texts: How does the Catholic Church identify and collect relics?

texts: I have been told that all major Catholic churches contain within the altar a relic of a saint. Given that saints are not declared until long after the death of the person in question, and many saints die in less than favorable conditions, how does the Church go about verifying and collecting relics?


texts: What is on the cover of this printing of Ladder of Divine Ascent?

texts: What is that? Is it some well-known Orthodox symbol? I think I can discern a bearded face but that's it.


texts: Does an understanding of how the Bible was written, play a strong role in any Christian sect?

texts: There is sometimes a misunderstanding or differing opinion of who wrote what in the Bible.  Is this issue relevant to any particular Christian sect?  Does the topic play an important role?


texts: How is the historical accuracy of the Bible defended?

texts:
Loosely tied to the idea of Biblical Inerrancy, one of the basic tenets of Christianity is that Scripture is reliable.  This includes the idea of being reliable as a source of "doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness" (2 Timothy 3:16).

Along with this, comes the assumption that the Bible is reliable historically.

Many of the books and passages in the Bible are written as a historic record of events.

Setting aside the fact that many people view some of those events as strictly allegorical, there are events that are clearly written as if they are actual history. The Exodus from Egypt, and the wandering in the promised land, for example. The history of Israel's cycle of turning from God, being punished/conquered/enslaved, then repenting and being liberated by God is another example. The Book of Acts, the life of Jesus, all of these are clearly written as if the events actually happened.

One of the more common attacks leveled against Christianity by its detractors is the statement that one event or another didn't really happen that way, or that the Bible isn't a reliable historical document - that we can't claim that the events that are recorded in the Bible actually happened, because using the Bible to prove itself is circular reasoning.

Example:
 - How do you know Jesus died, was buried, and resurrected as recorded in the Bible?
 - Because the Bible says so. (Easy fodder for a non-believer to claim circular reasoning.)

However, is that really a fair representation of how to judge the historical reliability of Scripture? What, exactly, are the rules and arguments that apologists use to defend the historical accuracy of Scripture?


texts:
Jethro appeared to be a friendly guy to Moses, and even appeared to agree with what Moses believed in, especially in theological terms (i.e. worshipping Yahweh).

If that's the case, then how did Jethro know Yahweh, an Israelite God? How was he already an established priest of Yahweh, even though he didn't go to Egypt and interact with the enslaved Israelites etc.?


texts:
This is a multi-part question.

what is a Spirit Attachment?

For those that believe in it:

what is it,
how does it work,
how does one protect ones self from it?


texts: How to identify the categories of a church?

texts:
I was wondering

whether a church is Protestant or Catholic,
whether it is mainline or evangelical,
which branch (e.g. Presbyterians, Baptists, Methodists)  it belongs to,
which denomination (e.g. Presbyterian Church USA, Presbyterian Church in America) it belongs to.

Thanks.


texts: What is the origin and development of the calender of the Western Church?

texts:
Happy New Year.

So today, being the first Sunday in Advent, marks the beginning of a new year in the western church, that is the Roman Catholic Church, and those Protestant churches which are descended from it, such as the Lutherans, Anglicans, some in the Reformed tradition, Methodists, &c. How did the calender develop?

I am asking here about the more general "seasonal" calender--Advent, Christmas, Epiphany, Lent, Easter, and Pentecost seasons, not so much about the various days upon which one Saint or another is remembered.


texts: How do Catholics observe Lent through a dignified and appropriate use of food?

texts: Have you considered presenting menus for those fasting days for religious people to follow? If so, what foods to eat on which fasting season and why? Display pictures if possible. Many would appreciate that.


texts: What is the Biblical basis for the idea that creation will applaud the damnation of a sinner?

texts:
Paul Washer has often said this. For example:

  From heaven’s perspective, those who break God’s Law are vile and worthy of all loathing. They are a wretched lot, justly exposed to divine vengeance, and rightly devoted to eternal destruction. It is not an exaggeration to say that the last thing that the accursed sinner should and will hear when he takes his first step into hell is all of creation standing to its feet and applauding God because He has rid the earth of him. Such is the vileness of those who break God’s law, and such is the disdain of the holy towards the unholy. (Paul Washer, "The Cross of Christ," HeartCry Magazine)

Now, although this quote sounds logical, I can't find biblical support for it. The closest I can find is:

  And the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever: and they have no rest day nor night, who worship the beast and his image, and whosoever receiveth the mark of his name.
  Revelation 14:11

  And after these things I heard a great voice of much people in heaven, saying, Alleluia; Salvation, and glory, and honour, and power, unto the Lord our God: For true and righteous are his judgments: for he hath judged the great whore, which did corrupt the earth with her fornication, and hath avenged the blood of his servants at her hand. And again they said, Alleluia. And her smoke rose up for ever and ever. And the four and twenty elders and the four beasts fell down and worshipped God that sat on the throne, saying, Amen; Alleluia. And a voice came out of the throne, saying, Praise our God, all ye his servants, and ye that fear him, both small and great. And I heard as it were the voice of a great multitude, and as the voice of many waters, and as the voice of mighty thunderings, saying, Alleluia: for the Lord God omnipotent reigneth.
  Revelation 19:1-6

Neither verse directly supports Washer's quote.


texts: How does "Lead us not into temptation" need to be interpreted?

texts:
When we Christians recite the "Our Father", we always say:

  ... and lead us not into temptation ...

From this quote I understand very clearly that God can lead us to temptation thus contradicting whatever else is present in the Gospel.

I read in different forums that such sentence must be interpreted as of "permitting" to fall into temptation. However I believe all words have a meaning and in this case "lead" has its own definition.
Appealing to interpretation sounds like cheating to me and I don't see why we should do it but to "make things work".

So how to deal with this sentence and solve such dilemma?


texts: How does dispensationalism reconcile Romans 11?

texts:
From my understanding of dispensationalism, at some point in the future, I believe either prior to or just after the rapture, the temple on Moriah will need to be rebuilt.

However, presumably, the reason for rebuilding the temple would be to resume the temple sacrifices that were going on there until the Romans destroyed it. This motivation seems even more likely (to me), given the imagery of the Millennial Temple in Ezekiel 40-48, where animal sacrifices are taking place.

But, if, as Paul seems to be saying below that all Israel will be saved, then what would the motivation be to rebuild a temple, given "sacrifice for sin is no longer necessary" (Hebrews 10:1-18) ?

Romans 11:25-26a

  I do not want you to be ignorant of this mystery, brothers and
  sisters, so that you may not be conceited: Israel has experienced a
  hardening in part until the full number of the Gentiles has come in,
  and in this way all Israel will be saved.

How do adherents of dispensationalism explain this? Where is my confusion?


texts:
Luke 8

  43 A woman was there who had been bleeding for twelve years. She had
  spent all her money on doctors, but no doctor was able to heal her.
  44 The woman came behind Jesus and touched the bottom of his coat. At
  that moment, her bleeding stopped. 45 Then Jesus said, “Who touched
  me?”

  They all said they had not touched him. And Peter said, “Master,
  people are all around you, pushing against you.”

  46 But Jesus said, “Someone touched me. I felt power go out from me.”

In this passage I can only imagine all these people pushing and shoving against Jesus but this one small gentle touch - He feels so powerfully.

Can we concluded anything about the other people who touched Him, where He didn't feel anything like that?

Were they all not in need of any health that touching Him had no effect on them or Him, does it mean they were all unbelievers, incapable of understanding what Jesus was trying to tell them or something else?

Why does Jesus feel only certain people that come into physical contact with Him?


texts: What Protestant arguments exist for the perpetual virginity of Mary?

texts:
It's common knowledge that Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodoxy have the doctrine of the perpetual virginity of Mary. Protestants generally don't have that belief.

Less known is that Zwingli and Luther believed in perpetual virginity, too. What are the arguments for the doctrine, not assuming papal authority?


texts: Why does the Christian doctrine seem so far from the Bible?

texts:
Upon reading the Bible, I have found that that Christian doctrine differs heavily from the scriptures.
A few of the differences:

Circumcision
Feast days
Following the statutes & judgements
Keeping the Sabbath

How is it that Christianity, which is supposed to be followers of Christ, don't seem to follow him at all?
I hold the view that there is only one Christ who brought one doctrine and therefore Christianity should all be following the same teachings. Yet there are many divisions and many varying teachings.


texts: Where does Jonathan Edwards describe his expectations of the second coming of Jesus?

texts:
In a few places I've seen claims that Jonathan Edwards (1703–1758) believed in the imminence of Christ's return.  For example:

  [Jonathan Edwards] was convinced that the world was going to the dogs and that it was running out of time, that Jesus was going to come any minute. (source)

And according to Bruce Shelley, Edwards thought that the US would play a significant role:

  Jonathan Edwards even preached that America would be the scene of the coming millennium! (Church History in Plain Language, 359)

I'd like to know where exactly in his writings Jonathan Edwards expresses views like these – the imminent coming of Jesus (within Edwards' lifetime?) and the location/characteristics of the millennium.


texts:
The book of Proverbs lists different authors.  Some are given names (Like Solomon - Proverbs 1:1) while some have no names like "Sayings of the Wise (Proverbs 22:17, 24:23).  We also read in Proverbs 25:1 that more proverbs were added to the book, copied over by King Hezekiah (300 years after Solomon).  What I am most interested in though - are the two other names added as authors.  Augur (Proverbs 30:1) and King Lemuel of Massa (Proverbs 31:1 - who is actually just repeating what his mom told him.).  Who were these people; Augur and Lemuel?  Note, the best website explaining King Lemuel I found was from an article by Dr. Claude Mariottini.

Would love more insight, ideas, connections.


texts: If Jesus is God, who/where does Jesus pray to?

texts:
I realize that some of Christianity believe God and Jesus to be one being, whereas some believe them to be separate and distinct beings. I come from the background of the latter group, which reasoning I am already familiar with.

According to Christianity which holds Jesus to be God incarnate, who does Jesus pray to while He is in the Garden of Gethsemane or at Calvary, or before raising Lazarus, and at other points in His mortal life? Is it God being in two places at once, being omnipresent? Or am I misunderstanding something else?

