texts: When and for what reasons does the Pope have the right to legitimately excommunicate members of the Church?

texts:
Please explain me the teaching of the Church on the subject of validity of papal excommunications.

I’ve met one priest who holds that popes can only excommunicate members of the Church for real and grave reasons, and any excommunications for absurd, political, not genuine, or otherwise non-substantiative reasons is null and invalid, even if officially declared by the Pope.

Is such a statement correct? Are there any official documents on the subject?

Or is it true that the Pope can legitimately and effectively excommunicate any member of the Church for whatever reason?

In such a case, is the following excommunication valid and is anyone who mentions in a word or thought Pope Alexander VI in danger of excommunication, or maybe even has already incurred excommunication latae sententiae?

Because, according to Wikipedia, Pope Julius II said:

  I will not live in the same rooms as the Borgias lived. He [Alexander
  VI] desecrated the Holy Church as none before. He usurped the papal
  power by the devil's aid, and I forbid under the pain of
  excommunication anyone to speak or think of Borgia again. His name and
  memory must be forgotten. It must be crossed out of every document and
  memorial. His reign must be obliterated. All paintings made of the
  Borgias or for them must be covered over with black crepe. All the
  tombs of the Borgias must be opened and their bodies sent back to
  where they belong—to Spain.


texts: According to Calvinism, why does God give mercy to some and not to others?

texts:
So according to Calvinism as I understand it...

  ...God has chosen from eternity to extend mercy to those he has chosen and to withhold mercy from those not chosen. Those chosen receive salvation through Christ alone. Those not chosen receive the just wrath that is warranted for their sins against God.

So if everyone is equally deserving of wrath and equally undeserving of grace, why then does God unequally extend mercy to some and not to others?

How does this affect the Calvinist's perspective of the identity of God as being merciful and loving? If the love of God is the motivation for his mercy, what is the motivation for his alleged lack of mercy?


texts: From a Fundamentalist viewpoint, what does it mean to "take the Bible literally"?

texts:
In my previous answer on this question, while discussing Biblical Inerrancy, I stated:

  The doctrine of inerrancy does not imply hyper-literalism. As noted
  above, in the second possible mechanism for Biblical Inspiration, we
  believe that God allowed the writer's literary style to be used in the
  writing of Scripture. Hyperbole (the use of exaggeration as a figure
  of speech. Example, "I'm so hungry, I could eat a horse.") is allowed.

This is not necessarily a Fundamentalist belief.  In an article at cathtruth.com (A Catholic site) we read:

  Since at times our data are only what we find in the Bible, we lack
  the necessary information to reconstruct a given incident with all its
  details. Occasionally the Bible embodies hyperboles, allegories,
  parables, etc.

Detractors love to claim that you can't have it both ways – that you can't claim to take the Bible literally, and then decide that parts of it are allegorical.  (I've made the same statement myself in a discussion on creation/evolution.)

The charge leveled both at me and by me was the same:  "You can't just choose which parts of Scripture you want to believe and assume the other parts are allegorical.  that opens it up to claim that anything you don't like in Scripture is allegorical."

So, are there practical, accepted, time-honored guidelines for determining which parts of Scripture to take literally?

Traditionally, what are the hermeneutic rules applied to Biblical Literalism, and how does "Biblical Literalism" relate to Fundamentalist doctrine?


texts: John of Damascus was one of the first Christian authors to write about the rise of Islam shortly after the time of Muhammad. I am fascinated by this man but I can't seem to find enough info about this subject on the Internet. I was wondering how exactly did he view Islam in his writings?


texts: What is the biblical basis that Satan is/was an angel?

texts:
I ask this question because I did not see anything that really answered the question. Also out of recommendation by fredsbend - but what is the basis for this?

Don't get me wrong, first of all, as I grew up being taught this same thing. However, the more I read and the more I learned, I realized such a thing does not exist in Scripture at least as much as I have read. I begin with some verses attributed to being about Satan, but follow with clear and precise objections to them being the case - these objections will also be in Scripture. As we know, Scripture cannot contradict Scripture, hence why I use the Bible as a guide on these matters. So let's begin with the most popular:

Isaiah 14:12-15

  How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how
  art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations! For
  thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt
  my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of
  the congregation, in the sides of the north: I will ascend above the
  heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High. Yet thou shalt be
  brought down to hell, to the sides of the pit.

This is not about Satan, who is incorrectly identified as "Lucifer". Further reading both before and after these verses indicate that this is written about a man, the then King of Babylon.

Isaiah 14:4

  That thou shalt take up this proverb against the king of Babylon, and say, How hath the oppressor ceased! the golden city ceased!

A common argument is that Satan/Lucifer is described as "King of Babylon". However, we see nothing in Scripture to make such an inference. Then you have God calling this King a man in verses 16-17

  They that see thee shall narrowly look upon thee, and consider thee, saying, Is this the > man that made the earth to tremble, that did shake kingdoms; That made the world as a
  wilderness, and destroyed the cities thereof; that opened not the house of his prisoners?

Next is Ezekiel Chapter 28, which is largely attributed to being about Satan, however it cannot be because reading it from the beginning we see this is about the Prince/King of Tyrus/Tyre depending on your version. God starts this immediately by saying this individual is about a man.

28:2

  Son of man, say unto the prince of Tyrus, Thus saith the Lord GOD; Because thine heart is > lifted up, and thou hast said, I am a God, I sit in the seat of God, in the midst of the > seas; yet thou art a man, and not God, though thou set thine heart as the heart of God:

Other verses attributed to being about Satan and his fall is the falling of the Watchers (which is post-Eden, therefor wrong) and incorrectly quoting Revelation as a past event. We know the Dragon WILL be cast from the heavens with his army, but this has yet to pass. As a man, it would not be wrong for God to say he was in the Garden, as this could be a reference to ALL mankind, instead of the individual.

Also, I have seen nothing to support the idea that Satan was the snake in the Garden. Instead, it was a snake with legs that could speak. If it were Satan, where would his fall take place? Surely not long after Adam in Isaiah's prophecy?

In regards to Lucifer - this word is derived from the Latin lux ferre, which is used only twice in the Vulgate, once for the Isaiah verse and another in Revelation used by Jesus when He calls Himself "the Light of the World"/"Bringer of Light"/etc title depending on your version.

Many refer to Christ's mention of seeing the Devil fall from Heaven. However, we forget Jesus more than likely could prophesy, and as such that COULD have been an allusion to His Revelation, where the Dragon is in fact cast down.

I am curious on what others think and what other groups teach, and am interested in answers of all varieties. I apologize for the lengthiness by the way.


texts: Female Sunday School teachers for 17, 18 year old male students?

texts:
This verse has been used to say that women should not hold the office of pastor:

  I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet.  1 Tim 2:12.

Yet at least among LC-MS Lutheran congregations, I have observed female "worship leaders", choir directors, lectors, communion distributors, congregation presidents, and more notably,  Sunday School teachers.  Clearly speaking, every one of these offices has "authority" or "teaches" males. These would include in some cases indirectly whole congregation (worship leader) or direct authority and "teaching" for Sunday school students who are men by US standards (18) or ancient standards (late teens, perhaps).

Q: How have denominations (or other church movements) that have held scripture forbids female pastors responded to the general blanket proscription which seems to be found in this verse?


texts: Is there any connection between the country of origin of Popes and nearby large gatherings of Catholics or Councils?

texts:
Not that a run of 2 means anything (or Rio is in Argentina like I mistakenly assumed It is just down the road) and given there were hundreds of years of Italian popes to skew this statistic, but it seems like Pope Francis and Pope Benedict XVI being elected months prior to World Youth Days nearby their countries of origin is not a complete coincidence.

Maybe it is, but just to dispel any possible conspiracies, has there ever been a precedent of electing a Pope to draw attention to an event upon the Pope's "homecoming"?


texts: What are the main biblical interpretations used to defend the point of view that Nicodemus had inferior faith?

texts:
I was reading a post by John Piper here where he said this:

  But it is not saving faith. Nicodemus was not born again

The same week my Pastor made a derogatory reference to the faith of Nicodemus, which took me by surprise.  I read some more online.

On bible.org I found this quote in a larger work on faith and some that included Nicodemus.

  Nicodemus seems to be John’s first example of one who “believes” by
  virtue of our Lord’s signs, yet he is also one to whom our Lord does
  not “entrust” Himself

Finally, when doing a simple read through wikipedia I find this:

  He is venerated as a Christian saint.

While some might gloss over this topic in my mind this is actually a very, very drastic difference in opinion.  From a Saint, to a false believer, and somewhere in between there are educated opinions all over the map on Nicodemus.  I think this creates a great litmus test for my own view of one snapshot of what saving faith is and if there is a ranking system to it as some obviously contend.

This question isn't about my opinion, of which I do have a strong one.  I would like for you to present information about existing research and viewpoints of different vetted sources on the ultimate judgement that Nicodemus had inferior or unsaving faith.

♣ Bible references are best (I would think James might have something to say, and probably Paul would argue with him  ☺)

♣ Existing  doctrines on the topic are good (I have no clue if these exist)

♣ Denominational statements on the topic are good (same as above)

Your opinion, like mine, should be left out of this discussion.


texts: According to Lutherans, under what conditions (or at what moment) do the consecrated species cease to be the blood and body of Christ?

texts:
I understand that Lutherans believe in the real, physical presence of Christ in the Eucharist, but not in such a way that the species cease to be true bread and wine. So you are physically eating God, but you are also physically eating bread. (Similar to the hypostatic union of Christs two natures: Christ is fully human and fully divine. The bread is fully bread but also fully Christ).

I was wondering when the consecrated species cease to be divine and return to normal, natural, mundane matter. I heard somewhere a long time ago that lutherans believe that the real presence only continues for duration of the liturgy and once the mass concludes the species return to being normal bread and wine, but I have not been able to confirm this.

Perhaps the Lutheran view is similar to the catholic view. That is, the sacramental union persists so long as the bread and wine are recognizable as bread and wine. Once they have gone mouldy, turned to vinegar, evaporated or been digested, the body and blood are no longer present.


texts:
The seat of the Bishop of Rome is called "the Holy See". What does "see" mean?

