texts: How is the trinity all God but also distinct?

texts:
In an answer to If Jesus is God the Father, did God the father die on the cross when Jesus died? it is pointed out that:

to summarize the Trinity:

The Father is God
The Son is God
The Holy Spirit is God
The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are all distinct (not one of them is identical to the other).

Therefore, when Jesus died on the cross, God the Father did not also die on the cross.

I really want to understand this but I really have a problem understanding the whole concept.  How can the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit all be God and also be distinct from each other? This is contradictory to me.
After reading What is the meaning of 'is' in the context of the Trinity? which was indicated as a possible duplicate in the comments, the top accepted answer shows the contradiction I am talking about.
If the Father is God and the Son is God, then surely the Father is also the Son.  But as I have seen it, and is pointed out in the answer to the first question, and indicated in the diagram in the answer to the "possible duplicate" the Father and Son are distinct from each other.
In answer to Is there a hierarchy in the Trinity? @warren said

God has distinct persons making up His one self - Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

This could imply that they are one and the same because God was within Jesus whilst He was among us, but God is within us too, is he not?
Genesis 1:26 mentioned in What is the Biblical basis for the doctrine of the Trinity? mentions that God said

Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. - KJV

because Jesus was with God in heaven when God created Adam.
Sola Gracia said in What qualifies the 3 entities of the Trinity as one?

Put simply, 'trinity' describes something of the intrinsic nature of God; 'one' describes the numeric total of essences that are called God and have the attributes of God: there being but one, (Deut 6:4) who is known variously by titles YHVH, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, etc.

How do you reconcile the trinity of the Father is God, the Son is God and the Holy Spirit is God when

yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist. - 1 Corinthians 8:6


texts: How does societal consecration to Mary differ from individual consecration?

texts:
For individual Catholics, consecration to Mary is a serious commitment not to be lightly entered into. It seems to me that this consecration is seen as an "advanced" step for people who are already accustomed to contemplating Mary, praying the Rosary, etc. For example, Louis de Montfort recommends a three-week programme of prayer before consecration (Treatise on True Devotion to the Blessed Virgin, paragraphs 227-233). Regarding Marian devotion in general, Pius X wrote (Ad diem illum laetissimum, 2 February 1904):

  (17) For to be right and good, worship of the Mother of God ought to spring from the heart; acts of the body have here neither utility nor value if the acts of the soul have no part in them.
  (20) Whoever moreover wishes, and no one ought not so to wish, that his devotion should be worthy of her and perfect, should go further and strive might and main to imitate her example.

Similar remarks can be found in Paul VI's Marialis cultus (2 February 1974), John Paul II's Redemptoris Mater (25 March 1987), and so on.

But at the same time, the Popes have frequently consecrated large and diverse groups of people to Mary, including on more than one occasion the entire world. John Paul II said at Fatima (13 May 1982):

  The Mother of Christ calls us, invites us to join with the Church of the living God in the consecration of the world, in this act of confiding by which the world, mankind as a whole, the nations, and each individual person are presented to the Eternal Father with the power of the redemption won by Christ.

and again in Rome (31 December 1984):

  Now is the hour when every person must make an effort to live faithfully this Act of Consecration to Mary.

This necessarily and deliberately includes people who are not Christian, or who are Christians but who disagree with Catholic beliefs and practices about Mary. That is, it looks like this consecration is a first step towards leading people into the Catholic faith, rather than a special additional act by people who are already firmly Catholic.

Is this kind of global consecration in a different category from individual consecration?  What are the intended effects of (repeated) consecration of the world?


texts: What assures Christians that they alone are saved?

texts:
Christians claim that "they are saved by the sacrifice of Jesus." But there are also members of many other faiths who claim that they are saved. For example, apart from affirming Jesus to be the Messiah, the Qurʾān explicitly claims by name that those who believe Jesus as God are disbelievers. In addition, Judaism generally considers Christianity to be idolatry or avodah zarah, since Christianity generally affirms Jesus to be God.

What is the concrete, Biblical basis that assures that it is this specific group of Christians like the modern claimants of Christianity that they are indeed saved, compared to other faiths who also have their own scriptural basis for believing they are saved?


texts: Differences between the "son of man" and "son of God"

texts: In the holy gospel, I see that Jesus is called as"son of man" in some occasions, whereas "son of God" in some other. By normal thinking it could be concluded that both are statements of contradictions. What would have been really  meant by these names? and How do they target the same man, though it seems different in meaning?


texts: Is the Vulgate the official version of the bible for entire Catholic Church, or just the Latin Church?

texts:
The Latin Vulgate is considered to be the official version of the bible of the Roman Catholic church. I'm wondering if this means it is only the official version of the Roman Catholic Church, or does it include the Eastern Catholic Churches as well.

If it is only the official version of the Latin church, do the individual Eastern Catholic Churches have their own official versions as well? (Eg. Perhaps the official Melkite version is the Septuagint, while the official Chaldean version is the Peshitta etc)


texts: What is meant by, "mild drinks" in D&C section 89?

texts:
17 Nevertheless, wheat for man, and corn for the ox, and oats for the horse, and rye for the fowls and for swine, and for all beasts of the field, and barley for all useful animals, and for mild drinks, as also other grain. (Doctrine and Covenants, Section 89:17)

What mild barley drinks is this verse referring to? Does this mean Mormons are encouraged to drink non-alcoholic beer? What were they drinking in Joseph Smith's time that is considered good for man according to the word of wisdom?


texts: How is it significant that Jesus rose on the 3rd day?

texts:
Christianity teaches that Jesus died on the cross and on the Third day rose from the dead. His resurection is significant for all sorts of reasons which I don't want to go into in this question. What I'm interested in is why did he rise THREE days later? Why not 4 days, or 2 days?

The only thing I could find is that Jonah was in the fish for 3 days, however this just moves the question to why was Jonah in the fish for 3 days (instead of 2 or 4 or any other number).

Is there any significance to Jesus being dead for three days?


texts: What does Jesus say about your spirit going to heaven?

texts:
I had an interesting question presented to me by a rector of a church.  He asked me to find anywhere in the bible where Jesus spoke of your spirit going to heaven and then research those specific passages (find the original documents and look at different translations).  While I thought about it for a while and then jumped in to do research, I found it not as easy I thought it would be.

Where does Jesus speak specifically about the spirit?


texts: Do Catholics believe that everyone should convert to Christianity for their own salvation?

texts:
From my understanding it is the Catholic view that all people should be baptized and converted to the Christian faith for their own salvation.

So, for me it follows logically, that Christians envision a world where Christianity is the only religion and all other religions are eliminated. I'm especially referring to non-abrahamic religions like Buddhism and Hinduism. In other words: Do Christians believe that they have to work for a world where there are no more Buddhist practicioners or followers of Hinduism and Christianity is the only religion?

I'm interested in the Roman Catholic point of view.

EDIT: My question targets towards the implicit cultural imperialism and the implicit goal of destruction of the religious cultures in Buddhist countries and India by the absolutist doctrine of Christianity as the only "right" religion. From my personal perspective, I cannot imagine that it would be God's or Jesus' will to destruct the incredible rich and deep religious cultures of these non-abrahamic religions.


texts: What is the basis for saying "God bless you" when a person sneezes?

texts:
It is common among many Christians to say "God bless you" (or simply "bless you," which implies the former) to a person when they sneeze. I have heard that this may have originated with an old belief that evil spirits were coming out of a person when they sneezed.

Is there any basis (scriptural or otherwise) within Christianity for saying "God bless you" when a person sneezes?


texts: If God is a God of love, why does God not make all souls in hell cease to exist?

texts: If God is omnipotent, and a God of love, why does God not make all souls in hell cease to exist, and did it ever happen? Also, wouldn't a loving God end their suffering? Thank you for your answers.


texts:
So, perhaps needless to say, we've been WFHing a lot lately, and maybe you're like me, finishing up Exodus 90, super sick of cold showers, but not needing to go out much...  And maybe your wife bought some incense a while ago for Family Rosary time, but you never really got the hang of lighting it because the priest always did it for you when you were an altar boy.

So, if you're in this stinky barque with Peter, as it were, how do you burn incense in one of those handy little brass censer things.

I'm using these little briquette circles covered in some sort of ignition fluid, but it never seems to take.  Burns for like 2 minutes and dies out (perhaps that's a sign, I dunno).

Is there a trick to lighting this stuff or do you just have to pray harder?


texts:
Was the fall initiated by a transgression of faith, because man trusted the word of the serpent more than the word of God, or was it a transgression of God’s law (an act of disobedience)?

Do different denominations vary on how they answer this question?


texts: Does a list exist showing Papal succession from Peter through our current Pope?

texts:
If I'm not mistaken, the claim of the Catholic Church is that Papal Succession is unbroken all the way back to Peter.

Is there a list of popes and the history from Peter to the present day?  If so, where can I find it?

And just so that your answer isn't a link-only answer, frowned upon on SE sites, maybe include the list if you can copy/paste it as well as citing the source


texts:
Is there a historical reason why the liturgical colour purple eventually replaced black to symbolize penance?

This question does not have its' answer in the difference between the two forms of the Latin Rite as both rites employed the liturgical colour purple during the penitential season of Lent!

  In the twelfth century, Pope Innocent III was the first to specify the colours of the vestments that were to be used for the Roman Rite; almost certainly this reflected prevailing custom in Rome, not an invention on his part. Although a separate subject from this article, it is well to remember that it was only towards the end of the 1st Millenium that the question of vestment colour became a significant one.Black was designated for penitential and funeral liturgies, but violaceus was indicated as a  substitute for black. Pope Innocent’s treatise De sacro altaris mysterio (Book I, chapter 65, which was written before his election as pope in 1198) seems to be the first indication that violaceus had come to be regarded as a penitential colour for the Roman Rite.

