texts: I've been researching about the apostles and found historical documents that show there were more than 12 but 12 + 7, including women. This information was included in non biblical historical documents. In reading the bible, the number twelve is highly important to jewish readers as it represents the twelve tribes of Israel. My question is have the gospel writers focused on the number twelve to keep in line with the hebrew books? Or could there have been more than twelve? It seems logical to not limit his number to twelve, in order to spread the word as far as possible.


texts: What are some biblical basis for judging between a true and false prophet?

texts: How do you discern between a false prophet and a true prophet? In the Bible it says to beware of false prophets but does not say on how and what to look for either way? Is there any kind of test for this?


texts: How literally is Romans 10:14 supposed to be taken?

texts:
I recently learned that St. Augustine held an extremely literal view of a particular verse in Romans...

  Romans 10:14  (NLT)

   14 But how can they call on him to save them unless they believe in him? And how can they believe in him if they have never heard about him? And how can they hear about him unless someone tells them?

Apparently, Augustine taught that deaf people (without today's cochlear implants) wouldn't be able to be saved merely because they wouldn't be able to hear people telling them about the Gospel.  This raises the following question:

How literally should this verse be interpreted?


texts: "You must use the psalms of the day at Sext" - why?

texts:
I've recently taken to praying the Liturgy of the Hours using the Universalis program. This is fabulous in all kinds of ways. Today, however, I found something that I didn't understand.

Normally at the daytime offices (Terce, Sext, None) you can choose whether to say the psalms of the day or the complementary psalms (which are always the same). Today, however, there is an instruction at the psalms for Terce and None:

  SPECIAL FOR TODAY: If you are celebrating Sext today, you must use the psalms of the day at Sext, and use the complementary psalms now.

There is a similar instruction on Wednesday, but this time the psalms of the day are to be used at None  instead.

Why are there these specific instructions about which sets of psalms to use on these certain occasions?


texts: Is there an authoritative resource that spells out the differences and similarities of most major denominations?

texts:
Background

Out of pure curiosity, I wanted to know if, somewhere, there is an authoritative chart of core beliefs/tenets held in common, and opposing beliefs, of the largest (by professed believer count) Christian denominations. I am not sure if this is the best forum to ask this in.  If so let me know and preferably point me to a better forum.  However, this was the first forum that came to mind for me. My intention is that of fact finding and research.

Question

Is there a resource that accurately and succinctly describes the differences and similarities between the majority of Christian denominations?  Note: Unless it is significant, I am not asking about the granularity of different rites


texts: How long are extraordinary ministers allowed to possess the Eucharist?

texts:
I was reading the answers to this question on Skeptics.SE and relating it back to my own life here on Earth. I see some extraordinary ministers taking the Eucharist to the homebound and they're usually in a rush to get there.

So, what is the maximum amount of time they're allowed to posses the Eucharist and what do they do if they find they cannot deliver the Eucharist?


texts: Is there a significance of the "Christian name"?

texts: The Unitarian Universalist church is living proof that there is some sort of naming component in the child dedication/baptism ceremony in traditional Christian churches. How is the Christian name assigned? By the priest or the child's family? What is the difference between the "Christian name" and the "baptismal name" and the "confirmation name"? And what is the significance of each name?


texts: What is the oldest hymn (with music) that is still sung in churches today?

texts:
Using any of the standard hymnals, what is the oldest hymn that people are still singing?

For example:

The Baptist Hymnal 1975 / 1991 / 2008,
The Faith We Sing (Methodist, right?),
The (Episcopal) Hymnal 1982,
Adoremus (or anything else Catholics use)
or just about any standard denominational hymnal in current usage

Alternatively, I'll take anything on Hymnary.org, since my aim is to find old hymns while excluding extremely obscure ones that only appear, for example, in a random hymnal from the 1700s.

Let me strike out one answer real quick – yes, I know the Psalms is a Jewish hymnbook.  The problem that I have with including the Psalms in the scope of this question is that we don't have the music :)

I suspect somebody can find obscure hymns that are old, but I'm looking for old hymns that are still sung widely. Things like the Doxology, the Sanctus, or other parts of the Mass would be likely candidates: as long as the song is still sung widely, I'm fine with translations of the original lyrics, but I'd prefer that the original tune/music be at least known, if not used.

Please include the date of the text and the music, if you could.

E.g., "All Creatures of Our God and King",
words by Francis of Assisi (1200s),
tune is Lasst Uns Erfreuen, 1623.


texts: What does it mean for the Spirit to only speak of what he hears? (trinitarian perspective)

texts:
I have much more to say to you, more than you can now bear. But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all the truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come. (John 16:12-13, NIV)

Am I correct that the Spirit of Truth is referring to the Holy Spirit?

If so, what does it mean for the Spirit to speak only of what he hears?

Trinitarians believe that the Holy Spirit is God, and God does whatever he wills to do. So how do they interpret these verses?


texts: Was the 1914 prophecy (derived from the book of Daniel) ever mentioned in any newspapers before World War I?

texts:
This question is about the time period of 2520 years derived from the book of Daniel and the calculations that that period ended in 1914.

There is this other question that states that this calculation was used in the March 1880 Watch Tower magazine to identify the year 1914 as the time for the close of “the appointed times of the nations”.

Also the answer to that question brings out some other people who had come to similar conclusions even earlier than 1880. So it looks like 1914 was identified, at least in some circles, as a somehow special year decades before it arrived.

What I wanted to know is whether any evidence exists outside of Jehovah's Witnesses literature, such as articles in public newspapers from late 1800's or early 1900's, that talk about this prophecy regarding the year 1914?


texts:
Why isn't a Catholic supposed to marry outside of their faith, and what are the consequences if you do? Additionally, would there be some inside of Catholicism who don't think this is an issue?

I am looking for a quote maybe, or somewhere that says this in a catechism.

I would also appreciate evidence against this belief.


texts: When Jesus gave Peter his name (rock) what is the significance that he then said upon a ‘different’ kind of rock he would build his church?

texts:
When Peter made his famous confession, Jesus responded by saying:

  And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. (NIV Mathew 16:18)

Looking up the original Greek I see that Jesus is referring to two types of rocks and one is related to the other, but they are not the same.

Peter = Πέτρος, Pétros (a masculine noun) – properly, a stone (pebble), such as a small rock found along a pathway.

Rock = pétra (a feminine noun) – "a mass of connected rock”

The question is, ‘What is the point of bringing in two types of rocks in response to Peter’s confession?’


texts: What is the significance of the three different gifts (gold, frankincense and myrrh) given to Jesus by the Magi after his birth?

texts:
In Matthew 2:11, we read that the Magi or wise men brought gifts of gold, frankincense and myrrh.  Were these common gifts to be given at that time or did each of them hold significant meaning, perhaps unknown to the wise men themselves but part of God's sovereign plan?

  And going into the house they saw the child with Mary his mother, and
  they fell down and worshiped him. Then, opening their treasures, they
  offered him gifts, gold and frankincense and myrrh.  (Matthew 2:11, ESV)


texts: What is the relation between the Logos of Greek Philosophy and the Logos in Christianity?

texts:
The first known mention of the "logos" was by Greek philosopher Heraclitus who lived around 535 - 475 BC. The idea was subsequently developed further by other philosophers such as Aristotle.

The Author of John's Gospel picks up on this "logos" idea and claims that the logos "was in the beginning with God", that the logos "was God", and that the logos "became flesh and dwelt among us".

I've always suspected that a lot of information is lost when translating Johns Gospel to English where they translate "Logos" as "Word". "Word" is such a mundane word compared to "Logos" which is rich in meaning and comes loaded with 500 years of philosophical baggage.

This leads me to wonder, what is the relationship between the "logos" of Greek philosophy and the "logos" as used in Johns Gospel? Why did the author of Johns Gospel use that particular word? Was it their intention to import all of the Greek philosophical baggage that was associated with the term into Christianity? Or were they attempting to completely redefine the word?

Most (English speaking) Christians I've spoken to don't seem aware or concerned by the fact that this Greek word "logos" has much more significance than the English word "Word". Some Christians I've spoken to reckon that all that Greek philosophy is irrelevant and that we should only focus on the "Christian" meaning of the word, which is simply "Word", nothing more or less than that. Personally I dispute that this is the "Christian" meaning, and I reckon that there are a lot of deep connections to be had between Christianity and Greek Philosophy if we ponder "logos" within it's original cultural context and meaning.

Summary question: What is the connection between the "Logos" of Greek philosophy and the "Logos" of John's Gospel? Are they meant to be the same thing? Are they meant to be entirely different? Are they supposed to be similar but not identical?


texts: According to Calvinists, what does "looking back" refer to in Luke 9:62?

texts:
Luke 9:62 (DRB) Jesus said to him: No man putting his hand to the plough, and looking back, is fit for the kingdom of God.

Question

According to Calvinists, what does "looking back" refer to?


texts: Does Calvary Chapel assume everything is wrong in this world?

texts:
(I ask this question because my only exposure to Jesus has been through Calvary Chapels for many years.)

If you attend Calvary Chapel (or ever listened to the radio station K-WVE broadcasted nationally or I guess world-wide now) there seems to be an undertone of something always having to be wrong in this life. People call in with testimonials about being drug addicts, ill, etc and it was Jesus that saved them (which is great!).

But it seems this is where this non-denomination starts to max out.

At the church I go to, I sincerely wonder if the pastor is happy at all in this life and he seems only focused on the next...

Is this the basis of catch as many people as possible (for Jesus) since we all hit hard times?

Is specific to this non-denomination or is it generic to other Christian "ways" ?


texts: Does God intend to replace the fallen angels with humans?

texts:
Fr. Chad Ripperger, FSSP, says (@3:19ff. of this video) that humans were created to replace the fallen angels. Is this an official teaching of Catholic Church?

Bl. Anne Catherine Emmerich also mentions this in her writings; however, they are private revelations.

My question here is related to this question, but from a Catholic perspective.


texts: What does heaven look like for Protestant vs LDS?

texts: What does heaven look like for Protestants and the LDS church? What will be our purpose in heaven and what do both faiths believe will be the reward for their work on Earth?


texts: Why are 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, and Titus referred to as the “Pastoral Epistles”?


texts: What is the meaning of "rigid Catholic" according to the mind of Pope Francis?

texts:
A look on the definition of the word "rigid" means - unable to bend or be forced out of shape, not flexible.

