What is purpose of being ready for the End Times?

The purpose for preparation of the second coming is made clear throughout the New Testament.  There are three related primary effects:

It holds you accountable for your actions (2 Peter 3)

It keeps you from living too closely attached to a fallen world. (Hebrews 11)

It reminds you that your work is for the unseen Master, and that there will be a reward (Jesus' parables)

And note, 2 Thessalonians points would what this should look like.  It isn't about trying to figure out "the day or the hour," but rather leading a blameless life so that the master will be happy when he returns.
Finally, Jesus' parables often talk about being prepared for the return of the Master.  Be it the parable of the Wedding Guests, or the Foolish Virgins, the Talents, or the Wheat and the Tares, being found ready when the Master returns is always commended.  Indeed, Jesus specifically says in Matthew 24:

36 “But about that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son,[f] but only the Father. 37 As it was in the days of Noah, so it will be at the coming of the Son of Man. 38 For in the days before the flood, people were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, up to the day Noah entered the ark; 39 and they knew nothing about what would happen until the flood came and took them all away. That is how it will be at the coming of the Son of Man. 40 Two men will be in the field; one will be taken and the other left. 41 Two women will be grinding with a hand mill; one will be taken and the other left.
42 “Therefore keep watch, because you do not know on what day your Lord will come. 43 But understand this: If the owner of the house had known at what time of night the thief was coming, he would have kept watch and would not have let his house be broken into. 44 So you also must be ready, because the Son of Man will come at an hour when you do not expect him.
45 “Who then is the faithful and wise servant, whom the master has put in charge of the servants in his household to give them their food at the proper time? 46 It will be good for that servant whose master finds him doing so when he returns. 47 Truly I tell you, he will put him in charge of all his possessions.

In 2 Peter 3, we read this:

Above all, you must understand that in the last days scoffers will come, scoffing and following their own evil desires. 4 They will say, “Where is this ‘coming’ he promised? Ever since our ancestors died, everything goes on as it has since the beginning of creation.”  ... 8 But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day. ... 10 But the day of the Lord will come like a thief.

This then begs the question:

11 Since everything will be destroyed in this way, what kind of people ought you to be? You ought to live holy and godly lives 12 as you look forward to the day of God and speed its coming. That day will bring about the destruction of the heavens by fire, and the elements will melt in the heat. 13 But in keeping with his promise we are looking forward to a new heaven and a new earth, where righteousness dwells.
14 So then, dear friends, since you are looking forward to this, make every effort to be found spotless, blameless and at peace with him.

Likewise, the author of Hebrews commends those who are detached from this world.  The author specifically points out those who lived as "aliens and strangers" for special value in faith, writing:

13 All these people were still living by faith when they died. They did not receive the things promised; they only saw them and welcomed them from a distance, admitting that they were aliens and strangers on earth. 14 People who say such things show that they are looking for a country of their own. 15 If they had been thinking of the country they had left, they would have had opportunity to return. 16 Instead, they were longing for a better country—a heavenly one. Therefore God is not ashamed to be called their God, for he has prepared a city for them.

By longing for that which is to come, these people are specifically showing they value God above the world.


According to the LDS, is Jesus "the Son" or "the Father"?

Matt's comment is correct.  Jesus is both the "Father" and the "Son" because He has various of roles, some of which fall into a "Father" category and some of which fall into a "Son" category.

Before diving in, I wish to make clear that Mormon doctrine is that Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ are two separate and distinct personages, as based on, e.g.,  The First Vision of Joseph Smith, where he saw Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ as two separate beings.

Since the two are separate, it can be confusing when Jesus is referred to as "the Father".  Referring to Jesus as "the Father" is not saying He is the same person as Heavenly Father.

In my study of Mormon canon, I have identified two ways in which Jesus is "the Father" (there are likely more, but only two I have a good understanding of):

Jesus Christ is the Perfect Son of Heavenly Father, and is a perfect representative of Him.  "He that hath seen me hath seen the Father" (John 14:9), "The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise." (John 5:19).  As I understand these scriptures, the Father that Jesus is referring to is His Father, not Himself.  But the point of these scriptures is that Jesus the Son of God so fully follows what His Father does that He is doing exactly what Heavenly Father Himself would be doing, and so Jesus Christ is "the Father" is that his words, actions, and perfection are a perfect representation of the words, actions, and perfection of His Father.
Jesus Christ is the Father of salvation to those who follow Him.  A few verses after the scripture in Mosiah 15 you quote are two verses that teach that Jesus is the Father to those who receive Him and obtain salvation through Him. (Mosiah 15:11-12):

  11 Behold I say unto you, that whosoever has heard the words of the prophets, yea, all the holy prophets who have prophesied concerning the coming of the Lord—I say unto you, that all those who have hearkened unto their words, and believed that the Lord would redeem his people, and have looked forward to that day for a remission of their sins, I say unto you, that these are his seed, or they are the heirs of the kingdom of God.
  12 For these are they whose sins he has borne; these are they for whom he has died, to redeem them from their transgressions. And now, are they not his seed?

Jesus' role as "the Son" is due to the fact that He is the Son of God.  This is the role He is most often viewed in and I don't think I need to add much to help understand how Jesus is a Son.  If you need more clarification, let me know.

Later addition: I have found a third way in which Mormon canon identifies Jesus as "the Father".  From Mosiah 3:7 (the future tense is because this was a prophesy made before Jesus' birth):

  And he shall be called Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the Father of heaven and earth, the Creator of all things from the beginning; and his mother shall be called Mary.

Mormons believe that, although Heavenly Father was the one who planned the creation of heaven and earth, it was the pre-mortal Jesus Christ who actually created heaven and earth.  Thus, in this sense Jesus is "the Father of heaven and earth, the Creator of all things from the beginning."


What is the LDS church's stance on the curse of Cain?

People might assume that all black people are cursed.  Although there are some recorded instances that having black or dark skin is the result of a curse from God, it should under no circumstances always be assumed as such.  This is simply an error of extrapolation.

The statement you quote from LDS.org was, is, and will always be correct.  Black skin is not a sign of divine disfavor or curse.  It is sometimes associated with people who have been cursed in the scriptures, but it does not necessarily signify a curse, hence the claim.

This is what the KJV (the Bible text accepted by the Church of Jesus Christ) says about the mark put on Cain:

  15 And the Lord said unto him, Therefore whosoever slayeth Cain,
  vengeance shall be taken on him sevenfold. And the Lord set a mark
  upon Cain, lest any finding him should kill him.

  Genesis 4:15

It appears the mark was not part of the curse, but rather served as a warning to others so they would not kill him.  Later this mark was indeed used to identify the descendants of Cain so Adam's other descendants wouldn't mix with them.  The descendants of Cain were actually black, and it is implied through the footnotes that this is the same as the mark.  However, this apparent racism was reconciled through Christ:

  33 For none of these iniquities come of the Lord; for he doeth that
  which is good among the children of men; and he doeth nothing save it
  be plain unto the children of men; and he inviteth them all to come
  unto him and partake of his goodness; and he denieth none that come
  unto him, black and white, bond and free, male and female; and he
  remembereth the heathen; and all are alike unto God, both Jew and
  Gentile.

  2 Nephi 26:33

In any case, it would be good to confirm that blacks are in fact descendants of Cain before making assumptions about curses and marks involving Cain.

Members of the LDS faith reconcile apparent discrepancies (particularly in Church teachings) by trusting in God regardless of their doubts and by remembering that the leaders of the Church are imperfect humans.  While the president of the Church is promised never to lead it astray, many many leaders (in ancient times as well as present) have (sometimes even innocently) said and done things that were very incorrect.  Not everything all Church leaders say is doctrine.  This is simply part of the life experience.  As much as we would all like our Church organization to be perfect, it simply isn't, and there's little use in pretending it is.


Why do Protestant Presbyterians no longer use a congregational Psalter?

I've been going to a Protestant Presbyterian church for 20 years now, with the metrical Scottish Psalter (led by a presentor) the only source of our musical worship up until 2010. It used the 1650 version approved by the Church of Scotland. I can only answer with regard to my particular denomination. Other Protestant Presbyterian groups may have other answers.

There was a special Plenary Assembly of 'my' denomination on 18th and 19th November 2010. I now quote from the official Statement issued from church headquarters. The event was

  "to discuss and resolve the issue of sung praise. The Free Church, for
  the last 100 years has been committed to the avoidance of uninspired
  materials of praise and musical instruments, following what it
  believed was the historical Reformed position on 'purity of worship'
  and the Regulative Principle. Over the last five years though, some
  Free Church ministers and office bearers have questioned whether this
  position is the only scriptural one. After the Assembly asked the
  Board of Trustees to set up a process for resolving the issue, it was
  agreed that the matter would be concluded at a Plenary Assembly to be
  composed of every minister plus an equal number of elders."

The main motion, which came from the Church's Board of Trustees, sought to retain the status quo, which is the

  'avoidance of uninspired materials of praise and musical instruments',
  but give more flexibility in understanding as to what is meant by
  that. But this motion was opposed by Rev.… , who proposed that the
  Free Church give liberty to individual congregations to sing
  scriptural hymns, as well as psalms, if their elders so chose. The
  debate, which lasted Thursday evening and most of Friday, was
  harmonious throughout. Rev....'s motion carried by a majority of 98 to
  84."

Because the 12-point 'Finding of Assembly' is so long a document, I will not copy it here, but I extract these points from it:

Based on the declaration that purity of worship requires that every aspect of worship services, including sung praise, be consistent with the Word of God and with the whole doctrine of the Confession of Faith approved by previous Assemblies, ordained that every service of congregational worship would include the singing of Psalms. Individual congregations could restrict the sung praise to the Psalms, or to include paraphrases of Scripture, and hymns and spiritual songs consistent with the doctrine of the Confession of Faith, and have freedom to permit musical accompaniment to the sung praise in worship, or not. Further, a visiting minister, presiding at a service where such changes had been enacted could exercise freedom not to have those changes.