  If the Royal Purple colour which emerged in Late Antiquity Europe as a substitute for Tyrian Purple incorporated what Innocent III refers to as violaceus how did it come to be regarded as a colour of Penance rather than Status? -  The Saint Bede Studio

Even the Lyon Rite chose to employ "Ashen" coloured vestment during Lent and not purple unless ash coloured vestments could not be obtained.

  "Ash" colored vestments are utilized from Ash Wednesday until the Mass of the Lord's Supper exclusive. Where Ash is not available violet is used. And black comes out of the sacristy for Masses of the Dead and Good Friday. A parish could survive on only three or four sets of vestments. - The Rad Trad

Can any historical reason be found as to how or why the liturgical colour purple eventually replaced the traditional black as a symbol of penance within the Catholic Church?


texts: When and how did men and women start sitting together in church?

texts:
As I understand it, the early church began in homes but then at some point (it's another question) started meeting together in larger meetings.

My question is: did men and women sit together from the start or were they initially influenced by (separate seating arrangements of) the Synagogue? If not, how did it come to be a regular practice?


texts: What is the difference between the Kingdom of God and the Kingdom of Heaven?

texts:
I did a search and saw that the phrase "Kingdom of Heaven" appears exclusively in the Gospel according to Matthew.  However, the phrase "Kingdom of God" appears a few times in Matthew, but is also quite prevalent in Mark and Luke.  It also appears twice in John 3, several times in Acts and Paul's letters.

Clarence Larkin has a diagram that seems to distinguish between the two kingdoms somehow as well:

What, then, is the difference or distinction between these two kingdoms?


texts: Were the Gospel of Luke and the book of Acts written by the same person?

texts: Can you please explain why some people would argue that the Gospel of Luke and Acts were written by the same person?


texts: Meaning of end of chapter 3 of the 2nd Helvetic Confession

texts:
What is the meaning of the last paragraph of Chapter 3 of the Second Helvetic Confession(?):

  HERESIES. Therefore we condemn the Jews and Mohammedans, and all those who blaspheme that sacred and adorable Trinity. We also condemn all heresies and heretics who teach that the Son and Holy Spirit are God in name only, and also that there is something created and subservient, or subordinate to another in the Trinity, and that their is something unequal in it, a greater or a less, something corporeal or corporeally conceived, something different with respect to character or will, something mixed or solitary, as if the Son and Holy Spirit were the affections and properties of one God the Father, as the Monarchians, Novatians, Praxeas, Patripassians, Sabellius, Paul of Samosata, Aetius, Macedonius, Anthropomorphites, Arius, and such like, have thought.

Particularly, what does it mean with the language about "a greater or a less, something corporeal or corporeally conceived, something different with respect to character or will, something mixed or solitary"....especially, "something mixed or solitary" and "corporeally conceived"...? and why must these things, whatever they are, be condemned as heresies?


texts: Does the Catholic Church teach that humans are superior to all other creations on Earth?

texts: Does the Catholic Church teach that humans are superior to all other creations on Earth, or does it teach that each creation is equally precious and that not one type of creation is better than the other?


texts: How do we argue when someone posits a non-causal universe

texts: So, I've been thinking about apologetics recently, and I've come to a rather nasty knot which I've not been able to unwind. It is relatively easy to get from the idea, "there must have been a first thing" to God if we assume causality, but what if someone is not willing to stipulate causality? How do we argue for God when we cannot even agree on causality?


texts: What reason did a group of Christians have that the world would end on Oct 7, 2015?

texts: A vocal minority of Christians claimed that the world would end Oct. 7, 2015. What was the basis for their belief? What passages or reasoning were they using to support this claim?


texts: Does Jesus/God understand uncertainty or sin?

texts: I understand that Jesus has experienced the same weaknesses and temptations, but what about uncertainty? Or even sin itself? How can He understand what it is like to not know anything for certain when he has known everything from beginning to end. God has never sinned, so how can he truly understand us without experiencing these two things?


texts: Expectation of salvation for the poorly catechized

texts:
The Catholic Church teaches in the Catechism on Baptism that there are several types of Baptism, one of which is for those fellow eternal-soul-endowed humans who have never heard of Christ.

But, what does the Church say about those who have heard of Jesus; know a little bit of what the Church teaches;  received validly all the sacraments of initiation; but then, because what they know (or think they know) was so shoddily taught they wholly reject every lick of the Catholic Church in favor of Buddhism, Islam or Atheism because they never remotely understood what they had in the Church since it was presented in such an ineffective manner*.

Are they apostates or can we apply the logic, "to whom much is given, much is expected", to posit that this person was given nothing so nothing is expected?

* I'm looking for Catholic doctrine, not criticism of my straw man, I think he or she is the best kind of person. Who, actively seeking the truth was presented with none by a wall of bad Catechesis in the Catholic Church.  As a kid, I had very little notion of a global church and nearly never went to any parish except my home one.  I could have easily been this person having only understood the Church through the easily forgotten texts used during Religious Ed. class had it not been for my mom and one excellent priest.


texts: Has the Catholic Church or any large Christian organization ever had a policy of paying people to not have abortions?

texts:
Has the Catholic Church, or any large Christian churches or denominations, ever had a policy of paying money to people to not have abortions?

For example, paying $10,000-$40,000 for a mother to complete her pregnancy without alcohol, drugs or smoking and give the child up for adoption?


texts: Is there a projection of when Bible translation into all the languages of the world will be complete?

texts:
The Bible has been translated into more languages than any other book by far.  Wycliffe Bible Translators and others continue to do this in more and more languages.  This is seen by many to be part of the fulfillment of the Great Commission.

So, is there any specific projection of when Bible translation into all the languages of the world (~6,000) will be complete?


texts:
Matthew 27 NIV

  Judas Hangs Himself

  1 Early in the morning, all the chief priests and the elders of the people made their plans how to have Jesus executed. 2 So they bound him, led him away and handed him over to Pilate the governor.
  3 When Judas, who had betrayed him, saw that Jesus was condemned, he was seized with remorse and returned the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and the elders. 4 “I have sinned,” he said, “for I have betrayed innocent blood.”
  “What is that to us?” they replied. “That’s your responsibility.”
  5 So Judas threw the money into the temple and left. Then he went away and hanged himself.
  6 The chief priests picked up the coins and said, “It is against the law to put this into the treasury, since it is blood money.” 7 So they decided to use the money to buy the potter’s field as a burial place for foreigners. 8 That is why it has been called the Field of Blood to this day. 9 Then what was spoken by Jeremiah the prophet was fulfilled: “They took the thirty pieces of silver, the price set on him by the people of Israel, 10 and they used them to buy the potter’s field, as the Lord commanded me.”[a]

  Jesus Before Pilate

  11 Meanwhile Jesus stood before the governor, and the governor asked him, “Are you the king of the Jews?”

One is naturally inclined to believe that Judas killed himself just prior to the Lord's crucifixion, going by this text.

In 1 Corinthians 15:3-8, Paul states the following:

  3 For what I received I passed on to you as of first importancea : that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 5 and that he appeared to Cephas, and then to the Twelve. 6 After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers and sisters at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. 7 Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, 8and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born.

(Note: "the Twelve" is not capitalized in every translation)

Thus, we see that Paul is saying that Jesus appeared to the twelve after His resurrection. But that cannot be, as Matthew, as shown above, indicates or insinuates that Judas killed himself prior to the crucifixion; therefore, being a witness to the risen Christ would be an impossibility.

So, was Judas still part of the group when Jesus began to appear publicly following His resurrection or not? Did he die before or after the crucifixion/death/resurrection or some other time?


texts: What is the basis for the claim that the entire New Testament can be reconstructed apart from original and copied manuscripts?

texts:
Bit of a mouthy title, but I remember reading a few years ago that the entire New Testament (perhaps with the exception of very few verses) and most of the Old Testament could be reconstructed from the writings of the early church fathers just because they had written so much about the Bible and referenced so many verses. To put it another way, if you took all of the writings of the early church fathers, pulled out every verse and reference, then put them together, you would have almost 100% of the New Testament and most of the Old Testament.

Is this a new claim, or does it have its origins in a more distant past (say, older than a century)? Is the claim accurate? What is the evidence for this claim?

(If the claim is technically false because the early church fathers didn't quote all that much, but technically true if a significantly longer time span is taken into account, then please say so.)


texts: What does Paul mean by "Love believes all things?"

texts:
In 1 Corinthians Paul says

  Love bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things. (1 Corinthians 13:7, ESV)

This has long puzzled me from a couple of angles.

First, is this instructive, or descriptive?  What I mean is, is Paul saying that to be loving, this is how we must behave?  Or is he saying, someone who loves just naturally displays these characteristics?

Second, if this is instructive, what does it mean that love believes all things?  Hopes, and bears/endures, I get, but believes?  Let me use a personal example: an adulterous spouse.  I love her and she claims with great energy that it will never happen again.  I believe her, but it does.  And she claims again that it will stop.  I believe her??  Every time?  For how long?

If it is descriptive, then believes makes sense, because as the cliche says, "Love is blind" so of course love believes all things.

Any insights into this?


texts: Were John Baptist and Jesus really related?

texts: If Jesus was of the tribe of Judah, with both his parents of the lineage of David, and John the Baptist's parents of Levi's tribe, Luke 1.5, how is it possible that John and Jesus could be related, Luke 1.36?


texts: What is the archaeological evidence for Sodom and Gomorrah?

texts: Exactly as the title says. What is the archaeological evidence that Sodom and Gomorrah existed and were destroyed by fire from the heavens (Genesis 19:24)?


texts: Do any Christian groups believe that Joseph built the pyramids to store grain in?

texts:
Neurosurgeon Ben Carson is quoted from a 1998 commencement speech as saying that his personal theory was that Joseph built the pyramids to store grain in during the seven years of plenty:

  My own personal theory is that Joseph built the pyramids to store grain. Now all the archaeologists think that they were made for the pharaohs' graves. But, you know, it would have to be something awfully big if you stop and think about it. And I don’t think it’d just disappear over the course of time to store that much grain.

