texts: Why was God so specific about how to make the Tabernacle?

texts: The Book of Exodus (ch 25–27) spends quite a bit of time describing how to build the Tabernacle, right down to the type of metal and wood to use for minor parts, all straight from the mouth of God.  Why did God go into such great detail about seemingly trivial matters?  Besides the obvious reason of, "It was important," what reasons have published Christian commentaries suggested for the amount of text devoted to a physical description of the Tabernacle?


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

texts: I wonder whether Jesus was given enough opportunities to defend himself, whether his trial was fair and whether the investigation was thorough.  I want to know how it compares with typical criminal, political or treason trials of the time, both in Roman empire and worldwide, and also in comparison with the modern times.


texts: How can Luke 9:49–50 be reconciled with the idea that Christ is the only way?

texts:
I have been under the impression that Christ's teaching is very much along the way of "Christ is the only path." If so, what's going on in this passage?

  Luke 9:49–50 (KJV)
  49  And John answered and said, Master, we saw one casting out devils in thy name; and we forbad him, because he followeth not with us.
  50  And Jesus said unto him, Forbid him not: for he that is not against us is for us.

How is this mysterious individual casting out devils without being a follower of Christ, and how is Jesus implying that this mysterious fellow is an ally?


texts:
I've always believed that Jesus was stabbed in his left side. That seems to be the common belief. How is that notion supported?

I can't find anything the tells me absolutely in which side he was stabbed, so if there is anyone who says it was the right side, how is that supported?


texts:
As was brought up in another question; in so using Matthew 10:1-4, which lists the names of the 12. A response from a contributor stated the unavailability of proof in the Scripture to show that any or all(my own addition to shorten) were truely Jewish or Israelites.
The belief I have found, which comes from Jesus's mouth in Matthew 28:19, "make disciples of all nations", leads me to my point. The missing facts that could tell us if the 12 disciples were Jews is irrelevant. It does not matter, that is why it is not found in the Scriptures. We do not need to know, and Jesus already said that He wanted disciples of all nations. Had the information been available stating all to be Jews, then we may find ourselves arguing, as I know I do about things anyway, except this time with Jesus's command, on whether or not a disciple should or should not be either Jewish or of Israelite lineage, or of all nations.


texts: What is the main theological point of Philippians?

texts:
I learned recently that many of the epistles have a main theological point. For example, the main point of Ephesians is that the Church is the body of Christ, and that it may bring unity to the world and reconciliation with God. The main point of Colossians is the supremacy of Christ, as he existed before creation. These points can be verified by reading the epistles, or, more briefly, by reading the linked articles on Wikipedia.

This leads me to wonder, what is the main theological point of Philippians? In other words, what is the main theme, from a theological perspective, if there is one?


texts: Is there Biblical justification for asserting that Satan directly causes natural evil?

texts:
Believers tend to assert about how God is completely sovereign over everything, including earthquakes, diseases, floods etc. These events are what people would consider natural evil, in contrast to moral evil, which includes murder, rape, torture, human sacrifice, genocides etc.

But it is Biblically possible that there is a secondary, direct cause to this natural evil (excluding all " natural evil" events that are directly caused by divine judgement like the Ten Plagues, the disasters in the Book of Revelation, the hailstones at Gibeon etc.)? Just like how there is a secondary, direct cause to moral evil, such as depraved humans and the demons that influence/possess them, even though God is still recognised as having the ultimate authority over this?

It's a major plot element in the Book of Job and I don't think it's the first time Satan and his forces has done this (Job 1:7, 2:2). After all, don't all natural disasters and illnesses in some way undermine our confidence and well-being and are all under God's will?

Satan is a metaphysical being, like God, and all laws of nature have underlying metaphysical causes, one of which includes Logos (I guess Satan is anti-Logos since He wants to control natural laws to create unnecessary disorder/destroy nature?). He's also recognised as having control over the world and the air, as attested by John the apostle. Some say that I'm attributing too much power to Satan. Yes, I recognise that's he not omnipotent or omniscient and that he does not (nor do any of the angels) directly create. However, I strongly suspect that he can pervert what's already existing.

An analogy I can think of is that God created viruses, the cells that form the basis for cancerous tumours etc. like any other living organism. But Satan swooped in and manipulated them to attack other living beings. Just like how he manipulates the biochemistry of human brains to make individuals commit abominable sins against others and God. If any human manipulated nature to harm others, they would justifiably be called a bio-terrorist. So why can't the same logic apply to beings in the metaphysical realm?

Am I wrong/too superstitous for thinking this way?


texts: What is the biblical basis for the belief that the Lord Jesus Christ does NOT presently possess blood in his incorruptible body?

texts:
Some Christians do not believe that the Lord Jesus Christ presently possesses blood in his incorruptible body. What is the biblical basis for such a belief?
For example, the Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry (CARM) states on their website,

Jesus had shed His blood on the cross. It quite literally had drained out of His body. We see that when Jesus rose from the dead, He still had the holes in His hands and feet (Luke 24:39). Since He retained the characteristics of His bodily ordeal, it is logical to state that His blood, which was literally drained from His body, was likewise still shed. Therefore, His body could be raised, and the blood remained shed as the thing that "makes atonement": "For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it to you on the altar to make atonement for your souls; for it is the blood by reason of the life that makes atonement," (Lev. 17:11).
That is why after the resurrection--to prove that He had risen in the same body He died in--Jesus told people to touch His hands and feet because it was the hands and feet that had the holes in them. What more proof do you need to but see and touch the very same hands and feet that had the holes in them from the nails on the cross! Furthermore, in the same statement Jesus said that He possessed flesh and bones--not flesh and blood. He had risen!

Furthermore,

The Bible says that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God (1 Cor. 15:50).  If this is so, then how could physical body have been raised?  The answer is simple.  After His resurrection, Jesus said, "Touch me and see, for a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see I have," (Luke 24:39). You must note that Jesus did not say, "flesh and blood." He said, "flesh and bones." This is because Jesus' blood was shed on the cross.  The life is in the blood, and it is the blood that cleanses from sin: "For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it to you upon the altar to make atonement for your souls; for it is the blood that makes atonement for the soul," (Lev. 17:11). See also, Gen. 9:4; Deut. 12:23; and John 6:53-54. Jesus was pointing out that He was different. He had a body but not a body of flesh and blood. It was flesh and bones.  I am of the opinion that Jesus' body had no functional blood in it.  Remember, after the resurrection, He still retained the wounds in His hands, feet, and side.  But, His blood was the thing that cleanses us of our sins:  "but if we walk in the light as He Himself is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus His Son cleanses us from all sin," (1 John 1:7).  His body was raised, but it had no blood flowing through its veins.  It was a glorified, physical body.


texts: Could anyone explain to me why some groups of Christians call their leaders "Father"?


texts: In The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, what is an Elder's Quorum meeting supposed to be?

texts:
Two Sundays of each month, the adult men in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints meet as an Elder's Quorum. At each meeting they discuss one of the most recent General Conference talks.

I'm confused about what that meeting is supposed to be though. As a discussion meeting, it seems pointless. I haven't been to tons of different ones, but from the handful I've been to over the years I've learned:

-there's no format to the discussion. Some teach, some instruct, some facilitate, and more. Some lead the discussion, some follow the discussion.

-the point of each meeting seems to be left up to the local leaders. Some don't assign a point, some do. Some don't make a point, some do.

-there isn't necessarily a topic. Some assign a single topic from the assigned talk, some don't

-the room is usually set up like a class (one person up front, everyone facing that person), everyone acts like it's a class, yet we're told it's a discussion

-some of the discussion leaders are obviously more skilled because of experience or education as a some sort of school system teacher, but in general, that's not the case

Basically, the discussion is usually a mess of points that are hard to follow. That's not the issue though. Any religious discussion among a large group of members of any church can become that sort of a mess.

To compare to other churches I've seen. Often men have things like "men's breakfast" (for example), where the men meet for breakfast weekly or monthly or something and to discuss a Bible reading. I haven't been to many meetups like this, but it seems that the discussion probably tends to go the same way. The difference here though is that the purpose of the meeting is inherently clear: to casually spend time together, eat a meal, and discuss Christianity in some way. Whether or not the discussion is good, there's something clear that anyone can get from the meeting (food and fellowship).

Another comparison, I've been to a few 12-step meetings in my life including AA. They're usually full of Christians where I live, so it seems appropriate to mention as a comparison. Despite the shares there being relatively all over the map, there's always a topic to try and cover. The strictly facilitated format of the meetings makes it so that even if the shares are completely unconnected and you can't follow what anyone is talking about, you can walk away knowing that you aren't stupid or unspiritual for not being able to follow what people were discussing - because you know people are trying to authentically trying to share their story or recovery advice.

A last comparison, from the LDS Church, is the monthly testimony meeting. It has format and structure, and there's a definition for what a "testimony" should be. Again, even if the testimonies are weird, you know what you were supposed to hear, so you don't end up feeling out of place or like you're wasting time. Even if you don't connect with what anyone is sharing, you can connect with the fact that they're trying to share a testimony of something related to the Church's teachings.

So, back to an Elder's Quorum meeting, what is it?
And if I'm not connecting with the week's discussion, and don't have any comments to give to it, what am I supposed to get from the meeting?
It seems to have gotten less clear in the past couple of years.


texts: The nature of Jesus's 40 days post-resurrection but pre-ascension

texts:
I recently learned that the gap in time between the resurrection and the ascension of Jesus into heaven was given as "40 days".  I'm curious about that period and have a few related questions about it that I'd be interested in learning about any dominant Catholic or Protestant understandings of it, if they exist:

Is there a name for this period in the various traditions?
When he wasn't appearing to people, where and on what was Jesus spending his time?
Was his being the same as pre-resurrection, or was he somehow fundamentally different?
Was there a purpose to this "stopover" back on Earth?  (I assume to indicate the resurrection).