It's obvious that Jesus is praying to the Father, as He directly addresses "Father," but what I'm trying to understand is what this really means to the group of Christianity I've mentioned.

Bonus points if you could touch on where Jesus is praying to (or rather, where God/The Father is while Jesus is praying).


texts: Would aliens invalidate Christianity as we know it?

texts:
If we discover other intelligent life forms in the universe, would this change Christianity in any way or not?

For the sake of the argument, let's presume we will find human-like life in a newly discovered planet in our solar system.


texts: Why do LDS cross their arms during prayer?

texts:
When praying, many Latter Day Saints will cross their arms during prayer:

This appears to be in lieu of folding hands as has been done by protestants and Catholics for centuries:

What is the origin of this practice? Why did the LDS church choose to deviate from the practice of folding hands and what was the purpose behind this change?


texts: What version of the bible do Greek speaking Christians use?

texts:
Do Greek speaking Christians still use the Septuagint and original New Testament text? Or do they have a "modern Greek translation"? I ask because the New Testament is 2000 years old, presumably the Greek language has changed and evolved a lot in that time and so the original NT might not even be understandable to a modern Greek speaker.

I'm interested in what Greek speaking Christians use in general (Catholics, Orthodox, Protestant), but I'm also very interested in the Greek Orthodox church in particular. I'm curious what version of the scriptures they draw upon in their liturgy: the originals? or a modern paraphrase/translation?


texts: What biblical evidence is there that our spirit only began in this life?

texts:
LDS believe that our spirit was in existence before we are born here on earth. What biblical evidences are there that that is not the case?

  Genesis 2:4 These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens, 5 And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the Lord God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground. (KJV)

This implies that plants and herbs were in exhistance before they were placed on the earth. There also seems to be a double creation with Adam.

  Genesis 1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
  Genesis 2:7 And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

This implies that Adam was created spiritually, like plants and herbs, then created from the dust.

There are also other scriptures that support that man exhisted before this life. For instace Job 38:7, Eccl. 12:7, Jer. 1:5, John 9:2, Romans 8:29.

What evidences are there in the bible that our spirits were not in existence until this life?


texts: Is "the ends justify the means" compatible with Christianity?

texts:
This cliche is usually quoted in the context of "the ends don't justify the means", but in practice most folks seem to live as if the ends did justify the means even if the means involved sin. However sometimes people cannot see clearly what is sin and what isn't. An example might be with-holding information from a loved one so as not to upset them.

While on clear situation of sin they might come down one way, given a predicament where the right choice isn't clear to a person, they often turn this cliche the other way around and tell themselves that the ends do justify the means.

Is there any Biblical content that speaks to this cliche one way or another. Is there a good "retort cliche" that one could use as a reminder of the proper way to make a moral or ethical decision in light of Christian teachings?


texts: Besides St. Casimir, are any other saints portrayed with three hands in iconography?

texts:
Other than the icon of St. Casimir in Vilnius (below), are there other examples of saints with three hands? Does a third hand make up part of the iconography of St. John the Evangelist?

Image by Alistair Young via (Wikimedia Commons).


texts: How is it possible that the angels were on hand to witness the earth being created?

texts:
Though we are not told exactly when angels were created, it seems to be sometime before the earth was created.

The words found at Job indicate the angelic host was present when the earth was made.

  Where were you when I laid the foundation of the earth? Tell Me, if you have understanding. . . when the morning stars sang together and all the sons of God shouted for joy? (Job 38: 4,7).

Now some Protestant Christians will tell us that Genesis 1:1 which states

  In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

refers to the moment when all creation began.

They will also point to John 1:1

  In the beginning was the Word.......

And say the beginning spoken of here is the same as Gen 1:1.  For example this question scoped at Jehovah’s Witnesses  and the comments indicate this is a common belief .

The account in Genesis starts with heaven and earth already created and then the preparation for mankind begins on day one. “Let there be light.”

My understanding is that the angels were created some time prior to the beginning spoken of in Gen1:1. Which would mean that first creation by God took place before the beginning in Genesis 1:1 and John 1:1.
So beginning in these verses refers to the creation of the physical universe.

If the beginning of all creation was the making of heaven and earth how is it that the angels were on hand to witness the earth being created?


texts: Did the ante-Nicene Church fathers write in uncials?

texts: It’s certain that the earliest manuscripts of the New Testament (e.g., Codex Sinaiticus) were written in uncials, but what about non-biblical manuscripts written by the earliest of the “Early Church Fathers.” Did they too write in uncials, or did they include minisculars when writing? I am primarily concerned with the autographs of both the Greek and Latin Church fathers.


texts: What's the basis for saying Jesus went to hell?

texts: What Bible verses proves that Jesus went to hell for 3 days? I hear it a lot but don't really see it in scripture. Can someone provide scriptures and elaborate?


texts: What are the steps and permissions required to add more "patronages" to saints?

texts:
I understand well enough the steps to go through to become a Catholic saint. And my understanding is that saints are "patron saints" of certain aspects of life and those patronages get assigned after the canonization. For example, Marguerite Bays was canonized last year and is listed as the patron saint of the Franciscan tertiaries.

What I'm less clear on is how older saints get assigned "newer" patronages. For example, Saint Isidore of Seville was canonized in 1598 but is the patron saint of the internet, which obviously didn't exist back then. So who gets to start and authorize the process of adding new patronages to saints that already completed canonization?


texts: Which of these interpretations of Malachi 3:1 can be eliminated?

texts:
The authorised KJV translates Malachi 3:1 as follows:
"Behold, I will send my messenger, and he shall prepare the way before me: and the Lord, whom ye seek, shall suddenly come to his temple, even the messenger of the covenant, whom ye delight in: behold, he shall come, saith the LORD of hosts."
Does the Hebrew grammar of the verse eliminate any of the following interpretations?

The verse is in response to the last part of Malachi 2:17 "Where is the God of judgement?". There will be a messenger who will prepare the way and then God (who the people are wondering where he is in Malachi 2:17, and who the people delight in) who is also the messenger of the covenant (the covenant given to Moses), will suddenly come to his temple. "Behold he shall come" refers to the messenger who will prepare the way, otherwise it would be behold I shall come.

The verse is in response to the last part of Malachi 2:17 "Where is the God of judgement?". There will be a messenger who will prepare the way and then God (who the people are wondering where he is in Malachi 2:17, and who the people delight in) who will also be the messenger of a new covenant, will suddenly come to his temple. "Behold he shall come" refers to the messenger who will prepare the way, otherwise it would be behold I shall come.

The verse is in response to the last part of Malachi 2:17 "Where is the God of judgement?". There will be a messenger who will prepare the way, and then God (who the people are wondering where he is in Malachi 2:17) will suddenly come to his temple, as will the messenger who will prepare the way who is also the messenger of a new covenant, and is a messenger the people delight in (presumably the Messiah). Behold he shall come refers to the Messiah messenger, otherwise it would be behold I shall come.

The verse relates to the last part of Malachi 2:17 "Where is the God of judgement?" but is not a response to it. There will be a messenger who will prepare the way, and then another messenger will come to the God of judgement's temple and this other person will be the messenger of a new covenant, and will be a Lord that the people seek and delight in (presumably the Messiah). "Behold he shall come" refers to the Messiah messenger.

The verse relates to the last part of Malachi 2:17 "Where is the God of judgement?" but is not a response to it. There will be a messenger who will prepare the way, and will also be a messenger of a new covenant, and who will also be a Lord that the people seek and delight in (presumably the Messiah), and that this messenger will come to the God of judgement's temple.


texts: What are the meanings of the abbreviations used in the Hatch/Redpath Concordance to the Septuagint?

texts: I bought the Hatch/Redpath concordance to the Septuagint set a little while ago. I have looked everywhere, and can't find a key to all the abbreviations and what they mean. The preface is of very little help too. Can anybody provide me with info?


texts: How does entertainment glorify God at all?

texts:
In the modern context, we have many things to keep ourselves entertained and motivated to do work - music, videos, movies, games, magazines etc.

According to 1 Corinthians 10:31 KJV

  Whether therefore ye eat, or drink, or whatsoever ye do, do all to the glory of God.

It is clear that in whatever we do we will do it for the glory of God.

However I really wonder how does gaming, watching video and having self-entertainment would do to glorify God.


texts: Is there extra-biblical evidence for the Exodus?

texts:
I've heard from multiple sources that there isn't even the slightest of (extra-biblical) evidence of the Exodus story or even evidence for the presence of Israelites in Egypt.
If this is true, why is this and how do Christians get over this lack of evidence?
If this isn't necessarily true, what extra-biblical evidence is there of Israelites being enslaved, escaping, and wandering in the desert for 40 years?


texts: What evidence is there that the thief on the cross was not baptized?

texts:
In Luke chapter 23, there is an interaction between Jesus and two thieves on the cross. One of the thieves mocks the Savior, telling him to save himself. The other thief rebukes the first, and confesses that he deserves to be on the cross, but Jesus doesn't:

  “And one of the malefactors which were hanged railed on him, saying,
  If thou be Christ, save thyself and us.

  “But the other answering rebuked him, saying, Dost not thou fear
  God, seeing thou art in the same condemnation? And we indeed justly; for we receive the due reward of our deeds: but this man hath done nothing amiss.

  “And he said unto Jesus, Lord, remember me when thou comest into thy
  kingdom. And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, Today shalt thou be with me in paradise” (Luke 23:39–43, KJV).

This passage is frequently referenced (sometimes along with others) as evidence that baptism isn't a prerequisite for salvation. However, it's not clear to me how this passage can be used to make that assertion.

What evidence is there that the penitent thief was not baptized? (He already knew who the Savior was, so it would make sense that he had followed him at some point during his ministry.)


texts: To what are the scriptures referring when they speak of the books of the "chronicles of the kings"?

texts:
In the books of 1 and 2 Kings, there are quite a few places where the author refers to "the Book of the Chronicles of the Kings of Judah" or "the Book of the Chronicles of the Kings of Israel".

