texts: Why does God command the Israelites not to boil a goat in its mother's milk?

texts:
Some of the laws I can directly see why they were given, however I do not understand the last part of the verse below regarding not boiling a kid in its mothers milk.

  Deuteronomy 14:21 NIV Do not eat anything you find already dead. You
  may give it to an alien living in any of your towns, and he may eat
  it, or you may sell it to a foreigner. But you are a people holy to
  the LORD your God. Do not cook a young goat in its mother's milk.

What does this law mean really, is there some spiritual significance I am not getting?


texts: Is it a good guess that Heaven's joy surpasses even the keenest felt here?

texts:
Jonathan Edwards said terms like 'joy' and 'ecstasy' were too meager to describe the greatness of the happiness in Heaven. Was Edwards right in saying our strongest words come nowhere near the reality? Are there levels to happiness (as Thomas of Aquinas thought) or is utter bliss available- but short lived and tainted by sin- here? For instance, romantic love is fairly spectacular- can we guess it is beyond even that? I guess it's the difference between the idea that Heaven as ineffable, versus the idea that Heaven is basically a problem- and sin-free Earth.

Obviously this is all guesswork and we won't truly know until death. Yet can we make an educated guess?

There is some verses in 2 Corinthians 2 that say,

  9 but just as it is written,
  “Things which eye has not seen and ear has not heard,
  And which have not entered the heart of man,
  All that God has prepared for those who love Him.”
  10 For to us God revealed them through the Spirit; for the Spirit searches all things, even the depths of God. (vv.9,10).

In light of these verses, the second of which is often not quoted with the first, it seems that God may have revealed some aspects of the things He has prepared for those who love Him. If so, what are some of these things? Are they perhaps mentioned in other scriptures? Am I perhaps misinterpreting 2 Cor 2:9 and 10?


texts:
I am writing a short story based on 1 Kings 18, and I was wondering if the servant mention in verses 43 and onwards is Obadiah or not.

In verse 9, Obadiah refers to himself as Elijah's servant.

  9 ‘What have I done wrong,’ asked Obadiah, ‘that you are handing your servant over to Ahab to be put to death?

The servant that Elijah is with later on, however, wasn't named.

  43 ‘Go and look toward the sea,’ he told his servant.

Are they one and the same, or two different people?


texts: What is the difference between humans as "image of God" and Jesus as "image of God"?

texts:
What is the difference between humans as "image of God" and Jesus as "image of God" ?

Humans are God's image:

  Genesis 1:26-27

  26 Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness,
  so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the
  sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals,[a] and over all the
  creatures that move along the ground.”

  27 So God created mankind in his own image,
      in the image of God he created them;
      male and female he created them.

Jesus is the image of God

  Colossians 1:15 Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn
  of every creature   2 Corinthians 4:4 in whose case the god of this
  world has blinded the minds of the unbelieving so that they might not
  see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image
  of God.


texts: Which Prison Epistles are considered to have been written from Rome?

texts: I recognise the modern challenges of traditional/specific dating of the NT books; and that this may suggest various answers. Are there any letters which are reliably recognised as having been written while under arrest in Rome?


texts: Are Catholics expected to bury amputated body parts in a cemetery?

texts: I remember seeing, some forty years ago, the Catholic family of a cancer patient burying his amputated leg in the local cemetery. I do not know if Christians all over the world still practice such burials. My question is: are there instructions in the Catholic Canon Law or in other texts making it mandatory for the faithful to bury the body parts amputated on account of accident or surgery, in a consecrated cemetery?


texts: How does the Protestant OT canon differ from the Jewish scriptures?

texts: Is the OT canon currently accepted by Protestants the same as the Jewish scriptures? If not, where and how do they differ?


texts: What is the gist of CARM's criticism of Joyce Meyer?

texts: Joyce Meyer was accused of false teaching by CARM. I can find no response from Joyce Meyer ministries as to misrepresentation, and CARM refer to some poor audio tapes and her book written in 1993. I'm confused, because she appears to me to be on point, but is accused of heresy and other non biblical teachings.


texts: Need to know exact sacrifices required in the Old Testament Pentecost Feast

texts:
I am writng an Easter play for my children's church class. In it, there's a fictional "villain" who tries to cover up the fact that Jesus rose from the dead because he's in the business of selling animals for sacrifices.

My play begins on the Day of Pentecost, when the Holy Spirit came upon the disciples. I realize many displaced Jews were in the Holy City this day because of the Pentecost celebration. I've read Leviticus 23: 16-20. My question is: EXACTLY what animals were required for a sacrifice that day? Most of what books I've read on Jewish feasts say only the loaves and the 2 lambs, but looking at verse 19, there's a number of other animals.

Also, Pentecost was also known as the Feast of Weeks. Did it only last one day, or one week?


texts: How does our work on this earth transfer into the new earth when God returns?

texts:
I recently read Every Good Endeavor by Tim Keller and also Surprised by Hope by N.T. Wright.  Both are amazing books, focused on the resurrection theology that God will raise up a new heaven and a new earth, and we will dwell in the presence of God, not just sitting around, but living life with new redeemed bodies and doing redeemed work that isn't corrupted by sin.

The ideas of heaven are very exciting: that we won't be just sitting around playing harps, but will live much like we do currently, although without the corruption of sin and in the presence of God.

Another exciting theme in these books is that the work we do here matters towards the new heaven and new earth, and will be redeemed and made full when God comes.  While this is exciting to me, it is also very confusing. Can anybody shed some light into how the work we do here transfers to Gods kingdom, according to Keller and/or Wright, even if it is "secular" in nature?


texts: When can our prayers change God's mind/will? Is it wrong to pray against the will of God?

texts:
Firstly I believe that prayer can change God's mind. Like when Moses asked God to not smite the Israelites. But when can our prayers change the will/mind of god?

I believe we have to pray that God's will be done, regardless of whether His will lines up with what we pray for. But like in Moses' case, he prayed against the will of God.

Is this because God made His will known to Moses, that he could pray for God to change his mind? Can we only pray for God to change his will when he shows us what it is, and the rest of the time we have to pray for it to happen?
(Obviously we will sometimes unintentionally pray against God's will, if we do not know what it is, but that's not what I'm talking about).


texts: Why the wrongness of "Our Father" translation wasn't spotted earlier?

texts:
Pope Francis thinks the church should tweak the translation of the “Our Father” to clear up the confusion around the phrase “lead us not into temptation.”

We all know God doesn't lead us into temptation. James 1:13

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

My question is why the Catholic Church didn't notice this error much earlier and kept encouraging wrong translation which resulted in a wrong request to God for 2000 years. Did any of the saints ever notice this error? Many were mystics and never sensed that it is a wrong translation?

How is the Holy Spirit's influence embedded in Church's infallibility if such an obvious error was missed? Is this a matter of faith? To believe wrongly that God lead us into temptation? I understand that today's pope noticed but why is it so late if the church should be our protector in what we believe?


texts: Why do non believers hate being confronted with the truth?

texts:
As I understand the bible those who do not accept Jesus into their hearts go to hell. I understand it's more than just being a "christian", you actually have to have this relationship with god. And you'd think people would be happy when you tell them that Jesus loves them and that, without him they'd never be able to experience a love like his love, but it would appear nearly all of them think you're some sort of idiot, some will even go as far as to make a mockery out of you. How do you deal with this?

And I understand it's a choice but I feel the need to help these people find Jesus in their lives. But it's difficult when there's that one person who goes on the defensive.


texts: In what sense is Jesus understood to be "the only begotten son of God" in LDS teaching?

texts:
In a comment made on a previous question I asked, someone directed me to Moses 1:35 in the Pearl of Great Price.  I read the context and saw Moses 1:32–33, which interested me as well.  The text is as follows:

And by the word of my power, have I created them, which is mine Only Begotten Son, who is full of grace and truth.
And worlds without number have I created; and I also created them for mine own purpose; and by the Son I created them, which is mine Only Begotten.

In LDS teaching, Lucifer and Jesus are spiritual brothers, and, indeed, we are all brothers of both Jesus and Lucifer—both of whom are our elder brothers.
So, in what sense, then, is Jesus the Only Begotten Son of God according to LDS teaching, when in the pre-mortal life Elohim did have multiple sons (and daughters)?


texts: What were the beliefs, teachings, and practices of the church regarding slavery in the New World?

texts:
When the New World was discovered, slavery was virtually unknown in Europe. Soon after the discovery of the New World, European powers began to make slaves there, and to transport slaves from Africa to the Americas.

What part did the church (mainly the Roman Catholic church, which dominated Europe) play in this? Did it discourage or encourage the slavery of native peoples?  What were their beliefs and teachings at that time?


texts: What did St. John Chrysostom mean by saying there is no difference between what is demanded from the monastics and the laity?

texts:
"You greatly delude yourself and err, if you think that one thing is
  demanded from the layman and another from the monk; since the
  difference between them is in that whether one is married or not,
  while in everything else they have the same responsibilities...
  Because all must rise to the same height; and what has turned the
  world upside down is that we think only the monk must live rigorously,
  while the rest are allowed to live a life of indolence"
  + St. John Chrysostom

What is St. John Chrysostom trying to say here about the lifestyle of the laity?  It's apparent that not everyone is called to the life of St. Anthony the Great to live in a cave in the desert (even among monastics).  So what is the commonality, here?  How does one find their path in adopting the correct lifestyle for themselves that leads to salvation?

Most people, even Orthodox I know, would say that wearing sackcloth under your clothes and keeping a rigorous fast is extreme and meant for the monastics, but then I often read in the lives of the Saints of laity that were commended (though not mentioned by name) for doing just that.

So, what is it that is expected in lifestyle that St. John Chrysostom is saying is the same for laity and monastics?  I ask because my intuition tells me, this must be the thing that helps you discern, with the help of a spiritual father, the measure of asceticism that is appropriate for each person, individually.


texts: Angelology: Can Archangels Have More Than 1 Set of Wings?

texts:
I know the seraphim, cherubs, and thrones have 3 sets of wings:

According to Isaiah 6:1-8, the Seraphim are described as fiery six-winged beings.