If there aren't any Biblical or doctrinal views of it, if there are any literary or artistic conceptions of this period that you know of, I would be interested in that as well.


texts: Why the disciple took Jesus' mother unto his own home?

texts:
26 When Jesus therefore saw his mother, and the disciple standing by, whom he loved, he saith unto his mother, Woman, behold thy son!
27 Then saith he to the disciple, Behold thy mother! And from that hour that disciple took her unto his own home. - KJV John 19:26,27

We are not seeing Joseph near cross? Why did Jesus hand over his mother to his disciple? Where are his brothers and his father? Is there a history attached to it?


texts: Did God still dwell in the temple while Jesus was on Earth?

texts:
This is just a question that has intrigued me and I can't think of a definite answer.

I understand that the presence of God dwelt first in the Tabernacle and then in Solomon's temple in Jerusalem. God promised to dwell with His people as long as they were faithful to Him, but Israel rebelled.

God allowed them to be taken captive by the Babylonians who then destroyed the temple as well. Also, Ezekiel talks about God's presence leaving the temple due to Israel's unfaithfulness.

Israel is eventually restored and the priesthood continues, as well as the temple and sacrificial system. God promises countless times about the full restoration of the temple, obviously pointing forward to Jesus.

So my question: Did God's presence ever return to the temple in post-exile Israel?

If so Was God's presence still dwelling in the temple while Jesus was on Earth?

I'm sorry my Scripture references are lacking, I hope this question makes sense.


texts: Is salvation in the name "Jesus", or in the person Jesus

texts:
Are we saved because we believed in "Jesus" (the name) or Jesus (the person)?
Because other languages have other names for Jesus. If they call upon that name for salvation would they be saved?

I'm interested in an overview of what different denominations have to say this issue, as well as what the Bible has to say on the matter.


texts: Is the basic point of Book of Job that God is too intelligent for a human to understand, and whatever he decides actually has a good overall purpose?

texts:
I've tried to read "Book of Jobs". I simply don't have the peace of mind and "practical time" to do it, just like with many other things.
However, I've watched and read multiple different summaries of it. None of these spell it out in a clear manner, but from what I can tell, the basic "explanation" is:

God is good, no matter what he does.
Us humans cannot possibly understand what He plans, and even though it appears like it, his actions are actually not evil after all. You just don't see it (yet?).
There is no point in trying to understand His actions, because we are simply unable to comprehend it, so just believe that He is good and ignore whatever injustice or horror you witness or are subjected to.

Just like with the concept of "free will", which is fundamentally, logically impossible for a creature who didn't "pick their own biology" beginning from some kind of neutral state, I have a major problem with this explanation of God's apparent evilness: "You just can't understand it!"
There are many things I don't understand in detail, such as advanced physics. However, I can still reason about them at some level. It is possible for a scientist who is very intelligent to explain intricate concepts on a "high level" to somebody like me; I don't need to be as smart as them or spend 30 years in a lab to understand the basic idea of how a man-made contraption can go from here to some distant planet. The same ought to be true for this; maybe there is a highly complex reason for God doing what he does, but then I wish to know about that reason, simplified to a point where I, a stupid human, can comprehend it. Not just "you can't understand it, period".
My back is hurting beyond words as I'm typing this. I'm all alone, with nothing but pain and misery in my life. The worst bullies -- truly evil people -- who I grew up with are now all living in mansions (literal mansions) with beautiful wives and kids and careers. A mentally weaker person than I would've committed suicide long ago in my situation. Frankly, I mostly don't because I'm too much of a coward. I'm going to be forced to endure this existence until I die from natural causes or somebody murders me. Or maybe until God regrets treating me this way and finally starts being nice to me.
It is not possible for me to praise God as being good, because he really doesn't seem to be to me. That he appears to be to others, who are far less deserving, just further reinforces this perception. To then hear that I'm just a stupid human who doesn't "get it" feels incredibly insulting, so I really hope that this is not really the point of Book of Job.
What is the basic point of the Book of Job? Is it simply that "if you believe, against all rhyme and reason, that God is actually good, no matter how much proof you get of the opposite, he will eventually be good to you because you believed"?
If this is the case, I find God's reasoning to be very strange. I literally don't get it.


texts: What defined the ownership of a treasure in Jesus' time?

texts:
Matthew 13:43 reads:

  The kingdom of heaven is like treasure hidden in a field, which someone found and hid; then in his joy he goes and sells all that he has and buys that field.

One is intrigued by the step-by-step action of the finder. He could have easily taken the treasure. That prospect leads one to believing that there was some law which defined the ownership of a treasure, both legal and moral. (These days it usually goes to the Government, whoever be the one who finds it, and whatever be the place it is found in!).

Are there any studies into the legal system prevailing at the time of Jesus that defined the ownership of a treasure ?


texts: Why can the Catholic Church declare one person a saint but has never declared another damned?

texts:
The Catholic Church has a process to canonize someone, to declare that they are a saint, that they are

  truly in heaven and worthy of public veneration and imitation.

(Cf.  Canonization - United States Catholic Catechism for Adults).

If the Church can declare that someone is "truly in heaven", why do they not also have authority to declare that someone else is likewise damned and truly in hell?


texts: When did the massacre of the innocents happen?

texts:
When the Magi had gone, an angel of the Lord appeared to Joseph in a
  dream. Get up, he said, take the child and his mother and escape to
  Egypt. Stay there until I tell you, for Herod is going to search for
  the child to kill him. So he got up, took the child and his mother
  during the night and left for Egypt, where he stayed until the death
  of Herod. And so was fulfilled what the Lord had said through the
  prophet: "Out of Egypt I called my son."[9] When Herod realised that
  he had been outwitted by the Magi, he was furious, and he gave orders
  to kill all the boys in Bethlehem and its vicinity who were two years
  old or under, in accordance with the time he had learned from the
  Magi. Then what was said through the prophet Jeremiah was fulfilled:
  "A voice is heard in Ramah, weeping and great mourning, Rachel weeping
  for her children and refusing to be comforted, because they are no
  more.

The thing is Herod the Great was born 74/73 BCE and died in 4 BCE (aged 70),  according to Wikipedia. I know that Wiki is not a credible source at all and that's exactly why I'm asking this question.

Assuming that he died 4 BCE, that means he died 4 years before Jesus was born so he couldn't have committed the massacre. I must be missing something, what is it? If Herod the great didn't commit the massacre, who did? If he did commit the massacre, when did he die?


texts: Did Christ open the Door of Hell after he preached the Gospel in the realm of the dead?

texts:
CCC635 Christ went down into the depths of death so that "the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God, and those who hear will live". Jesus, "the Author of life", by dying destroyed "him who has the power of death, that is, the devil, and delivered all those who through fear of death were subject to lifelong bondage. Henceforth the risen Christ holds "the keys of Death and Hades", so that "at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and under the earth."

The Catechism teaches that Jesus preached the Gospel to all souls who are in hell or even to the depths of the dead. CCC632 to CCC634 had supporting teaching or explanation on this. It would mean, that the word hell or hades pre-Jesus descent into hell was composed of all souls both the imperfect souls undergoing purification and the damned souls but not the place of of the demons. (Note:The Abraham bosoms is a different place and its not hell but paradise.)

After Jesus had preached to all the souls in hell, some of the souls heard the Gospel and they live according to CCC635, and some of the damned souls still rejected the Gospel and suffer eternal death.

These damned souls after Jesus had preached the gospel in hell still manifest their rejection and deserved to be thrown on the "real hell" where the demons where situated. But since, the "real hell" of the demons was locked, Jesus had to open it having the Keys too not only in the place of "Death but even the Hades" for all the damned souls to finally enters the "real hell" where the demons are.

According to Catholicism, did Jesus open the gates of hell, the "real hell" of the demons for all the damned souls to enter as their just punishment?


texts:
Are we living with angels in flesh? I've heard of the spiritual element of angels through the Bible and other mediums, but the following verse introduces them in flesh.

  "Do not forget to show hospitality to strangers, for by doing some
  people have shown hospitality to angels without knowing it." - Hebrews 13:2 (NIV)

Is this verse simply metaphoric or is there a deeper significance?


texts: Are there any specific rules on everyday life at all in Christianity?

texts:
Christianity seems to be one big category with a long list of denominations. To my knowledge, there is no "Christian language" in the same way as in Islam (Arabic) or Judaism (Hebrew) or Hinduism (Sanskrit). I have noticed that some Christians do recite verses from the Bible, but they do so in the vernacular language rather than some obscure or archaic liturgical language that is typically the language of the scriptures. For Christianity, I would probably expect that Christians would recite the verses in koine Greek and biblical Aramaic. Nope, more often than not, they recite in the vernacular. Are there any specific rules at all in any denomination of Christianity?

Rules about prayer, meditation, and devotion (when to pray, how to pray, how many times to pray per day, where to pray, in which direction to pray)
Rules about diet and fasting (when to eat, how to eat, how many times to eat, where to eat, what to eat and what not to eat)
Rules about pilgrimages (which sites are holy, how to behave on the holy site, whom to meet on the holy site, what to expect on the holy site, how to pay respects on the holy site)


texts:
Suppose one was to believe God exists and God gave us free will, and that God punishes those people who sin.

If God gives us free will, why punish those that exercise their free will in a certain way? If God has given us free will, why does God punish those who choose to sin?

Why give us free will, if we are going to be punished for "not following God's commands and will for us"?


texts: Why was Aaron not allowed into the promised land?

texts: God judged Moses and Aaron separately at another event, why wasn't Aaron allowed into the promised land?


texts: What are the main views on who created God?

texts:
The question of man's creation is addressed quite thoroughly in the Bible (whether you believe it is metaphorical or not).  Does the Bible (or other relevant references) in any way answer who created God, or how he was created?

What is an overview of the major common or prevalent Christian* teachings on this topic?

Note, to the answers that say he was not created—some explanation, reasoning, and, ideally, references are what are being asked for here.  Without any of that, it is an answer that is simply begging the question and not an answer that helps a questioning person.

* Answers from any/all major denominations would be helpful.


texts: Was there no word for son in law in Biblical Koine Greek?

texts:
I find it hard to believe that there was no word for that kind of thing but this source explains that Jesus' genealogy is harmonized by that claim. I really want that claim to be true and solidly backed up. I'm at a loss as to how to find out how to back up that claim though.

