What is the Bible and Christian view on Astrology?

Yes, the Bible speaks strongly against the pagan practice of Astrology, which was recognized as divination and associated with magic and sorcery.  Divination is defined as "the practice of attempting to foretell future events or discover hidden knowledge by occult or supernatural means", which would certainly include Astrology.

A number of scriptures associate astrology with pagan magic arts:

Isaiah 47:13: Let your astrologers come forward, those stargazers who make predictions month by month
Daniel 2:2: So the king summoned the magicians, enchanters, sorcerers and astrologers to tell him what he had dreamed.
Daniel 2:10: The astrologers answered the king, “There is no one on earth who can do what the king asks! No king, however great and mighty, has ever asked such a thing of any magician or enchanter or astrologer.

Leviticus 19:26 forbids divination:

  Do not practice divination or seek omens.

as does and Deuteronomy 18:14

  The nations you will dispossess listen to those who practice sorcery or divination. But as for you, the LORD your God has not permitted you to do so

and numerous other scriptures:

Genesis 44:5: Isn’t this the cup my master drinks from and also uses for divination? This is a wicked thing you have done.
Deuteronomy 18:10: Let no one be found among you who sacrifices their son or daughter in the fire, who practices divination or sorcery, interprets omens, engages in witchcraft,
Joshua 13:22: In addition to those slain in battle, the Israelites had put to the sword Balaam son of Beor, who practiced divination.
1 Samuel 15:23: For rebellion is like the sin of divination, and arrogance like the evil of idolatry. Because you have rejected the word of the LORD, he has rejected you as king.”
2 Kings 17:17: They sacrificed their sons and daughters in the fire. They practiced divination and sought omens and sold themselves to do evil in the eyes of the LORD, arousing his anger.
2 Kings 21:6: He sacrificed his own son in the fire, practiced divination, sought omens, and consulted mediums and spiritists. He did much evil in the eyes of the LORD, arousing his anger.
2 Chronicles 33:6: He sacrificed his children in the fire in the Valley of Ben Hinnom, practiced divination and witchcraft, sought omens, and consulted mediums and spiritists. He did much evil in the eyes of the LORD, arousing his anger.
Isaiah 2:6: They are full of superstitions from the East; they practice divination like the Philistines and embrace pagan customs.
Jeremiah 14:14: Then the LORD said to me, “The prophets are prophesying lies in my name. I have not sent them or appointed them or spoken to them. They are prophesying to you false visions, divinations, idolatries and the delusions of their own minds.
Ezekiel 12:24: For there will be no more false visions or flattering divinations among the people of Israel.
Ezekiel 13:6: Their visions are false and their divinations a lie. Even though the LORD has not sent them, they say, “The LORD declares,” and expect him to fulfill their words.

So if you accept that Astrology is a subset of divination, it seems clearly abhorrent to God.  Given the ensnaring nature of the occult, I would be engaging the "flee from all appearance" tactic with Astrology.


How do trinity-believers explain these verses from John 17?

Read it in the context as one in purpose, yet separate in person... John 1:1-14

While I am a separate person, in purpose I am in unity and the same as other followers of Christ.

To quote a sermon of John MacArthur's:

  He [Jesus] prays that there may be a spiritual, holy, loving oneness, a visible oneness that the world can see in order that they may believe.


This is the footnote to Gn 49:1 (RSVCE).

  a. 49.1-27 In their present form these “Oracles of Jacob,”
  blessings pronounced upon his sons as epitomizing the twelve tribes,
  date from the period of the early monarchy.

Therefore seen as oracles, they are prophetic pronouncements of what is to become of the tribes with the sons themselves having played a part in their fate.


How do theistic evolutionists explain moral reasoning?

AnswersInGenesis.com did a review of theistic evolutionists positions. One unedited excerpt pertinent to this question is below. The paragraphs in italics of book quotations give succinct answers.

  On the one hand, according to theistic evolutionists, young-earth
  creationists make a mistake to read Genesis 1–3 in a literal sense. On
  the other hand, they cannot consult science on questions of the nature
  of the soul, spirit, and/or the mind to explain their moral sense and
  awareness, for science cannot tell us anything about the existence of
  entities that cannot be studied by their methods. I can put the
  dilemma which theistic evolutionists create for creationists slightly
  different. On the one hand, Scripture cannot make an appeal to
  knowledge, unless sanctioned by science. If it does, then it must wait
  until validated by or accepted by the methods of the scientific
  community. This point is clearly implied by Collins when he said:
  “Science is the only reliable way to understand the natural world...”
  (Collins 2007, p. 6). But on the other hand, immaterial entities such
  as God, the soul, spirit, and mind cannot be invoked to explain our
  moral sense, because “methodological atheism” (to use Murphy’s words)
  has already “discovered” that God, the soul, spirit, mind, self, I or
  me do not exist (see, for example, atheist psychologist Steven Pinker
  2002, pp. 31, 42). Here is how Murphy expressed her agreement with
  methodological atheism:

  [N]euroscience is now completing the Darwinian revolution, bringing the mind into the purview of biology. My claim, in short, is this: all
  of the human capacities once attributed to the immaterial mind or soul
  are now yielding to the insights of neurobiology... (N. Murphy 2006,
  p. 88).

  Elsewhere Murphy (1998) concluded that there is a “massive amount of
  evidence” which suggests that we no longer “need to postulate the
  existence of a soul or mind in order to explain life and
  consciousness” (Brown, Murphy, and Malony 1998, p. 17).11 The real
  reason why she and fellow theistic evolutionists found such “evidence”
  in the neuro-sciences is very simple:

  Immaterial souls just do not fit with what we know about the natural
  world. We human persons evolved by natural selection...[which is] part
  of the natural order, but immaterial souls are not” (Baker 2007,
  p. 341).

From: https://answersingenesis.org/theistic-evolution/can-theistic-evolutionism-explain-the-origin-of-morality/


If Jesus Christ is supposedly part of the trinity how come he didn't even know when the hour would come

TLDR; Jesus is fully God, but decided to become fully human in order to save His people from sin, and to be an example for us. This limited Him, but did not cease to make Him God.

I believe the Bible answers this clearly.

  In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word
  was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made
  through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made. 4 In Him
  was life, and the life was the light of men.

  John 1:1-4

Jesus is completely God.

  "In the beginning was the Word."

Jesus "was" when time began. Jesus is outside of time. He is God. He is also the co-Creator,

  "All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made
  that was made."

He is part of the Elohim, He was there when God said,

  Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness...

  Genesis 1:26

Then Jesus took on the form of humanity to save us from our sin.

  And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory,
  the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and
  truth.

  John 1:14

He was equal with God, but He chose to take on a human form for you and me.

  Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus, 6 who, being
  in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God,
  7 but made Himself of no reputation, taking the form of a bondservant,
  and coming in the likeness of men. 8 And being found in appearance as
  a man, He humbled Himself and became obedient to the point of death,
  even the death of the cross. 9 Therefore God also has highly exalted
  Him and given Him the name which is above every name, 10 that at the
  name of Jesus every knee should bow, of those in heaven, and of those
  on earth, and of those under the earth, 11 and that every tongue
  should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the
  Father.

  Philippians 2:5-11

A child was to be born who would be called "Everlasting Father".

  For unto us a Child is born, Unto us a Son is given; And the
  government will be upon His shoulder. And His name will be called
  Wonderful, Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.

  Isaiah 9:6

His name was Jesus, the name means Yahweh is Salvation or Yahweh the Savior. The Angel clearly points to Jesus as Yahweh, or God, the Savior for He shall save His people from their sins.

  But while he thought about these things, behold, an angel of the Lord
  appeared to him in a dream, saying, “Joseph, son of David, do not be
  afraid to take to you Mary your wife, for that which is conceived in
  her is of the Holy Spirit. 21 And she will bring forth a Son,
  and you shall call His name Jesus, for He will save His people
  from their sins.”

  Matthew 1:20-21

When He took on human form, He used the same power available to us. He prayed,

  Now in the morning, having risen a long while before daylight, He went
  out and departed to a solitary place; and there He prayed.

  Mark 1:35

He learned the Word from when He was a child,

  Now so it was that after three days they found Him in the temple,
  sitting in the midst of the teachers, both listening to them and
  asking them questions. And all who heard Him were astonished at His
  understanding and answers.

  Luke 2:46-47

and through His relationship with the Father, He did many miracles. Not of His own power, but with the power of the Father.

  6 Jesus said to him, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one
  comes to the Father except through Me.

  7 “If you had known Me, you would have known My Father also; and from
  now on you know Him and have seen Him.”

  8 Philip said to Him, “Lord, show us the Father, and it is sufficient
  for us.”

  9 Jesus said to him, “Have I been with you so long, and yet you have
  not known Me, Philip? He who has seen Me has seen the Father; so how
  can you say, ‘Show us the Father’? 10 Do you not believe that I am in
  the Father, and the Father in Me? The words that I speak to you I do
  not speak on My own authority; but the Father who dwells in Me does
  the works. 11 Believe Me that I am in the Father and the Father in Me,
  or else believe Me for the sake of the works themselves.

  John 14:6-11

He was fully man and fully God, though His divinity was mostly hidden by humanity for our sake. To show us how to live and show us that all that He did is within our reach.

  For I have given you an example, that you should do as I have done to
  you. 16 Most assuredly, I say to you, a servant is not greater than
  his master; nor is he who is sent greater than he who sent him. 17 If
  you know these things, blessed are you if you do them.

  John 13:15-17

... and even greater things than He did.

  “Most assuredly, I say to you, he who believes in Me, the works that
  I do he will do also; and greater works than these he will do, because
  I go to My Father. 13 And whatever you ask in My name, that I will do,
  that the Father may be glorified in the Son. 14 If you ask[c] anything
  in My name, I will do it.

