texts: Why is the number 40 so common in the Bible?

texts: In a lot of books in the Bible, the number 40 keeps appearing. E.g. Jesus went into the desert for 40 days and nights, and the Jews spent 40 years looking for the promised land. Is this because of some significance of the number 40, or is it just coincidence?


texts:
In Mark 14:51, we read about a youth who flees, after he sees Jesus being arrested:

A certain young man was following him, wearing nothing but a linen cloth. They caught hold of him, but he left the linen cloth and ran off naked.

Many speculate that the young man was Mark himself. But then, having become one of the Evangelists later, he would not have referred to himself as a certain young man, unless of course, he had a terrible guilt feeling which he did not want to acknowledge.
My question therefore is: How does the Catholic Church explain the omission of identity of the young man referred to in Mk 14:51?


texts:
Saint Pio (Pius) of Pietrelcina, O.F.M. Cap. (May 25, 1887 – September 23, 1968) was a Capuchin Catholic priest from Italy who is venerated as a saint in the Catholic Church.

It is claimed that no more than Anecdotal evidence supports Pio’s alleged mystical abilities. Some of his bilocations are consistent with hallucinations and the supposed odor of sanctity was purported to be Eau de Cologne. He was never watched continually to ensure that chemicals like carbolic acid or iodine were not used to prevent wounds from healing, as has been claimed. Pio over many years wore fingerless gloves which concealed his wounds or prevented him having to tend to the wounds. Near his death Pio avoided covering his hands and there was no sign of injury.
The founder of Milan's Catholic University of the Sacred Heart, friar, physician and psychologist Agostino Gemelli, who met Padre Pio once, for a few minutes, but was unable to examine his stigmata, concluded Padre Pio was "an ignorant and self-mutilating psychopath who exploited people's credulity."[16] In short, he was accused of infractions against all three of his monastic vows: poverty, chastity and obedience.Agostino Gemelli also speculated that Padre Pio kept his wounds open with carbolic acid. As a result of the Gemelli assessment, the wounds were wrapped in cloth. According to believers, the bleeding continued for some 50 years until they closed within hours of his death.
On 29 July 1960, an Italian monsignore, Carlo Maccari, who later became the archbishop of Ancona, began yet another investigation on behalf of Pope John XXIII and the Holy Office. The 200-page report he compiled, though never published in full, is said to be devastatingly critical. Vatican gossip long had it that the “Maccari dossier” was an insuperable obstacle to Padre Pio’s sainthood. According to official Capuchin literature, however, Maccari later recanted and prayed to Padre Pio on his deathbed.
In 1940, Padre Pio began plans to open a hospital in San Giovanni Rotondo, to be named the Casa Sollievo della Sofferenza or "Home to Relieve Suffering". The hospital opened in 1956. Barbara Ward, a British humanitarian and journalist on assignment in Italy, played a major role in obtaining for this project a grant of $325,000 from the United Nations Relief and Rehabilitation Administration (UNRRA). In order that Padre Pio might directly supervise this project, Pope Pius XII, in 1957 granted him dispensation from his vow of poverty. Padre Pio's detractors used this project as another weapon to attack him, charging him with misappropriation of funds.
Padre Pio was subject to numerous investigations. Fearing local riots, a plan to transfer Padre Pio to another friary was dropped and a second plan was aborted when a riot almost happened. In the period from 1924 to 1931 the Holy See made various statements denying that the happenings in the life of Padre Pio were due to any divine cause. At one point, he was prevented from publicly performing his priestly duties, such as hearing confessions and saying Mass.
By 1933, the tide began to turn, with Pope Pius XI ordering the Holy See to reverse its ban on Padre Pio’s public celebration of Mass. The Pope said, "I have not been badly disposed toward Padre Pio, but I have been badly informed."In 1934, he was again allowed to hear confessions. He was also given honorary permission to preach despite never having taken the exam for the preaching licence. Pope Pius XII, who assumed the papacy in 1939, encouraged devotees to visit Padre Pio. According to a recent book, Pope John XXIII (1958–1963) apparently did not espouse the outlook of his predecessors, and wrote in 1960 of Padre Pio’s “immense deception." However, it was John XXIII's successor, Pope Paul VI, who, in the mid-1960s, firmly dismissed all accusations against Padre Pio.
[Wikipedia]

My question is: Can anyone explain Pope Paul VI's arguments in favor of Padre Pio?


texts: What did "Teaching of the Twelve Apostles" say about the Epiphany?

texts:
I was reading the "Teaching of the Twelve Apostles" to answer another question on this site and chanced upon a strange tidbit that I don't understand the meaning of:

The apostles further appointed: Celebrate the day of the Epiphany of our Saviour, which is the chief of the festivals of the Church, on the sixth day of the latter Canun, in the long number of the Greeks.
"Teaching of the Twelve Apostles"

What I'd like to know is:

What day of the year was that?

Was this the same Epiphany we know today (i.e., January 6th or thereabouts)?

Why was this the "chief of the festivals?" (What about Easter and Pentecost?)


texts: According to baptist belief what do you do to be saved?

texts:
I have heard many times by baptist that I need to be saved. I feel I have already been saved, but I am curious what it means to a baptist. How can I be saved the baptist way? What are the requirements?

I have heard slightly differing views on the subject. One is that if somebody murders they can lose their salvation after being saved. Another is that once you have said a prayer and accepted Jesus as your savior, nothing can separate you from salvation, even if you for whatever reason want to. Is the only requirement to say a certain prayer? Or are there requirements after? Are you still saved even if nothing changes in your life besides you said a prayer accepting Christ? I have also heard that if you say the prayer and accept Christ as your savior, but you don't change your life to show faith, you were never saved in the first place. So is a prayer and some works required to show faith? What exactly is required in order to be saved?


texts: Why is Jesus named the Prince of Peace instead of the King of Peace?

texts:
In Isaiah 9:6, the child to be born will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.

  For to us a child is born, to us a son is given; and the government
  shall be upon his shoulder, and his name shall be called Wonderful
  Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.  Isaiah
  9:6 ESV

A prince is one who will one day be king, but does not currently hold that position.  Why doesn't Isaiah say that Jesus will be the King of Peace?


texts: Which Christian denominations do NOT believe that Jesus existed prior to his conception?

texts: Basically the title: Which Christian denominations do NOT believe that Jesus existed in some manner before his conception? If there are way too many, a reasonable answer listing the most notable ones would be a fair compromise.


texts: Information on how the early Christians prepared and/or fled from the destruction of Jerusalem?

texts:
Does anyone have any information regarding how the early Christians prepared or handled the destruction of Jerusalem? Such as how long before hand they fled and what did they take and where did they go and what did they do afterwards?

Please site sources if you have them as I am very interested in reading more into this topic. Thank you very much!


texts: According to Reformed Covenant theology, how were the people of Israel "purchased" per Exodus 15:16?

texts:
In the triumphal song of Moses, it is mentioned in 15:15 that the people were purchased.

  Exodus 15:16 Terror and dread fall upon them;         because of the
  greatness of your arm, they are still as a stone,     till your people, O
  LORD, pass by,        till the people pass by whom you have purchased.
  (ESV)

"Purchase" usually implies an exchange of one valuable thing for another valuable thing. Purchasing language becomes important in the New Testament for understanding the sense that the Lord Jesus purchased his people with his own blood. In the Exodus, there is no clear exchange taking place. The Exodus appears mainly to be a triumph of the Lord against his enemies. Yet Moses sings of a purchase.

How does Reformed covenant theology understand the purchase here described? Is this a foreshadowing of the ultimate purchase of God's people with the blood of Christ, or is there a more immediate sense that a purchase has taken place?


texts: Is there a name for when Jesus was baptized?

texts: I thought I remembered hearing once a name for when Jesus was baptized. Specifically it was referencing the miracle that God the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit were all directly observed at that time (voice of the Father, physical appearance of both the Son and Holy Spirit).  My internet search is unusually ineffective (perhaps I misheard and there isn’t a special name for it). I believe it was “the miracle of ______”.  I found that it is celebrated during a feast of epiphany, but that doesn’t sound right.


texts: In Federal Vision theology, what is the difference between decisional regeneration and presupposed regeneration?

texts:
In some Reformed/Calvinist circles, a theological framework called the Federal Vision (FV) has led to significant internal debate over the true nature of the covenant between God and man, and, by extension, the role of faith and works in justification and salvation more generally.

I'm currently reading a book by an FV opponent, David J. Engelsma, called Federal Vision: Heresy at the Root.  In chapter 6 he seems ready to address the following challenge:

  Some of the proponents of the federal vision are decisional regenerationists; others hold to presupposed regeneration.  How can you say that both hold to the same view of the covenant?

But Engelsma's response does not shed much light on the difference between these views – he simply continues to group them together and critiques FV more generally.  That's less than satisfying, so my question here is: according to FV proponents, what are the perceived differences between decisional regeneration and presupposed regeneration views?  What impact do these differences have on the doctrine of the covenant held by different FV proponents?


texts:
I came across the "Novena of Abandonment" prayer, first via a friend, then saw it on many blogs online etc, for example here: Jesus, You take over and the Rosary of Abandonment. It reads like a very soothing and reassuring prayer, directly quoting Jesus' words.
What I am trying to establish is, what is the provenance of this prayer? Mostly I find it on blogs, not any kind of authoritative websites. The prayer is ascribed to Fr. Dolindo Ruotolo, but I cannot find any information on how it came to be. The prayer is not quoting the scriptures, and rather reads like direct quotations from a private revelation - is there any authoritative source that describes this? The link above quotes an Imprimatur, but I couldn't check it online.
Does anyone know of any more authoritative confirmation of provenance for this prayer? My fundamental reason for asking is, since it appears to be direct quotations of Jesus, I don't want to, so to speak, be putting words in His mouth. The prayer makes strong assertions of Jesus' will, and it doesn't feel right to pray with such assertions without having confidence that it really comes from Jesus. For example, "There is no better novena than this".


texts: Why did Saul's sins lead to his rejection as King of Israel, but David's sins did not cost him his crown?

texts:
I Samuel 15;10-12 tells us "The word of the Lord came to Samuel, saying, 'I greatly regret that I have set up Saul as King, for he has turned back from following Me, and has not performed my commandments'"

The New Testament tells us in Romans 11:29 that the gifts and calling of God are irrevocable. Is that a privilege only given to those under the New Covenant?