Why are Jesus' genealogies in Matthew and Luke so different?


texts:
Note: This question is not to prove why this is wrong rather to find out if this is an official teaching of the Catholic Church.

Do Catholics believe that Mary mother of Jesus is as holy as God?

If so:

Is there any catholic document to explain this teaching?
When was this teaching brought into the catholic church and by whom based on which source of information?

Explanation added to distinguish between Are Catholics allowed to call Mary 'perfect' by virtue of her Immaculate Conception?

This is not a duplicate of the above question already answered. However, introducing the above question by @KenGraham as possible duplicate brings into picture additional questions to be answered for the sake of clarity.

Were Adam & Eve before the first sin, and Mary as Holy like God according to the catholic church? The holiness referred here is the word qadosh as in Isaiah 6:3.
Is there any qualitative difference between the holiness of God as mentioned above in Isiah 6:3 and the holiness ascribed to Mary according to the catholic church?
Is there any qualitative difference between the holiness of Mary and the holiness ascribed to other catholic saints such as St Jude according to the catholic church?
Is there any qualitative difference between the holiness of Mary and the holiness of the Hebrew brethren as mentioned in Hebrews 3:1 according to the catholic church?


texts: Where is the Holy Spirit in Jesus life before baptism in the river Jordan happen?

texts:
Baptism in the Jordan River is where Jesus received the anointing of the Holy Spirit.

  The Baptism of Jesus
  …16As soon as Jesus was baptized, He went up out of the water. Suddenly the heavens were opened, and He saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and resting on Him. 17And a voice from heaven said, “This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased!”(Matthew3:16-17)

Would it mean that Jesus for thirty years is living without the Holy Spirit dwelling in His soul?


texts: Does the Catholic Church teach that modern churches have guardian angels?

texts:
Revelation chapters 2 and 3 involve John being instructed to write letters to the angels of particular churches. For instance:

  To the angel of the church in Ephesus write…

In Scott Hahn’s Book The Lamb’s Supper: The Mass as Heaven on Earth, he states in Part 2, Chapter 2 that this is evidence that modern churches have guardian angels assigned to them too:

  Chapters 2 and 3 [of Revelation] make clear that each particular church has a guardian angel. This should reassure us, who belong to particular churches, and who can call for help from our particular church’s angel.

Does the Catholic Church teach that modern churches (i.e. those that have been recently constructed) also have guardian angels assigned to them, as Scott Hahn States? And if so, do they teach that they are assigned to parishes or more general areas (e.g. the Church of New York)?


texts: If Jesus is "God's Only Son" then how can we all be God's children?

texts:
In the Apostle's creed it states that "I believe in Jesus Christ God's only son our Lord" (ELCA). But many Christians say that we're all God's children, which is contradictory.

What does the Bible have to say about this?

Or are we God's grandchildren and Jesus' children?


texts:
There's a verse in the Quran saying that the unbelievers will always be unbelievers because they can see the miracles, but even in this case, they won't believe.

I'm pretty sure I already read that in Christian verses, but I can't find again where I saw that.

Something like, they will see, but their eyes will be blind, they will hear, but will remain deaf.

Where did I read something like that? Which verse or text?


texts: Is there an Arabic translation of the Book of Mormon?

texts:
I know that the Book of Mormon is not officially printed in Hebrew, but is it officially printed in Arabic?

I know that the LDS church does not proselyte in any shape or form in the Middle East (except for parts of Turkey, I think?), but do they have the Book of Mormon translated in Arabic for the many Muslims that live outside the Middle East? I also know that proselyting to Muslims, regardless of their location, is a sensitive issue, but in special circumstances is still done. Anyway, the main question is in regards to an Arabic translation of the Book of Mormon.

Do you know where one can obtain a copy?


texts: Why were Jehovah's Witnesses holding a Memorial Service for Jesus on Tuesday, March 26 2013?

texts: I was approached by two Jehovah's Witnesses who invited me to a memorial service for Jesus to be held on Tuesday, March 26th. The flier they gave me said that this is the anniversary of Jesus' death. Most Christians view Christ's death as taking place on Good Friday. Why are Jehovah's Witnesses saying it happened on a Tuesday?


texts: Is Mary Our Mother? Evangelicals please explain John 19:26–27

texts:
John 19:26–27 (NIV)
  When Jesus saw his mother there, and the disciple whom he loved standing nearby, he said to her, “Woman, here is your son,” 27 and to the disciple, “Here is your mother.” From that time on, this disciple took her into his home.

Roman Catholics interpret this verse as referring to Jesus entrusting her mother to be the mother of the church in the person of John.What is the explanation of Born Again Christians about this Johannine passage? Is Mary Our Mother? http://www.americancatholic.org/Newsletters/CU/preview.aspx?id=238


texts: Why are many Christians antagonistic towards the idea that God has a form?

texts:
Many Christian theologies from the past and present are against the idea that God has a form. The common argument I found is something like this; "God is Spirit and spirit has no form, hence God has no form".

  Behold My hands and My feet, that it is I Myself. Handle Me and see,
  for a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see I have.” (Luke
  24:39, NKJV)

Another popular argument is that Jesus said that spirit has no flesh and bones. However, this left me with another question, "Does the Bible say that spirit has no form?". Jesus didn't mention explicitly that spirit has no form, only that spirit has no flesh and bones.

In contrast to this, there are many verses which compels me to believe that God indeed has a form, having a head, hands and legs - God made us in his image, God sits on a throne, God speaks, God has feet, Moses saw the backside of God, God spoke to Moses as a friend, God laughs etc.

Personally, I have no problem in believing that God has a spiritual form.

1. Why is it difficult for many Christians to believe that God has a form?

2. Is this deemed as heresy by some denominations? If so, why?


texts:
If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck.

There is arguably little difference between the lifestyle of the Stoic and the lifestyle of the Christian. Both eschew effeminacy in pursuit of virtue. Both find it best for man to worry about things he can control and to not worry about the things he cannot (Epictetus wrote of this. Christians call this "trusting the plan"; there is also the Christian serenity prayer which expresses this). Both believe in the cardinal virtues of Prudence, Justice, Fortitude, and Temperance (Christians certainly ought to believe these, and I'd bet most Stoics do believe them as well). I would argue that their way of life is in essence, the same.
The question is this: if a Christian and a Stoic both live the same exact life, and the only difference in their essence is that the Christian believes in the gospel, then why does the Christian go to heaven while the unbelieving Stoic does not? More generally, the question is about the "mechanics" of Christian salvation: when one comes to believe in Christ (esp. when converting from stoicism) what is it that actually changes in the person's essence/soul/existence that makes him fit for the Kingdom of God? In other words, what is it about the intellectual position of being Christian that impacts the state of someone's soul?


texts: Why do some Christians interpret Daniel's 1260 day prophecy as days and not years?

texts:
I was pleasantly surprised to see the popularity of Daniel's seventy weeks prophecy held by Christians across multiple denominations in an recent question about "the fulness of time". In it, one day in prophecy, is interpreted as one year, and predicts the year of Jesus' ministry and death.
For those who hold this view, what is the basis for some to then interpret Daniel's 1260 day prophecy as days and not years?
Would it not be more consistent to continue the interpretation that one prophetic day is equal to one calendar year, as per other Christian Historicist understandings?
As background, 1260 days is equal to 42 months (42 x 30 days), and is equal to a time, times and half a times (360 + 360 x2 + 180 days)

"the women fled into the wilderness, where she hath a place prepared of God, that they should feed her there a thousand two hundred and three score days." Rev 12:6
"And to the women were given two wings of a great eagle, that she might fly into the wilderness in to her place, where she is nourished for a time, and times, and half a time" Rev 12:14
"But the court which is without the temple leave out, and measure it not; for it is given unto the Gentiles: and the holy city shall they tread under foot forty and two months. And I will give power unto my two witnesses, and they shall prophesy a thousand two hundred and threescore days, clothed in sackcloth." Rev 11:2-3
"And he shall speak great words against the most High, and shall wear out the saints of the most High, and think to change times and laws: and they shall be given into his hand until a time and times and the dividing of time." Dan 7:25
"And there was given unto him a mouth speaking great things and blasphemies; and power was given unto him to continue forty and two months." Rev 13:5


texts:
Expanding on this question I asked what constitutes consent of a party to marriage in the Catholic view?
Imagine a man who was to be married but fell ill on the day of the wedding.
Unable to speak perhaps able to slightly squeeze a hand in response to verbal prompting.  Can a marriage occur with the bride affirming the groom consented to marriage by a squeeze of her hand?
Would this pass muster in the Catholic Church?


texts: Reasons many Christians not reading the Bible both OT and NT?

texts:
As you can see from my 'autobiography' I am not particularly denominationaly religious but interested. I have read the whole Hebrew Bible all the way through twice and the whole four Canonical gospels all the way through four times. Imagine my surprise when I read that in his 1996 book, I Was Wrong, televangelist Jim Baker admitted that the first time he actually read the Bible all the way through was while he was in prison! Similarly, a Pew Research poll in 2010 found that evangelicals ranked only a smidgen higher than atheists in familiarity with the New Testament and Jesus’s teachings. Details (www.pewforum.org).