From the angelology wiki page.

But, I've been reading about Michaelmas and found a picture of Michael, the Archangel:

from here, and the wikipedia article here

I think, I see 6 wings on Raphael and 6 on Michael but as we all know Archangels only have 1 set of wings?


texts:
Question: Are Catholics free to disagree about whether it is prudential to not forbid abortion by law?

Namely, can a Catholic ever take a position, that abortion should remain legal for any reason (for example forbidding abortion by law would not stop as many abortions as some other strategy would in which abortion remains legal)?

Or maybe, can a Catholic take a stance that it is not prudent to make abortion illegal at this moment, but that we should continuously strive for that, and after definite time make it illegal?


texts:
How do Unitarians explain Hebrews 1:10-12?

10 And,
“In the beginning, Lord, you founded the earth,
and the heavens are the work of your hands;
11 they will perish, but you remain;
they will all wear out like clothing;
12 like a cloak you will roll them up,
and like clothing they will be changed.
But you are the same,
and your years will never end.” (NRSV)

These verses are quoted from Psalm 102:25-27, where they are addressed to God, and are applied to Christ in Hebrews 1:10-12


texts: How many copies of the Bible are there per capita?

texts:
How many Bibles are in existence, at libraries, warehouses, bookstores, etc.?  Also, how many are being produced annually?  I am primarily interested in the United States, but a worldwide figure would also be appreciated.

In many nations Bibles are hard to come by, because owning even a single page is cause for imprisonment and torture.


texts: Is there Catholic teaching and/or prophecy that a pope may be the false prophet of Revelation and the Church the whore of Babylon?

texts:
This is a sample response to the claim that the pope is the Antichrist and this to the claim that the Catholic Church is the Whore of Babylon of Revelation 17 and 18.

This question is asking whether there is Catholic teaching and/or prophecy that a pope, now or in the future, may be the false prophet of Revelation and the Church the whore of Babylon (= Rome).

This question was prompted because of websites like the first one below, and from the history of Israel. Please see:

Biblical False Prophet Cardinal Bergoglio – "Pope Francis"
cf. 2 Maccabees 4 (RSVCE)

cf. This prophetic message that has ecclesiastical approval:

  "Rome will lose faith and become the seat of the Antichrist."
   - APPARITION of the BLESSED VIRGIN on the Mountain of LA SALETTE the 19th of September, 1846. Published by the Shepherdess of La
  Salette with Imprimatur by Mgr. Bishop of Lecce.

Note: From scripture, fornication, immorality, whoring are in certain places used to mean idolatry and unfaithfulness to God.

cf. Catholics must learn to resist their popes — even Pope Francis by Michael Brendan Dougherty | May 6, 2014.


texts: How is the Book of Mormon different from the Bible?

texts:
What are the differences between the Book of Mormon and the Bible? How are they similar? What do they have in common?

Please provide an overview of the major differences. I prefer a Mormon perspective.


texts: Origins of requesting prayer from people in Heaven?

texts: I am wondering about the origin of the practice of people requesting prayers from people who have died and are assume to be in heaven (and also from angels)?  I know catholics and orthodox will claim that this has been going on since the apostles, and protestants claim that that it is essentially heresy and evil. I am looking for an objective response with some facts concerning the earliest recorded instances of Christians requesting prayers from people and angels in heaven.


texts: Does a Christian have enemies outside of the world, the flesh, and the devil?

texts:
An often repeated phrase I hear is that "The enemies of the Christian are world, the flesh, and the devil." But I wonder, does God's word reveal to us that there are more enemies than those 3 that we should be wary of?
The phrase above is not a phrase in the bible but it's no doubt passed around because it's easy to remember and poignantly true. I just wonder if there's explicitly more than that.
Below are some verses identifying the hurdles of the world, the flesh, and the devil--but I wonder if there is anything else that we must fight against.
World:

James 4:4 NIV You adulterous people, don’t you know that friendship with the world means enmity against God? Therefore, anyone who chooses to be a friend of the world becomes an enemy of God.

Romans 12:2 NIV Do not conform to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God’s will is—his good, pleasing and perfect will.

Flesh:

Galatians 5:13 NIV You, my brothers and sisters, were called to be free. But do not use your freedom to indulge the flesh; rather, serve one another humbly in love.

Galatians 6:7-8 NIV Do not be deceived: God cannot be mocked. A man reaps what he sows. Whoever sows to please their flesh, from the flesh will reap destruction; whoever sows to please the Spirit, from the Spirit will reap eternal life.

Romans 7:25 ESV Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, I myself serve the law of God with my mind, but with my flesh I serve the law of sin.

Devil:

1 Peter 5:8 NIV Be alert and of sober mind. Your enemy the devil prowls around like a roaring lion looking for someone to devour.
Ephesians 6:11 ESV Put on the whole armor of God, that you may be able to stand against the schemes of the devil.


texts: How do deniers of Jesus preincarnate existence handle all the personal pronouns in John 1, particularly verse10?

texts:
John 1:10 says:

He was in the world, and the world was made through him, yet the world did not know him.

It is made clear in the context that the "he" who was in the world is the same "he" who was in the beginning with God (v.2), the same "he" through whom all things were made (v.3), the same "he" in which was the life lighting all men (v.4), the same "he" who came unto his own and was not received (v.11), and the same "he" through whom we may receive the right to be called children of God (v.12).
Of the three "he" in verse 10 the first is 3rd person singular and the last two are 3rd person singular, masculine.  How do those who deny that Jesus preexisted his incarnation as a personal being handle the inspired usage of all of these 3rd person personal pronouns in describing the one who made the world and was later made flesh and dwelt among us?


texts: What are the claims of authenticity of these two sites of Jesus' burial, the Garden Tomb and the Church of the Holy Sepulchre?

texts:
There's been a lot of news recently about the renovation of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre and the opening of the tomb for the first time in a long time (200 years I believe).  Growing up though I had always been shown pictures of the Garden Tomb as the likely site of Jesus' burial and resurrection.

I am curious to know what claims of authenticity each site have, as well as other major purported sites of Jesus' burial and resurrection (looking around online it seems there are more than just the two named here).

I ask all this with the realization that it is probably impossible for us to know the exact location of Jesus' tomb from archaeology and tradition alone.  I'm not asking for an answer as to which location is the most likely location, just what claims of authenticity each site have.


texts: Why didn't Jesus allow demons to say he was God?

texts:
After Jesus cast out demons from possessed people, he made sure that these demons didn't reveal his true identity.  Why?

Example from Mar 1:24-25,34 (NIV):

  24“What do you want with us, Jesus of Nazareth? Have you come to destroy us? I know who you are—the Holy One of God!”
  25“Be quiet!” said Jesus sternly. “Come out of him!”
  ...
  34and Jesus healed many who had various diseases. He also drove out many demons, but he would not let the demons speak because they knew who he was.


texts: Is there any extra-biblical evidence of tongues from the first, or even second, century?

texts:
This is not a question whether tongues exist, yesterday or today, but I'm looking for extra-biblical writings on the existence thereof.

Is there any documentation outside of the Bible, either from Christian or secular sources, specifically during the first or even second century, discussing speaking in tongues?


texts: Is "Rapture" or "Caught up alive" in contradiction to God's words "Dust to dust"?

texts:
By the sweat of your brow you will eat your food until you return to
  the ground, since from it you were taken; for dust you are and to dust
  you will return. (Genesis 3:19, NIV)

  Just as people are destined to die once, and after that to face
  judgment. (Hebrews 9:27, NIV)

From these verses, we can deduce that "All must die once (or at least once) and return to dust".

  For the Lord himself will come down from heaven, with a loud command,
  with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet call of God, and
  the dead in Christ will rise first. After that, we who are still
  alive and are left will be caught up together with them in the clouds
  to meet the Lord in the air. And so we will be with the Lord forever.
  (1 Thessalonians 4:16-17)

  Listen, I tell you a mystery: We will not all sleep, but we will all
  be changed— in a flash, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last
  trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, the dead will be raised
  imperishable, and we will be changed. For the perishable must clothe
  itself with the imperishable, and the mortal with immortality. (1
  Corinthians 15:51-53, NIV)

These verses are very important basis for Christian eschatology belief called Rapture. As per these verses, on the the day of Rapture, first, the dead who belonged to Christ will be resurrected and they will be transformed, second, those who are alive and believe in Christ will be caught up, who may or may not be transformed.

What I cannot understand is that if all are destined to die, then it is a contradiction that believers will be caught up alive, without ever facing death. Though Enoch and Elijah were taken alive, some believe that they are the two witnesses mentioned in Revelation 11, who will be killed by the Beast, thus still fulfilling the words of God that all must die.

Is there any possibility (apart from the scripture about Rapture), that some people will never face death?

Does God's word "Dust to dust" leave any exception?

How do theologians explain this contradiction?


texts: How will the earth be cleansed by fire? (LDS perspective)

texts:
I'm preparing for a Sunday School lesson that includes 3 Nephi 25 where Christ quotes Malachi 4.

1 For, behold, the day cometh, that shall burn as an oven; and all the proud, yea, and all that do wickedly, shall be stubble: and the day that cometh shall burn them up, saith the Lord of hosts, that it shall leave them neither root nor branch.

That verse is part of a prophecy that the earth will be cleansed when Christ returns. The cleansing is frequently described as fire, such as in the passage quoted above. How will this happen?
The verse I quoted has figurative language, so it could be assumed that the fire is figurative. But whenever this topic comes up in church, the discussion seems to imply that the burning will be literal with people occasionally going so far as speculating it will be caused by nuclear bombs (that is not doctrine of the LDS church).
The Gospel Principles manual also implies that it's a literal burning:

When Jesus Christ comes again to the earth, He will do the following things:

He will cleanse the earth. When Jesus comes again, He will come in power and great glory. At that time the wicked will be destroyed. All things that are corrupt will be burned, and the earth will be cleansed by fire (see D&C 101:24–25).