King David sinned by committing adultery and murder, yet it didn't cost him his crown; Saul's sin was to offer a sacrifice when it wasn't his place to, a sin of presumption. Was this a greater sin?


texts:
The doctrine of "faith alone," or sola fide, teaches that people are justified only by their faith in Christ, not by any works they do.  It was emphasized during the Protestant Reformation, where it was one of the marks distinguishing Protestants from Roman Catholics.

However, I found an interesting statement in Bruce Shelley's Church History in Plain Language that seems to indicate a much earlier origin.  He describes the views of Pelagius (d. 418) as follows:

  God predestinates no one, except in the sense that he foresees who will believe and who will reject his gracious influences.  His forgiveness comes to all who exercise "faith alone"; but, once forgiven, man has power of himself to live pleasing to God. (138)

Of course, Pelagius's views on sin differed significantly from those of the leaders of the Protestant Reformation and most modern Protestants.  As a result, his doctrine of "faith alone," if it exists, will likely differ in particulars from that of Protestants.  So I'd like to know:

Did Pelagius believe in a doctrine called "faith alone" or one bearing resemblance to the Protestant doctrine?

That is, did he believe that faith without works caused someone to be saved?

If yes, what are the main ways in which his view differed from that of Protestant leaders like Luther and Calvin?


texts: Was the Apostolic Tradition of rejecting soldiers from the church ‘permanent’, or was this ‘tradition' briefly enforced?

texts:
In the Bible Jesus encounters Roman soldiers but does not tell them to 'quit their day job'. Jesus encountered a centurion with 'great faith' as recorded in Matthew 8. Peter as well baptized a centurion, named Cornelius. A centurion was a higher ranking soldier over a hundred strong experienced Roman army men underneath him. (One can only imagine what a man like that would have had to go through to be honored with such a rank especially in the brutal history of Rome). After preaching and praying the Holy Spirit 'fell upon' those they were gathered among Peter and Cornelius and Peter exclaimed in surprise and excitement;

  “Surely no one can stand in the way of their being baptized with water. They have received the Holy Spirit just as we have.” So he ordered that they be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. (NIV Acts 10:47-48).

Here we find Peter not only 'accepting the soldier', but calling for an 'immediate baptism' -- both against the 'Apostolic Tradition' handed down from Peter?!

Understandably, when Christians were on the ‘hit list’, a Christian soldier, faced with having to kill a Christian, would have had to switch sides and become a martyr.  In these same conditions, I assume that serving in the Roman army almost became synonymous with the ‘anti-Christian’ beast of Rome, so in the Apostolic Tradition, I can partly accept the rejection of soldiers from the church (actually rejection of soldiers, actors and others):

  If someone is an actor or does shows in the theater, either he shall cease or he shall be rejected. ... 11The catechumen or faithful who wants to become a soldier is to be rejected, for he has despised God. (Hippolytus, The Apostolic Tradition)

What I am wondering was, 'Is there any indication in this tradition by Hippolytus of Rome that the Church in Rome was supposed to have kept this Apostolic Tradition, or was this just a temporary measure of the church in Rome at that time?


texts:
In Romans there are a couple verses that indicate that the law has not only been given in written form through the ten commandments, but written "on our hearts." It also says that this law will bear witness against us.

  Romans 2:14-16 (ESV)
  For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them on that day when, according to my gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus.

First, is this our conscience? Secondly, is this "law written on our hearts" corrupted by our sin natures or pure and trustworthy? In the next chapter goes on to say that there is no one who does right or understands. Particularly in light of those verses and the doctrines of original sin and total depravity, what does should Christians believe about the purity and trustworthiness of our consciences?


texts: What is "Manuscript Evidence" and how is it useful?

texts:
In several Apologetics articles (including one answer of mine on a different question), I see the statement that "there is overwhelming manuscript evidence to support the fact that the Bible has been transmitted accurately through time".  Often, these sites contain a chart like the following, with no explanation of why the number of copies, or the gap between the original written version and the earliest known manuscript matters.

So how does all of this prove anything?  Does it prove the Bible is the Word of God?  If not, what's the point?


texts: If every stone of the temple was thrown down how is the Wailing Wall still standing?

texts:
Jesus left the temple and was walking away when his disciples came up to him to call his attention to its buildings. “Do you see all these things?” he asked. “Truly I tell you, not one stone here will be left on another; every one will be thrown down.” (Matthew 24:1-2, NIV)

In this verse Jesus foretells the destruction of the Temple. So how do we know what we have been calling the Temple is really the proper location? Matt 24:2 says all thrown down so what about the Wailing Wall? Why was that left standing? Do we have the incorrect location of the Temple?


texts: If Christ has all power to perform miracles, how is that that "he could there do no mighty work" save that He healed a few?

texts:
If Christ has all power to act upon all his creations, including the sons and daughters of Adam and Eve, I would assume he could never be prohibited from performing miracles for them. Yet in Mark 6:5-6 it says that when Jesus came to his hometown:

  He could not do any miracles there, except lay his hands on a few sick people and heal them. He was amazed at their lack of faith. (Mark 6:5-6, NIV)

The Savior then addresses the people's unbelief perhaps in connection with this inability to perform mighty works. How does that work?


texts: Are those instructed before baptism considered catechumens before entering the catechumenate formally?

texts:
This question and its answer reminded me a question I wondered about a long time ago: the ritual of entering catechumenate usually takes place some time during the process of pre-baptismal catecheses (i.e. learning the basics before someone is prepared for baptism), so there is some time (often quite a long time) when the person is being instructed but didn't enter catechumenate yet.

My question is whether the person is considered a catechumen by canon law since the moment the process of pre-baptismal catecheses begin (may be hard to find out when did it begin!), or since the ceremony of entering the catechumenate? If the latter is the case, have those learning so that they could be baptized any special status?


texts: How and when did the penal substitutionary view become popular? How popular today is it?

texts: It seems very popular among evangelicals today, is it the main theory? Do other Christians generally support this view, and have they supported it historically? Does it have historical support in the first centuries of the first church fathers?


texts: Where did the formula, "Good works are the fruits of faith," originate?

texts:
A previous question of mine, "What is the biblical basis for the belief that good works are the fruits of faith?" provides examples of Protestant faith statements using the formula, "good works are the fruits of faith," and asks for the biblical basis of that belief.

The answers to that question so far have confirmed my initial thought that the Bible does not say in plain words that good works are the fruits of faith, but that this formula derives from interpretation of various biblical statements.

Here, then, is a follow-up question:

Where in Christian history did the saying, "Good works are the fruits of faith," originate? What theologian or Christian doctrinal statement first used it? Did it originate among Protestant theologians, or was it already in existence in Christian writings prior to the Protestant Reformation?

(Note: For the purposes of this question, statements that use close synonyms for or variants of "good works" and "faith" are acceptable, as are statements that use a different word order, and so on, as long as it is basically the same statement. However, I am specifically not asking for statements that good works are the fruits or result of salvation, or of love for God, or of God working within a person, and so on—even if these things are seen as happening through or from or as a result of faith—or of anything else that isn't precisely faith as that is understood within historical or Protestant Christianity. I am looking for the first use within Christian history of the formula, "Good works are the fruits of faith.")


texts: What is the difference between LORD and GOD?

texts: I need to understand whether GOD and LORD is the same or different.


texts:
Many people claim that religion is just the unwarranted belief in things without evidence or reason, or that faith is antithetical to reason. If we do believe in God based on evidence, what would be the best way to convey these evidences to a secular world?

In other words, is there any evidence that God is real and that the bible is true?


texts: How do I keep a small-group discussion focused?

texts: I am part of a high school small-group discussion at church.  When neither the adult normally leading it nor his substitute could make it, one of the students started leading.  The discussion quickly became distracted; one student was constantly doing something on his phone, and even the leader was on the phone with someone.  He later let me take over, but the discussion was now so off-topic that I couldn’t get it back on topic.  I did not have the attention of the entire group at any one time.  What should I do the next time that happens?


texts: What happens to Hell after Revelation 21:1?

texts:
This question popped into my head after reading this question.

God states, quite specifically, in v.5 that He would make everything new, "for the old order of things has passed away". Which leads to the question -

If everything were created new, starting from scratch so to speak, what would happen to Hell? I'm aware of Annihilationism (I think I spelled that right), but I think the question is a little more particular than that.

If everything is created anew, with no death and sickness and disease, etc - would Hell be gone too? We know the Devil, his angels, and the wicked cast into the pit are said to be there "forever and ever", but if time was recreated in this creation, the old time would end - thus Hell not existing because it's "forever and ever" would have passed, right?

I'm more interested in the Catholic stance on this, seeing as how (at least to my observation) they seem to have more in terms of Heaven/Hell doctrine. I'll take non-Catholic responses too, but a official Catholic source will be selected as the answer so long as it has some reference material for me to check out.

If the question appears too broad, suggest some edits for me. I tried making it easy to understand.


texts: What is the Calvinist view of Christians with different levels of loving God?

texts:
A) Scripture says no force or power can separate us from the Love of God.

  "For I am persuaded, that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come, Nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord. - Romans 8:38-39

B) Some Christians are more separated from the love God (i.e. they love God less than others).