  John 14:12

Nevertheless, because He was human, not everything was revealed to Him, as you point out. This however, does not mean He is not fully God, as pointed out previously.


In the New Testament, Jesus never prescribes or approves of any particular canon

Jesus doesn't anywhere speak of the canon,1 except to refer to common ways of dividing them: "the Law and the Prophets" (Matthew 5:17), "the Law, the Prophets, and the Psalms" (Luke 24:44; cf. 24:27). This latter one is significant for our purpose becaues among the Jews, the Psalms began the section of Scriptures known as the Writings.

Yet even in the fifth century or sixth century we read Rabbis quoting from Sirach as Scripture (part of the Writings, using the formula, "as it is written"):2

  Baba Kamma, 92b

  א"ל רבא לרבה בר מרי מנא הא מילתא דאמרי אינשי מטייל ואזיל דיקלא בישא גבי קינא דשרכי אמר ליה דבר זה כתוב בתורה שנוי בנביאים ומשולש בכתובים ותנן במתניתין ותנינא בברייתא
  כתוב בתורה דכתיב וילך עשו אל ישמעאל שנוי בנביאים דכתיב ויתלקטו אל יפתח אנשים רקים ויהיו עמו ומשולש בכתובים דכתיב כל עוף למינו ישכון ובני אדם לדומה לו

  Raba said to Rabbah bar Mari: Whence do people derive the saying: A bad palm tree wanders about seeking a grove of barren trees? Who said to him: This is written in the Torah, and repeated in the Prophets, and is repeated again in the Writings, and we learned it as well from an oral tradition, and from yet an extra source of tradition. It is written in the Law, as it is written: And so Esau went to Ishmael [Genesis 28]. It is repeated in the Prophets [Judges 11], as it is written: And some foolish men gathered themselves around Jephthah, and they went with him. And is repeated again in the Writings, as it is written: All fowl will resort unto their kind, and a man unto another like to himself. [Sirach 13, 27].

Mishnah Yadayim also speaks about what renders the hands ritually unclean (i.e. what is Holy Scripture in this case).

  Mishnah Yadayim, 3:5

  רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר ... כל כתבי הקדשׁ מטמאין את הידים. שׁיר השׁירים וקהלת מטמאין את הידים. רבי יהודה אומר, שׁיר השׁירים מטמא את הידים, וקהלת מחלקת. רבי יוסי אומר, קהלת אינו מטמא את הידים ושׁיר השׁירים מחלקת. רבי שׁמעון אומר, קהלת מקלי בית שׁמאי ומחמרי בית הלל. אמר רבי שׁמעון בן עזאי, מקבל אני מפי שׁבעים ושׁנים זקן, ביום שׁהושׁיבו את רבי אלעזר בן עזריה בישׁיבה, שׁשׁיר השׁירים וקהלת מטמאים את הידים. אמר רבי עקיבא, חס ושׁלום, לא נחלק אדם מישׂראל על שׁיר השׁירים שׁלא תטמא את הידים, שׁאין כל העולם כלו כדאי כיום שׁנתן בו שׁיר השׁירים לישׂראל, שׁכל הכתובים קדשׁ, ושׁיר השׁירים קדשׁ קדשׁים. ואם נחלקו, לא נחלקו אלא על קהלת. אמר רבי יוחנן בן יהושׁע בן חמיו שׁל רבי עקיבא, כדברי בן עזאי, כך נחלקו וכך גמרו

  ... Rabbi Judah says ... All the Holy Scriptures render the hands unclean. Song of Songs renders the hands unclean. Rabbi Judah says that Song of Songs and Ecclesiastes render the hands unclean, but about Ecclesiastes there is dispute. Rabbi Josei says Ecclesiastes does not render the hands unclean, but about Song of Songs there is dispute. Rabbi Simon says that with regard to Ecclesiastes the school of Shamai is more lenient, and the house of Hillel more strict. Rabbi Simon ben Azzai said: I received a tradition from the seventy-two elders on the day they appointed Eleazar ben Azariah over the college that Ecclesiastes and Song of Songs render the hands unclean. Rabbi Akiba said: Far be it! No man of Israel has ever disputed that Song of Songs renders the hands unclean. For the whole world is not as worthy as the day on which Song of songs was given to Israel: all the Books are holy, but the Song of Songs the Holy of Holies; if there was ever a dispute, it was about Ecclesiastes. Rabbi John ben Joshua, son of Rabbi Akiba's father in law, said in accordance with words of ben Azzai: so they disputed, and so they reached a decision.

There was clearly no consensus even in the second century, or this dispute would never have taken place in the first place.

There is also attestation to the fact that the primitive church at least regarded Sirach other later books as Holy Scripture, by inference from the following (again second century):

  Tosefta Yadayim, 2

  הגליונים ספרי מינין אינן מטמאות הידים. ספרי בן סירא וכל הספרים שנכתבו מכאן ואילך אינן מטמאין את הידים

  ... The the Gospels of the Christians4 do not render the hands unclean: nor does, henceforth, Sirach, or any of the books written after it.

This is as ridiculous and irrelevant as saying, "The Gospels and Spiderman comics aren't Holy Scripture" unless Sirach and the later books of the 'apocrypha' (a question-begging term for these books) were considered Holy Scripture at least by second century Christians.3

Moreover, Palestinian Jews are not the only Jews. The diaspora Jews clearly seem to have at the least revered the deuterocanonical books as doctrinally sound, and possibly (likely) viewed them as Scripture, found in the various codices of the Septuagint. Indeed, that most of the deuterocanonical books have been discovered to have Hebrew or Aramaic originals, proves they were specifically Jewish sacred works, not the inventions of Christian after Jesus, or by the Church.

Argument from Silence Useless

An argument of silence, such as "Jesus never quotes from these books" won't work, as He doesn't quote from Judges, Ruth, Ezra, Esther, Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon, Lamentations, Obadiah, Jonah, Zephaniah, nor do any of the apostles or writers of the New Testament. (But of course it's already a fallacious argument without begging the question as to whether these books are obviously to be considered part of the Bible.)

Likely Allusions in the New Testament

Although Jesus doesn't speak to the canon, we can derive some sense of how the apostles and other writers of the New Testament viewed these books, whom we can safely assume agreed with Jesus.

A striking example of a clear allusion to a book is in Revelation, where St. John describes seeing "the seven angels who stand before God," and that they offer our prayers before God. However, this comes from the book of Tobit (Aramaized verision of the Hebrew name Tobiyah, meaning "God's goodness"), which by implication is proved to have inspired knowledge of the heavenly realm.

  Aramaic Tobit, Vul 12:12-15

  ... I offered thy prayer to the Lord. And because thou wast acceptable to God, it was necessary that trial should prove thee. And now the Lord hath sent me to heal thee, and to deliver Sara thy son's wife from the devil. For I am the angel Raphael,5 one of the seven who stand before the Lord.

  Revelation 8:1-4

  And when he opened the seventh seal, there was silence in heaven for about a half an hour. And I saw the seven angels who stand before God, and trumpets were given to them. And behold another angel came and stood at the altar, having a golden censer, and much incense was given to him, that he should offer the prayers of all the saints at the golden altar which is before the throne. And the smoke of the incense of the prayers of the saints ascended from the hand of the angel before God.

Another example is St. Paul alluding to the book of Wisdom (also called Wisdom of Solomon) in several Epistles.

If St. Paul quotes or alludes to a certain passage, he expects his readers are aware of the immediate context of that passage. This is the same here, Wisdom surpasses even the stars, is is the effulgence of God's very glory, and thus his primary and preliminary argument in Hebrews that Christ, the "wisdom of God" (1 Cor. 1:24) is superior to the angels, reminds him of this passage of Scripture:

  Wisdom 7:24-30

  For wisdom is more active than all active things: and reacheth everywhere by reason of her purity. For she is a vapour of the power of God, and a certain pure emanation of the glory of the almighty God: and therefore no defiled thing cometh into her. For she is the effulgence of eternal light, and the unspotted mirror of God's majesty, and the image of his goodness. And being but one, she can do all things: and remaining in herself the same, she reneweth all things, and through nations conveyeth herself into holy souls, she maketh the friends of God and prophets. For God loveth none but him that dwelleth with wisdom. For she is more beautiful than the sun, and above all the order of the stars: being compared with the light, she is found before it. For after this cometh night, but no evil can overcome wisdom.

  Hebrews 1:1-3

  God, who, at sundry times and in divers manners, spoke in times past to the fathers by the prophets, last of all, in these days hath spoken to us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the world. Who being the effulgence of his glory, and the express image of his substance, and upholding all things by the word of his power, making purgation of sins, sitteth on the right hand of the majesty on high. Being made so much better than the angels, as he hath inherited a more excellent name than they.

Also, the word used for "effulgence" (απαυγασμα—radiance, effulgence) used in both is an extremely rare word in Greek literature, and is only used here in Hebrews 1 and Wisdom 7 in the entire Greek Bible—further excluding all doubt as to the allusion here intended;  it comes close to a quote.