Are there any Christian groups who share this view? If so, on what do they base this hypothesis?


texts: How do Trinitarians respond to the objection that God cannot be a man based on Hosea 11:9?

texts:
Hosea 11:9 (ESV):

I will not execute my burning anger; I will not again destroy Ephraim; for I am God and not a man, the Holy One in your midst, and I will not come in wrath.

Recently someone brought this up to argue against the doctrine of the incarnation and the divinity of Jesus. How do Trinitarians respond?

Related: Trinitarian Christianity and Numbers 23:19 - Was Jesus a man?


texts:
Agape is usually defined as the love that Jesus had for us from the cross. Does agape contain affection for others whom the agape is directed to?

Please answer according to Catholic understanding.


texts:
Jesus called the God the Father during his ministry. My question is what Jesus called Joseph (the guardian) before his ministry?

  "Why were you searching for me?" he asked. "Didn't you know I had to be in my Father's house?"

I know that there is one mentioning (Luke) of "the Father" before the ministry but I still imagine him calling Joseph "father" as well. Does this imagination sound fine or any other suggestion that makes more sense?

Let me change the question to make it more answerable. Is Jesus's calling Joseph "father" raising any problem?

As far I know, there is no Jesus's direct mentioning or his hinting Virgin Conception of him by himself and people regarded him as a normal  "son of a carpenter". My thought is that Jesus at least called Joseph as normal as other sons did before his ministry or until Joseph died. Is my thought reasonable?


texts: What was Jesus referring to when He said "it is finished"? What is "it" in this case?

texts: At the end of Jesus' ministry, what did Jesus mean when He said "it is finished" (John 19:30)? Is this to be considered the end of Satan's Reign over humanity?


texts: Does a classic Trinitarian formulation consider God to be his own "Family"?

texts:
According to the classic Nicene Christianity rendering of the Trinity, was not Jesus' self identification as the "Son of God" an instance of Partialism in that he turned the Godhead into a multi-member family? At least our human versions of "father" and "son" are of separate but related members of a family.

Among Trinatarian traditions are there any specific doctrines that identify the "family" aspect of the Trinity, and if so, do they see our own early understanding of "family" actually being part of our being created in God's image?


texts: What is the biblical basis for the claim that abortion is morally acceptable (when there are no complicating factors)?

texts:
Several Protestant denominations take an official position on abortion that it can be acceptable under certain circumstances, and that in those circumstances the choice can be made by the woman.

Views on those circumstances differ, but can include cases where the mothers life is in danger, or the baby will be severely deformed, or is the product of rape or incest.

Still, some people who claim to be Christians believe that abortion is acceptable even when it is unnecessary for any reason (when the life of the mother is not at risk, and the baby is completely healthy and there was no rape or incest).

This other question asks for the biblical basis for the immorality of abortion.

What specifically is the biblical basis for the claim that abortion is NOT immoral, as many other Christians claim it to be, when it is purely elective?


texts: Did God create man to be gods themselves?

texts:
Genesis 1:26-28 says:

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

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

  28 God blessed them and said to them, “Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky and over every living creature that moves on the ground.”

If God created man not only in his image, but in his likeness, and in order to rule over the rest of Earth, did he intend for them to be gods themselves?


texts: What is the basis for not believing sola scriptura?

texts:
Sola scriptura is Latin for "by scripture alone". It is the slogan used by early Protestants to indicate their belief, against Catholicism, that the Bible contains all knowledge necessary for salvation.

What is the basis of not believing sola scriptura? Answers from all perspectives which oppose sola scriptura are appreciated.


texts: Is Political Correctness showing shame for our God?

texts:
Often times I see political correctness as an excuse to remove references to God. The excuse is that it is an effort to not offend those of different faiths. For example instead of Christmas it is the Holiday Season.

I often times find myself torn on this matter. I have friends of many faiths, and I do not want to offend them, but is being politically correct showing shame for my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ?

  Mark 8:38 (KJV) Whosoever therefore shall be ashamed of me and of my words in this adulterous and sinful generation; of him also shall the Son of man be ashamed, when he cometh in the glory of his Father with the holy angels.

Is there a middle ground were we can show respect for the faith of others where we are not softening the Good News of the Gospel of Jesus Christ?

Of course I am never offended to hear members of other faiths talk about or celebrate their beliefs. Is maybe the true political correctness to just accept the faith and beliefs of others? I wish my Jewish friends a Happy Hanukkah and they wish me a Merry Christmas.


texts: Was the serpent in the wilderness a foreshadowing of Jesus?

texts:
The Lord sent fiery serpents among the people and they bit the people, so that many people of Israel died. So the people came to Moses and said, “We have sinned, because we have spoken against the Lord and you; intercede with the Lord, that He may remove the serpents from us.” And Moses interceded for the people. Then the Lord said to Moses, “Make a fiery serpent, and set it on a standard; and it shall come about, that everyone who is bitten, when he looks at it, he will live.” And Moses made a bronze serpent and set it on the standard; and it came about, that if a serpent bit any man, when he looked to the bronze serpent, he lived. (Numbers 21:6-9)

Someone recently told me that this was symbolic, and that the serpent is a symbol for sin, and that this was foreshadowing Jesus becoming sin for us and being lifted up and crucified so that we would live.

My question is, how do we know that this is the right interpretation, and not just an interesting idea that someone had?


texts: Is there an ontological change in human nature after Jesus Passion and resurrection?

texts:
I came across this passage from Jacques Servais, commenting on Thomas Aquinas’ view on Christ’s Passion:

  God himself acts in human nature by regenerating it from within. He, in fact, wanted, to save us, not through his will alone, but through the meritorious and atoning work of the Cross.

See the original here

I was wondering if that means that after the fall of Adam, humanity as it was desired by God was degraded, ontologically speaking.
When Jesus came and delivered us from sin, He, being sinless and divine, has restored our nature, therefore establishing an ontological change.


texts: Converting to Judaism or Islam vs Trinitarian or Uniterian

texts: If a Christian "converts" to Judaism or Islam (or any of the Abrahamic religions), is he still considered saved as a Christian?  What if he/she converted from Trinitarian to Uniterian?  This is a general Christian question, so I am requesting an overview of Christian positions on such conversions.


texts: What was the definition of the spiritual gift of the word of Knowledge in early pentecostalism?

texts:
I will ask a series of questions concerning individual spiritual gifts (pneumatika/charismata), or manifestations of the Spirit in 1 Cor 12.

The first questions are about the gift of the word (logos) of knowledge (gnosis) (1 Cor 12:8).

In most teaching in the charismatic/neo-pentecostal movements, this gift is about supernaturally revealed insights about specific facts, usually medical conditions. However, the Pentecostal theologian Donald Gee considered this gift to be more of a "turbo-charged" (obviously not his words) natural understanding. This is from his book Concerning Spiritual Gifts, originally published in 1947.

I highly suspect that the definition now in use arouse during the healing revival in the 50's and that Gee's view was the mainline pentecostal one before that movement.

Can anyone enlighten me if I am right or wrong. Arguments from original sources are very much preferred.

BTW, when I ask about the view in early pentecostalism, I mean the view from the leaders and teachers of the first generation (1900-1940).

P.S. I am not looking for what one might consider to be the correct answer. I've done my exegesis homework and agree with Gordon Fee, that we simply can not know exactly what Paul originally intended. Fee says[1]:

  Most likely, it is a "Spirit utterance" of some revelatory kind...
  How the content of such utterance makes gnosis as distinguished from
  "wisdom" or "revelation", is perhaps forever lost to us.

I will ask some more questions for additional aspects.

From God's Empowering Presence, Baker Academic, 1994, pages 167-168.


texts: How can one tell if God is in favor of a modern value or not?

texts:
The Bible seems to condone slavery and accept wives as their husband's property. But these are generally acknowledged to be immoral in modern civilization.

Yet, there are other modern societal perspectives which differ from their Biblical perspectives that many (if not most) Christians deem to still be ungraceful in God's eyes, like homosexuality.

I'm familiar with arguments that the Bible was written for its own time and pertained only to the era. But, if some values can be progressive and Christian despite what is in the Bible while others cannot, how can one know which ones God is okay with?

Also, is it possible he just doesn't care about stuff like slavery?


texts: In what way was Isaac's blessing on Jacob manifested?

texts:
In Genesis 27, when elderly Isaac thought he was blessing his son Esau, but he was actually blessing his son Jacob through the deceit of Jacob's mother, he said to Jacob:

  See, the smell of my son is as the smell of a field which the LORD
  hath blessed: Therefore God give thee of the dew of heaven, and the
  fatness of the earth, and plenty of corn and wine: Let people serve
  thee, and nations bow down to thee: be lord over thy brethren, and let
  thy mother's sons bow down to thee: cursed be every one that curseth
  thee, and blessed be he that blesseth thee (Genesis 27:27b-29).

My Bible commentaries don't explain how this blessing was borne out. What do Protestant or Catholic authorities say about how this blessing was fulfilled in Jacob's life?


texts: Why aren't all unbelievers given a "Road to Damascus" moment, according to Catholicism?

texts:
As described in the book of Acts, and in lesser detail within the Pauline Epistles, Saul was a Jew who was actively persecuting Christians, notably taking responsibility for the stoning of Stephen. But on the road to Damascus, he had a dramatic religious experience:

Acts 9:3-6 (NIV)
As he neared Damascus on his journey, suddenly a light from heaven flashed around him. He fell to the ground and heard a voice say to him, “Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?”
“Who are you, Lord?” Saul asked.
“I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting,” he replied. “Now get up and go into the city, and you will be told what you must do.”