If nothing can separate us from God, then why are some Christians more separated from God's love? What is the deciding factor in how much we love God?

I suppose the non-Calvinist response would be "our will": Our own love of sin / self-will is what separates us since God's love for us does not change.

Possible answer(?)

Some people have a different level of Faith (from God)

  "as God hath dealt to every man the measure of faith. - Romans 12:3

and more/less Sin

  "He who is forgiven much loves much" Luke 7:47

However, scripture says faith comes by hearing:

  "So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God. - Romans 10:17

This seems to put the burden back on people to decide to "listen" or "sin more" which isn't inline with Reformed theology.


texts: What does Paul mean when he says "do not go beyond what is written."

texts:
In 1 Cor 4:6, Paul instructs the church in Corinth to "not think above what is written."

Did any early Christian scholars (before translation of the Bible into English) comment on this? If so, what were their conclusions?

Is there a consensus among modern Biblical hermeneutists as to what Paul meant? If so, what are their conclusions? If not, what are the varied positions?


texts: What is the Biblical basis for saying the Apostles did not necessarily expect the final judgment to occur in their lifetime?

texts:
I often see comments in Bible commentaries that the Apostles were convinced the second coming would happen in their lifetime. However I have never been convinced by the arguments they make to draw this conclusion. What I am wondering is what the Biblical argument is for the alternative view:  That the Bible and the Apostles did not necessarily expect this, and were not so naive.

Some passages commonly referred to in the subject are:

Rom. 13:11–12; 1 Cor. 1:8; 2 Cor. 1:14; Phil. 1:6, 10; 2:16; 1 Thess. 5:2; 2 Thess. 2:2; Heb 10:25

Note: I do accept that there was this feeling of an imminent return shortly after Pentecost but I am speaking about after when the Epistles were written and there was more scripture concerning this doctrine. It was only natural after Penteconst to assume an immediate return having no other information to go on.


texts: The term "Common Grace" is often thrown around in reformed circles. What is this concept? What is the scriptural basis for the belief?


texts: What is the Biblical basis against Melchizedek being the Holy Spirit?

texts:
A friend of mine is part of a church that teaches that Hebrews 7 indicates that Melchizedek is the Holy Spirit. What are the arguments against this view?

For reference, here is Hebrews 7:15–21 (NIV):

  Jesus Like Melchizedek

  15 And what we have said is even more clear if another priest like
  Melchizedek appears,
  16 one who has become a priest not on the basis
  of a regulation as to his ancestry but on the basis of the power of an
  indestructible life.
  17 For it is declared:

    “You are a priest forever,
        in the order of Melchizedek.”

  18 The former regulation is set aside because it was weak and useless
  19 (for the law made nothing
  perfect), and a better hope is introduced, by which we draw near to
  God.

  20 And it was not without an oath! Others became priests without any
  oath, 21 but he became a priest with an oath when God said to him:

    “The Lord has sworn
        and will not change his mind:
        ‘You are a priest forever.’”

It's also written in Hebrew 7:3 (KJV),

  Without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life; but made like unto the Son of God; abideth a priest continually.

I am a bit confused here. Anbody?


texts: To what extent does the Law of Moses still apply?

texts:
Matthew 5:17-18 (KJV)
  17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. 18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

As I understand it, the Law of Moses is fulfilled in Christ. We don't make sacrifices anymore, and many other of the finer points in the Pentateuch are no longer preached.

Yet, I still see people reference these books for doctrine (for example the 10 Commandments).

How much of the Law of Moses still applies?


texts: When did the Latin Catholic Church begin to generally require fasting only one hour prior to the Eucharist?

texts:
According to Wikipedia's article on eucharistic discipline, the Latin rite of Catholicism requires only one hour of fasting before the Eucharist (cf. Canon 919 §1), but that prior to 1955, the fasting period was required to be from the previous midnight.

However, I'm not confident in this date.  No reference is given in that Wikipedia article, and just two years prior, Pope Pius XII had written:

  The law of the Eucharistic fast from midnight continues in force for all of those who do not come under the special conditions which We are going to set forth in this Apostolic Letter. (Christus Dominus, January 6, 1953)

The special conditions included reasons like "tiring work" and "long journ[ies]," which made a one-hour fast permissible.  But the general rule was still a fast from midnight.

Did the rule actually change just two years later?  What is the history of the transition to the current practice?  At what point did it become the case that Latin-rite Catholics could, without special exemptions, fast for only one hour prior to the Eucharist?


texts: How do Christians reconcile this passage?

texts:
The old testament is God given
Yet Christians no longer follow it, for example they eat pork and changed the sabbath day from Saturday to Sunday
The reason for this is that Jesus told them the Old Testament has been replaced and no longer needs to be followed
It says in Deuteronomy (13) If a prophet, or one who foretells by dreams, appears among you and announces to you a sign or wonder, 2 and if the sign or wonder spoken of takes place, and the prophet says, “Let us follow other gods” (gods you have not known) “and let us worship them,” 3 you must not listen to the words of that prophet or dreamer. The LORD your God is testing you to find out whether you love him with all your heart and with all your soul.

(Follow other Gods includes following scriptures that disavow even a single word of the old testament)


texts: According to the Greek Orthodox Church can one marry a Maronite Catholic?

texts: Is a wedding between a Greek Orthodox to a Maronite Rite Catholic permitted and can the ceremony be performed in the Greek Orthodox Church?


texts: What is the ‘Gospel of the Grace of God’?

texts: I just encountered a teaching about ‘The Gospel of Promised Grace to Abraham’ or ‘The Gospel of Grace of God.’ It talks about the everlasting covenant of God to Abraham. I know how the promise of God to Abraham was fulfilled through Jesus, that nations will be blessed through Him and we are the recipient of that promise. Can you help me better understand this subject? What is typically meant by these expressions?


texts:
God unveiled to us through apostle Paul  His plan...

Colossians 1:20, NASB
to reconcile all things to Himself, having made peace through the blood of His cross; through Him, I say, whether things on earth or things in heaven."

With what "things" did God reconcile in heaven through the blood of His cross?


texts: Are LDS members expected to contribute a certain amount of time as a full-time missionary?

texts:
As I understand it, all LDS members are expected to serve some time as Missionaries.  It's been years since I attended an LDS Church, but when I was attending, I seem to recall being told several times that if I joined, I would be expected to spend a certain amount of time (I believe it was one year) as a full-time missionary, going wherever the Church sent me.

Looking through the LDS site, I cannot find any such teaching.  I find plenty of information about how everyone is a Missionary (even if it's not full time, sharing the faith is a part of normal everyday life), why everyone should want to be a missionary, what full-time Missionaries do, how they are supported, and how they are trained, but I'm not finding a requirement to go into missions for a full year.

Is my memory faulty?  Did I misunderstand?  Is there any such requirement?


texts: How is it that Georgian Orthodox Church are in full communion with the Eastern Orthodox Church when they have a different biblical canon?

texts:
There is a table on this wikipedia page which indicates that the Georgian Orthodox Church accepts 2 Esdras 3–14 (4 Ezra) and 4 Maccabees as part of their biblical canon, whereas the rest of the Eastern Orthodox Church do not.

In that case how is it possible that the Georgian Orthodox Church is considered in full communion with the Eastern Orthodox Church? Isn't there a standard "canon of scripture" dogma which all Eastern Orthodox Churches are bound to accept?

Possible explanations:

The Georgian Orthodox Church is not actually in full communion with the Eastern Orthodox Church, the wikipedia page is inaccurate.
Those books are considered canon in the "permitted to be read during the liturgy" sense, but not in the "Inspired by God"/"God speaks through these books" sense. (Even so this wouldn't really solve the discrepancy noted in my question)
The Eastern Orthodox canon of scripture is not a dogma, but merely a disciplinary canon which is still technically open for debate. The fact that the majority of the Eastern Orthodox Churches have the same canon is just a happy coincidence, but not a requirement of the faith. (It seems like this is the case in the Oriental Orthodox Church, where each of the member churches seems to have a wildly different canon. cf The Ethiopian Tewahedo Orthodox Church's canon)


texts: Do all Orthodox saints have their own akathist?

texts: I don't quite understand the concept of an 'akathist' (hymn devoted to a saint). Are these written, one per saint whenever someone is glorified? Are they spontaneously generated over time? I am trying to find the akathist for St. Dorotheus of Gaza and do not know if he has one even.


texts: What is the biblical basis for the concept of male headship?

texts:
The concept of "male headship" is prevalent in various Christian traditions.  What is the essence of and the biblical basis for this concept?

I understand that this is a controversial subject, but this question is seeking a rational answer from the position of those who subscribe to it.


texts: When did the early church start to require couples to be both baptized Christians before marriage?

texts:
This question is prompted by another question that brought up the validity of St. Monica's marriage to Patricius, a pagan.  Assuming that Monica and Patricius were married in the church in Thasgate, why did the bishop of Thasgate permit it?
Background notes for consideration:

Assuming that Monica's parents were Christians, why did they arrange her marriage to a pagan?
Monica (b. AD 332) was probably married a few years before Augustine was born (AD 354).  This was mere decades after Christianity became legal (AD 313,  Edict of Milan). Realizing that the church just endured one of the worst persecutions that ran for about 10 years where a lot of Christians apostatized (and became the context for the Donatist controversy), it's not surprising if Christian bachelors of good social standing were in short supply.
As an underground network of collegiate bishops, the early church managed to preserve her apostolic identity by denouncing movements such as Gnosticism, Marcionism, Montanism, and Novationism.  Then shortly after the church became legal, the church immediately had to continue strengthening her identity by addressing the Trinitarian and Christological issues throughout the 4th and 5th centuries, in addition to Priscillianism & Manichaeism (the latest permutations of Gnosticism), Pelagianism, Messalianism, and Donatism.  Therefore, I wonder whether the early church in Monica's day (either individual bishopric or collectively) had enough energy to require a couple to be both baptized Christians before administering the sacrament of matrimony.
Was there a network-wide church canon law at this point?  Or did an individual bishop embody the church law?
We also need to consider that the Roman empire started to share jurisdiction in religious matters with the church only with Emperor Constantine.
Several resources that I found through a quick research (I'm sure there are better ones):

'Pagan' and 'Christian' Marriage: the State of the Question by Judith Evans-Grubb, Journal of Early Christian Studies, 1994
A Brief History of Imperial Roman Canon Law by Charles P. Sherman, California Law Review, Jan 1919

My question: When did the early church start to require couples to be both baptized Christians (or at least catechumens) as a prerequisite for the sacrament of matrimony?  If it is far later than Monica's time, how did bishops in the 4th century deal with mixed marriages?


texts: How do Premillennialists explain Matthew 25:31-46?

texts:
Premillennialists believe Jesus will return, reign with His saints for 1,000 years, and then after the 1,000 years are completed the final judgment of the wicked will happen.

