texts: Are the Sorrowful Mysteries recited when Christmas is on a Friday?

texts:
The Rosary has four sets of mysteries, each of which is assigned to specific days of the week. The Sorrowful Mysteries are assigned to Friday. When Christmas falls on a Friday is there any guidance from the Catholic Church to recite a different set of mysteries?

Are there any other special days when the Rosary mysteries change from the normal?


texts: What is the origin of the tradition that priests had a rope tired around them when they went into the Holy of Holies?

texts: We have been told that it was custom for priests to have a rope tied on to them before they entered the tent where the Ark of the Covenant was kept, just in case something happened to them while they were in there so they could be pulled out. Is this true? What is the origin of this tradition?


texts: What is the biblical basis for the belief that some people will live eternally on earth?

texts:
In a well-known passage, the Apostle Paul writes:

  For the Lord himself, with a cry of command, with the archangel's call and with the sound of God's trumpet, will descend from heaven, and the dead in Christ will rise first. Then we who are alive, who are left, will be caught up in the clouds together with them to meet the Lord in the air; and so we will be with the Lord forever. (1 Thessalonians 4:16–17, emphasis added)

This suggests that Paul was thinking in terms of an older cosmology, in which angels were believed to live in the sky (the New Testament Greek word for "sky" is the same as the word for "heaven"), and that he is here saying that those who are saved would live forever with the Lord "in the air," like the angels, and therefore not on earth.

The final two chapters of the Book of Revelation, about the New Jerusalem, begin:

  Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth; for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and the sea was no more. And I saw the holy city, the new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband. (Revelation 21:1–2)

Here there is mention of a new heaven and a new earth. However, although the New Jerusalem is seen as coming down out of heaven from God, there is no mention of the New Jerusalem actually touching down on the earth. And its description of being just as high as it is wide and long (Revelation 21:15–16), suggests a city that is seen high above the earth rather than one built on the surface of the earth as the original Jerusalem was.

However, some groups, such as Jehovah's Witnesses, believe that many or all of those who are saved will live on earth rather than in heaven after the resurrection.

What is the biblical basis for this belief?

I am especially interested in any Bible passages stating in an unmistakable way that any resurrected people will live on earth. Failing that, I am interested in Bible-based arguments that some or all people will live forever in their resurrected bodies on earth rather than in heaven.


texts: Is there a Christian response to dying in dignity or assisted suicide?

texts:
There is a raging debate in the province of Quebec on the question "Does someone have the right to kill another because the first one is suffering?" There are more and more cases in the news that look like the following that arrived just yesterday.

Here is a video of an example : http://www.cbc.ca/video/#/News/Canada/Montreal/1305551527/ID=2213970096

Does the Bible tackle the issue? From an evangelical perspective how do I answer this question/issue?

Edit :
I'm looking to a way to answer a fellow Christian with little knowledge of the Bible, and a non-Christian as well. The question is not simply assisted suicide, but it's implied therapeutic relentlessness as well.


texts: Is Zion associated with Mary in Catholic doctrine?

texts:
In the accepted answer to this question, How is the Catholic interpretation of the Woman of the Apocalypse as being Mary reconciled with the dogma of perpetual virginity?, I find reference to Isaiah 66:7:

“Before she was in labor she gave birth; before her pain came upon her she delivered a son.

This is given as a prophetic foretelling of the Catholic belief that Mary did not suffer pains (nor was her hymen even ruptured) in birthing the Christ child.  Reading on in the Isaiah passage it becomes evident that the "she" who is in labor and delivered a son prior to the pain is Zion:

Who has heard such a thing? Who has seen such things? Shall a land be born in one day? Shall a nation be brought forth in one moment? For as soon as Zion was in labor she brought forth her children. - Isaiah 66:8

Zion (Tsiyon in Hebrew) was a Canaanite hill fortress which was captured by King David and thereafter referred to as the "City of David".  It can be understood Scripturally as the most ancient areas of that hill, Jerusalem as a whole or, spiritually, as the Kingdom of God.
In order for this passage to foretell Mary's painless childbirth there would have to be some connection between Zion and Mary.  Is there a teaching in Catholicism that equates Zion with Mary in some fashion?  If so, does this have any biblical basis at all or is it pure tradition?


texts: Is a baptized but not confirmed Catholic really a Catholic?

texts:
I can't tell you how many times I've heard people say (at church also) that a baptized but unconfirmed Catholic is not really a real Catholic.

I can understand that being educated about the faith and being confirmed are important but I think it's incorrect to say that a baptized person is not really a Catholic.

Is this incorrect?

I'm looking for the official stance of the Catholic Church.


texts: What type of Christianity does Hans Christian Andersen depict in *The Red Shoes*?

texts:
When I was little, my parents used to read to me a Chinese version of the story, The Red Shoes, by Hans Christian Andersen. Though, I was not aware of the story's Christian themes and motifs until I read the English version, a language that I am more fluent in.

