδωλος

  kateidōlos

  kat-i'-do-los

  From G2596 (intensive) and G1497; utterly idolatrous: - wholly given to idolatry.

  G1497

  εἴδωλον

  eidōlon

  i'-do-lon

  From G1491; an image (that is, for worship); by implication a heathen god, or (plural) the worship of such: - idol.

  1Co 10:14  Wherefore, my dearly beloved, flee from idolatry.

  Strong's Greek Word for Idolatry from 1Co 10:14

  G1495

  εἰδωλολατρεία

  eidōlolatreia

  i-do-lol-at-ri'-ah

  From G1497 and G2999; image worship (literally or figuratively): - idolatry.

The New Testament also takes a similar approach defining idolatry as image/statue/anything physical worship.

Most modern Christians myself included believe you can make an idol out of anything which you prize more than God. Including a house, a dog, a car, a person, a grown up toy and etc anything which attempts to take your worship which should be directed at God can be an idol.


How do Biblical Unitarians understand what some theologians refer as the Kenosis in Philippians 2?

Caveat: this is a difficult sentence in general and there is no settled translation.
However it's translated, it's easy to make a subtle assumption about the text that isn't actually there (although a straightforward inference coming from a trinitarian position).
In the article Philippians 2:6-8 the authors conclude

"The verse is not speaking either of Christ’s giving up his “Godhood”
at his incarnation or of his God-nature being willing to “hide” so
that his man-nature can show itself clearly. Rather, it is saying
something else. Scripture says Christ was the “image of God” (2 Cor.
4:4), and Jesus himself testified that if one had seen him, he had
seen the Father. Saying that Christ was in the “form” (outward
appearance) of God is simply stating that truth in another way. Unlike
Adam, who grasped at being like God (Gen. 3:5), Christ, the Last Adam,
“emptied himself” of all his reputation and the things due him as the
true child of the King. He lived in the same fashion as other men. He
humbled himself to the Word and will of God. He lived by “It is
written” and the commands of his Father. He did not “toot his own
horn,” but instead called himself “the son of man,” which, in the
Aramaic language he spoke, meant “a man.” He trusted God and became
obedient, even to a horrible and shameful death on a cross."

So it's not that there was time 1 'he empties himself' time 2 'he is born'.
To answer the questions

He emptied himself of all his reputation and the things due him as the true child of the King. He lived in the same fashion as other men.

"How can one empty oneself by birth[?]" The text doesn't quite say this, and Young's literal translation reads "but did empty himself, the form of a servant having taken, in the likeness of men having been made". So the Biblical Unitarians in the article quoted above would say it's a misreading of the text. The emptying doesn't happen before, or really even starting with his birth, but at some point in his life (presumably with a gradual increasing awareness as he grew up that he was the Messiah), most notably dying on the cross.