Matthew 25:31-46 states that "when the Son of Man comes in His glory, and all the angels with Him, then He will sit on His glorious throne. All the nations will be gathered before Him, and He will separate them from one another . . . ." The righteous will be sent off into the kingdom, while the wicked will be sent off into Hell. And so "These will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life."

I'm curious how Premillennialists typically explain this passage. At first blush it looks like it's saying the final judgment happens right at the Lord's return -- for both the righteous and the wicked.


texts:
The two different interpretations seem to be completely opposite each other. In NKJV the verse is as follows:

  He who struck the people in wrath with a continual stroke, He who
  ruled the nations in anger, Is persecuted and no one hinders.

While the ESV bible is as follows:

  ... that struck the peoples in wrath with unceasing blows, That ruled
  the nations in anger with unrelenting persecution.

I don’t think these verses are saying the same thing. Am I reading it wrong?


texts: How do Calvinists account for Calvin's statements on atonement?

texts:
Calvinism gets its name from John Calvin. One of the tenets of Calvinism is "Limited Atonement", the idea that Christ died for the elect, not for all mankind. However, this does not appear to be what Calvin taught. I'm reading "Death by Love" and in one of the chapters it talks about this and provides several quotes from Calvin on the subject (see below.)

In his commentary on Galatians 5:12 Calvin said:

  It is the will of God that we should seek the salvation of all men without exception, as Christ suffered for the sins of the whole world.

In his commentary on Colossians 1:14 Calvin said:

  By the sacrifice of his death all the sins of the world have been expiated.

In his commentary on Romans 5:18 Calvin said:

  Though Christ suffered for the sins of the whole world, and is offered through God's benignity indiscriminately to all, yet all do not receive him.

Calvin also said:

  The word "many" is often as good as equivalent to "all." And in fact our Lord Jesus was offered to all the world. For it is not speaking of three or four when it says: "God so loved the world, that he spared his only son . . ." Our Lord Jesus suffered for all and there is neither great nor small who is not inexcusable today, for we can obtain salvation in him. Unbelievers who turn away from Him and who deprive themselves of Him by their malice are today doubly culpable, for how will they excuse their ingratitude in not receiving the blessing in which they could share by faith.

In his commentary on Hebrews Calvin said:

  To bear the sins means to free those who have sinned from their guilt by his satisfaction. He says "many" meaning "all," as in Romans 5:15. it is of course certain that not all enjoy the fruits of Christ's death, but this happens because their unbelief hinders them.

Calvin also said:

  By His mediation God is satisfied and appeased, for He bore all the wickedness of all the sins of the world.

How do Calvinists account for Calvin's own position on atonement, which appears to be at odds with the position of Calvinism?


texts: What is the basis for the Catholic teaching that Mary is holy?  Most other denominations don't hold to doctrines like perpetual virginity. They see Mary as special because she was chosen by God but are unlike Catholicism which seems to teach that she is holy in a way that other denominations don't. I don't understand the basis for this. Can you please explain?


texts: From what biblical basis can it be argued 'God heals damaged emotions or physiological problems through the Bible'?

texts:
By damaged emotions or physiological problems I am not referring to unusual things like the fear of the outdoors. I am referring to more common problems that many of us have, including: excessive irritability, perfectionism, defensiveness, fear, guilt, worry, etc.

The phrase 'damaged emotions' is obviously not part of the vocabulary of Biblical times. Therefore, my question is 'What Bible references can be used to support the claim that healing for emotions can be obtained through God's word and what would that 'healing' therefore mean?


texts:
The subject of question concerns the Fig Tree of Matthew 24, Mark 13 and Luke 21. I understand very well that statistically it has not been fruitful to speculate on exact timings for prophetic events and I'd like to emphasize that I'm not trying to promote any particular eschatological interpretations. I would simply like to ask for opinions on the viewpoint of the following article, which seems thoughtfully-written and reasonable (if one accepts all the necessary premises): The Parable of the Fig Tree.

The viewpoint of the article is hardly isolated in the Christian community (I can give other sources saying the same thing), so maybe some/many here would already be familiar with it. In general, it seems difficult to find prophetic discussions that are both very specific in date-setting and reasonably argued at the same time. Any comments? Below, a brief summary of this particular eschatological interpretation has been added.

Brief Summary of this particular Eschatological Interpretation

It is clearly Premillennial and adheres to a literal return of Jesus Christ.
It relies on an identification of the Fig Tree in Matthew 24 with the inhabited land of Israel. (Compare with Joel 1:7)
It posits that essentially the parable can be interpreted in a highly rigorous way. (Fig Tree = Israel, Generation = certain length of time, Budding of Fig Tree = certain historical event)

One probably dosen't have to go much further with this summary to see that the implications of this sort of thing are that very concrete predictions are being made. Since the predictions are so concrete, one may even make a rigorous discussion surrounding the idea. Here are some "axioms" for consideration, which I ask for opinions on:

A) The statements in the Bible, while at first glance might have meanings that are difficult to interpret, ultimately do in the final analysis have specific, objective meanings. While different groups of people might differ on the interpretations, some interpretations are correct and some are wrong. Discerning which interpretations are correct is a different story, but the notion of a "correct" interpretation exists.

B) In the matter of the Fig Tree of Matthew 24, the ONLY reasonable explanation is that it refers to the nation/inhabited land of Israel, that the Budding of the Fig Tree refers to a certain event in modern times, and that the generation refers to a specific lenght of time.

Please bear with me. If (A) if false, I can hardly see how studying the Bible could be inspiring or profitable since everything would be murky and nothing could be known with certainty. But if (A) is true, then (B) is almost certainly true. If (B) is true, then Jesus will be back by roughly the dates specified in the article, or there is something wrong with the law of the excluded middle. It may be the case that (B) dosen't follow from (A) as easily as I think. But the kind of reasoning in the article is far more sound than Harold Camping's types of predictions, hence it is not obviously false that (B) does not follow easily from (A).


texts: What is the Catholic understanding of the first sin committed by Adam and Eve?

texts:
I always used to consider the first sin committed by Adam and Eve as eating the forbidden fruit from a particular tree. But recently my husband commented that Adam and Eve had sex with each other which is the first sin. I had no substantial point to prove against his point.

Is sex considered to be the forbidden fruit? Is that thought prevalent among Catholics? What is the Catholic teaching on the first sin of Adam and Eve?

(Note that this question is asking about the first sin committed by Adam and Eve, not the doctrine of "original sin": that we all in some way have inherited a sinful nature from them.)


texts: When was Satan cast out of heaven according to Catholics?

texts:
Revelation 12:9 speaks of Satan being cast out of heaven to the earth.
The book of Job indicates that Satan was able to enter in among the other angels at that time.
Some traditions say Satan was cast out at the time of the fall in Eden.
 When according to Catholic teaching was Satan kicked out of heaven permanently?


texts: Did Jesus visit the temple before the wise men came?

texts:
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?


texts: Did Paul consider Peter as the Leader of the Church?

texts:
From whichever theologies hold Peter to have been the first and highest authority in the visible Church I would like two questions answered, please.  Please indicate which tradition you are speaking from.

1)  Paul appears (under inspiration of the Spirit) indifferent to whatever reputation may have been ascribed to James, Peter, and John.  Galatians 2:6 - "And from those who seemed to be influential (what they were makes no difference to me; God shows no partiality)—those, I say, who seemed influential added nothing to me."

If Paul recognized Peter as the highest authority why say 'seemed to be influential' and 'makes no difference to me'?

2) In Acts 15 Paul goes to the Jerusalem council and, although Peter speaks, James has the last word and announces his judgement:  "Therefore my judgment is that we should not trouble those of the Gentiles who turn to God" - Acts 15:19

If Peter was leader in this Church council, why did James take what appears to be the role of leader in speaking last and in elucidating his judgement?


texts: What evidence exists for post-Biblical miracles?

texts:
I think any Christian will agree that real-life miracles happened at the time of the Old and New Testament.  I've also heard that modern day miracles are more common in developing countries than they are in western cultures.  But in these places, verifiable evidence is usually much harder to come by.

What evidence exists for miracles that occurred after the Bible was written?

I'm interested in miracles on par with those performed in the Bible, especially the New Testament--changing water into wine, healing of the obviously and terminally ill, feeding of the 5,000, someone being raised from the dead, walking on water, etc.

I'm not interested in stories of the healing of a fever, or finding $20 "just in time", etc. These may well be miracles, but they're easily debatable, so I'm more interested in obvious miracles.


texts: Have Christians ever followed Leviticus?

texts:
Has there ever been a group, or groups, of Christians that tried to follow Leviticus (not just parts of it, but all of it or most of it)?