So which is it? If it's figurative, do we know what the fire represents? If it's literal, do we know what will cause the fire? How will the righteous escape?


texts: How do Calvinists interpret 2 Peter 2:1?

texts:
2Pe 2:1  But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction.
  2Pe 2:2  And many shall follow their pernicious ways; by reason of whom the way of truth shall be evil spoken of.

In 2 Peter 2:1 there are a group of people called false prophets who engaged in damnable heresies and deny the Lord but are also bought by the Lord. Most Arminians use this verse as an example of unsaved people who were purchased by the Lord. How does the Calvinist respond to that interpretation of this verse?


texts: Are there any Christian denominations that do not believe in Exorcisms?

texts:
I was recently reading "Hostage to the Devil" by Malachi Martin, and starting thinking about demonic possession and exorcisms. Naturally, when I thought about exorcisms the movie "The Exorcist" popped up. And then it struck me that "The Exorcist" and the book I was reading were both based on Catholic Exorcisms.

In Catholicism, we believe that during an exorcism, the exorcist (highly trained priest specifically for exorcisms) is actually battling the demon. There are certain prayers that go with it and there is a structure to it.

My questions is basically, are there any Christian denominations that do not believe in possessions/exorcisms, if not, then are there some that take it only as a very lose possession (a demon made me do it, but it's gone now)?


texts: Did the "spirit of Samuel" come from God?

texts: Was the "spirit of Samuel" that the witch of Endor summoned (1st Samuel 28:11-19) from God or from Satan?


texts: Does God need/demand humans' faith for them to be saved? If so, why?

texts:
According to soteriologies (e.g. Arminianism) that require humans to make a decision to come to God, why is that the case?  What does God gain from faith?

Put another way, why does he require a violitional act of choosing God, rather than simply unilaterially saving humans from their fate?


texts: What is the reason for differences for Genesis 3:9 among Bible translations?

texts:
Why Genesis 3:9 have different wordings in different Bible versions? For example:

" And the LORD God called unto Adam, and said unto him, Where art thou?"
" But the LORD God called to the man and said to him, “Where are you?”


texts: Protestant denominations that reject solas?

texts: Historically, the five Solae have been a divider between Catholic and Protestant theologies. Yet, I can't help but notice that most denominations do not believe in the "alone" taken in its fullest sense. For example, The Methodist church does not believe in sola scriptura, but instead prima scriptura.  Are there other Protestant denominations which reject some or all of the solae?


texts: In the Catholic or Orthodox tradition, did Jesus appear to his mother after death?

texts: None of the Resurrection narratives seem to include Mary as a witness to the  resurrection or among the first few people who see Jesus after his death; not does she seem to be mentioned until Pentecost. Is there any subsequent Catholic or Orthodox  tradition that  Mary saw her Son after his resurrection  - or that she did not, perhaps with an explanation why?


texts:
It's well established and accepted by most Christians that God is triune, consisting of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

However, while talking with a friend earlier about Wisdom (from Proverbs), I mentioned that Wisdom could almost be considered a fourth Person. This suddenly made me wonder why there are exactly three Persons.

Is there any Biblical evidence as to why God "decided" to be a Trinity, as opposed to a Duinity or a Quardrinity? Barring that, what about a doctrine that even touches on this? Though I now call myself non-denominational, I grew up Wesleyan, so I'd prefer Protestant viewpoints, but a Catholic or Orthodox perspective is acceptable.


texts: Why is Jesus sitting at "God’s right hand" not "the Father's right hand"?

texts:
I have noted that some people do not believe in the doctrine of trinity, namely "three personas, one nature", but my question is not about whether the doctrine is true!
This question is also not about what "of the same nature, but different personas" actually means.
That question was asked by me at What does it mean that Jesus, Father, and Holy Spirit are of the same nature but different personas?
However, if you feel that answering, what it means, is required for answering this question, I am happy about clarification.
This question is also not about how to argue for the trinity, I asked this at How is the doctrine of the Trinity substantiated?
This question is about, how how those, that believe the doctrine of trinitarianism explain the following verses. Thus this is not a question of opinion.

When I do the search
https://www.openbible.info/topics/jesus_sitting_at_the_right_hand_of_the_father
I actually do not get phrases in which Jesus is sitting at the right hand of the father, but instead the right hand side of God, or the power of God and similar, e.g. Acts 7, 56.
How does this coincide with the doctrine of the trinity? According to the doctrine of the trinity I understand that Jesus and the Father are personas of God. While I cannot claim to understand what that means, I would intuitively expected that Jesus should be sitting next to the Father.
https://www.gotquestions.org/right-hand-God.html mentions that

Therefore, what we can say is that "God’s right hand" refers to the Messiah, the LORD Jesus Christ and He is of equal position, honor, power and authority with God (John 1:1-5).

Also here I would have expected to see "Father" instead of "God".
On the other hand it seems that Jesus "went" to the father

And Jesus, crying out with a loud voice, said, "Father, into your hands I commit my spirit." Having said this, He breathed His last. (Luke 23:46)

and by with the Father

For just as the Father has life in Himself, even so He gave to the Son also to have life in Himself. (John 5:26)

The question is why the texts say "God's right hand" rather than "the Father's right hand". Is "God’s right hand" a title / expression but not to be understood as a description of the relationship of God/Jesus/Father?
(This questions was inspired by https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/q/47522, but is different.)


texts: Does "gospel-preaching church" have a shared meaning?

texts: Does "gospel-preaching church" have a shared meaning among Christians? What is it supposed to mean, and what are the signs of this "gospel-preaching church"? Is the term a tautology? Or is the negation of the term a way to criticize and slight other types of Christians or denominations that one group of Christians may disapprove of or dislike? If possible, where did this phrase come from, and by whom is this phrase typically used?


texts:
I've looked at other questions on here regarding why Adam was considered the original sinner even though Eve ate the fruit first.

i.e. Why is Adam considered the original sinner?

However my question is was that action really the first sin committed by Eve?

In Genesis:3v3 Eve misrepresents what God had told the pair about eating from the tree.  She tells the serpent God told them not to even touch it.  Which isn't true.

Could this mean heresy, not rebellion was the original sin?

If we believe that the world was perfect before the fall, and the fall was the result of the pair eating the fruit how could Eve tell lies before she'd even eaten the fruit?


texts:
What do you think, based on the Scriptures, about spiritual gifts tests that try to determine what your gifts are?  To me, they seem mostly bogus.  One of my main reasons for this is a lot of the questions seem to ask questions that deal with your personality.  That is, a nonchristian could answer a large portion of the questions and the test would come up with a list of their spiritual gifts, even though they don't have the Spirit.  So, it's not possible that these are spiritual gifts.  And, even for a Christian, the results may be very similar to if they had taken the test before becoming a Christian.

And, why is it so important to "know" your spiritual gifts?  Isn't it important to know what God wants you to do and then do it, trusting in God?  That is, shouldn't we trust that if God asks us to do something that He will give us whatever we need to accomplish it?

Moses said he wasn't a good speaker and God should send someone else.  God said that He made the mouth and He would speak through Moses.  God gave Moses even more help by saying Aaron could go with him and speak, but if you read the rest of the story, it is Moses speaking.  So, that is God's Spirit moving Moses to be able to do something he was NOT inclined to do.  If Moses filled out some spiritual gifts test, wouldn't it tell him he is not gifted in that way, and then wouldn't that give him even more doubt in his head about his ability to go?

And, related to that, do we even always have the same spiritual gifts?

Any thoughts on this?  Thanks


texts:
The mainline protestant idea of Atonement is, as Luther himself put it, this:

  Jesus Christ, our God and Lord, died for our sins and was raised again
  for our justification (Romans 3:24–25). He alone is the Lamb of God
  who takes away the sins of the world (John 1:29)

Eastern Orthodox will keep speaking about theosis and about sin as  an "disease".

But what does the atonement, the death on the cross and the resurrection of Jesus Christ mean for Eastern Orthodox?
What does Eastern Orthodoxy understands about Christ being  the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world (John 1:29)?

Did Christ died for my sins? Was he raised again for my justification?


texts: What are some countries where you can be imprisoned for reading or owning a Bible?

texts:
Growing up Christian, I would always hear of far away countries where people would be imprisoned for reading the Bible. Today I wondered about that. Are there really any countries that imprison people for reading the Bible, or is it perhaps groups religious groups within these countries that will persecute Christians?

I found a similar question about countries where the Bible is banned, but it seems like there is not a single country that has a total ban, other than North Korea, which bans all religious texts, not just the Bible.


texts: Historically what percentage of the Catholic Church's liturgical function was done in Latin?

texts:
I have been doing some research and reading about the history of what a church gathering looked like, prior to the Reformation.

One thing I have not been able to find detailed information regarding which languages were employed in church services, for the majority of history up to the beginning of the Reformation.

I understand that religious services were done in Latin, but it seems less clear whether the sermons (homilies), music, prayers and so on were also  spoken in Latin or the vernacular instead.

Specifically:

What percentage of a typical church service was performed in Latin prior to the Protestant Reformation?

Note: I tagged this Catholicism because that was the primary denomination prior to the Reformation and the time period I am interested in


texts: What is joy? How is it different from happiness (or is it)?

texts:
The bible talks all about joy.

  Romans 15:13 (NIV)
  May the God of hope fill you with all joy and peace as you trust in him, so that you may overflow with hope by the power of the Holy Spirit.

And it seems that joy is something we can attain by having the Holy Spirit in our lives:

  Galations 5:22-23 (NIV)
  But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law.

However, if we look at the dictionary, joy seems to mean "happiness".

But, it sounds like we're not promised happiness:

  John 16:33 (NIV)
  I have told you these things, so that in me you may have peace. In this world you will have trouble. But take heart! I have overcome the world.

  Matthew 16:24 (NIV)
  Then Jesus said to his disciples, “Whoever wants to be my disciple must deny themselves and take up their cross and follow me.

What is being promised to us when the Bible speaks of joy?  And how is joy different from happiness?

Finally, is the word "joy" a bad translation of the original Greek there?  Or should we expect intense happiness (per the meaning of the word in English)?