"Now the rest of the acts of Jeroboam, how he made war and how he reigned, behold, they are written in the Book of the Chronicles of the Kings of Israel.  1 Kings 14:19 NASB
Now the rest of the acts of Rehoboam and all that he did, are they not written in the Book of the Chronicles of the Kings of Judah? 1 Kings 14:29 NASB

Immediately following the books of 1 and 2 Kings are two books referred to as 1 and 2 Chronicles.  Are these the books to which 1 and 2 Kings refer or are they referring to other books that are not in the Bible and/or maybe lost to us?


texts: How Did Ussher Determine That the World Began on "Sunday Evening, October 23, 4004 B.C."?

texts:
One of the more famous estimates of the age of the earth was given by James Ussher in 1656, who, based on a literal biblical interpretation, concluded that the world began on Sunday evening, October 23, 4004 B.C.
Incidentally, I know that John Lightfoot, a decade earlier, had determined that the world began on the morning of September 17, 3928 B.C.
Could somebody provide some details as to how Ussher (or Lightfoot) was able to conclude such a precise date?


texts: Are the Ten Commandments a perfect summary of all the commandments found in the Bible?

texts:
Many Christians claim that Ten Commandments (Exodus 20) are special because they summarize the "moral law" of God. However, in the Old Testament we find about 613 commandments, and similarly in the New Testament there are about 1050 commandments. Thus, there are about 1663 commandments in the whole Bible, which makes me seriously doubt that the 10 commandments can successfully capture and summarize all what the Bible has to say about morality.
Is it true that the Ten Commandments are a perfect summary of all the commandments found in both the Old and New Testaments?


texts: Jesus Christ purchased us with his blood - parties involved

texts:
According to these verses and others, God/Jesus purchased/redeemed us with his blood

  Revelation 5:9

  And they sung a new song, saying, Thou art worthy to take the book,
  and to open the seals thereof: for thou wast slain, and hast redeemed
  us to God by thy blood out of every kindred, and tongue, and people,
  and nation;

  Acts 20:28

  Keep watch over yourselves and all the flock of which the Holy Spirit
  has made you overseers. Be shepherds of the church of God, which he
  bought with his own blood

Who was the receiving party -  I mean the blood?


texts: What non-Catholic Christian groups existed in Western Europe during the Middle Ages?

texts: Between the fall of the Western Roman Empire and the Reformation, were there any Christian groups outside the Roman Catholic Church? Who were they?


texts: Were demons afraid of the cross before the crucifixion?

texts:
Afaik, the cross is a big christian symbol because of the crucifixion of Jesus (if it was before, wow the roman were dumb to nail a prophet to a sign of his own religion)

Also, Demons are usually repelled by holy symbols.

But were they afraid of the cross before the crucifixion, therefore before it became a christian symbol?

Scenario: we are in 200 BC and I encounter a demon. Would pulling out a cross still work as well as today?


texts: Do any denominations believe in reincarnation?

texts:
In discussion with others about God's will in situations that don't have any answers (i.e. - difficult prolonged situations) I hear a lot of (as also mentioned in this question and answer) that God is "teaching us lessons and preparing us for eternity".

However, when I put this together with the fact that humans are in all different stages of learning lessons (some almost barely getting by - to some here on vacation on this earth), sayings like "she is an old soul" and the fact that some people don't need to learn certain lessons, they just "have it" from birth, there is a chance after death for atonement - I logically, instinctively and intuitively get the feeling that souls are reincarnated and purified to be more like the light of Christ, through each human experience they occupy.

I have heard there are other religions that believe this but independently of them, are there any Chrisitian denominations that also believe this? Why or why not is it valid?


texts:
Can someone provide a summary of Augustine's soteriological views, and their differences from contemporary views?

I'm particularly interested in a comparison of Augustine's soteriology with the soteriologies of Calvinists, Arminians, and Catholics.


texts:
In the 1 Kings, We have man of God from Judah, who came to Bethel to warn Jeroboam and ends up getting killed on his way out by an Old Prophet who lied to him.

1 Kings 13:18
New International Version (NIV)
18: The old prophet answered, “I too am a prophet, as you are. And an angel said to me by the word of the Lord: ‘Bring him back with you to your house so that he may eat bread and drink water.’” (But he was lying to him.)
23: When the man of God had finished eating and drinking, the prophet who had brought him back saddled his donkey for him.
24: As he went on his way, a lion met him on the road and killed him, and his body was left lying on the road, with both the donkey and the lion standing beside it.

Obviously this is a jerk move on the Prophet's part. Lying to the man of God and getting him killed.
What justifies this man's actions? I have not read anything that points to his punishment for lying. What was the reason for the Prophet's actions?


texts: How do you answer the unanswerable questions?

texts:
How do you respond to the "trivia" or "only God knows" type questions which cannot be answered from the Bible or science (yet)?  This is more of a general question, such as do you blow them off or provide a generic "Only God can truly know the answer to that, and I have faith that he does" type answer?

For example (you don't have to answer these ;) ):

What was there before God created the universe?
Can God make a rock He can't move?


texts: According to the Catholic Church, is there any supernatural (non-physical, non-mathematical, non-scientific) part of a human being?

texts:
My previous understanding of the Catholic Church's teaching was that a human being is of two conjoined natures: physical and spiritual. Also, my previous reasoning was that things like consciousness, the ability to feel and especially free will are impossible in the natural/physical/mathematical world, where all that is possible are non-conscious, non-free, more or less sophisticated mechanisms. Therefore, I would say, free will must have supernatural origins and the claim that a human being has free will implies that there must be a supernaturnatural, spiritual, non-mathematical, non-physical, non-scientific part of the human nature, that cannot be researched nor explained by scientific means.

However, now I am being told that what I was thinking and saying were all heresies. I am being told that according to the teaching of the Catholic Church there is no supernatural or spiritual part nor dimension in the human being or human soul. The only fundamental difference between humans and animals, according to the Church, is that God has gifted humans with His grace to a greater extend than animals, and because of this God's favor humans are granted immortality - but otherwise, humans are really simply more intelligent animals and nothng more. Therefore free will, if existent, is absolutely within the scope of science and probably will be fully explained by science.

Some people I was talking to were telling me that was I was believing were non-Christian views of Plato, and that I was guilty of believing and spreading the "heresy of Platonic dualism", since the Church has rejected the views of Plato and instead adopted the views of Aristotle, as described above, through St. Thomas. Other people were telling me that while my views were not yet heretical, because these views, since adopted by St. Augustine (who had been inspired by Plato), did have their place in the Church, nevertheless they were unfavorable, since the majority of theologians were instead holding the views of St. Thomas, who had been inspired by Aristotle.

The view that free will is a purely natural phenomenon that does not and can not have supernatural origins, since there is no such part nor dimension in the human being is, I have to admit, absolutely counter-intuitive for me and is absolutely opposite to how I used to understand the teaching of the Church. Therefore, could you explain to me, according to the teaching of the Church:

Is there no non-natural, non-scientific, non-physical, non-mathematical part or dimension in the human nature?
If so, does free will therefore have purely natural origins that are not fundamentally prohibited from being researched and fully explained by science?

If I may ask, could you kindly back your answers by appropriate citations of the teaching of the Catholic Church?

Disclaimer: Just to keep my conscience clear: This is a summation of views 3 different persons, out of them I know one to have academic background in theology and philosophy and have reasons to suspect one more of such background; these three peoples' views did clash on certain subtleties, however I do not feel competent to state them; finally I am likely to have misunderstood and misinterpreted certain subtleties. The big picture stands, however, for these reasons I cannot 100% say that every word I wrote is an accurate representation of what I was told to be the teaching of the Church.


texts: Are the early followers of Christ considered Christians or Jews in today's context? If not, when was the religion created?

texts:
From sometime after 4 BC and up to and sometime between the destruction of the Second Temple (C. 70) and Council of Nicaea (AD 325), Christians were considered Jewish with Jesus as their leader.  When in this time was the Christian religion created? At some point they obviously were no longer Jews, or we wouldn't have the Judaic religion we have today.

Secondly, would Jews that were followers of Jesus be considered Christians today?  Given that the divinity of Jesus wasn't "agreed" upon until Synods of Antioch (264 and 269) - arguably it is not universally "agreed" upon today.

If my dates are wrong, please feel free to correct me


texts: Can a human ever be happy in the afterlife while not loving God?

texts:
I'm talking about the afterlife cause you can easily experience moments of happiness during your life on earth, with any kind of attitude towards God.

But after we die, do we have any other choice than to love God? In other words, is happiness possible without loving God? Heaven is only for those who embrace God, right?

I know many people hate God, because they don't like the world that God created. Otherwise they are no bigger sinners than God-loving Christians. I don't know what would have to happen for them to stop hating God. Probably God would have to explain himself to them, which I find hard to imagine... What will happen to them after death?


texts: Could a Catholic priest potentially use a digital tablet (iPad, etc.) for the Lectionary or the Book of the Gospels during mass?

texts:
In the Catholic Masses I have been to, it begins with a procession of the priest along with acolytes and such and someone is holding up the Book of the Gospels decorated in gold or otherwise. This gets placed on the altar and the priest reads from it.

Could a Catholic priest potentially use a digital tablet (iPad, etc.) that contains the text of the Book of the Gospels (or the Lectionary for that matter) in place of this gilded one used during mass? Is there some requirement that the one used in mass has to have a certain appearance, or be made in a certain way? While I'm sure there are a number of reasons that this wouldn't be done (the possibility of technical difficulties, disapproval from parishioners who think it's inappropriate), is there anything within canon law or other church "rules" that would prevent this?


texts: Biblical support for why something is a sin?

texts:
I have heard, seen, and been in religious debates in the past where one of the participants eventually falls back on a line something akin to "it's a sin because the Bible says not to do it" or "it's a sin because God said so". Understandably, this sounds and feels like a cop-out to many people, especially people who have not acknowledged the sovereignty and authority of God. It is not surprising that they want to know the reasoning, to understand the why and not just the what of an imposition.