The next steps were taken by individual congregations of the denomination. Stage 1 - Kirk Session discussion, Stage 2 -  Congregational consultation, Stage 3 Congregational meeting and Kirk Session decision. Different congregations came to different decisions, so you will find some sticking to purely unaccompanied Psalm singing, while others will have those plus other spiritual songs (usually with musical accompaniment.)

Our congregation voted by a clear majority to introduce 'uninspired' words of hymns, with keyboard accompaniment. The recurring reason given by those in favour (which I heard with my own ears) was that they longed to sing the Saviour's name in their sung praise. They wanted to praise the name of Jesus, who is only obliquely referred to in the Psalms (as the promised Messiah). Given that he has now come and is glorified in heaven, with all heaven singing the praises of him who sits on the throne AND the Lamb at the centre of the throne (Revelation 5:6-14 & 7:10-12 & 17 plus 22:1-3), it is fitting for Christians to sing about Jesus Christ, directly. The name of Jesus Christ is inspired, and inspiring. There was also reference to how the musical and poetic gifts of king David, and others, was not restricted only to them, centuries ago, with any kind of law that no others must compose worship music and verse. Heaven's throngs sing and nobody should be surprised, upon arriving there, that they sing new songs (Revelation 5:9) along with old ones (Revelation 15:3). Such views are also common in other Protestant Presbyterian denominations that have expanded their sung praise.

Despite our majority desire, two elders who objected said they would have to resign if the change was enacted, leaving our congregation with insufficient elders to 'run' it. Our of regard for them, no change happened. Yet, later, it did - I know not why. Perhaps some other elders had a word in their ear about blackmail?

I am very aware that this answer does not provide many reasons for this event, but that is because I was not privy to the debate, nor do I have the complete text which was made available by a local elder as well as being on the official denominational website eight years ago. I do not know if it is still on-line. As I was not brought up with the Scottish Psalter, only starting hymn-singing to an organ or piano from my mid-20s onward, and then only the Scottish Psalter 15 years later, and now a mixture of both these past eight years, I simply want to just sing to the Lord my God with a full heart, singing scripturally sound words. I have been known to stop singing at certain points in certain hymns, and a few modern 'choruses' I just will not sing at all. It can be a bit of a mine-field, I know, but the alternative is staying hunkered down in the trenches of 1650. But those last three sentences are merely my personal opinion. If pedants on here want me to remove them, otherwise they will remove my entire answer, I simply mention that that - precisely - exemplifies the entire problem with this vexed question of whether to use only the Psalter, or not.


What is the difference between the KJV, AKJV, NKJV, etc?

Your questions are:

What is the difference between the AKJV (American KJV), pure Cambridge, 1769, the NKJV (which I own) KJ21, MKJV, the MEV King James Versions?
What KJV should I get?
How can I tell the difference between a "1611 and a standard KJV"

I think the major differences are in the degree to which spelling has been modernized.  The "original" 1611 KJV version can be found here and reads like this:

  For God so loued þe world, that he gaue his only begotten Sonne: that whosoeuer beleeueth in him, should not perish, but haue euerlasting
  life.

[To answer the third question, I would say that if the text looks like something from Beowulf, then you probably are reading from the original 1611 text.]

Reprints of the 1611 edition were not tightly controlled.  As a result, Cambridge University produced an updated "standard" text in 1760, while Oxford produced its own edition in 1769, which is the basis for most King James texts today.  It reads, for example,

  For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting
  life.

Later editions marketed as the "King James Version" contain minor changes and corrections.  The "Pure Cambridge Edition", published around 1900, for example, featured 6 changes from the 1769 Oxford version, with 30 reversals of the Oxford translations to the 1760 Cambridge translation.

The AKJV, NKJV, KJ21 and MKJV are all versions which purport to follow the original KJV translations, but substitute modern vocabulary and grammar.

One thing that all King James Versions have in common is that they are based on a particular set of Greek and Hebrew manuscripts that were consulted in the 17th century.  The Hebrew text was not the "original" Hebrew, but rather a Masorah compiled by an Italian Jew, Jacob ben Hayyim ibn Adonijah, written in medieval Hebrew (which used an invented alphabet).
The Greek manuscripts were from a limited 16th century Dutch collection compiled by Erasmus of Rotterdam.


What does Lutheranism teaches about demon possession?

For more information, let me recommend the following resources:
1.  Robert Bennett, CPH, "I Am Not Afraid: Demon Possession and Spiritual Warfare"
2.  Robert Bennett, CPH, "Afraid: Demon Possession and Spiritual Warfare in America"
3.  Darrell McCulley, "The house swept clean : a biblically balanced pattern for the diagnosis, exorcism, and pastoral care of the victims of demonic possession," available here:  https://scholar.csl.edu/osp/1/

In brief, the Lutheran church has been a bit lax and lazy in this area, but these resources were written with the aim of awakening our pastorate and seminaries to the realities of demonic possession.  I'd recommend starting with #2 or #3.

Coincidentally, I'm still working out whether or not Christians can be demon-possessed.  Bennett believes so, while McCulley doesn't.  But since CFW Walther, Martin Luther, and Franz Pieper also did, I'll go with Bennett's conclusion!


What have past theologians written about preparing to die?

I have not encountered specific works dedicated to the subject, but certain authors seem to permeate everything they wrote with death in mind.  The subject of death permeates in almost everything written by Jonathan Edwards and Martin Luther.
Of all the people I have encountered Jonathan Edwards made me think about my own death more than any other. I was in University when I first encountered his sermons on the flood and Sodom and Gomorrah.  After that time I have probably had at least one wondering thought thought every day about my own death and if I am properly prepared to die.
It is said that Edwards lived a life prepared to die.  Here is some sample snippet that indicates Edwards typical way of arguing:

Be persuaded for your own safety, to look a little forward and be concerned about your welfare an age hence, and not only what you shall eat, and what you shall drink, and wherewithal you shall be clothed for that little time you are to remain here. Frequently ask yourself the question, what you intend to do if death comes and summons you out of the world, and from all your earthly good things. If you are not prepared to die, you cannot resist the summons: none are able to grapple with the king of terrors. When death comes, he will hale you from all your dear enjoyments, whether you will or no, never to set your eye on those things more. And as there will be no encountering death, so neither will there be any entreating it; he'll not be wrought upon by cries and tears; he is altogether inexorable. He'll not wait for you one minute, that you may have a little opportunity to be better fitted and prepared to go with him. Jonathan Edwards Sermons)

Luther also brings up death quite a bit.  He usually is a little more positive about then Edwards and possibly a little more mature about it, but both seem angled in the same direction.
For example, Luther compares death to childbearing:

“When a woman is in travail she has sorrow; but when she has recovered, she no longer remembers the anguish, since a child is born by her into the world” [John 16:21]. So it is that in dying we must bear this anguish and know that a large mansion and joy will follow [John 14:2]. (Luther's Works Vol 42.100)

Luther sees death as a monster we must face and therefore should think about it often ensuring our faith in forgiveness is greater and when death finally comes, not to think of it any longer but to rely on our sense of forgiveness and think of nothing else, for this will be a day of trail:

Death looms so large and is terrifying because our foolish and fainthearted nature has etched its image too vividly within itself and constantly fixes its gaze on it. Moreover, the devil presses man to look closely at the gruesome mien and image of death to add to his worry, timidity, and despair. Indeed, he conjures up before man’s eyes all the kinds of sudden and terrible death ever seen, heard, or read by man. And then he also slyly suggests the wrath of God with which he [the devil] in days past now and then tormented and destroyed sinners. In that way he fills our foolish human nature with the dread of death while cultivating a love and concern for life, so that burdened with such thoughts man forgets God, flees and abhors death, and thus, in the end, is and remains disobedient to God.
We should familiarize ourselves with death during our lifetime, inviting death into our presence when it is still at a distance and not on the move. At the time of dying, however, this is hazardous and useless, for then death looms large of its own accord. In that hour we must put the thought of death out of mind and refuse to see it, as we shall hear. The power and might of death are rooted in the fearfulness of our nature and in our untimely and undue viewing and contemplating of it. (Luther's Works Vol 42.100)

Luther saw the guilty waving finger of the Devil as like the fiery vipers biting Israel in the desert.  The only cure was too look at Jesus on the cross.  This is the deepest insight into how to face death not being bothered by our sins in the final hour.  He say's you must not be captivated by sin, looking at your own many sins directly, or looking at all the sinners falling into hell.

You must turn your thoughts away from that and look at sin only within the picture of grace. Engrave that picture in yourself with all your power and keep it before your eyes. The picture of grace is nothing else but that of Christ on the cross. ( (Luther's Works Vol 42.104)


Is there any significance to the aside in Luke 23:12, regarding Pilate and Herod?

Herod the Great, who was Herod's father and King of Judea during the birth of Christ, had been granted his title by the Roman Senate.  As King, he had authority over all Judea and surrounding territories.

Upon the death of Herod the Great, his kingdom was divided among his sons, with Herod Archelaus inheriting the land of Judea, Samaria, and Idumea; Herod Antipas inheriting Galilee and Peraea; and Philip inheriting the land northeast of the Jordan.

Whereas Herod the Great had ruled with an iron fist, things became chaotic under his sons - especially in Archelaus' tetrarchy.  As a result, Augustus Caesar removed Archelaus as tetrarch and placed the territory - which became the Roman province of Judea - directly under the control of a Roman prefect.  Pontius Pilate was the fifth prefect of the Province of Judea.

Following Herod the Great's death, Herod Antipas (the Herod of Luke 23:12) had gone to Rome to lobby to inherit his father's kingdom in toto, but his request was denied.  This, as well as Rome's decision to install a Roman prefect rather than one of Herod's descendants in place of Archelaus - probably led to Herod Antipas' resentment of the Roman prefecture in general and of Pilate in particular.

(The above information can be found in the works of Josephus (Yosef ben Matityahu), a Jewish rebel against Rome who defected and himself became a Roman citizen and chronicler of Jewish history.)