  Wisdom 13:1-9; 14:22-31  1 But all men are vain, in whom there is not the knowledge of God: and who by these good things that are seen, could not understand him that is, neither by attending to the works have acknowledged who was the workman: 2 But have imagined either the fire, or the wind, or the swift air, or the circle of the stars, or the great water, or the sun and moon, to be the gods that rule the world. 3 With whose beauty, if they, being delighted, took them to be gods: let them know how much the Lord of them is more beautiful than they: for the first author of beauty made all those things. 4 Or if they admired their power and their effects, let them understand by them, that he that made them, is mightier than they: 5 For by the greatness of the beauty, and of the creature, the creator of them may be seen, so as to be known thereby. 6 But yet as to these they are less to be blamed. For they perhaps err, seeking God, and desirous to find him. 7 For being conversant among his works, they search: and they are persuaded that the things are good which are seen. 8 But then again they are not to be pardoned. 9 For if they were able to know so much as to make a judgment of the world: how did they not more easily find out the Lord thereof? ... And it was not enough for them to err about the knowledge of God, but whereas they lived in a great war of ignorance, they call so many and so great evils peace. 23 For either they sacrifice their own children, or use hidden sacrifices, or keep watches full of madness, 24 So that now they neither keep life, nor marriage undefiled, but one killeth another through envy, or grieveth him by adultery: 25 And all things are mingled together, blood, murder, theft and dissimulation, corruption and unfaithfulness, tumults and perjury, disquieting of the good, 26 Forgetfulness of God, defiling of souls, changing of nature, disorder in marriage, and the irregularity of adultery and uncleaness. 27 For the worship of abominable idols is the cause, and the beginning and end of all evil. 28 For either they are mad when they are merry: or they prophesy lies, or they live unjustly, or easily forswear themselves. 29 For whilst they trust in idols, which are without life, though they swear amiss, they look not to be hurt. 30 But for two things they shall be justly punished, because they have thought not well of God, giving heed to idols, and have sworn unjustly, in guile despising justice. 31 For it is not the power of them, by whom they swear, but the just vengeance of sinners always punisheth the transgression of the unjust.

  Romans 1:18-32 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of those men that detain the truth of God in injustice:  because that which is known of God is manifest in them. For God hath manifested it unto them. For the invisible things of him, from the creation of the world, are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made; his eternal power also, and divinity: so that they are inexcusable. Because that, when they knew God, they have not glorified him as God, or given thanks; but became vain in their thoughts, and their foolish heart was darkened. For professing themselves to be wise, they became fools. And they changed the glory of the incorruptible God into the likeness of the image of a corruptible man, and of birds, and of fourfooted beasts, and of creeping things. Wherefore God gave them up to the desires of their heart, unto uncleanness, to dishonour their own bodies among themselves. Who changed the truth of God into a lie; and worshipped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen. For this cause God delivered them up to shameful affections. For their women have changed the natural use into that use which is against nature. And, in like manner, the men also, leaving the natural use of the women, have burned in their lusts one towards another, men with men working that which is filthy, and receiving in themselves the recompense which was due to their error. And as they liked not to have God in their knowledge, God delivered them up to a reprobate sense, to do those things which are not convenient; Being filled with all iniquity, malice, fornication, avarice, wickedness, full of envy, murder, contention, deceit, malignity, whisperers, detractors, hateful to God, contumelious, proud, haughty, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, foolish, dissolute, without affection, without fidelity, without mercy. Who, having known the rightousness of God, did not understand that they who do such things, are worthy of death; and not only they that do them, but they also that consent to them that do them.

Jesus seems to make profuse use of Sirach (perhaps explaining Tosefta Yadayim cited above):

  Sirach 7:15 Be not full of words in a multitude of ancients, and repeat not the word in thy prayer.

  Matthew 6:7 And when you are praying, do not babble at length, as the heathens. For they think that in their much speaking they may be heard.

  Sirach 28:2 Forgive thy neighbour if he hath hurt thee: and then shall thy sins be forgiven to thee when thou prayest.

  Matthew 6:14 For if you will forgive men their offences, your heavenly Father will forgive you also your offences.

  Sirach 51:33-36 I have opened my mouth, and have spoken: buy her for yourselves without silver, and submit your neck to the yoke, and let your soul receive discipline: for she is near at hand to be found. Behold with your eyes how I have laboured a little, and have found much rest to myself. Receive ye discipline as a great sum of money, and possess abundance of gold by her.

  Revelation 3:18-20 I counsel thee to buy of me gold fire tried, that thou mayest be made rich; and mayest be clothed in white garments, and that the shame of thy nakedness may not appear; and anoint thy eyes with eyesalve, that thou mayest see. 19 Such as I love, I rebuke and chastise. Be zealous therefore, and do penance. 20 Behold, I stand at the gate, and knock. If any man shall hear my voice, and open to me the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me.

  Matthew 11:28-30 Come to me, all you that labour, and are burdened, and I will refresh you. Take up my yoke upon you, and learn of me, because I am meek, and humble of heart: and you shall find rest to your souls. For my yoke is sweet and my burden light.

  Sirach 4:12 Wisdom inspireth life into her children, and protecteth them that seek after her, and will go before them in the way of righteousness.

  Luke 7:35 And wisdom is justified in all her children.

  Sirach 7:19 Humble thy spirit very much: for the vengeance on the flesh of the ungodly is fire and worms.

And,

  Judith 16:20-21 Woe be to the nation that riseth up against my people: for the Lord almighty will take revenge on them, in the day of judgment he will visit them. 21 For he will give fire, and worms into their flesh, that they may burn, and may feel for ever.

  Mark 9:41-47 And whosoever shall scandalize one of these little ones that believe in me; it were better for him that a millstone were hanged around his neck, and he were cast into the sea. 42 And if thy hand scandalize thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter into life, maimed, than having two hands to go into hell, into unquenchable fire: 43 Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not extinguished. 44 And if thy foot scandalize thee, cut it off. It is better for thee to enter lame into life everlasting, than having two feet, to be cast into the hell of unquenchable fire: 45 Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not extinguished. 46 And if thy eye scandalize thee, pluck it out. It is better for thee with one eye to enter into the kingdom of God, than having two eyes to be cast into the hell of fire: 47 Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not extinguished.

And countless other possible allusions and linguistic borrowings.

At the least, Jesus and the authors of the New Testament appear to have approved of these books. I would argue they cite them in a way that impies they have authority (think Paul assuming the greater context of a passage he quotes a little of conhesively proves his point, not that they 'happened to be right,' especially with Tobit.

Moreover, many prophetic sayings are found in these books, such as Wisdom:

  Wisdom 9:19 For by Wisdom they were healed, whosoever have pleased thee, O Lord, from the beginning.

The exclusive and sole reason any man was spared since the Fall was because of Christ.

  Wisdom 14:7 For blessed is the wood by which righteousness cometh.

The Cross.

  Wisdom 2

  For they have said, reasoning with themselves, but not right: The time of our life is short and tedious, and in the end of a man there is no remedy, and no man hath been known to have returned from hell: 2 For we are born of nothing, and after this we shall be as if we had not been: for the breath in our nostrils is smoke: and speech a spark to move our heart, 3 Which being put out, our body shall be ashes, and our spirit shall be poured abroad as soft air, and our life shall pass away as the trace of a cloud, and shall be dispersed as a mist, which is driven away by the beams of the sun, and overpowered with the heat thereof: 4 And our name in time shall be forgotten, and no man shall have any remembrance of our works. 5 For our time is as the passing of a shadow, and there is no going back of our end: for it is fast sealed, and no man returneth. 6 Come therefore, and let us enjoy the good things that are present, and let us speedily use the creatures as in youth. 7 Let us fill ourselves with costly wine, and ointments: and let not the flower of the time pass by us. 8 Let us crown ourselves with roses, before they be withered: let no meadow escape our riot. 9 Let none of us go without his part in luxury: let us everywhere leave tokens of joy: for this is our portion, and this our lot. 10 Let us oppress the poor just man, and not spare the widow, nor honour the ancient grey hairs of the aged. 11 But let our strength be the law of justice: for that which is feeble, is found to be nothing worth. 12 Let us therefore lie in wait for the just, because he is not for our turn, and he is contrary to our doings, and upbraideth us with transgressions of the law, and divulgeth against us the sins of our way of life. 13 He boasteth that he hath the knowledge of God, and calleth himself the son of God. 14 He is become a censurer of our thoughts. 15 He is grievous unto us, even to behold: for his life is not like other men's, and his ways are very different. 16 We are esteemed by him as triflers, and he abstaineth from our ways as from filthiness, and he preferreth the latter end of the just, and glorieth that he hath God for his father. 17 Let us see then if his words be true, and let us prove what shall happen to him, and we shall know what his end shall be. 18 For if he be the true son of God, he will defend him, and will deliver him from the hands of his enemies. 19 Let us examine him by outrages and tortures, that we may know his meekness and try his patience. 20 Let us condemn him to a most shameful death: for there shall be respect had unto him by his words. 21 These things they thought, and were deceived: for their own malice blinded them. 22 And they knew not the secrets of God, nor hoped for the wages of justice, nor esteemed the honour of holy souls. 23 For God created man incorruptible, and to the image of his own likeness he made him. 24 But by the envy of the devil, death came into the world: 25 And they follow him that are of his side.

The conspiracy against Christ.
(Wis. 2:20 | Jas. 5:6; Wis. 2:3 | Jas. 4:14; Wis. 2:12,20 | Acts 7:51-53; Wis. 2:12 | Mt. 23/Jn.7:19; Wis. 2:15-16  | Jn. 7:46/Mt. 23:27-28/Jn. 5:18; Wis. 2:16 | Mt. 5:2-10; Wis. 2:17-18 | Mt. 27:41-43. Wis. 2:19 (cf. Jas. 5:6) | Jn. 11:46-48, 53; 19:1/ Mt. 26:67/ Lk. 24:20)

Conclusion

The canon is not clearly outlined in Scripture itself (and to seek it therein is to already assume, not prove, a canon), and any 'it seems to be the Word of God' or 'it seems not to be the Word of God' argument is inherently subjective, and presupposes a canon of works on which to base such a judgement. Therefore, the canon is something settled by an authority higher than mere subjective feeling—but not by post-Christian Rabbis who rise no higher than such. According to the ancient Church, the Church settled the canon, with its inherent power to bind and loose matters upon the faithful, and when it did meet to settled the issue of canon, it settled upon the Catholic canon of the Bible.6

Thus, at best, the notion that Jews or Jesus rejected these books before the Rabbis of the second century and beyond is unfounded, and based on no evidence from history. At best, one has to trust the "decision" made by the Rabbis in the second century on what is Scripture or not, in order to condemn these books found in the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Septuagint, and moreover the Ethiopian Jews' canon.