I am far from an expert on the Bible, having only read it in its entirety the once. However, it is my instinctual estimation that most, if not all, of the sins (and requirements) that the Bible enumerates are given at least some degree of justification, either inline with the admonition or elsewhere in scripture.

I know, however, that this is just an instinct, which is why I'm bringing the topic up here, in hopes of finding either support or reasoned contradiction of the theory. This leaves a few questions:

Can you cite any examples of commands, admonitions, prohibitions, etc. in the Bible where there seems to be no explicit justification?
Is there any scripture that talks about whether God explains His commands or not? For (slightly comical) example, does God ever say "I will not give you commands you do not understand" or conversely "I'm the boss, deal with it"?
If there is a command without scriptural justification, what is the right course of action in defending the command? (I realize this last question is more about apologetics, but I am curious about this, too)


texts: Is there a basis for Christian holidays in the Bible?

texts:
I was just curious if holiday celebrations like Christmas and Easter were written in the Bible, not merely mentioned but specifically indicating that people should celebrate them. It seems to me that celebrations like Christmas and Easter come from older, pagan traditions like Yule and the vernal equinox. For Easter, for example, Wikipedia states:

  Easter is linked to the Jewish Passover by much of its symbolism, as
  well as by its position in the calendar. In many European languages,
  the words for "Easter" and "Passover" are etymologically related or
  homonymous.

It occurred to me that our holidays may be nothing more than pre-Christan pagan traditions (not that such is a bad thing). However, I did a little research and it seemed to me that God of the bible, at least in some ways, thinks that our Christmas celebrations are largely worthless. At the very least, he made it clear that it's not useful to have Christmas trees:

Jeremiah 10 NIV

  1 Hear what the LORD says to you, people of Israel. 2 This is  > what the LORD says:

  “Do not learn the ways of the nations
  or be terrified by signs in the heavens,
  though the nations are terrified by them.

  3 For the practices of the peoples are worthless;
    they cut a tree out of the forest,
    and a craftsman shapes it with his chisel.

  4 They adorn it with silver and gold;
    they fasten it with hammer and nails
    so it will not totter.

  5 Like a scarecrow in a cucumber field,
    their idols cannot speak;
  they must be carried
    because they cannot walk.
  Do not fear them;
    they can do no harm
    nor can they do any good.”

While the above passage doesn't actually mention Christmas, it mentions a common thing done on Christmas. Some people think that the passage does not mention Christmas trees, but rather idols. This only partially true. It is quite clear that the passage describes a Christmas tree, but it's referring to the worship of this tree as an idol as a worthless thing, not necessarily the tree itself as being worthless[1][2]. So it's OK to have Christmas trees—just don't worship them! There is some debate about this, but that is for another question. :) I just included the passage to show the Bible does possibly mention this aspect of how many people currently celebrate Christmas.

My question is really just asking for a bit more than a "sidelong mention" of Christmas trees. Specifically:

Are there other passages which specifically mention Christmas (or some close equivalent, like "Christ's Birthday", etc.), Easter, and other Christian holidays, and which also indicate that we should celebrate them?


texts: How are justification and sanctification related to salvation?

texts:
Among Evangelicals there are subtle differences in emphasis on how justification relates to sanctification (e.g., Ordo Salutis vs. Historia Salutis).1 My question is not about those subtle differences.

How does a person's being justified and sanctified2 relate to that person's salvation? If salvation is solely related to justification, would sanctification be merely accidental to it, or is sanctification necessary for salvation?

Please leave comments

1 Both Lutherans and Calvinists do teach the order of salvation, but the former prioritize justification first by locating sanctification consequently second in the logical sequence while the later prioritize mystical union with Christ whereby both justification and sanctification happened simultaneously in the person justified.

2 While Lutherans emphasized that sanctification follows justification and Calvinists emphasized both justification and sanctification follow mystical union with Christ. This question treat the two views neutrally by not asking how the two relate to one another. But instead it asks how the two relate to salvation? Which is a neutral question given the two groups would differ on how are justification and sanctification relate to one another.


texts: Does the Bible give us a purpose to life?

texts:
I'm not sure that I know of any place in the Bible that directly states, "this is the purpose to life." But does it give us any idea as the exact purpose as to why we were created.

If God is truly Sovereign then he did not Need us for any reason, so why did He create us? Please provide scripture in your answer.


texts: Does the Dome of the Rock have any importance to Christianity?

texts:
The Dome of the Rock is right beside Al-Aqsa mosque in Jerusalem, Israel.

Is it considered a sacred place in Christianity? If so, in what way?


texts: Have the Jehovah's Witnesses predicted the end of the world?

texts:
I have heard somewhere that at various times in the past, the Jehovah's Witnesses (Watchtower Bible & Tract Society) have predicted when the end of the world would be and perhaps when Jesus would return to earth.

What are the specifics about these prophecies, and when exactly is the end of the world or Christ's return supposed to occur?


texts: If a Pope does something wrong, or less than ideal, who is he representing?

texts:
If/when a Pope does something wrong, who is he representing? is he a man who sins, just like the rest of us, or is he supposed to be sort of like the face of God, thereby showing that if he did something wrong, then the pope himself is a fake?

in other words, if a pope did do something unarguably sinful (so not debatable) what would that mean for him specifically, and then Catholics in general?


texts: Is God accountable for all things - good AND bad?

texts:
Can I build the house without the lord's grace? can I ask him simply not to intervene with my house? I can do a fine work on my own
a lousy labourer building an amazing house - yes, that's the lord grace.
but a skilled labourer with years of practice - god has nothing to do with it, unless he maliciously decides to destroy the labourer's work

If a skilled labourer is being thankful to god for the opportunities he gave him to acquire his skill - should the unemployed labourer complain to god for treating him unfairly and not giving him opportunity?

If god is responsible for all the good things that happen in our life - is he also accountable for all the bad things?


texts: How did Old Testament saints show they were focused on God’s promises even though they did not know when or how their Redeemer/Messiah would appear?

texts:
I am preparing a message on the importance of eliminating distractions and making Christ and His crucifixion our focal point.  These New Testament Scriptures illustrate the point:

For I resolved to know nothing while I was with you except Jesus Christ and him crucified (1 Corinthians 2:2).

As Jesus and his disciples were on their way, he came to a village where a woman named Martha opened her home to him. She had a sister called Mary, who sat at the Lord’s feet listening to what he said. But Martha was distracted by all the preparations that had to be made.  She came to him and asked, ‘Lord, don’t you care that my sister has left me to do the work by myself? Tell her to help me!’  ‘Martha, Martha,” the Lord answered, ‘you are upset about many things, but only one thing is needed.  Mary has chosen what is better, and it will not be taken away from her’ (Luke 10:38-42).

When I preach and teach, I like to use the Old Testament Scriptures to illustrate New Testament truths.
I am looking for Old Testament examples of men and women of faith who single-mindedly focused on God and His promises and who eliminated all worldly distractions in their desire to please God.


texts: What is the meaning of "baptism by fire"?

texts:
We all know what water baptism and baptism by the Holy Spirit are. But what does John the Baptist mean by, "He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and FIRE" in Luke 3:16:

  John answered and said to them all, "As for me, I baptize you with water; but One is coming who is mightier than I, and I am not fit to untie the thong of His sandals; He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire." (emphasis added)

Is there a generally-accepted interpretation of what fire means in this context; or can there be a quick overview of the most-accepted understandings?


texts: How should/must Catholics handle, transport, and use holy water?

texts:
Some shrines, like the Shrine of Padre Pio Chapel in Quezon City, distribute holy water in bottles for Catholics who want some. So far the only guideline I saw in getting holy water from a basin is that to get one, you use a clean pitcher to scoop the water and pour it into the bottle. You do not sink the bottle into the basin of holy water until it gets full. But that is all.

How should/must observant Catholics handle, transport, and use holy water such that it won't get desecrated?

Thanks!


texts: Do Priests, Cardinals, and Popes have a confessional to which they themselves can/should/must go?

texts:
The confessional is a standard practice of the Roman Catholic Church where church members may (or must) go to confess their sins to a priest.  As I understand it, the priest then decides whether or not the person's sins will be forgiven and, if so, what is required of the person in order for that to take place.

However, it seems that priests themselves are subject to sin like anyone else.  So, I'm wondering if the Catholic Church has confessionals to which priests may or must regularly attend.  Also, do Cardinals attend confessionals, and then lastly, does the Pope himself ever confess his sins to anyone.  For priests, cardinals, and popes, who determines whether or not their sins will be forgiven and, if they will be, what they must do in order for that to occur?


texts: In evangelicalism, how are Christians free from sin?

texts:
The gist of Romans 6 is that as Christians, we are dead to sin, and thus free from it.  We are no longer slaves to sin, but are slaves to God and righteousness.

  Romans 6:16–18 (ESV)
  16  Do you not know that if you present yourselves  to anyone as obedient slaves, you are slaves of the one whom you obey, either of sin, which leads to death, or of obedience, which leads to righteousness? 17  But  thanks be to God, that you who were once slaves of sin have become obedient from the heart to the  standard of teaching to which you were committed, 18  and,  having been set free from sin,  have become slaves of righteousness.

However, I don't think many Christians would say that they feel very free from sin.  In fact, Paul goes on in the next chapter to say that he is a slave to sin.

  Romans 7:18–19 (ESV)
  18  For I know that nothing good dwells  in me, that is, in my flesh. For I have the desire to do what is right, but not the ability to carry it out. 19   For I do not do the good I want, but the evil I do not want is what I keep on doing.

This kind of language doesn't sound very "free".  If he says that Christians are "slaves of the one whom you obey", and yet he finds himself obeying the flesh, doesn't that make him a slave to sin? In what way, then, are Christians "free" from sin?

Note: Adding the "evangelicalism" tag may have been too subtle, so to clarify, I am specifically looking for answers from an evangelical perspective.


texts: Statements about the doctrine or the future made by current LDS Prophet, and the church view on those

texts:
I was looking at this mormon.org page that mentions that "The current prophet and President of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is Thomas S. Monson."

Does the LDS church assert that doctrinal statements made by the
current Prophet are either "inspired", "infallible", or both?
Has the Prophet made any statements about (near)future events that
Mormons expect to happen?