From the point of view of Catholic faith or teachings or much better according to the mind of Pope Francis, what is the meaning of "rigid Catholic"?


texts:
Jesus in Matthew 12 appears to give a compelling argument against the possibility of demons casting out other demons:

22 Then they brought him a demon-possessed man who was blind and mute, and Jesus healed him, so that he could both talk and see. 23 All the people were astonished and said, “Could this be the Son of David?”
24 But when the Pharisees heard this, they said, “It is only by Beelzebul, the prince of demons, that this fellow drives out demons.”
25 Jesus knew their thoughts and said to them, “Every kingdom divided against itself will be ruined, and every city or household divided against itself will not stand. 26 If Satan drives out Satan, he is divided against himself. How then can his kingdom stand? 27 And if I drive out demons by Beelzebul, by whom do your people drive them out? So then, they will be your judges. 28 But if it is by the Spirit of God that I drive out demons, then the kingdom of God has come upon you.
[Matthew 12:22-28, NIV]

In other words, demons are cast out by the power of the Spirit of God, and in the case of Christians, in the name of Jesus. That said, according to the Wikipedia article on Exorcism, exorcisms have been practiced since antiquity in other religions. And I find this problematic, because if we think about it, non-Christians do not have the power of the Spirit nor the name of Jesus to drive out demons during an exorcism. And they can't be using the power of Satan either, as per Jesus' argumentation in Matthew 12:22-28. So there appear to be no other options left, and we are faced with a dilemma.
Question: How do Christians make sense of exorcisms in other religions? Are exorcisms in other religions compatible with a Christian worldview?

Note: I'm not sure if I should request answers from a specific denomination or Christian group for this one. I would imagine that most Christians believe that demons exist and can be cast out, and I'm not sure if there is a specific denomination with an official position regarding exorcisms in other religions. But in any case, if this question needs editing, feel free to let me know or go ahead and edit it yourself.


texts: For Biblical Unitarians, are there divine attributes that the Father has but the Son doesn't?

texts:
I've seen multiple times (biblical) unitarians claim that being divine does not imply being God, and that we can view Jesus as divine (i.e. as having divine attributes) without being "God" with a capital G. This makes me wonder: for biblical unitarians, are there divine attributes that only the Father has but Jesus doesn't?

A suggestion: for a very complete answer, I would suggest something like a comparison table with 3 columns: "Divine Attribute", "Father" and "Son". Under "Divine Attribute" I would list several divine attributes, such as "eternal", "omnipotent", "omniscient", "omnipresent", etc. And under "Father" and "Son" I would list biblical passages that give evidence of whether the Father and the Son possess/lack these divine attributes, respectively. But this is just a suggestion, so feel free to answer as you see fit.


texts: Is it Proper to State that Chalcedonianism is a Moderate Position In-between Nestorianism and Monophysitism?

texts:
I am reading the book The First Seven Ecumenical Councils by Leo Donald Davis. This is my first introduction to Trinitarian and Christological disputes within the Early Church.

It appears to me:

that Nestorians believed that Christ had two natures, two wills, and two hypostasis;
that Chalcedonians believed that Christ had two natures and two wills, but in one hypostasis;
that Monophysites believed that Christ had one (or two, dependent on sub-sect) nature, one will, and one hypostatsis.

A) Is my assessment accurate? (This isn't the crux of my question: B is.)

B) Regardless of my assessment’s veracity, is it fair to state that the Chalcedonian position is a moderate position in between the Nestorian position and the Monophysite position? Why or why not?


texts: According to Roman Catholic orthodoxy, is Jesus Christ a human person, a divine person, both, or none?

texts:
I'll give you an example of a divine person: God the Father.
I'll give you an example of a human person: the apostle Paul.

According to Roman Catholic orthodoxy (note: cite it), is Jesus Christ a human person, a divine person, both, or none?


texts: Annulment: How do Catholic courts evaluate evidence admission? (Fruit of the poisonous tree)

texts:
Example: Say I'm married and I snoop into my spouse's personal belongings and discover some kind of evidence that, if it would be admissible, would prove beyond reasonable doubt (or balance of probabilities, whatever is the church's standard) that my church marriage is void or voidable (I'll say just 'invalid' to mean 'void or voidable'), that is for a church annulment and not church divorce (so no Pauline privilege, Petrine privilege, etc, although apparently these don't count as divorces or something).
To clarify (based on answers that are now deleted): I know what annulment is. In this example, the marriage is definitely invalid. The evidence points to behaviour that points to doubt on the intention or capacity to enter into marriage, and would do so beyond reasonable doubt (or balance of probabilities). The evidence is not about subsequent behaviour and doesn't have to be a document. Finally, If relevant, let's include the assumption that the the state marriage is invalid, but please state why the assumption is  relevant.
Question 1: Would the church consider the evidence inadmissible because it violates the church's equivalent of the US fourth amendment?

Eg Fruit of the poisonous tree: So here, I'd like to know if the church is more like the US or more like India or Ireland

Question 2: In general, how would one get an ecclesiastical warrant?

Would one need to get a civil warrant as well?

Or is there no such case where one obtains an ecclesiastical warrant but not a civil warrant?

I have a feeling we have to go by civil law here unless the law is unjust such as in North Korea or something. I mean, the couple's/respondent's/petitioner's living in a certain area and so their/h expectations of privacy would depend on the state laws.

But in the case a petitioner would seek a church annulment and not a state divorce and not a state annulment (is that possible? See my other question), would the church have to consult a state attorney?

I was thinking about Antarctica or Mars as in my other question, but the point is that one's expectations of privacy depend on one's location, if not one's state laws or lack thereof. Thus, I guess, the evaluation of evidence admission is based on such expectations. So, if one was in a Russian spaceship on Mars, then your privacy may be governed by Russian laws. And if you went on vacation to some ungoverned territory say another solar system or even time travelling to another time, there would be some expectations of privacy between humans. I guess this is where natural law may come in or something.


texts: Is the enemy a creator relatively the same as God and creator of what?

texts:
To what degree and in what manner is the enemy a creator (extent/limitations) and how can we defeat him in this life - during our everyday routines?

.

Here are a few relevant things I have found so far:

  Be alert and of sober mind. Your enemy the devil prowls around like a
  roaring lion looking for someone to devour. - 1 Peter 5:8

Also appears to have made a come back in the Vatican  :

A modern pope gets old school on the Devil:

  “Pope Francis never stops talking about the Devil; it’s constant,”
  said one senior bishop in Vatican City who spoke on the condition of
  anonymity in order to speak freely. “Had Pope Benedict done this, the
  media would have clobbered him.”

Pope Francis issues dire warning to followers at Vatican Mass: Satan is real:

  “Look out because the devil is present! The devil is here...” the Pope
  said


texts: Will good, God-fearing people who don't believe in Jesus' divinity be excluded from Heaven?

texts:
Will Jews, Buddhists, and all others who truly believe in God but not that Jesus is God, and who adhered to the Ten Commandments and who have done charitable acts throughout their lives,
be excluded from getting into Heaven solely because of their non-belief in the divinity in Jesus?


texts: What is the Catholic understanding of omnipotence?

texts:
Castiel wanted to ask this question from a biblical basis:

  Can God kill himself ? I mean, if he can kill himself, he isn't
  immortal and if he can't, he have not unlimited power...

The question here is, what is the Catholic understanding of omnipotence? How do Catholics address the apparent contradiction that God cannot be omnipotent if he cannot kill himself and he cannot be immortal if he can kill himself?


texts: What is the origin of the story that James had knees as hard as a camel's, because of his praying?

texts:
I'm reading John Pollock's "The Apostle - A Life Of Paul" and, at page 85 of the 1969 print, he states that

  James was a man of such devotion that long praying had made his knees as hard as camel's, tradition says [...]

He doesn't apply a note index for that. Anyone knows any source of that tradition?


texts: According to Catholicism, what is an imprimatur?

texts: What is the scope of an imprimatur? What does a work having an imprimatur mean for that work? What does it mean for the body of doctrine itself?


texts: According to the Catholicism, is a conscious denial of the gospel of Christ a mortal sin?

texts:
For example, say there is a 28 year old Muslim woman living in Afghanistan. Her whole life, her family, friends, and community have told her to "stay away from those pagan Christians because they believe in three gods". So when she meets Christians that try to explain the gospel to her, she conciously denies it.

One day, on her way to volunteer for an orphanage, a man viciously beats her to death.

Is this woman's concious denial of the gospel a mortal sin that causes God to subject her to having her flesh burned forever and ever in eternal hellfire?


texts: In Catholicism, what is the proper order of the sacraments of initiation and what are the summary arguments in support of this order?

texts:
In my parish in the diocese of Honolulu, we are in discussions regarding transitioning the catechetical process so that in a few years, the sacraments of initiation [Baptism, Confirmation, and then First Holy Communion] will be administered in their [that] proper order. My understanding is that some other dioceses are doing that as well.

Before it was Baptism, First Holy Communion [with First Confession], and then Confirmation.

The question is what should be the proper order of the sacraments of initiation with support from scripture and early Church practice, and how and why, if that was the proper order, was there a reordering from the proper order?

In this proper order, when is First Reconciliation/Penance/Confession?


texts: Did John Calvin teach that God creates certain souls only to be destroyed?

texts:
From what I understand, Calvin not only taught, but effectively systematized the doctrine of "predestinarianism," which holds that:

  God for His own glorification, and without any regard to original sin,
  has created some as "vessels of mercy", others as "vessels of wrath".
  Those created for hell He has also predestined for sin, and whatever faith
  and righteousness they may exhibit are at most only apparent, since all
  graces and means of salvation are efficacious only in those predestined for
  heaven.

(From the Catholic Encyclopedia article on predestinarianism.)