He was struck blind by the experience. After God told Ananias to meet Saul and fill him with the Holy Spirit, he could see again. Ultimately, Saul flipped his views (changing his name to Paul to reflect this) and was baptized. He went on to became the most influential person in the early Christian church.
According to Catholicism, why doesn't God give all unbelievers, especially vehement anti-Christians similar to Paul, such a powerful religious experience?* It would bring more people towards Christ, likely spurring them to do great works of faith as happened here (not to mention severely weaken, if not outright eliminate, the argument from nonbelief against the existence of God). I don't think that this would be an issue of free will, since the person still needs to decide how to react like Paul.

* A similar, less dramatic religious experience for an unbeliever is that of Doubting Thomas. He did not believe that Christ had risen, but then Jesus appeared to him and the other disciples and let him touch his wounds, erasing his doubt. Tradition is that after this, he was spurred to preach about Jesus in India.


texts: Who were the 40 men who wrote the Bible?

texts:
Jehovah's Witnesses believe that the Bible is made up of "66 smaller books". God used about "40 faithful men" to write them. According to them, the first five books were written by Moses about 3,500 years ago; the last book was written by the apostle John over 1,900 years ago. God communicated with the Bible writers by means of the holy spirit. They wrote down the thoughts of God, not their own thoughts. So "Jehovah" is the author of the Bible, according to Jehovah's Witnesses.

Who were the 40 faithful men?


texts: Are we supposed to ASK for wisdom or SEEK it--or are they the same thing?

texts:
I'm a bit confused on a seeming "contradiction" on how to obtain wisdom from God.

James 1:5-6 ESV If any of you lacks wisdom, let him ask God, who gives generously to all without reproach, and it will be given him. But let him ask in faith, with no doubting, for the one who doubts is like a wave of the sea that is driven and tossed by the wind.

This has been my staple how-to-get-wisdom verse for a while. Then I read these passages in Proverbs:

Proverbs 8:17 ESV I [wisdom] love those who love me, and those who seek me diligently find me.
Proverbs 2:1-6 ESV My son, if you receive my words and treasure up my commandments with you, making your ear attentive to wisdom and inclining your heart to understanding; yes, if you call out for insight and raise your voice for understanding, if you seek it like silver and search for it as for hidden treasures, then you will understand the fear of the Lord and find the knowledge of God. For the Lord gives wisdom; from his mouth come knowledge and understanding;

They seem to say we need to do a bit more than just ask; that we need to also seek diligently--or is that the same as asking? I'm not exactly sure.


texts: Why aren't the two greatest commandments part of the Decalogue?

texts:
In Matthew 22:36-40 (NIV) Jesus says:

36 “Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?” 37 Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ 38 This is the first and greatest commandment. 39 And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ 40 All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”

These two commandments are registered in the old testament, and can be specifically found in:
Deuteronomy 6:5 (NIV):

5 Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength.

And Leviticus 19:18 (NIV):

18 “‘Do not seek revenge or bear a grudge against anyone among your people, but love your neighbor as yourself. I am the Lord.

However, none of these commandments can be found in the Decalogue (Exodus 20:1-17), which many claim to be the "moral law".
How come the two greatest commandments are not part of the Decalogue? Doesn't this show that all the other 603 non-decalogue commandments of the Old Testament shouldn't be dismissed, as the two greatest ones belong to them?


texts: Any Septuagint (LXX) audio book available online?

texts:
Searching for a complete audio of Septuagint - Ancient, not Modern Greek translation.
Is it available anywhere online?


texts: How do Cessationists expect people to believe without seeing miracles today?

texts:
Classical Cessationism asserts that the "sign gifts" such as prophecy, healing and speaking in tongues ceased with the apostles and the finishing of the canon of Scripture. They only served as launching pads for the spreading of the Gospel; as affirmations of God's revelation.

If those people who lived around Christ's time witnessed miracles, and thus believed in God after seeing miracles, how is it that we who are living in the present age are expected to believe in God if we don't see any miracles?

In the present day, why is it that we have to believe the humans, normal people who don't perform miracles, that preach the Gospel, that what they say is true? Isn't it "unfair" that we humans today have to believe on what other people preach without seeing any miracles, but people in Christ's time got to see miracles and thus it was easier to believe in God?


texts: According to Roman Catholicism, was the 1054 excommunication of the Patriarch of Constantinople valid, in light of Leo IX's death?

texts:
The excommunications of 1054 have long been seen as a pivotal moment in the Great Schism.  But recently I found that some people apparently doubt that the excommunication of the Patriarch of Constantinople was actually valid, because the pope that had sent the representatives, Leo IX, had already died when the excommunication was announced.  The linked Wikipedia article calls its validity "doubtful," while a different article, this time without a source, simply says that because Leo IX had died, "the excommunication was thereby invalid."

Yet I also know that in 1965, Pope Paul VI lifted the 1054 excommunication – which seems to suggest that it was valid.  And Everett Ferguson (Church History, I, 19.V.B) gives no indication of their invalidity.

According to Roman Catholicism, then, was the excommunication of the Patriarch valid?  Were the representatives able to validly excommunicate only until Leo IX's death, or only until his successor took office, or anytime?


texts: Do Catholics believe that they are actually eating the body of Christ? Does this make them cannibals?

texts:
The Roman Catholic celebrates the Holy Eucharist in commemoration of the Last Supper in which during the celebration, Catholics believed that bread and wine are transformed into blood and body of Christ.

Now. What is the stand of the catholic church for eating the blood and body of Christ in the Holy Eucharist?


texts: How did Peter recognize Elijah and Moses?

texts:
Matthew 17:3 Just then there appeared before them Moses and Elijah,
  talking with Jesus.

  4 Peter said to Jesus, “Lord, it is good for us to be here. If you
  wish, I will put up three shelters—one for you, one for Moses and one
  for Elijah.”

I am wondering how Peter recognized that the men were Elijah and Moses?

Photographs and portraits didn't exist back in those days. If they did, Peter being a fisherman wouldn't have been to school to see them.

And I doubt Moses and Elijah began their conversation by saying - "Hello Jesus, I am Elijah and this is my buddy Moses."

So how would Peter know it was Elijah standing there?


texts: How do Catholics view the role of conscience in determing morals?

texts:
Once in a while I come across statements from Catholics that seem to say that there isn't an absolute truth. It sometimes sounds very like the postmodern mantra that "what is true for you isn't necessarily true for me".

Today I read an NPR article where a reporter from the National Catholic Reporter comments on the recent apostolic exhortation about love in the family.

I read the comment that

  That's something that the church talked about 50 years ago, but the
  last couple of popes did not expand upon. And what Pope Francis is
  saying is that conscience means that people can be hearing something
  from God, kind of in the depths of their heart, that may even be not
  quite in accord with what the church teaches generally, as a general
  norm, but can still be true and can still be discerned to be God's
  will in their life. So he's allowing for a little bit of discord
  between individual cases and the general church teaching.

Reading this makes me wonder if there are any laws that are not open to this personal interpretation. I would assume that Catholics would say that murder is objectively wrong and that this isn't depending on your inner voice.

So, my questions are

What is the role of the conscience in determining what is and isn't a sin?
Are there any general rules to distinguish between the "general norms" of the Church and the absolute rules/laws?


texts: How does one discern a calling to the vocation of priesthood?

texts: Approaching this from a Catholic perspective, what are good signs that God is calling you to the vocation of priesthood, in other words, what must one look for to know whether you are called to the priesthood?


texts: What are the reasons for German Bishops who favor the "Synodal Path" for not just becoming Protestants?

texts:
I was reading an interesting article on the National Catholic Register where the pastor at Martin Luther's church in Wittenburg said he thought that people who disagree with the Catholic Church and fundamentally want to change her, or democratize her, should just become Protestants instead.
Owing to the citation that Catholics are leaving the faith in droves in Germany over the last few years what reasons or justifications do Bishops and Cardinals give for continuing as Catholics instead of just leaving with their congregations?


texts: Was added to the Gospel of Mark a fact taken from Luke?

texts:
Was added to the Gospel of Mark  a fact taken from Luke ?
Here states in the Gospel of Mark there is an added portion (Mark 16:9-20)
In this reference I didn't found the following match, but I wonder if the added portion to the Gospel of Mark was taken from Luke.

And certain women, which had been healed of evil spirits and
infirmities, Mary called Magdalene, out of whom went seven devils,
Luke 8:2

Now when Jesus was risen early the first day of the week, he appeared
first to Mary Magdalene, out of whom he had cast seven devils. Mark
16:9


texts: Why do many Christians talk about "believing in Jesus" rather than "believing in God"?

texts:
What does it mean to "believe in Jesus"? Wasn't he just a temporary physical representation of God who visited Earth long ago, and might come again, but isn't currently here?

Why isn't the message to believe in God? Why Jesus? It really bothers me when messages which are repeated a lot don't make sense.

Why is the focus on Jesus rather than God? Don't a lot of people recognize that Jesus probably did exist as a historical, actual person? But many of those might still not believe in God. So "believing in Jesus" seems to mean nothing compared to "believing in God", yet this is what is focused on.


texts: What is a faithful translation for "the son of perdition" in John 17:12?

texts:
In John 17, Jesus prays and says of his disciples,

  12 While I was with them, I was keeping them in Your name which You have given me; and I guarded them and not one of them perished but the son of perdition, so that the Scripture would be fulfilled.

That was the New American Standard Bible. The phrase there is a literal translation from the Greek, "ὁ υἱὸς τῆς ἀπωλείας"; "the son of X" is an idiom for "one who personifies the nature of X", and "ἀπωλείας" (Strong 684) can mean "perdition", "loss", "destruction", "ruin", and so on.