The Byzantine commentator Theophylact (1055-1107) calls attention to the dark amity of Pilate and Herod as a stark reminder for us:

  See how the devil brings together disparate elements for the sole
  purpose of preparing Christ's death, forging a single conspiracy and
  making warring factions friends.  Are we not then ashamed that the
  devil brings peace between enemies in order to kill Christ, while we,
  for the sake of our own salvation, do not even preserve love towards
  our own friends?1

Cyril of Jerusalem (313-386) relates the friendship concluded between Pilate and Herod to a prophesy in Hosea (10:6) and takes a somewhat more positive view of Herod's and Pilate's friendship:

  Having been bound, He came from Caiaphas to Pilate,—is this too
  written? yes; And having bound Him, they led Him away as a present to
  the king of Jarim2.  But here some sharp hearer will
  object, “Pilate was not a king,” (to leave for a while the main parts
  of the question,) “how then having bound Him, led they Him as a
  present to the king?”  But read thou the Gospel; When Pilate heard
  that He was of Galilee, he sent Him to Herod; for Herod was then
  king, and was present at Jerusalem.  And now observe the exactness of
  the Prophet; for he says, that He was sent as a present; for the same
  day Pilate and Herod were made friends together, for before they were
  at enmity.  For it became Him who was on the eve of making peace
  between earth and heaven, to make the very men who condemned Him the
  first to be at peace; for the Lord Himself was there present, who
  reconciles the hearts of the princes of the earth.  Mark the exactness
  of the Prophets, and their true testimony.3

1. Explanation of the Gospel According to St. Luke, tr. from Greek by Chrysostom Press
2. "Jarim" means "wild vine".  Herod, points out Rufinus (340-410), was himself a wild vine, since he was of alien and not Jewish stock.
3. Catechetical Lecture XIII.14


Is there a good example of believers seeking out advice from other believers in the Bible, especially one that is a story children would understand?

I would offer 1 Samuel also, but specifically 1 Sam 3:1-10 in which Samuel as a child receives advice from Eli on responding to God's call.


What would happen if a pope were to be a formal heretic?

Formal heresy is obstinately denying Catholic truths, even after being warned.

If a pope were to define a "dogma" ex cathedra that contradicts Catholic teaching, this "dogma" would not be binding nor be protected by papal infallibility as defined at Vatican I. Definable Catholic dogmas must first be material dogmas (cf. Pope Pius XII's letter to all bishops regarding to the definability of the Dogma of the Assumption), i.e., truths connected to Revelation and believed by the Church in all times and space, either explicitly or implicitly. Even Popes are bound to Tradition.

  Does the Pope lose his office?

The common opinion is yes, but when is another question:

There are two major camps among theologians regarding when. One (that of St. Robert Bellarmine and Suarez) says that he would immediately lose his office, even before being warned and given an opportunity to correct his error. The other (that of John of St. Thomas and Cajetan) says God would take the office away from him after the Church convicts him and declares him a heretic (or "vitandus" = "to be avoided").

  If so, how is that formalised?

It is divine law that the Church must separate herself from heretics (cf. Gal. 1:8-9), so the Church has a duty to warn the pope, try him, and (if it comes to this) declare him a heretic and proceed to elect a valid pope.

  Do the cardinals have the power to kick him out?

No, not even all the world's bishops have the power to depose a valid pope. To think that would be the heresy of Conciliarism, that Councils of bishops (sans the pope) have equal or greater authority than the pope.

See also my answer to the question "In Catholic understanding when there is more than one Pope, who decides which Pope is real and by what criteria?"

An excellent recent work that covers all these issues (whether a pope can be a heretic; whether he can be elected if he was previously a heretic; whether a pope loses his office by proclaiming heresy; who can declare him a heretic; when he loses his office; how is he deposed, considering he has no superior on earth; etc.; etc.) is:

True or False Pope? by John Salza & Robert Siscoe (St. Thomas Aquinas Seminary Press, Aug. 2015)

on Amazon

Another good one is:

Can the Pope Go Bad?: A Call for the Resumption of a Debate Not Taken Seriously Since the 17th Century by the Brazilian intellectual A. V. Xavier da Silveira (Catholic Research Institute, Sep. 1999)


There are two types of errors in the Summa. The first are of the type caused by a Medieval understanding of science and biology. The second are actual theological dead ends.

The most famous of both has the first causing the second. Thomas believed that the entirety of the body was in the man's "seed". Because of this he argued that the Virgin Mary was purified from sin in the womb. The current Catholic teaching, of course, is that the purification was at conception.

After that it really does become difficult to say that there are "points of doctrine in the Summa that don't line up with Eternal Law". There are competing perspectives which have been proposed, but that does not mean that that Thomas was wrong, simply that there are other, valid views and vocabulary which have been used to express the same thought.


How are the broken bones in the Shroud of Turin seen to be consistent with the bones of Jesus not being broken?

Recent research demonstrates how two nails pierced the right foot of Jesus, and the first nail actually went through his heel bone.

A photograph of the shroud of Turin is below. A more legitimate source is: www.shroud.com

The short answer is: The majority of the professionals that had access to the shroud determined that there were no broken bones on the man whose image appears on it. They also determined that one nail was used on both the feet. If someone believes the shroud is the authentic burial cloth of Christ, this view, called the "classic" view, has no discrepancies. A more specific answer is below.

Both parts of your statement above (before and after the comma) have not been proven. Your first link ("Recent research") corresponds to a research paper that hypothesized two nails going through Christ's feet; experts disagreed (see below). It was also not agreed that any bones were broken (see below). This research was done by Paul C. Maloney, titled: “Joseph M. Gambescia, M.D. and the Position of the Feet on the Shroud of Turin. The History of an Investigation.” Incidentally, this research paper was not centered around whether or not any bones were broken; it was centered around how many nails went through Christ’s feet. He thinks there were two.

The first sentence from this research paper, from Mr. Maloney, states:

  “I’d like to offer a disclaimer right at the beginning. I am not a medical doctor. I am a trained historian.”

HOW MANY NAILS WENT THROUGH CHRIST'S FEET?

This is an ancient Roman square nail; photo courtesy of Paul Maloney.

Mr. Maloney acknowledges disagreement as to the number of nails:

  “Most medical observers have interpreted the data on the cloth as pointing either to two nails in the feet …or one nail.”

Mr. Maloney continues with his hypothesis:

  “There were two nails on the right foot, and one wound in the left… [Dr. Gambascia] admitted that his colleague on the STURP team, Dr. Robert Bucklin, a forensic pathologist, did not agree with him… Here were two highly trained medical professionals with differing opinions. At least they did agree on one thing: the left foot was nailed across the right foot.”

In this research paper, Mr. Maloney says he thinks the man on the shroud's right foot was firmly set against something, making his right foot unable to move. He says that Dr. Gambescia and him believe that the man in the shroud's right foot was nailed first and that his left foot was placed over his right and nailed so that there were two nails going through his feet; one through his left and two through his right. They believe this from the blood patterns that show up on the shroud. I was unable to use the diagrams from the research paper. This picture approximately exemplifies the position of the feet referred to by Mr. Maloney.

(source: developinglivingstones.com)

Mr. Maloney specifies the blood patterns:

  ”…the large blood stain at the ‘terminus’ of the frontal shin aligned perfectly with the heel!!! …Could this be right? I was filled with all kinds of doubts.” (Pg. 13) …In the latter view the ‘rosette’ pattern in the center of the right foot is plausibly set forth as proof that a nail penetrated the sole of the foot at that point.” (pg. 19) …When thus aligned, the large blood stain at the frontal right foot area located at the end of the frontal shin …was itself positioned automatically over the heel …of the right foot on the dorsal end, directly above the dark stain in that area. This fact suggested to me that Dr. Gambascia might be right -that there was probably a wound in the ankle/heel area. (pg. 38) … If one nail were used for the feet, as is commonly accepted in this “classic” discussion of the imprints of the feet on the Shroud, and the left foot has moved up and down creating the pattern we now see for the left foot, what would prevent the right foot from also swiveling on that single nail? Gambesca’s view -two nails in the right foot- offers the best explanation. With two nail wounds the right foot could not move at all.” (Pg. 44) …there is an important comparative distinction between the imprint of the right foot and that of the left. The question here is: Why is the right foot preserved as a “full” imprint whereas the left only preserves the rivulets -but no convincing “full” imprint of the foot itself?” (pg. 74)

This is a photograph of the blood from the feet of the man in the shroud.

According to Mr. Maloney, there was no blood found on the center of the left foot of the man on the shroud. He thinks it doesn’t show up on the shroud because he thinks that’s where the nail was. He thinks the blood flowed off and around his left foot, not leaving a mark. He states:

  “…it is important to realize that the center mark of the top left foot is hypothesized; it does not show up anywhere on the Shroud -either dorsal or frontal.”

In this same research paper, Mr. Maloney stems away from the shroud to what he actually thinks happened when Christ was crucified. He calls this: “The Crucifixion Simulation.”

THE CRUCIFIXION SIMULATION (From: Mr. Maloney)

  “The following reconstruction of the events …The right foot was firmly grasped and the first nail was pounded into the front of the ankle, down through the heel and into the upright of the cross. Then the left foot was placed on top of the right foot and a second nail was driven, this time through the center of the left foot, down into the center of the right foot and into the upright of the cross. Thus the right foot was firmly anchored to the upright and could not move, but the left foot, nailed with only one nail, could pivot up and down around this nail. At first the blood oozing from the nail wound on the bottom of the victim’s left foot flowed in a long narrow flow toward the toes. Some of the blood dripped to the ground and some, following the shank of the nail, onto the top of the right foot. But clearly, at first, the victim could maintain his position, albeit briefly, with the left foot pointing in a generally downward direction. During his time on the cross, as the victim raised himself, then sagged from exhaustion, the movement of the left foot would have smeared the blood from the wounds on the top of the right foot. But much of the blood from the left foot would have dripped off from the edge of that foot onto the ground rather than directly onto the top of the right foot. When the Man of the Shroud was removed from the cross and laid on one end of the Shroud cloth, the various preparations for quick burial having been made, the end of the dorsal cloth was first tucked over the right foot, then the frontal end of the Shroud was pulled over the body. The inward tilt of the left foot combined with the tucking of the cloth around the right foot prevented any stain from the top left foot wound from leaving any mark on the Shroud cloth. The dorsal end of the cloth was tucked just enough to cover the feet including the top center wound area of the right foot without touching the ankle. Thus the dorsal end of the cloth prevented any markings or imprints, except for the frontal ankle wound and the inlets of blood, from being transferred to the frontal end of the Shroud.