I ask: what do you think are the reasons for many Christians not reading the Bible both OT and NT?


texts: Is Leviticus 18:22 condemnation of homosexuality only for idolatrous rituals?

texts:
I have heard some progressive Christians claim that Leviticus 18:22 was only condemning homosexual activities for idolatrous rituals. I know that 1 Corinthians 6:9 and 1 Timothy 1:10 was using the word "arsenokoitai" which came from Leviticus 18:22 and Leviticus 20:13.
In Leviticus 18:2-3 it says:
“Speak to the people of Israel and say to them, I am the Lord your God. You shall not do as they do in the land of Egypt, where you lived, and you shall not do as they do in the land of Canaan, to which I am bringing you. You shall not walk in their statutes."
There are some people who say that because of these verses, it was condemning the idolatrous practices in Egypt and Canaan which included homosexual sex. Therefore, in this context, it is only referring to homosexual activity that has idolatrous rituals involved. God was only prohibiting the rituals they did in Egypt and Canaan.
We also see in Leviticus 18:21, the verse before, it says:
"You shall not give any of your children to offer them to Molech, and so profane the name of your God: I am the Lord."
Some have suggested that because of the context, Leviticus 18:22 is not prohibiting loving same-sex relationships but only ones that relate to pagan rituals. Is this true? If not, why?


texts:
I was trying to represent the word "Kenosis" (Philippians 2:5-8) in a graphic way in order to understand it better. I know it sounds strange, but I imagine this concept as an almost empty hand which pours wine in another hand which is filled by the first one.
What analogies have been suggested for kenosis?


texts: Refutation of Chizzuk Emunah, Part II, Ch. LXVI: "Inconsistencies in Christian text regarding food"

texts:
In Chizzuk Emunah, Part II, Ch. LXVI, 16th century Jewish theologian Yitzchak ben Avraham of Trakai wrote,

  Acts 10:11-15, "And Peter saw heaven opened; and a certain vessel descending unto him, wherein were all manner of four-footed beasts of the earth, and wild beasts, and creeping things, and fowls of the air. And there came a voice to him, saying, arise, Peter, kill and eat. But Peter said, Not so, Lord, for I have never eaten anything that is common or unclean. And the voice spake unto him again the second time, What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common." The same is stated ibid chapter 11:9. In Paul's first epistle to the Corinthians, chapter 10:25, the following doctrine is taught: "Whatsoever is sold in the shambles, that eat, asking no questions for conscience sake." Mark, (chapter 7:15) declares only such things unclean which come out of the mouth, but not those which go into the mouth. We have already animadverted on the inconsistency of such declarations when compared with the stringent injunction enforced in the very same book, to abstain most rigidly from blood and flesh of torn or strangled beasts. See what we have noticed before, when treating on Matthew 15 in the Second Part of this Work.

What is the refutation of his argument?


texts: What is the Biblical basis for a Heavenly Mother?

texts:
We know that the Bible tells us of our Father in heaven, but is there any Biblical indication of a Mother in heaven?

Some non-mainstream churches say that there is a Mother in heaven. What is their Biblical basis for this belief?


texts: How should we dress when attending church?

texts:
What are some verses from the Bible which instructs us on our attire when attending church worship services and activies?

Is "formal" dress good / bad / required / optional / recommended?


texts: Is the Summa Theologia infallible to Catholics or not?

texts:
Me: Ah, so the Summa Theologia IS considered infallible! (Assuming that if the Magisterium and Pope are, then their trusted sources must be through them!)

Catholic: No, it isn't infallible by itself, just as an individual bishop isn't infallible by himself.

I'm confused. If the Pope and the Magisterium are infallible, why aren't their trusted resources seen as such? Surely, at some point, some Pope or Magisterium must have indicated whether such a famous theological text is or is not of relevance?


texts: How would Reformed Christians deal with homosexual marriage of individuals prior to their conversion to Christianity?

texts:
I've been pondering this for several weeks and I believe that the reformed church (really, the church in general) is woefully unprepared to answer the following question:

How would the church deal with a gay couple that were not Christians when married, that then become Christians?

Specifically when we have passages like 1 Corinthians 7:17 (NIV)

  17 Nevertheless, each person should live as a believer in whatever situation the Lord has assigned to them, just as God has called them. This is the rule I lay down in all the churches.

I'm looking for relevant biblical quotations, relevant quotes from reformed scholars past and present, and any statements by reformed churches or denominations that have come out in recent years.

I'm also interested in how circumstances and views change when 1 partner becomes a Christian, when there are children involved, and when both partners become Christians.

As gay marriage becomes more prominent, legal and prolific in our society, questions like this are going to be more and more relevant and the Church must be prepared to deal with an answer these queries.

I'm specifically interested in reformed sources here as they are most relevant to me, but I would be open to other sources that take a similar view of homosexuality.


texts: What are biblical arguments for congregationalist church polity?

texts:
The Orthodox and Roman-Catholic Churches argue that the episcopal church polity is the only valid one, citing first and second Timothy and early church fathers like Ignatius of Antioch.
What are some biblical arguments for congregationalist church polity?


texts:
Annas, Caiaphas and all other important people of synagogue knew the identity of Jesus and how he looks. So why was the kiss necessary?

In Gethsemane garden Jesus was only with 11 disciples. The Mob who came to arrest Jesus knew who he was, so why did they accept Judas' statement that "the person who I kiss is the one who you are looking for."

Please don't say that there was dim light in the garden so Judas helped them to find Jesus. I've thought about that angle also. The mob came with torches. And I know they can't arrest Jesus in a large crowd because there would be huge riot.


texts: Is August 15th a day of obligation for all Roman Catholics?

texts: August 15th on which the assumption of St. Mary, mother of Jesus is commemorated by the  Catholic Church is a day of obligation for the Roman Catholics in India. I wish to know if the day is one of obligation for the universal Catholic Church, or is the practice restricted to India which commemorates its independence from British rule on the same day ?


texts: What is the prayer roll at an LDS temple, and how is it used?

texts:
Latter-day Saints sometimes talk about "putting a name on the prayer roll" at their local temple. This practice is mentioned in Church magazines and on LDS.org, but is never explained in detail.

What is the purpose of the prayer roll at an LDS temple, and how is it used? When did this tradition first come about?


texts: The word "raised" in Romans 9:17-18 and Exodus 9:16?

texts:
NIV - Romans 9:17 (17) For Scripture says to Pharaoh: "I raised
  you up for this very purpose, that I might display my power in you and
  that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.

  (18a) Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy,
  (18b) and he hardens whom he wants to harden."

Since I'm not from an English speaking country, I have a difficulty to know what it means by the time I read the word "raised". Almost all English versions of Romans 9:17 use the word "raised" but there are two version (Contemporary English Version and Good News Translation) which directly describe it as "made king".

Still I check the Exodus 9:16.

  NLT - Exodus 9:16 But I have spared you for a purpose--to show
  you my power and to spread my fame throughout the earth.

  Christian Standard Bible - Exodus 9:16 However, I have let you
  live for this purpose: to show you my power and to make my name known
  on the whole earth.

Between (A) "made king" and (B) "let you live", I choose B for "raised".
And by choosing B, I feel it goes well with the Romans 9:18a. So, God does not kill Pharaoh because He choose to give mercy (let him live) to Pharaoh.

But choosing B doesn't go well with Romans 9:18b. It's still also not connected if I choose A. The only thing which I think "connected" if I made a conclusion by myself about "raised" which is coming from Exodus 7:3

  NIV - Exodus 7:3   But I will harden Pharaoh's heart, and though I
  multiply my signs and wonders in Egypt

So Romans 9:17 become like this :
For Scripture says to Pharaoh: "I hardened you up for this very purpose, that I might display my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.

From here, now I can separate that Romans 9:18a is referring to verse 15, and Romans 9:18b is referring to verse 17.

And if I still insist the meaning of "raised" in verse 17 is B, then (to me) in order verse 17 connect with verse 18, I need to use a chronology like this : "God has mercy (let him live) to Pharaoh in order He can harden Pharaoh's heart so then He might display His power". A bit awkward to me :).

My question is :
1. What did Paul mean on the word "raised" ?
2. Is there a connection between verse 17 and 18 ?


texts: What's the Eastern Orthodox view on Roman Catholic notion of sanctifying grace?

texts:
In Roman Catholic Church there is a doctrine that says that salvation is achieved by sanctifying grace.

Maybe I do not understand this doctrine enough but practically it I think it means that after valid confession one receives the state of sanctifying grace, and if he dies in that state, he is saved. If after confession one commits mortal sin, then he is in danger of going to hell.

I am interested in how Eastern Orthodoxy approaches these issues.


texts: What is the Reformed Protestant understanding of God's Permissive Will, His Sovereign or Decretive Will and Efficacious Will?

texts:
I have an assignment to explain the Reformed Protestant view of the differences between the Permissive, Sovereign (Decretive) and Efficacious Wills of God.  My initial exploration into this subject has left me confused, mainly because there are so many different terms applied to the Will of God in its various forms.
From what I've read, there is a view that the sovereign or decretive will of God can be divided into His efficacious will and His permissive will. Also, that in both the decretive and efficacious wills, God is directly responsible for causing His will to come to pass.
I have already seen this Christianity Stack article, but it does not help me: How are the Decretive, Preceptive, and Permissive wills of God defined?
One short article I found exposed some difficulties with the Permissive Will of God:

The distinction between the sovereign will of God and the permissive will of God is fraught with peril and tends to generate untold confusion.
In ordinary language, the term permission suggests some sort of positive sanction. To say that God “allows” or “permits” evil does not mean that He sanctions it in the sense that He approves of it. It is easy to discern that God never permits sin in the sense that He sanctions it in His creatures.
What is usually meant by divine permission is that God simply lets it happen. That is, He does not directly intervene to prevent its happening. Here is where grave dangers lurk. Some theologies view this drama as if God were impotent to do anything about human sin.
This view makes man sovereign, not God. God is reduced to the role of spectator or cheerleader, by which God’s exercise in providence is that of a helpless Father who, having done all He can do, must now sit back and simply hope for the best. He permits what He cannot help but permit because He has no sovereign power over it. This ghastly view is not merely a defective view of theism; it is unvarnished atheism. - Exposing the Permissive Will of God

The more I read the more confused I become. Frankly, I'm out of my depth. I would be grateful if someone could at least point me in the right direction to find a straightforward and readily understood Reformed Protestant perspective on the relationship between the various aspects of God's will.


texts:
What is the Christian perspective on deceptive brain messages?

Modern science now shows us proof that we can rewire our brains, so that it works in more beneficial ways. The concepts in a new book by Doctor Jeffery M. Schwartz (an Evangelical Christian), You Are Not Your Brain, demonstrates some of the latest experiments and findings of the scientific community, having to do with the brain and the mind.