If there is a difference, I'm seeking a mainline protestant viewpoint and exegesis of this text


texts: Why did the KJV translators translate יהוה on the extremely rare occasion as IEHOVAH rather than LORD?

texts:
The KJV translators almost always translated the Tetragrammaton into English as "LORD" (all capital letters).

For example, in Deut. 6:4:

But, on the rare occasion—extremely rare—they chose instead to write "IEHOVAH" instead of "LORD."

Now, this question is NOT about the pronunciation of the Tetragrammaton. The question is, why did the KJV translators seemingly break their rule of writing "LORD" for the Tetragrammaton in these instances?

For example,

in Exo. 6:3:

in Psa. 83:18:

in Isa. 12:2:

in Isa. 26:4:


texts: Who symbolizes Christ in J. R. R. Tolkien's "The Lord of the Rings"?

texts:
I have long been a fan of J. R. R. Tolkien, and have enjoyed his works from an early age.  I am aware that he was raised by a Roman Catholic priest, and remained a deeply religious man his whole life.

I'm wanting to pin down some of the major christian symbols and undertones in his works that are a byproduct of his Catholic world view. I would particularly like to know who or what symbolizes Christ in The Lord of the Rings.


texts:
Is it wrong to try to reach God with reason instead of faith?

I really believe that logical reasoning is the way to get closer to God but since I was a kid my parents and relatives keep telling me that I can only get closer to God and be saved by my faith and I'm not really a faith person, I'm more a logical person.

I'm afraid I'm taking the wrong road, my mind keeps telling me I'm right thinking with reason but my parents and friends from church keep telling me I'm not going to be saved because of that.

I've started studying Deism and I really like it, not everything, but it makes sense to me.

Is there anyone that can make me understand more about Christianity and logical reasoning?

PS: Am I going through a spiritual war or something like it? I'm really confused and a bit scared about my decisions and thoughts.

Thanks in advance for any help.


texts: Which version of the Gospels do the authors of the Philokalia refer to?

texts:
Which version of the Gospels do the authors of the Philokalia (such as Gregory Palamas) refer to? Clearly this would be some Greek version.

But I would like to know what would be the closest thing to that version, today. Both original greek versions and translation from those would be an acceptable answer. Thanks!


texts: What is the rationale for forbidding priests to marry in traditions where already-married men are allowed to become priests?

texts:
As everyone knows, married men are unable to be ordained as priests in the Latin Rite of the Roman Catholic Church, nor are priests allowed to get married for as long as they remain priests. This is not quite the case in other ancient churches. According to Wikipedia, married men are allowed to be ordained as priests in the Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, and Eastern Catholic traditions, but even in these traditions unmarried priests are not allowed to get married after ordination.

What is the rationale for allowing men to marry and then become priests, but forbidding them to become priests and then marry?


texts: Would a confession be valid if the priest and penitent can't speak the same language?

texts: Say that a person wanted to undergo the sacrament of confession, but the only priest available did not understand any language that the person spoke. Would that be a valid confession? Or do they need to be able to mutually understand each other by speaking the same language?


texts: When and why were stained glass windows first incorporated into the design of a Christian place of worship?

texts:
Many Christian churches incorporate stained glass windows into their design.

Some members have noted that the use of stained glass windows in architectural design pre-dates Christianity. That being said, I'm more concerned with their incorporation into Christian architecture, which I assume would have been done first by Orthodox Christianity or Roman Catholicism.

What denomination or branch of Christianity first incorporated stained glass windows into their places of worship?
Why were stained glass windows used (aside from the common utility of a window), and why are they still used today?
Is there a Church tradition that they must be used in the design of a church?


texts: Where were the two 'thieves' that were crucified at the same time as Jesus, laid to rest? as Jesus was in the tomb, where were their bodies put? Thank you


texts: What is the biblical evidence against the idea that God, pre-Fall, always intended Jesus' crucifixion?

texts:
The "tree of the knowledge of good and evil" which God placed in the Garden of Eden (Genesis 2:17) has long been acknowledged by Christians as a symbol of humanity's free will. Having placed this here, it seems God could have always been aware of a (perhaps) inevitable progression of sin and a consequent need for redemption. From Acts 2:23, 1 Peter 1:20, and The Hero's Journey, for example, I've concluded that God had always known that Jesus would be crucified.

New personal evidence from "The Star of Bethlehem" (2012): the constellations align with remarkable symbolism around the time of Jesus' conception, birth, and death, indicating intention of divine timing in concert with the cosmos (Psalm 19:1-4). *spoiler alert* In order for such clock-work-type timing, "That means that from the very moment that God flung the universe into existence, He had to know exactly when he would enter the human race as a man and when the Messiah would expire on the cross.".

My edited question is this: what groups believe that Christ's sacrifice (or Israel's long history, for that matter) was never part of God's original plan for humanity, and what do they claim as the biblical basis for that idea?


texts:
We are told nothing about Jesus childhood except what is recorded in the second chapter of Luke.
Luke Chapter 2 KJV

21  And when eight days were accomplished for the circumcising of the child, his name was called JESUS, which was so named of the angel before he was conceived in the womb.
22  And when the days of her purification according to the law of Moses were accomplished, they brought him to Jerusalem, to present him to the Lord;
23  (As it is written in the law of the Lord, Every male that openeth the womb shall be called holy to the Lord;)
24  And to offer a sacrifice according to that which is said in the law of the Lord, A pair of turtledoves, or two young pigeons.
39  And when they had performed all things according to the law of the Lord, they returned into Galilee, to their own city Nazareth.
40  And the child grew, and waxed strong in spirit, filled with wisdom: and the grace of God was upon him.
42  And when he was twelve years old, they went up to Jerusalem after the custom of the feast.
43  And when they had fulfilled the days, as they returned, the child Jesus tarried behind in Jerusalem; and Joseph and his mother knew not of it.
46  And it came to pass, that after three days they found him in the temple, sitting in the midst of the doctors, both hearing them, and asking them questions.
47  And all that heard him were astonished at his understanding and answers.
48  And when they saw him, they were amazed: and his mother said unto him, Son, why hast thou thus dealt with us? behold, thy father and I have sought thee sorrowing.
49  And he said unto them, How is it that ye sought me? wist ye not that I must be about my Father's business?

Since Jesus at age twelve was keenly aware that he was the son of God, it begs to question whether or not Jesus ran and played with the other children or not.


texts: Do Southern Baptist traditionalists agree with the Arminian view of prevenient grace?

texts:
Part of the "Arminian" position (as I understand it) is essentially as follows:

Fallen people are of such a morally corrupted nature that, when hearing the gospel of how they can and must be saved by the finished work of Christ through repentance and faith, they would never respond in repentance and faith unless the Holy Spirit was also working in their hearts to help persuade them. Only when the hearing of the gospel is accompanied by the gracious and powerful wooing of the Spirit ("prevenient/enabling grace") are they then faced with a choice that has the capacity to go either way - namely, the choice to yield to or to resist the gracious calling of the Spirit to accept the gospel message.

[That is, for example, how Arminians would typically understand John 6:44,65.]

My question is:

  Do Southern Baptist traditionalists agree with this viewpoint? Are there significant differences among Souther Baptist traditionalists on this matter?

From listening to Prof Leighton Flowers (a leading apologist of Southern Baptist traditionalist soteriology), I get the impression that he and other traditionalists would disagree with this viewpoint. It seems that instead, traditionalists believe that the will of fallen people is, in and of itself, of sufficient libertarian freedom to be able to respond positively to the message of the gospel (though this belief is by no means to the negation of the fact that God does help persuade people's free will in the direction towards accepting the gospel).

From this, one might assume that traditionalists are (on these particular matters) a form of semipelagian. But Prof Flowers strongly refutes this, stating firmly that traditionists reject the idea that fallen people would ever take an initiative step in seeking God.

To me, this is quite an interesting and subtle distinction that is being raised here: Why would people's will be sufficiently libertarian to be able to respond positively to the gospel message without the necessity for additional help, and yet not sufficiently libertarian to be able to initiate, prior to hearing the gospel message, a search for a means of reconciliation with God such as would be answered in the gospel? This makes me wonder whether I have misunderstood something.

[Regarding John 6:44,65, I think Prof Flowers understands these verses specifically in connection with a judgmental hardening of the Jews.]


texts: How do opponents of Decision Theology distinguish themselves from Universal Salvation?

texts:
There is a tradition, perhaps strongest in Lutheranism, that opposes what it calls "Decision Theology".  Biblical support for opposing Decision Theology would come in passages like, "No one can say Jesus is Lord except by the Holy Spirit," "faith is a gift", and the seemingly involuntary conversion of Paul.  The existence of a tradition of denying our ability to choose Christ on our own is a verifiable historical fact.  I don't wish to debate it with this question.

When discussing Decision Theology in evangelical circles, I often see them react as if the only viable alternatives involve predestination and a lack of personal responsibility.  It is clear that the Lutheran tradition of opposing Decision Theology is not mere predestinationism.  I don't wish to debate that either.

A careful reading of this tradition would not confuse it with predestination.  But the strongest practitioners of this tradition almost sound as if they were advocating Universal Salvation.  The hearer is invited to celebrate what Christ has done for them, rather than "accepting" it.

Question: how have opponents of Decision Theology distanced themselves from Universal Salvation?  (Sources: Confessions, sermons, seminary training, etc?)


texts: In Eastern Orthodoxy, how is an icon recognized as inspired?

texts:
In a discussion on imagery and icons, the Orthodox Study Bible says:

  Every image, or icon, of Christ has significant theological content.  For it proclaims anew the Incarnation of God, who "became flesh" for our salvation (Jn 1:14).  Recognized icons of our Savior, prayerfully made, provide us with inspired, trustworthy representations of Him. [page 92; bold added]

This seems to suggest that some images, fulfilling certain criteria, are "recognized" to be accurate representations of Jesus thanks to special information given directly by God to the artist.  If so, this idea of "inspiration" would address the anti-icon argument that all "images of Jesus" are false because nothing is known about his appearance.