DID A NAIL GO THROUGH CHRIST'S HEEL BONE?

This is a dorsal view of the shroud showing the legs and back of the feet.

According to Mr. Maloney:

  ”When thus aligned, the large blood stain at the frontal right foot area located at the end of the frontal shin… was itself positioned automatically over the heel… of the right foot on the dorsal end, directly above the dark stain in that area. This fact suggested to me that Dr. Gambescia might be right -that there was probably a wound in the ankle/heel area.”

OTHER SOURCES -WAS THE HEEL OR KNEE BONE BROKEN?

From: “Evidences for Testing Hypothesis About the Body Image Formation of the Turin Shroud.” (pdf)

  ”No broken bones are evident on the body image. (Bucklin 1982, Ricci 1989)”

From: “Computerized Anthropometric Analysis of the Man of the Turin Shroud.” (pdf)

  ”The Man of the Shroud has his feet bent forward and this is very important for the measurement…the position of the heel changes considerably if measured with a “hammer” or outstretched foot.”

From: Andy Weiss, Shroud Exhibit and Museum, Inc. (pdf)

  ”According to Dr. Petrus Soons and other medical experts such as radiologists and doctors I have personally spoken to who have come to our museum from the local hospital, there are absolutely no broken bones on the body, contrary to some who claim so.”

ARE THERE IMAGES OF THE RIGHT KNEE THAT INDICATE A FRACTURE?

The link you’ve provided of “there are images of the right knee” states:

  ”No signs of broken legs are visible, neither from a frontal nor a dorsal view. The right knee seems to have a swelling above the knee cap as can be seen in the discussion.”

The discussion states:

  ”Most probably the swelling above the right knee cap is due to internal knee injuries having caused bleeding into the knee capsule, hemarthrosis… If such a swelling comes up after a bump of the knee cap against a hard surface, an xray photo often reveals a knee cap fracture. Therefore the TSM has most likely got a knee cap fracture probably by knocking his right knee against a hard surface.”

The first sentence in the next paragraph is interesting:

  ”It appears that the feet have been nailed by a single nail.”

CONCLUSIONS

From a scientific perspective, science has made it clear that they know the man on the shroud was a scourged and crucified man but they can’t indicate who the man on the shroud is. There is no one definitive answer as to whether or not the man on the shroud’s bones were broken because the shroud experts disagree.

From a religious perspective, your question only relates to people that believe the shroud of Turin is the authentic burial cloth of Christ. Those people are left to make their own opinions as to which expert carries more weight and as to how they interpret the scriptures. Some would only consider the NT passage and some would consider all three (below). I am not aware of any particular church that states their opinion on the matter. For those of us with absolute faith that Christ is The Messiah, none of this matters because our correct and incorrect interpretations of science and religion don’t affect his messiahship.

SCRIPTURE

Exodus 12:46, KJV

  ”It must be eaten inside the house; take none of the meat outside the house. Do not break any of the bones.”

Psalm 34:20, KJV

  ”…he protects all his bones; not one of them will be broken.”

John 19:31-34, KJV

  ” The Jews therefore, because it was the preparation, that the bodies should not remain upon the cross on the sabbath day, (for that sabbath day was an high day,) besought Pilate that their legs might be broken, and that they might be taken away. Then came the soldiers, and brake the legs of the first, and of the other which was crucified with him. But when they came to Jesus, and saw that he was dead already, they brake not his legs: But one of the soldiers with a spear pierced his side, and forthwith came there out blood and water.”


Jesus said :

  But when thou doest alms, let not thy left hand know what thy right hand doeth: That thine alms may be in secret: and thy Father which seeth in secret himself shall reward thee openly.  [Matthew 6:3,4 KJV]

So even if one managed to get the right hand and the left hand in a room together, there could be no corroboration for neither one was cognizant of the whole story.

In answer to your question : we will never know !


What elements are most commonly included in an exposition of faith?

Any listing of specific doctrinal statements would be, as you noted, subjective, and therefore not constructive per site guidelines.  The best answer that I can think of that would fall within site guidelines would be to give a generic answer that's applicable to all.  The approach I'm going to take is the same approach that I'd take if someone were to ask me "what should be on my resume?" while looking for a job.

The things that should be included in a statement of faith should be those doctrines that the Church/denomination in question places importance on.  This helps people that are trying to choose a Church to know what the Church teaches, and helps them to avoid wasting their time on one that teaches false doctrine.  In general, that should include:

The Church's teaching on the nature of God
The Church's teaching on the nature of man
The Church's teaching on Scriptures (are they inerrant?  Which do we use?  Do we use the 66 books of the Protestant Bible, or do we include Apocrypha, or the Book of Mormon, or some other Scripture?)
The Church's teaching on the nature of sin, man's state, and how it affects the relationship with God?
The Church's teaching on salvation
The Church's teaching on who Christ is

Beyond that, it may also include any of the following if the Church/denomination in question deems them as central teachings

The Church's teaching on the Gifts of the Spirit (Tongues, healing, etc.)
The Church's teaching on modern/continuing revelation
The Church's teaching on prophets in the modern day
The Church's teaching on which Bible is the best (Thinking of KJV-only Churches here)

The Church's teaching on a literal account of Creation/the fall of man, etc.

In short, the included elements are entirely dependent on the teachings of the Church.  The items in the top list are those that are likely going to be important for an outsider to do an "at-a-glance" evaluation on what the Church teaches.  They're the types of things you'd want to know if you're in a new city looking for a Church to attend, or if you're shopping for a new Church.  If those all fall in line with sound doctrine, then you can move on to the items on the second list.

These items are still important, but less agreed upon.  The first list are items that most Christians would agree on, and if something "smells wrong" in that list, it should be easy enough to write off that Church as being wrong.  The secondary items might help someone who is sure of their beliefs to find a Church that more closely aligns with his or her beliefs.


Who were the "wise men from the east" (Magi) spoken of in Matthew 2?

In Persia is the city called Saveh, from which the three Magi set out when they came to worship Jesus Christ. Here, too, they lie buried in three sepulchres of great size and beauty. Above each sepulchre is a square building with a domed roof of very fine workmanship. The one is just beside the other. Their bodies are still whole, and they have hair and beards. One was named Beltasar, the second Gaspar, and the third Melchior. Messer Marco asked several of the inhabitants who these Magi were; but no one could tell him anything except that they were three kings who were buried there in days gone by. ... Let me tell you finally that one of the three Magi was from Saveh, one from Hawah, and the third from Kashan.

Marco Polo The Travels: The Travels of Marco Polo, Translated and with an Introduction By Ronald Latham, Penguin Books Ltd., Harmondsworth, England, UK, 1976. pp. 58-60.

It is believed they were from Hecatompylos (now Damghan: DaiMogan: convent of Mogi) the capital city of Parthians. But Marco Polo cites three different cities. It is correct since Mogi in Parthians time were part of the ruling class and used to convene in a Mogistan at the capital from far and near cities. Mogistan had the role of advisory parliament for Parthian kings and had a mixture of aristocracy and priests. So three Mogi could be priests or princes or barons.


Do the Scriptures support the 'Simulated Universe' idea?

The bible is rather emphatic on the point actually. The universe we live in was not only created at God's command but it is sustained constantly through his active will. This sustainer is Jesus Christ:

  Colossians 1:15-17 (ESV)
  15  He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. 16  For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things were created through him and for him. 17  And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together.

This has serious implications for our understanding of the world we live in, including science. The apostle Paul explained it to the people of his day this way:

  Acts 17:28 (ESV)
  28  In him we live and move and have our being [...]

Everything we do, everything we touch, everything we measure is inside a construct both created and sustained by God. Science has often been played for the fool by presuming this is not the case. With the wrong presumptions about the origin and ongoing sustenance of the universe, it's possible to derive quite incorrect conclusions from otherwise meaningful data.

I'm not sure "simulated" is the right word, since our existence as both physical and spiritual beings is quite real, but it is interesting to hear science consider the possibility that there is not just an original but an ongoing creative will behind the world as we know it.


Of what date is the oldest inscription of Yahweh found?

Tradition holds that Moses lived sometime around the 15th century B.C. This would put the oldest use of the tetragrammaton (the Hebrew word "YHWH", anglicized to "Yahweh") to the same time frame, as Moses wrote the oldest portions of the Bible.

Outside the Bible, the oldest known inscription of the tetragrammaton appears on the Mesha stele, which has been dated to around 840 B.C. You can read more about the Mesha stele here.


Could you please help me locate this hymn?

I think your song might be This One's With Me by NewSong.  I stumbled across the service's lyrics while searching for another set of lyrics and found a combination of terms from your quote that located This One's With Me.

  I was dreaming about Heaven
  Dreamed I was standing at the Pearly Gates
  We're all there and I was so scared
  In the presence of One so great

  I felt so worried and worthy I felt like running away I bowed my head
  and I turn to go When I heard someone say

  "Father, this one's with me Part of the family One of the reasons I
  died on Calvary Father, welcome him in I paid the price for him
  Father, oh Father, this one's with me"

  I was dreaming about Heaven When I looked up the gates were opened
  wide And in the distance, I saw Jesus Our eyes met and I began to cry

  Angels robed in their beauty Were there to show me the way And all of
  Heaven singing When I heard His voice say

  "Father, this one's with me Part of the family One of the reasons I
  died on Calvary Father, welcome him in I paid the price for him
  Father, oh Father"

  Finally, we were there face to face And He placed on me Heaven's crown
  I fell down on my knees, laid my crown at His feet Then He said to me

  "Father, this one's with me Part of the family One of the reasons I
  died on Calvary Father, welcome him in I paid the price for him
  Father, oh Father, this one's with me"


Where did the priests who served the Lord in Shiloh live?