There are some defining characteristics:

the girl cannot wear red, presumably because it's a sinful color (?)
the girl must wear black shoes to church
the girl cannot wear red during her mother's funeral; it's socially forbidden
the red shoes are very distracting to the girl, perhaps the epitome of sin
the girl must literally repent and forsake her "sinful" life, marked by the red shoes
the type of Christian that Andersen depicts cannot show pride when other people admire her dress or her looks; she must be modest or humble, and that means ignoring the good things about her

What type of Christianity is this, or is this just a figment of Hans Christian Andersen's imagination, or is it a generic nameless type of Christianity as in Margaret Atwood's The Handmaid's Tale?


texts: The extent of different approaches to Revelation

texts:
There are of course a number of different approaches to, and interpretations of the book of Revelation. When I read theological works on end times I stumble upon some of those. But I never really understand how widespread those are.

Approaches: Idealist approach, the futurist approach, the church historical approach and the preterist approach (among others).

Different views on the millennium: Historic premillennialism, premillennialism (and dispensialism), postmillennialism and amillennialism.

What I am interested in is some statistics of present day Christianity. Are there any estimates on how many people that support those different approaches and views on the millennium (I'm most curious of the later). And what kind of Christians do generally hold on to which view?


texts: Why was Jesus baptized in the New Testament? Moreover, why does baptism even exist in the New Testament? After reading the old it seems it is not present anywhere.


texts: How do Oneness Pentecostals (and other modalistic denominations) interpret Revelation 3:21?

texts:
New International Version

  To the one who is victorious, I will give
  the right to sit with me on my throne, just as I was victorious and
  sat down with my Father on his throne.

New Living Translation

  Those who are victorious will sit with me on my
  throne, just as I was victorious and sat with my Father on his throne.

English Standard Version

  The one who conquers, I will grant him to sit
  with me on my throne, as I also conquered and sat down with my Father
  on his throne.

From what I can gather, there are two thrones spoken of here. How do modalist sects explain this verse?


texts: Could a Catholic Church minister distribute communion to the community while churches are closed?

texts: All the Catholic churches where I live have been closed for some time. Is there a mechanism for the distribution of the eucharist to the community (such as extraordinary ministers), even while churches are closed to any gatherings but where priests are still holding Mass (on their own)?


texts: Does Revelation 22:19 apply to the whole Biblical canon or only the Book of Revelation?

texts:
Revelation 22:19  KJV

  And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.

When I first began to study the Bible in earnest, I became intrigued by the Apocrypha, and when I spoke to my pastor about it, he ignored my questions. Some other sources, however, indicated that those apocryphal books had been rejected, because they conflicted with that particular verse.

Through further study, it became apparent that the argument had no real backing. Since all of the books of the Bible were not written by the same person, and over a very long time, and they were not even compiled or even authorized until some years later.


texts: Are there any Christian denominations that incorporate Odinism?

texts:
Are there any Christian denominations or specific churches that incorporate Odinism or Odinistic cultural traditions?

Perhaps, as a way to show that the original religion of northern Europe was not to be destroyed but revealed through Christ?

For example, Odinists state:

  The calendar in use by Odinists in this country today is based on some
  of the festivals most widely celebrated by our ancestors, especially
  those which have survived as part of our people's folklore. Many
  church festivals have incorporated elements of heathen customs; and it
  is now our task to 're-paganise' them.

All About Odinism


texts:
When reading the Old Testament there are many references to sacrifice being required as atonement for sin. I find that today, we commonly nod along to all the detailed instructions and remind ourselves that Jesus made it so we don't need to do that anymore.

I can't help but feel like we are seriously missing some context. In many of the things Christians (and Jewish people before us) do, we are being set apart from those around us.

In what way were the sacrifices being offered in the Old Testament "set apart" from what was going on in other contemporary religions and cultural practices?

For example:

Did others not remove the organs? Thus, Jewish people doing this would be an outward sign that they were not sacrificing to the local gods?

Were the organs and fat prized as food for others?

Was the method of sacrifice significantly different than preparing food, so that fellow Jewish people would clearly know the animal was for sacrifice, and not regular food?
Was the value of what was sacrificed by others significantly more or less?


texts: Can Christians accept prayers from other religions?

texts: For example, can a Buddhist prays for a Christian and let the person know like health and peace? If yes/no, where is it written in the Bible.


texts:
Jesus said (Luke 4:27):

  "There were also many lepers in Israel in the time of the prophet Elisha, and none of them was cleansed except Naaman the Syrian."

Several possible interpretations occur to me:

Others were cured too; Jesus is simply wrong or misquoted.
Others were not cured. (Why?)
Even Naaman was not cured, because miracles are fantasy.

What does the evidence say? Is there any extra-biblical source confirming Naaman's curing? Is there any explanation why the other lepers are not cured?

I am mainly looking for extra biblical evidence that would convince the agnosis. After all, if Jesus says so and it were true is not an assumption we all share. Moreover, Jesus often says vague things, (like the time is near) and easily misinterpreted things, like mustard seed is the smallest.


texts: What is that passage in the Bible where Peter hopes that all will be saved?

texts:
As a child I was an avid Bible reader, now I don't do it anymore, and there are some time  phrases still lingering in my mind from that period.