I'd like to know two things: is my understanding of "inspired" here correct?  And how does an image become "recognized" in Eastern Orthodoxy?  More fully stated:

In Eastern Orthodoxy, are some artists understood to have received special revelation from God that allows them to create accurate images of Jesus?
In Eastern Orthodoxy, how is an icon "recognized" as inspired? Is it the action of some ecclesiastical body, and what criteria are applied in making the decision? Can new images be "recognized" today?


texts: How does the Catholic Church interpret Galatians 2:7?

texts:
From my understanding, the Catholic belief of ordained church leadership comes from the interpretation of Jesus' words to Peter:

  And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. - Matthew 16:18 ESV

And also:

  15 When they had finished breakfast, Jesus said to Simon Peter, "Simon, son of John, do you love me more than these?" He said to him, "Yes, Lord; you know that I love you." He said to him, "Feed my lambs."
  16 He said to him a second time, "Simon, son of John, do you love me?" He said to him, "Yes, Lord; you know that I love you." He said to him, "Tend my sheep."
  17 He said to him the third time, "Simon, son of John, do you love me?" Peter was grieved because he said to him the third time, "Do you love me?" and he said to him, "Lord, you know everything; you know that I love you." Jesus said to him, "Feed my sheep. - John 21:15-17 ESV

In light of that, how does the Catholic Church interpret Paul's division of gospel responsibility as summarized in Galatians 2:7, and as carried out in the other letters to the churches, as the Roman Catholic Church is a gentile church?

  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.
  7 On the contrary, when they saw that I had been entrusted with the gospel to the uncircumcised, just as Peter had been entrusted with the gospel to the circumcised
  8 (for he who worked through Peter for his apostolic ministry to the circumcised worked also through me for mine to the Gentiles),
  9 and when James and Cephas and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given to me, they gave the right hand of fellowship to Barnabas and me, that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised.
  10 Only, they asked us to remember the poor, the very thing I was eager to do. - Galatians 2:6-10 ESV


texts: According to Roman Catholicism, what is the soul and its purpose?

texts: In the Catholic Tradition does there exist a teaching on the purpose or role of the human soul in the makeup of a human being? I could also settle for a theologian's thoughts and writings on the subject as well.


texts: Do the Gnostic Gospels exist online anywhere in original Coptic?

texts: I have seem images and pdfs of the Gnostic Gospels online, but nothing in plain text (copy-pastable) Coptic. Does such a thing exist? I would like to read the original Coptic scripts in full, and make notes and snippets from the original Coptic.


texts: How has opinion on the death penalty among American Catholics shifted since 1974?

texts:
In 1974, the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB), "by a substantial majority, voted to declare its opposition to capital punishment" (source).  In 1980, it reaffirmed this stance in the Bishop's Statement on Capital Punishment, specifically calling for the abolition of the death penalty.  And in 2005, it published a longer work along the same lines, called A Culture of Life and the Penalty of Death.

Thus in the United States there has been consistent opposition to the death penalty by at least a majority of Catholic bishops for nearly 45 years.  Yet, according to Pew Research, as of the spring of 2018, a majority of American Catholics (53%) favor it.

Pew Research indicates that support for the death penalty among Americans in general has been trending down since at least 1996, so I suspect that support from Catholics has also declined.  However, I'd like to better understand the trend.  Since 1974, when the USCCB formally came out against the death penalty:

Has US Catholic support for the death penalty declined faster than among the general US population?
Has US Catholic support for the death penalty declined faster than among Protestants?

I'm particularly curious because the New York Times is quoting numerous Catholics who believe that the recent change to the Catechism will lead to more widespread rejection of capital punishment among Catholics.  This certainly seems probable, but particularly so if Catholic opinion has already been following the opinion of its bishops and transitioning toward opposition.


texts: What is the Biblical Basis for considering techniques like cold reading to be prophecy?

texts:
Some modern day charismatic teachers exercise a kind of prophecy that seems very similar to non-Christian psychic readings or secular cold reading techniques.

One example is Shawn Bolz prophesying, compared to Deren Brown explaining psychic readings.

What Biblical support do these Christians give for calling these techniques prophecy, and what Biblical support do they give for practicing them?

Closely Related To:

What is the biblical basis for modern-day prophets?
What is the Biblical Basis for "Schools of Prophecy"?


texts: What is the difference between icons and idols in churches that permit icons?

texts:
There are a number of Protestants that say the use of the images and statues in the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church is idolatry. I know that these churches call certain images "icons", but I don't really know what that means, and I personally have trouble seeing the difference.

Some answers on this closed question are helpful but I think the poor delivery of the question is causing confusion. Same here.

Catholic and Orthodox perspectives are welcome. What would be helpful is the definition of both terms and why the use of icons is not idolatry.


texts: When Pope Francis dies, is Pope Benedict automatically the 'new' leader for a short period?

texts: Benedict XVI is, after his resignation in 2014, still pope. Does this mean that if the current Pope Francis suddenly dies that he will become automatically the new pope for a period until a new pope is chosen?


texts: Does the Catholic Church accept baptisms of other denominations?

texts: Is baptism from different denominations valid in Catholic Church? To my knowledge, anyone can baptise someone to the point of death of an unbaptised child/baby and adult.


texts: Historical evidence of Slaughter of the Innocents besides St. Matthew's Gospel?

texts:
Besides Matthew 2:16,

  Herod perceiving that he was deluded by the wise men, was exceeding angry: and sending killed all the menchildren that were in Bethlehem, and in all the borders thereof, from two years old and under, according to the time which he had diligently inquired of the wise men.

What historical evidence is there of the Slaughter of the Innocents?


texts: Does the catechism teach not to kill animals for food?

texts:
The Catechism teaches that we “owe” animals “kindness.”

2457 Animals are entrusted to man's stewardship; he must show them
kindness. They may be used to serve the just satisfaction of man's
needs.

Reference.
Does this mean we shouldn't kill animals for our food? Or what does the "just satisfaction" mean in this statement?


texts: By what authority does the old Catholic Encyclopedia call itself Catholic?

texts:
This may seem like a dumb question, but I think it could be useful to people who look at links on the internet to the old Catholic Encyclopedia (which is heavily referenced on wikipedia for Christianity related entries) and I don't know the answer to it.

Last year, Pope Benedict promulgated a letter requiring institutions that call themselves Catholic to adhere to certain standards.  Certain Internet television networks critical of Bishops have been warned not to call themselves "Catholic".

Did anyone care 100 years ago whether some work, produced without direct involvement of the Catholic Bishops, would have called itself Catholic?


texts:
I’ve been exploring Panentheism (not to be confused with Pantheism) and certain elements speak to my own experience of God. I also understand that this theology is embraced by some contemporary Christian thinkers.
I just wondered if this was considered a heresy by the established church (Anglican or Roman Catholic)?
Panentheism, in simple terms and as far as I understand it , is the idea that God is within and interpenetrates the whole of creation, but is at the same time above and beyond it in space and time. In other words, God is both immanent and transcendent.
Pantheism, in contrast, is the idea that the universe IS God, and that God is the universe. There is no other than the created order.
Contemporary Christian panentheists include

Richard Rohr
Ilia Delio
John Polkinghorne
Cynthia Bourgeault
Jurgen Moltmann
Phillip Clayton


texts: Why do the Evangelists Matthew, Mark and John not give narrative account of the Ascension?

texts:
Luke is the only Evangelist who gives a narrative account of the Ascension of Christ  at 24:50-53  (NRSVCE)

"' Then he led them out as far as Bethany, and, lifting up his hands, he blessed them. While he was blessing them, he withdrew from them and was carried up into heaven.  And they worshiped him, and returned to Jerusalem with great joy; 53 and they were continually in the temple blessing God.''

The Ascension is a key element of our faith, in that it finds a place in the Creed. That said, it is intriguing to note that Matthew, Mark and John do not give a narrative account of Ascension. My question therefore is: What is the explanation offered by Catholic Church for the  absence of narrative account of the Ascension of the Lord  in the Gospels according to the  Evangelists other than Luke ?


texts: How does ordination confer priestly powers to Catholic priests?

texts: When a Catholic priest is ordained, from whom and how do they get the powers to do things that only a priest can do (for example, confect the Eucharist, hear Confessions, give the Anointing of the Sick, and, in some cases, give Confirmation)?


texts: What are the major Catholic academic journals?

texts: Here's a question for the community wiki. What are the top 10 Catholic academic journals in English? I can think of a few (The Thomist, Nova et Vetera, Catholic Biblical Quarterly), but I haven't been able to find a list anywhere. I'm looking for the top ten scholarly journals, sorted roughly by readership or some other criterion.


texts: I understand that Catholics practice First Communion for kids. What is the basis for this practice in the Catholic church? What is the proper age?


texts: According to the penal substitutionary atonement view, why was Jesus' punishment not eternal?

texts:
Given Christianity believes that the "punishment for sin is death" (Rom. 6:23, etc.) and that punishment is eternal (2 Thes. 1:9, Matt. 25:41, Rev. 20:10, etc.), how was Christ's punishment a satisfactory punishment when it wasn't eternal?

I realize that Jesus was perfect and didn't deserve death Himself, but since He was/is the Lamb of God (John 1:29,36) how is the eternal punishment of our sin is satisfied in a non-eternal way through Him?


texts: Does Catholicism teach that there is a cyclic creation of the world?

texts:
Many religions, like Hinduism teach that the world is in a cycle of creation: creation then preservation then destruction (fading, annihilation) of the world then creation of a new world, in a repeated cycles, and so on.

The mysticism of many religions adopt this view, i.e: creation of the world is eternal process, coming from no beginning and going to no end, in repeated cycles.

What is the opinion of Catholic Church regarding this matter?


texts: Please explain how the Israelites were supposed to keep the Sabbath year

texts:
Leviticus chapter 25 describes a "Sabbath year" for the land. Every seventh year the Israelites were not supposed to prune their vines nor plow or plant their fields.