Footnotes

1 In Luke 11:51/Matthew 23:35, often cited by Protestants, Jesus is not talking about inspiration or the extent of the canon, but the prophets who were murdered by their own people. It's more likely He is picking examples of righteous men speaking the truth, and for that reason being murdered, which He identifies Himself with (Jn. 7:19; cf. Mt. 21:37-38). Moreover, at best, one would have to demand we see "Zechariah son of Barachiah" as the same person as the Zechariah mentioned in the Old Testament, "Zechariah son of . Cf. Eph. 4:11; 2 Pet. 3:15-16; Rev. 22:18.

2 Composed in Talmudic Babylon, 450-550 A.D.

3 It's not necessary to cite early Christian usage of these books, since it's so ubiquitous and known already.

4 The Jewish Rabbis of the Talmudic era were wont to call Gospel books even gilyon ("Perverse Scroll") or avon gilyon ("Iniquitous Scroll"), both plays on the Greek word for gospel, euangelion. (Shabbat 116a)

5 Raphael is Hebrew for "Healing of God" It could also have said, "I am the angel of God's healing." Proves the Hebrew origin of the work.

6 E.g. St. Jerome is epitomic, "For the studies of the Hebrews rebuke us and find fault with us, to translate this [book of Tobit] for the ears of Latins contrary to their canon. But it is better to be judging the opinion of the Pharisees to displease and to be subject to the commands of bishops." (Preface to Tobit). "this book is found by the Council of Nicaea to have been counted among the number of the Sacred Scriptures" (Preface to Judith). The local Councils of Hippo, Rome, and Carthage, in the fourth century, and Ecumenical Councils of Nicaea II, Florence (with which the Eastern Orthodox agreed for a brief period) and the Council of Trent in the middle ages, all confirm the same canon of the Old Testament.


What does Jesus say about your spirit going to heaven?

Excellent question.  You're right, there doesn't seem to be a whole lot on the topic in Scripture, so I'm going to give this the best try I can.

Jesus seems to imply that his spirit will be with God the Father when he died.

Luke 23:46:

  Jesus called out with a loud voice, “Father, into your hands I commit
  my spirit.” When he had said this, he breathed his last.

This seems to me to be an assumption that at least his spirit will be with God the Father.  We could then conclude from other passages in scripture, including those that indicate that Christ is the firstborn of all creation, and those in Romans 5 comparing and contrasting Christ to Adam, that our spirits will also be in heaven with Christ if we're found in Him.

The only other area I could find directly from Jesus mouth is when he's talking to Nicodemus in John 3, and this is probably where the greatest evidence for spirits in heaven exists.

John 3:5-6:

  Jesus answered, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of
  water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. That which
  is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is
  spirit."

It seems like these two verses can be taken together to say that the Holy Spirit is the spiritual analogue to a human mother, and nobody can enter into the kingdom of God unless they are born of the Spirit, that is, unless they have a spirit.  Essentially, he seems to be saying that flesh doesn't enter into the Kingdom of God, but spirit does.

Of course, accepting this interpretation depends on your view of the relationship between the Kingdom of God and the Kingdom of Heaven.


Do Luke 1:48 and Luke 11:27-28 contradict each other?

Jesus' answer emphasizes what is more important. It is more important that a person hear the word of God and obey it than to be chosen by God for some special task. Not everyone will be chosen for a special position, but anyone can choose to obey God.

Jesus puts things regarding (his own) family into perspective: they are not as important as seeking the kingdom of God. When his family shows up, seemingly to talk some sense into him, Jesus tells the crowd:

  Matthew 12:50 (NASB) (also Mk 3:35)
  "For whoever does the will of My Father who is in heaven, he is My brother and sister and mother."

Regarding familial relationships and the call of God, he says:

  Luke 12:51,53 (NASB)
  "Do you suppose that I came to grant peace on earth? I tell you, no, but rather division; ... They will be divided, father against son and son against father, ..."

Nothing is more important than responding to God's call.

I don't think it's necessary to conclude that Jesus rejects his mother's happiness or her elevated position. He only tells the rest of us: don't wish you were her; instead, obey God.


Scholars who have attempted a synchronized harmony of the Gospels seem to indicate the Jesus went up to Jerusalem on three different occasions. From this, the tradition has grown up that his ministry was three years.

Beyond this interpolation, however, there is nothing to suggest how long his earthly ministry actually lasted. As such, it is probably best to say his ministry lasted at least three years.

Then again, after reading Mark keep saying "and he went immediately", you have gotten the impression it was just a few days :). But, overall, it does seem that the various times Jesus shows up in Jerusalem lend weight to at least 3 years.


Was Bible Revealed to Jesus? (Christian Perspective)

Hi and welcome to the site. Thanks for asking questions.

You are correct when you write that the New Testament was written ABOUT Jesus. It was not written by him, at least not in the sense that he put pen to paper, or dictated the words. Your quote from Wikipedia, while it may correctly describe Muslim belief, certainly does not describe Christian belief on the subject. Many parts of the New Testament were clearly not written until many years after Jesus died and ascended to heaven. If you read the New Testament you will find that many of the author's names are given in the text - for example the four Gospels (Matthew, Mark Luke and John) were written by people of that name who either knew Jesus or collected stories about him or teachings he had given, and wrote them down so they would not be forgotten. Many of the later books were in fact letters, written mainly the Apostle Paul. The letters themselves state that they are authored by Paul, and could not have been truthfully dictated by Jesus.

Where you are incorrect is in saying the the Bible is not a divine book - at least as far as Christians are concerned. Christian belief is that God caused the Bible to be written in exactly the way he wanted it, but did so through the knowledge and minds of the people who wrote it down. Christians believe that it is inspired by God and therefore infallible.

There is another sense in which you are not quite correct. Christians believe that Jesus is in fact God, at least in some sense (if you are not familiar with Christian belief in this area it's not simple enough to go into here). Because of this it is correct to say that at least in some way Jesus is the author of both the Old and New Testaments.

By the way the Zabur is attributed to David in the Quran, not to Moses. The Tawrat is the message attributed to Moses. Neither can be equated to the whole Old Testament, but only to parts of it. Much of the Old Testament was written after the deaths of both Moses and David. Also the Islam term Injeel refers not to the entire New Testament but to the Gospel (supposedly the original Gospel of Jesus).


Are the Sorrowful Mysteries recited when Christmas is on a Friday?

Keep in mind that there is no “official” or “correct” way to pray the Rosary. The Rosary is just a devotion, and if someone prays it, he should do so in the way that is most helpful to him.

However, it is recommended that the mysteries contemplated should correspond the liturgical calendar.

For example (as the O.P. asks), it would seem fitting to pray the Joyful Mysteries on Christmas Day, even when Christmas falls on a Friday.

This kind of “change of mysteries” would apply on any solemnity, feast, or memorial that celebrates one of the mysteries in the Rosary.

For example, one would normally pray the Joyful Mysteries on the following days:

The Solemnity of the Annunciation, celebrated ordinarily on March 25.
Christmas Day (which is a solemnity, as mentioned above).
The Feast of the Visitation, celebrated on May 31.
The Feast of the Presentation, celebrated on February 2.

The Sorrowful Mysteries, on the following days:

Palm Sunday.
Good Friday.
Holy Saturday. (Many people also elect to pray the Sorrowful Mysteries during all of Holy Week.)
The Feast of the Exaltation of the Holy Cross, celebrated on September 14.

The Glorious Mysteries (those that do not already coincide with a Sunday):

The Solemnity of the Ascension, even where it is celebrated on a Thursday.
The Solemnity of the Assumption, celebrated on August 15.
The Memorial of the Queenship of Mary, celebrated on August 22.

For those who follow the recommendations of John Paul II's Rosarium Virginis Mariae, which recommends praying the so-called Luminous Mysteries on Thursdays and the Joyful Mysteries on Saturdays, the Luminous Mysteries would be prayed on the following days (when they do not already correspond to Thursday):

The Feast of the Baptism of the Lord, the Sunday after the Epiphany.
The Feast of the Transfiguration, celebrated on August 6.
Possibly the Solemnity of Corpus Christi, even when it is celebrated on a Sunday. (Corpus Christi is traditionally celebrated on the Thursday after Trinity Sunday; in most jurisdictions, the solemnity is moved to the nearest Sunday.)


Theophylact was an Eastern Orthodox archbishop of Ohrid.  He is considered a saint.  He lived from about 1055-1107.

He was involved in two of the causal primary disputes after the Great Schism of 1054 about the filioque and nature of bread Christ used at the Last Supper (either leavened-Greek or unleavened-Latin).

He absolutely refused to bend on the first issue, though acknowledging the Latins may have lacked clear specific language on the issue.  On the second issue, he acknowledged that Christ would have used unleavened bread, but that it was not a binding tradition.

He is well respected for his exegesis of books of the Bible.

History of the Christian Church, Volume IV: Mediaeval Christianity. A.D. 590-1073

Ohrid (Wikipedia)

Theophylact of Ohrid (Wikipedia)

Chrysostom Press


What was the miracle of Blessed Luigi and Maria Beltrame Quattrocch?

That took some digging, but I found it (at the National Catholic Reporter no less)

  A miracle — the prerequisite to any beatification — is attributed to the couple. It involves the cure of a young man suffering from a severe circulatory disorder. He is now a 35-year-old neurosurgeon in Milan.

http://natcath.org/NCR_Online/archives2/2001d/122801/122801a.htm

A miracle is not necessary for beatification if they're martyred, but the couple wasn't Martyred.