Anybody knows what is the passage when Peter hopes and says that everybody will be saved by the mercy of God? I hope I am not erring.


texts: Why is the Gospel of Luke the only Gospel to claim Jesus was John the Baptist's cousin?

texts: Why is Luke's Gospel the only of the four Gospels to make the assertion that Jesus was the cousin of John the Baptist?


texts: If Jesus was sinless then why was he baptized?

texts:
If Jesus was sinless what is the biblical bases for needing to be baptized by John?

Mark 1:4-5 NIV

  John did baptize in the wilderness, and preach the baptism of
  repentance for the remission of sins. And there went out unto him all
  the land of Judaea, and they of Jerusalem, and were all baptized of
  him in the river of Jordan, confessing their sins.


texts: Saints: Are they always comfortable in society? (Catholic Church perspective)

texts:
I know saints are exceptional, but I wonder how they could bear some people who are everything they are not.

Could someone be a saint while being asocial, or a bit misanthropic?

I know some saints were hermits or prefered to be alone, but to what extent could they do this without contradicting the Gospel and its teaching?

My question is mainly about: Are there some examples of these kind of saints in the  history of the Catholic Church?


texts: I know about the 7th day Sabbath and I know about SUNday but I cant quite understand lunar Sabbaths. What are these and who observes them?


texts: Were the Waldensians like a Protestant Church in the Middle Ages?

texts: I do not know anything about the Waldensians. Specifically, do we actually know what their doctrine was and why the Catholic Church opposed them?


texts: What are the differences between editions of Ryle's Expository Thoughts?

texts:
I've heard J.C. Ryle's devotional thoughts on the gospels ("Expository Thoughts") highly recommended by a few people.

However there are a few editions out there, and different people have different opinions on which is best. However, I haven't found anywhere that clearly lists the differences between the text of the editions.

Can anyone help?

Editions I'm aware of (there are likely many more!):

Banner of Truth's 7 volume 2012 version
Baker's 4-volume version


texts: When Joshua 'summomed the Reubenites, Gadites, and the half tribe of Manassheh', where did he summon them to?


texts: Has the Catholic Church ever attempted a local substitute for the word Amen?

texts: The suffix 'Amen' has been in use  in the prayers of virtually all Christian denominations across the world, though the pronunciation differs from place to place. Given that the names of God and Jesus have local adaptations, it is intriguing that 'Amen' has a  universally accepted, uniquely single form. I am, therefore, curious to know if any local church of the Catholic denomination has ever attempted a translated version of 'Amen' in its own  language.


texts: Where does Augustine say that Adam and Eve were in Eden for just six hours before sinning?

texts:
In Calvin's Commentary on Genesis, he spends some time dealing with the question of how long Adam and Eve were in the garden of Eden together before they sinned.  He writes:

  The opinion has been pretty generally received, that they fell on the day they were created; and, therefore Augustine writes, that they stood only for six hours. (commentary on Genesis 3:6)

I haven't been able to confirm that Augustine actually wrote this.  I have found mention of six hours in Dante's Paradiso (Canto 26), but so far nothing from Augustine.

Did Augustine say six hours, and if so, where?


texts: What is the Biblical definition of "prophecy"?

texts:
In common parlance, prophecy is often considered to be "predicting the future." For some, it conjures up images of telephone psychics and the like. Others might envision a crystal ball. It generally has a mystical connotation of some type.

On the other hand, the "prophets" of Scripture (e.g. Malachi, Habakkuk, Jonah) seem to be doing something different. Making explicit predictions about the future seems to be a small part of their function as a "prophet."

So my question is: Biblically speaking, what exactly is prophecy? Is there a Biblical definition that matches the actual practices of the prophets?

If possible, please support your answers using the 66 books of Scripture that are found in the Protestant Bible.


texts: When did the pronunciation of "Jesus" change?

texts:
When did the pronunciation of Jesus change from Yeh-sus to Gee-zus? Why did the name change? How? Where?

Update: how did the name pronunciation change? Wouldn't there be people to correct mispronouncing the name? Did English speaking regions that pronounced J as a soft G take over educational institutions? What happened to English speakers that read J as Y?


texts: If there is No sin in heaven and God is all love then how could the devil ever have sinned

texts: Again, it is said that there is no sin in heaven. Jesus also told Mary to not touch him because he had not yet ascended to heaven. But how could the devil had sinned if he only knew God. It would have only been exposure to Love and perfection. It would have been IMPOSSIBLE to know sin in the presence of God if he created you and you could not know evil. I believe in God and Jesus and the Holy Ghost but this question perplexes me. Think about it. Adam and eve didn't know sin until they ate from the apple. How can something created by God and only exposed to heaven where God illuminates with his glory, where there is no crying no suffering,  no imperfections no sickness. Then how could you even conceive the mere idea of sin? You can't cause it would not exist. You wouldn't know about death either cause it would not exist. Can someone please help me with this question.  I don't doubt my faith but it does not make any sense.


texts: According to the LDS church, why was Jesus Christ born when he was born?

texts:
Why was Christ born when he was born? Why not earlier? Why not later? Does the time period of his life have a symbolic or practical importance?