Does it mean “Holy Sea”, as the word “see” could be an archaic spelling of the word “sea”. It would make sense, because there is an unholy sea in the Bible also, called “Lake of fire”. It sure sounds like “Holy Sea”, because it makes most sense language-wise.


texts: Where does the concept of a "God-shaped hole" originate?

texts:
There's a concept that I heard used many times throughout my life in regards to idolatry.  The idea is that inside each of us is a "God-shaped hole"--a place inside of our hearts that only God can fill.  If we try to put anything else in there, it won't fit (meaning, it won't fill the need we have inside of our heart/soul).

Where does this concept originate?  Is it a biblical concept or just a fanciful rhetoric?


texts: Which Orthodox churches are on the New Calendar, and which are on the Old Calendar?

texts:
I'm trying to determine whether or not a majority of Orthodox are on the Old or on the New Calendar.  I don't need numbers for this question, but I do need names.

Who are on the Old, and who are on the New?

This wiki claims that the "churches of Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, Greece, Cyprus, Romania, Poland, Bulgaria, and most of the Orthodox Church in America." are on the New Calendar.

Ok, good start. Is that comprehensive?

This wiki page states that "Those Orthodox Churches which remain in full communion with the New Calendarists and yet continue to use the Julian calendar, include the Orthodox Church of Jerusalem, the Russian Orthodox Church, the Serbian Orthodox Church, and the Georgian Orthodox Church. (The Julian calendar is also used by the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia which has reunited with the Russian Orthodox Church.) Mount Athos subordinate to the Patriarchate of Constantinople also follows the Julian Calendar."

Ok, not comprehensive. If the Wiki page is accurate, the Old Calendar churches include Jerusalem, Moscow, Serbian, Georgian, ROCOR, Mount Athos, and all other Old Calendar churches who are not in communion with Constantinople.

I don't think it is comprehensive, however, as there is a Palestinian Orthodox church in my area that is in communion with Constantinople (and under their authority) who is on the Old Calendar.

I'm also unsure of how to obtain a list of Orthodox churches which are not in communion with Constantinople and who are on the Old Calendar.


texts: According to Catholicism, was there a co-relation between the time of Transfiguration of Jesus and that of his Prayer at Gethsemane?

texts:
We read in Luke 9:28-32 an account of  the Transfiguration of Jesus:

Now about eight days after these sayings Jesus took with him Peter and John and James, and went up on the mountain to pray.   And while he was praying, the appearance of his face changed, and his clothes became dazzling white. Suddenly they saw two men, Moses and Elijah, talking to him. They appeared in glory and were speaking of his departure, which he was about to accomplish at Jerusalem. Now Peter and his companions were weighed down with sleep; but since they had stayed awake, they saw his glory and the two men who stood with him.

Luke is the only Evangelist who mentions that Peter and his companions were weighed down with sleep, suggesting that the Transfiguration took place late in the night. We also see Jesus praying at Gethsemane late in the night while  his disciples were fast asleep (Mtt 26:43). At the Transfiguration the apostles see him in sheer glory and power  while at Gethsemane, they see him totally human and helpless. That leads one to believe that Jesus had in fact chosen the timing of both his Transfiguration and  the Prayer at Gethsemane with a purpose.
My question therefore is: According to Catholic Church, was there a co-relation between the time of Transfiguration of Jesus and that of his Prayer at Gethsemane?


texts: Where in the Bible is the restoration of the nation of Israel prophesied?

texts:
I have heard that the restoration of the state of Israel is a fulfillment of one or more Biblical prophecies. But I cannot find any explicit reference to it.

Is this really a fulfillment of prophecy, if so which one(s)?


texts: What is the difference between Arminianism, Molinism, and Calvinism?

texts: I know the basic difference between Arminianism and Calvinism in the soteriology subject, but when Molinism comes I can't grasp the core doctrines that it teaches. I'm not asking for which is better, just a concise, easy, and helpful definition of each one without too much philosophical blather.


texts: Was Jesus guilty or not guilty by the law?

texts:
There are two answers in this question which contradict each other:

How does the trial of Jesus compare to the judicial standards of the epoch and of the modern times?

The first answer says that Jesus was guilty of what he was charged.  The second claims that Jesus was not guilty at all but intentionally choose not to defend himself.  So was he guilty or not?


texts: According to dispensationalists, does the "secret rapture" include a bodily resurrection and new earth?

texts:
Do proponents of a "Secret Rapture" understand this to be a bodily resurrection?

I can only conclude that the bodies are taken into heaven as they are taken away not just spiritually but actually missing from Pilot seats and from in front of wheels of tractor trailers all while their now unmanned vehicles are crashing into and rolling over those not raptured.

Will there be a new creation in this tradition at this time or will there be a separate earth in this understanding? Will the raptured people have glorified bodies, or will that wait to the final return of Christ?

I have been unable to find any clear understanding of this event.  I assume it is a work in progress.


texts:
If a house or town does not receive the Gospel, you are to shake dust off of your feet:

  Matthew 10:12
  12 As you enter a house, wish it peace.
  13 If the house is worthy, let your peace come upon it; if not, let your peace return to you.
  14 Whoever will not receive you or listen to your words—go outside that house or town and shake the dust from your feet.

  Luke 10:10-11
  10 Whatever town you enter and they do not receive you, go out into the streets and say,
  11 ‘The dust of your town that clings to our feet, even that we shake off against you.’ Yet know this: the kingdom of God is at hand.

I understand that the roads were not paved, and that people would travel by walking, so their feet would become dirty and dusty. I also understand that this is no longer a practice in some churches, but is in others, and that this was a practice among the Jews before Christ came.

But why? And why dust in particular? Does it have to be dust from that town? Is this act symbolic, or does the dust itself have some sort of effect if not shaken off? If it is symbolic, is it supposed to communicate something to the townspeople (so you would have to do it in front of them), or should it be done in the view of God only, or both?

What is significant about shaking dust from your feet?


texts: What is the basis for the idea that God is highly involved in human lives?

texts:
A few days ago a family member who is religious told me about an event in her life that she thinks is a miracle. She witnessed a car wreck in front of her, and believes that it is a miracle that it was not them because they had stopped to pray beforehand. The details are not particularly important to this question.

I know many people of various religions, but I've only heard similar statements from Christians. I live in the USA so I'm wondering if this is something that is largely cultural (being the most popular religion here) or if there is something particular about Christianity that encourages this?

Are there any verses in the Bible which support this kind of hyper-involvement in your life by God?

And is there a specific movement or denomination that is particularly supportive of this idea?


texts: Those who believe that Baptism is necessary for salvation explain the apparent uncertainty with scripture please?

texts:
My questions relates to whether baptism a necessary act for salvation, according to the Bible, or whether its actual meaning has been misunderstood.

'Baptism' actually means, immersing in water. In other words, having a wash, shower or cleanliness rather than an act of salvation.

[John 8:32] And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free

I feel that the meaning of baptism has been misunderstood and misinterpreted by the church fathers of different denominations. These days it has become more of a tradition than actual purpose of the teachings.

Paul writes, [1 Corinthians 13-17] 13 Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul? 14 I thank God that I baptized none of you, but Crispus and Gaius; 15 Lest any should say that I had baptized in mine own name. 16 And I baptized also the household of Stephanas: besides, I know not whether I baptized any other. 17 For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect.

Now, the question to ask is, whose Gospel was Paul preaching? Was it his own Gospel or Christ's?

[Romans 2:16] on that day when, according to my gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus.
[Roman 16:25] Now to him that is of power to stablish you according to my gospel, and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery, which was kept secret since the world began,
[2 Timothy 2:8] Remember that Jesus Christ of the seed of David was raised from the dead according to my gospel:

List of Questions:

4300 years of human history before John the Baptist, Nobody was Baptised?
How did they make it to heaven?
If the Baptism was a way of Salvation, but Jesus did not need to be saved or wash away his sins, he did not commit any sin, so why was he Baptised?
Did Jesus need to repent?
What about the thief on the cross?

[Luke 23:39-43] 39 One of the criminals who hung there hurled insults at him: “Aren’t you the Messiah? Save yourself and us!” 40 But the other criminal rebuked him. “Don’t you fear God,” he said, “since you are under the same sentence? 41 We are punished justly, for we are getting what our deeds deserve. But this man has done nothing wrong.” 42 Then he said, “Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom.[d]” 43 Jesus answered him, “Truly I tell you, today you will be with me in paradise.”

If baptism saves you, then doesn't that mean we need to rely on the church who baptizes us to save us?


texts: In 1820 how were the Canons of Durango installed?

texts:
I am trying to figure out the date when Agustín Fernández became canon priest of Durango, Mexico. I know these steps were taken:

Some time in 1820, the bishop and cathedral chapter chose him as canon, seemingly with no formal oral examination. In January 1821, because of the Patronato Real, the King of Spain appointed him. In October, the Regency of the newly independent Mexican Empire accepted the King of Spain's appointment. Also in October, Fernández was prevented from going to Durango because the Regency was arranging a political appointment for him. In April of 1822, the Regency asked Durango to start paying his salary despite him "not having taken possession" of his prebend.

With both the approval of the cathedral chapter, the King and the Regency, were there still more steps he needed to take to become a fully installed member of the cathedral chapter? Even though there is a long tradition of non-residentiary canons, would he have had to show up once, maybe just to make an oath before the bishop?


texts: Why did Jesus tell His disciples to buy a sword?

texts:
At the Last Supper, Luke records this dialogue:

He said to them, “But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don’t have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one. It is written: ‘And he was numbered with the transgressors’; and I tell you that this must be fulfilled in me. Yes, what is written about me is reaching its fulfillment.”
The disciples said, “See, Lord, here are two swords.”
“That is enough,” he replied.