There is another couple who has recently been beatified, St. Therese of Lisieux's parents
Bl. Louis Martin and Bl. Marie-Azélie Guérin.  Apparently in cases of Married Blesseds, which there have not been many, the faithful can pray for their intercession for a join miracle, that's pretty neat.


Authenticity of the Pontius Pilate's letter to Tiberius Caesar?

I would say probable forgery. First searching for the letter before a link/source was added revealed at least 3 letters, each is written differently:

Letter of Pilate to Tiberius 1 - Unable to verify by finding an image of the original Greek manuscript
Letter from Pontius Pilate to Tiberius Caesar - mentions Copies are in the Congressional Library in Washington, D.C. but initial searches reveal nothing, and some sites say mention:

  "The Library of Congress has received a number of inquiries over the years about a purported letter from Pontius Pilate to Tiberius Caesar concerning Jesus Christ. The Library does not have such a letter in its collections".

Fraud by Pilate Letter - although this seems to be claiming the letter is false (I google translated it), the text of this letter is unique from the other two. This also mentions a fiction book, Letters of Pontius Pilate, published in 1928 which may be the basis for many of the supposed letters that mention Jesus
Historic Letter written by Pontius Pilate to Tiberius Caesar - mentioned in OP question mentions it is in the British Museum but searches on that site and of the British Museum Library reveal nothing

I've found a supposed response from the British Museum

  There are no surviving original letters by Herod or Pontius Pilate, to each other or to anyone else. Any manuscripts of them which do exist are forgeries or much later copies. A Syriac MS in the British Library Oriental Collections (reference number Add. 14609) contains a 6th or 7th Century copy of the letters. Here is the catalogue description of the MS:

  THE DOCTRINE Of St. Peter;-The life of St. Anthony, by St. Athan-
  asius;-Account of the Monks in Egypt;-Life of Serapion;-
  Letter of Herod to Pilate, and of Pilate to Herod;-The Recogni-
  tions of St. Clement. On vellum, of the vith or viith century.
  Quarto. [14,609.]

  There are many modern texts and English translations of the letters, including the one on the website link you gave.

  I hope this helps.

  Yours sincerely,

  Zoë Stansell 2

  MSS Enquiries

In favor of the a letter from Pilate concerning Jesus is this book, Archaeological Writings of the Sanhedrin and Talmuds of the Jews by William Dennes Mahan, page 205. This and other sources might be considered pseudipigrapha and Apocrypha.

One to thing to remember is that Pontius Pilate was a Roman prefect for the province of Judaea under Empereor Tiberius Caesar. There probably was correspondences, reports, and/or letters between them.

To answer the second question there is an article talking about when one letter was discovered in Liverpool in 1964 and goes into detail on why he believes it to be a fraud.

Emphasis added by me

1 source is Ante-Nicene Fathers page 459, which is also in English

2 She appears to actually work at the British Library, see the author


Does Jesus do for Gentiles what the Torah does for Jews?

The book the question refers to does not seem to have a correct understanding of the gospel. There is only one gospel which is for both Jews and Gentiles, and Paul clearly taught that.
The beginning of Romans (1:18-3:20) shows that everyone, both Jews and Gentiles, are condemned by their sin. At the very end Paul says what he thought the purpose of the law was:

Obviously, the law applies to those to whom it was given, for its purpose is to keep people from having excuses, and to show that the entire world is guilty before God. For no one can ever be made right with God by doing what the law commands. The law simply shows us how sinful we are. (Romans 3:19-20, NLT)

So "What Torah does for Jews" is condemn them!
What Jesus did, through dying on the cross and coming back to life again, is provide a way for us to receive God's righteousness. This is what the following verses say:

But now God has shown us a way to be made right with him without keeping the requirements of the law, as was promised in the writings of Moses and the prophets long ago. We are made right with God by placing our faith in Jesus Christ. And this is true for everyone who believes, no matter who we are.
For everyone has sinned; we all fall short of God’s glorious standard. Yet God freely and graciously declares that we are righteous. He did this through Christ Jesus when he freed us from the penalty for our sins. For God presented Jesus as the sacrifice for sin. People are made right with God when they believe that Jesus sacrificed his life, shedding his blood. This sacrifice shows that God was being fair when he held back and did not punish those who sinned in times past, for he was looking ahead and including them in what he would do in this present time. God did this to demonstrate his righteousness, for he himself is fair and just, and he declares sinners to be right in his sight when they believe in Jesus. (Romans 3:21-26, NLT)

Several times Paul says very explicitly that the gospel is for both the Jews and Gentiles:

For I am not ashamed of this Good News about Christ. It is the power of God at work, saving everyone who believes—the Jew first and also the Gentile. (Romans 1:16, NLT)
There will be trouble and calamity for everyone who keeps on doing what is evil—for the Jew first and also for the Gentile. But there will be glory and honor and peace from God for all who do good—for the Jew first and also for the Gentile. For God does not show favoritism. (Romans 2:9-11, NLT)


The only time I've encountered similar labels was when people were talking about the Charismatic Renewal, which is a Catholic approach to speaking in tongues, baptism of the Spirit, etc.

Having come from a Protestant denomination, the outward manifestations do not strike me as terribly different, but the Catholics are clearly Catholic in other practices and theology.


How do Lutherans have their sin forgiven?

Lutherans have their sins forgiven after confession to a pastor who can absolve the penitent.  Here is an extract from an article that discusses the subject at some length:

  The Lutheran Church practices "Confession and Absolution" [referred to as the Office of the Keys] with the emphasis on the absolution, which is God's word of forgiveness. Indeed, Lutherans highly regard Holy Absolution...  In confession, the penitent makes an act of contrition, as the pastor, acting in persona Christi, announces the formula of absolution. Prior to the confession, the penitent is to review the Ten Commandments to examine his or her conscience. In the Lutheran Church, like the Roman Catholic Church, the pastor is bound by the Seal of the Confessional. Luther's Small Catechism says "the pastor is pledged not to tell anyone else of sins to him in private confession, for those sins have been removed." If the Seal is broken, it will result in excommunication.

  In line with Luther's initial statement in his Large Catechism, some Lutherans speak of only two sacraments, Baptism and the Eucharist, although later in the same work he calls Confession and Absolution "the third sacrament." The definition of sacrament in the Apology of the Augsburg Confession lists Absolution as one of them. Luther went to confession all his life.

  The Lutheran reformers held that a complete enumeration of sins is impossible and that one's confidence of forgiveness is not to be based on the sincerity of one's contrition nor on one's doing works of satisfaction imposed by the confessor (penance)...  The Lutheran reformers abolished the "satisfaction of deeds," holding that confession and absolution consist of only two parts: the confession of the penitent and the absolution spoken by the confessor.  Faith or trust in Jesus' complete active and passive satisfaction is what receives the forgiveness and salvation won by him and imparted to the penitent by the word of absolution.  Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confession_(Lutheran_Church)

Another article, “What about… Confession and Absolution?” by Dr. A. L. Barry, 10th President (1992-2001),the Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod, has this to say:

  Confession has two parts. First, that we confess our sins, and second, that we receive absolution, that is, forgiveness, from the pastor as from God Himself not doubting, but firmly believing that by it our sins are forgiven before God in heaven...  Absolution is the ongoing work of Holy Baptism, in which our old, sinful nature in Adam is drowned and the new man in Christ arises. Through Holy Absolution we receive “the gift of God,” which is forgiveness of sins and “eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord” (Rom. 6:23)...  Confessing our sins in the Divine Service, we hear the Lord’s servant, our pastor, absolve our sins in the name of Christ. Privately, we go to the pastor for confession and absolution precisely for those sins we are most aware of and those sins that are particularly troubling to us. These we confess to our pastor and hear the words of Christ, “I forgive you.”

  At times, our pastors, with considerable sorrow, may have to tell a person not to attend the Lord’s Supper until he or she has repented of sin. If the situation continues without repentance, the pastor may have to declare to the person, on behalf of the congregation that has made this decision, that he or she is excluded from the church until there is repentance.  Excommunication is a last resort to help a person recognize the extremely dangerous situation he has placed himself in because he will not repent of his sin. It is a final attempt to win someone back from Satan’s influence.   Source: https://www.faithlutherancorning.org/confession-absolution

The Lutheran Church believes that repeated sin hardens the heart and may lead to sinning against the Holy Spirit.  Also, as noted in the previous extract above, unrepentant and repeated sin could result in being excommunicated:

  SIN: Transgression of God's law (Ro 4:15; 1 Jn 3:4). Sin may be divided into original sin (see Sin, Original) and actual sin. Actual sin (every act, thought, emotion (e.g., lust*) conflicting with God's law) may be involuntary or may be done ignorantly (Acts 17:30) and includes sins of commission (cf., e.g., Mt 15:19; Ja 1:15) and sins of omission (Ja 4:17). Sin arouses God's righteous wrath and deserves His punishment. Willful sin sears conscience*; repeated, it hardens the heart; may lead to, but is not identical with, the unpardonable sin against the Holy Spirit.’  (http://cyclopedia.lcms.org/display.asp?t1=s&word=SIN

With regard to venial and mortal sin, there is no mention of venial sin, only that all sins manifest total corruption and are deadly:

  VENIAL AND MORTAL SINS: The Lutheran Confessions speak of sin* that is mortal, or deadly, i. e., irreconcilable with faith (Ap IV 48, 64, 109, 115). When believers fall into open sin, faith has departed (SA-III III 43–44). One who obeys his lusts does not retain faith (Ap IV 144). Original sin (see Sin, Original) is mortal; it brings eternal death on those who are not born again (AC II 2 Lat.). One who is dead in sin is insensitive to sin (LC, V: The Sacrament of the Altar, 77–78). Sins remain in believers (SA-III III 40; FC SD II 34). Many regard the following as 7 deadly sins, fatal to spiritual progress: pride,* covetousness,* lust,* anger, gluttony, envy,* sloth. But man cannot weigh, distinguish, or differentiate sins; all sins manifest total corruption (SA-III III 36–38), merit God's wrath (Mt 5:18–19; Gl 3:10; Ja 2:10), and are deadly (Eze 18:4; Ro 6:23); every sin loses its deadly effect when Christ, apprehended by faith, intervenes (Ro 8:l; 1 Jn 1:7, 9; 2:1–2). Source: http://cyclopedia.lcms.org/display.asp?t1=s&word=SINS.VENIALANDMORTAL

Another source of information said this:

  The Forgiveness of Sins – Introduction: The Bible reveals that we are accepted by God through the forgiveness of sins in Christ.
  Conclusion: God has declared the world righteous in Christ (objective justification).  He justifies each sinner personally and grants the forgiveness of sins when the Holy Spirit gives faith in Christ (subjective justification).  Although the believer will never be entirely free from sin in this life, the believer wants to turn daily from sin to good works.  The Holy Spirit renews the believer with a daily sanctification so that in the new life of faith, the Christian can offer good works as a thank offering to His Savior God.  Source: https://havasulutherans.org/catechism-explanation/forgiveness-sins/

Finally, I found a 2007 article from the official newspaper of the Lutheran Church, Missouri Synod, which answers the question, “What Gives the Pastor the Power to Absolve?  https://blogs.lcms.org/2007/what-gives-the-pastor-the-power-to-absolve-5-2007/


How widespread is panentheism within Protestant schools of thought?

This is a fantastic question. Here's my answer.

Firstly, I would argue that the definition you use from Oxford English Dictionary is actually not as encompassing of the actual theology as it could be. Going against Oxford English Dictionary is a bold claim, so I'll provide another definition.

Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

  “Panentheism” is a constructed word composed of the English equivalents of the Greek terms “pan”, meaning all, “en”, meaning in, and “theism”, meaning God. Panentheism considers God and the world to be inter-related with the world being in God and God being in the world. It offers an increasingly popular alternative to both traditional theism and pantheism. Panentheism seeks to avoid either isolating God from the world as traditional theism often does or identifying God with the world as pantheism does. Traditional theistic systems emphasize the difference between God and the world while panentheism stresses God's active presence in the world. Pantheism emphasizes God's presence in the world but panentheism maintains the identity and significance of the non-divine.

With this more elaborate denotation we can move on to the questions.

  What does panentheism imply that a classical Christian formulation of omnipresence does not?

Panentheism implies that creation itself is 'in' God, and that God is 'in' creation. The latter phraseology does not seem very threatening to classical theists. So it is that Thomas Aquinas writes the following:

  God is in all things; not, indeed, as part of their essence, nor as an accident, but as an agent is present to that upon which it works. For an agent must be joined to that wherein it acts immediately and touch it by its power.

Aquinas, who is often regarded as the greatest classical theistic thinker of all time, makes note of the difference between two understandings of how God is present in all things; though Aquinas does not name them, it is clear to the reader that Aquinas is comparing panentheism and omnipresence. While God is 'in' all things, God is not in the essence of the said things, but rather is present to them, so as to ground their own essence in His essence of 'being'. This is very complicated speech for one unfamiliar with Aristotelian language.

To simplify the argument, think about moving a ball. The essence of the ball's motion is grounded in your moving it, but in some capacity there is a distinction between yourself and the moving ball as regards the nature of movement in both. You are not 'in' the motion of the ball; your type of 'motion' is the independent source of the moving ball. This analogy is primitive and should not be too deeply analyzed, but it is somewhat a more simple way of looking at the panentheism-omnipresence discussion. Panentheism holds that God is in the reality of our being, as a part of our essence. It holds that your movement is 'in' the ball, as a part of its own essence. Omnipresence holds that God is present to creation in order to sustain their independent essences of 'being'. It holds that your movement is distinct from the ball's movement, and that the ball's movement is due to your presence, that is by necessity outside of itself entirely, but also 'present' to and 'in' the ball. God in His entirety is not within and bound to His creation anymore than you are within the ball; God is present to the creation, just as you are present to the ball. Omnipresence does not imply that God is within everything's essence; only that He is present to everything's essence, sustaining its existence.

Although panentheism might seem the more 'mystical' and 'complicated' view of God, it holds poorly against the far more mysterious doctrine of omnipresence. Panentheism can be dismissed in a rather short paragraph. Omnipresence requires far more extensive understanding of the universe and God.

  How widespread is panentheism within Protestantism?

The most predominant denomination that I would say actually supports panentheism (the real deal, not Orthodox or Roman Catholic 'mysticism') is the Unitarian Church. As of 2012 there were about 343,000 adherents to Unitarian Universalism worldwide. The problem with noticing panentheism's influence is in the obscurity of its meaning; it is very closely associated with omnipresence and many people who state that God is 'in' creation typically do not mean it in the way panentheism is implying. As stated above, I don't buy into attempts to think that many Orthodox and Catholic thinkers hold to panentheism. The result of people believing such is likely selective reading and a misinterpretation of poetical speech.

  What problems do Protestants who reject basic panentheism have with it? By basic panentheism, I mean a panentheism that isn't attached to open theism and the other problematic doctrines mentioned above.

The problem with panentheism as a philosophy remains the same in its most basic sense without any additional interpretations or doctrines added to it. It is this same problem that most Protestants understand if they reject panentheism. Famous Protestant theologian William Lane Craig thus writes the following:

  It should go without saying that the justification for panentheism cannot be biblical revelation or teaching. For the Bible knows nothing of the doctrine that the world is part of God.


According to traditional Catholicism, what is the spiritual solution for the divorcee who hasn't had their marriage annulled?

Let's start with a discussion of what the situation is, as the Church traditionally has seen and taught it:

The official teaching of the Church is that civil divorce is usually immoral in itself, but may be morally tolerable under certain circumstances:

  If civil divorce remains the only possible way of ensuring certain legal rights, the care of the children, or the protection of inheritance, it can be tolerated and does not constitute a moral offense.

(Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraph 2383)

And a Catholic who is "the innocent victim of a divorce decreed by civil law" (Catechism paragraph 2386) is not committing a moral offense.

However, even in these two cases, the Church teaches that the civil divorce does not in itself end the marriage before God - indeed, that is impossible if the marriage is valid:

  A marriage that is ratum et consummatum [that is, validly constituted, and subsequently consummated] can be dissolved by no human power and by no cause, except death.

(Code of Canon Law, Canon 1141)

That being the case, the question of whether the couple are "still married"—that is, whether they were validly married in the first place—must be investigated beyond determination of their divorced status. The Church will presume, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, that the couple are indeed still married, because this is how the Church works: it assumes a marriage is valid until it can demonstrate it to be invalid:

  In a doubtful matter marriage enjoys the favor of the law.

(Code of Canon Law, canon 1150)

Thus, the traditional Catholic view is that a divorced couple who have not obtained a decree of nullity (an annulment) are still considered married.

This is not a problem in itself; but if the couple is remarried (civilly—they wouldn't be able to be remarried in the Church), the Church considers them to be committing adultery:

  If a husband, separated from his wife, approaches another woman, he is an adulterer because he makes that woman commit adultery; and the woman who lives with him is an adulteress, because she has drawn another’s husband to herself.

(Catechism, paragraph 2384, quoting St. Basil, Moralia paragraph 73)

Adultery being a quite serious sin, the Church teaches that the civilly remarried couple are not fit to receive the Eucharist:

  If the divorced are remarried civilly, they find themselves in a situation that objectively contravenes God’s law. Consequently, they cannot receive Eucharistic communion as long as this situation persists.

(Catechism paragraph 1650)

The Catechism of the Catholic Church does offer some suggestion about what to do in such a case:

  Reconciliation through the sacrament of Penance can be granted only to those who have repented for having violated the sign of the covenant and of fidelity to Christ, and who are committed to living in complete continence. ... They should be encouraged to listen to the Word of God, to attend the Sacrifice of the Mass, to persevere in prayer, to contribute to works of charity and to community efforts for justice, to bring up their children in the Christian faith, to cultivate the spirit and practice of penance and thus implore, day by day, God’s grace.

(Catechism para. 1650–51; the second sentence is quoted from Familiaris Consortio)

It is not specified what "in complete continence" means; it could mean that the remarried couple is to separate, or at least that they are to live together without sexual or romantic activity of any sort—either of which would be no doubt rough on their relationship, and certainly on any children of their union. The Church nowhere seems to teach that someone must go back to their previous marriage, though perhaps that might be suggested by individuals whom the couples could consult for guidance. It appears to prefer that, since the civilly divorced couple have given an indication that they are unable to live together, they should live separately and in celibacy—either with or without the company of their civilly-remarried spouse.

This is no doubt "a hard saying" (cf John 6:60); many in such a situation understandably feel that the Church is abandoning them. Nevertheless, the Church currently teaches that this is the only way available to insist on (a) the holiness of the Eucharist and (b) the lifelong nature of marriage. Those who are searching for a different approach do so out of pastoral feelings for Catholics affected by the situation, which they are trying to reconcile with the formal teachings of the Church.


Who is this member of the Catholic Church?

This person is a deacon, which can be discerned from the fact that he is wearing the dalmatic, the deacon’s traditional vestment. (Based on the background and the logo of the Vatican Television Center, this appears to be in St. Peter’s Basilica; I suspect this deacon is proclaiming the Gospel, or—if this was taken at the Easter Vigil—the Easter Proclamation or Exsultet.)


What happens to those saved during the millennial reign that die? (Premillennialist perspective)

The passage you link to is Isaiah 65:20:

Never again will there be in it an infant who lives but a few days, or an old man who does not live out his years; he who dies at a hundred will be thought a mere youth; he who fails to reach a hundred will be considered accursed.