Is strict Calvinism so extreme that it says God created certain souls as "vessels of wrath" destined for destruction?
If so, then what criteria did Calvin say a person could use to determine whether they personally were created for salvation or destruction?


texts: Is Pope Francis holding and professing different views (even personally) from any of the traditional Catholic Church doctrine?

texts:
Is Pope Francis holding and professing different views (even on a personal level) from any of the traditional Catholic Church doctrines?
Two of the examples that are seen in the media are:

Pope Francis believes & profess that salvation is possible without faith in the God revealed in the Scriptures and faith in the Christ God sent. His public statements are said to have served in a way to give light that he has a difference in the view from that of the Traditional teaching of the Catholic church.

Pope Francis believe and profess that the sexual relationship between humans other than that allowed by the traditional teaching of the Catholic Church (between man and woman under the covenant of matrimony) can be allowed and not considered a sin.

A Reformed article named Papal Paganism’s Kiss of Death states so with citations.
Could someone clarify these issues, please?
Especially looking for answers from traditional Catholics.


texts: Does the Old Testament word Sheol have Greek or Hebrew origins?

texts:
The word "Sheol" is a fairly modern word used in modern translations of the Old Testament to represent hell, Hades or The Grave or 'The Place of the Dead'.  It's the Hebrew's conception of the underworld.  For an example look up Deuteronomy 32.22 where "Sheol" is used in modern translations starting with Young's Literal Translation in 1862, and Darby's Translation in 1890.  Since then ASV, RSV, NRSV, ESV, NASB and the Catholic NJB and many others have continued it's use.   In 1844 Brenton made his famous personal translation of Greek Septuagint, and he uses the word "Hell" (not Sheol) but perhaps that was because the transliteration of the word Sheol had not yet been popularly coined.  Before that, the King James Version and the Catholic's Douay-Rheims Version had used "hell", as had the Geneva Bible.  The Latin Vulgate uses the word "inferni" (inferno).
My question is simple:  Was "Sheol" coined by the Greek Septuagint? Is the word "Sheol" in the "Hebrew's Messoretic Texts and "Hades" in the Greek Septuagint?  Right now I'm guessing that "Sheol" was in the Greek Septuagint and the word the Greek Jews used for The Graveland below, as opposed to the non-Jews use of "Hades".


texts: What did John Wycliffe teach about the fate of infants who die?

texts:
I saw a movie of John Wycliffe's life, and it portrayed him as disagreeing that those dying in infancy go to hell. Instead, he cited David's belief of seeing again his dead infant son as proof that such infants go to heaven.

Is it true that he taught this?


texts: What is the basis for the LDS belief that religious truth is confirmed by what you feel?

texts:
LDS Elder M. Russell Ballard in a Youtube video said that

  Religious truth is always confirmed by what you feel. And that's the way heavenly father answers prayers.

What does it mean that religious truth is confirmed by what you feel? Are there any proofs for this argument? If yes, what are they?


texts: Are there multiple levels to Heaven, for different levels of reward?

texts:
1 Corinthians 15:39-41 (KJV)
39 All flesh is not the same flesh: but there is one kind of flesh of men, another flesh of beasts, another of fishes, and another of birds. 40 There are also celestial bodies, and bodies terrestrial: but the glory of the celestial is one, and the glory of the terrestrial is another. 41 There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars: for one star differeth from another star in glory.

Many people talk about Heaven and Hell as singular nouns; however, it doesn't seem to make sense that everyone will receive the same reward.
Some people are more righteous than others. Some people live good, honorable lives and help others, but they don't give as much to the kingdom of God as someone else might.
This verse seems to suggest that there are different levels of glory (sun, moon, stars).
Are we to understand that there are separate levels of glory? If not, what are we to understand by this passage?


texts: Who are the many nations that Abraham was called by God, 'the father' of?

texts:
Who are these nations that Abraham was father of, according to God's words?

Gen 17:5 (NIV)

  5 No longer will you be called Abram[a]; your name will be
  Abraham,[b] for I have made you a father of many nations.

  Footnotes:
  a. Abram means exalted father.
  b. Abraham probably means father of many.


texts:
What is the origin and meaning of the rosary?
It’s a repetitive customary prayer of “Hail Mary, the lord’s prayer, glory be, and oh my Jesus”.


texts: Why does the priest say the words of the consecration in a low tone in the EF when Jesus probably did not say it in a low tone?

texts:
In the Extraordinary Form of the Mass (the so-called "Tridentine Mass" or "Latin Mass") the words of the consecration are said in a low tone. In the Ordinary Form they are said in what I think is called vulgar tone.
Why does the Priest say the words of the consecration in a low tone at the Extraordinary Form when Jesus probably did not say it in a low tone?


texts: Why does the Lord's Prayer instruct us to ask God to forgive us "as we forgive others"?

texts:
When the disciples asked Jesus to teach them how to pray, He gave them this model commonly known as the Lord's Prayer.

  Pray then like this: “Our Father in heaven,
     hallowed be your name.
    Your kingdom come, your will be done,
      on earth as it is in heaven.
     Give us this day our daily bread,
      and forgive us our debts,
      as we also have forgiven our debtors.
    And lead us not into temptation,
      but deliver us from evil.  Mathew 6:9-13 ESV

In it, we are to ask God to forgive our debts "as we also have forgiven our debtors".  The parallel passage in Luke is similar, but specifically mentions forgiveness of sins:

  And he said to them, “When you pray, say:
   “Father, hallowed be your name.
   Your kingdom come.
   Give us each day our daily bread,
    and forgive us our sins,
      for we ourselves forgive everyone who is indebted to us.
   And lead us not into temptation.”  Luke 11:2-4 ESV

I was discussing this with a couple friends last night, and one of them mentioned that we do not really want God to forgive us in the same manner that we forgive others, as that would be a much weaker, incomplete forgiveness.  In fact, we would much rather pray, "Father forgive us completely--wholly unlike how I am even able to forgive others."

I understand that we are encouraged to forgive others as completely as we can, but I also know my weakness in doing this.

So, again, why are we taught to ask God only to forgive us in the manner that we forgive others?  It seems we would want a much greater level of forgiveness--the kind of forgiveness that only God can give.


texts: Was Jesus referring to 1 Kings 19 while delivering His teaching on pursuit of the Kingdom of God? (Roman Catholic perspective)

texts:
Luke 9:62 (NRSVCE) reads:

  Jesus said to him, “No one who puts a hand to the plow and looks back is fit for the kingdom of God.”

One finds a parallel in 1 Kings 19:19–21:

  So he set out from there, and found Elisha son of Shaphat, who was plowing. There were twelve yoke of oxen ahead of him, and he was with the twelfth. Elijah passed by him and threw his mantle over him.   He left the oxen, ran after Elijah, and said, “Let me kiss my father and my mother, and then I will follow you.” Then Elijah said to him, “Go back again; for what have I done to you?”   He returned from following him, took the yoke of oxen, and slaughtered them; using the equipment from the oxen, he boiled their flesh, and gave it to the people, and they ate. Then he set out and followed Elijah, and became his servant.

My question is:

Are there any official interpretations available from the perspective of the Catholic Church suggesting that Jesus was referring to the demand of Elijah in this passage, while emphasising the need for earnest pursuit of the Kingdom of Heaven?


texts: Is there any historical record of Elizabeth the First's reaction to John Knox's tract on 'the monstruous regimen'?

texts:
In his tract The First Blast of the Trumpet against the Monstruous Regimen of Women (see note below about the wording) John Knox appears to be extending Paul's proscription - regarding the place of women in the ecclesia, the church - to the rule of the English monarchy over England.

  γυναικι δε διδασκειν ουκ επιτρεπω ουδε αυθεντειν ανδρος αλλ ειναι εν ησυχια

[I Timothy 2:12. Received Text - Beza, Stephens, Elzevir and Scrivener are all identical.]

  But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.

[KJV translation]

Laying aside the question of whether, or not, it was appropriate to address the matter in quite the way in which John Knox did so, I am more interested in the reaction of Elizabeth who, although a Queen in favour of the Protestant cause at the time, apparently took offence (not personally, but) at the implications to monarchy contained in John Knox's article.

Wikipedia records that Elizabeth opposed Knox but does not go into detail, nor is there a reference or a footnote to follow on the subject.

Did Elizabeth state her own position on the subject of female monarchy (particularly regarding the examples of Esther and Deborah whose 'rule' was at least in conjunction with, if not in subordination to, male rulers) ?
Did Elizabeth hinder John Knox in his Christian ministry ?

Note on wording :

The article's title employs certain words in spellings and senses that are now archaic. "Monstruous" (from Latin mōnstruōsus) means "unnatural"; "regiment" (Late Latin regimentum or regimen) means "rule" or "government".

Thus I have, here, used 'regimen' (cf 'regime') not 'regiment' (the military application).

My understanding of the concept is '... the unnatural rule ...'.


texts: How can I know that GOD really loves me? Where in the Bible does it say that? I hear preachers always saying this but where can I go and read this and get a full understand that HE loves me and wants a relationship with me....


texts: How does the doctrine of the URC differ from its predecessors?

texts: The United Reformed Church is a denomination in Britain that was formed out of a merger of the Congregationalist and Presbyterian denominations in 1972. What doctrinal compromises had to be  made for the merger to succeed? In other words, what are/were the differences between Presbyterianism and Congregationalism, which beliefs and doctrines were carried forward into the URC and which had to be dropped?


texts: Where does Taizé Community phrase, “Stay With Me” come from in the bible?

texts:
I'm writing a Theology of the Body work, and was wondering where the song’s phrase, "Stay With Me" by Taizé Community comes from in the bible.
Is this too powerful of an image for young people, and parents when contemplating consumer relationships of the fallout of the sexual revolution (I'm thinking I would only pull this card out only around easter time other than in the paper/book):
knowing that our partner will be there when we're unable to help ourselves
Matthew 26:36-46, Taizé Community: Stay With Me


texts:
In the NT, the Greek word οὐσία means "possession, property (substance)." To simply put, it is a thing or stuff that someone owns.

  And the younger of them said to his father, ‘Father, give me the share
  of property that is coming to me.’ And he divided his property
  (ousia) between them. Luke 15:12 (ESV)

There is no NT passage that relates οὐσία to God's nature. Even writings that predated the NT did not use the term to refer to God's nature.

  He treated his parents-in-law with great respect in their old age, and
  buried them in Ecbatana of Media. He inherited both the property (ousia) of
  Raguel and that of his father Tobit. (Tobit 14:13 NRSV).