Luke 22:36-38
Why did Jesus tell them to buy a sword? And what should we make of His reply, "That is enough" when they produce two swords? Did He mean, "that is enough talk" or "those are enough swords"?


texts: Why does communion frequency vary in different denominations?

texts:
Different churches celebrate the Eucharist (Communion, Lord's Supper, ...) with different frequency. At one extreme, Catholic and high Anglican churches tend to celebrate it at least daily. Many Protestant churches offer it only once a month, though they will have a Sunday service each week. Some churches have Communion even less often - quarterly or annually.

What factors have caused the divergence in practice (between Catholics and Protestants) and how does each modern model compare to the frequency of its celebration in the early Church?


texts:
Catholicism venerates people's works as that is the only way to become a saint - you actually have to DO something.

I understand that there has been a strong debate regarding faith or works (or faith AND works)  requirement for salvation.  That isn't what I am asking.  I am asking; is Catholicism a works based denomination?


texts: What is the origin of the Good Friday tradition?

texts:
As suggested by this question and this answer, it seems possible that Jesus actually died on a Wednesday, not on a Friday.

In light of these competing theories, what is the origin of the Good Friday tradition?


texts:
In this answer, we were introduced to the concept and meaning of vocation, a calling from God.

In this article, 'Group Called ‘Roman Catholic Womenpriests’ Say They Are Defying The Church To Answer A Call From God'.

Interiorly, these women 'feel they have been called by God'.

What is the Catholic Church's answer to a woman/women claiming that God has called them to the Priesthood?


texts: Is "Mary Queen of the Universe" a recognized title for the Virgin Mary in Catholicism?

texts:
There is a Catholic Church near where I lived called "Mary Queen of the Universe" (Link).

It seems from their website it's a shrine for Mary. The name of this does not make much sense to me if it is a Christian church.

How is she the Queen of the Universe? I have never seen this in the Bible (any translation). All I can think of is the marriage supper of the Lamb for all the believers in the end, not just Mary.

Where did they come up with this title?  Is the title "Queen of the Universe" something found in established Catholic teaching?  Also, if it is an established title, what does it mean?


texts: Which books are regarded as puritan spiritual classics?

texts:
In recent readings I've found some (informal) quotes to puritan sayings like:

  "Pray for the gift of tears"

...meaning that a puritan should pray to ask for true repentance of his sins to the point of tears.

  "Our first duty as Christians is to get ourselves happy in God"

...which is pretty obvious.

My question is which can be regarded as puritan spiritual classics? And my extra bonus question is: where can I find the quotes listed above?


texts: What is the meaning of Lumen Gentium's "subsistit in" according to the Acta Synodalia of Vatican Council II?

texts:
In Lumen Gentium 8 we find the words, "Haec Ecclesia [...] subsistit in Ecclesia catholica..." ("This Church [...] subsists in the Catholic Church").
The Acta Synodalia Sacrosancti Concilii Oecumenici Vaticani II is a collection of all of the speeches, debates, and written submissions of the Council Fathers at Vatican II.  For example, it is well known that "subsistit in" replaced the original formulation of "est" due to an intervention during the Council.
Question:

According to the Acta Synodalia of Vatican II, what is the meaning of "subsistit in"?  What did the Council Fathers mean by subsistit in and why did they use this term to convey the relation between the Church of Christ and the Catholic Church?

Note: I am only interested in the interpretation of subsistit in with respect to the Acta Synodalia.  Strong answers will include insight into central discussions and debates that took place at the Council as well as the names of the parties who put forward various positions.


texts: I heard my pastor use the term "Magnificat" when preaching in the book of Luke about Mary today. What is the Magnificat?


texts: In Reformed Covenant Theology, why does the covenant sign of circumcision pass away but the Abrahamic covenant of which it was the sign of does not?

texts:
Galatians 3:16-18 denies that the Mosaic covenant annulled the promises of the Abrahamic and proceeds to argue the Christian gospel on the basis of the Abrahamic covenant against the idea of salvation by keeping the Mosaic law.

Yet, when the covenant was initially made with Abraham, God gave circumcision as the sign. Circumcision was given to Abraham (Genesis 17), not Moses (Exodus 34). Yet, in Paul especially, circumcision is often associated and even identified with the law of Moses in distinction to salvation by faith.

Paul seems emphatic that circumcision is not necessary and that trusting in circumcision is dangerous. It is easy to see why Paul would warn against trusting in works of the law given through Moses, but it is easy to sympathize with someone who feared the prospect of uncircumcision.

  Genesis 17:14 Any uncircumcised male who is not circumcised in the
  flesh of his foreskin shall be cut off from his people; he has broken
  my covenant.

(Again, speaking to Abraham, not Moses).

Paul is not alone in his interpretation. It is also the verdict of the Jerusalem council in Acts 15, affirmed by none other than Peter himself. In Acts 15, they associate circumcision with a "custom of Moses" (v. 1 and 5 by the pro-circumcision men from Judea and Pharisees, and again in v. 10 when Peter indirectly refers to it as a yoke).

The bow placed in the sky in the Noahic covenant remains because the covenant with creation remains, summer and winter, seedtime and harvest. So it is reasonable to believe that even very ancient covenant signs that came before the advent of Christ could still be in effect if their corresponding covenants remain in effect.

Why is circumcision then associated with Moses and therefore part of the burden of the law? Clearly, Reformed Covenant Theology accepts the New Testament canon containing the Pauline epistles and Acts as scripture, and so we can understand this view to be correct on the basis of authority. I would just like a better explanation than I have for why this sign has passed away or been swallowed up by Moses. For context, I am a Reformed Christian who affirms Reformed Covenant Theology.


texts: What "God's law" is Matthew Henry referring to?

texts:
Part of Matthew Henry's commentary on Exodus 22 says:

  A man's house is his castle, and God's law, as well as man's, sets a guard upon it; he that assaults it does so at his peril.

What is he referring to as "God's law" in reference to setting a guard upon it?


texts: What are the essential components of a Protestant evangelical church?

texts:
What are the essential attributes of a church, according to the Bible as interpreted by Protestant evangelical traditions? I've started a list but feel that it is incomplete:

Ministries
Missions
Leadership
Fellowship/Bible study Groups
Prayer Meeting
Holy Communion
Worship


texts: Does water baptism or a subconscious intention to be baptized with water by a human being necessarily and logically follows one's spiritual salvation?

texts:
Some say that water baptism is “an outward expression of an inward reality”; that it is “obedience to a command by God”. Regarding these statements, I have the following questions:

Does all inward reality demand an outward expression?

Christ’s death on cross is an outward expression of God’s love for his children. However, is the intention to express outwardly a necessary condition/criteria for an inward reality to be real/genuine, especially when the outward expression is a ritual or ceremony? I understand how a motivation to do good to others is an outward expression of the inward reality that one is following Christ’s command to love one’s neighbors as oneself, but I can’t understand it the same way for a ritual or a ceremony. Aren't some inward realities sufficient by themselves, such as a spiritual baptism by Holy Spirit through believing and practicing the words of Christ and having faith in Him?
Is the intention to be baptized by water the irreplaceable outward expression demanded for the inward reality (that one has been saved) to be true?

Is water baptism (or the intention to do it) the only way to outwardly express that one has truly accepted Christ and genuinely believes in Him? If water baptism cannot be replaced by other expression (such as openly spreading Christ’s words and ideas of the Gospels), then why? Is it simply a ritual chosen by God to show that one has been saved or does it add merit beyond one’s faith in Christ’s death on cross?
If one has no intention to be baptized by water, does it mean that his/her faith in God is fake, and that he/she has not been genuinely saved?

Let’s say that a hypothetical person living in a hypothetical country received a Bible in a foreign language. The only message that he managed to receive from the Bible is that Jesus died on the cross for our sin, that whoever believe in him will receive eternal life (sorry if my summary of the main theme of the New Testament is not accurate), and that Jesus loves God and loves his neighbors as himself. Even though stealing is not a crime in his country, he steals no more, for he learned to love his neighbors as himself, and he doesn’t want his own stuff stolen. We can go as far as to say that if he continues to steal after claiming to have believed, his belief is not genuine. However, does he need to have the intention to be baptized by water in order to rightfully claim that his belief is true, even if he has no concept at all about water baptism? Will the idea to be submerged into water by some priest magically appear in his mind if he truly believed?
Now, if a person does know about water baptism but has no intention to do it, is there no way for his/her faith to be true?

I believe that Christ’s death on the cross is glory at its fullest, and faith in it is sufficient for one to be saved and spiritually cleansed. I also believe that there will be outward expression after one believes, and that the outward expression is the will to love God and love one’s neighbors as oneself. However, I am not so sure whether water baptism or the intention to do it (or any other rituals) necessarily and logically follows one’s decision to believe. I thought that baptism by the Holy Spirit (cleansing the heart of sin) is sufficient, and personally had no intention to be baptized by water by another human being. But the more I read, the more I realized how many churches claim that if one has been truly saved, he/she will automatically have the intention to be baptized by water by some priest to demonstrate obedience to God, as if it has been explicitly and literally commanded by Jesus in the Bible to be an essential and necessary characteristics of a saved person. This has really shaken my confidence in the truthfulness of my faith and validity of my understanding all these years.


texts: Will Agnostics and Atheists go to Hell? (Catholic)

texts: Does it state anywhere in the Catholic Doctrine that non-believers and doubters will go to hell?


texts: Is white underwear necessary while being baptized in The Church of Jesus Christ of the Latter-day Saints?


texts: What are the theological roots of "my testimony" in evangelism?

texts:
I have noticed in evangelical / Baptist circles that the phrase "your testimony" is mentioned heavily in suggestions as to how you ought to witness to nonbelievers.  It is said that citing personal evidence of how God was active in your life, through miracles or improved moral behavior over time, is the trump card in your witness.   I've also heard a Lutheran pastor say something like, "It is transformed, not perfect, lives that will witness to Christ."  And I just now found similar "transformed, not perfect" wording on a Catholic site.

In contrast, the sermons I find most inspiring (and assume would be more convincing to a nonbeliever who was like myself) instead focus on a conviction of sin, and the futility of works, as a lead-in to Christ as Redeemer. For example, C.S. Lewis' Mere Christianity talks about the nature of God and our sin moreso than how he prayed and got something from God.    A focus on material benefits and moral improvements risks missing out completely on the sin-death-resurrection narrative and are ultimately Antinomian.