Please see videos from the author to understand the book:

Using Jesus as your impartial spectator to help you realize your brain is sending you a false message: http://suprememastertv.com/ss/?wr_id=97
Interviews: http://www.jeffreymschwartz.com/resources.htm
Collection of his links:  http://westallen.typepad.com/brains_on_purpose/about_jeffrey_m_schwartz_.html
http://www.youarenotyourbrain.com/appearances/

details and reviews:

B&N details
Amazon details
Psychology Today Article on the book
review

Example from the book:

  Nothing is more confusing or painful than when your brain takes over
  your thoughts, attacks your self-worth, questions your abilities,
  overpowers you with cravings, or attempts to dictate your actions.
  Have you ever felt that something is compelling you to “go” places...

The author, Jeffrey M. Schwartz, M.D. is an Evangelical Christian.

Now with some people they say this is God telling them something or sending them an affliction etc.

Where do we draw the line between medical condition inspired actions vs. God inspired actions?

For example, maybe someone with ODC in the year 200AD  thought it was God making him go back and make sure he put the lid back on the well. Today if someone keeps checking if they turned off the sink, it is considered a medical issue.

Does Christianity address the difference between our mind (higher self as it is called in the book, he even says some patients also call it the Jesus in them) and the brain?

For example, here is something in general that support the concept:

  Rejoice in the Lord always; again I will say, Rejoice. Let your
  reasonableness be known to everyone. The Lord is at hand; do not be
  anxious about anything, but in everything by prayer and supplication
  with thanksgiving let your requests be made known to God. And the
  peace of God, which surpasses all understanding, will guard your
  hearts and your minds in Christ Jesus. Finally, brothers, whatever is
  true, whatever is honorable, whatever is just, whatever is pure,
  whatever is lovely, whatever is commendable, if there is any
  excellence, if there is anything worthy of praise, think about these
  things. ... - Philippians 4:4-9

I believe the Bible is the most modern and futuristic book we have and that it has a dimension that addresses this. I have concepts from my own summarizing of the Bible but if was asked to back it up, could not at this point. So any thoughts, passages, studies or ideas are welcomed.

Thanks.

Review:
"Operating on the highly rational perspective that we are not our brains, but rather, substantial free agents who exercise control over our brains, Schwartz and Gladding develop a simple, yet profoundly insightful approach for developing a flourishing life.  The result will bring healing and hope to all who read it."
--J. P. Moreland, author of The God Question (Christian apologist).

EDIT :
Just found out the author of the book, Jeffery M. Schwartz is an Evangelical Christian:
Please see the first video here.  I believe that makes this question a bit more relevant.


texts: Why do Syrian Orthodox churches use only paintings and not sculptures, unlike Catholic churches?

texts:
I am an Orthodox Christian, and in our church we don't have sculptures unlike Catholic churches in my area. We only have paintings and pictures.

I don't know if this is because of the bull sculpture demolition story of Moses or some other belief.  Is it mentioned anywhere in the bible that we can or cannot pray in front of sculptures?

I Googled based on the comments and found that it is stated that we should not use idols.  Is what the Catholic church does wrong or against the Bible? How do they justify the use of sculptures.

I am actually trying to find the difference between the praying in front of the idol in Hinduism and Christianity.


texts: What is the role of the British monarch?

texts: What role does the British monarch play as leader of the Church of England? Furthermore, how has this role changed over time?


texts: I've always heard that the army described in Joel 2 was some kind of end-time army, but reading about in the NLT (as in the link) the chapter subtitle is "Locusts Invade like an Army". Is there a Biblical basis for either position?


texts: What internal evidence supports the historicity of Abraham?

texts:
Is there any internal or small external evidence of Abraham's existence?
I have heard a claim from skeptics that Abraham is just flat out invented figure who never existed and even COULDN'T have existed.

  Not only has archaeology not proven a single event of the patriarchal traditions to be historical, it has not shown any of the traditions to be likely. - Thomas L. Thompson, The Historicity of the Patriarchal Narratives: The Quest for the Historical Abraham (BZAW 133, De Gruyter, Berlin and New York, 1974), page 328

Is this valid? Note that I am not asking for extra-biblical mentions of Abraham. I am realistic, he was unimportant nomad in illiterate world. However, I am asking, is there any evidence for events and places and customs described in Genesis? Is there any internal evidence in the text itself like criteria of embarrassment or something that must be historical? I have always seen Abraham's life as too simple and non-embellished and non-fantastical for him to be made up. Beyond that, I never saw any other evidence for his historicity.


texts: Reading Jeremiah, it occurred to me that the Israelite occupation of the land, including the time of the Judges, was around 800 years from the time they crossed the Jordan. God says the period of exile is due to them not giving the land rest like they were supposed to do (70 years for the 420 years prior) but the timeframe in question only seems to cover the period of the kings. Does this mean they obeyed that particular mandate during the time of the Judges? Otherwise, shouldn't the exile have been a lot longer? TIA


texts: Why are Matthew, Mark, and Luke called 'synoptic' gospels?

texts: The first three gospels are sometimes known as the "synoptic" gospels. What does this term mean, and how does it differentiate them from the gospel of John?


texts: Distinction between Created Son and Begotten Son for Jehovah's Witnesses

texts:
In the New Testament, the Greek word monogenēs (μονογενής) appears 9 times and is translated as only or only begotten every time.  4 times it is used to describe the solitary physical descendant of a human being (Luke 7:12, 8:42, 9:38, and Hebrews 11:17).  The other 5 times it is used to describe Jesus as the only begotten Son of God (John 1:14, 1:18, 3:16, 3:18, and 1 John 4:9).  The emphasis appears consistent each time:  That which is begotten is of the same nature as that which begat it.

In Luke's Gospel (3:38) the lineage of Jesus is traced back to Adam, the Son of God.  Since we know from Genesis that Adam was formed by God from the dust of the Earth and that Adam was of a different nature than God who formed him, and since there does not appear to be any record in Scripture of a begotten child that is different in nature from it's begetting parent, we have what appears to be a critical distinction between a begotten son and a created son.

  “We don't use the words begetting or begotten much in modern English,
  but everyone still knows what they mean. To beget is to become the
  father of: to create is to make. And the difference is this. When you
  beget, you beget something of the same kind as yourself. A man begets
  human babies, a beaver begets little beavers and a bird begets eggs
  which turn into little birds. But when you make, you make something of
  a different kind from yourself. A bird makes a nest, a beaver builds a
  dam, a man makes a wireless set – or he may make something more like
  himself than a wireless set: say, a statue. If he is a clever enough
  carver he may make a statue which is very like man indeed. But, of
  course, it is not a real man; it only looks like one. It cannot
  breathe or think. It is not alive.

  Now that is the first thing to get clear. What God begets is God; just
  as what man begets is man. What God creates is not God; just as what
  man makes is not man. That is why men are not Son's of God in the
  sense that Christ is. They may be like God in certain ways, but they
  are not things of the same kind. They are more like statues or
  pictures of God.” - C.S. Lewis (Mere Christianity)

Begetting is the father's role.  A child is born of it's mother and begotten of it's father.  Both impart the essential nature of it's parent.  In this way Jesus was human being (through Mary the mother) and Divine being (through God the Father).  Unlike an elephant and an ostrich, which cannot produce offspring because the essential natures are incompatible, humanity (Mary) and Spirit (God) are compatible.  If the son of God was created by God then he certainly was not Divine, but if he was begotten of God then he certainly was.

My question is:  Do Jehovah's Witnesses recognize this distinction between the only begotten Son of God and a created son? If not, how do they explain the consistent use of the term and, if so, how can they then affirm that Jesus was God's first creation since he is so clearly portrayed as begotten not made which then makes him of the same nature as God?


texts: Is St. Paul celebrating the Holy Eucharist different from the Holy Mass of the Catholic Church?

texts:
In the Catholic Church, the celebration of the Holy Mass, the bread is just a small host and just a small quantity of wine.
In the scriptures, in letter to the Corinthians, it would seems that the converted gentiles were eating not just a piece of bread and little wine, but it is like a full meal.

So then, when you come together, it is not the Lord’s Supper you eat, for when you are eating, some of you go ahead with your own private suppers. As a result, one person remains hungry and another gets drunk. Don’t you have homes to eat and drink in? Or do you despise the church of God by humiliating those who have nothing? What shall I say to you? Shall I praise you? Certainly not in this matter!
1 Cor 11:20-22 NIV

What kind of celebration did St. Paul teach that is different from the Holy Mass of the Catholic Church?


texts: Unexpected sexual incompatibility in marriage

texts:
The Bible teaches that sex should be limited to married couples. But these days many people in Western societies think that it is wise for a couple to sleep together before getting married so that they will know whether or not they are sexually compatible.

Does the Bible, or any well-known Christian authors, have anything to say about the problem of sexual incompatibility which was unexpected because the couple did not sleep together before getting married?


texts: Why was the prodigal son spoken harshly of by his elder brother?

texts:
In the parable of the Prodigal Son, Jesus narrates : "Not long after that, the younger son got together all he had, set off for a distant country and there squandered his wealth in wild living" (Lk 15:13)

But,  when the prodigal son returns home to a warm welcome, his elder brother comments to his father :".. when this son of yours who has squandered your property with prostitutes comes home, you kill the fattened calf for him!".

One is amused by the remarks of the elder son with reference to the off-home stay of his younger brother, which in fact, was not the narrative given by the story-teller (Jesus). My question is: was Jesus intending to bring out the degeneration of relations over property and wealth  by 'making' the elder son speak harshly of the younger one ? Are there some commentaries available on this subject ?


texts: What is the biblical basis for classifying the Eucharist as an offering or sacrifice?

texts:
It is commonly believed in Catholicism that the Eucharist/Lord's Supper/Communion is a "sacrifice" or "offering."

For example, one website states,

  The Eucharist is a true sacrifice, not just a commemorative meal, as "Bible Christians" insist.

What is the biblical basis for this belief?