Concpetually, I do hold onto the applicability of οὐσία to refer to God's nature since nature is what innately belongs to someone.
I agree that the Greek word homoousios (same substance) faithfully preserve the meaning of Scripture in creedal form (Nicene Creed cf. John 1:1, 18 10:28-33; Hebrews 1:3).

When did the concept of οὐσία begin to refer to God's nature?

Who is the first church writer /church leader that refers to οὐσία as God's nature?
Why is οὐσία employed? What does other Greek words don't have that only οὐσία could give?


texts: Why do Anglicans have the "give away" optional in Common Worship but obligatory in Anglican Book of Common Prayer?

texts:
Why do Anglicans have the "give away" optional in Common Worship but obligatory in Anglican Book of Common Prayer, and since when did people make the "give away" optional?

It says so right here:

Common Worship:

  There is no mention of “giving away” in the text of the modern service
  but it is included in the notes which may be why your Vicar has missed
  it.

Anglican Book of Common Prayer:

  Then shall the Minister say, Who giveth this woman to be married to this man?
  Then shall they give their troth to each other in this manner. The Minister, receiving the Woman at her father's or friend's hands, shall
  cause the Man with his right hand to take the Woman by her right hand,
  and to say after him as followeth.


texts:
In a recent sermon on Ephesians 6.5-9, the possibility was raised of a slave being a priest/pastor/bishop with authority over his earthly master. I couldn't think of an example from Church history.

What examples are there in Church History (ancient or modern) of a priest or equivalent who was a slave at the time of their serving?

Also, are there relevant canons (Roman or Orthodox) about this situation?


texts: What is the Biblical basis for divine simplicity?

texts:
Wikipedia defines divine simplicity this way:

  In theology, the doctrine of divine simplicity says that God is
  without parts.

Euthyphro, God's Nature, and the Question of Divine Attributes, which discuss Divine Simplicity and the philosophies used to describe how God is "simple," provides a better definition in part 1:

  When we speak of God’s simplicity then, in the most elementary sense,
  we are speaking of his not having parts, of his non-compositeness. “We
  use the term,” Berkhof explains, “to describe the state or quality of
  being simple, the condition of being free from division into parts,
  and therefore from compositeness”

Here's part 2 and part 3.

Personally, I think divine simplicity is coherent. But I couldn't find any scriptural support for this doctrine. What is the Biblical basis?


texts: What is the origin of the tradition that Mary lived in Turkey after John took her there?

texts:
This website says that the last home of Mary, the mother of Jesus, was in Ephesus, Turkey.

Where did this idea originate?


texts: What is the Biblical basis that the second Person of the Trinity was the Only-begotten Son of the Father before His incarnation?

texts: Do we have any proof from the Bible that the second Person of the Trinity was the Only-begotten Son of the Father before His incarnation?


texts: According to Catholicism, when is the Scripture source of infallible doctrine and when is it not?

texts:
Infallible doctrines and dogmas of the Catholic Church are directly or indirectly based on Scripture. As this page states:

  The Church's Magisterium exercises the authority it holds from Christ to
  the fullest extent when it defines dogmas, that is, when it proposes truths
  contained in divine Revelation or having a necessary connection with them,
  in a form obliging the Christian people to an irrevocable adherence of
  faith.

Moreover, as this site states, these doctrines and dogmas must be explicitly taught by the Magisterium.

Now, not every verse of the Bible that "seems" to define a moral or theological truth appears to be part of an infallible doctrine. Examples abound. I just present a few examples:

the Council of Jerusalem "defined" that Christians must avoid meet of strangled animals and to eat blood of animals (in Acts 15:20). Yet, this seems not to be an infallible doctrine of the Catholic Church.
1 John 2:23 states that

  No one who denies the Son has the Father; whoever acknowledges the Son has the Father also.

which seems to suggest that non-Christians cannot "have" God [the Father]. Conversely, the Church does not deny the presence of God in non-Christians. This was stated clearly in Vatican Council II (e.g. see this page).

Meanwhile, plenty of other verses are directly used to define dogmas, e.g. about sacraments, the Church, sins, etc.

So, the relationship between moral and theological "truths" in Scripture and Dogma is such that all of dogmas emerge from Scripture, but not all of Scripture belongs to dogmas.

The question is, then, why not all "apparent" doctrines of moral and faith in Scripture become dogmas?


texts: What did the early church believe about the "rapture"?

texts:
There are a lot of differing opinions on when the rapture will take place (pre-tribulation, post-tribulation, or mid-tribulation). From my own attempts to research the topic and look at Scripture from outside my presuppositions, I have found good arguments for all sides of the issue.

What did the early church actually believe about the "rapture"?

Note: This question is (obviously) not a duplicate of the question "What view of eschatology did the early church believe?" — I wrote that question and, seeing that I needed to be more specific about the different aspects of eschatology, I wrote this question that specifically dealt with the "rapture."  The other question, by contrast, mentions nothing about the "rapture" in any of the answers.


texts:
This is a simple question. Why do Catholics venerate and pray to Our Lady?
God says not to do it.


texts: What is the Eastern Orthodox view on Protestants and Catholics

texts:
I am sure this question has been asked before but because I can't find a question similar, I am going to ask it. If there is, please link it and close the question.
I recently left the Methodist church and have been attending Mass with my dad. I was told by my friend who is an Eastern Orthodox Christian to go to his church instead because the "Latins" are wrong. I asked for the differences between the Catholic Church and the Orthdox Church and got the two main reasons being the filioque clause and the Pope. He also said that the Orthodox Christians might be the only group of people saved. This got me thinking what is the official stance of salvation of the Orthdox Church and can all Christians (Catholics, Protestants, Orthdox, etc.) be saved. He did mention that only God really knows who will be saved which is true but does the Orthodox Church even recognize Catholics and Protestants as Christians?
I know that Protestants typically view all Christian denominations (besides non trinitarian groups) to be Christian. And that the Catholic Church believes something similar but not knowing the full truth. But I know nothing about the Orthodox view.


texts: What was the significance of thirty pieces of silver Judas was offered for betraying Jesus?

texts:
At Matthew 26:14-15 we read:

  Then one of the twelve, who was called Judas Iscariot, went to the chief priests  and said, “What will you give me if I betray him to you?” They paid him thirty pieces of silver.

I would like to know if the amount of money Judas was paid  had any specific significance, or was it a  random amount offered for the life of Jesus by the High Priests?  What do the Catholic teachings say on the subject ?


texts:
My choir is singing a spiritual called Witness for my Lord which tells several stories of men who proclaimed God in some manner or other:

Methuselah who lived a long life.
Daniel who survived the lion's den in defiance of the king.
Nicodemus who visited Jesus in the dead of night and learned that he needed to be born again through public baptism.

But one of the verses stands out to me:

  You read in the Bible and you understand
  Samson was the strongest man.
  Samson went out at-a one time
  And he killed about a thousand of the Philistine.
  Delilah fooled Samson, this-a we know
  For the Holy Bible tells us so.
  She shaved off his head just as clean as your hand
  And his strength became the same as any natural man.

(There are other variations of this verse, but all assert that Samson was a witness on the basis of Delilah defeating his strength through trickery.)

How does the Samson story fit with the other examples and in what way is Samson a witness?


texts: Have any ante-Nicene writings been discovered in the past 20 years?

texts: Have any writings or fragments of ante-Nicene Church Fathers previously unknown (that is the actual words were not known, not necessarily that the name of the work was also previously unknown) to modern readers been discovered within the last 20 years or so?  If not, when was the last time such a writing was discovered?


texts: Are any fundamental Protestant beliefs historically heretical?

texts:
People tell me that heresy is a belief that goes against orthodoy, the core Christian doctrine believed by "most Christians, in most times, in most places."  Many Protestant commentators make a big deal about films, e.g. the Shack, that contain what they consider heretical beliefs.  However, aren't at least some of the main Protestant beliefs heretical?  They were declared heretical by the Council of Trent, but what I am asking is whether they are heretical in the sense of not being believed by "most Christians, in most times, in most places."

For example, from the Wikipedia list of heresies, two beliefs of the heretical group Henricians are "recognition of the Gospel freely interpreted as the sole rule of faith," and "condemnation of the Eucharist."  Both are believed by at least most Protestants I know, and the first seems close to Sola Scriptura.  Sola Fides, "faith alone," also does not seem to fit the above definition of orthodoxy.

Is this perception correct, that fundamental Protestant doctrine are not believed by "most Christians, in most times, in most places," making Protestantism heretical in this broader sense?

The top answer on this related question states Protestants reject almost all the heresies identified by pre-Reformation creeds and councils.  If true, then this would answer my question with a no. However, while protestants use the same words, they can mean something different than the traditional understanding, such as what "apostolic" means.  And as noted above, many Protestants don't believe in the real presence in the Eucharist.


texts: Why did Mary and Joseph look for an inn?

texts:
Luke 2:7 says:

7 And she brought forth her firstborn son, and wrapped him in swaddling clothes, and laid him in a manger; because there was no room for them in the inn.

This implies that they first looked for an inn (maybe a guest room). I can understand the significance of the Christ child being born into humble circumstances, but why would an expectant couple seek an inn?
And really, would an inn have given them more privacy (which the account clearly shows is something Joseph wanted for Mary)? Joseph and Mary must have known the prophecy that Jesus would be born in Bethlehem, so I doubt the birth was a surprise while they were there.
The only other instance of inn in the KJV New Testament is Luke 10:34, the parable of the good Samaritan:

34 And went to him, and bound up his wounds, pouring in oil and wine, and set him on his own beast, and brought him to an inn, and took care of him.
35 And on the morrow when he departed, he took out two pence, and gave them to the host, and said unto him, Take care of him; and whatsoever thou spendest more, when I come again, I will repay thee.

In this case, the host provided care to the person (in return for payment). If innkeepers sometimes provided care to their guests, was it common for women to give birth in inns?


texts: How do LDS know that Brigham Young and his successors are true prophets?

texts:
Many LDS have a testimony that Joseph Smith Jr was a true prophet. Let us suppose someone studies the life and teachings of Joseph Smith, and reaches the conclusion that he is a true prophet. But, to accept the present day mainstream LDS church, surely it is not just necessary to accept Joseph Smith as a true prophet, but that also Brigham Young was the correct successor of Joseph Smith (as opposed to say Joseph Smith III - as the RLDS/Community of Christ believe, or James Strang, or Sidney Rigdon, or Granville Hedrick, or Alpheus Cutler.)