(I am separating "inspired" and "infallible" because I am not sure how they are interpreted in this context.)


texts: Sources on Historical Reliability of the New Testament

texts:
Unlike many of the other great religions of the world - Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, even Judaism to some extent - Christianity is founded not on a philosophy or a metaphysical idea, but on an historical event.

According to Christianity, sometime around the year 0 a boy was born in the town of Bethlehem; sometime around the year 30 that same boy, now a man, started preaching, gathering disciples, healing and confronting the authorities that be. A few years later, those same authorities had him crucified. But a few days later he was seen alive by his disciples. After he returned to heaven these disciples travelled all over the known world, preaching this message - that the word has become flesh and has dwelt among us. A good number of them were killed before denying what they believed. 2000 years later, millions of people around the world still live lives, not just according to this man's teaching, but in some way 'in' him, and he in them too.

My question is very broad, but basically very simple. If Christianity is indeed based so firmly on real historical events, then surely there must have been significant scholarly work to discern the reliability of the New Testament cannon. Has this work been summarised in any books? Are there any objective (as far as that's possible) reviews of the historical reliability of the claims of the New Testament writings (particularly the Gospels and Paul's writings). Or possibly are there several complementing (should I say competing :) ) works that would give a balanced overview.

What frustrates me the most about this issue is the dichotomy of views. To take but one example, my good old NIV study bible says, concerning the authorship of 1 Timothy, that '...evidence is convincingly supportive of Paul's authorship' yet according to Wikipedia 'most modern scholars' hold that Paul was not the author.

As I said at the beginning, Christianity is in many ways unique in that the entire religion is firmly based on purported historical events. In light of the great range of opinions and views we hear on this issue, I want to spend some time looking at the new testament independently of my Christian bias. Any help (particularly recommended reading) would be greatly appreciated. Thankyou


texts: According to Calvinist, are there another kind group of people besides "they" in Revelation 22:4-5?

texts:
Revelation 22:  (2) and flowing down the middle of the city's
  street. On each side of the river was the tree of life, which bears
  fruit twelve times a year, once each month; and its leaves are for the
  healing of the nations.

  (3) Nothing that is under God's curse will be found in the city. The
  throne of God and of the Lamb will be in the city, and his
  servants will worship him.

  (4) They will see his face, and his name will be written on
  their foreheads.

  (5) There shall be no more night, and they will not need lamps or
  sunlight, because the Lord God will be their light, and they will
  rule as kings forever and ever

As long as I understand (from reading the internet), it seems Revelation 22 is about a place (called heaven or kingdom of God) AFTER the Judgment Day. No more mortal human.

Assuming that my understanding is correct, so the inhabitants of the heaven are all :
1. His servants (verse 3)
2. have His name on their foreheads and see His face (verse 4)
3. rule as kings forever and ever (verse 5)

My questions are :
- are the inhabitants of heaven = the nations mentioned in verse 2 ?
- who are to be ruled and why ? are the inhabitants rule to each other ?

I realize that my questions are not valid if my understanding is not correct.


texts: Biblical references telling us we should be angry

texts:
Overheard on a Christian Radio station this morning:

  We all know that Jesus said if we are angry without cause, we are in
  danger of hellfire, and that the Bible tells us to be slow to anger.
  But did you know that there are situations in which the Bible says we
  are supposed to be angry?

Unfortunately, I couldn't listen to the program being advertised,  so I'll ask it here.  Where, in Scripture are we told to be angry, and about what is it OK to be angry?  What is the "cause" that is acceptable if we aren't supposed to be angry "without cause".  Please include Scripture references.  If applicable, links or comments from official/recognized teachings would be a good addition, particularly if the Scripture reference could be interpreted multiple ways.


texts: What is the significance of Matthew starting with the names of the ancestors of Jesus?

texts: The Gospel of Matthew starts by stating the names of ancestors of Jesus Christ. Does that have any significance other than to establish that Jesus was a descendant of King David?


texts: What is the biblical basis for the JW belief that only 144,000 go to heaven?

texts:
The JW book "What Does the Bible Really Teach" asserts that (the blood of the) "covenant, or contract, makes it possible for 144,000 faithful Christians to go
to heaven (p207). and "These 144,000 Christians, including Jesus’ faithful
apostles, are raised to life in heaven" (p74). This question seeks the Biblical basis for this (apparent) "144,000" limitation on how many Christians can go to heaven, particularly given Rev 7:9,

"After this (the sealing of the 144,000), I looked, and behold, a great multitude which no one could count, from-out-of every nation and all tribes and peoples and tongues, standing before the throne and before the Lamb, having-been-previously-clothed in white robes, and palm branches in their hands. (Rev 9:7)

when the subsequent context suggests this event occurs in heaven:

...all the angels had-been-standing around the throne and the elders and the four living creatures; and they fell before the throne upon the faces of them, and they worshiped the God. (Rev 7:11)
... these (the ones in white robes) are the [ones] coming from-out-of the great tribulation, and they have washed the robes of them and made them white in the blood of the Lamb. Because-of this, they are before the throne of the God; and they serve Him day and night in the temple of Him... (Rev 7:14-15)

Apparently, an uncountable number are observed holding palm branches... in white, washed-in-the blood robes... from out of the great tribulation... standing before the throne of Jehovah (in heaven)... serving Him night and day in His temple.
This report seems to conflict with only 144,000 believers going to heaven.
In answering this question, please do not address why 144,000 is considered literal, or that "144,000" are sealed on their foreheads during the 6th seal (Rev 7:4), or a similar "144,000" are subsequently observed in heaven during the 7th seal (Rev 14:1).  These have been addressed elsewhere on this site. This question seeks the Biblical basis for the specific (~144,000) limitation, when Rev 5:7-15 suggests the number is uncountable. An acceptable answer needs to harmonize this (apparent) conflict, without introducing non-scriptural information, ignoring anything relevant or contradicting other scriptures.


texts: Is there any ancient or modern connection between the word "sin" and the sport of archery?

texts:
I recently learned that in the Bible, the word "sin" comes from Hebrew and Greek words that mean "missing the mark".

In the Faith section of my local newspaper, a minister recently said:

  The word “sin” is an archery term in the ancient Greek. It means, “you missed”. It’s what a slave boy might have said to his master during target practise. “Sin” means we have missed the mark when it comes to making right moral choices in life.

I mildly enjoy word studies, and that one seemed cool, so I dug in a bit to find out more about that.

After digging through some of the mountain of blog posts written by Christians and Christian archers on the saying, I learned about the Greek word "hamartia" (means "to miss the mark"). However, although every blogger said something similar to what the pastor in my newspaper said, and there were a lot of cool stories, in all of the blogs I read I couldn't find any link or reference to the phrase ever having actually been used in archery anciently or modernly. It was just stated as if it was true. So I took a look at the Wikipedia article for Hamartia.

After reviewing that and a couple other sources, it seems that sin is not actually an archery term. But I can't get through the mountain of blog posts to confirm if I'm on track. There's too much information - I don't want to spend days on only a mildly interesting word study.

So I thought I'd ask here if anyone happens to know more or might happen to ask Google a better question. Is there actually a connection between the word "sin" and the sport of archery? Or did some excited Christian or Christian archers just connect these dots between the definition of the word and their sport, decide it was true, share it, and it caught on?

If this question is more appropriate for another site, I'm happy to move it there. The Sports SE just didn't seem like the right place, there is no Etymology SE, and beyond that the question's topic seems it might be at home in Christianity SE, History SE, and Linguistics SE fairly equally. I thought I'd ask here first since Christians are the ones that actually use the comment.


texts: What authority can move the celebration days of Easter in the Catholic Church?

texts:
I have come to learn that the Roman Catholic Church on the Greek Island of Syros celebrates Easter at the same time as the Eastern Orthodox Churches in general.

Who made the decision?


texts: Why did Abraham lie to Pharaoh about Sarah being his sister in Gen 12?

texts:
It says that Abraham feared for his life (Gen 12:12). Does this mean Abraham didn't trust God in spite of the NT view that Abraham was a man of faith (Heb 11:8-12, Gal 3:9)?

Why is the repeated mistake with Abimilech then recorded in Gen 20?


texts:
The Bible (NT) seems to have contrasting views on this.

Matthew 5:14 says:

  In the same way, let your light shine before others, that they may see your good deeds and glorify your Father in heaven.

Ref.  http://biblehub.com/niv/matthew/5.htm

Whereas Matthew 6:2 says:

  “So when you give to the needy, do not announce it with trumpets, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and on the streets, to be honored by others. Truly I tell you, they have received their reward in full. But when you give to the needy, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, so that your giving may be in secret. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you.

Ref.  http://biblehub.com/niv/matthew/6.htm

I am not sure how to interpret these; what is the way?


texts: Can you refer to the Trinity as "Others"

texts:
Is it theologically correct to refer to the Trinity as "Others" when speaking about them in a particular sentence.

ie

You cannnot change yourself without the help of the Others


texts: Is impotence developed AFTER the marriage (and consummation) a ground for annulment in Catholic canon law?

texts: I understand that antecedent impotence is ground for annulment in Catholic canon law. But what if the impotence develops AFTER the marriage? Would that also be a ground for annulment?


texts: How do apologists defend against Bart Ehrman's arguments that Church scribes corrected and changed the Bible to fit their theology?

texts:
Bart Ehrman seems to be the atomic bomb of the Christian community, having released books like Misquoting Jesus and Jesus Interrupted, which call into question the reliability and inerrancy of the Scriptures, particularly the New Testament. Are his arguments new? How does one respond to or refute his arguments?

For example, Ehrman argues that some scribes "corrected" or reworded certain verses to fit their particular theological views or to align with what made sense to them (e.g., Jesus being angry as He healed the leper).


texts:
James 2:24 NIV
  24 You see that a person is considered righteous by what they do and not by faith alone.