Q: What are the theological roots of stressing "your testimony" in evangelism? (From bible to church fathers to contemporary great evangelists?)


texts: According to Roman Catholic teaching, did Martin Luther's alterations to the order of the Mass invalidate his consecration of the elements?

texts:
In the Catholic Church (at least, according to the Church's teaching today), a validly ordained priest retains the powers of the priesthood for life, even if he is excommunicated or laicized and thus forbidden to use them. Therefore, an excommunicated or laicized priest who celebrates the Mass does so validly (the bread and wine truly become the Body and Blood of Christ as they would were he not excommunicated or laicized) but illicitly (he celebrates the sacrament in a manner against Church law). However, in such cases, it is assumed that the priest celebrates the Mass according to an order of Mass that either is approved or has once been approved by the Church. For example, a validly ordained priest who is a member of the illicit Society of St. Pius X celebrates Mass validly in spite of using the Tridentine order of Mass, which is not the order of Mass endorsed in the current Roman Missal. Regarding the necessity of proper matter and form, true bread and true wine must be used (proper matter), and I believe the part of the anaphora that is integral to proper form (and thus to valid consecration) is the words of institution (in the Catholic Church, "this is my body" and "this is my blood").

Luther's case (and by extension the case for all other priests of the day who would come to celebrate his revised Mass) is unique in that although he was a valid priest who could theoretically continue to celebrate Mass illicitly according to the order of Mass in use in his day, did his consecrations remain valid even after he made notable changes to the Eucharistic liturgy that were not ever approved by the Church? Perhaps most crucial to consider here is that although he retained the words of institution, he translated them into German. Would that be enough to invalidate the sacrament?

Also to be considered are Luther's intentions when celebrating the Mass after his alterations of the Mass order. It is notable that among the early reformers he is one of few, according to Hendrix, who maintained throughout his life that the Body and Blood of Christ are truly "present in" the bread and wine, though he was never too keen on elaborating in what fashion this was so. The biography never explicitly portrays Luther as denying the formulation that the bread and wine "become" the Body and Blood of Christ (transubstantiation), but the former formulation is used by him more frequently. What is certain, however, is that Luther explicitly rejected the sacrificial character of the Mass according to Hendrix (see the second list point below for citation): while he intended, then, to make the body and blood of Christ present in the Mass, he did not intend to make the sacrifice of Christ's body and blood present, which is integral to proper intention according to this report, which elucidates Apostolicae Curae  (see quotation of the relevant paragraph in Ken Graham's answer). What is clear from this is that Luther's defective intention would have invalidated his Mass; what I would like answered in the question is whether, all other conditions being adequate for a valid consecration, Luther's revised order of Mass would have invalidated his consecrations.

Other alterations that Luther made to the Mass which may be pertinent to take into consideration include:

Its translation in whole or in part into German (although he permitted most of the Mass to remain in Latin depending on the scruples of a given congregation, he always spoke the words of institution in German), and
The removal of the "long prayer of consecration that implied the mass reenacted the sacrifice of Jesus." (Hendrix 128, 129; elsewhere in the biography Hendrix mentions Luther's distaste for the canon of the mass, to which he is likely referring with "long prayer" here. Clearly Luther retained the words of institution, albeit in German, but if I were to guess, he would have at least done away with the preface, the oblation, the epiclesis, and the intercessions [see anaphora]. Of course, if someone else knows more specifically what was changed, that would be good to know.)


texts:
What is the purpose of Jesus suffering? If Jesus represents God, why does God need to suffer?

It doesn't make sense to me that it is for the sake of forgiving us, because I hope God forgives us regardless, and doesn't need sacrifices to do it.

I do connect to the implication of God suffering with us, and that we are not alone in suffering, but still don't understand, why does God need to suffer.


texts: What is the Biblical basis for the belief that life begins at conception?

texts:
Possible Duplicate:
  What is the biblical basis for the claim that abortion is immoral?

Related to some recent questions, what is the Biblical basis for believing that life begins at conception?

Once we know when life begins, then it makes sense that killing that life is wrong.  But I always hear the verse about "before I formed you in the womb, I knew you" and that is talking about God's knowledge of us, which exists long before conception.  It is quite obvious that human life begins before birth, but why is it so sure that conception is the beginning point?  And, is there a biblical basis for that belief, or only a historical basis?


texts: Were there any female priests in the temple?

texts: Were there any female priests in the temple in Jerusalem at any time?


texts: If God is power beyond this reality, is there an infinite measurement of possibilities?

texts:
Is there an infinite scale of beauty, goodness, joy and love that is God's power? Or do these have a fixed 'highest capacity' that God has/IS?

Put it this way, nothing is 'wetter' than water...that is 'wetness'at its highest value but milk choclate has sweeter alternatives.


texts: Are the requirements for attaining godhood in LDS teaching the same or different for every world?

texts:
In my understanding of LDS teaching, both Jesus and Lucifer proposed plans of salvation to Elohim, and Jesus' plan was chosen.  As a result, some people on earth may attain godhood if they follow the gospel and obey its teachings to a high enough standard.

The idea that two plans of salvation were offered seems to indicate that there really was an option.  So, my question is whether or not the attainment of godhood is the same for all worlds or if the requirements could be vastly different from world to world.  Does each god have the option of creating his own requirements for his spiritual children to attain godhood themselves or is there, in reality, one universal gospel for all worlds and all gods?


texts: What Christian groups believe sex was the original sin, and not disobedience?

texts: There is a story in the Bible that Adam and Eve ate the fruit and thus sinned against God. But other religions, including some Christians, describe that they were having intercourse and that's why God threw them out of the garden. Which Christian groups believe this, and what is their reasoning?


texts: Was Jesus resurrected after or {within} three days of his death?

texts: Was Jesus resurrected after complete 3 days, or he resurrected in the third day?. I mean if he had been resurrected in the third day, this means that he had spent less than 72 hours before his resurrection.


texts: How can the Bible say God was refreshed if he never gets weary?

texts:
These two passages seem contradictory: the first says that God rested and was refreshed on the seventh day, but the second says God is never tired or weary. How can these passages be reconciled?

It will be a sign between me and the Israelites forever, for in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, and on the seventh day he rested and was refreshed. (Exodus 31:17, NIV)
Do you not know? Have you not heard? The LORD is the everlasting God, the Creator of the ends of the earth. He will not grow tired or weary, and his understanding no one can fathom. (Isaiah 40:28, NIV)


texts: How do Protestant Christians understand the “Sabbath-rest for the people of God” in Hebrews chapter 4?

texts:
So then, there remains a Sabbath rest for the people of God, for whoever has entered God's rest has also rested from his works as God did from his. (Hebrews 4:9-10)

What are God’s conditions for entering into this Sabbath rest for His people, since God declared that some shall never enter His rest?

So I declared on oath in my anger, ‘They shall never enter my rest.’ (Psalm 95:7-8)

What does it mean for Protestant Christians to enter into the Sabbath rest for God's people as described in Hebrews chapter 4?


texts: Are there any Christian doctrines that cover lucid dreaming?

texts:
Do any Christian traditions have doctrines that cover the issue of lucid dreaming? In particular, do any of these cover whether we control our minds at all times or if God can/does sometimes control them?

Are there any examples in the Bible of lucid dreaming? If so does doctrine/tradition interpret these as something controlled by divine intervention or by the dreamers own subconscious?

Many religions acknowledge lucid dreaming as a spiritual gateway. I am not a Christian and I am just curious as to what Christianity views there are on this.


texts:
In the book, I come across a statement that says:

  Many theologians say that death is always "a conscious act, " even
  when we seem unconscious to those around us. It is an act we perform,
  not something we simply use undergo.

Is there any supporting proof for this statement within the Roman Catholic Church's teaching or where some theologians get that idea?


texts: Can a female Religious (a nun or sister) be expelled from her order after a hysterectomy?

texts: I wanted to ask if a female Religious (ie, a nun or sister) who has become sick and had a hysterectomy, can she be expelled and sent home before her perpetual vows and under which grounds?


texts: In John 1:45–51, did Jesus prophesy that Nathanael was one of the 144,000 Jews in Revelation 7 and 14?

texts:
When Jesus tells Nathanael he will see the heavens opened and angels descending on the Son of man is He referring to simply a declaration of His deity, His baptism and other events where God confirmed His blessing of His Son by spiritual and physical realms colliding, the transfiguration, His temptation, or is this a prophecy that Nathanael would be one of the 144,000 Jews spoken of in Revelation 7 and 14?

I'm interested in Protestant and Catholic views.


texts:
There are many who have pointed out that Luther added the word, "alone" to Romans 3:28 (you can read one such example in this question) so that the Luther Bible reads:

  for we reckon a man to be justified by faith alone without deeds of law

where the Greek reads:

  for we reckon a man to be justified by faith without deeds of law

Is this true?


texts: Did any of the Catholic or Protestant paramilitary groups of the Northern Ireland conflicts of the 60s and 70s ever have an actual theological creed?

texts:
I have been reading old newspapers for fun and noticed a lot of conflicts in Northern Ireland making the newspaper during the 60s and 70s (along with the usual Vietnam and Israel conflicts). When I then looked up the names of these terrorists organizations they only have military information on wiki articles, without any religious ideologies mentioned. On the same token they were always called 'Catholic' or 'Protestant' in the newspapers, but from what I can gather this may simply mean Irish or Colonial British.

So what I'm wondering besides being from cultural backgrounds that were generally Catholic or Protestant (i.e. Irish or British) was there actually any published religious beliefs associated with any paramilitary group in the conflict, or was it more or less 100% just an Irish / British conflict with the names 'Catholic' and 'Protestant' as mere code words for the national sides?