Your assumption is that this is referring to Christians. However, we know that during the Millenium there will be Christians and non-Christians (either those that come out of the Tribulation or perhaps people born during these 1000 years):

Revelation 20:7-8
 When the thousand years are over, Satan will be released from his prison and will go out to deceive the nations in the four corners of the earth—Gog and Magog—to gather them for battle. In number they are like the sand on the seashore.

So my understanding is that Christians will all have their resurrected, immortal bodies during the Millenium, and non-Christians will not.
Unfortunately, this theory does not address what happens to people who become Christians during this time!


What are the main views on who created God?

This question is not answerable from a Christian perspective; it presupposes God was created, but the Bible clearly teaches that God is eternal (in the truest sense of the word).  An eternal being has no creator, no beginning, no end, and no cause.  Rather he is the creator of all that is, the beginning and the end of all that is, and the cause of all that is.

Note, don't confuse eternal (having no beginning or end) with everlasting (just having no end).  An eternal being is literally timeless, whereas an everlasting being exists in time and lasts from it's inception forever.  An eternal being is everlasting, but an everlasting being is not necessarily eternal.  Only God is eternal, though Christians will be raised to everlasting life in Christ.

Note also that when the Bible speaks of eternal life, it means the life that comes from Christ, which is itself eternal as Christ is; it is not speaking of those of us who receive this life somehow becoming eternal, per se.

For reference, Biblical teaching of God's eternal nature:

Genesis 21:33
 Abraham planted a tamarisk tree in Beersheba, and there he called on the name of the LORD, the Eternal God.
Deuteronomy 33:27
 The eternal God is your refuge, and underneath are the everlasting arms. He will drive out your enemies before you, saying, 'Destroy them!'
Psalm 111:10
 The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom; all who follow his precepts have good understanding. To him belongs eternal praise.
Psalm 119:89
 Your word, LORD, is eternal; it stands firm in the heavens.
Psalm 119:160
 All your words are true; all your righteous laws are eternal.
Isaiah 26:4
 Trust in the LORD forever, for the LORD, the LORD himself, is the Rock eternal.


According to Trinitarians, why does Jesus glorifying himself amount to nothing?

There is a lack of appreciation for the fine and complex texture depicted of the existential and operational relationships among the three of the Divine Trinity in the activities of the incarnated Son.
Especially in John, there is an almost maddening interplay between the operations of the Son of God and those of the Father and the Spirit.
We are not observing the life of simply a man nor of God become a man in the simple sense of who God is; instead, we are seeing the entire Triune God in operation in the actions of the human life of the incarnated Son of God.
As Jesus is about to die and resurrect for our redemption and justification, the Son asks the Father to glorify Him withthat eternal glory once set aside, and in doing so, to glorify Himself along with the Son.
In so saying, the Son enunciates a principle within the Trinity, that is, that the Son is glorified in the glorification of the Father and the Father is glorified in the glorification of the Son. So in this case, God and man are joined together as one entity, living and working together as one. So, if the Son in His humanity glorify himself, it is nothing and meaningless because all He express is just Himself.
The prime function of the Son’s incarnation was to glorify the Father on earth, and the Son fulfilled this mission by finishing the work the Father had given Him to do (John 17:4). This mutual glorification can hardly be viewed as two separate actions of the Father and the Son, but as one action in which the Father and the Son both act; however, the agency of each has a distinct object —the other— and the agency of each requires the operation of the other. So blended are the actions and operations of the Father and the Son in this mutual glorification that in one breath the Son can speak of Himself being glorified and in the next of the Father being glorified (John 12:23, 28).
Torrance puts this clearly:

It was, of course, not the Godhead or the Being of God as such who
became incarnate, but the Son of God, not the Father or the Spirit,
who came among us, certainly from the Being of the Father and as
completely homoousios with him, yet because in him the fullness of the
Godhead dwells, the whole undivided Trinity must be recognised as
participating in the incarnate Life and Work of Christ. - Thomas F.
Torrance, The Christian Doctrine of God: One Being Three Persons
(London: T&T Clark, 1996), p. 108
Since God’s Being and Activity completely interpenetrate each other,
we must think of his Being and his Activity not separately but as one
Being-in-Activity and one Activity-in- Being. In other words, the
Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit always act together in every
divine operation whether in creation or redemption, yet in such a way
that the distinctive activities of the Father, the Son and the Holy
Spirit, are always maintained, in accordance with the propriety and
otherness of their Persons as the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.
This may be called the ‘perichoretic coactivity of the Holy Trinity’…
The primary distinction was made there, of course, for it was the Son
or Word of God who became incarnate, was born of the Virgin Mary, was
crucified under Pontius Pilate, and rose again from the grave, and not
the Father or the Holy Spirit, although the whole life and activity of
Jesus from his birth to his death and resurrection did not take place
apart from the presence and coactivity of the Father and the Spirit.

Ibid., pp. 197-198

Some other quotes that helps to describe this reality:

Perichoresis means that not only do the three members of the Trinity
interpenetrate one another, but all three are involved in all the
works of God. While certain works are primarily or more centrally the
doing of one of these rather than the others, all participate to some
degree in what is done. Thus, while redemption is obviously the work
of the incarnate Son, the Father and the Spirit are also involved. -
Millard J. Erickson, God in Three Persons: A Contemporary
Interpretation of the Trinity (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1995),
p. 235

When Scripture ascribes certain works specifically to the Father,
others specifically to the Son, and still others specifically to the
Holy Spirit, we are compelled to presuppose a genuine distinction
within the Godhead back of that ascription. On the other hand, the
work ascribed to any of the persons is the work of one absolute
person. - Cornelius Van Til, An Introduction to Systematic Theology
(Philadelphia, PA: Westminster Theological Seminary, 1961), p. 228

When believers complain that they cannot distinguish between the
separate activities in their lives of the Father, the Risen Lord, and
the Holy Spirit, the matter is sometimes phrased in a way that
obscures God’s unity, a fundamental doctrine of both the Old and New
Testament. Every action of any of the persons of the Trinity is an
action of God, although in many actions the persons of the Godhead may
be active in different ways. All authentic spiritual experience is an
experience of the one God. - Carl F. H. Henry, God, Revelation and
Authority, VI:2 (Waco, TX: Word Books, 1983), p. 400


How many copies of the Bible are there per capita?

The latest from Barna Research says there are 4.7 Bibles per household. An interesting New Yorker article (about how publishers love printing new editions of the Bible) touches on the difficulty of estimating such figures, but gives the printed-per-year number as about 25 million. I'm sure that difficulty would be greatly compounded for international figures given the variety of versions, languages, illegal copies, etc. At any rate, I couldn't find any reliable sources with worldwide figures, but the websites that I have found with figures seem to put it in the .5 to 1 Bible per person ballpark.


As a lifelong Protestant whom most people accept as being 'evangelical' I would say the following :
There are many examples and this is but one [Acts 8:27-29, KJV] :

Behold, a man of Ethiopia, an eunuch of great authority under Candace queen of the Ethiopians, who had the charge of all her treasure, and had come to Jerusalem for to worship, was returning, and sitting in his chariot read Esaias the prophet.
Then the Spirit said unto Philip, Go near, and join thyself to this chariot.

Here we see God, the Holy Spirit, communicate directly to Philip, in spirit, without any physical intervention, without any other agency and without any manifestation.

From the OP's comments I would suggest it may be helpful to consider I Theesalonians 4:14 :

For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so them also which sleep in Jesus will God bring with him.[KJV]

Human minds are immaterial but require the material presence of a brain in order to communicate intelligently and logically. The question of whether a human spirit can 'communicate' without a brain or by by-passing the brain is somewhat hypothetical.
Disembodied human spirits 'sleep'. And the question of 'communication' then becomes totally hypothetical. If we die in the Lord, we shall experience whatever that 'sleep' is.
The disembodied spirit of the rich man (who did not help the beggar Lazarus) 'communicated' with Abraham (perhaps) or possibly experienced something within himself, in hades, which Jesus attributes to a likeness of communication with Abraham.
Myself, I do not think we have sufficient information in scripture to answer the question. As I say, we may experience something in the future, if the Lord tarries.
It is an interesting question, however, and I did up-vote it.
We are what we are. And what we are, is what God made us to be. And we can only express ourselves (in prayer, particularly, as the OP comments) in spirit and in understanding with a human spirit and with a human mind.
Yet, if we receive and believe the Gospel and are justified by faith we shall receive the Holy Spirit in a union of spirit, within our own spirit. Then shall we pray in the Spirit and with our own understanding.

What is it then? I will pray with the spirit, and I will pray with the understanding also: I will sing with the spirit, and I will sing with the understanding also. I Corinthians 14:15, KJV.]


How and when was homosexual practice separated from "homosexuality"?

In Catholic teaching, I believe the distinction was always there, although I am sure the idea of what sexual orientation actually is has developed along with our understanding of the subject in general

Like the distinction between instinctive lust/desire and indulging in it mentally or physically, so the distinction with homosexual attraction and indulging in it.

The catechism draft you quote (I have no idea how authentic it is, but that's not important) does not really shed any light on this question - A person may not choose to have homosexual attractions, anymore than a person chooses lustful attractions. This does not mean that the sexual orientation is born-in. In fact, from my lay-person-intensive analysis of the literature of the subject, we are pretty certain that sexual orientation, although biology plays a part, is not fully (max 50%) determined by biology.

SIDE NOTE pornography shows us "nicely" how malleable our sexual orientation is. the kind of things that a person can be conditioned to get turned on by, would scare the crap out of them before they get into it.


Where can I find a complete set of Ante-Nicene Writings?