Note:

"offering": προσφορά
"sacrifice": θυσία


texts: Is the following rationale for sharing the gospel consistent with reformed theology?

texts:
One can ask:

if one believes in predestination, then why share the Gospel?

A common response one often hears is:

because God also said to share the gospel or
perhaps God predestined you to be the one to share the gospel to cause this other person to become converted

I never quite found either response intellectually satisfactory. I recently came across the following, and wanted to see if it's consistent with reformed theology:

if you share the Gospel, and the person is among the elect, then you glorify God because you've brought someone closer to salvation (i.e. probably one part of a multi step program)
if you share the Gospel, and the person is not among the elect, then you also glorify God, for you have increased that person's sufferings in Hell, and it glorifies God to punish those in hell

Thus, one should avoid hyper-calvinism in only preaching to only those that one believes to be among the elect, but rather preach to all: for in either way, God is glorified.

Edit

Both of the responses below are beautiful. The flaw in my question is that "intellectual satisfication" is not a vaild measuring stick for biblical doctrine.


texts: Origin of the (mis)translation "Ten Commandments"

texts:
The Old Testament speaks of the עשרת הדברים in Deuteronomy 4:13, a phrase which is translated almost without exception to be the "Ten Commandments" (see here).  However, the word הדברים is never else translated as "commandments", and usually translated as "words" (see, for example, Deuteronomy 1:1).  To the best of my knowledge, nowhere in the OT do words that would be accurately translated as "Ten Commandments" appear.

Historically, when was the wording "Ten Commandments" first used?  Does a phrase similar to this (obviously not in English) appear in the New Testament anywhere, or is it of later origin (and if so, when was it coined)?

Thank you!


texts: What is the significance of "Zealot" in Acts 1:13?

texts:
When they arrived, they went upstairs to the room where they were staying. Those present were Peter, John, James and Andrew; Philip and Thomas, Bartholomew and Matthew; James son of Alphaeus and Simon the Zealot, and Judas son of James. (Acts 1:13 NIV)

What is the significance of calling Simon "the Zealot?" Is this some proper Jewish title, or what?


texts: Who oversaw the 9th, 10th, and 11th sessions of the Council of Trent?

texts:
From the wiki page on the Council of Trent, we have:

  Pope Paul III, who convoked the Council, oversaw the first eight sessions (1545–47), while the twelfth to sixteenth sessions (1551–52) were overseen by Pope Julius III and the seventeenth to twenty-fifth sessions (1562–63) by Pope Pius IV.

Was there an overseer for those sessions not presided over by a Pope? Why weren't those sessions overseen by a Pope?


texts: What does the Bible say about people with mental illness?

texts:
Some people with mental illness might do lots of things that are unpredictable and considered sin, up to killing themselves, or possibly forget anything about Jesus and salvation.

So, what does the Bible say about them as in will they still be saved?


texts: Which Biblical Theology frameworks are currently taught in the Southern Baptist seminaries?

texts:
There are two major frameworks of Biblical Theology in Protestant Christianity: Dispensationaliam and Covenant Theology. Simplistically, Dispensationaliam says there is a big discontinuity between Israel and the Church, while Covenant Theology says there is a great continuity between Israel and the Church.

While the Southern Baptist Covention has a mix of Calvinist and Arminian congregations, my understanding is that the seminaries tend to the Calvinist side. Neither Dispensationaliam nor Covenant Theology would sit well with Reformed Baptists, so I was wondering what these seminaries teach.

New Covenant Theology is a more recent framework that tries to chart a middle path between Dispensationaliam and Covenant Theology. Do any of the SBC seminaries teach NCT? Or do they teach their own framework that similarly tries to chart a path between the two, but differs in the details? Or do they teach traditional Dispensationaliam or Covenant Theology?

The SBC seminaries may not all teach the same framework, but as there are only six, it shouldn't be too hard to summarise what they do.


texts: What is the Biblical basis for asserting that infants can have faith in Christ under a Calvinistic framework?

texts:
Calvin argued for the election of infants, which opposed Roman Catholic faith, which believed that baptism was necessary for salvation (sacramentalists). He was even more forceful about this view than Luther. Under Calvinism and most reformed Protestants, infants could clearly be saved without water baptism.

Although this might seem less harsh than a sacramentalists position, many Calvinists have since created alternate views. The problem is that in Calvin’s view some infants were also predestined to hell and that contrary to Calvin, it does not seem possible to many people that infants can have faith. For many Calvinists this seems as harsh as the sacramentalists, in terms of reconciling God’s justice with his love. Therefore many modern Calvinists are not strictly Calvinistic.

Two alternate views that many modern Calvinists split from traditional Calvinism are:

Those infants God ‘foreknows’ only are saved: This is a way many Christians get around the potential severity of infant election to hell, by just saying God foreknows anything that we might do and therefore saves some infants based on the fact that ‘they would have received
Christ’ is they had lived longer. It seems based on the assumption that infants can't have faith in Christ as they can't understand the gospel preached.
All infants are saved: This view which automatically includes all infants. The argument is made that only those who reject the gospel, do not receive it, from God’s standpoint and as infants can’t reject it, by default they have received it and are therefore elect. This assumes infants can't reject the gospel because they can't understand it.

Both deviations from Calvin's view seem to be based on the belief that an infant can't have faith and that this is more or less common sense.

Calvin’s original premise seems to be maintained by two possible versions.

First, it may be simply ‘resigned into the hands of God’ by faith. In other words, salvation is ‘ordinarily’ obtained through hearing the gospel and personally believing it, however, God is not limited to that means and saves elect infants anyway upon reasons that we need not ask.
Second, God by His Spirit can generate faith in an infant so that even thought not fully conscious of their choice, they can actually
personally believe the gospel under a lower intellectual capacity
than younger children or adults might do.

This question is asking for the Biblical basis of the second option as opposed to the first and ideally includes infants in the womb..


texts: If Jehovah's Witnesses believe they should use Jehovah to be accurate why don't they use Jesus' real Hebrew name?

texts: I think everyone knows that the name Jesus is Greek, but why don’t Jehovah’s Witnesses use his Hebrew name, which is closer to Joshua than to Jesus?


texts: Does the Christian Old Testament have the exact same list of books as the Jewish Bible?

texts: Does the Christian Old Testament include exactly the same books that are in the Jewish Bible (called the Tanakh in Judaism)? Are there any differences between the Christian Old Testament and the Jewish Bible?


texts: Who first came up with the phrase "an over-realized eschatology" and in what context?

texts:
The phrase "an over-realized eschatology" seems to get a run from time to time in theological discussions (example) or blog posts (example). Who first coined this phrase* and in what context were they using it?

In my own research, it appears that C.H. Dodd promoted a "realized eschatology". Was "over-realized eschatology" coined in the context of a critique of Dodd's eschatology?

*or semantic equivalent if its first appearance in English was a translation.


texts: Does divine simplicity imply that God is identical to his attributes?

texts:
Scope: Philosophy of orthodox Trinitarianism.

Off the top of my head, the Bible says that God is love, God is light, God is truth,
 God is wisdom, and God is Spirit.

Is it a more general conclusion of divine simplicity that God's essence is identical to his attributes? I vaguely remember encountering this argument but cannot remember the source.


texts: Protestant numbering of the 10 Commandments

texts:
With the exception of Lutherans (who apparently use the same numbering system for the Decalogue as Catholics) Do other Protestants have a consistent method for numbering the 10 commandments?

Catholics say the first 3 are about God. Then the last 7 about Man. Whereas, I've seen Protestants refer to this as the 4th commandment and then top it off with "thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's stuff, and by stuff we also mean wife".

Also, other than keeping the Dec in the Decalogue, what is the reason behind munging the two separate commandments that are against adultery and expanding on the one commandment against profaning God?  Is there something in the Catholic teaching that favored the 3/7 split as a couple of the more beautiful numbers in Creation that was rejected by Protestants?


texts: so few churches acknowledge singles in light of 1 Corinthians 7: 6-9 is this an oversight?

texts:
In the New Testament (Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, etc.,) we really don't see Matthew & Rose, Mark & Betty, Luke & Beatrice, John & Sally, etc.

Why do churches put so much emphasis on couples, inferring that singles who have chosen celibacy really don't have a place (of course unless they are teen or twenties)?

I gave my life to Jesus at 16, and now am 61, and chose a path of singleness, according to the ability God gave me. I am confused because there seems to be such heavy emphasis on couples (nothing wrong with couples; I had extra-terrific parents for example). However, it is hurtful to feel like singles are the "low end of the totem pole"in Christian service and responsibility.

My parents had two girls (one married, and one single...me).

Do pastors cater to couple images because they presume tithing is higher? Is there cultural etiquette persuading the church more than templates of the New Testament church?


texts: Persecution of Jewish people by Christians in Middle Ages?

texts:
I want to apologize ahead if my questions sound disrespectful to anybody. This isn't my intent. I grew up in East Asia which has very few Christians, but I have been very interested in the history of Christianity and the content of Bible.

I have trouble understanding the persecution of Jews by Christians in Middle Ages. According to the Old Testament, Hebrews/Israelites are the "Chosen People" of God. The whole Old Testament is about how Jews struggled to find their land of promised. Isn't it against God's will, to persecute Jews? How did Middle Age Christians manage to explain these from theological point of view?

Another related question is, Old Testament was written in Hebrew. It didn't make a lot of sense to me, that Middle Age Christians would treat texts written in the language used by people they didn't like.

I am not trying to offend anybody. I have no doubt that modern Christians don't hate Jews. I just have trouble understanding how Middle Age Christians explained what they did in theological point of view.