  Lev 25:3-7 (NET) (Lev 25:3) Six years you may sow your field, and six
  years you may prune your vineyard and gather the produce, (Lev 25:4)
  but in the seventh year the land must have a Sabbath of complete rest
  – a Sabbath to the LORD. You must not sow your field or prune your
  vineyard. (Lev 25:5) You must not gather in the aftergrowth of your
  harvest and you must not pick the grapes of your unpruned vines; the
  land must have a year of complete rest. (Lev 25:6) You may have the
  Sabbath produce of the land to eat – you, your male servant, your
  female servant, your hired worker, the resident foreigner who stays
  with you, (Lev 25:7) your cattle, and the wild animals that are in
  your land – all its produce will be for you to eat.

Apparently the Jubilee year is every seventh Sabbath year, but has additional features. If I have misunderstood the text (I think the 49th year counts consecutively and the 50th counts inclusively so they come out the same) please let me know that too. The text does say they could eat the "Sabbath produce", I assume that was whatever grew by itself from the prior year's planting, yet it specifically excludes any grapes.

God does say, in verses 19 to 22, that He will increase the harvest of the sixth year. I wonder how practical this is, and to what extent a miraculous harvest would be needed to provide enough to sow the land and eat through the eighth year. Is there anything in the Bible or history or tradition that would explain this better?


texts: What is the significance of the 5 "faithful sayings" of Paul?

texts:
Throughout the epistles written by Paul to Timothy and Titus, he mentions 5 different "sayings" which he describes as "faithful" or "true". These 5 sayings are in:

1 Timothy 1:15-17
1 Timothy 3:1
1 Timothy 4:9-10
1 Timothy 2:11-13
Titus 3:8

What is the significance of these sayings? Why did Paul emphasize them in particular?


texts: Have the individual commands of the OT Law ever been categorized as "Moral," "Ceremonial," and "Civil?"

texts:
Are there any historic Christian documents that provide a comprehensive categorization of the commands of the OT Law / mitzvot using the three categories from the WCF?

And, if so, then as a secondary question: Why is it such a list so difficult to find??

Context:

The "threefold division of the law" into the categories of moral, civil, and ceremonial, was standardized in the Westminster Confession of Faith, chapter nineteen, and according to some scholars can be traced, in various forms, as far back as the writings of Barnabas.

This page at GotQuestions.org links the "moral" category with a "mishpatim," and the "ceremonial" category with a "hukkim or chuqqah," apparent references to Judaic teachings. The "civil / judicial" category is said to be a creation of the Westminster Divines.

Efforts to research the words "mishpatim," and "hukkim," "chuqqah," online have quickly led to lots of Hebrew text that I don't understand on Jewish sites, and I'm not sure if the GotQuestions page is correct in connecting the Christian and Jewish categories in the first place.

I have found the C.SE questions (1) and (2) to be helpful, but this question doesn't seem to have been directly addressed here (or elsewhere, for all I can tell) in the past. Thanks.


texts: Transition from a natural to a sacramental marriage

texts:
Please note: This question is not based on a real world case. I am not looking for pastoral advice but for a clearer understanding of the catholic position on marriage.

As far as I understand the catholic church's teaching there are two "kinds" of marriage: The sacramental marriage according to divine law which can be found among a christian couple and the non-sacramental marriage according to natural law which can for example be found among a non-christian couple.

Now let's imagine a non-christian couple marries (here in Germany you would go to some registry office for what we call a civil marriage): In the eyes of the church these two are now married in a non-sacramental way according to natural law.

Let's further imagine these spouses convert to christianity and are getting baptized. At what point in that process (if at all) does their marriage become sacramental?

I would imagine the following scenarios:

The easy one: They are getting baptized in the catholic church. The natural proceding now would be a standard catholic wedding to administer the sacrament. [Here in Germany that is in fact not unusual as we catholics have to first get a civil marriage and later, probably at the same or following day, marry sacramentally in the church.]
The more complicated one: They are getting baptized in some other (e.g. protestant) church. The RCC holds marriages between protestant christians as sacramental even if not administered in church. But as most protestant churches don't see matrimony as a sacrament they probably won't marry in church as they would have done in the first scenario. So when (if at all) does their marriage become sacramental in the eyes of the RCC?

Please note that I'm interested in two things: Is my general understanding of sacramental and non-sacramental marriages as laid down here correct according to RCC teaching? And if so how will the marriage of the mentioned couple become sacramental (according to RCC teaching) during their conversion to christianity?

I would especially like to have answers citing canon law or the catechism (whichever is applicable).

Clarification

I am indeed interested in what the RCC teaches about the sacramentality of the marriage of a non-baptized civil-married couple becoming (1) catholic or (2) protestant christians. Indeed for scenario (2) I am interested in the RCC teaching about within-protestant affairs. That one is sparked by my understanding that the RCC considers the typical protestant marriage as sacramental although most protestants do not.


texts: What was the origin of the phrase "Abraham's Bosom" as used by Jesus?

texts:
We read at Luke  16:22-23 (KJV)
" And it came to pass, that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels into Abraham's bosom: the rich man also died, and was buried; And in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom. "
Though  Jesus gives a literal picture of Lazarus sitting in the lap of Abraham ( and many drawings of the story of Lazarus picture him do so ),  some suggest that Abraham's Bosom was  a place where the dead would await their judgement, and that the phrase  was taken by Jesus from Jewish literature. My question therefore is: According to Catholic teachings, what was the origin of the phrase   "Abraham's Bosom" as used by Jesus in the Story of Lazarus and the Rich Man ?


texts: Why do Christians thank God for specific things?

texts:
Ideally this question is addressed to non-Calvinists...to those who believe in free will and that much of what is wrong with the world (e.g. genetically unhealthy infants) is due to the existence of sin and evil.

Why do Christians thank God for having a health baby? For scoring a touchdown? For anything good in life?

On the one hand we have nothing without God. But why be so specific, since it seems that he doesn't control EVERYTHING because of free will and unless you take the Calvinist route, there is a great deal of fuzziness about how much control God wants to have over such things.

I am looking less for an abstract answer than for a simple answer a child could understand. Though BOTH would be nice. Thanks!


texts: Was the Trinity severed during the crucifixion?

texts:
When speaking about the crucifixion, I have heard from many Protestant's (mostly evangelical non-denominational Christians) state that the Trinity was severed or broken when Jesus was on the cross.
I don't understand the biblical basis of this or how it is possible. Was it miraculously restored when after the resurrection? According to Catholicism, what is the view on this? If they do agree that it was severed, what is the biblical verses that explain this?


texts: How verses from OT are selected for Jesus

texts:
There is a question similar to this but it is about Hebrews 1. When we read about crucifixion, there it is written that they did not break his legs and reference to Psalms 34:20

  he protects all his bones,
      not one of them will be broken.

If we read the Psalms 34, David is saying about the goodness of God. How come this verse is associated with Jesus? There are more verses like this which are associated with Christ but they fit in the context from where they are taken from.


texts:
More specifically: What authorities claim that the Book of Revelation was written by the Apostle John? What authorities claim otherwise?
This C.SE answer apparently references Pliny and Tacitus in favor of a single author, and a comment to this answer calls on "Justin Martyr confirmed by Melito of Sardis and Irenaeus of Lyons" in support of the same.
This answer quotes a passage from Eusebius that seems to call the Book of Revelation's authorship into question. And church historian Justo Gonzalez, in his widely regarded work The Story of Christianity,* offers the following:

The task of reconstructing John's later career is complicated by the frequency with which the name of John appears in early records. There is an ancient tradition that claims that John was killed in a pot of boiling oil. But the book of Revelation places John, at about the same time, in exile on the island of Patmos. Another very trustworthy tradition speaks of John as a teacher at Ephesus, where he died around the year 100. All this indicates that there were at least two people with the same name, and that later tradition confused them. A second-century Christian writer -- Papias of Hierapolis -- affirms that there were indeed two persons by the name of John in the early church: one the apostle, and another an elder at Ephesus, who received the visions on Patmos. It is clear, from the enormous difference in their use of the Greek language, that the John of Revelation did not write the Fourth Gospel -- commonly known as the Gospel of John. In any case, there was indeed toward the end of the first century, in the city of Ephesus, a Christian teacher named John, whose authority was great in all of the churches of Asia Minor.

So, were the Gospel According to John and the Book of Revelation written by the same author, or not? And the all-important follow-up question: "Says who??"
A note on scoping:
The concept of "authorities" as used in this question is, of course, open to interpretation. I'm primarily interested in what has been said by the Church Fathers and the principle figures of the Reformation. If the theory of multiple authors is more modern, then what modern writers have advocated the idea?
Edit: Here is a blog entry at Canon Fodder from RTS President and Professor of NT Michael J. Kruger that is quite germane to this question. An excerpt:

Lately, I have been doing a good bit of research on Revelation’s canonical history in preparation for writing an academic piece on the subject.  Here are a few highlights about Revelation’s journey:
Revelation’s early reception was Outstanding: Perhaps as much as any other NT book, we have evidence for an early, widespread, and consistent reception of Revelation.  Our evidence goes back as early as Papias (c.125) and also includes Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, the Muratorian Fragment, Hippolytus, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, and Origen.  That is an impressive list.
In addition, it is worth noting that almost every one of these church fathers accepted the book of revelation on the same grounds, namely the belief that the apostle John, the son of Zebedee was the author.

* The Story of Christianity, Justo Gonzalez. Revised edition, Volume I, Chapter 4, p. 36.


texts: What is the Biblical basis for an Old Earth?

texts:
According to a comment by another user in this question Why do OEC discount the literal interpretation of the book of Genesis?, apparently there's Biblical evidence for an Old Earth. As a Young Earth/Literal Christian I have never been introduced to this theory before. Thus my question.

I have never come across any scripture that talks about the earth being old in a literal sense. Can you tell me what the literal evidence of Old Earth Creation is in the Bible?


texts: According to Preterism why wasn't Capernaum destroyed?

texts:
Matthew predicted the untimely demise of Capernaum because they ignored Jesus' many miracles in their midst:

[Mat 11:20-24 ESV] (20) Then he began to denounce the cities where most of his mighty works had been done, because they did not repent. (21) "Woe to you, Chorazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida! For if the mighty works done in you had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes. (22) But I tell you, it will be more bearable on the day of judgment for Tyre and Sidon than for you. (23) And you, Capernaum, will you be exalted to heaven? You will be brought down to Hades. For if the mighty works done in you had been done in Sodom, it would have remained until this day. (24) But I tell you that it will be more tolerable on the day of judgment for the land of Sodom than for you."

