>#### Gift of perseverance > >The Gift of perseverance is the doctrine of Augustine of Hippo that persevering in the faith is a gift given by God, but a person can never know if they have the gift. According to Augustine, without having the gift of perseverance a person is damned, even if he seems to have been elected by grace. Augustine himself also believed that Cyprian held a similar view about perseverance being a work of God, and thus foreshadowing the Augustinian view. **Some Calvinists argue that the Augustinian view foreshadows the Calvinist doctrine of perseverance of the saints**. > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gift_of_perseverance > [Matthew 13:20-21 NASB] 20 The one sown with seed on the rocky places, this is the one who hears the word **and immediately receives it with joy**; 21 **yet he has no firm root in himself, but is only temporary**, and when affliction or persecution occurs because of the word, **immediately he falls away**. > [Luke 8:13 NASB] Those on the rocky soil are the ones who, when they hear, **receive the word with joy**; **and yet these do not have a firm root**; **they believe for a while**, **and in a time of temptation they fall away**. How do advocates of the doctrine of *eternal security*, also known as *once saved, always saved* or *the perseverance of the saints*, explain God’s apparent withdrawal of the gift of perseverance from the individual described in Matthew 13:20-21 and Luke 8:13? In these passages, it seems that God allows a person to be exposed to the gospel, to experience genuine initial joy and even a measure of faith, yet for some reason does not grant them the gift of perseverance (otherwise they would have persevered). In other words, God is permitting this "sheep" to fall away from His hand, or never put this "sheep" in His hand in the first place, but why? Why is God not giving the gift of perseverance to the individual in Matthew 13:20-21 and Luke 8:13?

While walking on a road from Jerusalem to Emmaus, two disciples encountered a man whom they later recognized to be the risen Lord Jesus Christ. The Lord Jesus Christ then, "beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded (διηρμήνευεν ) to them the things about himself in all the scriptures."1 Furthermore, the disciples later said that the Lord Jesus Christ "...opened (διήνοιγεν ) to us the scriptures."2 In addition, it is written that the Lord Jesus Christ "opened (διήνοιξεν ) their understanding, so that they would understand the scriptures."3 According to the doctrine of apostolic succession, the Lord Jesus Christ entrusted and delivered the faith (i.e., the *depositum fidei*) to his apostles whom later entrusted and delivered it to their successors, and so forth. Accordingly, if the Lord Jesus Christ opened the understanding of his disciples (students) by thoroughly expouding the scriptures, wouldn't Jesus' disciples have likewise taught their disciples, and so forth? If so, wouldn't the bishops (apostolic successors to the apostles) in the Catholic Church also possess a thorough understanding of the scriptures about the Lord Jesus Christ in the Old Testament? Would that be part of the *depositum fidei*? **Footnotes** 1 Luke 24:27 2 Luke 24:32 3 Luke 24:45

I was looking into the accounts of Jesus' birth both in Matthew and Luke and tried to make something of a chronology of the events on a piece of paper so that I can get it clear in my head. The thing that I came to notice is that there could be a large time gap in between Luke 2:38 and Luke 2:39... Now if we read the 2 accounts carefully we will understand that the wise men came to Jerusalem (The city of the King), expecting to find the newborn King there. However, Herod, consulting the scholars of the day sent them to Bethlehem (as it has been prophesied) (Mat. 2:1-6). Now, we are not actually told that they actually went to Bethlehem as the star appeared and guided them again. However, certainly that is the assumption of most people. Later we read (Mat. 2:16-18) that Herod went about killing all the male children aged 2 years or less, based on the information he had acquired from the wise men, concerning the time that the star appeared (Mat. 2:7). So it is safe to say that the wise men came to Jesus anytime before He was 2 years of age. However, what makes it more interesting is that it is written that after the wise men left, Joseph was told in a dream to flee to Egypt with Mary and Jesus. Knowing this, we look back into the account by Luke and see that they went into the Temple in Jerusalem, for the cleansing of Mary (Luke 2:22) as it is written in the Law (Lev. 12:3-8)... According to this passage for a male child this is done 33 days after (birth?). Which would mean that they visited the temple before the wise men came to them? And then returned to Bethlehem where the wise men came (even though Lk. 2:39 says they went back to Nazareth - assuming there is a gap and this speaks after their return from Egypt.) **OR** they went back to Nazareth straight after the cleansing in the temple (approx. a little over a month after the birth), meaning that even though the wise men were sent to Bethlehem by Herod, the star guided them to Nazareth..? **So, my question:** Now, more than one question arise from the comments above, however my main question is: According to my observations, is it safe to say that Jesus went to Jerusalem and into the Temple before the wise men got there? Are there other places in Scripture that confirm this or is there perhaps a flaw in my logic?