Alternatively, what groups (Christian or otherwise) did try to follow Leviticus?

Apparently the typical view is that there is a new covenant or etc, but were there atypical Christians that tried to follow the old rules?


texts:
Luke 16:21
What kind of table is this that the crumbs can fall from? I thought they were basically on the floor sitting on or around something spread out on which food was set.


texts: By what mechanism could the Bible be inerrant?

texts:
For those who believe in the inerrancy of the Bible (or those who understand the positions of those who do), how can the Bible have this status given all the opportunities for any message delivered by God to be corrupted by human failings?

In particular, humans have free will and thus fell; but a being with free will may choose to convey a different message than one they have been given, and even without such will, imperfect beings make mistakes.  Did God suspend the exercise of free will and ability to err (at least without catching it later) of those who wrote the Bible and those who transcribed it?


texts: Was Jesus Christ crucified on the 14th of Nisan (April 3, 33) or the 15th (April 4, 33)?

texts:
The Jewish calendar calculates a day from sunset to sunset, thus the Last Supper (on the Thursday evening) and Jesus' crucifixion (on Friday afternoon) happened in the same day. In John Gospel this day was the 14th of Nisan (April 3, 33 CE) of the Jewish calendar; In the three Synoptic Gospels the Last Supper is a Passover meal so Jesus' crucifixion must have taken place during the afternoon of the festival itself, the 15th of Nisan (April 4, 33 CE).

Both dates obviously can not be true. Which date is correct?


texts: Why don't Protestants engage in monasticism?

texts: One distinction between the vast majority of Protestant denominations and those of the Roman Catholic Church and Orthodox Church is the lack of monasteries and a monastic class. What is an overview of why Protestant denominations generally don't have monks?


texts:
The Bible has a couple of sections talking about responsibility to the "weaker brother", primarily 1 Corinthians 8 and Romans 14. Both ask someone stronger in their faith, who is not disturbed by something like eating food sacrificed to idols, to forgo it if it'll offend a brother or sister weaker in their faith.  I think it's fairly obvious to say that this concept applied past the scope of eating into general behavior, and it's a commonly accepted principle in most American mainline traditions.

The problem is, it's been my experience that there are some Christian somewhere who are offended by anything, as you are all probably realizing given the Q&A on this Stack Exchange. I've known Christians against Halloween, against Christmas, against instrumental music, against worship on Sunday, against evolution, against creationism and so on.

When you deal with larger, more diverse groups, like you tend to meet in Internet-based Christian communities, there's always a weaker brother offended by some belief or practice of yours. Needless to say, there are also people "offended" by mutually contradictory beliefs or practices.

Unfortunately, many of them like to use the weaker brother scriptures to justify why you should behave differently. It's effectively the "you shouldn't do anything I don't like" argument, or at least "you shouldn't speak out about having a belief different than mine on this subject."

How does one handle the "weaker brother" issue?  How does it not become carte blanche for people of a controlling mindset to not manipulate you into behaving the way they think you ought?

How do you deal with these attempts at bullying?

Example

Here, in the spirit of how SE should work, I'll provide a specific time I faced this behavior, with the caveat that this question is not about this specific issue;  please don't give your personal opinions on its morality (open another question for that if you really want to).

I am a Christian, and play role-playing games (and am a mod on RPG.SE).

I had been involved in an online Christian RPG group, the Christian Gamers Guild, back in the day. There were no end of people coming by and saying that from a weaker brother perspective, that a) we shouldn't play those games, b) those games are OK but not if they have magic or various gods in them, c) are OK as long as they're not Dungeons & Dragons, d) are only OK if they have an explicitly Christian theme, e) are only OK if they don't have Christianity in them (because that puts the gamemaster in the place of God) and so on, in manifold and often contradictory glory.  Some were drive-bys, but others were group members who were offended by others' gaming preferences.

Because of this and tolerance for other essentially insane behavior (e.g. tolerance for extremely disruptive and inappropriate behavior in the name of forgiveness), I decided that it was easiest to just not participate in the group, problem solved.

But of course it's against the spirit of Christian community to just avoid all churches and social groups, or, I think, to be seriously cagey about all details of your life and beliefs because someone in that group won't like it and be "offended" and "stumble," right?


texts: (LDS view) Do animals have a possibility to eternal life and is this dependent on Jesus atonoment applied to them?

texts:
This is my other question that was inspired by what a quotation in this other question says about pre-existence prior to conception.

The highest rated answer quotes from The Encyclopedia of Mormonism, on the page Pre-Existence (Pre-Earthly Existence) that says:

  It is Latter-day Saint doctrine that living things existed as
  individual spirit beings and possessed varying degrees of intelligence
  in an active, conscious spirit state before mortal birth and that the
  spirit continues to live and function in the mortal body. [emphasis added]

While reading the previous quote, I noticed a link to this page titled "Animals" which states that:

  Latter-day Saints believe that animals, like humans, have spirits, in
  the form of their bodies (D&C 77:2). Like humans and plants,
  animals were created first as spirits in heaven and then physically on
  the earth (Moses 3:5). Mortal and subject to death, animals
  will be saved through the Atonement of Christ (TPJS, pp. 291-92). [emphasis added]

The last sentence refers to pages 291-292 of "TPJS" which is an acronym for the the book, "Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith." In the aforementioned pages, the book says the following:

  I suppose John saw beings there of a thousand forms, that had been
  saved from ten thousand times ten thousand6 earths like this,—strange
  beasts of which we have no conception: all might be seen in heaven.
  The grand secret was to show John what there was in heaven. John
  learned that God glorified Himself by saving all that His hands had
  made, whether beasts, fowls, fishes or men; and He will glorify
  Himself with them.

  Says one, “I cannot believe in the salvation of beasts.” Any man who
  would tell you that this could not be, would tell you that the
  revelations are not true. John heard the words of the beasts giving
  glory to God, and understood them. God who made the beasts could
  understand every language spoken by them. The four beasts were four of
  the most noble animals that had filled the measure of their creation,
  and had been saved from other worlds, because they were perfect: they
  were like angels in their sphere. We are not told where they came
  from, and I do not know; but they were seen and heard by John praising
  and glorifying God.

This same thing is referenced in this August, 1972 Ensign article "The Gospel and Animals" which reads:

  While revising the Bible, the Prophet desired further understanding
  concerning the four beasts mentioned in Revelation 4:6 [Rev. 4:6].
  Section 77 of the Doctrine and Covenants contained the response from
  the Lord. The answer revealed that “heaven, the paradise of God,”
  contained beasts, creeping things, and fowls of the air, and “every
  other creature which God has created.” (D&C 77:2.)

I have a couple of questions I would like to ask about this:

1. Is it the LDS Church teaching that the value of Jesus' blood is also
    applied to save animals?

2. According to the LDS Church, do all animals live forever or is this
    dependent on them "accepting Jesus" or something like that?


texts:
Can you tell me what the letters JHS mean? You can see them on the picture below. I am from Slovakia (East Europe) and we speak Slovak and these letters are from Catholic church. I saw these letters on many pantings in Slovak churches. But I do not know their meaning.

Thanks for explanation.


texts:
I know that Jesus is really God. But I'm still confused... I don't get how God could die or be killed by people. Isn't God always there? How can God die?

Please explain this to me in an easy to understand way.


texts: How do Bible scholars view the accuracy and reliability of the Aleppo Codex?

texts:
Background information: Circa A.D. 930, sages and scribes completed the writing of the Aleppo Codex, the first definitive Tanakh, or Hebrew Bible. From Tiberias, the codex was taken to Jerusalem. But Crusaders laid waste to the city in 1099, slaughtering its inhabitants and taking the codex.  The Aleppo Codex, the oldest Hebrew Bible in existence today, is so named because it was housed for half a millennium in Aleppo, Syria.  Between the 1947 riots in Aleppo, Syria, and the codex’s arrival in Israel in 1957, almost 200 pages of the Aleppo Codex went missing.

I have been asked specifically about the Aleppo Codex and if it is considered to be reliable, and find myself completely out of my depth. Is there any information on the Aleppo Codes to be found on the Christianity Stack Exchange?  I do not yet know how to navigate my way around this web site and could do with some help.


texts: If there were sentient aliens, would Jesus be their messiah also?

texts:
Let us suppose that there were aliens, that like us are gifted with souls and free will.
Would they have their own alien messiah, or would Jesus be their messiah?


texts: In light of Romans 3:23, how do Catholics support their belief that Mary was without sin?

texts:
The Catholic Church says that Mary was sinless.  How do they reconcile this view with verses such as Romans 3:23?

  For there is no distinction: for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.  Romans 3:22b-23 (ESV)

This verse seems to clearly state that everyone sins.  There is no place in the Bible, to my knowledge, that states Mary as an exception.


texts: Why did Jesus not write any scripture himself?

texts:
Did Jesus write any of His own scripture or contribute to the Bible directly?

If not, I do not understand why Jesus would not think to do that?

Is there a reason stated anywhere and what is the common Christian view of this?


texts: Can a person be forgiven outside of confession? (Catholic)

texts:
As a follow up to this question I'd like to ask if a person, whether Catholic or non-Catholic, can obtain God's forgiveness outside of the sacrament of confession.

I would imagine Protestants would say yes, but what is the Roman Catholic teaching? If the answer is yes, how can one be sure he was forgiven without a priest's absolution?

I know a Catholic would still be required go to confession, but I know Catholics who don't understand this theology but have sincere hearts, and they desire forgiveness outside of the sacrament.


texts: Does believing in Christ activate God's word or just make us think and act different?

texts:
I am confused about what it really means to activate God's power in my life, which I heard my pastor say.