But according to Wikipedia, despite an earthquake in 749 Capernaum stood another millenium:

Capernaum (/kəˈpɜːrniəm, -neɪəm/ kə-PUR-nee-əm, -nay-əm;[1] Hebrew: כְּפַר נַחוּם, translit. Kfar Naḥūm, lit. 'Nahum's village'; Arabic: كفر ناحوم, translit. Kafr Nāḥūm) was a fishing village established during the time of the Hasmoneans, located on the northern shore of the Sea of Galilee.[2] It had a population of about 1,500.[3] Archaeological excavations have revealed two ancient synagogues built one over the other.[citation needed] A house turned into a church by the Byzantines is said to be the home of Saint Peter.
Capernaum's 4th-century synagogue (detail with columns and benches)
The village was inhabited continuously from the 2nd century BC to the 11th century AD, when it was abandoned sometime before the Crusader conquest.[4] This includes the re-establishment of the village during the Early Islamic period soon after the 749 earthquake.[4]"

Why was Capernaum not destroyed?
NOTE:
There are two other city names in the Matthew passage. I don't know their fate.


texts: What are the main differences between Anglicanism and Catholicism?

texts: The Anglican Church came from the Roman Catholic Church about the same time as the Reformation was starting, but that doesn't answer how they are different on a practical level.  How is the Anglican Church different from the Catholic Church in practice?  What doctine(s) distinguish them as a separate denomination from Catholicism?


texts: Do Jehovah's Witnesses worship Two Gods?

texts:
It is well known that Jehovah's Witnesses exalt Jehovah as the only God.  This is (correctly) supported by texts such as Deut 4:35, Isa 44:6, 45:5, 6 that declare Jehovah as the ONLY God; or besides me there is no God, etc.  See also Deut 6:4.

Because Jehovah is God Almighty, only He is worthy of worship (Ex 20:3, 34:14, Deut 8:19, 2 Kings 17:35-38, etc).

However, JWs also say that Jesus is "a god" (John 1:1 NWT), and "my Lord and my God" (John 20:28), and "with us is God" (Matt 1:23 NWT), etc.

Further, their NWT also says that Jesus is worthy of obeisance and worship (Matt 28:17, Luke 24:52, John 9:38, Heb 1:6, Phil 2:10, etc.)

Does this mean that JWs actually worship two gods?  That is, either Jesus is God or not.  If Jesus is God and worthy of worship then they have two Gods.  If Jesus is NOT worthy of worship then he is not a god and the Bible texts saying he is are wrong.  So what is the JW position?

This question is made the more interesting by JWs' claim that Jesus is an angel on the one hand; but on the other obeisance is forbidden to angels in Rev 19:10, 22:8, 9.  Further, the distinction JWs make between obeisance and worship (which both translate the same word) is not made in the NT.


texts: How did Cain and Abel know to offer sacrifices before the Law of Moses?

texts: Genesis 4 has always bothered me. The story of God accepting Abel's sacrifice and not Cain's has led me to wonder: How did they even know to sacrifice? Was this practice started by Adam? Or did God establish more of a law than just 'Don't eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil'? If God did establish further law then what was it and when did He establish it?


texts: What are the basis and larger connotations of the term “untimely born“ as St. Paul refers to himself in 1 Corinthians?

texts:
We read in 1Cor 15:7-9, how St. Paul appraises himself with reference to Jesus' post-resurrection appearance to him:

Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles.  Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me. For I am the least of the apostles, unfit to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God.

One wonders as to why Paul compares himself to an untimely born child, in that he would prove himself to be no lesser in zeal and energy vis-a-vis the other Apostles in spreading the Good News. Is his statement based on some traditions of the Jews in relation to treating of an untimely born babe? Does the metaphor have larger connotations? My question therefore is: What according to the Catholic Church, are the basis and larger connotations of the term “untimely born” as St Paul refers to himself in 1st Corinthians?


texts: In Presbyterianism, what is the basis for a parallel between the office of deacon and Christ's priestly office?

texts:
In Presbyterianism, there are three "titles" that can be given to officers of a church:

Teaching elder (e.g., pastors)
Ruling elder
Deacon

Last weekend I heard something rather novel, at least to me1—that these three titles parallel the three offices of Christ (prophet, priest, and king):

Teaching elder – Prophet – proclaims God's word
Ruling elder – King – rules and directs the church; responsible for church discipline
Deacon – Priest – ????

The parallels are obviously not perfect even in the first two cases, since ruling elders also proclaim God's word (at least in small groups and classes, if not preaching from the pulpit), and teaching elders also participate in ruling and directing the church.  Still, I can see the connection.

However, I do not see the connection between the office of deacons and Christ's priestly office.  So that's my question:

Given a Reformed and Presbyterian polity and christology, what is the basis for making a parallel between the office of deacon and Christ's priestly office?

There's likely to be some biblical basis for this, but I'm most interested in the biblical arguments made by those who hold to Reformed, Presbyterian beliefs.  Those who do not share this framework, if they make a connection between these two offices, might do so for different reasons.

This view is held by "some Reformed textbooks," according to G. I. Williamson, so it's not just the view of the person I heard it from.  Unfortunately Williamson doesn't mention which texts argue for this.


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

texts:
I know that in court if you don't believe in God you are allowed to simply give an "Affirmation" instead of an Oath. But what I want to know is why any Christian would swear an Oath to tell the truth "So help me God"? Where did the idea that this is OK come from? I think the words of Christ were pretty clear, but as far as I know only a few denominations such as Quakers and Mennonites agree with that position (and I certainly don't see eye to eye with them on many key issues). Has there been any justification presented for doing this, or are people just doing what is expected of them from the government?  Here is a relevant passage on the subject: Matthew 5:33-37

  33 “Again, you have heard that it was said to the people long ago, ‘Do not break your oath, but keep the oaths you have made to the Lord.’ 34 But I tell you, Do not swear at all: either by heaven, for it is God’s throne; 35 or by the earth, for it is his footstool; or by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the Great King. 36 And do not swear by your head, for you cannot make even one hair white or black. 37 Simply let your ‘Yes’ be ‘Yes,’ and your ‘No,’ ‘No’; anything beyond this comes from the evil one.


texts: What did Augustine mean by "The OT is the NT concealed. The NT is the OT revealed."?

texts: I've read this quote by Augustine several times over the years. Can you give me any examples of both parts of the quote to clarify it for me?


texts: How do Protestants explain the incorruptibility of Catholic and Orthodox saints?

texts:
As far as I know, there is a vast body of evidence of incorruptibility of some saints in Catholic and Orthodox Churches. Here is a picture of the incorruptible relic of St. Aleksandr Svirskij from Wikipedia :

Such cases have often been presented as a proof of the correctness of the Catholic and Orthodox Faiths - as opposed to the numerous Protestant faiths (as far as I know, there are no cases of incorruptibility in Protestantism).

I wonder if any attempts have even been made in the main-stream Protestantism to explain this body of evidence or was it simply ignored?

If there were such attempts made, then what main points have been presented?


texts: According to the Catholic Church, when Peter briefly walked on water, was it a miracle attributed to him?

texts:
According to Catholic Church was Peter being able to at least for a few steps walk on water attributed to him as his first miracle?  Or is it understood that it was Jesus using the power given him by the Father that made Peter able to take those steps and  this was a miracle performed especially for Peter by the Lord?

The scriptures do list many healing miracles and so forth by Peter later in his ministry but is there any church opinion on his walk on water being one of his miracles?


texts: What are the relationships of the Gifts of the Holy Ghost to the beatitudes and virtues?

texts: According to Catholic theology, what are the relationships of the seven Gifts of the Holy Ghost to the beatitudes and virtues?


texts: Why did the people believe that no one would know where the Christ came from?

texts:
In John 7:25-27, Jesus is speaking to a crowd of people.  They seem pretty impressed with Him and begin to wonder if He could be the Messiah.  However, one of their objections is that they know where He came from.  They believe that when the Christ comes that no one will know where He came from.

  Some of the people of Jerusalem therefore said, “Is not this the man
  whom they seek to kill? 26 And here he is, speaking openly, and they
  say nothing to him! Can it be that the authorities really know that
  this is the Christ? 27 But we know where this man comes from, and when
  the Christ appears, no one will know where he comes from.”  John
  7:25-27 ESV

Where, then, did they get the idea that no one would know where the Christ came from?


texts: In what way does the author of Hebrews argue that every transgression or disobedience received a just retribution?

texts:
Therefore we must pay much closer attention to what we have heard,
  lest we drift away from it. For since the message declared by angels
  proved to be reliable, and every transgression or disobedience
  received a just retribution, how shall we escape if we neglect such a
  great salvation? It was declared at first by the Lord, and it was
  attested to us by those who heard, while God also bore witness by
  signs and wonders and various miracles and by gifts of the Holy Spirit
  distributed according to his will. (Hebrews 2:1-4 ESV)

The author appears to be arguing in the past tense, as if to say that every transgression or disobedience has already received a just retribution, but considering the fact that the day of judgment has not yet taken place, it doesn't seem like that is possible.

What does the author of Hebrews mean?


texts: Why are Adam and Eve considered married?

texts:
It seems fairly common for Christians to refer to Adam and Eve has being husband and wife. In particular, when (in my experience, evangelical) Christians are discussing questions of sex and marriage, using Adam and Eve as the pattern for creation, they treat the relationship between Adam and Eve as identical to that of our modern understanding of marriage.

One argument against this is that, from what I am aware, Genesis doesn't refer to them using words like "husband", "wife", or "marriage". In the UK, it's becoming increasingly common for couples to live together and start families without actually be married, and a sceptical person may attempt to attribute a similar arrangement to Adam and Eve.

What is the biblical basis for believing Adam and Eve were actually married?