In James we are told that a person would be considered righteous by their deeds and not just their faith.  Is righteousness a prerequisite for salvation?


texts: Looking for the Bible Verse: "If any of you have more than one  give that to another"

texts:
"If any of you have more than one <some-thing> give that to another"

I'm pretty sure there's a Bible verse that reads something like this, I'm not sure what the <some-thing> is there, I keep thinking that Jesus said this, but I'm not entirely sure.

Can somebody help me out on what the verse is?

Thanks!


texts: Does Mark 2:21-22 mean that we don't need to obey Old Testament Laws?

texts:
Jesus said:

Mark 2:21-22 (NLT)

  “Besides, who would patch old clothing with new cloth? For the new patch would shrink and rip away from the old cloth, leaving an even bigger tear than before.  And no one puts new wine into old wineskins. For the wine would burst the wineskins, and the wine and the skins would both be lost. New wine calls for new wineskins.”

Can we interpret those verses to mean that we only need to concentrate on the New Testament and ignore the laws in the Old Testament?  Even the 10 commandments are reduced to just two commands in new testament.


texts: The soul's progression through purgatory

texts:
Does anyone know of any folklore in Christian mythology about what happens to the soul as it progresses through purgatory and into heaven? (Plus, of course, for systems that hold universal reconciliation to be true, the soul's progression through hell.)

Please note that I'm specifically asking about folklore and mythology rather than doctrine; the kind of symbolic stories that get carried alongside Christianity rather than being part of it. Although if anyone has any useful references to appropriate bits of doctrine I'd be fascinated to read them.

I'm really looking for anything old, but I'd be happy with anything. I suspect there's not much, but I'd be surprised if there wasn't something...

(And yes, I know about Bunyan --- which doesn't count, because Pilgrim's Progress is an allegory of the soul's progression through life, not death; and I know about Dante --- which also doesn't count because his narrator is a tourist, and not one of the souls themselves.)


texts: Are there any groups of Christians who believe that all loans made with their money should be made without the expectation of repayment?

texts:
In Luke 6:35, Jesus says that Christians are to:

  "lend, expecting nothing in return"

Are there any denominations or groups in Christianity (past or present) which have taught and acted on the belief (and are known for this belief in a published source) that each and every loan made with their money - whether the loan was made by them directly or made through a 3rd party - is to be made without the expectation of repayment?

Note: Please exclude any Christian denomination or group which sanctions modern banking, as modern banking by its nature relies on making loans which expect something in return.

For further clarity, this is the only example I know of, which portrays the meaning I'm getting at.


texts: Were there any OT prophecies that Jesus should be a wood-working carpenter

texts:
I like the stone mason theory because that would make Jesus and St. Joseph (the patron of manly men) really tough.

But, is there any significance to the traditional conception of Jesus following St. Joseph as a table and chairs sort of carpenter as opposed to a millstone and monuments sort of carpenter borne of the Old Testament prophets?

Are there any allusions to carpentry in the Old Testament?


texts: What does the moniker "the beloved disciple" imply about the marital status of John the Evangelist?

texts: John the Evangelist occasionally refers to himself as 'the disciple whom Jesus loved' (Jn 12:23; 19:26; 21:7; 21:20). (Interestingly, no other evangelist makes such a reference.) Is it possible that Jesus had a special consideration for John because of that status? What is the Catholic view of it?


texts: Why do Jehovah Witnesses think that the cross doesn't have hands?

texts:
They said that the original cross is just a torture stake.

Why do they think that way? Not that I think they're wrong. I am just wondering.


texts: I have been a Christian for my entire life.  Lately, I have been in a low spot in faith, and have had some skepticism towards a few things in the bible.  I do have faith in the bible, but I would like to see some extra-biblical historical, and or scientific evidence of things things that are accounted for in the bible.


texts: What is the earliest explicit mention of infant baptism?

texts:
The Bible describes several adults being baptized (notably Jesus and the Ethiopian eunuch that Phillip baptized). And while it mentions many others being baptized, it doesn't explicitly mention infants (although supporters of infant baptism do have a biblical basis).

What is the earliest explicit mention in historical documents of infants being baptized? I'm guessing that such a mention might take the form of a specific reference to an individual or group of infants being baptized, or something like instructions for the process of baptizing infants.

(To clarify, I am looking for explicit references to infant baptism outside of the Bible; there is considerable debate over whether the scriptures support infant baptism or if they only allowed for credobaptism alone. All of that is more suited to other questions on this site).


texts: Does the Bible ever refer to Jesus Christ as “God”?

texts:
I believe Jesus Christ is God and that He is also called God in the Bible.  Hebrews 1:8 is always my first choice as the proof of this. Heb. 1:8 says,

  "But unto the Son He saith, 'Thy throne, O God, is forever and ever. A scepter of righteousness is the scepter of Thy kingdom.'" (KJV)

But when I looked it up online, I see a unitarian disagrees with me.  You can find his article here.

The unitarian counters: "Verse 8 clarifies that Psalm 45:6 and 7 are a Messianic prophecy, but the translators once again mis-capitalize “god” as “God.” But look at verse 9! It says, “…therefore God, even your God, has set you above your companions by anointing you with the oil of joy.” Say, if one is God, how can anyone else be his “God”? That should be a more frequently asked question!"


texts: Are Lutherans the "adversaries" of Catholics, according to the Catholic Church?

texts:
I have heard that in the 16th century Lutherans were referred to as "adversaries" by theologians like St. Robert Bellarmine. As far as I know, this goes against Church teaching. Lutherans are always said to be "our fellow Christians" by recent Popes.
Perhaps non-Catholics are always "adversaries" according to the Church?
According to the Church, are Lutherans the "adversaries" of Catholics?


texts:
I enjoy praying lying in bed just before I sleep ... until I fall asleep. In church I usually pray with my hands simply by my side or even with my hands in my pockets. I just let them stay wherever they are.

However I have seen that many people change positions before they pray, often clasping their hands together or opening them towards something.

Is there anything particularly wrong with praying lying in bed or with your hands in your pockets? Is there any particular reason one must change positions to begin praying?


texts: Is penal substitutionary atonement most prevalent among Calvinists?

texts:
I've been looking at penal substitutionary atonement and am finding that although Calvinists and Arminians seem to affirm it, it appears to be Calvinists who affirm it most strongly.

Is this accurate?


texts: Why did Pope Pius XII mention the soul of Mary?

texts:
In Munificentissimus Deus Pope Pius XII defined the dogma of the Immaculate Conception:

  By the authority of our Lord Jesus Christ, of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, and by our own authority, we pronounce, declare, and define it to be a divinely revealed dogma: that the Immaculate Mother of God, the ever Virgin Mary, having completed the course of her earthly life, was assumed body and soul into heavenly glory.

I can understand the need to define the fact that the body of the Blessed Mother is in Heaven, but was Mary not already a canonised saint before the document was produced?

Even the protestant reformers did not contest the sainthood of Mary.


texts: What word did Jesus use for God in Aramaic?

texts:
What is the word and pronunciation for God in Aramaic? I saw 'AaLaH'  is the pronunciation for God from this link: Aramaic Lexicon and Concordance  . Did Jesus uses the word 'AaLaH'  for God during his speeches? And also in Aramaic Bible, is this word is used for God?

If this is true then the Arabic word 'Allahu' and this word 'AaLaH' are same or different?

Also I want to know on which language did Jesus cry this expression - "Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani"


texts: Why do Catholics observe Eucharist every Sunday?

texts:
Many Protestant churches observe the Lord's Supper once a month and some do it very rarely. If I'm not mistaken, the Catholics celebrate Eucharist every Sunday.

Why is Eucharist observed in Catholic parishes every Sunday?
Do they observe on other days too?
Are Catholics obligated to attend the mass every Sunday?


texts: I came accross a website about Saint Raynerius of Beaulieu. Every source I can find tells me that his feast day is on Feb 22, and that he died in 967 AD. I want to find more information, but have no idea where to start! Please help!


texts: What is the scriptural basis for the Holy Spirit speaking to you through other people's words?

texts:
Sometimes I get the distinct feeling that something that someone has said is working on multiple levels. On the surface level they're talking about whatever makes sense in the context of the conversation, but on another level, it feels like they are speaking to a specific thing relevant to my spiritual life.

For instance, I have a bad habit I am trying to quit. I have prayed for God's help. Some days I feel like I really don't want to quit and I fall back into the habit. Then later the same day I'll be talking to another Christian about the weather and they might mention that it's windy and I'd say, "Well, that's Texas for you." And they would reply, "Yeah, it's not going to quit."

In that instance I felt like it was the holy spirit speaking, talking about me going back into my habit even after asking for help to quit. It was saying I wasn't going to quit. Considering the wind is used many times in the Bible as a symbol of God's presence in the world it seems even more likely.

What is the biblical basis for the idea that the Holy Spirit speaks through the words of other people, even those not meant to be advice?


texts: Why are there fourteen stations of the cross?

texts:
So, I would have expected 12 stations of the cross. I mean, lets face it, a lot of things in the Bible happen in 12.  12 disciples, 12 tribes, etc...

Seeing as the stations of the cross are not Scripture, but rather a later invention, why were the stations that were chosen, chosen?

And why 14?


texts: How are the Catholic church's teaching on plastic surgery and GRS self-consistent?

texts:
GRS (gender reassignment surgery) is the term given to procedures (several usually being required) which change the appearance of an individual from one sex to the other. My understanding of Catholic church teaching is that it is broadly in line with this post where it appears that the reason is that this form of appearance altering surgery is classified as "despising [one's] bodily life".

As gender reassignment (surgery, hormone replacement therapy etc.) is considered a therapeutic treatment for gender dysphoria I take it that it would be considered a "therapeutic medical reason" for sterilisation (where that is necessary in GRS), to say nothing of permissibility of gender reassignment for individuals who are already sterile (some intersex individuals, post-menopausal women etc.)

So it appears that the reasoning for this is that it is considered hateful to your bodily life.

However, it seems that plastic surgery which is also an artificial way of altering one's appearance is permissible even when not being done for therapeutic reasons? While the same post states that gender reassignment surgery is not permissible? Indeed it is described as "inherently immoral" - is this because it is indicative of hating your bodily life or is there some other reason, of which I am unaware, which makes gender reassignment surgery inherently immoral?