Translations differ in how they render this reference to Judas (though they often have a footnote saying that "son of perdition" is the word-for-word equivalent). Examples:

the son of perdition: King James and many of its derivatives; also Douay-Rheims, from the Vulgate's filius perditionis
the son of destruction: English Standard Version, World English Bible, New American Bible
the one doomed to destruction: New International Version
the one destined to be lost: New Revised Standard Version, New Jerusalem Bible
the man who was bound to be lost: Good News Bible
the one who chose to be lost: Jerusalem Bible
the one who was already lost: Christian Community Bible

It seems to me that there are differences in how much agency is assigned to Judas here. If he is "doomed to destruction" or "destined to be lost" then he is being painted as a victim of fate. If he is "the one who chose to be lost" or "the son of perdition/destruction", then he could be a more active participant in his own downfall. The "son of perdition/destruction" seems like an obvious translation, but it's not clear to me whether (in Greek or English) it should connote that he is a destroyer, or the one who is destroyed, or both.

Do these English translations faithfully express the meaning of "son of perdition" in Greek? Related to that, is there any real doctrinal difference between the phrases above?


texts: Did Calvin and Luther believe in free will?

texts:
According to the Roman Catholic Church, man’s will is in no way determined but that man has the self-power to will good or evil toward God.

Now it seems that Calvin and Luther didn't agree with that. Because mankind was due to the sin of Adam totally corrupted. Does this mean that free will didn't exist for them?


texts:
According to Christianity, where are heaven and hell located?

It used to be believed (and is generally depicted) that hell was below ground and heaven is above the clouds (as in you assend to heaven much like a dove) and you go down to hell. The angels fly down from heaven with their wings.
In many cathederals angels and heaven are depicted in the clouds.

Likewise hell is thought of as the underworld much like Hades of Greek mythology.

What is the general belief now that we know the Earth is a globe travelling through space. Do Christians still believe that hell is located underground. Maybe in a hollowed out area near the lava that makes up the center of the Earth?

Or alternatively is Heaven and hell located in a parallel dimension, sort of super-imposed on top of this one. In that case would Heaven be located in the clouds and Hell underground but we couldn't see it because it was in a parallel dimension? In other words that dead people could walk around the real world like ghosts but nobody could see them?

Or would they be in an entirely different Universe? If so, would Heaven and Hell be located both in the same Universe or separate Universe?

I suppose the last possibility is that Heaven and Hell are located completely in the imagination of an omnipotent being, much like a computer running a vast simulation.

For people who believe in heaven and hell, what can you say about their location?


texts: Is Hell, the Lake of Fire & the Bottomless Pit all the same place?

texts:
For what reason is there for a new prison of the damned if there already is one in Sheol?

Is it possible they all speak of the same place, just having multiple names for different points in scripture?

All the scriptures that use these words in the Authorized King James:

Hell
Bottomless Pit
Lake of Fire:

From what I've seen most people believe that there is two places created for the wicked.

The first being Hell, located in Sheol which is across a gulf that separates it from what is referred to as Abraham's Bosom or Paradise. The wicked go to Hell and the righteous to Paradise. And that these are the holding places of both the wicked and righteous until the first and second resurrections of which some think may even happen at the same time rather than a 1000 years apart.

And the second place being the Lake of Fire which is where  "death and hell" (Rev 20:14) is cast after the 2nd resurrection along with the Devil and the rest of the damned. Is this Lake of Fire a new prison, a new place of torment?

We already know that in the current prison in Sheol, called Hell, that there is torments(Luke 16:24-25) and that it is able to hold innumerable multitudes of people.

So what reason is there for creating a new place for the wicked?


texts: Bible changed? Example from Arminianism vs Calvinism

texts:
From my understanding and through examples in history and my life as well, God allows good and bad things to happen. Although I would always be curious as to why certain things happen, especially when it comes to bad stuff, I know His reasonings would go beyond my comprehension and understanding as He knows all.

God will only allow certain things to happen if He wants it to happen.

The devil, on the other hand, can only do things as he is allowed to by God.

With that being said, would it be possible for God to allow the devil to skew His Word (Bible) in any way, shape, or form?

Knowing that the devil is pure evil and one who deceives, manipulates, and twists the things of God, one would wonder what kind of things he would do prevent Christians from fully benefitting from reading God's Word and progressing in their spiritual life.

An example that I think could be something that he would do or has done is change certain words in the Bible. As you may be aware, one word or phrase can have the power to change a sentence or meaning completely, whether in the Bible or just everyday conversation.

John 3:16

“For this is how God loved the world: He gave his one and only Son, so that everyone who believes in him will not perish but have eternal life. ~ NLT (New Living Translation)

For God so loved the world that He gave the only begotten Son, so that everyone believing in Him should not perish, but should have eternal life. ~ BLB (Berean Literal Bible)

Both are the same verse, that pretty much says the same thing, but one glaring difference is the words will not and should not.

Would it be fair to say that will not is pretty definitive, that if I truly believe in Jesus, I will be saved regardless of what happens afterwards?

As opposed to should not or shall not (in other translations), which would indicate that it could happen but not guaranteed.

For this verse, I would think that figuring out which translation or meaning is the true meaning would be pretty crucial.

One implies that I'm good once I'm saved and the other implies that I should be good to go once I'm saved but...

It would seem that either you can or cannot lose your salvation once you accept Christ. If you can't, then that would allow me to focus on other aspects of the Bible and if you can, then that makes me wonder what I must do to make sure that I keep it that way and not mess up (unforgivable sin comes to mind).

God is not one to cause confusion when it comes to those that want to seek Him and His Word, so I'm wondering to what lengths or permissions would He allow the devil to do his thing?

EDIT

I read through the reason for the hold and understand now I think??

If I add that these are beliefs from arminianism vs calvinism, which if I'm not mistaken, for this topic, is that you are good once you're saved vs you can be unsaved, respectively.

I'm not asking which view is correct, but clarification of which words would more accurately reflect the original texts/Scriptures. Would it be will or should?

And if you read my responses in the comments, I made a point about why I'm not convinced that they are the same words. Unless I'm misunderstanding something and that back in the day, those words meant the same thing or something, those two words do not convey the same meaning to me.

I would be much more convinced that something was or wasn't going to happen with the words will/will not than should/should not.


texts: What is a mystical experience according to Catholicism?

texts:
After reading this about Benedict's resignation.

Benedict denied he had been visited by an apparition or had heard
God's voice, but said he had undergone a "mystical experience" during
which God had inspired in him an "absolute desire" to dedicate his
life to prayer rather than push on as pope.

I always thought that a mystical experience involves an apparition or some kind of higher state of our mind (ecstasy). I didn't think that a mystical experience can simply be some simple brain processes where we make a religious decision based on our own or circunstancial reasoning.
What is the definition of a mystical experience according to the Catholic theology? I was told that everyone is called to be a mystic. So expecting supernatural events in life should be part of our life but is that really always required?


texts: In Korean Protestantism, what is the position of Kwonsa?

texts:
In the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA), a conservative Presbyterian denomination, there is a sizable contingent of Korean-Americans – they make up 12% of the denomination's members and have 212 churches (source).

These churches often have a position called kwonsa or kwon-sa, which, as I understand it, is for elderly women who are recognized as spiritual pillars of the church.  In the PCA, where there are no female church officers, these kwonsa are neither elders nor deacons, and thus do not have official spiritual authority.  However, I'm not sure that that's the case more broadly in Protestantism.

Thus I'd like to better understand 1) what kwonsa are, in the context of Protestantism, and 2) how the position is commonly seen to relate to "traditional" leadership positions like pastor, elder, and deacon.

That is, I'm looking for an overview answer that attempts to explain, at a high level, the role of kwonsa in Korean-culture Protestantism, particularly in relation to other church leaders.

I'm aware of the existence of a Korean Language Stack Exchange, but I ask this question here because my query is not merely linguistic, but rather primarily about how this role is understood in the specific context of Protestantism.


texts: Did the Annunciation and Good Friday coincide?

texts:
As we know, Good Friday falls on March 25 (2016) this year. In Catholic and Orthodox Churches, March 25 is also the Feast of the Annunciation.

A priest friend of mine, told me there was once a popular belief  in the Middle Ages that the Annunciation coincided with Passion of Our Lord.

Can anyone point out to any other sources that support such a popular belief did in fact exist?

I have found two sources that seem to support this idea.
The 2nd-century writer Irenaeus of Lyon regarded the conception of Jesus as 25 March coinciding with the Passion.

The second piece to support this idea comes from the Liturgical Calendar of the Sarum Rite.One can see on page 3 that Annunciation and Good Friday are on March 25th. The Sarum Rite is a variation of the Roman Liturgy in use in England, up to 1559.

Addendum: The Roman Martyrology commemorates the Feast of St Dismas on the 25th of March! St Dismas is the traditional name given to the Good Thief, who died on the cross next to Jesus at Golgotha.


texts: Is ex-nihilo creationism irreconcilable with the concept of individual free will?

texts:
Looking on this site in many answers involving the problem of evil I see affirmations of belief in free-will.

According to Calvinist Mark Hausam, who presented a paper at a conference on Mormonism, the assertion that God gave us free-will and that God created everything ex-nihilo, beliefs that he asserts are held by many evangelicals, are incompatible. He argues:

  Creation ex nihilo implies a radical metaphysical dependence upon
  God, one that logically guarantees that the creature will not be independent from God or
  be capable of independent contributions to reality in the ways envisioned in Arminian
  thought. In fact, creation ex nihilo logically leads directly to Calvinistic determinism.

Hausam continues to argue that Arminian thought is not all that dissimilar from Mormonism. Mormonism explicitly rejects the notion of creation ex-nihilo and as such resolves the problem of evil as well as the paradox: If God created everything, how is our will independent of him? He argues that Arminians, in order to believe in our having free-will, must reject the concept of ex-nihilo creation as well.