Did any of the Catholic or Protestant paramilitary groups of the Northern Ireland ever have an actual published theological creeds or rules of religious observances for their members?


texts: How are Roman Catholics to receive the holy Eucharist at Mass?

texts: What is the etiquette to be followed when receiving the holy Eucharist? Is one to kneel down? Does one receive in the hand or directly on the tongue? Are there any prescribed procedures from Vatican?


texts: The Luke 2 census - did everyone travel?

texts:
We know from Luke 2 that each person (or, certainly, adult male) was required to register to his own town. We also know that Joseph travelled (with Mary) from Nazareth to Bethlehem so that they could be registered there:

  3 And all the people were going to be registered, each to his own city or town.
  4 And Joseph also went up from Galilee from the town of Nazareth to Judea, to the town of David, which is called Bethlehem, because he was of the house and family of David

--Luke 2:3-4 (AMP), emphasis mine

The common assumption is that everyone had to be at their ancestral home for the census, however the passage doesn't exactly say that. It states that people would be registered to their own city or town - presumably, the city or town they happened to be in at the time of the registration - and that Joseph went to Bethlehem because he was of David's line.

Since genealogy was so important to that culture, could it be that Joseph travelled to Bethlehem of his own volition to emphasise his ancestry on his official registration, as opposed to being required to go there by the authorities? Is there any evidence that people were required to travel to their ancestral homes as opposed to many Jews choosing to do so?

(By "evidence" I don't mean original documentation as that's obviously going to be pretty hard to come by; I'm really wondering if this has been discussed by subject matter experts and what conclusions, if any, have been drawn.)


texts: Is it true that early Christians were baptised naked?

texts: I was told that people were baptised naked in the early Christian church. Is this true? If so, could you provide references please?


texts: Where in the Bible does it say angels sing?

texts: I was recently told that man is the only one of God's creations that can sing. I thought angels also sang, but I don't know where the Bible says that.  Where in the Bible does it say that angels sing?


texts: How to identify a Catholic 'order' from initials that follow a nun or priest's name?

texts:
I am regularly cataloguing publications written by (or about) sisters and priests. I am unfamiliar with all of the different Catholic orders. Is there an online list or reference that identifies what the initials after their names stand for?

For example:
S.J. = Society of Jesus
O.S.U = Ursuline Sisters of the Roman Union


texts: What effect did the Reformation have inside the Catholic Church?

texts:
I confess my knowledge of church history branches at about the Reformation. I know a quite a bit about Catholicism today, and I have an idea of what it was before the Reformation. These are not at all the same thing.

What changes inside the Roman Catholic church, either in practice or doctrine, are directly attributed to the events of the Reformation? How soon after the reformation was this change visible/acknowledged?


texts: In Eastern Orthodoxy, what is most important for the efficacy of the sacraments: the right Church or the right God?

texts: In Eastern Orthodoxy, is it most important for the efficacy of the sacraments that they be administered canonically by an ordained priest (who is in apostolic succession), or the fact that God is the one who works in and through the Holy Mysteries? Or is it both (or something else)? A discussion of canonical decisions made during the Novation and Donatist controversies would be helpful, as well as the decisions of Church councils. I am specifically interested in the sacraments of Baptism and Holy Communion (the Mystical Supper).


texts: Why is the Last Place on Earth St. Peter Founded the Seat of his Authority?

texts:
The (Roman) Catholic Church agrees that Peter founded different churches, like at Antioch or Rome, but it claims that it is only at the last place Peter lived or died is to where his supposed authority from Christ as the head of the apostles remains.

What is the proof of this claim?  Why would it matter where Peter lived last or died at as to where his supposed authority remained?


texts: Are there philosophical explanations for why God would allow animals to suffer due to non-human causes?

texts:
I just finished watching CosmicSkeptic's video titled Christianity's Biggest Problem, in which Alex O'Connor, the owner of the channel, presents the problem of animal suffering as the biggest objection to the belief in a loving God. In particular, he refers to the kind of animal suffering which cannot be attributed to a human cause, and therefore, cannot be "explained away" as the consequences of humans freely choosing to do evil against animals. The following are examples of non-human caused animal suffering:

An animal agonizing for hours before dying because a tree unexpectedly fell and broke one of its legs.
An animal burning alive due to a natural wildfire.
Animals causing suffering to each other due to predator-prey dynamics.
Animals suffering due to natural disasters in general.

Are there Christian philosophers who have attempted to reconcile the belief in a loving God with the existence of non-human caused animal suffering? What would be some examples of these attempts of reconciliation?


texts: According to Catholicism, when is vandalism not sinful?

texts:
I understand that destroying property as an unintended side effect of doing some greater good (like saving lives) is not a sin. However, is destroying property not as a side effect to the immediate threat ever allowed? Examples:

Hacking and destroying of neo-nazi or pornographic website,
Tearing down a poster that calls for some atrocities or displays pornography.

This question is asked based on the perspective of Catholicism.  If a more extreme example will aid in explaining the issue from the Catholic perspective, then please substitute in a different example for either of the two I listed.

Added:
I'm also interested in the relation to the law, because in many cases, this behavior could be unlawful, and from my understanding, in most cases breaking a law is a sin (as all authority comes from the God). Yet in those cases, law may protect something evil.


texts: According to Reformed theology, is teaching a false Trinitarian concept considered blasphemy?

texts:
There are several people that do not understand the trinity. I hear things such as "God is like water. He is liquid, steam, and solid". This analogy actually comes with a longer explanation about how the holy spirit guy is steam and god the son is solid. However, this is modalism, showing three distinct "modes" or "functions" of the triune god.

I also hear the triune god is like an egg. He is shell, white, and yolk, but one egg. Some even go as far as to say each person is "one-third god". This is actually a form of tritheism, in that each person of the triune god is a "part" of the triune god, thus separating the "divine nature".

Some people are confused about the hypostatic union, and they separate the divine and human nature of the second person of the triune god, god the son. Thus, "they deny that Jesus came in flesh", which 1 John 4:3 says "is the spirit of the antichrist".

According to Reformed theology, are the people who share and promote these misunderstandings spreading blasphemous lies?


texts: From a Lutheran perspective, does Hebrews 6 mean that some who fall away can never be restored?

texts:
Francis Pieper says that Lutheranism teaches both monergistic election and a salvation that can be lost:

  What Scripture teaches on final perseverance may be summarized in
  these two statements: 1. He that perseveres in faith does so only
  through God's gracious preservation; the believer's perseverance is a
  work of divine grace and omnipotence. 2. He that falls away from faith
  does so through his own fault; the cause of apostasy in every case is
  rejection of God's Word and resistance to the operation of the Holy
  Spirit in the Word. (Christian Dogmatics Volume III, pg. 89)

Hebrews 6 speaks of a loss of salvation:

  It is impossible in the case of those who have once been enlightened,
  who have tasted the heavenly gift, and have shared in the Holy Spirit,
  and have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the
  age to come, and then have fallen away, to restore them again to
  repentance, since they are crucifying once again the Son of God to
  their own harm and holding him up to contempt.

The author of the paper The Lutheran Doctrine of Apostasy (where I found the Pieper quote) says:

  James also writes of the possibility of falling away and future
  restoration: "My brothers, if anyone among you wanders from the truth
  and someone brings him back, let him know that whoever brings back a
  sinner from his wandering will save his soul from death and will cover
  a multitude of sins." This demonstrates that not all acts of apostasy
  necessitate a state of permanent departure from the faith as the book
  of Hebrews discusses.

So my question is, does Lutheranism teach that some acts of apostasy necessitate a permanent departure from the faith, and others do not? When can apostate believers be restored, and when can they not?


texts:
What is the dating for the last books of the Catholic Old Testament?

I'm aware that Maccabees is pretty late, like 1XX BCE (end of 2nd century)... I'm wondering if any books are later than that.


texts: Do any Christian denominations consider Pontius Pilate as a saint?

texts: Do any Christian denominations consider Pontius Pilate a recognized saint, either by canonization or through tradition?


texts: What evidence is there to support the position that the Bible is truly the Word of God to mankind?

texts:
Christianity generally accepts the Bible to be the Word of God, and the Bible itself makes this claim (i.e. 2 Peter 1:16-21).

  16 For we did not follow cleverly devised myths when we made known to
  you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were
  eyewitnesses of his majesty. 17 For when he received honor and glory
  from God the Father, and the voice was borne to him by the Majestic
  Glory, “This is my beloved Son,[i] with whom I am well pleased,” 18 we
  ourselves heard this very voice borne from heaven, for we were with
  him on the holy mountain. 19 And we have the prophetic word more fully
  confirmed, to which you will do well to pay attention as to a lamp
  shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star
  rises in your hearts, 20 knowing this first of all, that no prophecy
  of Scripture comes from someone's own interpretation. 21 For no
  prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God
  as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.

Yet, just because the Bible claims to be a revelation from God does not make it so, as other holy books of other religions claim to be the same.

What, then, are the primary lines of evidence that demonstrate that the Bible is, indeed, the Word of God to mankind (outside of its own claims)?


texts: How does dominion theology affect eschatological views?

texts: How do the eschatological doctrines of Charismatic or Pentecostal groups that hold to dominion theology differ from other Charismatic or Pentecostal groups (e.g. Assemblies of God) that do not?


texts: What is the source of the tradition that animals can speak on Christmas Eve?

texts:
If one Googles animals talking on Christmas Eve a wide number of hits will mention this practice.

I get the connection to the animals in the manager, but I'm trying to ascertain the origin of this Christmas legend.

Who practiced it first and when?

How widespread is it?

And, at what time does it work?


texts: What is the scriptural basis for clerical celibacy?

texts:
In the Catholic Church, priests are required to stay celibate. (As far as I know, protestant priests that convert to Catholicism are allowed an exception -- they can become Catholic priests even if they already have family.)