Unless I am mistaken, there has never been an English translation set that encompasses absolutely all the ante-Nicene writings. Most people use ccel.org to read the Ante-Nicene Fathers edited by James Donaldson and Alexander Roberts which, unless I am mistaken, is the most comprehensive English translation set of the ante-Nicene writings. If you want to compile a list of all the ante-Nicene writings, you would probably need to resort to reviewing Jacques Paul Migne’s Patrologiæ Cursus Completus: Series Græca (161 vol.) and Series Latina (220 vol.), but of course, you need to know Greek and Latin.


What is the "city of seven hills" in St. Malachy's Popes Prophecy?

The Latin phrase civitas septicollis, or "seven-hilled city," is an allusion to Rome. According to Joseph Lomas Towers in his Elucidiations of Prophecy, Ch. XIII, p. 199,

  Rome was as well known by its situation on seven hills or montes, as by the name of Rome itself; Urbs septicollis was never mistaken for any other city, Roman authors have so fully determined the sense of it.

The seven hills are:

Aventine Hill (Latin, Aventinus; Italian, Aventino)
Caelian Hill (Caelius, Celio)
Capitoline Hill (Capitolium, Campidoglio)
Esquiline Hill (Esquilinus, Esquilino)
Palatine Hill (Palatinus, Palatino)
Quirinal Hill (Quirinalis, Quirinale)
Viminal Hill (Viminalis, Viminale)

According to Wikipedia,

  "The Seven Hills of Rome (Italian: Sette colli di Roma) east of the river Tiber form the geographical heart of Rome, within the walls of the ancient city."

In his Carmen Sæculare, the Roman poet Horace wrote,

  When Sybilline verses have issued their warning
  To innocent boys, and the virgins we’ve chosen,
  To sing out their song to the gods, who have shown their
  Love for the Seven Hills (septem...colles).
  O kindly Sun, in your shining chariot, who
  Herald the day, then hide it, to be born again
  New yet the same, you will never know anything
  Mightier than Rome!

Christopher Wordsworth, in his Union with Rome, Ch. I, pp. 3-4, also lists several other Roman authors who refer to Rome in a similar manner.

On another note, I was examining the Latin which states,

  Petrus Romanus, qui pascet oves in multis tribulationibus:
  quibus transactis civitas septicollis diruetur,
  & Iudex tremẽdus iudicabit po pulum suum. Finis.

While the verb pascet, a conjugation of pasco, can mean to feed an animal (like sheep; cp. Vulgate of John 21:16), it can also mean "to lay waste, ravage" (cp. Vulgate of Mic. 5:6; Lewis & Short, I. II. 2.).

Therefore, this Peter the Roman may not be the one "feeding" or nourishing the sheep, but the one persecuting the sheep. Just something to consider.


Why was Solomon chosen as King instead of one of his brothers?

David chose Solomon as his successor because “the word of the Lord came to [him]” telling him to do so. David, due to his many sins, was unworthy of building God’s temple. God chose Solomon from before his birth as the one who would build the temple and reign over Israel.

1 Chronicles 22:6-10

  6 Then he called for Solomon his son and charged him to build a house for the Lord, the God of Israel. 7 David said to Solomon, “My son, I had it in my heart to build a house to the name of the Lord my God. 8 But the word of the Lord came to me, saying, ‘You have shed much blood and have waged great wars. You shall not build a house to my name, because you have shed so much blood before me on the earth. 9 Behold, a son shall be born to you who shall be a man of rest. I will give him rest from all his surrounding enemies. For his name shall be Solomon, and I will give peace and quiet to Israel in his days. 10 He shall build a house for my name. He shall be my son, and I will be his father, and I will establish his royal throne in Israel forever.’


What is the difference between original sin and a sin nature?

Original sin is the doctrine that explains why we are born sinners. I did not deserve to be born a sinner but since the guilt and condemnation of Adam's sin was charged against all humanity in Adam, I was born guilty and deserved to be born a sinner due to Adam's sin. In the same way, I do not deserved to be counted righteous and sinless when believing in Christ, yet his righteousness is imputed to be and I obtain life through the gospel. The idea of being judged by the actions of another Adam, or Christ, humanities two federal heads is the basis of the gospel.

The sinful nature is the result of Original sin. It means that as soon as a child is able to make a moral decisions it will be an evil one. As soon as a human knows right from wrong a human will do what is wrong. In other words as soon as a baby knows what it is to love God, the baby will not love God with it's whole heart. Yet there is more.

The sinful nature is not just a result of original sin but is a result of being found obnoxious and guilty under God's moral law. Therefore Christ must find a way to remove the law's ability to condemn us to restore the nature from its sinfulness. As long as the law has a right to judge, we will be cast into a fully corrupt nature. Only by removing the law's right to judge us can our nature be free from original sin and its guilt.  This again is by Christ fulfilling the demands of the law and providing his perfect righteousness to us, so that under the law we are considered perfect. As the law no longer casts us into a sinful nature we are free from sin. Therefore the only way a human can do good is to first have the law removed through the death of Christ and the imputation of his righteousness to sinners.  In fact the moral commands of the law was added that our sinful nature would become more sinful and thus be made known to our minds, revealing our sinful nature.

Non-Protestant churches accept a form of this doctrine called 'justification' but reduce its meaning to nothing by saying it is a life time process that you can ruin any time you wish. Protestants teach that this justification happens in a moment when a sinner believes in the gospel. In fact this is the greatest point of division between any kind of theology about God that can ever be made and the most important point to be decided on by a student of scripture.

Here is a good summary of what I am arguing and the distinction of the concepts:

  For if the many died by the trespass of the one man, how much more did God’s grace and the gift that came by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, overflow to the many! 16 Nor can the gift of God be compared with the result of one man’s sin: The judgment followed one sin and brought condemnation, but the gift followed many trespasses and brought justification. 17 For if, by the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man, how much more will those who receive God’s abundant provision of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ!
  18 Consequently, just as one trespass resulted in condemnation for all people, so also one righteous act resulted in justification and life for all people. 19 For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous.
  20 The law was brought in so that the trespass might increase. But where sin increased, grace increased all the more, 21 so that, just as sin reigned in death, so also grace might reign through righteousness to bring eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord. (NIV, Romans, 5:15–21)


How do adherents of soul-sleep interpret the parable of Rich man and Lazarus (Lk 16:19–31)?

Luke 16:19-31 is perhaps a difficulty for proponents of the soul sleep theory, but it is not an outright contradiction of the theory for a number of reasons.

Scripture, in both old and new testament, makes frequent use of literary personification. The 'blood of Abel' cries out in Gen 4:10. A prophecy in Ezek 32 uses the visual of leaders speaking from the realm of the dead (Ezek 32:21.) Floods clap their hands and hills sing together for joy in Psalm 98:8. Thistles talk in II Chron 25:18, etc. A parable in Judges 9 begins, "Once upon a time the trees decided to choose a king. First they said to the olive tree, 'Be our king!' But the olive tree said to them, 'Shall I leave my fatness with which God and men are honored, and go to wave over the trees?'…'"

While the use of personification in some places does not mandate that it is being used in all possible places, that it can be used is important to keep in mind when facing scriptures that seem to 'contradict' on the surface. Just as the tree parable shows trees discussing a monarchy (when all would agree that trees do not speak) it is possible that the Parable of Lazarus and the Rich man show the dead speaking figuratively, not literally.

Proponents of soul sleep will likely point to many verses on death that seem to concretely say that the dead have no thought or consciousness:

"For the living know they will die; but the dead do not know anything, nor have they any longer a reward, for their memory is forgotten." Ecc 9:5

"And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt." Dan 12:2

John 5:28-29 "...An hour is coming, in which all who are in the tombs will hear His voice, and will come forth; those who did the good deeds to a resurrection of life, those who committed the evil deeds to a resurrection of judgment."

Etc. Any theory (not just soul sleep) is faced with reconciling verses that seem to imply that there is no conscious thought in death with verses that imply the spirit is conscious.

No one verse or passage, such as Luke 16:19-31, is going to 'prove' the case definitively one way or another on its own.

Another thing to keep in mind is that the story of Lazarus and the Rich man is a parable - a moral story using elements from life or culture that would be readily understood on the surface, but hid a deeper spiritual meaning. With parables, the story itself was not necessarily always based on a true occurrence. Did a good Samaritan help a man beset by thieves? Did a specific woman really lose one of her coins? We don't know.

The main spiritual point of the Lazarus parable is that there is no second chance for salvation after death, and that some won't be convinced even if someone rises from the dead (like Lazarus or Christ). The state of the dead is a setting - but not the main spiritual point. As such, it is hard to be 100% dogmatic that the setting is speaking of an actual occurence vs. pulling from imagery that would be understandable to the culture.

Beyond the possible use of personification and the literary style of the parable, there is a third reason that the parable of Lazarus and the Rich man would not directly contradict the theory of soul sleep. Note that the rich man is in 'Hades,' but is in fiery torment. Yet usually,'Gehenna' is used in the new testament when describing fiery torment (such as Mk 9:47-48.) Hades is equivalent to the OT term 'Sheol' and simply means the grave, or abstractly, the realm of the dead. Yet here, in this one instance, Hades is described as a place of fire.

This discrepancy seems unusual, but not perhaps in light of Rev 20:14, "Then death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. The lake of fire is the second death."

Hades will be thrown into the Lake of Fire at the judgment. As such, it is possible, even probable, that the Parable is presenting Lazarus and the Rich man as having already faced the judgement. (Lk 16:26 also hints at the two having already been judged.)

This would not conflict with the soul sleep theory and actually supports it.

[My personal opinion is that both the soul sleep and concious-between-death-and-judgment theory have seeming support from scripture as well as difficult passages to reconcile. However, Luke 16:19-31 is not a direct impediment to the soul sleep theory.]