I am not aware of any reason why Christ needed to live when he did other than to fulfill prophecy, but that prophecy only exists because God had previously chosen the time for Christ's birth. So why?

The reason for Christ's life was to perform the Atonement, but I can't imagine the particular timing of it mattered much since it was an infinite atonement.

Another effect of the atonement is that it enabled missionary work in the spirit world as well as performing temple ordinances for them. Many spirits had to wait a few thousand years for this to happen. It seems like they might have preferred if Christ had lived earlier so that they didn't have to wait so long. One might say that time only exists on this earth and not in the world of spirits, so why then is genealogy and temple work so important?

I'm willing to accept that the answer to my question is "because God said so" but I would like to know if there happens to be more than that.


texts:
I have heard people state that the LDS doctrine that Jesus Christ is Jehovah is incorrect. I have been studying the titles of Jehovah in Isaiah 40-48 and I have found that they are similar and in many cases the same as in the new testament relating to Jesus Christ, for example, Redeemer, Savior, King of Israel, Creator, First and the Last. Do Non-LDS Christians believe Jehovah is Jesus Christ? Or does that name belong to God the Father? Or both?

My question is, from a trinitarian perspective, who is Jehovah? Is it God the Father, or Jesus Christ?


texts: According to Catholic Church, what does it mean to worship God in spirit and truth?

texts:
We see Jesus telling the Samaritan woman at Jn 4: 23-24 (NRSVCE) :

"But the hour is coming, and is now here, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for the Father seeks such as these to worship him.   God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth.”

See that Jesus repeats the phrase 'worship in spirit and truth', implying that he attaches much importance to it. Here, spirit and truth are components of a single integrated concept and are not separated from each other. While he explains ìn spirit 'by attributing it to the nature of God who is spirit, he does not elaborate the phrase `in truth'.  Of course, he says elsewhere: "I am the way, the truth and the life " (Jn 14:6).
We also see Jesus telling Pilate :

“You say that I am a king. In fact, the reason I was born and came into the world is to testify to the truth. Everyone on the side of truth listens to me.”

Though we see Pilate putting a question to Jesus on what truth is (Jn 18:38), he does not get an answer from Jesus; rather, he does not wait for one.
My question therefore is: How does the Catholic Church explain the term 'to worship in spirit and truth' as used by Jesus at Jn 4: 23-24?


texts: Are there any modern churches that subscribe to the Donatist heresy?

texts:
Back in the late 300s, the big heresy was Donatism.  The basic idea was that if a Priest cracked under the pressure of persecution that it somehow "proved" he was never really worthy of administering the sacraments in the first place, and therefore any baptism, eucharist, or other thing he administered was somehow invalid.

Augustine, however, issued a powerful defense of the idea that a sacrament doesn't depend on the one administering it, but rather the one receiving it.  In reading a recent question about the Waldensians, however, I was surprised to see that they really were much-later Donatists.

The question then, is this - Are there any modern / extant churches that subscribe to this?


texts: What was meaning of `Talent' as used by Jesus in His parable?

texts:
At Matthew 25:14 we read:

  For it is as if a man, going on a journey, summoned his slaves and entrusted his property to them; to one he gave five talents, to another two, to another one, to each according to his ability. Then he went away. The one who had received the five talents went off at once and traded with them, and made five more talents.

References to the Old Testament ( Exodus 25:39, Exodus 38:27, 2 Samuel 12:30 , 1 King 16:24 etc..) suggest that Talent was used as a measurement of either gold or silver . Some researchers suggest that the phraseology "..to each according to his ability.." used by Jesus implies that Talent was the multiplying factor of the remuneration, per month, of the  worker  in question.

My question therefore, is: What do the Catholic Church's interpretations say on the exact connotation of the term Talent  used by Jesus ?


texts: Can a Mormon reach salvation if they do not pay tithes?

texts:
This is actually a question that stems from some information that I found when reading this article. The article claims that Mormon Mission Presidents receive each a lot of tax free benefits, and it says the following:

  Unlike other church members, this family can receive temple recommends
  without paying tithing on “income.”

So I looked up what the "temple recommends" are and based on this article and this article, it seems that it is a paper slip that allows a person to enter the temple (both of these articles briefly mention tithing as one of the requirements receiving the "temple recommends").

Anyway I did also find this SE question which has some answers according to which the only consequences from non-tithing are the loss of temple access and participation in some "important saving ordinances".

One of the articles referenced in an answer to that question is this First Presidency Message "Concerning Tithing" (By President Marion G. Romney, dated June 1980). This article says among other things:

  Tithing is not a free-will offering; it is a debt, payment of which
  brings great blessings...it is apparent that tithing is a debt which
  everyone owes to the Lord as rent for using the things that the Lord
  has made and given to him to use. The Lord, to whom one owes tithing,
  is in a position of a preferred creditor. If there is not enough to
  pay all creditors, he should be paid first.

So this question is about these "important saving ordinances". Does all of this mean that a Mormon who does not pay tithes cannot visit the temple and consequently will not be able to reach salvation?