I cannot understand how this fits with the Bible, as

Peter was married (Matthew 8:14), and he still was (according to Catholics) the first Pope.
According to Paul, overseers  and elders must be "the husband of one wife" (1 Timothy 3:2, Titus 1:5-6)
Paul even seems to consider the ability to raise children as a criterion of overseers (1 Timothy 3:4-5)

What, then, is the biblical (or other) basis for clerical celibacy? How are the passages I mention consistent with this?


texts: What kind of "condemnation" is a believer exempt from in Romans 8:1?

texts:
I've been looking up several of my reference books for a good definition of condemnation, but evidently it's simply "judgment" based on its context, including in Rom. 8:1.
It's clear from other passages that Christians can be chastised/disciplined for their wrong (Heb. 12:3-11) or die at the hand of God for sinning (1 Cor. 11:27-30 and Acts 5:1-11). So these examples are not the condemnation meant, since the person in Christ can't be condemned, according to the promise of Rom 8:1.
Could this condemnation therefore refer to a judgment of eternal rejection, whether preliminary in this life, or at the final Judgment Day to come, that those in Christ are exempted from?
I prefer answers from Protestants who accept the Apostle's Creed.


texts: Why are some denominations so against the idea of personal revelation as a source of Truth?

texts:
In the spirit of On what basis do some denominations prohibit Christians from drinking alcohol? and Why do Young-Earth Creationists make such a big deal about the YEC view

First, what this question isn't:

It is not asking whether the gifts discussed are still valid today.  (That's been asked already).
It is not asking if the Ongoing Revelation as believed by some denominations is valid or true.
It's not about asking for a Scriptural reason.  As noted in the question linked to in the first bullet point, Scripture can be interpreted either way on this.

Put other way, this is not a "Truth" question.  It's a question of the cultural and doctrinal understandings that leads to adherence to a particular view.  In other words, what are some of the reasons some Christians are so wary of a view that other Christians are so willing to embrace?

Many of the Pentecostal denominations believe that things like speaking in tongues, prophecy, and ongoing revelation are still happening today as ways for God to provide us with Truth.  Likewise, the LDS Church believes in continuing revelation to the Church through the Prophets, as do others.

Some of the more conservative/Fundamentalist denominations believe that extra-Biblical revelation stopped with the closure of Canon, and tend to view modern day practice of these types of personal revelation as false, and even dangerous.  Most people can understand the Scriptural arguments, which would lead to believing that such a view is either true or false, but why dangerous?


texts: How do we know that Satan, Lucifer, and Devil are the same guy?

texts:
Satan seems like God's prosecutor in Job.
Lucifer is just the planet Venus that's used to describe king of Tyre.
Then Jesus talks about the devil once in Matthew http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+25%3A31-46&version=KJV

Are those the same guy?

They look like a bunch of different guys


texts:
We can be pretty sure it isn't in Japan.  The two most referenced sites are:

The Aedicule of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre and
The Garden Tomb.

However, both stake their claims by virtue of their proximity to Golgotha.  (Proponents of the two tomb sites also disagree on the location of Jesus' crucifixion.)  However, I don't see anything in the Gospel texts that indicate where the tomb might have been in relation to the crucifixion site:

  And when evening had come, since it was the day of Preparation, that is, the day before the Sabbath, Joseph of Arimathea, a respected member of the council, who was also himself looking for the kingdom of God, took courage and went to Pilate and asked for the body of Jesus. Pilate was surprised to hear that he should have already died. And summoning the centurion, he asked him whether he was already dead. And when he learned from the centurion that he was dead, he granted the corpse to Joseph. And Joseph bought a linen shroud, and taking him down, wrapped him in the linen shroud and laid him in a tomb that had been cut out of the rock. And he rolled a stone against the entrance of the tomb. Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of Joses saw where he was laid.—Mark 15:42-47 (ESV)

We know who the tomb belonged to, but not where it was situated.  In fact, I can see no reason for the tomb not to be anyone of Second Temple burial sites found around Jerusalem.  Given the little we know about Joseph, I'd say the Sanhedrin Tombs1 are as likely than any other candidate.  More likely still, the tomb was used by Joseph's family and the connection to Jesus was lost.2  It may very well have been destroyed in one of Jerusalem's many rebuilding projects.

Can we know where Jesus was buried?

1. Oddly, it's difficult to find good information on this site, which is practically neglected.  I don't know, for instance, exactly how they got their name or what era they come from.  So this suggestion ought to be taken with a shaker of salt.

2. This theory isn't surprising since according to the Gospels, the tomb would have been empty.  There was nothing to see and no reason to visit!


texts: Does Hades (The bosom of Abraham) still exist after Christ's resurrection

texts:
I've been listening to this pastor from AoC Network that has been talking about Hades as there is/was a place of torment and a place of peace, before Christ's resurrection. This is where people who God deemed as men of God or Godly men and women went before the resurrection of Jesus on the Cross. He says he believes (because the bible is not clear on this subject) that people who have died now days who have not had the opportunity to know enough about Jesus or know who he is, can make a decision to invite Jesus into their heart to be their savior, this is where they go.

This sounds like the Catholic belief in Purgatory.

I know the Bible isn't clear on the matter of "The Bosom of Abraham" in today's world, but I've been taught that "The Bosom of Abraham" was closed off when Jesus came back for his disciples after his death and brought them to heaven with Him.  Now, this pastor from AoC says he believes that the Hades that was called "The Bosom of Abraham" (which this pastor describes as a place of peace) still exists (but of course is not called "The Bosom of Abraham" because Abraham is up in heaven,) for those who have not heard of Jesus or had the opportunity to accept his free Gift of Salvation, i.e Babies who are unborn and those who die as infant babies who cannot know Jesus yet, because they cannot understand yet.

My question is: "Does the side of Hades that was once "The Bosom of Abraham" still exist? Is this what the Catholic's call Purgatory, and where is this found in the Bible?"


texts: What is the Biblical basis for the concept that Jesus spent time in Hell?

texts:
The Apostles Creed makes reference to Jesus descending into Hell.  I have heard it claimed that His time spent in Hell was part of His redemptive work--in other words, that was necessary for Him to completely "pay the price" for our sins.  However, John 19:30 says:

  When he had received the drink, Jesus said, “It is finished.” With that, he bowed his head and gave up his spirit.

Which I have generally heard interpreted to mean that the work of redemption was finished at that moment--the moment of His death.

I have also heard that the original language of the Apostles Creed did not mean Hell in the sense of "place of eternal punishment" but more in the sense of a metaphorical, ambiguous "place of the dead."

Is there Biblical evidence that Jesus spent time in Hell (as we know it today--the place of eternal punishment)?  If so, was His time there necessary for our redemption, or was there some other purpose to His visit?


texts: What is the spiritual significance of swearing on a Bible among the various churches and denominations?

texts:
When someone is deposed in court, they are asked to swear on a Bible.

My premise is that the use of a printed Bible in this instance is derived from a pagan ritual or rituals, rather than a practice that the holy Scriptures themselves would encourage. What is am overview of Christian beliefs about the spiritual significance of the practice?

I am in no way dismissing the seriousness (legal, personal, or spiritual) of the sin of lying; I am talking about the specific act involving putting one's hand on the Bible itself, particularly in official or legal situations.

The closest question on this topic doesn't get into the significance of the printed Bible itself:

Swear to tell the truth 'so help me God'?


texts:
Jon Ericson made a statement in this answer that is fascinating to me:

In other words, we aren't secure in our salvation because of the nature of salvation, but because of the nature of Jesus.

This is something that I've wondered about, but have never really formulated.  Among those who hold the doctrine of eternal security, what is considered the nature, or origin, of that security?
Some possible viewpoints that I see are:

Salvation is eternal in its very nature.  This implies that abiding in Christ is evidence of salvation
Salvation is not eternal in nature, but is eternal in practice because of God's keeping power.  In other words, though theoretically possible to forsake Christ and thus forsake salvation, God promises to keep us, never allowing us to do so.  This would seem to imply that abiding in Christ is the cause, or medium, of salvation, but the work behind that cause is performed by God.

What are the Biblical arguments for or against these viewpoints?


texts: What is the Biblical support for Hell as a singular concept?

texts:
One of the common tenets of Christian Universalism (as well as Annihilationism) is the non-existence of Hell as an eternal punishment for non-Christians, that everyone has been granted salvation through grace (regardless of actual belief).  This is often supported by referencing issues of translation in the creation of the word "Hell" altogether, in the form of the claims that all places that "Hell" occurs in translations of the Greek refer to:

Sheol/Hades: the unknown, afterlife, underworld, or a grave
Gehenna: either a physical place in Israel, or a representation of burning (referred to by Universalists as a place of spiritual purification - of the Greek puros, a "refining fire")
Tartarus: warrants it's own discussion - a place where the fallen angels are kept, also present in Greek myth
Grave or pit

As a reference, there's a chart of some words selected in various translations here.  Additionally, there are often challenges of the usage of the word "eternal" in translations, as well as the concept of fire (or the Lake of Fire) being synonymous with "Hell."

Is there a basis in scripture for the concept of an eternal "Hell" for non-Christians, and how do particular denominations and groups approach the idea of an eternal "Hell"?


texts: What is the basis for arguing that the gospel has already been preached to "all nations"?

texts:
In Matthew 24:14 (cf. Mark 13:10), Jesus says:

  And this gospel of the kingdom will be proclaimed throughout the whole world as a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come.

Many Christians understand this to be a sign of the end times: that Christ's Second Coming will only occur after every "nation" (or people group) on earth has heard the gospel. There are many unreached peoples around the world, the argument often goes, so Jesus won't return until this missions work is accomplished.

Is this the only way to understand this verse?  Specifically, if this verse is a true prophecy of Jesus, what biblical arguments are used to show that it has already been fulfilled?


texts: Why did the KJV translate Jeremiah 29:11 as "to give you an expected end"?

texts:
I ran across the KJV translation of Jeremiah 29:11 on Facebook today and was struck by a seeming contradiction in the way the last part was translated. Here is the verse alongside other modern translations for comparison:

Jeremiah 29:11
KJV: For I know the thoughts that I think toward you, saith the LORD, thoughts of peace, and not of evil, to give you an expected end.
NIV: For I know the plans I have for you,” declares the LORD, “plans to prosper you and not to harm you, plans to give you hope and a future.
NLT: For I know the plans I have for you,” says the Lord. “They are plans for good and not for disaster, to give you a future and a hope.
ESV: For I know the plans I have for you, declares the LORD, plans for welfare and not for evil, to give you a future and a hope.
NKJV: For I know the thoughts that I think toward you, says the LORD, thoughts of peace and not of evil, to give you a future and a hope.