My question is directed to those who hold both these views. I am not entirely convinced that these views are irreconcilable as argued, but I cannot produce a good counter-argument. How do you resolve the paradox presented here by Hausam?

Note: I recognize one way to argue this is that God, being all-powerful, created our free wills out of nothing, but this is still the same paradox. How can God determine (create) something that is undetermined? (free-will). If you could present a logical argument for this view, I would gladly hear it.


texts: According to Reformed theology, where is the Scriptural evidence for homoousion?

texts:
The Westminster Confession of Faith says:

  The whole counsel of God, concerning all things necessary for his own glory, man’s salvation, faith, and life, is either expressly set down in scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men.

According to Reformed Theology, where is homoousion either "expressly set down" or "deduced" from the bible?

This question is related, but it only deals with when and how homoousion was used prior to the Nicene Council.


texts: Why was the devil given power over death?

texts:
From Hebrews 2:14-15,

  Since the children have flesh and blood, he too shared in their
  humanity so that by his death he might break the power of him who
  holds the power of death - that is, the devil - and free those who all
  their lives were held in slavery by their fear of death.

I'm sure I've seen this mentioned elsewhere in scripture as well, but what I don't recall is why. Is it ever stated why Satan was given power or control over the death of humans?


texts:
I'm not a Catholic, but I have attended Catholic Mass and I've been acquainted with the practice of regular mass- that a certain week of the year has the same readings each year.

Is the entirety of the Bible read throughout the year during mass? If not, what passages (or books) are never included?


texts: According to Preterism has Matthew 19:27-30 been fulfilled? If so, when?

texts:
Mat 19:27  Then answered Peter and said unto him, Behold, we have
  forsaken all, and followed thee; what shall we have therefore?  Mat
  19:28  And Jesus said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That ye which
  have followed me, in the regeneration when the Son of man shall sit in
  the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones,
  judging the twelve tribes of Israel.  Mat 19:29  And every one that
  hath forsaken houses, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother,
  or wife, or children, or lands, for my name's sake, shall receive an
  hundredfold, and shall inherit everlasting life.  Mat 19:30  But many
  that are first shall be last; and the last shall be first.


texts: I have always been taught that Jesus got baptized as an example for us. If people were getting baptized before Jesus did, then why did he need to make that an example if people were already being baptized?


texts: How does Jesus fulfill the Protoevangelium (First Gospel) in Genesis 3:15?

texts:
In the judgment of the serpent in Genesis 3:15, God says the following:

  The Lord God said to the serpent, Because you have done this, cursed
  are you above all livestock and above all beasts of the field; on your
  belly you shall go, and dust you shall eat all the days of your life.
  15 I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your
  offspring and her offspring; he shall bruise your head, and you shall
  bruise his heel.  Genesis 3:14-15 ESV

Verse 15 has become known as the Protoevangelium, or "First Gospel".  How is this the first gospel and how does Jesus fulfill this prophecy?


texts: Does the Catholic Church have any mechanism to improve poor homilists?

texts:
In the United States, principals periodically observe teachers in the classroom to make sure that they are teaching to the curriculum and to ensure that they are using the best pedagogical techniques.

Does the Catholic Church have anything like this in place to ensure that parish priests are preaching the Word of God correctly and effectively?

For instance, do proxies from the Cardinals' offices regularly sit in on parish Masses to ensure high quality homilies?


texts: Does spiritual death mean loss of faith or doing a deadly sin (or sins) or separation from God?

texts:
According to Word-of-Faith movement, Jesus suffered both physical and spiritual death. They mean by spiritual death that he suffered in hell after dying, before resurrection. And suffering in hell means separation from God.

I ask what is the separation from God?, What does it mean?

Hence, I ask: Does spiritual death mean loss of faith or doing mortal sin (or sins) or what?

The Term separation from God is unclear to me.


texts: To break apart families or bring them together?

texts:
The prophet said concerning the great day which Elijah will usher in, "And he shall turn the heart of the fathers to the children, and the heart of the children to their fathers, lest I come and smite the earth with a curse."
  -Malachi 4:6

  Jesus said, "For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law."
  -Matthew 10:35

Are these two verses consistent and if so how?


texts: A simple question; I am reading the Apostolic Fathers and have noticed how they frequently refer to themselves as 'Gods Chosen' and speak of the Old Testament prophets as 'Our Forefathers'. This naturally leads us to ask whether or not any of them were ethnic Jews? Considering that Eusebius records the first fifteen Bishops of Jerusalem as 'being of the circumcision' it would be strange if none of the apostolic fathers were of that ethnicity.


texts: According to Catholicism what happens after Death on the General Judgment Day?

texts:
At the General Judgment Day what happens?

Do we recognise each other in the same relationships as we had on earth?

I am very confused and have not been able to find a simple answer in Catholic teaching.

What have Catholic theologians written on this subject?


texts: What does it mean that baptism "erases original sin"?

texts:
The Catechism of the Catholic Church states regarding original sin:

  Human nature has not been totally corrupted: it is wounded in the
  natural powers proper to it, subject to ignorance, suffering and the
  dominion of death, and inclined to sin - an inclination to evil that
  is called "concupiscence". Baptism, by imparting the life of Christ's
  grace, erases original sin and turns a man back towards God, but the
  consequences for nature, weakened and inclined to evil, persist in man
  and summon him to spiritual battle.

So in baptism, original sin is erased, but the nature is still "inclined to evil." What's the difference between a baptized and unbaptized person with regard to their inclination to sin and the state of their nature?


texts: How do the early church fathers expound upon the "exaltation of Christ" (Philippians 2:9-11) in light of the immutability of Jesus Christ?

texts:
Philippians 2:9-11

NIV

  9  Therefore God exalted him to the highest place and gave him the name that is above every name, 10  that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, 11  and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

ESV

  9 Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name that is above every name, 10  so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, 11  and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

KJV

  9 Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name:   10 That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow , of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth;   11 And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

To the untrained eye and to the recent convert, one might have it understood that Jesus was greater posthumously than perhaps pre-incarnate and during his life on earth. That, somehow, God moved Him from point C to point B or point A in the ranks of heaven once He completed his mission on earth.

How did the early church fathers reconcile this verse with the unchangeable nature of Christ? (e.g., Christ is the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow.)


texts: How are Romans 3:24 and James 2:17 reconciled?

texts:
I mean. I want to put my faith in Jesus, and I try to make myself believe that he is my Savior.. But I find myself putting more faith in "My" actions instead of his. And according to these two scriptures, I don't know which way to turn. If this is a question for a pastor or a preacher, I apologize for the inconvenience. I'm just looking everywhere an anywhere for clarification.

Romans 3:24 NIV:

  and all are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus.

James 2:17 NIV:

  In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead.


texts: Do the "Anathemas" Pronounced in the Council of Trent still stand today?

texts:
My understanding, is that in response to the protestant reformation, Luther in particular, the Catholic Church convened the council of Trent, and put their official doctrines on the issues into writing.
One section was a list of 33 "canons" which I believe are like church laws.

Many of these canons ended with an "Anathema" being pronounced on anyone who would say such a thing. Anathema is a "curse", here's a quick dictionary lookup for it on dictionary.com:

  1.a person or thing detested or loathed
  2.a person or thing accursed or consigned to damnation or destruction.
  3.a formal ecclesiastical curse involving excommunication.
  4.any imprecation of divine punishment.
  5.a curse; execration.

These are often cited by protestants to show how the Catholic church feels about the idea of being "Saved by Faith alone".

This is the source I used for the canons "https://history.hanover.edu/texts/trent/ct06.html"

Here are examples of some Canons for clarity, and the anathemas at the end:

  CANON IX.-If any one saith, that by faith alone the impious is justified; in such wise as to mean, that nothing else is required to co-operate in order to the obtaining the grace of Justification, and that it is not in any way necessary, that he be prepared and disposed by the movement of his own will; let him be anathema.

  CANON XII.-If any one saith, that justifying faith is nothing else but confidence in the divine mercy which remits sins for Christ's sake; or, that this confidence alone is that whereby we are justified; let him be anathema.

  CANON XV.-If any one saith, that a man, who is born again and justified, is bound of faith to believe that he is assuredly in the number of the predestinate; let him be anathema

I feel like there are a lot of directions this could go, so I want to be pretty specific about the answer.

The question is Does the Catholic Church still pronounce these anathemas on protestants who believe as such?

So I feel like answers should clearly have a Yes, or a No.

If you so choose, I am also interested in, what the church means by anathema, how this plays out in the Catholic view of protestant churches, etc etc. I don't really want to get into why these canons are or are not theologically sound (I would love to, but for the sake of the scope of this question let's not).


texts: What is the difference between the grave and Hades?

texts:
Do not be amazed at this, for a time is coming when all who are in their graves will hear his voice and come out those who have done good will rise to live, and those who have done evil will rise to be condemned. (John 5:28-29, NIV)
The sea gave up the dead that were in it, and death and Hades gave up the dead that were in them, and each person was judged according to what he had done. (Revelation 20:13 NIV)


texts: Is there assurance of salvation in Catholicism?

texts:
Among some Protestant groups such as Evangelicals and Pentecostals, it is a very common question to ask "Are you saved?" or "Are you born again?". They say that the moment you believe in Jesus Christ, confess your sins, ask for forgiveness and have the peace of forgiveness, you are saved. The evidence of Salvation is then found in the life of the person through repentance, change in character, desire for God and His word, desire to share the gospel, etc.

Do Catholics also have Assurance of Salvation?

At what point in their life can they say that they are saved and will go to Heaven?