Note: I am looking for an official opinion by the Mormon Church on this matter. If the official opinion is indeed that "Anyone can attain salvation. Anyone can be denied salvation. It's all up to Our Lord." then that is fine, although it begs the question why anyone would spend their time or money to support this or any other religious organization.


texts:
I know that some Catholic nuns chose new names, like Mother Teresa (previously Agnes Gonxha Bojaxhiu), and others didn't, like Sister Helen Prejean.

What determines whether a woman changes her name on taking her vows? Is it up to the individual, or do different orders have their own particular rules or customs?


texts: Does Christ explicitly say that this was his first time on Earth?

texts: Is it possible that other historical figures like Buddha and Krishna could be prior incarnations of Jesus? Note I'm specifically asking if Christ said it was exclusive, not other Biblical texts.


texts: How many Christians have actually read the whole Bible?

texts:
I have many times heard the claim that only very few people who identify themselves as Christians have actually read all or most of the Bible.

Have there been any studies to approximate the percentage of Christians who have read the Bible? I have found several numbers, but none of them cite any reliable sources.
Are there any significant differences between denominations?


texts: How to find the articles from the XIV Ordinary General Assembly of Synod of Bishops (Synod of the Family) and the votes on them?

texts:
Frédéric Martel in his book In the Closet of the Vatican has the following remarks on the Synod of the Family:

In fact, a ‘liberal* majority emerged from the Synod, but the quorum
required for the adoption of the controversial articles, which
required two-thirds of the votes, was missing. Three paragraphs out of
62 were therefore rejected » and they were the most to the point. The
pope didn’t get his quorum. Francis’s revolutionary project on the
family and homo sexuality was defeated.

Is there any source where I can find the texts of those 3 rejected paragraphs and the votes taken on them? I am especially interested to check whether all 3 paragraphs indeed gathered the majority votes and were not included in the final document due only to the supermajority requirement. I have read some reviews about the book cited above and they mention many fact checking failures. So, the quoted

'liberal' majority

may be a metaphor and may not mean the majority of votes for the specific paragraphs.
I am aware of the www.synod.va.  The website has the instrumentum laboris and similar documents but I can not find the proceedings (transactions) and the votes. AFAIK, the synodal assemblies are not closed as opposed to the Ecumenical Councils.  (I heard there are about 50+ volume publications of the Second Vatican Council, therefore the notion that Vatican II was closed is quite dubious).
Question to be clarified: While the question (as it stands) seems to be legitimate, most likely Frédéric Martel talked about the III Extraordinary Assembly, which was the preparatory synodal assembly before the XIV ordinary assembly.


texts: What's the name of this setting for the Angelus?

texts:
Here's a YouTube video of an English-language setting of the Angelus that appears to be popular among Anglo-Catholics (it's used at Pusey House)...I've not been able to find the name of the hymn tune.
Link: The Angelus
And here's the specific wording of this variant:

The angel  of the Lord brought tidings to Mary: And she conceived by
the Holy Ghost.
Hail Mary, full of grace, the Lord is with thee;
blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb
Jesus. Holy Mary, Mother of God, pray for us sinners, now, and at the
hour of our death. Amen.
Behold the handmaid of the Lord: Be it unto me according to thy word.
Hail Mary, &c.
And the Word was made flesh: And dwelt among us.
Hail Mary, &c.
Pray for us, holy Mother of God. That we may be made worthy
of the promises of Christ. Pour forth, we beseech thee, O Lord, thy
grace into our hearts; that as we have known the incarnation of thy
Son Jesus Christ by the message of an angel, so by his cross and
passion we may be brought to the glory of his resurrection. Through
Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.


texts: How do Roman Catholics reconcile Acts 15:20 with transubstantiation?

texts:
I'm curious how a Roman Catholic Christian would defend the practice of transubstantiation in light of Acts 15:20 which states that Christians are "to abstain...from blood" (τοῦ ἀπέχεσθαι ἀπό...τοῦ αἵματος ).

  But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood.

(Not that I need to post this disclaimer, but I do believe in transubstantiation.)


texts: Are Catholics allowed to read the NIV translation?

texts:
I know this is kind of an odd question.  However, there is a question that has popped into my mind while considering these quality standards that we've been starting to implement.

My thoughts are that the Catholic Bible includes books that are not part of the Protestant canon.  Furthermore, I know the translations aren't identical between the translation used in Protestant churches and those used in Catholic churches.

So, do Catholics consider the NIV (and other translations that do not include the Deuterocanonical books) as "Protestant" translations?  If so, is there any doctrine or tradition that excludes Catholics from reading these translations?


texts: Why are certain non-harmful behaviors considered sins?

texts:
I would like to hear your response on this. In general, there exist a set of behaviors that Christians consider sinful, though these behaviors may not be observed to harm anybody (even the person doing the behavior.)

Why might this be?

I am assuming that God is not simply making rules for the heck of it, but that there must be some consequence of some kind by which we may understand why such a behavior might be considered wrong or sinful.


texts: What is the origin of the Doctrine of Trinity?

texts:
My understanding is that "Trinity" is not is not used in the Christian Bible to define the three hypostases: God, Christ, and Holy Spirit.  What then is the historical origin of the Doctrine of the Trinity?