What I found odd was that the KJV translates the last few words as "an expected end" which, to me, implies an actual end, not a non-end as the other translations imply. Especially notable is how the KJV and NKJV have near-identical phrasings except for that last bit. Thus, my question is: why is it translated that way in the King James Version?


texts: How do Jehovah's Witnesses explain Thomas's exclamation, "My Lord and my God"?

texts:
In John 20, Jesus is resurrected and is showing Thomas the wounds in his hands, to prove that he is risen.  In John 20:28–29, we see Thomas's response:

  28 Thomas answered him, “My Lord and my God!” 29 Jesus said to him, “Have you believed because you have seen me? Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.”

This passage is often used as evidence of Jesus's divinity, since Jesus does not rebuke Thomas for calling him "God" like the angel does in Revelation 19:10, for example.

Since Jehovah's Witnesses do not believe that Jesus is God, how do they explain Thomas's exclamation, and Jesus's response?


texts: Did the Council of Trent define rules for encasing Relics?

texts:
I was wondering if the Council of Trent laid out the rubrics for encasing 1st class relics? The info is important to because I have a very old locket with possible relics and the remnants of a wax seal, but I've been advised the locket would not have been an approved container for it.

Are there any specific rules regarding the type of enclosure that is needed for housing relics? If so, has that changed through the years? I've looked extensively but haven't been able to find many details about it. Any info would be greatly appreciated.

Edit to add pictures of the locket.

Adding the group of relics(?) that were fused on top of the Jesuit prayer. It appears to have the remnants of a wax seal in each of the corners.

Close up of the seal remnants in the top right corner.


texts: If the Holy Spirit is God, and God can not be in the presence of sin, then how can the Holy Spirit dwell in me a sinner?

texts: If we believe in the Trinity, in essense that the Holy Spirit is God, and we believe that God can not be in the presence of sin, then how can the Holy Spirit dwell within me a sinner?


texts: In what sense was Jesus's death a sacrifice?

texts:
Why do we say that Jesus sacrificed himself for us? I don't mean to offend but I seriously don't understand how it would be a sacrifice.

When Jesus died didn't he end up in heaven? To me, a sacrifice would mean to act in the best interest of others when you know doing so could hurt you. For example, if Jesus knew that he would end up in Hell for all eternity if he chose to die for our sins, I would consider that a sacrifice. In the case of Jesus, was it really bad for him to end up in heaven? Why is it considered a sacrifice?


texts: Pope says Heaven apart from Christian faith?

texts:
In this article, ‘Is my dad in heaven?’ little boy asks pope is a heart wrenching story and would be a very difficult question to field admittedly.

A young boy asks if his recently departed Unbelieving Father is in heaven. The pope does a line of reasoning that even though he was unbeliever, he had his children baptised which pleased God, and he asks the children if God would abandon such a man. the Children shout "No!" and the pope confirms their answer.

  “There, Emanuele, that is the answer.”

Implying very clearly that the unbelieving father will be saved presumably on the basis of having his children baptized.

Later in the same article he is said to have told the children:

  “We are all children of God. Everyone. Everyone.”

These comments seem to very strongly be pointing towards universalism (the idea that everyone will be saved one way or another).

This is not the first such comment from this Pope either, but I just picked one specific example.

Now for the questions

Does the Catholic church officially recognize baptizing one's children as a good work that qualifies you for salvation?
If the church does not recognize this, then Pope Francis is speaking apart from the teachings of the church. Is that allowed?
Is it official now just because he has said such?
Is Universalism accepted by Catholics


texts: According to Catholicism, why did the Blessed Mother stay a virgin during her pregnancy with Jesus?

texts:
Why was Jesus born of a Virgin instead of just being conceived of a Virgin?

I know the Bible teaches the virgin birth, but why did the Blessed Mother refrain from sex during her pregnancy with Jesus (9 month gestation period)? After all, she was married to St. Joseph.

Do any Catholic theologians deal with this topic?


texts: Is every Roman Catholic Church saint also an Eastern Catholic Church saint (and viceversa)?

texts:
I was recently reading about Isaac the Syrian. I learned that he is considered a Saint in the Eastern Catholic Church (EC), but, it seems, not in the Latin Catholic Church (LC). He is not listed here, and he does not have a YES in this list either. Actually, from the latter, you can see that a lot of saints in the EC are not saints in the LC, and vice versa.

So, if this is really the case, why is it? I could imagine this disparity does not mean disagreement about the merits of sainthood, but rather a type of specific tradition or relevance to the respective church. In effect, many LC-only saints were "members" of the now called LC (for example, Rose of Lima, from Peru), whereas many EC-only saints were "members" of the now called Orthodox Church (for example, Clement of Ohrid, from now Bulgaria).


texts: Do LDS believe other churches to be the church of Satan?

texts: I was once informed by some LDS missionaries that other churches to them are the church of Satan? Is this an LDS doctrine or the view of some members?


texts: How could Jesus' audience hear Jesus without audio installation?

texts:
I am wondering, today we use microphones and large sound systems to amplify someone's speaking. How did they do that 2000 years ago? Jesus spoke outside regularly before large crowds of people. I expect there were enough children, and disagreeing people, so it wasn't always quiet. Your voice won't reach very far when there are a lot of people, especially when there is a kid crying or someone having a discussion.

My question is:

How did the people back then hear Jesus' (or anyone else) preaching when there was a large crowd?


texts: When did the LDS church start teaching that God the Father had a beginning?

texts:
As per the question here "Why is God the Father referred to as "Eternal Father" in LDS writings when He is not believed to be eternal?" and in other places, it seems that the LDS church indeed teaches that God the Father had a beginning. When did the church start teaching this? Because for example in their addition to the scripture called the book of Moses, chapter 1 verse 3 states:

  " And God spake unto Moses, saying: Behold, I am the Lord God Almighty, and Endless is my name; for I am without beginning of days or end of years; and is not this endless?"

I can't find the reference, but I also seem to recall somewhere in Joseph Smiths other writings where he stated something similar substituting endless for eternal. So when did they start saying that God the Father had a beginning, and have they tried to explain how that is not a contradiction to what their scripture says?


texts: Comparative religion textbooks from a Catholic viewpoint

texts:
Most Catholic text books about religion are about Catholicism, I asked my high-school aged daughter what she wants to study next year for religion class and she said she's like to know about other religions.  I'm having a hard time finding these kinds of books.
Most popular authors will write a book condemning this or that other religion, but I just want one that honestly compares them all without being wishywashy about which is better.  Otherwise, I think I'd have to piece together about a hundred books.


texts: Where can I learn about Catholic terms and phrases?

texts:
A number of very good questions and answers on this site refer to specifically Catholic doctrine or terminology.  I've been one to ask for clarification on these terms at times, however I think it's clear that asking for clarification every time I see a Catholic term I'm not familiar with will drag this site down rather quickly (as well as make me look like I have nothing better to do than ask the same type of question repeatedly).

Can someone (hopefully a Catholic!) recommend a good resource (preferably online) that explains common Catholic terminology in an accurate and respectful manner, to someone from a non-Catholic background?

If we get some good answers, I'll probably suggest this question for site FAQ inclusion.


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

texts:
Possible Duplicate:
  Who saved people before ~33AD?

Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me. (John 14:6). Did this apply before the birth of Christ? I've heard that Jews, before and after Christ, believe that the sacrificial lamb was taken literally. Essentially, was there any way of entrance to heaven before Jesus?


texts: Where to find the up to date catholic missals for each languages?

texts:
I was able to find a latin missal (cf. MISSALE
ROMANUM, from 1962), but what I would like to find are translations in other languages (and the more recent "editio typica tertia"). I guess those should be all available on the vatican website, but where?

I am specifically interested in the Korean translation, as I am currently living there and it would help a lot in following the mass and learning the language.

Ideally, it would be best if I could find those in an editable format, so I can merge Latin and Korean in one pdf or ebook.

Edit : I found the Latin editio typica tertia on archive.org here. It is 1220 pages and it looks like the real deal. Maybe someone more knowledgeable can confirm?
This is the kind of edition I would like to find in other languages...


texts: Did Jesus have His Last Supper standing?

texts:
At Exodus 12:11 we see the Lord instructing the Israel on how to go about the first Passover :

"  This is how you shall eat it: your loins girded, your sandals on your feet, and your staff in your hand; and you shall eat it hurriedly. It is the passover of the Lord."

We also see Jesus celebrating with His disciples,the Passover  which has since come to be called  the Last Supper:

"So the disciples set out and went to the city, and found everything as he had told them; and they prepared the Passover meal." (Mk 14:16)

Now, it is reasonable for one to assume that the Jews had their Passover meal from year to year, in the same manner as their forefathers had had before their flight out of Egypt , that is,  standing up ! But we are made to believe, at least through images, that Jesus sat down with his disciples to have the Passover meal. My question is : Is there any denomiation which believes that Jesus had his Last Supper standing ?


texts: Are there any modern Nestorian or Jacobite systematic theology textbooks?

texts:
There exist many modern (say, 20th century or later), English language systematic theology textbooks from a Western Christian perspective. For example, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma by Ludwig Ott from a Catholic perspective and Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine by Wayne Grudem from a Reformed perspective would surely count as being such.

Does there exist analogous, English language texts that take the perspective of Nestorian or Jacobite Christians?


texts: Non-Christian here. I have heard that "God damn it" or "God damn [that person]" is blasphemy because you are telling God what to do. But other interpretations are that it's only blasphemy to misrepresent what God told you to do, like "God told me to hurt that person".


texts: What is the difference between a pastor, a priest, and a minister?

texts: No, this is not the start of a joke about a bunch of people walking into a bar.  Rather, I thought it would be helpful to clarify various titles that people give to leadership roles in churches.


texts: Use of single and double quotation marks in Isaiah 7

texts:
Isaiah 7:4 (NIV) starts with

  Say to him, 'Be careful, keep calm and don't be afraid.

where the first single quotation mark doesn't seem to have a close pair - even reading much further in the chapter.