A clue is to be found in 1 Samuel 1:9 where Eli the priest was sitting on a chair by the doorpost of the Lord's temple.  Here is the comment from the NIV Study Bible:

  Here and in 1 Samuel 3:3 the central sanctuary, the tabernacle,is referred to as "the Lord's temple". It is also called "the house of the Lord" (v. 7; 3:15), "the Tent of Meeting" (2:22) and "my dwelling" (2:32).  The references to the tabernacle as a "house" and a "temple", as well as those to sleeping quarters and doors (3:2, 15), give the impression that at this time the tabernacle was part of a larger, more permanent building complex to which the term "temple" could legitimately be applied.

I don't know how many priests there were at this point in time, but it appears that living quarters were part of the building comples.


Are Christians supposed to be like-minded?

It is obviously the will of Jesus Christ, the builder of the Church, that Christians should live in one accord. However, if we can belief that everything is controlled and monitored by God, then I do not think we should take our present splintering situation negatively. This might be the will of God, who knows?
There are some reasons why new denominations are born.

The mother church goes off the right track.
Disagreement in political or management inside the church.
Commotion among the members.
Disagreement in specific doctrines.
etc.

When the mother church is clearly in the wrong and is not in a position to repent, there is no choice but to form a new group. Sometimes, political disagreement is the will of God to extend His kingdom as in the case of Paul and Barnabas, who splitted party which in fact was God's plan to reach out to Gentiles in Macedonia, for a greater ministry. It is also the work of Satan to divide the church by stirring the members to fight among themselves. Disagreement in doctrine is a serious issue where the power of Satan is usually at work. Satan brings confusion and doubt to the truth.
There is no doubt that some denominations are planted by the Devil as we see in  the parable of the Weeds. But God allow the true and false church to grow together.

Matthew 13:30 Let both grow together until the harvest. At that time I will tell
the harvesters: First collect the weeds and tie them in bundles to be
burned; then gather the wheat and bring it into my barn.’”

Everything is in God's hand. We must trust in Him.
There are some preachers who try bring denominations together and deliver good sermons towards unity in Christianity. Also, these days we have many non-denominational christians, who takes less interest in denominations but focus more on ministry and unification.
Actually, we are not that different from each other. Each of us are but a single organ in the Body of Christ and Christ is the Head of us all.


According to the LDS church, when was the priesthood lost?

It wasn't a quick process, it took a while. The Church was not 'extinguished' with the loss of the Apostles, it 'dwindled' away, like a fire burning out without anyone left to tend it.

James E. Talmage does an excellent job of describing the process in his book The Great Apostasy.

It began with the deaths of the apostles. They held the keys to administer in the government of the Church, when they died, those higher priesthood keys were lost, but this did not mark the end of priesthood authority on Earth. The Churches that had been established by the apostles were still led by ordained priesthood holders, such as Linus, who was the bishop of the Church in Rome. These priesthood leaders continued to teach and preach, but without continued direction by revelation, the doctrines of men began to enter the Church. The addition of ceremony was one of the factors that contributed to leading the Church into Apostasy, simple worship services were (and in many cases still are) unusual to many people. Worshiping God was popularly associated with elaborately decorated halls, expensive robes, symbols, and ceremonies. Without inspired direction from the head of the church, these things crept into Christian worship services.

Not having the authority to ordain new Priesthood holders was another significant factor that led to the Apostasy, as higher priesthood authorities died off, the church lost the ability to ordain new bishops and priests. This is why I think Bishops hold such high status in the Catholic Church today, as the higher authorities died, the Bishops became one of the higher positions of authority that remained in the Church.

This mingling of the doctrines of men with the Church continued to the point where there was much contention over the identity of the Church and it's doctrine, this is what influenced the creeds. If there is to be a marker for when the Church truly ceased to exist, and the Great Apostasy was complete, then I suppose you could consider that time to be the creation of the creeds, when the very identity of God was lost.

There was a lot more going on, but the short answer is; The priesthood was slowly lost as leaders died, unable to pass along all of their priesthood keys.


What's the Biblical basis for "Without God I could do nothing"?

Here is an answer extracted and slightly edited (and with a new final paragraph added) from my article, "Christian Beliefs that the Bible Does Teach":
As we go about our daily lives, doing this or that for our fellow human beings, we naturally suppose that we are doing it by ourselves and from our own power. There’s nothing wrong with that as long as we don't think it’s really true. Because the reality is that by ourselves, we can't do anything at all.
Our very life comes from God. Without the spirit and life of God within us we are nothing but dust:

Then the Lord God formed a human from the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and the human became a living being. (Genesis 2:7)

God didn't just breathe life into us in the beginning. God breathes life into us every moment. When that breath from God is withdrawn, our life is over:

When you take away their breath, they die and return to their dust. (Psalm 104:29)

Psalm 127 recognizes poetically that everything we do, if it is anything at all, must come from God:

Unless the Lord builds the house, those who build it labor in vain. Unless the Lord guards the city, the guard keeps watch in vain. (Psalm 127:1)

In the Gospels, both John the Baptist and Jesus Christ himself tell us that everything we have, everything we do, and everything we are is given to us from heaven—which means that it comes from the Lord our God:

John answered, "No one can receive anything except what has been given from heaven." (John 3:27)
Abide in me as I abide in you. Just as the branch cannot bear fruit by itself unless it abides in the vine, neither can you unless you abide in me. I am the vine, you are the branches. Those who abide in me and I in them bear much fruit, because apart from me you can do nothing. (John 15:4–5)

The fact is that every good thing we do comes from God, and is done by God's power working through us. When we take credit for our good works, we are stealing the credit from God, who actually does the works. This is what Jesus meant when he said:

The words that I say to you I do not speak on my own; but the Father who dwells in me does the works. (John 14:10)

We could not even do evil without God, for the simple reason given in the first two Bible quotes above: without God we would not exist, and therefore could not do anything at all. This does not, however, mean that the evil itself comes from God. Only the ability to do evil comes from God. But that is a different question.


Should a Baptist marry a Jehovah's witness?

Should a Baptist marry a Jehovah's Witness?

That is a decision only you can take. You must ask yourself how important your Christian faith is to you and whether you are prepared to compromise your religious beliefs.

The U.K. Baptist church I became a member of (when I first became a Christian) is Trinitarian, unlike Jehovah's Witnesses who say the Trinity is pagan.  In 2015 they published an article in the Watchtower magazine saying that all Trinitarian churches are part of the antichrist. Does your fiancée go along with this view?  You need to ask him.  (Source)

You also need to ask yourself how important Christ Jesus is to you and whether your fiancée is prepared to respect your religious convictions and attend your church with a view to learning who Jesus Christ REALLY is - that He is not a created spirit called Michael the Archangel.

Please read this Christianity Stack question: What is the Biblical basis for the belief that Michael is not Jesus?  Asked by Curiousdannii January 2020 – Biblical Basis for the belief that Michael is NOT Jesus

Choices we make in the here-and-now will have eternal consequences in the here-and-after.


Are the Seven Sorrows of Mary the seven pillars in Proverbs 9:1?

  Wisdom has built her house,
  she has set up her seven columns.

Nowhere can I find in Catholic sources that equates a remote possibility that the seven pillars mentioned in Proverbs 9:1 are the Seven Sorrows of Mary.

The Seven Sorrow of Mary are primarily a devotion for the faithful of the Church in both their personal (private) and liturgical lives of piety. This devotion is of a recent development with the Church and as such the Church Fathers will be silent on the subject.

  The Feast of Our Lady of Sorrows grew in popularity in the 12th century, although under various titles. Some writings would place its roots in the eleventh century, especially among the Benedictine monks.4 The first altar to the Mater Dolorosa was set up in 1221 at the Cistercian monastery of Schönau.

  The formal feast of the Our Lady of Sorrows was originated by a provincial synod of Cologne in 1423. It was designated for the Friday after the third Sunday after Easter and had the title: Commemoratio angustiae et doloris B. Mariae V. Its object was the sorrow of Mary during the Crucifixion and Death of Christ. Before the sixteenth century this feast was limited to the dioceses of North Germany, Scandinavia, and Scotland.

  According to Fr. William Saunders, "... in 1482, the feast was officially placed in the Roman Missal under the title of Our Lady of Compassion, highlighting the great love our Blessed Mother displayed in suffering with her Son. The word compassion derives from the Latin roots cum and patior which means "to suffer with".

  After 1600 it became popular in France and was set for the Friday before Palm Sunday. By a Decree of 22 April 1727, Pope Benedict XIII extended it to the entire Latin Church, under the title "Septem dolorum B.M.V.".2 In 1954, it still held the rank of major double (slightly lower than the rank of the September feast) in the General Roman Calendar. Pope John XXIII's 1960 Code of Rubrics reduced it to the level of a commemoration. - Our Lady of Sorrows

The pillars of Proverbs 9:1 possibly could symbolize the seven gifts of the Holy Spirit

Although Dr Taylor Marshall shows a relationship between the Seven Sorrows of Mary and the Seven gifts of the Holy Spirit, he in no way means the Mary's seven sorrows are the columns mentioned in Proverbs. The 7 Sorrows are not equated to 7 Gifts of the Holy Spirit, nor are they the 7 pillars in Proverbs 9:1.

7 Sorrows of Mary and the 7 Gifts of the Holy Spirit

The History and Seven Graces of the Seven Sorrows of Mary

Mary is the Vessel that God uses to help humanity come closer to union with the Blessed Trinity. Only in this way is Mary a column of the Church. Her role is unique. Yes she is the Spouse of the Holy Spirit, but devotion to Mary must remain in the realm of clear doctrine also.