Put another way, when and from whom did the word "Trinity" come about in relation to the hypostases?  Is there a reason "Trinity" appears in the Christian lexicon rather than referring to the specific hypostasis?


texts: What is the "Leviathan" mentioned in Job?

texts:
I'm trying to brush up on my apologetics skills, but this is one question I haven't found a clear answer to.

I've seen a few explanations for this — a dinosaur, crocodile, whale etc., but none of them seem to answer the question of why the creature is described as breathing fire (this is described in quite a lot of detail):

  Job 41
  18 Its snorting throws out flashes of light;
         its eyes are like the rays of dawn.
  19 Flames stream from its mouth;
         sparks of fire shoot out.
  20 Smoke pours from its nostrils
         as from a boiling pot over burning reeds.
  21 Its breath sets coals ablaze,
         and flames dart from its mouth.

No known animals could have breathed fire. I considered that it could be a legendary animal known by the people of the time, but then why would God himself talk about it as a real animal? Another possibility could be that the book of Job is more of a parable to teach specific lessons than a historically accurate story.

I'd like to see if anyone else has come across other explanations for this question.


texts: Harmony in the pseudepigraphal writings?

texts:
It is not uncommon when talking to someone about the authenticity or composition of the Biblical canon to for the subject of the so-called "lost" gospels to be brought up.  An explanation of the process used to determine canon, specifically the criteria the criterion of cohesion with the rest of the Bible can, among the more skeptical, bring about the claim that the early church was guilty of suppressing documents showing accounts that "show the truth" about the claims of Jesus or show Him in a negative light, etc.

One would expect, if the claims at truth are indeed valid, these pseudepigraphal writings would show some degree of harmony within themselves, both the early (The Gospel of Judas, for instance) and the late (Gospel of Thomas).  This is equally true for Old Testament non-canonical books such as The Book of Enoch.  Harmony within these writings would support the truth claim and make a reasonable argument for their content.  Disharmony amongst themselves would lessen the credence and support those which are harmonious as being true.

Therefore, to what degree is there harmony among the books left out?


texts:
I have recently started reasearching the differences and similarites between religion's and their definitions of manhood. I was very interested to find that this question had not been previously asked when I search manhood:

How should a man should conduct himself in modern society, according to scriptures in the Holy Bible?


texts: What Protestant/Evangelical tradition is represented in the Casting Crowns song "What the World Needs"?

texts:
I hadn't the song "What this World Needs" before today, although it's 10 years old - guessing it didn't get much air play on the Christian Radios.
I'm wondering if it has something to do with this part where a bunch of children speak in montage/cut-up PSA format:

People aren't confused by the Gospel.
They're confused by us.
Jesus is the only way to God, but we are not the only way to Jesus.
This world doesn't need my tie, my hoodie, my denomination or my interpretation of the Bible.
They just need Jesus.
We can be passionate about what we believe, but we can't strap ourselves to the Gospel, because we are slowing it down.
Jesus is going to save the world, but maybe the best thing we can do is just get out of the way.
Casting Crowns - What this World Needs / Copied from Metro Lyrics

What part of Christianity believes this and why?  As a Catholic, I find these statements to be the antithesis of my religion and almost fighting words.   Don't most Christians want to "be Jesus for others" or at the very least "bring Jesus" to others?  This sort of Christianity seems to me to be passive or even nihilistic and I'm wondering further if this is a real way of looking at Christianity and the Bible or if it's a fad.


texts:
Did Jesus definitely say he was a man? From recall, He is said to be both God and man. Was it definitely not an invention of Christianity?

I'm asking because I'm not sure I believe He was omni-benevolent if He was a man. That is just because I am a man, and do not think I would want very many bad things that have happened in the world to happen, if I were omni-benevolent. I cannot, obviously, speak for God, or Him.


texts: Mormon perspective on "Heavenly Father", "Heavenly Mother" and "Holy Ghost"

texts:
This is a bit of a follow-up question to this other question.

One of the answers to that question says that:

  Mormons believe that, although Heavenly Father was the one who planned
  the creation of heaven and earth, it was the pre-mortal Jesus Christ
  who actually created heaven and earth.

And one of the comments says:

  In the Mormon understanding, in scripture, "the Father" can be
  referring to either of these two people and usually it has to be
  understood from context whether it's referring to Heavenly Father (the
  Father of all our spirits and the Father of Jesus) or the Father of
  our salvation (Jesus Christ).

This is related to this article at lds.org about Mother in Heaven. The article says:

  The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints teaches that all human
  beings, male and female, are beloved spirit children of heavenly
  parents, a Heavenly Father and a Heavenly Mother. This understanding
  is rooted in scriptural and prophetic teachings about the nature of
  God, our relationship to Deity, and the godly potential of men and
  women. The doctrine of a Heavenly Mother is a cherished and
  distinctive belief among Latter-day Saints.