English is not my native language, and I have been self-studying Bible. My knowledge could have serious defects and my terminologies could be way off. I would appreciate if you guys can bear with me, and help me understand the history and the Bible better.


texts: How did the Holy Spirit come into existence?

texts: Who created the Holy Spirit? Did the Holy Spirit exist from the beginning or was it God who created the Holy Spirit? If it was God, then why is it said that the members of the Holy Trinity is independent of each other but form an eternal  Triune God?


texts: Why do Jehovah's Witnesses believe that angels are doing the talking between God and mankind?

texts: Jehovah's Witnesses believe that the conversations between God and the people are carried out by angels, but the angels are not mentioned in the Bible. They are merely assumed to be present, because no one has seen God. How accurate are the angels as messengers? Is it assumed that the angels carry God's word word-for-word or paraphrasing God's words?


texts: According to Pentecostalism, was the Pope biblically justified in saying that an unbelieving man is in heaven?

texts:
Pope Francis consoles a boy who asked if his non-believing father is in Heaven (YouTube)

Here we have a son asking the Pope whether his father would be granted admission in the Kingdom of God. His father is an atheist.

The Pope reasons that since he was a good man, he would not be rejected by God.

However,

  Ephesians 2:8 – For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast.

Looking for answers from a Pentecostal perspective on whether this statement is biblically justified.


texts: What is an overview of Reformed beliefs about hell?

texts: Could somebody please provide an overview of the various beliefs that the Reformed churches hold regarding hell? If possible, but not required for an accepted answer, it would be great if they could be listed in order from most popular to least.


texts: In 1943, the Russian Orthodox Church permitted the women's name Svetlana. Was it made specifically for Stalin's daughter?

texts: Russian Wikipedia says the name "Svetlana" was invented in 19th century by a poet Alexander Vostokov. But some people also pointed out that Svetlana is Russian equivalent of Photini, the Samaritan woman Jesus met at the well. These claims seem controversial. If the name was invented in 19th century, how did the Russian Orthodox Church call the Samaritan woman prior to this?


texts: When and how did the Benediction of the Blessed Sacrament start in the Catholic Church?

texts:
In some Christian Churches, there is according to Wikipedia, a devotional ceremony known as Benediction of the Blessed Sacrament.

The question is when and how did this ceremony arise within the Catholic Church and what is the theological basis for it?


texts:
In "On the Mysteries" (De Mysteriis) [English], Chapter 2, St. Ambrose wrote,

After this the Holy of holies was opened to you, you entered the sanctuary of regeneration; recall what you were asked, and remember what you answered. You renounced the devil and his works, the world with its luxury and pleasures. That utterance of yours is preserved not in the tombs of the dead, but in the book of the living.
Post haec reserata tibi sunt sancta sanctorum, ingressus es regenerationis sacrarium: repete quid interrogatus sis, recognosce quid responderis. Renuntiasti diabolo et operibus ejus, mundo et luxuriae ejus ac voluptatibus. Tenetur vox tua, non in tumulo mortuorum, sed in libro viventium.

In the Roman rite of the Catholic Church, does the individual explicitly "renounce the devil and his works" when he makes his confession of faith during baptism?

What was the formal statement made by the person being baptized?
If this statement is no longer made, when did the practice cease?


texts: Could a lowborn during the middle ages read the bible?

texts: I'm starting to read about the christian faith with more effort and this question popped up in my head. I've read that the bible at that time were really expensive because it was handmade but, could a lowborn from Italy (or the region that would later become Italy) read it at the church with the help of a priest or someone else?


texts: Meaning of 1 Peter 4:17 According to Calvinists

texts:
1 Peter 4:16-18 (ESV) Yet if anyone suffers as a Christian, let him not be ashamed, but let him glorify God in that name. For it is time for judgment to begin at the household of God; and if it begins with us, what will be the outcome for those who do not obey the gospel of God? And “If the righteous is scarcely saved, what will become of the ungodly and the sinner?”1

A few things there should be no meaningful contention over:

"Judgement" refers to punishment here ('if judgement ... then how much more ... [evil people]')
He does not say that it is scarcely true that anyone is ever saved (for example), but, specifically, it is scarcely true that the righteous are saved.
"Scarcely" corresponds to the implied "definitely not" of "the ungodly," whence we know that "scarcely" means 'with great difficulty; unlikely.'

Question

How do Calvinists interpret this passage, which claims that the righteous will "scarcely" be saved, if God elects people unconditionally, and works (read: anything on the part of the man) cannot endanger a man's salvation who has been saved ("the righteous")? (After all, it cannot be that God can/would have difficulty saving someone.)

(The Catholic interpretation, e.g., would say one can be righteous, like Adam, and choose not-God at any time after being saved from their sin.)

(If you dispute any of these rather neutral observations, please ask for clarification in the comments, rather than answering, please!)

Thanks in advance.

1 St. Peter is alluding to/paraphrasing/adapting Proverbs 11:31 which concerns the retribution God gives for workers of evil, yet "all the more" to the wicked, who are defined by their sin. He then ties it in (γαρ "for") with "[salvation]."


texts: How does the New Apostolic Church compare to evangelical christians?

texts: What are the main doctrines of the New Apostolic Church, and what are the big differences in their teachings from the perspective of Evangelical Protestants?


texts: Why do some Christains feel the obligation to remove their hats during prayer?

texts: As far as I know, Judaism has no tradition of removing a head covering / hat during prayer.  Therefore, the Christian tradition started sometime after the split and it is not an inherited tradition.  Where does this Christian tradition come from?  Is it just a western or US tradition for males?


texts: From a non-Trinitarian perspective, how is love explained as an attribute of God?

texts:
The Scriptures seem to assert that love is an attribute of God--that it is part of His essence that has existed from all eternity, even before there were any other creatures.

Anyone who does not love does not know God, because God is love.  1 John 4:8 ESV

From a Trinitarian perspective, in eternity past, the Father loved the Son, the Son loved the Father, and so on.  This is recorded in part in the Scriptures as well.

Father, I desire that they also, whom you have given me, may be with me where I am, to see my glory that you have given me because you loved me before the foundation of the world.  John 17:24 ESV
But I do as the Father has commanded me, so that the world may know that I love the Father. Rise, let us go from here.  John 14:31 ESV

However, from a non-trinitarian perspective, how is it understood that God was love as a single entity with no one to love?


texts: Why is Jesus' lineage different in Matthew and Luke?

texts:
In Matthew 1, there is a genealogy of Jesus from Abraham to Jesus, but in Luke 3:23-28, there is also a genealogy of Jesus from God to Adam to Jesus, but it's different to Matthews' version.

Why? And which one is correct?


texts:
It's pretty well-known that the Pauline epistles in modern copies of the New Testament are generally ordered according to length.1  Of the epistles written to churches, Romans is longest and first, while 2 Thessalonians is shortest and last.  Here's a table of the number of lines of Greek in the originals:2

Romans             979 stichoi
1 Corinthians      908 stichoi
2 Corinthians      607 stichoi
Galatians          311 stichoi
Ephesians          331 stichoi
Philippians        221 stichoi
Colossians         215 stichoi
1 Thessalonians    207 stichoi
2 Thessalonians    111 stichoi

Notice, however, that Ephesians is longer than Galatians, and yet it comes after it, unlike every other book in the list.

I'm aware that there is variation in book order among the different extant manuscripts and early lists of canonical works.  I also understand that the order of books in our modern New Testament is largely a matter of tradition.

But that leaves the question: what is the source of the tradition that Ephesians, despite its length, should follow Galatians?  Were there any particularly influential manuscripts/canons that established this?  And more importantly, do scholars know why Galatians was placed first?

1. Metzger, Bruce, The Canon of the New Testament, 299
2. Metzger, 298


texts: Did Paul recognize Peter as the earthly leader of the Church?

texts:
By suggestion this is a re-posting of one part of a multipart question.

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

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


texts: How should we interpret Leviticus 18, 19?

texts:
Leviticus 18 talks about sexual morality, whereas Leviticus 19 talks about food and what to eat and what not to eat. It is quite difficult to read these two passages together. Modern Christians seem to obey the sexuality commands in chapter 18, but not 19. But if we really believe in Bible is the word of God, we need to read them consistently, not intepreting one chapter according to one set of rules and another, another set of rules.

How should we interpret Leviticus 18 and 19? Should we obey both? Or should we obey none? If we obey only chapter 18, but not 19, what is the hermeneutical ground for this?


texts: What happens to the Vicar of Christ when Christ returns?

texts:
The Pope is the Vicar of Christ according to the Catholic church.

  A vicar (/ˈvɪkər/; Latin: vicarius) is a representative, deputy or
  substitute; anyone acting "in the person of" or agent for a superior
  (compare "vicarious" in the sense of "at second hand").

According to Papal teachings, what happens to the Pope when Christ returns?  What if the Pope (who is human and can/does make mistakes) doesn't believe that he has returned?


texts: Is there only one God (or אֱלֹהִים, or θεός) by nature?

texts:
Men may be called "gods" (equivalent to Hebrew אֱלֹהִים (elohim) or Greek θεός (theos)) according to office, because they assume God's authority on earth. For example, in Exo. 21:6, it is written,

  Then his master shall bring him to the judges...

The English word "judges" is translated from the Hebrew word הָאֱלֹהִים (ha-elohim), the word most often translated into English as "God" in the KJV.

But, are there any others besides YHVH who are "G/god/ אֱלֹהִים/ θεός" according to nature, rather than office?

If so, how does one reconcile that acknowledgment with scripture that state there is "one God" (cp. Isa. 45:5; Mark 12:32; 1 Cor. 8:6)?

If not, how does one reconcile that belief with scriptures such as 2 Cor. 4:4?


texts: According to Protestantism, why are fallen angels motivated to attack Christians?

texts:
During Bible study of Hebrews and 1 Corinthians I became aware how:

When we believers enter our glory we will be given authority over the angels like how Jesus currently IS already, although our status now (before glorification) is still a little lower than angels Heb 2:5-10
We will judge angels 1 Cor 6:1-6

I'm reminded how in C.S. Lewis's book The Screwtape Letters the devil so thoroughly despised the biped flesh and blood creature God created in His image that he and his minions are Hell-bent on destroying us (both unbelievers and believers alike) by whatever means necessary.  We also learned in the Bible that Lucifer and his followers were thrown by God from heaven to earth.  Why does the devil hates us so?  Putting all these threads together in light of our destiny to become higher than angels, one plausible theory is that they are jealous.