Furthermore, in addition to accepting Brigham Young as Joseph Smith's rightful successor, one must also accept that all the subsequent successors of Brigham Young as President of the LDS Church are his rightful successors, rather than any of them having fallen into apostasy (as many of those who practice plural marriage claim.)

So my question then is, do you agree, that to become LDS, it is not enough to just have a testimony about the prophecy of Joseph Smith, but also about Brigham Young and successors?
How in practice do LDS members go beyond a testimony about Joseph Smith to a testimony about Brigham Young and his successors also?
How does one know that the LDS church headquartered in Salt Lake City is the true successor to the church founded by Joseph Smith Jr, as opposed to say the Community of Christ or the Church of Christ Temple Lot?


texts: Are the services in the Orthodox churches regulated by canon?

texts:
I just learned that some non-denominational churches in the USA have multiple services each Sunday. They appear to offer the same content, just having different times so they can accommodate a larger audience with differing schedules.

This surprised me a lot. I was under the impression that church law prescribes when to hold a service, up to the time at which it must be held - but maybe I am mixing this up with the prescribed prayer times in monasteries. Or maybe there is really such a prescription for Orthodox churches. I grew up in an Orthodox country, but as an atheist, so my knowledge is patchy.

Is there such a prescription? Could an Orthodox priest decide to hold the same Sunday service twice in his church, if he wanted to?


texts: Is the Gloria primarily a song of repentance, contrition and forgiveness or of praise?

texts:
In the Gloria, we sing:

  Glory to God in the highest. And on earth peace to men of good will. We praise You. We bless You. We adore you. We glorify You. We give You thanks for Your great glory. O Lord God, heavenly King, God the Father almighty. O Lord Jesus Christ, the Only-begotten Son.

This is evidently a praise chant. But then it follows:

  O Lord God, Lamb of God, Son of the Father: you Who take away the sins of the world, have mercy on us. You Who take away the sins of the world, receive our prayer. You Who sit at the right hand of the Father, have mercy on us.

This feels more connected with the Kyrie eleison or related part of the penitential act, where we ask God for forgiveness.

Then, the Gloria closes with:

  For you alone are holy. You alone are the Lord. You alone, O Jesus Christ, are most high. Together with the Holy Spirit in the glory of God the Father. Amen.

So, the Gloria still feels part of the penitential act and Kyrie eleison, sandwiched by praise to God. Is thus the Gloria more ritually (and perhaps spiritually) connected with the former, or is it supposed to be a break with the previous part of the liturgy?


texts: According to Catholics, who are "the elect"?

texts:
Calvinists believe that God unconditionally elects certain people to believe, these are His "elect"

I am trying to figure what Catholics believe. This article states "A true biblical understanding of “election” must involve man’s truly free response"
While this article says "[A Catholic] certainly is free to disagree with the Calvinist interpretation, but he also is free to agree."

Do Catholics believe the elect are those unconditional chosen by God or conditionally chosen by God? Do Catholics have to believe that election involves man's truly free response, or are Catholics free to agree or disagree?


texts: Did Joseph Smith create any secular writings?

texts: I'm interested in Joseph Smith's non-religious worldviews and I'm curious if he did any substantial writing outside of a strictly religious context (i.e. philosophy, politics, etc).


texts: Are the souls in heaven conscious of their previous earthly existence?

texts: Is there any continuity between both stages of existence? Or does resurrection mean a complete new begin on a completely different level?


texts: Were any of the early church leaders Gentile converts to Christianity?

texts:
By early, I mean the second half of the first century to the end of the second century.  I know, for example, that Paul and Barnabus were ethnic Jews.  The Apostle Paul mentions various Christians, such as Tychicus (a Greek name, meaning 'fortunate'), who came from Asia Minor (Colossians 4:7, 16; Ephesians 6:21–22; 2 Timothy 4:12; Titus 3:12).Source: Who was Tychicus?

But was he a Jew, or was he a Gentile who converted to Christianity?

Later, we have Polycarp of Smyrna (died c. A.D. 155), Linus, and Clement of Rome (died c. A.D. 99), who are attributed as being bishops within the early Christian church. We also have Ignatius of Antioch (died c. A.D. 110).  But were they Jews or were they Gentile converts to Christianity?

Is there any information on the earliest recorded Gentiles who became leaders in the Christian church?


texts: How does the Christology of the Baha'i faith differ from that of trinitarian Christianity?

texts:
In his letter dated 28 March 1941 addressed to the believers throughout the West, Shoghi Effendi emphasizes: As to the position of Christianity, let it be stated without any hesitation or equivocation that its divine origin is unconditionally acknowledged, that the Sonship and Divinity of Jesus Christ are fearlessly asserted, that the divine inspiration of the Gospel is fully recognized, that the reality of the mystery of the Immaculacy of the Virgin Mary is confessed, and the primacy of Peter, the Prince of the Apostles, is upheld and defended....  ("The Promised Day is Come", rev. ed. (Wilmette: Bahá'í Publishing Trust, 1980); p. 109)

With regard to the resurrection of Jesus, they believe that although there was no physical bodily resurrection, “His Spirit... ascended to the presence of God and continued to inspire and guide His followers and preside over the destinies of His dispensation.” - Resurrection of Christ and the Bible.

I would like to know the perspective of Christian denominations (any who subscribe to the Apostles Creed, the Nicene Creed or the Athanasian Creed) on the beliefs of the Baha’i Faith  (especially with regard to the person of Jesus Christ).


texts: Does Christianity believe in reincarnation?

texts:
Most religions of the East believe in the transmigration of the soul from a dead body to a newborn body.

For example let us say a person called Dheeraj dies, then if immediately he is born into another body then we call this process of dying and taking birth as rebirth because before dying he was born and after dying he is again born.

Does Christianity believe in transmigration?


texts: Does a literal reading of Romans 4:25 conflict with Reformed theology?

texts:
In the NASB, Romans 4:25 (emphasis mine) reads:

  He who was delivered over because of our transgressions, and was
  raised because of our justification.

However, in the ESV (emphasis mine) it reads:

  ...who was delivered up for our trespasses and raised for our
  justification.

The literal sense of the preposition διὰ in the Greek agrees with the NASB, but there are some alternate explanations that may favor the ESV reading. Textual and translation issues aside (those can be addressed over at BH.SE on this question), does the literal reading presented in the NASB present any theological difficulties in the Reformed tradition? I'm trying to determine why many Reformed-influenced translations wish to avoid this causal sense.


texts:
What does Tertullian mean by the Son being a "portion of the Father's substance"?

  "For the Father is the entire substance, but the Son is a derivation
  and portion of the whole" (Against Praxeas, Chapter 9).

Tetullian seemed to contradict the Scriptures:

  For the entire fullness of God's nature dwells bodily in Christ,

  Colossians 2:9 (HCSB)

If not, what does he mean by the Son being a derivation and portion of the whole substance?


texts: What are the most prominent christologies in all of Christendom?

texts:
There is no doubt that the most prominently accepted view of the nature of Christ is Trinitarianism.  I'm curious to know what other christologies would make the "top ten" of the most prominent christologies in all of Christendom.
What do the majority of people believe who reject the Trinity?

If someone could put together a list of the top ten, supported by estimated number of adherents and affiliations that would be superb.


texts:
How does calling someone an "idiot" make one bound for Gehenna? I'm sure there is something of translation, meaning, or ancient culture to be considered here.

  ...and whoever says, You cursed fool! [You empty-headed idiot!] shall
  be liable to and unable to escape the hell (Gehenna) of fire.

  Matthew 5:22 (Amplified Bible)

Is this a point lost in translation?
What point was Jesus making when he said this?


texts:
Jesus taught the woman of Samaria that "God is spirit".

The answer to the Penny Catechism Q17. What is God? is God is the supreme Spirit, who alone exists of himself, and is infinite in all perfections.

As the Third Person of the Blessed Trinity, the Holy Spirit is God and consubstantial with the Father and the Son.

A diagram as one below is sometimes used to explain the mystery of the Blessed Trinity.

This is where it gets confusing for me. If each of the persons is God, then from the foregoing we can say

  The Holy Spirit is the supreme Spirit.

Since the Father and the son are each also the supreme Spirit but not the Holy Spirit, what is "spirit" in the Holy Spirit and how is it different from "spirit" in the supreme Spirit?

Catholic perspective preferred but any others welcome from Christians who believe in the Blessed Trinity.


texts: What is the Biblical basis for Catholic blessings?

texts:
What is the Biblical basis for the Catholic blessings? And what are those blessings?

Being an evangelical, I do not understand from the Bible, the reason for papal, priestly, or other blessings. How would you explain it to me?


texts:
The context of my question is is directed mostly toward "non-denominational" or independent Christian groups, though feedback from the perspective of more established (e.g. Protestant) churches is welcome where applicable.

I'm aware that there are Sunday-schools by churches to teach their congregations about the scriptures, the gospel, etc. Some churches also teach classes about other churches.

Why do some Christian churches have classes about other churches? What is the Christian, not secular, reason for having them?


texts: What Christianity offers which other religions cannot?

texts:
Every religion has its own uniqueness. However, most of the religions have some common grounds to relate to other religions.
Many Christians believe that the Christian faith is not only unique as a religious system but also has some uniqueness in what it offers, which other religions do not or cannot offer. If so, can anyone explain about at least one thing that only Christianity offers, which other religions cannot?


texts: What is the Biblical basis for Universal salvation?

texts:
Universal salvation, or universal reconciliation is the belief that God will eventually reconcile Himself with every immortal soul. That is, everyone will be saved. This doctrine has a long history. It's always been a minority view, but there have been proponents since, at least, the third century.

It seems to me that this belief quite clearly contradicts the teaching of the Bible. For example, reading 2 Thess 1:7-9 (NLT):

  And God will provide rest for you who are being persecuted and also for us when the Lord Jesus appears from heaven. He will come with his mighty angels, in flaming fire, bringing judgment on those who don’t know God and on those who refuse to obey the Good News of our Lord Jesus. They will be punished with eternal destruction, forever separated from the Lord and from his glorious power.