I'm largely interested in answer from an Evangelical perspective, but would accept answer from any denomination in which this is a common belief


texts: Does God punish people for their ancestors' sins or not?

texts:
Exodus 20:5 (NASB) says,

You shall not worship [idols] or serve them; for I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children, on the third and the fourth generations of those who hate Me,

But Ezekiel 18:20 (NASB) says

The person who sins will die. The son will not bear the punishment for the father’s iniquity, nor will the father bear the punishment for the son’s iniquity; the righteousness of the righteous will be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked will be upon himself.

How are these two passages reconciled?


texts: When was the third heaven where God dwells created?  Was it created during the creation week?


texts:
We know that Paul was held under some brutal conditions—his feet in stocks in one case. Yet he was still able to write many letters from prison. Was this during some of his "nicer accommodations", or did the ethos of the time allow visitors and outside contact (even as they tortured prisoners)?

In contrast, in the US, when someone has done something pretty offensive (murderers to terrorists), there are controversies about and often restrictions placed on their writings (esp. the ability to publish books, but sometimes more general limitations on outside contact, etc.)


texts: Are non-Catholics allowed to go to confession?

texts:
As an Episcopalian, we technically have the rite of Confession and Reconciliation as one of the things we are supposed to do, but I've never seen it done in actual practice.

In contrast, I know that most Roman Catholics do regularly incorporate the practice, and it seems like a wonderful thing—tangibly hearing the sacramental words of absolution from a man who is understood to speaking in God's stead. As one who deals with abstract things all day long, it would be nice to hear "God with flesh" sometimes.

The question is, would a Roman Catholic priest technically be able to hear the confession of a non-Catholic?  I mean, since I'm not a Papist (I don't mean that pejoratively, I promise!), technically I'm a heretic.  As such, could a Roman Catholic priest hear my confession even if he wanted to? More importantly, can he pronounce absolution?


texts: What is the significance of Jesus seeing Nathanael under the fig tree?

texts:
In John 1:46-50, Nathanael is introduced to Jesus for the first time.

Philip found Nathanael and said to him, "We have found him about whom Moses in the law and also the prophets wrote, Jesus son of Joseph from Nazareth."
Nathanael said to him, "Can anything good come out of Nazareth?"
Philip said to him, "Come and see."
When Jesus saw Nathanael coming toward him, he said of him, "Here is truly an Israelite in whom there is no deceit!"
Nathanael asked him, "Where did you get to know me?"
Jesus answered, "I saw you under the fig tree before Philip called you."
Nathanael replied, "Rabbi, you are the Son of God! You are the King of Israel!"
Jesus answered, "Do you believe because I told you that I saw you under the fig tree? You will see greater things than these."

What is the significance of Jesus seeing Nathanael under the fig tree, that this one short statement would turn Nathanael's skepticism to such reverence?


texts: Why is the name Jehovah not used more in the Book of Mormon?

texts: In Jewish history around 150 years before Christ came Jews began taking the name Jehovah out of the Bible. In the book of Mormon, the record of the bible is on brass plates claimed from Laban 600 BC. Why is it that in the 600 BC version the name Jehovah only appears once when quoting the Bible, when in the old testament manuscripts it appears over 7,000 times? My question is relating mainly to when books of the old testament are quoted in the Book of Mormon. Mostly in 2 Nephi.


texts: What is the argument and Biblical basis that it is possible to know God from nature?

texts: What is the Biblical basis for the argument that it is possible for someone to learn limited (non-salvific) information about God without learning about him from the Bible or another believer, such as from nature?


texts:
In Genesis 4:14-15 (NRSV) it says:

  14 I shall be a fugitive and a wanderer on the earth, and anyone who meets me may kill me.’ 15 Then the Lord said to him, ‘Not so! Whoever  kills Cain will suffer a sevenfold vengeance.’ And the Lord put a mark on Cain

Who could possibly kill Cain if Adam and Eve are the first people?

Cain was not married at that time (suggesting he was young) and was the first born there doesn't seem to be a rational explanation that someone that was born of Adam could have grown up without knowing Cain and attack him while he was wandering.


texts: According to Lutherans, do angels pray for us?

texts: I was looking at this question, and the answers don't really cover any viewpoints aside from that of the Roman Catholic Church. The second answer quotes Grudem, but the answerer's claim that he speaks for all Protestants isn't exactly accurate. So, according to Luther and Lutherans, do angels in heaven pray for humans on earth?


texts: Why would the baptismal state of a spouse be relevant to whether someone can be confirmed in the Catholic Church?

texts: I am currently going through the RCIA process and am 4 weeks away from  being confirmed. I was just told by the priest that because my husband and I were married previously (neither in a Catholic Church) that I now need copies of our marriage certificates and a copy of my husbands baptismal certificate. There is no record of my husband being baptised and he is not a practicing catholic. What bearing does this have on me becoming confirmed?


texts: Are Catholics required to accept every article of Aquinas's «Summa Theologica»?

texts: Are all the articles of St. Thomas Aquinas's Summa Theologica to be accepted as the truth by every Catholic? Are there any criticisms of the Summa Theologica within the Catholic Church?


texts: Has there ever been an exorcism conducted by the Mormon Church?

texts: Has there ever been a recorded exorcism conducted under the authority of the Mormon Church?


texts: How did Luther have access to the Masoretic Text?

texts: I understand that Luther and others translated the Old Testament into German from the Hebrew Text. How was the Hebrew text accessible/available to them in the 16th century?


texts: Justification for Marriage without State

texts:
This is the opposite of https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/34496/justification-for-involvement-of-state-in-marriage

On what biblical basis can one argue that: "marriage is a covenant before God between a man and a woman -- and has nothing to do with the state" ?


texts: Jesus is said to have been born a Jew, and the same goes for his followers. So then who was the first christian?


texts:
I was reading about St. Nicholas who helped in part inspire our modern stories of Santa Claus and read the following:

One weak tradition has him actually attending the Council of Nicea in A.D. 325, when Arian doctrine was rejected. The story goes that he got into a heated debate with Arius himself about whether there was a time when the Word did not exist. Nicholas strongly disagreed.
The debate ended suddenly when Nicholas punched out Arius then and there on the floor of the council!
Source

There's no source listed for the "weak tradition" and it certainly makes a very interesting story especially if true. Typically the saint is the victim. Where did the story originate and how old is it? What is the likelihood that it's actually true? As a side note, was mild violence such as this common in any of the councils that have been held over the centuries?


texts: What are the Main Characteristics of Mormon Prophets?

texts:
I ask this question, as a Catholic, because Mormonism is hierarchical in structure and has a lot of similarities with Catholicism, although seemingly they are superficial as in being surface impressions but I digress.

This question and the answers will help shed light on a lot of misunderstandings, I think. Most of us are familiar with the Catholic Pope (and these days he is quite popular) but the Mormon leader not so well known which is the Prophet.

The Specific Elements I Expect in the Answers:

On Church Management in General

If the Prophet claims the Petrine Seat(by succession or?). The Petrine Seat is the leadership position given first to St. Peter and has traditionally been passed down from generation to generation by succession. The one who holds it essentially claims to be the main representative of Christ on Earth, the visible unifier of the entire flock(St. Luke 22:31-32 and St. John 21:15-17).
If the Prophet has a College of Bishops/"Highest Teachers"  in union with the Prophet which is supposed to aid him in teaching the Church as a whole.
If the Prophet has jurisdiction as universal pastors of all churches. Meaning that he can operate in all churches as if he were the head of those individual churches, no need to appeal to the locals.
If the Prophet is immune from being dethroned from the office of Prophet unless it is his own decision to step down.(Or can't he step down at all?)
If Mormons are encouraged to listen to the Prophet above any other figure in the hierarchy in case of disagreement between the leader and others on none dogmatic issues, as well as disagreements outside of the Church on politics for example.

On Infallibility

If the Prophet can claim to speak infallibly to declare new dogma or end theological discussions infallibly under certain conditions(if so what are they?) by virtue of his office in the eyes of God.
If the Prophet in union with the College can claim to speak infallibly to declare new dogma.

Since this only deals with the Mormon side, as opposed to both the Catholic and the Mormon side in my previous question, I would like official and authoritative quotes for each element. One per element is enough, but if you do more it will be esteemed more exhaustive and that's a good thing.


texts: Is there a dogmatic or theological (yet not dogmatic) justification for kneeling before a statue/icon of the Virgin Mary?

texts:
We Catholics keel when praying in front of an icon representing God (e.g. a statue of Jesus, or a crucifix as in some confessionals), or during an Eucharistic Adoration. However, some people also kneel in front of a statue depicting the Virgin Mary (or that of some saints).

I do understand that, theologically speaking, proper veneration of Mary and saints does not represent idolatry, but kneeling seems to be, in my opinion, something reserved for God alone. As Philippians 2:10 says:

  that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow,
      in heaven and on earth and under the earth

So, beyond a justification based on mere cultural practices or habits, is there a dogmatic teaching of the Magisterium, or a theological justification (yet not dogmatic) stating that kneeling to venerate Mary is a "valid" practice? As far as I understand, dogmatic teachings only pertain to issues of faith and morals, meaning the justification for it might not be found there.

There are two questions (here and here) which are related to the issue of veneration of saints/Mary, and of bowing to Mary. But there are not specific in details regarding kneeling (which in my view is much stronger than bowing).


texts: Do any Protestant groups teach that Paul founded the Church and not Peter?

texts: I have always been told that Peter was the head of the entire Church at the time of Christ.  However, James was apparently leader of the Church in Jerusalem, and Paul started a number of churches outside the Holy Land. Who is considered to be the first leader of the Church established by Jesus according to the various Protestant denominations?


texts: According to Orthodox trinitarianism, can the Father exist without the Son or Holy Spirit?

texts:
According to the answer at Is the Eastern Orthodox doctrine of "the Monarchy of the Father" consistent with the Athanasian creed?, the Revised Catechism says...

094 What difference is there between the Persons of the Holy Trinity?
God the Father is neither begotten nor proceeds from any other Person, he is the cause, source and principle. This is called the Monarchy of the Father.
etc.

Does this this mean the father does not require the son or holy spirit to exist, but the son and holy spirit are dependent on the father for their existence?