What is the Catholic church's way of explaining this apparent inconsistency?


texts: Roman Catholic: Is piracy of information and media wrong in all circumstances?

texts:
I've come across people who claim piracy to be a theft that breaks one of the Ten Commandments (a sin against God). Yet, I've considered the matter and opined the following.

1) Equal Opportunities: It is a given, taking into consideration poor countries like India also, that not everyone is in a position to earn as much as his fellow brother, be that due to being born in poor circumstances, in the schooling privileges given him, in mental gifts given him, as in intelligence, ability to learn, ability to carry out work. Everyone has differences in this regard. There is also the point of what he can afford given the economic status of his neighbourhood, wealth and health of his families that he must earn for too.

2) Taking note of the above, Unfair Pricing and Class Distinction: It always amazes me when a person who is well above his means wants to force a doctrine of morality on others, in that piracy is a theft. I will just say, let pricing be governed according to class. Let the poor pay one thing, let the middle class pay one thing, and let the rich pay thrice the amount for his every need than the poor. And let's see if the "fairness" of the hearts of the rich is willing to still cope with such.

3) Is piracy immoral: The Bible does mention that anything that is kept away from you unfairly, you have the right to take it. What I think of that, I will not say, but I mentioned it as it might be related to this.

What does the Church think about the morality of piracy?


texts:
I am asking this question because I don't know if I'm being correct or too legalistic.
I don't have a problem listening to secular music without sinful lyrics, for example: "She loves you" by the Beatles. However, I don't feel comfortable listening to music where a man says to his wife "I can't live without you" or "You are my everything". Every time that I listen to those lyrics, it comes to my mind that God is our everything and we cannot live without him (instead of a person).
All the Christians that I asked told me that those lyrics will be sinful only if I live by its standards, but I think that God won't be happy if He sees his son/daughter listening a song where a person is giving the position of God to another person.
Do any denominations have a standard when it comes to listening to (modern) secular music?
I hope am not too legalistic in regards to this question?


texts: Is there biblical support to suggest that it is our Christian duty to vote, or be involved in deciding our governments actions, or to choose a certain party for election, etc...? Is there biblical support to take the opposite stand (ie., not to vote; not to be a voice for any particular party?).


texts: Why do the faithful have to say "And with your spirit " in the Catholic Mass?

texts: In the Catholic Holy Mass (Ordinary Form of the Mass in the Latin rite), the prayer  for peace is said more than once . But, when the priest says "Peace be with you"the faithful respond by saying "And with your spirit ", rather than saying "And with you". I wish to know  why  the faithful are required to pray for peace `with the spirit of the celebrant'.


texts: According to 21st century Catholic critics, what's so great about the Canticle of the Sun?

texts:
A few years ago, I tried to explain to the 7th-8th graders in my catechism class how awesome St. Francis was.  I told 'em about him giving up all his stuff and rebuilding the Church etc... but, for whatever reason, when I had them read the canticle of the sun it didn't do anything for them.

I reckon that in St. Francis' way, this is a very humble way of looking at creation.  But it more or less fails to resonate with me or my students.  What do 21st century Catholic critics (Pope Francis, for instance) say the Canticle of the Sun says to 21st century Christians?


texts: Which Ante-Nicene Church Fathers believed that Jesus is the "eternal Son" of the Father?

texts:
Economic trinitarianism, in the pre-Nicene sense of the phrase, says that God is a monad who becomes tripartite for the purposes of creation and redemption. Forms of this view were held by Justin Martyr and Tertullian, but were rejected at Nicaea in favor of the orthodox teaching of an eternal Trinity, in which the Son is eternal (The Eternal Generation of the Son: Maintaining Orthodoxy in Trinitarian Theology, Page 97).

Who among the ante-Nicene church fathers opposed economic trinitarianism and believed that Jesus is the "eternal Son" of the Father?


texts: Connection between the Jesus Prayer and chanting "Jesus!" during worship?

texts:
According to Wikipedia:

  The Jesus' Prayer (Greek: Η Προσευχή του Ιησού, i prosefchí tou iisoú; Syriac: ܨܠܘܬܐ ܕܝܫܘܥ , Amharic, Geez and Tigrinya: እግዚኦ መሐረነ ክርስቶስ,Slotho d-Yeshu' , ) or "The Prayer" (Greek: Η Ευχή, i efchí̱ – literally "The Wish") is a short formulaic prayer esteemed and advocated especially within the Eastern churches:

    Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner.[1]

/.../

  Similarly to the flexibility of the practice of the Jesus' Prayer, there is no imposed standardization of its form. The prayer can be from as short as "Lord, have mercy" (Kyrie eleison), "Have mercy on me" ("Have mercy upon us"), or even "Jesus", to its longer most common form.

Now, in another and younger evangelical tradition "Jesus" or "Lord" or "Save me" etc are often repetitively sung, chanted or prayed as part of worship music, worship meetings or prayers.

This is most likely a very wild guess, but since these two practices seem awkwardly similar to one another, is there any known historic connection between these two practices/traditions which could signify that such forms of evangelical worship were culturally influenced by the Jesus prayer? Certainly it's the Holy Spirit at work (for whatever good reason; unifying the church? ), but I'd still like to know whether there are any culturally notable connections.


texts: How does the Catholic Church visualize Jesus breathing over His disciples post-resurrecion?

texts:
At John 20:22 we read:

  When he had said this, he breathed on them and said to them, “Receive
  the Holy Spirit.

One wonders how Jesus breathed on the disciples: did He do it by way of exhaling through nostrils, or by way of blowing through the mouth?

How does the Catholic Church visualize Jesus breathing over His disciples  post-resurrection ?


texts: Has anybody heard the word "beatified love"? Is there a biblical passages or traditions to support this word?

texts:
I encounter the word "beatified love" in a comment in other channels and it said
that beatified love is higher than beatific vision which a soul can experience in the heavenly kingdom.
What am I looking for?
Is there any biblical reference that points out to the word "beatified love"?
Is there a traditions that holds beatified love is higher than beatific vision?
Is beatified love an official doctrine to a Catholic belief or did any Christian or other faith also are using this phrase beatified love in their teaching that a soul can experience in heaven?


texts: Why does the Coptic church still perform circumcisions?

texts:
Circumcision is a requirement from The Mosaic Law:

  Any uncircumcised male who has not been circumcised in the flesh of
  his foreskin will be cut off from his people – he has failed to carry
  out my requirement. (Gen. 17:14, NIV)

However the old laws are no longer a requirement based on being saved by grace.

  For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith--and this is not
  from yourselves, it is the gift of God (Ephesians 2:8, NIV)

I understand that the Coptic Orthodox Church still practices circumcision. What is the Biblical basis for this?


texts: Is the “dark night of the soul” mentioned in the Bible?

texts:
I saw a documentary where a priest said that the “dark night of the soul” is mentioned in the Bible, but I was not able to find where.

Is the “dark night of the soul” mentioned directly or indirectly in the Bible?


texts: What's the Biblical basis for calling God by the name of Jesus in prayers?

texts:
I am looking for a Biblical basis for this practice. Can the answerers also state which denomination they are answering from?

Jesus himself taught to pray to "Our Father who is in Heaven". But I see many Christians basically using the word "Jesus" as the name of God. "I pray to you Jesus", "save me Jesus" and so forth.

My question is -- why do many Christians prefer to pray to the person of the Godhead who is Jesus? I do not find such a teaching in the Bible, and I wonder what purpose it accomplishes. Is this what Jesus meant when he said to ask "in his name"? It seems to me that the "in his name" might mean as if you are asking for something in someone else's name, or it could be some ancient expression from those times to mean to pray to the name "Jesus" in the Godhead. In any case, the real name was "Yeshua" wasn't it?

Lastly, is there anything that a person loses by always praying to God the Father?


texts: What does John Calvin mean to imply by the "suffrage" of the church?

texts:
In his Institutes of the Christian Religion, John Calvin discusses the idea that the Biblical canon depends on the ratifying action of the Church (Book 1, Chapter 7). He thinks it does not, preferring to say that the Church formally recognized what everybody already knew. This is meant not only as a historical statement about prevailing opinions, but also speaks to the role of the Holy Spirit in testifying to the authenticity and authority of Scripture.
The Latin and French texts use the term suffragio or suffrage respectively to describe the approval of the Church:

Quare dum illam recipit, ac suffragio suo obsignat, non ex dubia aut alioqui controversa authenticam reddit : sed quia veritatem esse agnoscit Dei sui, pro pietatis officio, nihil cunctando veneratur. (1559 ed.)
Parqouy l'Eglise en recevant l'Escriture saincte et la signant par son suffrage, ne la rend pas authentique, comme si auparavant elle eust esté douteuse ou en different : mais pource qu'elle la cognoist estre la pure verité de son Dieu, elle la revere et honnore comme elle y est tenue par le devoir de pieté. (1560 ed.)