> **[Luke 18:19](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%2018:19&version=NKJV)** (NKJV) > So Jesus said to him, “Why do you call Me good? No one is good but One, that is, God. My question is: is this contradictory? What does Jesus mean by this statement?

We read about the introduction to Annunciation in Lk 1:28-29: > And the angel came in unto her, and said, Hail, thou that art highly favoured, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women. And when she saw him, she was troubled at his saying, and cast in her mind what manner of salutation this should be. Note the words "she was troubled at his saying". Luke does not say that Mary was taken aback to see a male stranger suddenly standing in front of her. Now, most of the images depicting the Annunciation show Mary kneeling down in contemplative prayer in a room, purportedly her at home. But, wouldn't she be startled to see a man appearing before her in the safety of her home? Is it possible that she was outside, tending the garden, or drawing water, or caring for the domestic cattle, or even shopping? Out of her home, she had the chances of meeting a stranger and not getting afraid. Or, is it possible that Mary had an intuition of the ensuing Annunciation, on account of which she was spending time in prayer and contemplation, remaining mostly at home? My question is: Are there any extrabiblical writings on where Blessed Virgin Mary was, at the time the Angel addressed her before the Annunciation?

Jesus entered Jerusalem riding on a colt! The Passover was preparation day for the Feast of Unleavened Bread. A 2nd Sabbath day was then on the 7th day, Saturday! If Jesus fulfilled the Passover and the Unleavened Bread by being crucified on the 14th and in the tomb on the 15th, another preparation day would be the 16th, the Sabbath the 17th and the Resurrection would be on the 18th. Therefore, the Triumphal Entry would have been on the preceding Sabbath: the 10th!

Prior to the birth of Jesus Christ, angels spoke to Zechariah, to Joseph and to Mary. After his birth, angels spoke to shepherds, then to Joseph and Mary together, and then to Joseph again (four times). Yet again, an angel spoke to Peter who released Peter from the prison. John the Apostle also received multiple communications from angels in the visions which form the Apocalypse. Yet in none of these cases did any interpretation have to occur. Indeed, in almost all of these occasions, interpretation (by a human interpreter) was impossible, due to circumstances (dreaming, solitude, imprisonment, personal vision). The particular occasion of note is the herald by angels to shepherds in the fields. An angel communicated a message and then the entire host of heaven gave utterance and eleven Greek words are reported : >δοξα εν υψιστοις θεω και επι γης ειρηνη εν ανθρωποις ευδοκια [Luke 2:14 TR], which can be translated into eleven English words 'Glory in highest God-ward, and on earth peace, among humanity goodwill' (which requires but the hearer to add an 'Amen' to make twelve). Yet, though many shepherds were present, none was required to interpret to the others. On *all these occasions* there was no interpretation recorded. The angelic communication was in language *which the hearers were able to understand.* --------------------------------------------- So it would appear that when angels have a message to utter, they speak in a language which the hearers can appreciate and understand without intervention or assistance. Why, then, do some persons nowadays communicate in languages (apparently and reportedly) which do not exist anywhere on earth and thus the communication has to be 'interpreted' by another human person, by (one understands) a form of 'revelation' ? What do those who support and participate in this activity have to say in answer to this question ?

At Luke 18:18-20 we see: >A certain ruler asked him, “Good teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?” “Why do you call me good?” Jesus answered. “No one is good—except God alone. You know the commandments: ‘You shall not commit adultery, you shall not murder, you shall not steal, you shall not give false testimony, honor your father and mother.’ We see that Jesus is not quoting the commandments in the order of sequence they were given to Israel through Moses. My question is: Are the Ten Commandments in OT arranged in the order of their importance to the believer, that is, if a person takes God's name in vain and then commits adultery, will his former sin be considered more serious than the latter one? What do the teachings of Catholic Church tell us on the subject?

This is an odd question I know and I'm not very hopeful I'll find a good answer. But has it ever stricken you odd that in Luke 7, the woman who comes to see Jesus just straight walks into the Pharisee's house unannounced? I'm an American, and I could never imagine a random stranger walking into anyone's house and it be acceptable. So, was this a normal thing in Jewish culture at this time period?

How do Calvinists explain Luke 19:41-44: > 41 And when he drew near and saw the city, **he wept over it**, 42 > saying, “Would that you, even you, had known on this day the things > that make for peace! But now they are hidden from your eyes. 43 For > the days will come upon you, when your enemies will set up a barricade > around you and surround you and hem you in on every side 44 and tear > you down to the ground, you and your children within you. And they > will not leave one stone upon another in you, because you did not know > the time of your visitation.” Why would Jesus weep for non-elect people if He Himself willfully passed over them when He elected people unto salvation before the foundation of the world?