Or, do they strive their whole life in order to have Salvation?


texts:
2 Kings 2:23-24 (KJV)
  23 And he [Elisha] went up from thence unto Bethel: and as he was going
  up by the way, there came forth little children out of the city, and
  mocked him, and said unto him, Go up, thou bald head; go up, thou bald
  head.  24 And he turned back, and looked on them, and cursed them in
  the name of the LORD. And there came forth two she bears out of the
  wood, and tare forty and two children of them.

What do these verses mean? What was the purpose of this?  The only reason I can think of is to teach the severity of mocking God's anointed.


texts: According to Mormonism, are there immortals on the Earth?

texts: I was reading Wikipedia about exaltation, and found a reference to people who are physically immortal but who do not advance to heaven. Where do they live? Are they on the Earth?


texts: Why did God have to rest on the seventh day of creation (Genesis 2:1–3), if He only had to say a few commandments on each day? Is not the 'rest' borne out of the fact that God did actively participate in the process of creation? What is the Catholic view on such a perspective?


texts: What religious order do these nuns belong to?

texts:
The habit of these nuns includes no guimpe (or a black one), a black veil, a white wimple, a rectangular white coif:

Which order do they belong to?

(I couldn't find anything quite like it on NunsAndSisters.com.)


texts: I'm Tom and I am from India (South) and it's been 4 wonderful months here in the US. I came here to do my masters study in computer science. I've been struggling hard to find a right church here. I really miss going to Church. My denomination is from CSI(Church of South India). I'd really appreciate if anyone could suggest me the right denomination I can look onto, coz there are like a dozen denominations here in the US and I am confused. Thanks in advance !!


texts: How were people who were never told of the coming Messiah saved in the Old Testament?

texts:
I know theologians and pastors say that people like Abraham and David were saved by grace alone, through faith alone in Christ alone and that for the "in Christ alone" part, they were looking forward to the coming of the Messiah, and their faith in this future coming was their saving faith. BUT, I'm wondering, how about people like Noah who never got such a specific revelation of God's future Messiah (as far as we know)?.
I've always thought that O.T. saints were saved by believing in God period. That God credited to them righteousness through their faith in him but that not all (like Noah as far as I know) had a revelation of a future coming Messiah. Am I right about Noah? And am I right that not everyone may have had a revelation of a future Messiah, therefore their faith was in God and his promises (generally)? Hope that all makes sense.


texts: What crime was committed by the "thieves" crucified with Jesus?

texts:
During yesterday's sermon, the pastor mentioned the theory that the thieves crucified next to Jesus likely weren't simple thieves to warrant such a sentence, but were probably "thieves with a cause."  He suggested today they would likely have been considered religious or political zealots, or "terrorists."

The pastor's suggestion seems a little far-fetched to me, based on how the thieves responded to Jesus:  One mocking him, the other asking pardon.  These don't seem like the sorts of attitudes that religious or political zealots sentenced to death are likely to exhibit.  I would expect "terrorists" to more closely identify with their cause.

Do we have enough information, historically or textually, to draw any conclusions about these thieves' crimes?  Was crucifixion used to punish "simple thieves?"


texts: What is the difference between classical and revised dispensationalism?

texts:
I understand from Wikipedia and elsewhere that dispensationalism can be broken into three main categories:

Classical (Scofield, Chafer)
Traditional, revised, or normative (Ryrie, Walvoord)
Progressive (Bock, Saucy)

From what I gather, classical dispensationalism has largely disappeared, while traditional/revised remains strong despite the growth of the more recent progressive position.

Here I'm interested in the main differences between the first two categories.  Obviously there are going to be distinctives in the thought of each of these theologians, but, broadly speaking, what is an overview of the differences between classical and revised/traditional dispensationalism?

Put another way, what is an overview of the theological distinctives between classical and revised/traditional dispensationalism that make it fruitful to treat them as separate categories?


texts: How do Anglicans, who recognize apostolic succession, trace theirs?

texts:
It appears Anglicans claim apostolic succession.
How do they trace their apostolic succession?


texts: Are Job's seven sons and three daughters in Heaven?

texts: At the end of Job, God blessed him and gave him twice as much as he had in the first part of his life but he still has seven sons and three daughters.  Is it a common interpretation that his first seven sons and three daughters who were killed are alive in heaven? This would be twice as much--fourteen sons and six daughters. What are other interpretations from groups that would find the former interpretation unacceptable?


texts: Is there any evidence that some Christian leaders discourage lay Christians from reading the whole OT or NT?

texts:
I am interested in the three Abrahamic religions, Judaism, Christianity and Islam, and their languages, Hebrew, Aramaic and Arabic. I have read the whole Hebrew Bible all the way through twice and the whole four Canonical gospels all the way through four times. Imagine my surprise when I read that in his 1996 book, I Was Wrong, televangelist Jim Baker admitted that the first time he actually read the Bible all the way through was while he was in prison! Similarly, a Pew Research poll in 2010 found that evangelicals ranked only a smidgen higher than atheists in familiarity with the New Testament and Jesus’s teachings. Details (www.pewforum.org). In addition, Mr. Lee Woofenden, an ordained minister, in answering my original question, pointed out that 'historically, the Roman Catholic Church has at times discouraged or even effectively forbidden the laity from reading the Bible (...) The Tridentine Index of Prohibited Books, The Roman Index of Prohibited Books.' I, accordingly, ask:

Is there any evidence whatsoever or indications that some leaders in major Christian churches or denominations discourage lay Christians from reading the whole OT or NT?


texts:
Did the Catholic Church or any of the representatives issued any stance on Emotional Freedom Technique (EFT)?

I realize it comes from an Eastern religion which is not in line with Christianity, but my question is: what would be wrong with a simple tapping. How can evil spirits enter our life through the tapping on our body?

What is the danger? Instead of understanding and accepting the cross we get from a physical pain, we lean to tapping?


texts: Who actually were writers of the Gospels?

texts: Who actually wrote the Gospels? Take the example of Matthew, is it Matthew who wrote this book himself or did someone consolidate all the materials from what Matthew had?


texts: What is the name of God in the Bible, Quran and Talmud?

texts:
I listened to the Muslim prayer. They pray to god of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, Moses, and Jesus. I was wondering if this is the same god as the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
Also, is this related to the god of Old Testament?

Also is this related to the god of Talmud? The Talmud says Jesus is a criminal paedophile blasphemer and his mother was a prostitute. So, is the Talmudioc god the same as the Father, Son and Holy Spirit?


texts: When should we not receive holy communion?

texts: As we are all sinners, saved by grace, how do we decide if we should take communion?  As a born again believer we still have times in our lives when we carry a particular sin in our heart or mind or deed.  According Baptists, during those times should we not receive communion?


texts: Are there any tenets of Gnosticism that are still present in the church today?

texts: Towards the end of the New Testament writing, the heresy of gnosticism was one of the chief "false teachings" against which Paul and the other writers were contesting.  Could someone present some of the chief teachings of the Gnostics that were "false teachings," and for extra credit, identify any of these beliefs that may be present in certain denominations today.


texts: The Jehovah’s Witnesses state that Jesus was God's first creation? How do they reconcile that with Genesis 1:26, Genesis 2:15-18?

texts:
They state in this Watchtower

Since all created things had a beginning, there was a time when God was alone. Countless ages ago, however, God became a Creator. Who was his first creation? The last book of the Bible identifies Jesus as “the beginning of the creation by God.” (Revelation 3:14) Jesus is “the firstborn of all creation.” That is so “because by means of him all other things were created in the heavens and upon the earth, the things visible and the things."

Since according to them, "there was a time when God was alone" why don't we see any evidence at Genesis 1 or 2 that Jesus was created before Adam and Eve? Why do they jump to Revelation 3:14, the last book of the Bible? Moreover, even if you jump to Proverbs 8:22 it's still well after Genesis 1,2 when man was created after the heavens and earth were created. (Genesis 1:1.)
Since they say "God was all alone" how do they justify the following that Jesus was with God here: :“The Word” was with Jehovah God “in the beginning,” when “the heavens and the earth” were created. He was the one to whom God said: “Let us make man in our image.” (John 1:1; Genesis 1:1, 26) Jehovah’s firstborn Son was there at his Father’s side, actively working with him. At Proverbs 8:22-31, he is represented as saying: “I came to be beside [the Creator] as a master worker, and I came to be the one he was specially fond of day by day, I being glad before him all the time.”
There is no mention of Jesus/Him being with God before the beginning as God's first creation before Genesis chapter one and two? Finally, and this is this is the real question I am asking. How could God who was all alone create anything "WITHOUT" Jesus Christ at John 1:3? "All things came into being by Him, and "WITHOUT" Him nothing came into being that has come into being." The JW quotes are from the Watchtower


texts: Is Leviticus 14 describing a cure for leprosy?

texts:
It seems like a "cure" for leprosy that involves taking two birds, killing one and dipping the other in the blood of the first, then sprinkling the blood in a particular fashion, multiple times.

Taken literally, I can't see any explanation except that it is some shamanic recipe dating from the bronze age, and medically completely bogus if not downright dangerous.

Does it have an interpreted meaning? How do Bible literalists justify this?

Small excerpt, there are pages and pages of ritual...

  4 the priest shall order that two live clean birds and some cedar wood, scarlet yarn and hyssop be brought for the person to be cleansed. 5 Then the priest shall order that one of the birds be killed over fresh water in a clay pot. 6 He is then to take the live bird and dip it, together with the cedar wood, the scarlet yarn and the hyssop, into the blood of the bird that was killed over the fresh water. 7 Seven times he shall sprinkle the one to be cleansed of the defiling disease, and then pronounce them clean. After that, he is to release the live bird in the open fields.


texts: According to Roman Catholicism, what does "proceeds' mean in the Nicene Creed?

texts:
The Nicene Creed says:

  We believe in one God,the Father almighty, maker of heaven and earth, of all things visible and invisible.