  St. Maximillian Kolbe, in keeping with Catholic Tradition, sees Mary as holding a preeminent place in God's plan of salvation; of being a conscious cooperator with all the grace which comes from God to man. But while Sacred Tradition, represented by writers such as St. Louis de Montfort, emphasize Mary's Divine Motherhood as being the basis for this teaching, Kolbe views Mary's universal mediation of grace as primarily being linked with and drawn from her intimate and hidden relationship with the Holy Spirit.

  All grace, says the Polish saint, ultimately comes to us from God the Father, through the merits of Jesus Christ, his Son, and is distributed by the Holy Spirit; and the Holy Spirit, in distributing all grace, works in and through Mary — not because he has to do so, but precisely because in his plan of salvation, God wills to do so. And God wills to do so for a reason: Jesus, the Source of all grace, came through Mary via the work of the Holy Spirit; therefore it is fitting that all grace continue to come through Mary by the work of the Holy Spirit.

  Kolbe sees Mary's preeminent role in this divine ordo — of grace and love coming from God to man, and of love returning from man to God — as flowing especially from her unique and intimate union with the Holy Spirit. He says that the Holy Spirit dwells in Mary's soul in such an ineffable manner that it goes beyond and is deeper than the union achieved between the Holy Spirit and souls by sanctifying grace in Baptism.

  To convey this deep union between Mary and the Third Person of the Blessed Trinity, Kolbe, in keeping with Sacred Tradition, refers to Mary as the "spouse" of the Holy Spirit. But at the same time Kolbe expresses dissatisfaction with this term, saying that "spouse" is really inadequate to describe this intimate and mysterious relationship. In matrimony a man and woman become united through sacramental grace so as to become, in a mystical way, "one flesh." But Kolbe sees the union between Mary and the Holy Spirit being even more intimate than that of spouses in marriage.

  What accounts for Mary's special relationship with the Holy Spirit? Kolbe says it is her Immaculate Conception, which was accomplished through the direct work (via appropriation) of the Holy Spirit. With Mary's Immaculate Conception, God the Father and the Son willed that Mary be united to their common Spirit of Love in such a close and intimate manner that would allow the Holy Spirit to bring about the Incarnation of the Word within her womb, making Mary the Mother of God; and further, that this union would enable Mary to be the instrument or vessel through which the Holy Spirit would distribute all the graces merited by Christ. Kolbe emphasizes that the precise meaning of "Immaculate Conception" is a great mystery, too deep and mysterious to be fully understood. - The Holy Spirit And Mary

The seven pillars of Proverbs possibly symbolize the seven gifts of the Holy Spirit. The Seven Sorrows are not to be equated to the seven Gifts of the Holy Spirit. There is a relationship between them according to Dr Taylor Marshall, but again the Seven Sorrows of Mary are not the seven pillar of proverbs. The Sorrows of Our Lady remain a devotional issue within the Church.


What precisely is the sacramental "economy"? In which sense it is an economy?

Oἰκονομία means "the management of a household" or "stewardship", as in the Septuagint's Is. 22:19 ("And I will…depose thee from thy ministry [οικονομίας].") or Lk. 16:2 ("give an account of thy stewardship [οἰκονομίας]: for now thou canst be steward [οἰκονομεῖν] no longer.").

The OED gives these theological definitions for "economy":

  a. The method of divine government of the world, or of a specific aspect or part of that government.The sense is used pre-eminently of God's dealings with mankind in the Incarnation, but also as these relate to creation and revelation through Scripture and the reconciling activity in the Sacraments.b. spec. A method or system of divine government suited to the needs of a particular nation or period of time, as Mosaic economy, Jewish economy, Christian economy, etc. Cf. dispensation n. 6.


What is the meaning when Jesus said "I commend my spirit" in Luke 23:46?

In his response to someone who claimed that Jesus had a 'divine soul' (sic) William Huntington wrote a piece (it is only 28 pages in booklet form) which he titled The Soul of Christ in which he thoroughly refutes the stated claim and proves that Christ's soul is human.
I cannot find exactly the words to answer your question - 'into your hands I commit my spirit' - but the following is pertinent and, I believe, gives an indication of an answer :

Thus I have proved that the phrase 'myself' sometimes signifies Christ's Godhead abstractly considered : 'I lay down my life of myself', and sometimes it signifies his human nature only : 'See that it is I myself, for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have.
There is an 'I myself' in Christ, that hath been seen and handled, and there is a divine 'I myself' that dwells in the light to which no man can approach, whom no eye hath seen nor can see.

The Soul of Christ, page 8, published by the Huntingtonian Press, 1998.
From these quotes it is clear that Christ's words can sometimes indicate that he speaks of his own spirit associated with his own human soul, and at times he refers to his own spirit associated with his own Deity.
For the union of Christ's divine nature and his human nature is not a mingling of natures (for that cannot be, they are different things). The natures remain distinct, but they are united - in his Person.
But he may also - as in the case in question - refer to the person of the Divine Spirit which is in a perfect unity with himself. And it is sometimes impossible to tell whether he speaks of his own spirit or if he speaks of the Divine Person of the spirit.
Nor is this to be seen as a difficulty for such is the perfection of unity within the Deity, that one is as the other.
The same is true of one who is born of Spirit. Within his own soul, there dwells the Holy Spirit in union with his own created spirit. If he is moved of the Spirit, it is his own spirit that is moved.
In such a holy and spiritual union, who can tell exactly the movings of the persons involved ?
And, indeed, do we have to tell ?


What is the "new doctrine" that Leo Tolstoy mentions in *Anna Karenina*?

He most likely was referring to the movement of Slavophilism.

Tolstoy was excommunicated from the Orthodox church because of his rejection of the Hegelian and Slavophilia influences that were prevalent1 throughout the 19th century.

This would explain why he saw this as a "frivolous and fallacious" view on faith.

The basic premise behind this view is as follows:

Because of the corruption of the Catholic church though pagan traditions and their desire for unity at the expense of the individual Christians freedom. And equally because of the protestant rejection of all church unity in favor of the individuals freedom; the Russian Orthodox Church was the holder of true and unpolluted Christianity.2

Hegel, is responsible for the view that mind and spirit can co-exist and unite despite the 'inherent' conditions between the two (which goes beyond the duality  of persons as espoused by Kant). Its of significant historical importance that his view developed in Germany and would contribute to the rise of the Marxist movement in Russia.

When applied to religion the above mixing resulted in a frame of thought that idealized the traditions and customs of Russia as an 'inner-truth' while the west and its constitutions and democracies were an 'external-truth'. Meaning the one was developed from within and represented all that was good, while the other (often associated with politics -yet another nod towards Marxism) was enforced by external rules and laws.

 I wanted to make special attribution to:

1 - The Oxford Companion to Christian Thought

2 - This essay on upbeatlearning.com


What is a word to describe someone who is not a Protestant?

I believe the correct answer is that there is no such term that has attained any significant level of recognition.

That said, the largely unrecognised terms Ancient-rite Christians / Ancient-rite Churches may be suitable for what you are seeking although they wouldn't exclude Oriental Orthodoxy if that is an important distinction.

We could no doubt multiply potential alternatives eg. Pre-Reformation Churches, Apostolic Successionists, 7-Council Churches (Adherants of the Seven widely recognised Ecumenical Councils); but they are, in the main, no less problematic and considerably clumsier, including your suggestions of Patriarchal Churches / Patriarchal Rite Churches which could perhaps be viewed as technically descriptive, but are more likely to be confusing given the very different roles Patriarchates now play within the Traditions in question.

For almost any term you select, there will most likely be Traditions, sects or denominations that will challenge it's validity - eg. considering where the Czechoslovak Hussite Church fits in is always going to be problematic.


Why did Christ need to be the first person to be resurrected?

The answer is because Jesus was without sin.

When Adam and Eve first sinned, not only were they thrown out of the Garden of Eden, but they were also rendered mortal; they were now capable of dying. Everyone who sins dies, and everyone sins. Even those before Jesus who died and were returned to life (like Lazarus) still had to die again later.

Jesus however never sinned. When He died on the cross, Jesus paid the price for all of our sins. And when Jesus was reborn, He was reborn in a form that no longer had to die.

And that was why Jesus had to die: to be the sacrifice in payment for our sins. That is why no one could be resurrected as He was until after He was; the debt for our sin was still outstanding. Our resurrection will not be into these bodies we currently live in, but into new bodies that will be free of sin.


Why did Jesus use a Greek proverb when He spoke Aramaic to Saul in Acts 26:14?

Acts 25:14, "it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks," is a direct quotation from a play by Euripides (d. 406 BCE), the Bacchae, with Jesus speaking instead of the Greek god Dionysus. Euripides had used the plural ('pricks') for reason of meter, and Acts uses the same plural, although it would normally be a singular. In his own epistles, Paul never mentions a conversion on the road to Damascus; in fact he said that after "it pleased God to reveal his son in me," he conferred with no one but went immediately to Arabia (Galatians 1:16-17). So, this was a literary elaboration by the author of Acts, ostentatiously saying that Jesus spoke in Aramaic probably to draw some attention away from the popular Greek saying.

Uta Ranke-Heinemann says, in Putting Away Childish Things, page 163, the really strange thing is that with both Jesus and Euripides we have the same “familiar quotation” and the same situation. In both cases there is a conversation between a persecuted god and his persecutor.  In the Bacchae the persecuted god is Dionysus and his persecutor is Pentheus, king of Thebes.  Just like Jesus, Dionysus calls his persecutor to account, “You  disregard my words of warning . . . and kick against the pricks a man defying god.” She says Jesus even uses the same plural form of the noun kentra ('pricks') that Euripides needs for the meter of his line.

To eliminate any doubt that this is just a coincidence, we can also look at Acts' story of Paul's release from prison (Acts 16:26).  This also has reasonably close parallels to words in the same ancient play, the Bacchae, and there is no written or archaeological record of an earthquake powerful enough to have somehow released Paul and Silas from their chains.