Now, clearly it can't be this simple, since there have been a lot of people that believed in Universal salvation. Origen, for example, probably knew the scripture quite well.

What are the Biblical arguments for Universal salvation?


texts: What were the main arguments put forth at the Fifth ecumenical council against the preexistence of human souls?

texts:
As far as I know, the idea of the preexistence of human souls was condemned on the Fifth ecumenical council (the Second Council of Constantinople). The Wikipedia page on the decrees of that council says much about the condemnation of The Three chapters, but nothing about the condemnation of the preexistence of human souls.

What were the main arguments put forth at that council against the preexistence of human souls?


texts: Is there a Catholic council that established the dogma that the eschaton is in "Heaven" rather than in the Promised Land?

texts: I imagine that the details of the afterlife were disputed as have all points of doctrine. Was the matter settled into dogma at a particular Council? I'd like to find out the details of who championed which views and with what arguments.


texts: The use of the term "scripture" in the Christian Bible

texts:
Something I've been curious about for some time. There is a verse stating that "scripture" is the inerrant word of the Christian god:

  "All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness". 2 Timothy 2:16

However, it doesn't go into specifics about what "scripture" is. At the time that this scripture was written (around the first century), the modern New Testament canon had not yet been established.

How is the connection made between the use of the term "scripture" in certain passages, and the compilation of various writings currently called the Bible?


texts:
I've heard that the cope originated as a raincoat the priests would wear in outdoor processions, and it was never dropped as part of priestly vestments per the mode of the Church in general, not to drop traditional things.

However, when looking at some photos of some paintings in the (one of, if not the) oldest (discovered) Synagogue—Dura Europos—, I was shocked to find what looked like  a Cope (worn by priests, but especially part of the Papal regalia) on the Highpriest Aaron.

I was shocked because it looks identical to a papal cope, worn here for instance by Pope Benedict XVI (minus the Papal Tiara, but complete with fabulous shoes):

Clearly its being the 'same thing' as what Aaron is wearing (a distinctly liturgical piece of clothing) is incompatible with its having been a raincoat which was 'never dropped.' But it could of course have been eventually changed to represent symbolically that the Pope is a kind of 'highpriest' among the other bishops (and bishops a kind of 'highpriest' over the priests, I guess you could say—a picture St. Clement draws in the first century), but I find it unlikely that they would have known this is what vestments Aaron wore would look like, as the language of the Bible isn't exactly unambiguous, and seems like more of a summary of the fact that God commanded holy vestments to be a thing. And some kind of 'divine recapiulation'/coincidence is more or less out of the question.

And it goes back quite a long timr, it isn't something purely recent due to 'scholarly research.'

I found this painting from just over 500 years ago, for instance. If it basically hasn't changed since then, the changes must be very, very gradual, meaning we can interpolate a much earlier date, then, for its origin.

Question

Just what is the origin of the 'highpriestly-looking' cope as used by the Church in her sacred vestments, and when did it first come into use? Does any source mention its development or what is the first mention of its use, for example?


texts: Do Catholic priests have to report child abuse confessed in secret?

texts:
Is there any canon, regulation, norm or diocesan norm which requires priests to report confessions of child abuse?  Are priests obliged to follow laws to this effect?

I'm not asking in regard to child sexual abuse committed by other priests as has been reported in the news over the last decade or so, but the kind of stuff that, if someone came to a physician or a psychologist for help with, the person involved would have to report to authorities.


texts: Is there anywhere in the bible that says Job and Jobab is the same person?


texts: How can one identify the Anti-Christ; can he be a Bishop opposing the Papacy in relation to 1 John 2:19-20?

texts:
Will the Anti-Christ come from the Catholic Church?
Perhaps since the Anti-Christ was a real person, is it possible that he is like a Cardinal or Bishop infected by the spirit of Anti-Christ?
According to St. John's epistle (1 John 2:19-20);

They went out from us, but they did not really belong to us. For if
they had belonged to us, they would have remained with us, but their
going showed that none of them belonged to us.

Is St. John talking about the future Bishops or presbyters will become the Anti-Christ who belong to the Catholic Church but separated themselves in a form of schism?
Does Catholic Church have a teaching that one of the Bishops or Cardinals will be the Anti-Christ?


texts: What is the falling out between Tullian Tchividjian and The Gospel Coalition about?

texts:
Recently there has been a falling out between Tullian Tchividjian and The Gospel Coalition. Tullian Tchividjian was requested to move his blog away from The Gospel Coalition website.

Can anyone summarise what this falling out is about? From The Gospel Coalition's announcement below it appears that the issue was about sanctification, but none of the pages below link to where he wrote about it. What exactly did Tullian Tchividjian say that TGC disagreed with?

Some links:

On some recent changes at TGC (The Gospel Coalition's
announcement)
“I’ve come to set the captives free” (Tullian Tchividjian's announcement)
Reflections On My “Break-Up” With The Gospel Coalition (a follow up post by Tullian Tchividjian)


texts: Did any early church fathers, other than Augustine, condemn or write about numerology?

texts:
I came across this quote by St.Augustine:

  “The good Christian should beware of mathematicians. The danger already exists that mathematicians have made a covenant with the devil to darken the spirit and confine man in the bonds of Hell.”   - St.Augustine of Hippo

It is my understanding that mathematicians at the time were associated with astrology and numerology, hence St.Augustine's harsh words. Did any of the other early church fathers condemn or write about numerology? If so, was the numerology different from modern Christian/Jewish numerology like the Bible Code or Torah Code?


texts: Who says, "If you are going to Heaven, you will know it"?

texts:
I heard from some preachers(not prominent) that assurance of going to Heaven is a self-consciousness. You yourself will have the evident, proof or confident that you are indeed going to heaven. If you are saved and are going to Heaven, you will know it. Some kind of consciousness will occur to you that Heaven is yours. Also, if you are not sure of your entry to Heaven, it means that you are not actually saved and are not going to Heaven at all. If you are saved you will know for sure that you are and if you have doubt about your afterlife, you are not saved at all.

Is there any prominent preachers or theologians who teaches that having no confidence about our afterlife implies that we are not actually saved?


texts: Why don't Mormons sing the second verse of, "Hark! The Herald Angels Sing"?

texts:
We were singing Christmas Carols tonight and noticed that in the Mormon Hymn book, the following verse has been omitted from, "Hark! The Herald Angels Sing":

  Christ, by highest heav'n adored: Christ, the everlasting
  Lord; Late in time behold him come, Offspring of the favored
  one. Veil'd in flesh, the Godhead see; Hail, th'incarnate
  Deity: Pleased, as man, with men to dwell, Jesus, our
  Emmanuel!

Why don't Mormons sing this verse?


texts: Is the Roman Catholic understanding of forgiveness different from the Protestant understanding?

texts:
Recently I read Simon Wiesenthal's book, The Sunflower: On the Possibilities and Limits of Forgiveness, and I was challenged to flesh out my understanding of forgiveness. There were aspects which I liked of the understandings of forgiveness by Wiesenthal, other characters in the book, and respondents to the question of whether he could or should have forgiven the Nazi who appeared to be repentant of his crimes against the Jews, but I wasn't entirely satisfied with the approaches offered.

Though there were basically three sides offered to the answer (the Jewish, Roman Catholic, and Protestant traditions), the responses were all quite short and I didn't think that there was much in the way of textual support--either from the Bible or the written traditions of the Jews or the Roman Catholic church. What I'm looking for is an explanation of the Roman Catholic or Protestant (and/or Jewish too) understanding of forgiveness, with references. I'm not interested in the subjective, feelings-based approach which many of the essay responses gave (in the second half of the text).

Edit: The Jewish response is usually something like: "You have no right to forgive someone for sins they have done against someone other than yourself, even if you are part of a group whom the apparently repentant sinner has sinned against (i.e. one Jew has no right to forgive someone for sins against other Jews but only for sins against himself). I think I agree with this. The Roman Catholic response (in the book) seems to be fairly similar to the Jewish one, but the generic Protestant response in this book seems to be that people should forgive anyone and everyone regardless of repentance(seemingly more for the sake of the person doing the forgiving than for the sake of the person being forgiven). I'm not trying to pin a position on Roman Catholics or Protestants--that's just the way it seemed to me from reading the book. So I'm trying to understand whether the book gave a representative view of these positions and I'm also trying to understand for myself who can be forgiven, by whom, and under what circumstances? To add more to the question (than the book did), in Roman Catholic or Protestant teaching, is it impossible to forgive someone whom God has not forgiven? Please do indicate what tradition you are responding from.


texts: How has apostolic succession been "unbroken" in the wake of depositions, antipopes, immorality, and simony?

texts:
In studying the history of the papacy one discovers all sorts of events that are interesting when considered in the context of apostolic succession from St. Peter until today, including, but not limited to:

Instances of popes being involuntarily deposed by conquering sovereigns and replaced with one sympathetic to that conqueror.
Instances of contention over the papacy by two or even three popes simultaneously, accompanied by multiple colleges of cardinals and bishoprics.
Instances of nepotism and dynastic possession of the papacy by aristocracy and politicians.
Instances of popes engaging in orgies, conspiracies, accepting bribes, fathering children, and even committing murder.
Instances of the papal office being sold.

Is the nature of apostolic succession meant to be an unbroken succession of valid popes? How does the Catholic Church address these events and the manner of succession when making the claim (from New Advent):

  The fact is indisputable: the Bishops of Rome took over Peter's Chair and Peter's office of continuing the work of Christ. To be in continuity with the Church founded by Christ affiliation to the See of Peter is necessary, for, as a matter of history, there is no other Church linked to any other Apostle by an unbroken chain of successors.


texts: Is Levi from Luke 5:27 and Mark 2:14 referring to the apostle Matthew

texts:
Both Luke 5:27 and Mark 2:14 mention a tax collector named Levi:

  27 After this, Jesus went out and saw a tax collector by the name
  of Levi sitting at his tax booth. "Follow me," Jesus said to him,
  28 and Levi got up, left everything and followed him.