Luke 17:32, 33 >**32** Remember Lot's wife. **33** Whosoever shall seek to save his life shall lose it; and whosoever shall lose his life shall preserve it. Do these two verses contradict with the idea of being taken out seven years before Jesus' second coming?

In Luke 2, we get a narration of events surrounding the birth of Jesus. The angels announce the Nativity to the shepherds who are watching over the sheep in fields, mentioning the Town of David as the location and the time of the Nativity as ' today '( Lk 2:11) In Biblical times when the concept of 24-hours' day was not in vogue, day and night were separately counted (Mtt 12:40). The shepherds go to Bethlehem to see the Child (Lk 2:15 ) and return after spreading the news (Lk 2:17-2O) implying that they stayed put in Bethlehem much through the day. It is therefore, possible that Jesus was born in day- time, the news was disclosed to the shepherds after sundown, they set out to Bethlehem early next morning and retuned during the day. But then, Christmas is celebrated in Vigil Service between 24 th and 25 th December, implying that Jesus was born at midnight. The practice perhaps owes its origin more to tradition than to scriptural narratives. My question, therefore , is : Was Jesus actually born at midnight ? Inputs from scholars of any denomination are welcome.

In [John 20:17](http://biblehub.com/john/20-17.htm) it is written that, when Jesus appears to Mary Magdalene after resurrection, He says to her: >Do not touch me, for I am not yet ascended to my Father However, Jesus does tell to other disciples to touch Him, after resurrection. For example, later on, in John 20:27, when Jesus appears to His disciples for a second time and Thomas (the Doubter) is with them, He says to Thomas: >Put your finger here; see my hands. Reach out your hand and put it into my side. Stop doubting and believe. Similarly, in [Luke 24:39](http://biblehub.com/luke/24-39.htm) it is written that post-resurrection Jesus said to His disciples: >See my hands and my feet, that it is I myself. Touch me, and see. For a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see that I have. Thus, I fail to understand why Jesus would negate Mary Magdalene to touch Him but not to His disciples. **How have theologians and the teachings of Catholic, Anglican, Orthodox or Protestant churches interpreted the words of Jesus to Mary Magdalene?** How is the fact that He had not yet ascended to the Father related to Mary not touching Jesus? Surely, once He was gone to the Father, it would be impossible to her for touching Jesus! One possible explanation is that Jesus did not have a physical body (e.g. [this](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/15598/did-jesus-transform-into-spirit-form-after-resurrection) or [this](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/8368/was-jesus-resurrected-body-the-same-as-his-glorified-body-that-he-now-has-in-he) discussion). Personally, I do not believe this was the case, as it it at odd with the other texts (where Jesus says that "a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see that I have"). Neither did [Aquinas](http://www.newadvent.org/summa/4054.htm) .

James and Luke say the drought lasted for three and a half years. >Elijah was as human as we are, and yet when he prayed earnestly that no rain would fall, none fell for three and a half years *(James 5:17 NLT)* >"Certainly there were many needy widows in Israel in Elijah's time, when the heavens were closed for three and a half years, and a severe famine devastated the land. *(Luke 4:25 NLT)* But according to the actual account in the Old Testament the drought was not even a full three years. >Now Elijah, who was from Tishbe in Gilead, told King Ahab, “As surely as the LORD, the God of Israel, lives—the God I serve—there will be no dew or rain during the next few years until I give the word!” *(1 Kings 17:1 NLT)* >Later on, IN THE THIRD YEAR of the drought, the LORD said to Elijah, “Go and present yourself to King Ahab. Tell him that I will soon send rain!” *(1 Kings 18:1 NLT)* >And soon the sky was black with clouds. A heavy wind brought a terrific rainstorm, and Ahab left quickly for Jezreel *(1 Kings 18:45 NLT)* So it was in the third year of the drought that the rains came ending it. Why do Luke and James both say the drought lasted 3 years and 6 months?