I would like to ask these questions on this subject:

Is the Heavenly Father the same as Elohim?
If not, is Elohim same as Jesus or another person?
Is Holy Ghost another individual, a separate person from Heavenly Father?
Is Heavenly Mother same as Mary (Jesus earthly mother)?
Do Mormons direct their prayers only to Heavenly Father or also to
Jesus?


texts:
Does Christianity say that the events that happen to us are from God?

Is it all free will, or free will and God steps in to veto if he wants, or everything from God.

I ask because at the Church I go to it seems like if a street light turns green, it is from God...or if a stranger says something to me, it is a sign from God...


texts: How did the Roman Punishment "cross" became a holy symbol to Christians?

texts:
The Romans used the cross as punishment to those who didn't follow Roman laws & principles.
How then did the Roman punishment "cross" became a holy symbol to Christians?


texts: Where does the idea that you cannot conceive of light until you see it come from?

texts:
A friend of mine is an atheist. I told him that his disbelief is an effect of his ignorance and gave him an example.

So I told him to imagine a person, who was born and lived all his life in a dark room. This person will not have an idea of the light until he or she will see it.

He enjoyed my argument and asked me to give him the book where I got this thought experiment. I think I must have read it before, because I couldn't invent it myself. Can you help me remember where I read it?


texts: How can the "Son of Man" passages of Matthew 24 be interpreted as a fulfilled prophecy?

texts:
Matthew 24 contains a prophecy spoken by Jesus.  In verse 34, He says, "Truly, I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place." (ESV)

This verse is sometimes used by critics of Christianity to say that Jesus and the early Church believed the world would end before all the initial disciples had died. Thus, they say, it is a failed prophecy.

However, for various reasons (the exact reasons are not relevant for the scope of this question), many Christians both do not see this as a problematic statement, and also believe that the prophecies of Matthew 24 have not yet been fulfilled.

There is also a third option held by some Christians: the prophecy was fulfilled in total before the last disciple died.  Parts of chapter 24 can easily be read as referring to the destruction of the Temple.  Other parts are harder to see as having been fulfilled in the first century AD.

To keep this question reasonably answerable, I will focus on just verses 29-31:

  Immediately after the tribulation of those days the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light, and the stars will fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens will be shaken. Then will appear in heaven the sign of the Son of Man, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory. And he will send out his angels with a loud trumpet call, and they will gather his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.

and verses 39b-41:

  so will be the coming of the Son of Man. Then two men will be in the field; one will be taken and one left. Two women will be grinding at the mill; one will be taken and one left.

How do people who believe Matthew was fulfilled in its entirety during the first century explain 1) the coming of the Son of Man, and 2) the taking away of some people?


texts: What is the evidence that someone is filled with the Holy Spirit?

texts:
There seems to be a distinction between being filled with the Holy Spirit and being indwelt with the Holy Spirit.  The book of Acts mentions the filling of the Holy Spirit several times.

What specifically is the evidence that someone is filled with the Holy Spirit?  Is there always evidence that can be observed by others or can the filling be indistinguishable sometimes?


texts: Is it possible to repent after death in Catholicism?

texts:
In the following quote from the Catechism, it seems to imply that you can repent of a mortal sin after death. How does that fit with the standard "Once damned always damned after death" view that the Catholic church teaches elsewhere?

  Suicide

  2280 Everyone is responsible for his life before God who has given it
  to him. It is God who remains the sovereign Master of life. We are
  obliged to accept life gratefully and preserve it for his honor and
  the salvation of our souls. We are stewards, not owners, of the life
  God has entrusted to us. It is not ours to dispose of.

  2281 Suicide contradicts the natural inclination of the human being to
  preserve and perpetuate his life. It is gravely contrary to the just
  love of self. It likewise offends love of neighbor because it unjustly
  breaks the ties of solidarity with family, nation, and other human
  societies to which we continue to have obligations. Suicide is
  contrary to love for the living God.

  2282 If suicide is committed with the intention of setting an example,
  especially to the young, it also takes on the gravity of scandal.
  Voluntary co-operation in suicide is contrary to the moral law.

  Grave psychological disturbances, anguish, or grave fear of hardship,
  suffering, or torture can diminish the responsibility of the one
  committing suicide.

  2283 We should not despair of the eternal salvation of persons who
  have taken their own lives. By ways known to him alone, God can
  provide the opportunity for salutary repentance. The Church prays for
  persons who have taken their own lives.

I'm curious about the phrase "salutary repentance". Does this mean that someone in Hell can repent?


texts: Which doctrines are Catholics required to accept?

texts:
I only recently figured out that some Catholic doctrines are required for a Catholic to accept, while the denial of others doesn't prevent being a Catholic.

Examples of both cases:

Mark Trapp, in his answer to List of papal teachings considered infallible, quotes two instances of ex cathedra, both of which contain a judgment of those who don't accept the doctrine. The declaration of Immaculate Conception, for example, ends with

  Hence, if anyone shall dare—which God forbid!—to think otherwise than as has been defined by us, let him know and understand that he is condemned by his own judgment; that he has suffered shipwreck in the faith; that he has separated from the unity of the Church...