Peter Kirby notes the parallels between the Bacchae and Acts, but says that the author of Acts need not necessarily have had the Bacchae in mind, since other ancient Greek works use similar phraseology and would also serve as sources for these two scenes in Acts. The Bacchae stands out as a single source that provides the potential source material for both the conversion (with the plural form of kentra) and the prison escape in Acts.


Did John 14:6 apply before the birth of Christ?

Enoch (Genesis 5) and Elijah (in 2 Kings 2) were both taken away by God and did not die.  Whether they went to "heaven" or not, they did go to God.

Since Jesus is fully God, and is outside time with God, then even before he was born a man and died on the cross for our sins, he was the way, the truth, and the life.  Why should God be limited by time, part of his creation?


Why are we not seeing miracles in our lives?

There are two major views on this, with several subsets.

Some (including myself) believe that while miracles do still occur, the kind and frequency is different than we see at the beginning of the church era because the purpose is different; directly binding the occurrences of miracles to the creator. This is generally known as Cessationism, but there are several flavors. The promises you refer to in Mark and elsewhere are understood in a the framework of the Gospel empowering the Kingdom to grow and the greater miracles  refer to the kinds of supernatural events we do continue to see regularly: the regeneration of people through the message of the Gospel.
Others believe that we don't see as many miracles today because people don't have enough faith; directly relating the spiritual state of people to prevalence of miracles. In this camp (which could be called Continuationism but more often is just known as non-Cessationist or by the names of specific traditions which hold the view) the Holy Spirit is understood to have varying degrees of control over miracles, from bringing them when he will to only being able to bring them when called on in full faith.


What Doctrine Supports The Christian Gun Culture?

As a preface, I think the question might benefit from some further clarification. Aside from considering the matter in the light of Scripture, it seems many would likely agree that there is a significant difference between what might be called "responsible gun ownership" and the subculture often highlighted by the media that defiantly and aggressively glorifies gun ownership.

I'm aware of no Scriptural basis on which gun ownership can be advocated. In fact, the first verse that comes to mind is Mt 26:52:

  Then Jesus said to him, "Put your sword back into its place. For all who take the sword will perish by the sword."

No historical doctrines come to mind, either. Roman Catholic "Just War" doctrine doesn't seem related to the issue, though someone with better knowledge of the Church of Rome may know otherwise.

The strongest potential connection I can see between the church and the "gun culture" would stem from the independent, uncompromising, perhaps "defiant" character of the Protestant Reformation in relation to the Church of Rome in the 16th century. (Some of Luther's "antics" come to mind). Elements of the same uncompromising approach can be seen in the choice of the Puritans to separate from the Church of England.

But, while I'm not a pacifist, I don't mean to suggest that the Bible encourages gun ownership. As far as I'm aware, it does not.


Refutation of Chizzuk Emunah, Part II, Ch. LXVI: "Inconsistencies in Christian text regarding food"

The supposed inconsistency here is clearly that some passages say it's OK to eat anything, but that in Acts 2:15, James judges that non-Jewish Christians should be "not troubled" with the Law except as follows:

  19 “Therefore it is my judgment that we do not trouble those who are
  turning to God from among the Gentiles, 20 but that we write to them
  that they abstain from things contaminated by idols and from
  fornication and from what is strangled and from blood. 21 “For Moses
  from ancient generations has in every city those who preach him, since
  he is read in the synagogues every Sabbath.”

So, in some passages, they say it's OK to eat these things, but in Acts, James says it's not.

The difference in context is, again, obvious.  All of the other passages are clear that eating a particular animal is not a sin.  Meat is meat.  So the question that must be answered is, why the restrictions in Acts 15?

There are several, but the most consistent with overall Scripture is that it's given so that the Gentiles won't be stumbling blocks for the Jewish Christians, as described in 1 Corinthians 8 (NASV):

  1 Now concerning things sacrificed to idols, we know that we all have
  knowledge. Knowledge makes arrogant, but love edifies. 2 If anyone
  supposes that he knows anything, he has not yet known as he ought to
  know; 3 but if anyone loves God, he is known by Him.

  4 Therefore concerning the eating of things sacrificed to idols, we
  know that there is no such thing as an idol in the world, and that
  there is no God but one. 5 For even if there are so-called gods whether
  in heaven or on earth, as indeed there are many gods and many
  lords, 6 yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom are all
  things and we exist for Him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, by whom are
  all things, and we exist through Him.

  7 However not all men have this knowledge; but some, being accustomed
  to the idol until now, eat food as if it were sacrificed to an idol;
  and their conscience being weak is defiled. 8 But food will not commend
  us to God; we are neither the worse if we do not eat, nor the better
  if we do eat. 9 But take care that this liberty of yours does not
  somehow become a stumbling block to the weak. 10 For if someone sees
  you, who have knowledge, dining in an idol’s temple, will not his
  conscience, if he is weak, be strengthened to eat things sacrificed to
  idols? 11 For through your knowledge he who is weak is ruined, the
  brother for whose sake Christ died. 12 And so, by sinning against the
  brethren and wounding their conscience when it is weak, you sin
  against Christ. 13 Therefore, if food causes my brother to stumble, I
  will never eat meat again, so that I will not cause my brother to
  stumble.

Another possible answer is that the logic and decision recorded in Acts 15 isn't inspired, but is simply an accurate recording of James' own thoughts on the issue.  This would not negate the doctrine of inspiration of the Scriptures, as explained next.

This surrounding text makes this a very plausible suggestion, and it's not the only place in Scripture where someone's words and advice are recorded, and in the context it's clear that the advice isn't the direct commandment of God, but the opinion of the author.  See this previous question for an example.

There are literally hundreds of places in Scripture where one person or another says something that is not the direct word of God.  It's just recording the historical events.  After all, some of Nebuchadnezzar's orders are recorded, but we don't take those as the Word of God.  We have to examine the context, and in this passage, the context could certainly be read that this is just James speaking his opinion and explaining why he holds the opinion.

As with the other question you posted in this vein, it seems odd that this would come from a Jewish perspective.  After all, the Old Testament has a similar "contradiction" on whether certain types of food are or are not allowed, a contradiction which is just as easily shown to be a non-issue.


In the Lord's Vineyard what does the grafting teach (Jacob 5)?

It signifies the gathering of Israel. In grafting in both directions, the trees effectively become the same.

In more detail, one could interpret:

Grafting from the mother tree to the natural trees: Spreading the gospel to the dispersed tribes of Israel.

Grafting from the natural trees to the mother tree: Restoring the tribes, strengthening the House fo Israel.


How should one reconcile a wrong against another person?

This is one of those questions that should have a clear, easy answer, but when you ask "what do Christians believe about this" you will likely get a lot of different answers.  I'm going to put a preface explaining why those answers vary, and then go into a purely Scriptural view, which is the view you will likely hear from the pulpit of any Church you visit.

Why the answers may vary.

In Christianity, there is a concept of being "free from the Law of Moses" through the perfect substitutionary sacrifice of Christ.  The central theme of Christianity is that we can never be "good enough" to get to Heaven on our own, and that Jesus is the promised Christ - His sacrifice is what gets us to Heaven, not our own good works.

One of the questions that varying groups differ (and they differ wildly) is what, exactly it means to be free from the Law of Moses.  There are other questions already on this site that explore that topic, but in a nutshell, there is debate over whether we are obligated to tithe, to refrain from certain things, to perform certain ceremonies, etc.

This applies to your question directly because some groups believe that we are under no obligation to obey the Old Testament commandments regarding this, and others will say we are.  Some will tell you that the Law of Love dictates that we will meet or exceed the requirements of Mosaic Law, and some would accuse those people of Legalism.

That said...

One common teaching

The teaching with which I am the most familiar with comes from the mouth of Jesus, as recorded in Matthew 5:20-24 (King James version)

  20 For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the
  righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter
  into the kingdom of heaven.

  21 Ye have heard that it was said of them of old time, Thou shalt not
  kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment:

  22 But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother
  without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever
  shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but
  whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.
  23 Therefore if thou bring thy gift to the altar, and there
  rememberest that thy brother hath ought against thee;

  24 Leave there thy gift before the altar, and go thy way; first be
  reconciled to thy brother, and then come and offer thy gift.

This is commonly taught as doing whatever it takes to make it right.  If you have sinned against someone, or even if that person thinks you have sinned against them, and you hadn't intended to, the priority is to reconcile and heal the relationship.

Per His words in verse 24. reconciliation with an offended person takes priority over worship.  (How can we come to God with a clean heart, if we are carrying the stain of sin?)

  Clarke's Commentary on the Bible expands on this:

  Leave there thy gift before the altar - This is as much as to say, "Do
  not attempt to bring any offering to God while thou art in a spirit of
  enmity against any person; or hast any difference with thy neighbor,
  which thou hast not used thy diligence to get adjusted." It is our
  duty and interest, both to bring our gift, and offer it too; but God
  will not accept of any act of religious worship from us, while any
  enmity subsists in our hearts towards any soul of man; or while any
  subsists in our neighbor's heart towards us, which we have not used
  the proper means to remove. A religion, the very essence of which is
  love, cannot suffer at its altars a heart that is revengeful and
  uncharitable, or which does not use its utmost endeavors to revive
  love in the heart of another. The original word, δωρον, which we
  translate gift, is used by the rabbins in Hebrew letters דורון doron,
  which signifies not only a gift, but a sacrifice offered to God. See
  several proofs in Schoettgen.

The answer to most of your sub-questions are simple, if we take His words at face value:

  Is seeking forgiveness from God sufficient, or do you first need to
  set things right with the other person?

We need to first make it right with the other person.

  If the latter, what are you obligated to do -- apologize, make amends
  (what kinds), something else?