Why, in the Gospel of Mark, is Jesus referred to as the son of Mary but, in the Gospel of Luke, he is referred to as the son of Joseph? >Is not this the carpenter, **the son of Mary**, the brother of James, and Joses, and of Juda, and Simon? and are not his sisters here with us? And they were offended at him. (Mark 6:3) >And all bare him witness, and wondered at the gracious words which proceeded out of his mouth. And they said, **Is not this Joseph's son?** (Luke 4:22)

The text is from Luke 23:43, > And He/Jesus said to him, "Truly I say to you, today you shall be > with Me in Paradise. The following are the words of Joseph Smith: > There has been much said by modern divines about the words of Jesus (when on the cross) to the thief, saying, “This day shalt thou be with me in paradise.” King James’ translators make it out to say paradise. But what is paradise? It is a modern word: it does not answer at all to the original word that Jesus made use of. Find the original of the word paradise. You may as easily find a needle in a haymow. Here is a chance for battle, ye learned men. There is nothing in the original word in Greek from which this was taken that signifies paradise; but it was—This day thou shalt be with me in the world of spirits. (Scriptural Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, sel. Joseph Fielding Smith, page 309) Under Gospel Topics on The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints' website the following summary is given: > When Jesus was on the cross, a thief who also was being crucified said, “Lord, remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom.” The Lord replied, “Verily I say unto thee, To day shalt thou be with me in paradise.” The Prophet Joseph Smith explained that this is a mistranslation; the Lord actually said that the thief would be with Him in the world of spirits (source ). Notice the words, "The Prophet Joseph Smith "explained" that this is a mistranslation? How does he know it's a mistranslation? It's not a mistranslation according to Greek Scholar A.T. Robertson. Here is what he has to say on the matter. > "Today shalt thou be with me in Paradise (Σημερον μετ' εμου εση εν τω > παραδεισω). However crude may have been the robber's Messianic ideas Jesus clears the path for him. He promises him immediate and conscious fellowship after death with Christ in Paradise which is a Persian word and is used here not for any supposed intermediate state; but the very bliss of heaven itself. This Persian word was used for an enclosed park or pleasure ground (so Xenophon). The word occurs in two other passages in the N.T. (2 Corinthians 12:4; Revelation 2:7), in both of which the reference is plainly to heaven. Some Jews did use the word for the abode of the pious dead till the resurrection, interpreting "Abraham's bosom" (Luke 16:22) in this sense also. But the evidence for such an intermediate state is too weak to warrant belief in it." I am not aware that Joseph Smith knows any Greek so maybe the LDS can explain how Smith came up with how Jesus should have said, "the thief would be with Him in the world of spirits?"

Is anyone aware of any special symbolic significance of Jesus eating *specifically* fish and honeycomb while showing his disciples he was not "a spirit" when he appeared to them (and somewhat scared them) after his resurrection in [Luke 24:42-43](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke+24%3A42-43&version=KJV) ?

Luke 4:16-21 NIV >**16** He went to Nazareth, where he had been brought up, and on the Sabbath day he went into the synagogue, as was his custom. He stood up to read, **17** and the scroll of the prophet Isaiah was handed to him. Unrolling it, he found the place where it is written: **18** “The Spirit of the Lord is on me, because he has anointed me to proclaim good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners and recovery of sight for the blind, to set the oppressed free, **19** to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor.” **20** Then he rolled up the scroll, gave it back to the attendant and sat down. The eyes of everyone in the synagogue were fastened on him. **21** He began by saying to them, “Today this scripture is fulfilled in your hearing.” John 2:11 NIV >What Jesus did here in Cana of Galilee was the first of the signs through which he revealed his glory; and his disciples believed in him. Mark 1:14-15 NIV >**14** After John was put in prison, Jesus went into Galilee, proclaiming the good news of God. **15** “The time has come,” he said. “The kingdom of God has come near. Repent and believe the good news!” Matthew 4 cites the same context as the initiation of Jesus' public ministry. We see that Luke presents a perfect starting point for the public ministry of Jesus in Nazareth. John, however, appears to say that Jesus started his ministry with the miracle at Cana. Matthew and Mark on their part, present an event in Galilee by which Jesus started his public life. Exactly when did Jesus launch his public ministry?

I was reading a short essay in the [*Word on Fire* Gospel Reflections on Luke 12:49-53](https://www.wordonfire.org/reflections/a-ordinary-wk29-thursday/) where in Luke 12:49 Jesus says that He came to set fire to the world. In the essay Bishop Barron says that Jesus' priesthood is shown as a "spreader of the sacred fire". This reminded me of something I thought was an Old Testament passage, but on reflection it was just a line from the Lord of the Rings - probably only the movie, not the book. Is the notion of a priest as a spreader and/or keeper of the sacred fire based on something to do with Old Testament typology or is it just a general notion of a priest throughout pagan/human history?

Is Jesus last exclamation on the cross: “Father into your hands I commit my spirit” a prototype for Christians to copy, or paraphrase, when they face imminent death? What is a Protestant answer on this question, gleaned from Luke 23:46?