Also, Isaiah 7:7-9 has a single quotation within a double quotation pair:

  Yet this is what the Sovereign LORD says:

    " 'It will not take place, it will not happen, ...

    If you do not stand firm in your faith, you will not stand at all.' "

Questions:

Is the second single quotation, starting in Isaiah 7:4, missing or does some language rule apply here. Or did I simply miss it?
In this chapter, the LORD tells Isaiah to tell Ahaz some things - so the use of multiple quotations is probably justified. But is there some hidden meaning here, or even a tool that will help me understand the text better?
How would the meaning of Isaiah 7:7-9 be changed if only single quotation or only double quotation marks were used?


texts: How does a literal teaching of the Great Flood explain the spread of ethnicities?

texts:
There are many issues raised if one follows a literal teaching regarding the Great Flood in Genesis but here I'm asking specifically about different people-groups.
We're told that the whole world was covered and only humans on the ark survived. These were presumably all middle-eastern people. So put bluntly, where did all the black people and oriental people, not to mention indigenous peoples like Australian Aboriginals, come from?
Is there an accepted or common explanation to this question? Literal teaching of the Flood is quite widespread even in demographics with a high level of education which implies there is an answer people find plausible to reconcile with the spread of different ethnicities.


texts: How does the LDS doctrine of assurance compare to the Methodist doctrine of assurance?

texts: The LDS Bible Dictionary entry on faith states that one of the effects of true faith in Christ is "an assurance of personal salvation in the world to come." How does this assurance compare to the Methodist doctrine on assurance? What do they have in common and what is distinct?


texts: How do Christians that do not believe in inerrancy interpret the Bible?

texts:
I know there are several Christian traditions that do not claim that scripture is inerrant (and therefore do not interpret everything in the Bible literally). If this is the case, then it seems like a slippery slope of interpreting the Bible in a way that favors one's own opinion.

What do these traditions use to keep their interpretations in check with what they understand to be God's will instead of what they want to be true?

Maybe another way to ask this question that will limit it to something that is not too subjective is: What other sources of "truth" do people use to supplement the Bible in their beliefs, and how do they justify it (Biblically or otherwise)?


texts: When did "he descended into hell" become part of the Apostles' Creed?

texts:
There seems to be much more debate over one clause of the Apostles' Creed than the entire rest of it put together, and that is the "descent into hell" (or "hades") clause, also known as the "harrowing of hell."  I've noticed that some Protestants don't include it when reciting the creed.

Does the historical evidence indicate that the Apostles' Creed has always included this phrase?  If not, when did it become part of it?

Related question: Did the Apostles' Creed originate with the Apostles?


texts: In 1 Corinthians 5:9-13, is Paul really saying to avoid the immoral? (Catholic perspective)

texts:
I'm really struggling with this chapter in Corinthians. Chapter 4 and the beginning of chapter 5 impart how God is the one who judges. But then Paul adds at the end of chapter 5:

  (5:11) I have written to you not to keep company with anyone named a brother, who is sexually immoral, or with the covetous or idolaters or
  a reviler or a drunkard or an extortioner—not even to eat with such a
  person.

  (5:13) Therefore "put away from yourselves the evil person."

This seems to be against two core messages of Christianity.  Namely, mutual helpfulness in encouraging the sinner towards repentance, as opposed to avoidance and ostracism; and the avenue of redemption is open to all (the righteous). Nobody is without hope for recovery of one's soul if they are able to come into communion with Jesus Christ.

It's true we can pick our friends as well as part paths with a friend even if we forgive. However, Paul's stance appears to be remarkably closed-minded.

Am I missing Paul's point?  Am I misinterpreting the passage, or is Paul being judgmental?

Imigine a situation such as "Hi I'm Stu, and I'm an alcoholic."

"OK, Stu, thanks for telling us, but now get lost."

"Really? I've been sober a week, and I've used the power of prayer and my faith in the Lord to overcome my struggles" [in the days before the act of Reconciliation].

"Yeah? What about all the people you hurt?"

"Well, okay, but it's only been a week. I'm doing my best here."

"Be that as it may, get lost. Your sins are far worse than mine."

I am speaking both to the veracity of the message and it's intent.

I am requesting answers from the Catholic perspective.


texts: Is the Roman Catholic church condemning Protestants?

texts:
In the early church the apostles often use the term 'let them be anathema'.

  But even if we, or an angel from heaven, were to preach any other
  gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be
  anathema.
  Galatians 1:8

  If any man does not love the Lord Jesus Christ, let him be anathema.
  Our Lord has come.
  1 Corinthians 16:22

It is also obvious that the Roman Catholic Church continued to use this expression in regards to believing in the Eucharist and issued similar statements as the apostles used.

  If anyone denies that in the sacrament of the most Holy Eucharist are
  contained truly, really and substantially the body and blood together
  with the soul and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ, and consequently
  the whole Christ,[42] but says that He is in it only as in a sign, or
  figure or force, let him be anathema.
  Council of Trent - Canons on the Most Holy Sacrament of the Eucharist, Canon I

My question is: Who does the Catholic Church address here to be condemned for not believing in the real presence of Christ in Eucharist? Is it meant for Catholics who reject the idea of Christ present in the Holy Eucharist or is it meant for Protestants and other churches that don't believe it?

If it's all the people, does it mean there is no salvation outside the Catholic church once they recognized their truth?


texts: Does the Roman Catholic Church have a daily Bible reading?

texts: I know that the Roman Catholic Church has the same Gospel reading on the Lord's Day. But does it having a daily reading as well? Where can I go to find it?


texts: What significance do the church fathers attribute to Simon of Cyrene carrying the cross of Christ?

texts: Simon of Cyrene is mentioned by name as carrying the cross for Christ in the synoptic Gospels. Are there writings of early Church fathers (ante-Nicene fathers or post-Nicene up to, let's say, 600 AD) who speak to the theological meaning of this event and if so, what theological significance do they give it?


texts:
It is correct that the term "Christian" was first used in Antioch, but not coined by just someone who made up nicknames.

Is it possible that St. Ignatius, the 3rd Bishop of Antioch coined this term?


texts: In Matthew 5:25 what does it mean to be in the way with our adversary?

texts:
Jesus Christ said the following words recorded in Matthew 5:25 "Agree with thine adversary quickly, whiles thou art in the way with him; lest at any time the adversary deliver thee to the judge, and the judge deliver thee to the officer, and thou be cast into prison."

https://www.lds.org/scriptures/nt/matt/5.25?lang=eng#24

Similarly in 3 Nephi 25-26 of the book of Mormon when Jesus Christ visited the people in America after his resurrection he spoke the words "Agree with thine adversary quickly while thou art in the way with him, lest at any time he shall get thee, and thou shalt be cast into prison. Verily, verily, I say unto thee, thou shalt by no means come out thence until thou hast paid the uttermost senine. And while ye are in prison can ye pay even one senine? Verily, verily, I say unto you, Nay."

https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/3-ne/12.25?lang=eng#24

What does it mean to be in the way with your adversary?

How would these verses apply to real life?


texts: According to Catholicism, can you hit someone in self defence?

texts:
Can you hit someone in self defence? That is, if someone is trying to kill you, can you hit them to protect yourself?

What is the Catholic doctrine on such a question?


texts: Are the notions of good and evil different in Christianity and Islam?

texts:
In Christianity I would assume that certain things that would be considered "evil" are not considered evil in Islam.

Christianity, goes by the "do unto others" philosophy e.g. “All things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them.” This seems a pretty common philosophy in which you basically try to empathise with people.

So for example, in Christianity it would be seen as "bad" to take sex slaves even in a battle.

However in Islam, it seems that anything goes as long as it is decreed by Allah. There does not seem to be any moral principle about whether something is good or bad. If it is allowed in the Quaran then it is OK to do. One is not told to empathise with the person you are doing something to and consider their feelings.

In this sense is this why some things that certain Islamic sects do is seen as "evil" by Christians? Because Islam does not have a concept of evil?

In Islam does being a "good person" only equate to obeying the Quaran?

Is this the same in Christianity, or is there more of a case of try and be a good person, but that what "good" means, is more a case of being empathetic?


texts: Verse that says that he who cannot govern himself cannot govern others?

texts: Where in Holy Scriptures does it say that he who cannot govern himself cannot govern others?


texts: How do Baptists interpret the summoning of Samuel by the medium of Endor?

texts:
Considering that Baptists generally believe that the soul of a faithful servant of God is immediately united with God upon death, how does the Baptist Church interpret 1 Samuel 28:8:

  8 So Saul disguised himself and put on other garments and went, he and two men with him. And they came to the woman by night. And he said, "Divine for me by a spirit and bring up for me whomever I shall name to you."
  9 The woman said to him, "Surely you know what Saul has done, how he has cut off the mediums and the necromancers from the land. Why then are you laying a trap for my life to bring about my death?"
  10 But Saul swore to her by the LORD, "As the LORD lives, no punishment shall come upon you for this thing."
  11 Then the woman said, "Whom shall I bring up for you?" He said, "Bring up Samuel for me."
  12 When the woman saw Samuel, she cried out with a loud voice. And the woman said to Saul, "Why have you deceived me? You are Saul."
  13 The king said to her, "Do not be afraid. What do you see?" And the woman said to Saul, "I see a god coming up out of the earth."
  14 He said to her, "What is his appearance?" And she said, "An old man is coming up, and he is wrapped in a robe." And Saul knew that it was Samuel, and he bowed with his face to the ground and paid homage. - 1 Samuel 28:8-14 ESV

From a Baptist perspective, was the medium actually summoning Samuel?  If so, was he summoned back from a heavenly dwelling?

  Then Samuel said to Saul, "Why have you disturbed me by bringing me up?" Saul answered, "I am in great distress, for the Philistines are warring against me, and God has turned away from me and answers me no more, either by prophets or by dreams. Therefore I have summoned you to tell me what I shall do." - 1 Samuel 28:15 ESV