  “But as for me, I am filled with power, with the Spirit of the Lord,
  and with justice and might…” (Micah 3:8, NIV)

or

  Renew a right spirit within me. —Psalm 51:10

There are passages that make it sound like something actually comes into us (the Holy Ghost, I heard someone say) and actually changes real life situations...in other words things from from the meta-physical or spiritual world changing us and daily experiences.

Is that true, or is it us just acting and thinking differently?

or maybe means activating the part of God already in us?


texts:
I'm listening to a sermon about Aachen (from Joshua 7), when Joshua brings everybody in Israel before God, tribe by tribe, then clan by clan, then family by family.

As I'm listening, I am wondering how closely related to Aachen Joshua was. Presumably when he is doing this, there comes a place where Joshua is calling out his own. Who was that?


texts:
I am wondering what are the differences between the King James Version and New Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition bible (this is almost the other question about NKJV and KJV Bible)

From the articles I can see that:

NRSV-CE has more books included.
Time written
Language type

More than this I could not get from the articles.

What other prominent differences are there (in the remaining books) concerning the story?
Thus in short, if you have read both, what were the differences (if any) that stood out?


texts: Do not Judge others, or do we Judge others?

texts:
I hear so much about "Do not judge others, lest you be judged." I know that there's more scripture out there that gives us a better insight into our responsibilities.

Can you please answer this question. Are we allowed to judge others? Are we called to Judge others? Are there certain groups of people that we can and cannot judge? Are there prerequisites to judging others?

Please start off with a simple Yes or No to the title question and then follow up by explaining the ins and outs of this confusing topic.


texts: Can I be baptized as a non-Catholic Christian if I was baptized as a Catholic when I was little?

texts: I was baptized as a Catholic at a young age, however have never attended a Catholic church or mass, or otherwise practiced Catholicism. Instead, I now am a non-Catholic Christian. Would other Christian denominations typically allow me to be baptized into their denomination, even if I was baptized as a Catholic? What is an overview of common views?


texts: What are the mechanics of interaction with the Holy Spirit?

texts:
Context

  John 14:25 These things have I spoken unto you, being yet present with you. 26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you. 27 Peace I leave with you, my peace I give unto you: not as the world giveth, give I unto you. Let not your heart be troubled, neither let it be afraid.—KJV

Question

According to the doctrine of the trinity, God consists of: God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. Much has been written about the Father and the Son—yet, there seems to be surprisingly little about the Holy Spirit. This seems somewhat unfortunate given that the Holy Spirit is sent to help and guide us.

We are told to pray to the Father, to study and be conformed to the image of Christ. What are we to do with the Holy Spirit? How do we interact with the Holy Spirit?

Note: I'm only interested in well-respected theologians who expound on the dynamics & interaction with the Holy Spirit.  Please cite your sources.


texts: How many people were killed by the Sanhedrin around the time of Paul?

texts:
In the Bible, the Sanhedrin condemned:

Jesus
James the Just
Stephen

The death penalty was supposed to be rare, as Mishnah Makkot 1:10 states:

  A Sanhedrin that puts a man to death once in seven years is called a murderous one. R. Eleazar ben Azariah says 'Or even once in 70 years.' R. Tarfon and R. Akiva said, 'If we had been in the Sanhedrin no death sentence would ever have been passed'; Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel said: 'If so, they would have multiplied murderers in Israel.'

Yet they killed at least 3 in about a 40 year period, and those are only the prominent ones.

How many people total did they kill, and why did they deviate from the accepted wisdom about capital punishment?

This is not to promote antisemitism. I'm simply interested in the historical facts.


texts: Was Galileo mentioned during Vatican II?

texts: Was Galileo mentioned by the participants of the Second Vatican Council?


texts: Is "formal schismatic" a useful category in practice?

texts:
Wikipedia says that formal schismatics are those who:

  knowing the true nature of the Church, have personally and deliberately committed the sin of schism.

But if formal schismatics have to truly know the true nature of the Church, is it ever actually a category that can apply to people?

For example, Protestants reject the authority of the Catholic Church and the Pope, and so would not be said, I would think, to know the true nature of the Church.

Likewise, are the SSPX truly formal schismatics if, in their rejection of Vatican II, they believe the true nature of the church is other than that of the Catholic Church after Vatican II?

If you have to know and truly believe in the true nature of the Church in order for your rejection of it to be "formal", then it seems to be that this is a largely academic category, and that there would be exceedingly few actual cases of formal schismatics.


texts: Was Abel regenerated before the offering according to the Calvinist?

texts:
Genesis 4:4–5 [Berean Study Bible]
  (4) The LORD looked with favor on Abel and his offering
  (5) but He had no regard for Cain and his offering

I'm in the middle of conversation with a Calvinist in a Christian Forum (in our language).

First I ask that how come while both of them were totally depraved, but one of them (who is Abel) favored by God. After some back and forth respondings, to my surprise finally he said that it's because Abel is the elected one.

And he gave me Hebrew 11:4

  By faith Abel offered to God a more acceptable sacrifice than Cain's.
  Through this he received approval as righteous, God himself giving
  approval to his gifts; he died, but through his faith he still speaks. (NRSV)

He give the chronology like this :
1. God elect Abel before the foundation of the world.
2. He regenerate Abel in time and give him faith, don't know when but before the offering event
3. Those 2 points above causing Abel do a correct offering.
4. Now God has a reason to look with favor on Abel + his offering
5. and now God can give him approval as righteous through his offering.

When I asked him if he has any reference from any Reformed Church's father, he said he would ask his Church about it. But so far he hasn't followed up.

My question here is the same :
Is there any reference from any Reformed Church's father indicating that Abel was regenerated before the offering ?


texts: Consulting of fortune tellers, palmists and astrologers

texts: Are there verses in the Bible, especially the New Testament, forbidding believers from consulting fortune tellers, palmist and astrologers?


texts: What measures do Catholic dioceses take at Mass during viral outbreaks?

texts:
What changes are made at Masses around the world because of outbreaks like the Covid-19/Coronovirus outbreak? For the last two weeks I've noticed a few changes, but we don't do communion in both species on my diocese and I'm not really sure what I should expect when I go to a different diocese.

Are priests expected to announce the differences that they do at each Mass so visitors won't be caught unawares?


texts: What was John Wesley's view of the Lord's Supper?

texts:
In the usual schema, there are four views of the Lord's Supper:

The Memorialist/Zwinglian/Baptist view. Jesus is not present in the elements, but believers reap a spiritual benefit from partaking because they remember his death.
The Calvinist/reformed/"spiritual presence" view. Christ's body and blood are spiritually consumed by the communicants as they physically partake of the bread and wine.
The Lutheran/"consubstantiation"/"in, with, and under"/sacramental union" view. Christ is united to the elements.
The Catholic view ("transubstantiation"). When the elements are blessed, they become Christ's body and blood.

Sometimes a fifth view is considered, that of the Orthodox, who are close to Catholicism but don't like to explain it in Aristotelian terms.

(If you feel any of these descriptors are inaccurate, you're probably right. Please don't get too hung up on any of these definitions. If you're unfamiliar with any of these views, please research them for yourself.)

My question is, which of these did John Wesley believe? I suppose it's possible that he would be hard to categorize here; if that's the case, I'll be satisfied with an answer stating which view he's closest to, and how his views differ from that one. A good answer will include direct quotes from Wesley.


texts: Mormon understanding of what kind of bodies people have in heaven

texts:
This question is about the article about Heavenly Father at lds.org which says about God that:

  He “has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man’s” (D&C 130:22).

Some questions I would like to ask about this:

Does this mean that Mormons expect to have bodies of flesh and bones
in heaven?
Or, assuming that God is in the third heaven, is it only those who
gain access to 3rd heaven who end up with bodies of flesh and bones?
Will anyone end up in heaven as a spirit person?
Is the physical body the reason for the expectation to be able to
procreate in heaven?


texts: At what point in his life did David write Psalm 26, was it before or after the events of 2 Samuel 11?


texts: Who documented biblical events before Moses?

texts: From the creation until the time of Moses, who documented the events? Abraham? Prophets? Priests?


texts: Is Divine Test a common notion among the Christians, so that they may regard life and its difficulties such as the Corona virus, earthquakes and plagues as divine tests by God to examine humans as to either purify them or specify their obedience?


texts: Is it possible to achieve a life without sin on earth?

texts: Based on the biblical doctrines, is it possible to achieve a completely holy life without any sin during our lifetime after salvation?


texts: If Mary could be conceived without the stain of original sin, why didn't God do this for all people?

texts: If the Blessed Virgin was immaculately conceived without the stain of original sin and be full of grace so that she would not even want to sin, why didn't God do this for all people?


texts: How diverse or united is Christian history on the imagery of “Father” and “Son”?

texts:
The original languages of the Bible itself and, to my knowledge, most of Christian history, are replete with the filial language of God being known as a “Father” and Jesus being known as his “Son”. However there are certainly enclaves of folks professing Christianity that claim that this is either given unnecessary focus or is outright misleading. Books have been written that intentionally substitute “mother” and translations are being made that remove the family relationship language altogether.

This is a multi-part question and I’m looking for a broad overview of how these pieces fit together in history, not an argument for or against any position.

When in Christian history is God first introduced as a male “father” figure? Have there been any turning points or changes in this imagery through different ages, regions or languages? Have any church fathers or theologians seen this a core issue to the faith?
Historically, which groups professing Christianity have attempted to deviate from this filial imagery? Have any notable church fathers or theologians advocated for alternate renditions? If so what works did they write and approximately what size following did they attract?
What is the overall (worldwide) view or trend on this issue today? What percentage of translations continue to use the language of father/son to translate the Hebrew and Greek texts of the Bible and what translations use something else?
What modern day movements advocate deviating from this tradition and which (or what kind of) denominations support them? Are there any direct parallels between these groups/translations and historical groups/translations?


texts: Why does the bible never specifically condemn premarital sex?

texts:
Most Jewish and Christian scholars define πορνεία (sexual immorality) to include premarital sex. However, where either the old or new testament mention specific sexual immoralities, it's never included.