Whatever it takes to reconcile.  This may be as simple as an honest confession of your sin to the other person, and a sincere apology, it may involve paying something back, it may mean doing something you really don't want to do (so long as that thing isn't sinful).  You may have to apologize before the Church, or admit to peers/friends/families that you've done wrong.

There may be cases where the other offended party will not accept any offer of reconciliation, at which case, we can only do our best.  God knows our hearts and minds better than we can, and He knows both your mind and that of the person who holds something against you.

  Does the answer depend on who was wronged? Is the obligation to a
  fellow Christian different than one to a non-Christian?

No.  Absolutely not.  The obligation to a fellow Christian is no more or less than to a non-Christian.

I've taken the liberty of finding a few teachings on the subject:

http://blog.beliefnet.com/markdroberts/2010/09/what-to-do-when-you-sin-against-someone.html

discusses the importance of attempting to reconcile with the person you've wronged.

http://carm.org/christianity/devotions/confession

echoes the fact that going to God alone isn't enough, you must go to the person you've sinned against.

http://www.victorious.org/churchbook/chur29.htm

Discusses practical, Scriptural guidance for resolving disputed between believers.

http://jpsmind.wordpress.com/2007/01/30/do-we-need-to-confess-our-sins-to-those-we-have-sinned-against/

Speaks to how our relationship with each other reflects our relationship with God.

http://www.gotquestions.org/restitution-Bible.html

Compares Mosaic Law with the New Testament teaching on forgiveness and Repentance


As science suggests, the physical universe of time, space, and matter is not eternal.  It had a beginning.  Thus it was created.  It was not arranged or mixed or reassembled, but created out of nothing.

Genesis 1 repeatedly uses the phrase, "God said, 'Let there be...', and there was...".  God spoke, and what previously did not exist began to exist.  So, specifically, God did not make the universe from anything at all.

Indeed, God did not make the physical universe from Himself, because He Himself is outside the physical universe.  In fact, God is spirit.  This is in contrast to the idea of pantheism.

In the 11th chapter of Hebrews, we read this:

  By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God’s command,
  so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible.

This ex nihilo power is reserved to God alone.  All other creations that mankind does is simply to take what is already made and rearrange it into another form.  We never really "make a cake"--we merely assemble ingredients into a different form.


What parts of Protestantism accept that there are some on earth who 'smite the earth with plagues' till the end of time (Revelation 11:6)?

When it comes to interpreting Revelation in general, and those 4 verses in particular, I consulted a book where the Protestant author classifies 4 main ‘types’ of interpretation. He explains what he means by those ‘types’ at the start of his book, summarized on the cover jacket as: “PRETERISM: most prophecies were fulfilled during the time of the Roman empire.  HISTORICIST: the prophecies have been fulfilled throughout history and are still being fulfilled today.   FUTURIST: most prophecies are yet to be fulfilled.  SPIRITUAL (or Symbolic or Idealist): most prophecies portray ongoing cosmic conflict of spiritual realities and may have many fulfilments throughout history.”

For the various Christian authors he quotes and their sources, please consult the book “Revelation – Four Views – A Parallel Commentary” edited by Steve Gregg, page xiii (Nelson, 1997).  My compilation comes from pages 226 to 233. But as it really is the Futurist and Spiritual interpretation groups of Protestants who hold largely (though not entirely) to the views you ask about, I will only state some of their views.  If you would like to have similar notes I compiled on the other two groups, please just let me know and I will e-mail them to you.

“The Futurist” view taken by Walvoord claims that the 1,260 days of verse 3 says that as “the two witnesses pour out divine judgments upon the earth and need divine protection lest they be killed, it implies that they are in the latter half of the seven years when awful persecution will afflict the people of God… The punishments and judgments the witnesses inflict on the world also seem to fit better in the great tribulation period.”  Others with that general view (Lindsey, Morris and Ryrie) differ regarding the time period, thinking it is the first one, adding that it seems to be the coming of the beast onto the scene in power that terminates their witness.

Most Futurists take the 2 witnesses to be actual men who will arise to prophesy in Jerusalem in the Tribulation.  Some think they will be Moses and Elijah themselves.  Others think that it is Elijah and Enoch (the view of the earliest apocryphal writers and the early exegetes of the church, a view shared by modern writer Henry Morris.)  On the other hand, Mounce writes, “It seems more likely… that they are not two individuals but a symbol of the witnessing church in the last tumultuous days before the end of the age.”

Others think that two individuals are the principal interpretation of the expression, but also leave room for the possibility of including a larger group of witnesses in the picture, including Gaebelein: “Perhaps the leaders would be two great instruments, manifesting the spirit of Moses and Elijah, endowed with supernatural power, but a larger number of witnesses is unquestionably in view here.”  Ladd takes this approach as well, allowing that Possibly there is a blending of the symbolic and the specific in the passage. He believes the witnesses to be two “actual historical eschatological personages who will be sent to Israel to bring about her conversion.” He elaborates that the two witnesses may indeed represent the witness of the church to Israel throughout the age. This witness, however, will be consummated in the end time by the appearance of two Christian prophets, who will come in the spirit of Moses and Elijah, even as John the Baptist came in the spirit of Elijah.

This is apparently Ironside’s position as summarized by Charles Ryrie thus, “…this much is certain (1) They are persons, for all the other times that the word ‘witness’ is used in the NT it is used of persons. They are not movements or powers, but individual persons. (2) It is also certain that they are not named in the text, and this writer feels that the case should be left there. These are two exceptional witnesses raised up by God during the Tribulation and preserved by Him until their ministry is completed.” Walvoord comes to a position similar to Ryrie: “It seems far preferable to regard these two witnesses as two prophets who will be raised up from among those who turn to Christ in the time following the rapture.”

“The Spiritual” view holds that the two witnesses represent the witnessing church throughout its entire career. Hendriksen says, “These witnesses symbolize the Church militant bearing testimony through its ministers and missionaries throughout the present dispensation.”  Regarding the miracles, Leon Morris writes, “God’s servants in the new dispensation have just as great resources as did Moses and Elijah in the old.” The deadly fire pictures those setting out to destroy them being undone.  Lenski writes that “the word in the mouth of the Lord’s prophet-witnesses may be scorned but it is not an empty sound. Its judgments are fire that devours its enemies.” The failure of Julian the Apostate to reimpose paganism in the ‘christianized’ Roman Empire is cited as an example.

I have not sorted out any particular denominations these various authors belong to, and it might be fair to say that within all the denominations they represent, there will be some people with differing views.


What are Christian theologeans referring to when they talk about "God's glory"?

The Hebrew word for Glory -  'Kabod'   means weightiness. In the Old Testament this was the Shekinah Glory that filled the temple visibly
Exo_33:22  When my glory passes by, I will put you in a cleft in the rock and will cover you with my hand while I pass by.
Deu_5:24  You said, "The LORD our God has shown us his great glory and we have heard him speak from the middle of the fire. It is now clear to us that God can speak to human beings and they can keep on living.

In the New Testament, after the Messiah's work of deliverance was complete, we see God's glory as a spiritual essence until the Second coming of Christ:
Rom_3:7  For if by my lie the truth of God enhances his glory, why am I still actually being judged as a sinner? Here, humans give glory (or all due respect and credit) to God.

Mat_16:27  For the Son of Man will come with his angels in the glory of his Father, and then he will reward each person according to what he has done. Here, Messiah comes again as God who is full  of the Father's Glory.

So, there is consistency in the use of Glory in scripoture wherein it describes God's omniscience and omnipotence, and is manifested is His radiance.


In dispensationalism: Was gracious salvation through Christ an alternative plan

  Ephesians 1:3-4  Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus
  Christ, who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly
  places in Christ:   According as he hath chosen us in him before the
  foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame
  before him in love:

The concept of “alternative” does arise periodically in the Bible and it is illustrative of the intersection of free will and God’s plans. For example;

  Exodus 32:9-10  And the LORD said unto Moses, I have seen this people,
  and, behold, it is a stiffnecked people:   Now therefore let me alone,
  that my wrath may wax hot against them, and that I may consume them:
  and I will make of thee a great nation.

When God offered the nation of Israel the first covenant they all accepted.

  Exodus 24:7-8  And he took the book of the covenant, and read in the
  audience of the people: and they said, All that the LORD hath said
  will we do, and be obedient.   And Moses took the blood, and sprinkled
  it on the people, and said, Behold the blood of the covenant, which
  the LORD hath made with you concerning all these words.

Jesus offered the second covenant by his sacrifice on the cross. At the time only a few were interested or even cared to understand.

The approximately 70 years between the birth of Jesus and the destruction of the temple, Israel had a legitimate offer of the Kingdom for her to accept. Jesus never once winked and said, “I know you guys are going to blow it, so here is the real plan”.

If Israel had accepted the Kingdom, the last two thousand years would have been war free, people would have longer lives, and nature itself would have been made less hostile.

We get a picture of this possible world from the description Jesus gives his disciples after the resurrection;

  Mark 16:15-18  And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and
  preach the gospel to every creature.   He that believeth and is
  baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.
  And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they
  cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues;   They shall take
  up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt
  them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.

Regardless if Israel received the kingdom 2,000 years ago or if a future faithful remnant receives the Kingdom at the end of the tribulation, God’s word still stands.

What we have with the example of the offer of the kingdom is the exercise of free will by the nation of Israel. It is not a brutal hand of God forcing the next step of his plan to become a reality. We can see a little of this with Elijah;

  1 Kings 19:14  And he said, I have been very jealous for the LORD God
  of hosts: because the children of Israel have forsaken thy covenant,
  thrown down thine altars, and slain thy prophets with the sword; and
  I, even I only, am left; and they seek my life, to take it away.
  .....1 Kings 19:18  Yet I have left me seven thousand in Israel, all
  the knees which have not bowed unto Baal, and every mouth which hath
  not kissed him.

It is almost like God is telling Elijah, “Don’t worry about my plans, I still have 7,000 people I can use. I am concerned about you.”

God’s plans will be accomplish regardless of the faithfulness or faithlessness of man.