  And in one Lord Jesus Christ,
        the only Son of God,
        begotten from the Father before all ages,
             God from God,
             Light from Light,
             true God from true God,
        begotten, not made;
        of the same essence as the Father.
        Through him all things were made.
        For us and for our salvation
             he came down from heaven;
             he became incarnate by the Holy Spirit and the virgin Mary,
             and was made human.
             He was crucified for us under Pontius Pilate;
             he suffered and was buried.
             The third day he rose again, according to the Scriptures.
             He ascended to heaven
             and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
             He will come again with glory
             to judge the living and the dead.
             His kingdom will never end.

  And we believe in the Holy Spirit,
        the Lord, the giver of life.
        He proceeds from the Father and the Son,
        and with the Father and the Son is worshiped and glorified.
        He spoke through the prophets.
        We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic church.
        We affirm one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.
        We look forward to the resurrection of the dead,
        and to life in the world to come. Amen.

I understand that there is one God, God almighty, and one God, the only son of God, and God is eternally begotten of God. And I understand that God became a man to do the will of God, and God was put to death to appease the anger of God, and now God sits at the right hand of God.

But what about God? It says God "proceeds" from God and God. According to Merriam-Webster Dictionary, proceeds means:

  Full Definition of proceed
  intransitive verb

  1:  to come forth from a source :  issue

  2 a:  to continue after a pause or interruption
  b:  to go on in an orderly regulated way

  3 a:  to begin and carry on an action, process, or movement
  b:  to be in the process of being accomplished

  4:  to move along a course :  advance

According to Roman Catholicism, what does "proceeds" mean?


texts: What should be a Christian attitude to the Church of Satan?

texts:
I've been recently watching documentary on LaVey Church of Satan and, I caught myself in a feeling that I actually envy a bit as those people were evidently having good and harmless fun and anyway had a good and understanding company.

What should be the right Christian attitude to The Church of Satan (I'm not talking of any other schools of satanism just of The Church of Satan). Should it be regarded as a crazy old-fashioned curiosity or should it be condemned?


texts: Where does the idea come from that the KJV is the proper bible to be used?

texts: I have heard (mostly from the older generations) that the KJV is the only bible to be used, and all the other ones are changing the bible. Where does this idea come from? Is it a churches teaching or the individual opinions of people? I have learned from my studies that it is probably the least reliable bible, so I was wondering why people set their minds so much upon the KJV.


texts: How do adherents of soul-sleep interpret the parable of Rich man and Lazarus (Lk 16:19–31)?

texts: Doesn't this parable indicate that people have some kind of soul or spirit that is conscious even after death?


texts: According to Genesis 3:1, what could be God's necessity to create serpent(intelligence) to act aginst self

texts: According to Genesis 3:1, God created the serpent to be crafty and gave the serpent the ability to use the given intelligence.  That means there should not be the disobedient intelligence that will act against God: how is it possible that serpent(intelligence) could act against God's self?


texts: To what extent did the Chinese government force Catholic priests to marry?

texts:
In his book The Souls of China, Ian Johnson writes about a type of religious persecution that was inflicted on some groups in China during the Cultural Revolution (1966–76):

  Across the country, Buddhist, Daoist, and Catholic clergy who had taken vows of chastity were forced to marry. (page 26)

Sadly, Johnson doesn't provide any additional information about this, and a quick Google search didn't give me any clues either.  This situation raises a number of related questions.

First of all, do we know approximately how many cases of this type of persecution were inflicted on Catholics?
Second, how did the government put the "marriage" into effect?  Who officiated, and was it done in a church?
Third, did the government actually attempt to enforce this "marriage"?  Did it require that the "married" people live together?  Did it somehow ensure that vows of chastity were broken?
Fourth, would such involuntary "marriages," even if they were performed in accordance with government laws, considered invalid by the Church?  I assume so!

Put simply, to what extent (both quantitatively and qualitatively) did the Chinese government force Catholic clergy to "marry" during the Cultural Revolution?


texts: Christmas Tree Angel holding bread in one hand and coal in the other?

texts:
A friend of mine grew up in England and she recounted a pious Christmas tradition they had in England when she was a little girl while decorating their Christmas Trees. This tradition was in use where she lived in the 1950s.

On Christmas Eve, when people were decorating their Christmas Trees, they would place an angel on top of the tree. The angel decoration or tree topper was a little unique. The angel had bread in one hand and coal in the other. The symbolism was of Christian origin. It symbolized our need to always remember the poor and destitute at Christmas time: the poor needed bread to eat and coal to burn in order to keep warm.

Does anyone know where I can find some information about this Angel Christmas Tree topper tradition?


texts: How does Catholic Church explain the reference to Christ at 1 Cor. 10?

texts:
We read at 1 Corinthians 10:

1 Corinthians 10:1-5, 9 (NRSVCE): I do not want you to be unaware, brothers and sisters, that our ancestors were all under the cloud, and all passed through the sea,  and all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea,  and all ate the same spiritual food,  and all drank the same spiritual drink. For they drank from the spiritual rock that followed them, and the rock was Christ.  Nevertheless, God was not pleased with most of them, and they were struck down in the wilderness... We must not put Christ to the test, as some of them did, and were destroyed by serpents.

If one puts oneself, by imagination, at the time of the Exodus,  one would  hear of Yahweh and not Jesus Christ. As such, Paul's way of interpolating the redemptive role of Christ to the time of Exodus, calls for elucidation. My question therefore is:  How does the Catholic Church explain the reference made by St Paul to Christ while discussing the irresponsible behavior of the ancestors during Exodus?


texts: How should a Christian deal with destructive higher criticism of the Bible?

texts:
In recent times authorship of Biblical books has been called into question by modern scholars.

It is believed that Isaiah didn't write Isaiah, John didn't write John, Matthew didn't write Matthew, and so on. A little concession is given to us by conceding that Mark did write Mark, but he wasn't an eyewitness so his testimony doesn't matter anyway.

My question is -

How much weight does this kind of textual criticism have? What logic/principles are used to arrive at such kind of results? (Can you give an example?)
What should be the Christian response to such claims? What can a Christian do to educate herself on these matters?


texts: Did Martin Luther believe the Church needed to be reformed before the Great Schism of 1054AD, or after?

texts:
I think its safe to say that Martin Luther, being one of the fathers of Protestantism, was primarily at odds with the Roman Church.  He posted his 95 theses to confront what he thought to be corruption that centered around Roman Catholic indulgences.  Later on he became convinced that the Pope was the Anti-Christ.

  Nevertheless, since few know this glory of baptism and the
  blessedness of Christian liberty, and cannot know them because of the
  tyranny of the pope, I for one will walk away from it all and redeem
  my conscience by bringing this charge against the pope and all his
  papists: Unless they will abolish their laws and traditions, and
  restore to Christ's churches their liberty and have it taught among
  them, they are guilty of all the souls that perish under this
  miserable captivity, and the papacy is truly the kingdom of Babylon,
  yes, the kingdom of the real Antichrist! For who is " the man of sin"
  and "the son of perdition" but he that with his doctrines and his laws
  increases sins and the perdition of souls in the Church, while he sits
  in the Church as if he were God? All this the papal tyranny has
  fulfilled, and more than fulfilled, these many centuries. It has
  extinguished faith, obscured the sacraments and oppressed the Gospel.
  (Babylonian Captivity of the Church, Page 536, chapter 3 - emphasis added)

From what I understand, Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy are basically the same doctrinally, with the exception of a few points, such as the Filioque, Papal Supremacy, etc. I also understand it to be true that it is an historical fact that, before the Great Schism, there was only one Church consisting of both the "Eastern lung" and the "Western lung."

My question is this:

Did Luther believe that the Church needed to be doctrinally reformed even before the Great Schism? If not then why didn't he just embrace Eastern Orthodoxy, and in turn direct his "reforming" constituents toward the East?

I haven't read all of Luther's works to know whether or not he conscientiously protested Rome exclusively, or the sacramental lineage of the unified East/West Fathers and ecumenical councils of the early Church altogether.


texts:
The JEDP theory basically states that the first five books of the bible (the Pentatauch) were not written by a single person, but rather by four different people.

I'm trying to understand if this theory is even remotely valid or if it is complete nonsense.

Specifically (to avoid this being closed as argumentative), what are the most reasonable supporting arguments for this theory?  Also, what are the major criticisms against this theory?


texts:
Job 39:30 AND Matthew 24:28

  For wheresoever the carcass is, there will the eagles be gathered
  together.

This is scripture regarding Christ's return.  My difficulty is in understanding why this referral to eagles and the dead is made.


texts:
Today in church I mentioned that I think living according to the gospel makes life easy. Immediately someone kindly disagreed with me. Then I remembered that I used to think living a Christian life was hard, and I bet many other people feel it is hard also.
If living a Christian life is hard, then how can we explain the following scriptures that seem to be saying it is easy?

Matthew 11:28-30 (KJV)
28 Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.
29 Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls.
30 For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light.
1 John 5:3 (KJV)
For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments: and his commandments are not grievous.


texts: According to Catholicism, do Gabriel, Michael and Rafael still have the option of turning away from God?

texts:
On the assumption that Satan was once in fellowship with God. Do Gabriel, Michael and Rafael (or any angel) still have the option of turning away from God?

If so, is the sainthood of a human greater than an Angel?

Because if a human dies and goes to heaven, their fellowship with God is eternal and perfect so the option of turning away from him ceases to exist.


texts:
What's the importance of Fasting? I've felt compelled at times to fast, but I'm not quite sure what the purpose is. I went online and found that it's very healthy for your body, it's something that a lot of secular people do as well as spiritual.

But I'm not quite sure that I fully understand the spiritual reasons for fasting. Does anybody have any insight into this?