In Leviticus 18 many specific acts are condemned, but not premarital sex. Likewise, Paul spoke specifically of incest in 1 Corinthians 5, adultery and prostitution in 1 Corinthians 6, and homosexuality in Romans 1. If premarital sex is indeed immoral, it is obviously the most prevalent form of immoral sexual acts by far, so then, why doesn't he repeatedly warn against it?


texts: How does Catholic Church view the new school of thought on multiplication of bread by Jesus?

texts:
There is a school of thought going around that Jesus in fact did not multiply bread to feed the people who had gathered to listen to Him, but only prompted the faithful to share whatever eatables they had in stock . But then, we read at Mark 8:18-20 (NRSVCE) :

" Do  you have eyes, and fail to see? Do you have ears, and fail to hear? And do you not remember? When I broke the five loaves for the five thousand, how many baskets full of broken pieces did you collect?” They said to him, “Twelve.”  “And the seven for the four thousand, how many baskets full of broken pieces did you collect?” And they said to him, “Seven.”

My question is: how does the Catholic Church view the new school of thought which apparently tries to `explain away' two important miracles performed by Jesus ?


texts: What is the historical basis for the claim that there were hundreds of eyewitnesses to the resurrection of Jesus?

texts:
I've heard, in several informal situations, claims to the effect that there were hundreds of eyewitness to the resurrection of Jesus. That many saw him and even interacted with him over the span of many days after his crucifixion. However, I'm not aware of the historical basis for such claims -- if there is, I have not yet had the opportunity to have the evidence presented to me when the claim was made and I asked for the basis.
Obviously, I'm fully aware of the writing of the New Testament in which Jesus is claimed to have been seen in resurrected form. For example, we have the eyewitness accounts of the authors of the gospels. We also have the book of Acts, which mentions Jesus' ascension to Heaven in chapter 1. And we also have the testimony of the apostle Paul, who had an extraordinary conversion experience in which he encountered the living Christ on his way to Damascus. So people who claimed to be eyewitnesses definitely existed, but the aforementioned cases only amount to six, not hundreds.
Question: What is the historical basis for the claim that there were hundreds of eyewitness to the resurrection of Jesus? Are there independent eyewitness accounts, other than the six that I already mentioned, that have been preserved to this day, in which Jesus is claimed to have been seen alive, in resurrected form, after his crucifixion?
Alternatively, have any writings been preserved containing second hand accounts? One example is 1 Cor. 15:3-8 which claims that there were over 500 witnesses to Jesus' resurrection. Are there other examples, e.g., the writings of an early church father providing a similar second hand testimony?


texts: From the literal perspective, the truth whispered in the ear, are we literally to proclaim that truth from the roofs?

texts:
What I tell you in the dark, speak in the daylight; what is whispered in your ear, proclaim from the roofs. (Matt 10:27 NIV)

--> THIS IS THE QUESTION: From the literal perspective, the truth whispered in the ear, are we literally to proclaim that truth from the roofs considering other biblical perspectives including but not limited to the following verses?

For this literal perspective I find:
"So do not be afraid of them, for there is nothing concealed that will not be disclosed, or hidden that will not be made known." (Matt 10:26 NIV), "... now something greater than Solomon is here." (Matthew 12:42 NIV), "For lack of wood the fire goes out, and where there is no whisperer, quarreling ceases." (Proverbs 26:20 NIV).

Against this literal perspective I find:
"A gossip betrays a confidence, but a trustworthy person keeps a secret." (Proverbs 11:13 NIV), and "A gossip betrays a confidence; so avoid anyone who talks too much." (Proverbs 20:19 NIV), and "Besides that, they learn to be idlers, going about from house to house, and not only idlers, but also gossips and busybodies, saying what they should not." (1 Timothy 5:13 NIV).

Or is it not Gossip, because it fully known what is being said?


texts: Religious Offshoots of Christianity Ranked by Population

texts:
This seems like the best place to ask this question from the sites:

There seems to be a clear consensus on the religions ranked by population, with Christianity at the top with a little over a billion, then Islam, ect.

Upon looking for data on the top religion where the various offshoots are distinct instead of lumped together as their parent religion.

My question is: is there data on the ranking of Christianity including offshoots by population, and if not is there any reason there isn't other than that people didn't consider doing this? Are there any ballpark estimates about the largest groups within Christianity?

This is a post on this site that has some data, but I'm curious if there's anything more comprehensive


texts:
What kind of movement or denomination in Christianity made being a Christian a personal/individual choice?

I recently watched a random YouTube video. Random, because I had no idea how I got there. The person was Jessica Kellgren-Fozard. Basically, she's born in a Quaker family. But she didn't say that. She said her mother was Quaker, and when she became 16, she made a choice to become Quaker. Her way of expressing essentially emphasized her individual choice.

I am also aware that Baptists share the same mindset. Baptists may say that they are Christians, and they are raising children to become Christians, but the children have to make choice whether or not they want to become Christian. In other words, Christianity has become a personal/individual choice for Baptists.

Then, there are Catholics. In Roman Catholicism, there seems to be no way to become non-Catholic. A person is born into a Catholic family, baptized as a baby, raised Catholic and remains Catholic. That person may not attend church permanently, not tithe, not even believe in God, but that person is still Catholic.

Is the emphasis on individual choice a Protestant characteristic?


texts: Does the Catholic Church explain why Jesus only appeared in short apparitions to his followers post-resurrection?

texts:
The Gospels give the account of ten apparitions of Jesus, which he allowed his followers after the resurrection. The longest time he spent with them was perhaps during the co-journey to Emmaus, that too, in disguise. Given that he spent forty  days on earth between his resurrection and ascension, also given that he had 'descended into hell and preached' between the time of his death and resurrection, one is eager to know why Jesus did not spend much time with his disciples during the forty days prior to ascension.

My question, therefore, is: How does the Catholic Church explain the absence of longer periods of Jesus's stay with  his followers post-resurrection?


texts:
Christians as well as Jews believe that God made the Israelites as his "Chosen People."

Why does God need a Chosen People at all?


texts: Can a bishop excommunicate a retired bishop? Of course, we suppose that the retired bishop is living in the diocese where the new bishop came.


texts: What does the bible say about homosexuality?

texts:
I was recently listening to a podcast and the preacher said that he has looked through the entire bible and could not find anywhere where it says that homosexuality was a sin.

Where does the bible stand on this? What verses talk about it?


texts: Were other sins possible in the paradise?

texts: Except for not eating from the tree of knowledge were there any other things that Adam and Eve weren't allowed to do or was everything else allowed?


texts:
Why were ousia and hypostasis synonymous in the Nicene Creed?
In the original 325 A.D. Nicene Creed, an anathema is included which has ousia and hypostasis as synonymous. In this case, the Trinity is one hypostasis ( = homoousios).

And in the Holy Spirit.
But as for those who say, There was when He was not,
and, Before being born He was not,
and that He came into existence out of nothing,
or who assert that the Son of God is of a different hypostasis or substance (ὑποστάσεως ἢ οὐσιάς)
or created,
or is subject to alteration or change these the Catholic and apostolic Church anathematizes.

Source:
https://earlychurchtexts.com/public/creed_of_nicaea_325.htm
It seems also the meaning of υποστασις in Hebrews 1:3.

He is the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of his nature (υποστασις) (ESV). The ASV has "substance".

However, in later centuries hypostasis began referring to the "person", not the "nature" or "being" of the Trinity. Why did such change in definition occur? It would be helpful to address the  semantical development of υποστασις on how it changed from "substance" (nature/essence) to "person".

The Church confesses is that God is three Persons (hypostasis) in one Essence (ousia).

Source:
https://www.google.com.ph/amp/s/exploringthedepthsofthedivine.wordpress.com/2015/08/12/god-as-trinity-orthodox-trinitarianism/amp/


texts: Why did Jesuits and Franciscans disagree about indigenous labor in their missions?

texts:
Alejandro Murguía in "The Medicine of Memory" wrote that Jesuit missions in New Spain were averse to controlling native labor. When Franciscans and Dominicans took over after the expulsion of the Jesuits, their missions did rely on the compelled labor of missionized natives.

What was the theological(?) disagreement between Jesuits and Franciscans that led to their diametrical policies with regard to native labor?


texts:
David was a murderer and an adulterer. Both crimes were punishable by death under the law of Moses.

Solomon had . . . how many wives and concubines? I don't even remember.

Why was neither David nor Solomon stoned to death? Was there any provision in the law for special cases when the one who commits a crime is the king of Israel?


texts: Complete list of versification differences in the Tanakh

texts:
As already said in a question Jews and Gentiles versify the Tanakh (i.e., assign its chapters and verses) quite a bit different. I have been trying to find an exhaustive list of the verses that differ between the Jewish translations and the KJV.

Could somebody give the list or at least a link where the differing verses/chapters are exhaustively enumerated?
Thanks, I have been looking for it for a while.