  14 As he walked along, he saw Levi son of Alphaeus sitting at the
  tax collector's booth. "Follow me," Jesus told him, and Levi got up
  and followed him.

It sounds like these could be referring to Matthew and I've seen some footnotes that offer that as a possibility (or even as likely) but are there any good reasons to believe that this is or is not referring to Matthew?


texts: How do Trinitarians interpret John 3:35?

texts:
The Father loves the Son and has given all things into his hand.

  John 3:35 (ESV)

The Father gave the Son the following:

All authority (Matthew 28:18).
Life in Himself (John 5:26).
Authority to Judge (John 5:27).
The Name Above Every Name (Philippians 2:9).

As a Trinitarian, I do believe that God by his very nature is God in name, authority and nature. Why, then, it is recorded in the Scriptures that God gave Christ the divine nature,the divine name, and the divine authority? It seems that God Almighty made Jesus a God Almighty?

If the Son is equal to the Father (John 5:18;Philippians 2:6), what ,then, does it mean for Christ to be "given" the divine nature,the divine name, and the divine authority?

Trinitarians of different denominations are encouraged to answer:

Protestantism
Roman Catholicism
Orthodoxy


texts: Where in the bible explicitly did Jesus say he is God?

texts:
It is known to all that back then there are people that worship (non)living things such as the sun/moon or a dead notable person. It is also known that most if not all, of those things/person never even claimed to be the God, however, their followers do.
Did Jesus every say explicitly that he is God? I do not accept statements that are not explicit because

It's of the words of the writer or other people.

or

It can be interpreted in a different way.

Unlike explicit statements, it can't interpreted in a different way and it doesn't require you to know the context and stuff.


texts: According to mainstream Christianity, who is God?

texts:
This question also relates to it:
  What is the Biblical basis for the doctrine of the Trinity?

Growing up I've been led to believe that God is God, and Jesus is God's son. But others have also preached that Jesus was God, in a human's body.

And nearly everywhere I go online these days, I end up seeing some website that claims that Jesus is God.

So which is it? Are God and Jesus the same being? Is Jesus God's son? There are some Christian websites that claim different things, so I am confused.

What do the majority of Christians say about this topic?


texts: Why were we created to serve if He is all-powerful?

texts:
In Revelation 1:6

  and has made us to be a kingdom and priests to serve his God and
  Father--to him be glory and power for ever and ever! Amen.

From the bible we can clearly see that Angels serve God as messengers of information, warriors, destroyers, and protectors.

Why would all-powerful God need servants if he is all-powerful unless serving God means something else. And I'd like to know what the Catholic Church has to say about it?


texts: Which specific canons of the Second Council of Constantinople do Lutherans and Calvinists reject?

texts:
The Wikipedia article on the Second Council of Constantinople (the fifth Ecumenical Council) claims that Lutherans and Calvinists accept only the first four Ecumenical Councils as being canonical.

My question is really two fold, and directed separately towards Lutherans and Calvinists.

Is the above claim true?
If so, which specific canons of the Second Council of Constantinople are rejected and why?

I realize that I may be at risk of overgeneralizing "Calvinists", since perhaps there are disparate beliefs among different Calvinist denominations.  If so, perhaps someone could answer the question(s) from their own denomination's perspective.  I don't expect the same possibility of divergence among Lutherans, but perhaps I am in error here.


texts: Did the early church believe there were TWO types of descendant from the Nephalim?

texts:
The Bible quotes from earlier Books like the Book of Adam & Eve, Book of Seth, Book of Jashur etc; Rabboni Yeshua (Our Lord) read these books too and taught them to the early church without remittance, so we can assume that these books are safe for divine council today and that they will confirm or expound what the Holy Bible informs. So I hope this will be classed as a Christian question and not sanctioned in anyway.

In an early Jewish text (I'm still trying to find it) apparently, two angels are discussing historical and future events. They refer to the giants as "Elephants" (who were wiped out in the deluge) and another "race" as "donkeys". These donkeys where other descendants of Nephalim who were normal human size but had superior intelligence. These apparently are still with us today.

Can you tell me the name of this book? Was someone in Noah's Ark a hybrid? How did giants reappear later if they were exterminated in the flood unless a high science brought them back? or does the bible just not tell us about other expeditions by other pre-flood people who too might have escaped the flood?

**I apologize if my question is not clear, I'm fuzzy minded and this is the first time I have used this site and I've just woken up. Good Morning everyone. **


texts:
Cyrus king of Persia revealed to Daniel that something bad was happening. He fasted and did the whole 9-yards for 3 weeks. My question is, what happened afterwards? He obviously was super tired and lack of energy, but Daniel saw a Vision, and I presume this was Jesus.

What really happened? Did Daniel fasted this intensely to get His attention?


texts: Why did Joseph Smith return the golden plates to the angel to be buried?

texts:
As I understand LDS teaching, an angel--perhaps Moroni--showed Joseph Smith the place where plates of gold had been hidden for many centuries.  He retrieved these tablets of gold and translated the Book of Mormon from them.  However, after he completed his translation, he was instructed to return the gold plates to the angel and bury them.

So, the tablets were created by mankind, written by mankind, read by mankind, stored by mankind, hidden by mankind, recovered and then translated for mankind.  After all this time, however, these plates of gold are buried again.

So, what reason is given as to why God would all of a sudden want this record to be buried?


texts:
When I went to World Youth Day in 2005 (wow, long time ago now) my wife and I were sick of walking and wanted to enjoy our honeymoon for a bit so we watched the Pope come into Cologne on a boat.  We were with a big group of pilgrims and most of them went but one consoled us saying said something to the effect that, the Pope's blessing extends to those who watch him live on TV.

My question is, and I don't want to delve into scrupulosity here, but how out of sync can live TV be, does taped delay count?  How about watching taped benediction or Mass on EWTN?

And, yes, by count I do mean time off purgatory.  :)


texts: Did Jesus die on the cross or on the tree?

texts:
Master Jesus was crucified on a tree, according to Apostle Peter.

  Acts 5:30
  30 The God of our fathers raised up Jesus, whom ye slew and hanged on a tree.

  Acts 10:39
  39 And we are witnesses of all things which he did both in the land of the Jews, and in Jerusalem; whom they slew and hanged on a tree:

  Acts 13:29
  29 And when they had fulfilled all that was written of him, they took him down from the tree, and laid him in a sepulchre.

  1 Peter 2:24
  24 Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree, that we, being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness: by whose stripes ye were healed.

On some accounts, He was crucified on the cross.

  Matthew 27:40
  40 And saying, Thou that destroyest the temple, and buildest it in three days, save thyself. If thou be the Son of God, come down from the cross.

  Matthew 27:42
  42 He saved others; himself he cannot save. If he be the King of Israel, let him now come down from the cross, and we will believe him.

  Mark 15:30
  30 Save thyself, and come down from the cross.

  Mark 15:32
  32 Let Christ the King of Israel descend now from the cross, that we may see and believe. And they that were crucified with him reviled him.

  Luke 23:26
  26 And as they led him away, they laid hold upon one Simon, a Cyrenian, coming out of the country, and on him they laid the cross, that he might bear it after Jesus.

  John 19:19
  19 And Pilate wrote a title, and put it on the cross. And the writing was JESUS OF NAZARETH THE KING OF THE JEWS.


texts: Have any Catholics (e.g. Eastern Rite) ever followed the Old Calendar since the late 16th century?

texts:
This question occurred to me after reading this question about the observance of Lent among Eastern Rite converts.

It is my understanding that since 1582, the Roman Catholic Church has followed the Gregorian calendar.

The calendar having been a product of the post-Schism Roman Church, Eastern Orthodox were loathe to accept it - some for 5 centuries.  Some majority Eastern Orthodox countries (e.g. Greece) were still subscribing to the Julian Calendar that had been in place during New Testament times as late as 1923.

While all Eastern Orthodox countries (as far as I know) today observe the Gregorian calendar for civil purposes, some Orthodox jurisdictions (e.g. Russia) still observe the Julian calendar for religious purposes.  Within the Eastern Orthodox Church we have the somewhat bizarre situation of virtually all (if not all) jurisdictions observing the Julian calendar with respect to the Triodion and the Pentecostarion - the periods leading up to and including Easter ("Pascha") and Pentecost, respectively - but some holding to the Gregorian calendar otherwise.

Given the affinity between Byzantine Rite Catholics and the Eastern Orthodox Church, I was wondering if there are any Byzantine Rite Catholics or other Rites that at any time during the year observer the old Julian calendar for some purpose; perhaps along the line of New Calendar Orthodox jurisdictions more or less holding to the Old Calendar during the Paschal season.


texts: What is the Catholic definition of divinity?

texts: There's a question about the LDS definition of Divinity and I'm reading from Jehovah's Witnesses and Unitarians that their definition of divinity doesn't necessarily imply the person who is divine is also God, only godly.  I don't see a definition in the Old Catholic Encyclopedia on New Advent.  I have seen old writings referring to some saints, the Blessed Virgin Mary as divine, and I understand the phrase "to share in divinity", etc... referring to life in the Beatific Vision. But in concrete theological (non-flowery) terms, are only the three Persons of the Trinity appropriate to refer to as divine, according to the Catholic Church?


texts: Who do mainline Protestants believe an "archangel" (such as Michael) to be?

texts:
Some sects including Jehovah's Witnesses believe the archangel Michael to be one in the same with Christ. The basic premise of this claim seems to stem from the unique usage of the role archangel rather than just any-ol-angel.

  Michael is the only one said to be the 'archangel', meaning 'chief angel' or 'principal angel'.

I would like to know what a mainline Protestant understanding about the role of "archangel" is. What makes them different from a mainline* angel? Do they bear any special relation to Christ? How many might there be?

Also, are there any ways in which Protestants view the type "archangel" differently than other major traditions?

* Sorry, couldn't resist.


texts: Why is death a vital piece of God's plan in LDS theology?

texts:
2 Nephi 9:6:

  For as death hath passed upon all men, to fulfil the merciful plan of the great Creator, there must needs be a power of resurrection, and the resurrection must needs come unto man by reason of the fall; and the fall came by reason of transgression; and because man became fallen they were cut off from the presence of the Lord.

I've stewed over this passage for many years. It has the basic premise that death is an integral part of the plan of salvation, but it doesn't say why.