My question: According to Protestants, why are fallen angels motivated to attack Christians? Is it jealousy, or something else? If there is more than one answer given by Protestants, an overview of common Protestant explanations would be helpful.

Value of the question: Know your enemy. Christians of all stripes need to take the Devil seriously to prepare for defense based on reliable truth.


texts: What is the history behind Angelus prayer?

texts: In Roman Catholicism the faithfuls are supposed to say Angelus prayer thrice a day and at designated time of the day. When and how saying of Angelus came into being and what is the history behind it?


texts: Are there any ecumenical movements among lay people working to unite Roman Catholics and Orthodox Christians?

texts: If leaders of Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches are still far from resolving the theological issues separating these two true churches, is there any ecumenical movement at lay people level like the Taize fraternity where Protestants and Catholics live and worship together? Are there Christians from both sides who recognize the truthfulness of the other side and are longing to share the richness of these two traditions despite the opinions of their respective church hierarchies?


texts: Do Jehovah's Witnesses believe only they will be saved after their organization came into existence?

texts:
Are there any statements in JW literature that indicate that they do not dogmatically believe that they are the only channel of God's truth and direction today, or that today, one does not have to be a JW to be saved? (By salvation I mean being reconciled to God, not merely being resuscitated to be given a chance to be taught by a JW in the millennium if they didn't receive that chance before they died.)

My emphasis on the word today is because JWs believe prior to the existence of their organization, people could obviously be saved without becoming a JW, or will be given that opportunity in the millennium. However, what about after their organization came into existence?

A JW might attempt to diplomatically respond that they are not to judge who will be saved (as I have seen from other responses from JWs on this forum). This is, of course, techically a correct response, yet begs the question, as JWs implicitly seem to believe a fellow JW will be saved if he stays loyal and obedient to their organization (which I assume to a JW this is equivalent to being obedient to God) throughout all eschatological trials such as Armageddon, whereas they believe others need to become JWs in order to be saved. However, my understanding of their beliefs might be inaccurate.

I'm looking for official statements from JW literature.


texts: Why is Jesus' name pronounced differently in each language?

texts:
Possible Duplicate:
  Why do biblical names vary in different languages?

We call him Jesus in English. But in the  Tamil language, the word Jesus is pronounced as "Eeasu". I wonder why such thing is happening. For example, if a person's name is John in English, he will be called John in Tamil and hopefully in other languages too.

But why does  this rule differ in case of Jesus Christ?


texts: I got this icon from Greece, however I was not able to identify the Saint. Could anyone help?


texts: I am fasting for 40 days I was wondering if I can stop fasting every Sunday and eat normal food my mom said I can but I want to be sure


texts: Is there anything in the Bible that suggests joy in Heaven is greater than best of Earthly joy?

texts:
Writer Randy Alcorn suggests we CAN imagine Heaven. In fairness to his viewpoint the 'Eye hath not seen nor ears heard..." quote from Corintheans (if fully read through) does NOT mean we cannot contemplate the afterlife.
I prefer the seemingly widespread notion that the happiness of Heaven is immeasurably greater than even the greatest happiness here. But WHERE is there anything suggestive of this in the Bible itself?! It seems utterly 'added on' by us!


texts: Can one sin be worse than another sin, or are all sins equal?

texts: Since all evil acts come down to disobedience against god, are all evil acts equivalent? Is no sin worse than any other sin? If one sin is worse than another sin does that imply that one act can be more disobedient than another act? Is sin and/or disobedience absolute or does it have degree?


texts: Churches that Teach Tradition as Inspired have Different Traditions. How do They Explain This?

texts:
Some denominations (Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholic) teach different Traditions that contradict each other.  An obvious example of this is the papacy (RC says correct.  EO says incorrect.).  Both groups claim to be apostolic.  They may even say each other is apostolic.  Both claim their Traditions to be correct and traceable to God.  How can this be?

Examples of different Tradition.

Nature of bread at Pascha
Filioque
Papacy
Nature of Sin
Nature of Man
Contents of Canon
Nature of authority (council or pope)

See here and here for more details of the differences.

PS.  I'm not asking which of the various Traditions are true.  I'm only asking for an explanation of how those two denominations come up with their Traditions, given that each say their Traditions source to God.


texts: How can Jesus (the word become flesh) have a God? Does God have a God?

texts:
All these verses (and many more) say he does.John 5:44 the one and only God. John 17:3, 2 Cor 1:3, Eph 1:3, Col 1:3, 2 Cor 11:31, Rom 15:6, Rom 1:7 the God of our Lord Jesus. 1 Pet 1:3 Heb 1:8-9 God anointed Jesus. Jesus gives the kingdom to God and Father 1 Cor 15:24.

If Jesus has a God - which scripture clearly says he does, how do we explain trintarian co-equality?

Even when ascended, in Rev, Jesus is still subordinate to God, clearly separate from God Rev 5:13, 6:16, 7:9, 7:10, 21:22 and many other places showing the Lamb is not God, and therefor, God is not the Lamb.


texts:
How could Adam and Eve have known not to eat from the Tree of Good and Evil? As it was said that Adam and Eve did not know right from wrong.
Genesis 3:22:

  And the LORD God said, "The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever."

With that said God also said that if they were to eat from the Tree than they would surely die:
Genesis 2:17

  but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die."

He was told by God not to eat from it or he shall die. But, without the knowledge of what is Good and what is Bad how would have have known that disobeying God was bad?


texts: What is the Catholic stance on creation science?

texts: Does the Roman Catholic Church have an official position on creation science, like it has a position regarding evolution?


texts: What is the biblical basis for only keeping the weekly Sabbath while disregarding all the other feasts/holy convocations (Lev 23, Num 28, 29)?

texts:
Leviticus 23 introduces several appointed festivals/holy convocations. The chapter starts with:

The Lord said to Moses,
2 “Speak to the Israelites and say to them: ‘These are my appointed festivals, the appointed festivals of the Lord, which you are to proclaim as sacred assemblies. - Lev 23:1-2 (NIV)

Then the festivals / holy convocations are enumerated:

The weekly Sabbath (Lev 23:3)
The Passover and the Festival of Unleavened Bread (Lev 23:4-8)
Offering the Firstfruits (Lev 23:9-14)
The Festival of Weeks (Lev 23:15-22)
The Festival of Trumpets (Lev 23:23-25)
The Day of Atonement (Lev 23:26-32)
The Festival of Tabernacles (Lev 23:33-44)

Similarly, in Numbers 28 and 29 we find a similar list:

Daily Offerings (Num 28:1-8)
Sabbath Offerings (Num 28:9-10)
Monthly Offerings (a.k.a. New Moons) (Num 28:11-15)
The Passover (Num 28:16-25)
The Festival of Weeks (Num 28:26-31)
The Festival of Trumpets (Num 29:1-6)
The Day of Atonement (Num 29:7-11)
The Festival of Tabernacles (Num 29:12-40)

It's not rare to come across Christians who claim that the weekly sabbath (Lev 23:3, Num 28:9-10) is still in effect, while all the other festivals and holy convocations are not (e.g. 1, 2, 3, 4). What is the biblical basis for that claim?

As requested in the comments, I'll briefly summarize the core ideas presented by some of these sites:

This site (and this follow-up publication on the same site) basically claims that the weekly sabbath belongs to the moral law, whereas the remaining feasts and holy convocations belong to the ceremonial law, and therefore they conclude that the weekly sabbath still stands but the others are abolished because they were "shadows".

This site essentially says the same thing: it talks about the concepts of "ceremonial law" and "moral law", claims that the weekly sabbath in particular is "moral" rather than "ceremonial", and, thus, concludes that the weekly sabbath is still in effect.


texts: Were the actions of the 3rd Duke of Alba in the 16th Century considered a Catholic Crusade?

texts:
Fernando Álvarez de Toledo, 3rd Duke of Alba was sent by Philip II of Spain to Belgium where he waged war against the protestants in the area.

As a bit of history, Belgium in the 16th Century started out as part of the "Seventeen Provinces" within the Burgundian Netherlands.  Belgium was formed after the Eighty Years' War (1568–1648)

On February 16, 1568, the entire population of the Netherlands—three million—was condemned to death as heretics, apart from a few named exceptions:

  Philip next submitted a "Memorial and Representation" of the state of the Low Countries to the Spanish Inquisition craving the judgment of the Fathers upon it. After deliberating, the inquisitors pronounced their decision on the 16th of February, 1568. It was to the effect that, "with the exception of a select list of names which had been handed to them, all the inhabitants of the Netherlands were heretics or abettors of heresy, and so had been guilty of the crime of high treason." On the 26th of the same month, Philip confirmed this sentence by a proclamation, in which he commanded the decree to be carried into immediate execution, without favour or respect of persons. The King of Spain actually passed sentence of death upon a whole nation. We behold him erecting a common scaffold for its execution, and digging one vast grave for all the men, and women, and children of the Low Countries. "Since the beginning of the world," says Brandt, "men have not seen or heard any parallel to this horrible sentence. (Wylie, History of Protestantism, vol. II, p. 70.)

Would the sending of the 3rd Duke of Alba to Belgium and his following actions be considered a Catholic Crusade?


texts: What does the "second coming of Christ" mean?

texts:
I am not up on my scripture but is the 'second coming of Christ', Jesus specifically?
'Christ' is a title, meaning the 'anointed one', so is the 'second coming' Jesus coming down from a cloud, or is it the coming of a yet another 'anointed one'?


texts: Was what I was told about Catholics correct?

texts:
I've been told (admittedly from a denomination with a very anti-Catholic view (e.g. Catholics believe/pray to in saints => they are idol worshippers))the following:

Catholics believe that they have to say something like 5 to 10 of the
lords prayer and possibly a few "Hail Mary"s added to the mix per sin
depending on how "bad" it is.
The pope can say anything (well, almost) he likes, and that is then instantly a part of "proper" Christian dogma, and it doesn't matter if it directly contradicts some part of scripture.

My question is this: Are these things true, and if so why do they believe these things, and if not, why was I told them?

note: I may have exaggerated a bit.