English translators have rendered this language in the same sorts of ways as one another:

When the Church receives it, and gives it the stamp of her authority, she does not make that authentic which was otherwise doubtful or controverted, but, acknowledging it as the truth of God, she, as in duty bound, shows her reverence by an unhesitating assent. (Henry Beveridge)
Thus, while the church receives and gives its seal of approval to the Scriptures, it does not thereby render authentic what is otherwise doubtful or controversial.  But because the church recognizes Scripture to be the truth of its own God, as a pious duty it unhesitatingly venerates Scripture. (Ford L. Battles)
For that reason, when the church receives and approves scripture it does not authenticate it, as if it has previously been doubtful or unsure. But since, according to its duty, the church recognizes scripture to be the truth of its Lord, it reveres scripture without delay. (Elsie Anne McKee)

The Latin suffragio can indeed mean a vote, seal, etc. - some notion of a formally recorded act of testimony. The accompanying obsignat matches that.
What I am wondering about is the intended connotation of the "seal"-type metaphor and the word suffragio / suffrage. Elsewhere, seal language is used for sacraments, and the concept of our assent to God in faith seems very similar to what is implied here (we put our trust in God, responding to him, but we don't make him do anything).
With reference to Calvin's concept of the church,

Is suffrage here intended to denote some communal expression of faith? Or is it just that many individuals independently put their trust in the authority of Scripture? Basically, I'm asking to what extent "the Church" is present here as a single entity.
Is there a meaningful concept of voting? Clearly, English "suffrage" today probably makes us think about aggregating everyone's opinions and picking the most popular. But does Calvin intend to suggest anything like that? I think he is pointing to a vaguer notion of informal universal consensus, especially given that there is only one correct choice, but I'm not fully sure, given that some people are convinced Calvin was some sort of pioneer of democracy.
Is the parallel with Calvin's sacrament language just a coincidence, or are the same concepts being invoked in both instances?


texts: if homosexuality is a sin, why isn't abstinence?

texts:
I've always wondered why homosexuality is a sin. The most common argument I hear though is that "They can't procreate and be fruitful, which is an integral part of God's design for us". But I notice a few things wrong with that claim:

Assuming that homosexuality being a sin is taking about the act, wouldn't doing anything other than having sexual intercourse be a sin? It seems that by that definition anything that doesn't result in procreation is a sin. The act of homosexuality does not prevent someone from being able to procreate, so what is the problem?
If the "lifestyle" of homosexuality is a sin for that reason, why isn't abstinence a sin as well? Like homosexuality, abstinence is a sure fire way to ensure that you're never fruitful and populate the earth as is God's plan. That being said, if someone said that abstinence was a sin, I'm sure most Christians would laugh.

The whole "fruitful" thing is the only plausible explanation that I can think of for why homosexuality is a sin. The above are things that I've never really understood, and as someone who was raised Christian all her life, I really don't want to believe that I was taught something that is completely ungrounded and unfair. Thanks for reading my question!


texts: Is there scriptural basis for spiritual 'growth'?

texts:
In my denomination from time to time I hear about spiritual 'growth'.
I get quite confused about it. It seems to me that Jesus taught to love people, give what we have to the poor, pray for people, cast out unclean spirits, bless people who curse us, give the other cheek, do not call people things because words have a lot of power (physical wounds other people can see, but internal/psychological wounds generally go by without the knowledge of others even for decades or a lifetime), give to whoever asks, lend without asking back, do not serve money, do not be anxious, love God and others.

2 Peter: 5.For this very reason, make every effort to add to your
faith goodness; and to goodness, knowledge; 6and to knowledge,
self-control; and to self-control, perseverance; and to perseverance,
godliness; 7and to godliness, mutual affection; and to mutual
affection, love. 8For if you possess these qualities in increasing
measure, they will keep you from being ineffective and unproductive in
your knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ.

It seems to me that God does indeed cleanse people inward. People who come to Jesus stops cursing,  cheating, being immoral, starts loving God, etc. I believe this is the work of the Holy Spirit.
Also there are spiritual gifts that God gives to people (word of wisdom, word of knowledge, faith, gifts of healings, miracles, prophecy, distinguishing between spirits, tongues and interpretation of tongues) which it seems are all for serving one another.
And finally the fruits of the spirit:
Charity (or love), joy, peace, patience, benignity (or kindness), goodness, long-suffering, gentleness, faithfulness, self-control.
Is there such a thing as spiritual growth, if so, what is it and what is the scriptural basis for it?


texts: How do Protestants in general respond to these points concerning them?

texts:
I haven't had much experience interacting with Catholics, but I have had a lot of interactions with the Orthodox and have been exposed to many of their writings and teachings. Whenever I would talk to them about what they think about the Protestants, these three main points would always stand out:

Protestants are not on the line of Apostolic succession;
Protestants don't recognize the sacraments as the ways specially ordained by God for conveying the Holy Spirit;
(A kind of summary to the first two points) although only God knows whether or not the Protestants are saved or have the Holy Spirit, it must be considered as the fact that the Protestants are spiritually in the way more disadvantageous position than the Orthodox Church.

I am sure Protestants are familiar with this kind of thinking of the Orthodox Christians regarding Protestantism. Is it possible to describe in general what Protestants usually say in response to that?

EDIT:

By "Protestants" I mean here those Christians who don't belong to the Oriental Orthodoxy, Catholicism, and Eastern Orthodoxy, yet still pray to Jesus in their prayers (that is, they address Jesus by His name – not just say "I am praying in the name of Jesus" in the end of the prayer), or at least don't consider this practice to be wrong.


texts: According to Catholicism, what are the requirements for baptism?

texts:
In The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints for example, everyone who desires to enter the waters of baptism must first be interviewed to see if they qualify for baptism:

  Qualifications for Baptism

  Doctrine and Covenants 20:37:

  Humble themselves before God.
  Desire to be baptized.
  Come forth with broken hearts and contrite spirits.
  Repent of all their sins.
  Be willing to take upon them the name of Christ.
  Have a determination to serve Christ to the end.
  Manifest by their works that they have received the Spirit of Christ unto a remission of their sins.

  First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve:

  Make sufficient changes in their lives to qualify as commanded in Doctrine and Covenants 20:37.
  Develop faith in Christ.
  Repent of transgressions.
  Live the principles of moral worthiness.
  Live the Word of Wisdom.
  Commit to pay tithing.
  Receive all the missionary lessons [lessons 1–4 on the Teaching Record and associated commitments].
  Meet the bishop or branch president.
  Attend several sacrament meetings.

No one may be accepted into the waters of baptism unless they meet these requirements, this includes children, children are not baptized until they reach what is known as the age of accountability (8 years old), which has been determined to be the age when children can distinguish between right and wrong.

What qualifications do Catholics have for baptism?


texts: What word describes the heresy of "Jesus is the Son of Himself"?

texts:
Preface

This question is the result of a personal thought experiment and is for curiosity sake.  I do not profess nor believe the following statement.

Background

Those who believe in the Trinitarian Nature of God believe that God is Three persons in co-equal majesty and substance in one God.  It is accurate to say that Jesus is God, the Holy Spirit is God, and the Father is God.  But in the conventional Trinitarian belief, it is wrong to say that the Father is the Son, the Son is the Holy Spirit, etc.

However, suppose a heretic accepts the first statement (each person is God), but rejects the second one (that the persons can substitute one another).  An inference that could arise is the following:

The Son of God is God
The Father is God
Therefore Jesus (The Son) is the Son of himself.

Question

Is there a word for the Heresy that describes the third step of the syllogism above?


texts: Were some of Jesus' disciples more privileged than others?

texts:
Mark 3:14 Then hit selected twelve of them to be his regular companions, calling them apostles.*He sent them out to preach, and gave them authority to cast out demons. NLT
Mark 5:37 Then Jesus stopped the crowd and wouldn't let anyone go in with him except Peter and James and John. NLT

And other occasions.

Mark 9:2 six days later Jesus took Peter, James an John to the top of the mountain. No one else was there. NLT
Mark 14:33 He took Peter, James and John with him, and he began to be filled with horror an deep distress.

Is there an sacred/specific reason why Christ only let three of them go in with him an not all twelve?
Why did he take just Peter, James an John to the top of the mountain? At the olive grove called Gethsemane. He told everyone else to sit here while I go pray....Seems to me he favored these three?


texts: Early church writers opposed to the baptism of infants?

texts:
In his book On Baptism, Chapter 18, "Of the Persons to Whom, and the Time When, Baptism is to Be Administered," Tertullian says

  According to the circumstances and disposition, and even age, of each individual, the delay of baptism is preferable; principally, however, in the case of little children.

Based on the arguments he uses for this, and the way he says it, he is not making a case against paedobaptism the way that credobaptists would now. Nevertheless, he clearly is not in favor of the practice.

People obviously interpret different authors different ways. However, I am wondering: are there any other early church writers who are clearly opposed to paedobaptism? In other words, I'm not looking for writings that could be interpreted as credobaptist, I'm looking for writings where paedobaptism is clearly spoken against, as in Tertullian.


texts: Is there a scriptural support for "man are ‘half animal, half angel’"?

texts:
The Philosopher and Critic of Christianity Ludwig Feuerbach wrote:

  “My only wish…is to transform friends of God into friends of man,
  believers into thinkers, devotees of prayer into devotees of work,
  candidates for the hereafter into students of the world, Christians
  who, by their own admission, are ‘half animal, half angel’ into
  persons, into whole persons.”

Is there an instance in the Bible when men are described as " ‘half animal, half angel’"?


texts: Do Catholics eat the substance of the Father during "communion"?

texts:
The reason I am raising this question is not so much to understand communion as to understand:

"one substance with the Father" (since that seems at odds with Hebrews 1:1-3 to me)
"consubstantiation"
"transubstantiation"

My thought is by understanding this specific I might have a better idea of what they might mean.

So if someone eats Jesus' body does "same substance", "consubstantiation" or "transubstantiation" suggest that Catholics are they eating the Father's substance?

Again, these are probably ignorant questions but the answers might clarify for me what the Catholic theologians are on about.


texts: Ex Cathedra -- are there other Christian groups besides Catholicism that use a similar tactic?

texts: We're all familiar with the concept of the papal infallibility and how the pope is considered infallible only when speaking ex cathedra, which creates a lot of wiggle room since there is really no clear criteria for determining when he's speaking ex cathedra (my opinion, but see Can we tell when the Roman pontiff is speaking "EX CATHEDRA"? and its many duplicates), and that he's sitting down apparently doesn't mean anything even though that's the literal translation (from a chair). This ex cathedra thing creates a sort of "Nope, he didn't say Simon says, so that doesn't count" effect.  Anyway my question is not at all about that.  My question is are there any other Christian groups, sects, denominations, that use a similar tactic to prevent their leader from the appearance of having taught false doctrine?  For example: Might Mormons use the same kind of argument to prevent the appearance that their prophets contradict each other infallibly?


texts: What happens if someone who is not elect tries to seek God?

texts:
From the perspective of Reformed Theology, in relation to Unconditional Election:

What happens if someone who is not elect, tries to seek God? Does God reject them?

Or this an impossibility - does the mere act of seeking God mean that the person must be elect?