Note: To avoid confusion. I am not asking for the difference in the books' order, but the differences in verse/chapter in the same books.


texts: We will judge angels? But we are lower than the angels

texts:
Know ye not that we shall judge angels? how much more things that pertain to this life?  1 Cor 6:3 (KJV)

This verse says that we will judge angels, but this verse

  6 But one in a certain place testified, saying, What is man, that thou art mindful of him? or the son of man, that thou visitest him?
  7 Thou madest him a little lower than the angels; thou crownedst him with glory and honour, and didst set him over the works of thy hands:
  Heb 2:6-7 (KJV)

says that man is lower than the angels. Will we as humans, who are lower than the angels, in fact judge angels, who are higher than us? The citizen doesn't judge the judge; does the human judge the angel? And if so, when?


texts: Can you find scholarly support that Behemoth is an example of humble submission?

texts:
In the Book of Job, chapter 40 describes Behemoth, a large land animal that may be mythical, a hippo, an herbivourous dinosaur, or an as yet uncreated beast that God has in the works for the future. I am not interested in what Behemoth was, but what it represents. My bias, based on previous reading, was to consider Behemoth (a beast of the earth) and Leviathan (a beast from the sea) to be referring to the two creatures that are found in Revelation 13. That would mean that each represented a facet of evil, an evil kingdom, Satan or one of his demons.

However, I am reading a commentary on Job by William Wells:

http://www.newwinemedia.com/media/classic_books/William_W_Wells-Commentary_on_the_Book_of_Job.pdf

A short quote from Wells:

  God is sending Job an important message. Behemoth is “the chief of the
  ways of God” (40:19), and is linked with Job's deliverance. “Then will
  I also confess unto thee that thine own right hand can save thee.
  Behold now Behemoth...” (40:14-15). Leviathan, on the other hand, “is
  a king over all the children of pride” (41:34). Leviathan is blocking
  Job's path to God.

Wells claims that Behemoth is a contrast to Leviathan. Leviathan represents the person that chooses pride and the chaos it leaves in its wake, whereas Behemoth is placid, trusting, secure and humble, and represents the life submitted to God, the opposite choice. This is the first author that I have ever read that attributed positive, noble characteristics and interpretation to this creature. It is easy to find writers that take the opposite view. Do you know of any other writers who would agree with Wells? Is Behemoth good?


texts:
Isnt the fact that Thomas Cranmer (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Cranmer)
was validly ordained by the Roman Catholic Church certain proof that the Anglican Church holds valid apostolic succession?

Why Then is it denied by the Roman Catholic Church?


texts: Are Russian Orthodox Christians considered heretics by Roman Catholicism?

texts: I heard that Russian Orthodox Christians are considered heretics by Catholics. Are there any official Catholic doctrines, documents or quotes that deny or confirm this statement?


texts: Sin and Animal Suffering before the fall?

texts:
This question, most likely, has the presumption of theistic evolution or at least 'old-earth' creationism, however answers without that presumption are welcome.

Suffering and pain exist in our world is because of sin (Isaiah 24:2-6 among others); presumably animals and the the entire created universe suffer the "groaning of creation" (Romans 8:19-22) because of sin. And we wait on the redemption of the world through Christ.

However, before the fall, or before humans even existed, there must have been countless animals and creatures who suffered horrifically (as many do today). Why were these animals allowed to suffer, as it seems they did, before sin had even entered the world?


texts: Where did the rule regarding abstaining from Communion after divorce originate?

texts:
I am told that in the Orthodox Church, when someone gets divorced, because it is the breaking of the covenant of marriage, they must go without taking Communion for a certain amount of time.  After which time, a letter is written to the Bishop or Metropolitan or whoever that explains the situation in order to get permission to go back to taking Communion.

The reason and purpose, I'm told, is not that it's some kind of punishment, but rather to be a time of healing.  That does seem a bit counter-intuitive to me, being that the Eucharist is supposed to be for the healing of soul and body, and divorce would be one of those times where you specially need healing of the soul.  Except that I imagine one who must go so long without the Eucharist could form the kind of longing and respect for it that we should all have every Liturgy.

When, how, and why did this rule originate?


texts: What if we were not tempted by the devil but rather, we failed God's test?

texts:
The bible lets us know that God does not tempt us into evil.

  James 1:13
  "When tempted, no one should say, “God is tempting me.” For God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does he tempt anyone;"

but rather, He examines our minds and hearts to know if we truely keep his commands.

  Jeremiah 17:10
  “I the LORD search the heart and examine the mind, to reward each person according to their conduct,    according to what their deeds deserve.”

My question is, what becomes of us if we fail his tests? What if Abraham failed the test to obey?  If we suffer the same consequences  as those led astray by the devil, then what difference does it make whether God leads us into temptation or not?

I have checked the relevant tags but none of the posts seem to answer on the results of failing God's tests.


texts: Why did the Catholic Church decide to have a Bible?

texts:
As far as I know, the Catholic Church considers God's revealed truth in Sacred Scripture to be part of, but by no means the sum total of Divine Revelation.  Sacred Scripture is the written part of our Traditions, but it is entirely possible to have a Catholic Church without Biblical literacy (or literacy at all).

So, why did the Church decide on having a canon of scripture in the first place?  Did the Church Fathers (Augustine and prior) consider that having a set of writings that resides somehow outside the authority of the Church would eventually cause fractures due to private interpretation?  Or was it necessary to prevent further errors owing confusion coming from  the existence of the many gnostic and apocryphal later writings?


texts: What does the The Episcopal Church mean when it says it allows everyone to participate in Holy Communion? What is meant by "everyone"? Is it "all Christians", "all observant Christians", or "all human beings regardless of baptism"?


texts: In what way did the ante-nicene church read Sapiental passages like Proverbs 8:22 christologically?

texts:
Commentators like Ellicott indicate that the ante-nicene Christian writers (from A.D. 100 to the Council of Nicaea) read Proverbs 8:22 christologically, that is, in reference to Christ.

In what way did these writers understand this verse christologically?


texts: What does a "non-denominational" Protestant believe?

texts:
I have heard "non-denominational" Protestant churches identify themselves as such because they believe they are above the squabbling and blindness that characterizes denominational Christianity.

I have heard Christians identify themselves as "non-denominational" because they aren't really loyal to any particular denomination at the moment.

I have also heard from non- non-denominationals that "non-denominational" is in essence a denomination of itself, because churches of this identification are actually related in their origin, theology, etc. Is that true? Are there any distinct characteristics of non-denominational Protestant churches besides the name?


texts: How does election work according to mainstream Presbyterian thought?

texts: In the Presbyterian church, does election require that we both receive God's call and answer it? Or is it only that we need to have been chosen? Could this be a question of understanding God as not experiencing time as we do and therefore knowing and always having known who will receive him and are therefore elect (supported by Jesus saying, “you didn’t choose me, I chose you, from before the foundation of the world). We cannot offer God ANYTHING  But can we not simply respond to Him? I want to understand how this is meant to work from a Presbyterian  perspective.


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

texts:
I have always been puzzled by the use of the word "economy" linked to the sacraments, or in other expressions like "economy of salvation", "economy of creation", Divine "economy" (see full list of its uses in the Catechism here). As an economist, I don't see why such word is linked there.

The definition of the sacramental economy in the Catechism is:

  1076 The Church was made manifest to the world on the day of Pentecost by the outpouring of the Holy Spirit. The gift of the Spirit ushers in a new era in the "dispensation of the mystery" the age of the Church, during which Christ manifests, makes present, and communicates his work of salvation through the liturgy of his Church, "until he comes." In this age of the Church Christ now lives and acts in and with his Church, in a new way appropriate to this new age. He acts through the sacraments in what the common Tradition of the East and the West calls "the sacramental economy"; this is the communication (or "dispensation") of the fruits of Christ's Paschal mystery in the celebration of the Church's "sacramental" liturgy.

So, the use of "economy" here seems to imply a "system" related to the "administration" of grace via sacraments, implemented through a communication between God and the faithful, mediated through a presbyter or deacon or so, and effected via a liturgical rite. How this relates to usual understandings of the word economy, I have no idea.

Why is this word used? How is it to be understood? The Catechisms speaks about its name coming from a "common Tradition of the East and the West". Maybe a reference to this tradition could clarify the original meaning of the word economy here.

PS: I hope this is on topic.


texts: Are there published testimonies from ex continuationists who became cessationists in spite of their previous experiences with (alleged) sign gifts?

texts:
This is basically the counterpart question to this one. Has ever a continuationist Christian, who used to be a continuationist because of having personally witnessed or experienced a(n alleged) sign gift (e.g. a healing, an accurate prophetic word / word of knowledge, speaking in an unknown tongue, etc.), turned into a cessationist? If so, what are common reasons that former continuationists typically give to "explain away" or make sense of their previous experiences?
If possible, I'd be especially interested in reading testimonies published by reputable former continuationists, say, a renowned continuationist Charismatic/Pentecostal preacher who used to have a "powerful" testimony but eventually realized that everything was fake and became a cessationist, etc.


texts: According to the Bible, what kind of debt, if any, is lawful?

texts:
The Bible has some strong things to say about debt. In the total witness of the Bible, is all debt considered sinful? Or can we differentiate between types of debt, and say that some are lawful while others are not? If there is debt that is considered lawful, can we further distinguish a type of debt that would also be wise (or at the very least, not unwise) to engage in, given the right circumstances?

See related questions on Biblical Hermeneutics: Does Romans 13:8 include a prohibition of taking loans? and What are the proverbs about giving collateral for someone else teaching about loans?


texts: Did God ever talk about his other creations?

texts:
I have always been a lover of all things "Science", space, other life forms, etc. I excelled in Science in School but a few years ago I started questioning things and now believe that "Science" and God can coexist - something that most people I've spoken to disagree with.

Anyway. There are other planets out there, we all know that. But does Life exist on any of those planets? Does God ever mention anything about his other creations (outside of Earth)?

When we look at Earth from outside of it (correct me if I'm wrong), we can see the lights all across the world. But when we look at other planets, there are no lights. This alone leads me to believe that there are no other forms of life on planets that we can see - unless they are completely different from us and are of colors that our eyes cannot see, or is it that God made it so that forms of life on one planet cannot communicate with or see forms of life on another planet?

I would very much like this to be a discussion but since that's not appropriate for this website I would like to know if there is anything in the scriptures about any of this?