Death is the separation of our spirit from our body; death initiates the end of this life and the beginning of the next life. But why can't there be some other mechanism of passage from mortal life to the spirit world?

We actually know that there is another way: translation, like the city of Enoch. Why aren't we all just automatically moved from earth to the spirit world?

Why is death a vital piece of God's plan? Why isn't there some other mechanism that fulfills the same role?


texts: Are there any passages in Sacred Scripture that explicitly describe apocalyptic weather patterns?

texts:
I've heard my whole life that one of the major signs to look for concerning the end of the world is that no one will be able to tell what season it is.

Most of my fundamentalist friends and family (especially my Southern Baptist Grandmother) assume that this "end-times prophecy" is biblical, and that it should be thrown right in there    with all the other "signs of the times."

I have made it all the way through the New Testament several times now and haven't noticed anything about strange seasons.

The closest thing I have noticed is in Matthew chapters 24 and 25, where Jesus is describing what will happen right before he returns.

  As Jesus was sitting on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to him
  privately. “Tell us,” they said, “when will this happen, and what will
  be the sign of your coming and of the end of the age?”

  Jesus answered: “Watch out that no one deceives you. For many will
  come in my name, claiming, ‘I am the Messiah,’ and will deceive many.
  You will hear of wars and rumors of wars, but see to it that you are
  not alarmed. Such things must happen, but the end is still to come.
  Nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom. There
  will be famines and earthquakes in various places. All these are the
  beginning of birth pains. Matt. 24:3-8

  How dreadful it will be in those days for pregnant women and nursing
  mothers! Pray that your flight will not take place in winter or on the
  Sabbath. Matt. 24:19

  “Immediately after the distress of those days

  “‘the sun will be darkened,
      and the moon will not give its light; the stars will fall from the sky,
      and the heavenly bodies will be shaken.’  “Then will appear the sign of the Son of Man in heaven. And then all the peoples of the
  earth will mourn when they see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of
  heaven, with power and great glory. Matt. 24:29-30

This question is prompted by a conversation I had the other day with some of my pastor friends. We are experiencing an unusually mild summer here in North Georgia, and during our conversation it was brought up that "in the end times you won't be able to tell what season it is."  I responded, "Ya know, I've heard that saying my whole life. Where is that in the Bible?"

No one had an answer.

Is anyone else familiar with this idea? Am I missing something? Where is this in the Bible?

If it is not, then where did this "end-times prophecy" originate?


texts: What is the basis for translating the serpent in Gen. 3 as a being of light?

texts:
I've read two books that mentioned that the serpent in Genesis 3:1 which tempted Eve could have been rendered as a "shining one" or being of light rather than a serpent. Is there really a basis for this alternate view, or is it questionable scholarship?

The Tim LaHaye Prophecy Study Bible has a note on this in the margin for Ezekiel 28:13-15, saying that the serpent signifies "a shining one."
The Companion Bible has a 2-page appendix devoted to the serpent of Genesis 3. Seems to imlpy that it was not a literal serpent that spoke, but the character of the one who spoke and of whom Eve respected.


texts: How many languages has the King James Version been translated into?

texts:
Yes, that's what I mean. Please read before downvoting.

Our sister site hosted this question, which tells us that Winston Churchill said the King James Version of the Bible had been translated into 760 languages.

Now this makes some people snigger, since they know that the Bible wasn't written in English and the KJV is an English translation of the original languages.

But was he wrong? It seems likely to me that an English-speaking missionary of a hundred years ago, going to an unreached culture and wanting to provide a Bible in their language, would be most likely to have taken the English Bible they had (probably the KJV) and translated it, rather than starting with the original Hebrew and Greek.

So my actual questions:

Was it indeed normal practice 100 years ago for English speaking Bible translators in the field to start from the English Bible? Would a typical translator in the field have had a working knowledge of Biblical Hebrew or Greek, and access to the Bible in those languages?
Would that Bible usually have been the KJV?
How many Bible translations are likely to have been made by this method? I'm aware that it isn't used now, but when did the change happen, and how many translations would have been made up to that point? I'll include partial translations to be generous to Winston.


texts: Do all Catholic seminary schools require instruction in Latin and/or Greek?

texts:
My son has shown an interest in the priesthood. He seems to have the right psychosexual and behavioral characteristics. Among other reasons, notably, he has no interest in physically intimate relationships (with either men or women, a psychological phenomenon associated with schizoid personality - not a derogatory term); and he has the strongest sense of right or wrong of most anybody I've ever known, including either of his parents. A gift of the Spirit, if you will.

However, since grammar school he has had an IEP (Individual Education Plan, a learning disability) in language acquisition. Schools at all levels have waived his foreign language requirements. He works so hard, but English is tough enough. He excels at other subjects.

All seminary schools I've looked at in the US promote, and it appears to me require, language instruction in Latin and Greek. This seems a practical impossibility for him.

I know there are priests and educators on this site. Does anyone know if such languages are required (in the US)? Would having an IEP make a difference? Are other countries different? (It seems to me granting Presbyter status through a Holy Order in a developing region would not involve such a requirement.)


texts: Can a priest administer last rites to himself?

texts: In Catholicism, is a priest allowed to administer the "last rites" to himself (assuming no one else is there to do it for him)?


texts: What is the source of the story about the melted gold in the destroyed temple in 70 AD?

texts:
In Matthew 24:2, Mark 13:2 and Luke 21:6, Jesus seems to indicate that in the coming temple destruction, "not one stone will be left upon another". And, indeed, this seems to be the case from the current ruins.
However, I have come across several commentaries that state that because the temple was burned, the gold that was on the walls, melted and ran between the stones, as well as into them.  The Roman solders then took stone from stone in a effort to retrieve the gold, thus giving literal fulfillment of Jesus' prophecy.
Having encountered this explanation several times in the course of my studies, I wanted to find the source for this story, but, as of this date, am unable to do so.  I don't find anything in Josephus relating to that gold-seeking activity.
Does anyone know of a source document or documents that can authenticate this story?


texts: What is the Biblical basis for the formal 'membership' requirements that some Baptist churches have?

texts:
When I have been looking for a church to congregate, I have found that there are different ideas about membership. Some churches require a letter of transfer. Other churches need to see my behavior for a while. I must sign and agree with the distinctives and the statutes (a set of rules or responsibilities). I've come to think that is too much of a bureaucratic process. Some people say that as a member, you can participate in the decisions of the church.

Where does the Bible support the concept of membership?  Where is it indicated that this is how things were in the first century church?

Note: A Baptist perspective is sought.


texts: What arguments from scripture are given by Baptists for the belief that one third of the angels were banished from heaven with Satan?

texts:
I remember being taught in an Independent Fundamentalist Baptist Church when I was in middle school that Satan took one third of the angels in heaven with him after being cast out of God's presence for rebellion. The only biblical reference I can locate that might be construed as support for this belief is Revelation 12:4:

  Its tail swept a third of the stars out of the sky and flung them to the earth. The dragon stood in front of the woman who was about to give birth, so that it might devour her child the moment he was born. (NIV)

I'm sure there are other scriptures that are commonly used in conjunction with this one to justify the belief, but I can't find any that seem to make sense in context, or that address the topic specifically.

After discussing this and other issues regarding angels with conservative Baptist friends of mine, I found that some of them base a significant portion of their beliefs about angels, the nephilim, and other supernatural activity and beings on the Book of Enoch, but they always emphasized that they do not view Enoch as canon and as having much less authority than the scriptures.

How do Baptists who hold this position defend it using canonical scripture? Also, are there any significant denominations or popular preachers who have maintained this belief?


texts: What is the distinction between Justification and Salvation? (Roman Catholic view)

texts:
As a practicing Christian, my only hope is for salvation through Jesus Christ.  I note that scripture addresses salvation; in the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church, the Bible is (among other things) a record of Man's salvation  history.  In Paul's letters, being justified is proclaimed to be of profound importance.

If I am to be saved, must I be justified?  I don't think that the two words mean the same thing.

What is the distinction between being saved and being justified?

Even reading well presented papers, such as this one by D.A. Carson, leaves me puzzled.


texts: What is theological root of global warming skepticism?

texts:
Ed Stetzer, a renowned evangelist and church planter with 100k followers on Twitter, made two tweets today on the IPCC report on global warming. In one he said that "... I'm sure they are all lying." In another, he referred to a poll on how prevalent such skepticism was among US protestant pastors, whom he claimed, "aint buying it."

My question is, what are the reasons for such a widespread skepticism? What are theological and/or sociological roots?


texts: What are the benefits of last rites to a mortally injured person in the Catholic belief?

texts:
If a person is a unbeliever and has been injured in a way that there is no hope of survival and has never accepted Jesus Christ as Savior, does the Catholic Church believe that last rites performed with this person will bring salvation to this person.  I understand that anyone can be saved upon their deathbed but suppose this person was unconscious and never regained consciousness, would last rites still be performed and belief that this would save the person's soul?

Of course this questions is geared towards the Catholic community and Church.


texts: Oldest monasteries where natural science is still practiced?

texts:
Science and religion are actually not mutually exclusive at all.
In history, we know many examples of clerical scientists.

What is the oldest still existing convent (monastery) where monks still pursue research in the natural sciences?


texts: What is the state of Christianity among the Huaorani people today?

texts:
In January of 1956, several American missionaries (Jim Elliot and Nate Saint being the best known) attempted to reach a remote tribe in Ecuador in an endeavor that has become known as Operation Auca.  The people group, called Huaorani, Waodani, or (pejoratively) Auca, were known for being extremely violent, and when the missionaries met several of them on the beach, the missionaries were killed.

Their deaths sparked significant interest in missions, and also ultimately led to many Huaorani people being converted through the efforts of Elisabeth Elliot (Jim's wife) and Rachel Saint (Nate's sister), among others.

Now, 60 years later, what is the state of Christianity among the Huaorani?  What percentage of the people call themselves Christians?  Is there a generational gap?  Are there among them any established and/or growing churches, particularly with indigenous leadership?


texts:
In the Catholic Church especially, but also other denominations, Mary (ie, mother of Jesus) is often depicted with a blue mantle.

Does anyone know the origin of this, and what it is meant to mean?