The doctrine of papal infallibility was not a strictly required one in 1860, as Keenan's Catechism used in British Catholic schools included the following: (as quoted in Wikipedia)

  (Q.) Must not Catholics believe the Pope himself to be infallible?
  (A.) This is a Protestant invention: it is no article of the Catholic faith: no decision of his can oblige under pain of heresy, unless it be received and enforced by the teaching body, that is by the bishops of the Church.

What are the distinctions between these two kinds of doctrines? Is there a list of required doctrines somewhere?


texts: Do Jehovah's Witnesses believe that the 1918 influenza was caused by Satan?

texts:
The accepted answer to this other question of mine mentioned that

  epidemics like the Spanish influenza are thought to be strong evidence
  of Satan’s being confined to the vicinity of the earth.

This kind of caught my interest since I had read this book about the 1918 flu by Gina Kolata for which the author had interviewed researchers that had worked on finding the causes behind the Spanish influenza.

Just for summary, some of the features about this pandemic were things like

That it killed young adults to a much larger degree than a typical flu.
That the outbreak was widespread in the summer and autumn in the
Northern Hemisphere; influenza is usually worse in winter (one reason
to this is that people tend to stay more indoors in social settings).
That during the 15 month period that it ravaged the planet it killed
people in such faraway places as Brevig (Alaska), Bombay
(India), New Zealand, South Africa, and
Spitsbergen.

One of the researchers interviewed in the book was virologist Jeffery Taubenberger who said that a virus that is this good for killing people is "far out on the edge of what is possible for influenza viruses" (p.304; reference added to the bottom of the page) because any mutation would likely make it weaker (additionally a much stronger virus might kill its host before being able to propagate).

So clearly the virus behind that pandemic was of a rather nasty type.

Considering the significance that Jehovah's Witnesses place on the events during the years of the First World War, do they view this influenza as having been caused by Satan? Has any official Jehovah's Witness statement ever been made on this?

Screen shot of the page


texts: Would the story of Jesus hold more significance if he were a man like us?

texts:
I feel that whatever Jesus did, if it is because He is special (the son of God in a way that I am not - because aren't we all God's children?) then it holds little relevance to my life - because it is something I can not strive for or live by because I am not special.

However, if He was a man not unlike me, and He knew the way to live, and led by example, so that I can emulate Him, and strive for His loving approach to everything He faced, uncompromisingly, and with the moral strength and conviction to carry out the orders of the heart, then His story holds the utmost relevance to my life, as it can give me inspiration, and direction, to know that if He was like me, I can also be like Him.


texts: Did early Protestants consider transubstantiation to be idol worship?

texts:
During the sacrament of the Eucharist in the Catholic denomination, it is taught that the wine becomes the actual blood of Christ.  The term is called Transubstantiation.  As far as I know, only Catholics believe this.

During the Protestant version of the communion ritual, it is believed that the wine and bread are symbols of the blood and body of Christ.  Did early Protestants believe that this ritual engages in idol worship or is there another reason why they changed the ritual?


texts: How do Catholics traditionally understand the divine omnipotence?

texts: You have Saint Thomas Aquinas in the 13th century saying that God cannot do what is intrinsically impossible, but I would like to know what Catholics believed about the divine omnipotence before Aquinas and what they believed about it in the centuries after Aquinas.


texts: According to Catholicism, where will our resurrected bodies be after the 'final judgment'?

texts:
According to official Catholic teaching, the righteous will be judged after death and then go to either heaven (or purgatory) or hell.
However, there will then by a 'final judgment', at which point everyone will be reincarnated ('resurrected') in glorified bodies.
Where will these glorified bodies be (will they all be on planet Earth), according to Catholicism?


texts: What are common explanations for the angel being delayed for 21 days in Daniel 10:13?

texts:
In the book of Daniel chapter 10, Daniel is in a period of mourning because a great war is coming. He fasts for 21 days and then sees a vision of what I presume to be an angel. Before the angel explains what will happen to Daniel's people, the angel explains why he is "late" in meeting him:

12 Then he said to me, "Do not be afraid, Daniel, for from the first day that you set your heart on understanding this and on humbling yourself before your God, your words were heard, and I have come in response to your words.
13 "But the prince of the kingdom of Persia was withstanding me for twenty-one days; then behold, Michael, one of the chief princes, came to help me, for I had been left there with the kings of Persia.
—Daniel 10:12–13, NIV

It seems very unusual to me that an angel would be delayed for three weeks by any force, and that Michael (the archangel?) had to come to help free him from the "kings of Persia" (demons?).
I suppose I've always had the image that an angel could just poof to a place instantaneously, as usually happens in popular media, so being stuck in a location for three weeks and needing a stronger angel to help seems really bizarre to me and doesn't seem to match up with depictions of other angels of the Bible (e.g., the ones that appeared to Mary and Joseph).
I'm really at a loss for how to explain this. What is an overview of the most common explanations for the angel being delayed here in Daniel?


texts: Mormons, for how long can I be forgiven of all my sins?

texts:
What I understand is: Upon baptism and receiving the Holy Ghost, I'm sin-free, 100% forgiven, not perfect, but clean, clean like I could dwell in the presence of God if I died right after I was baptized. From then on, every time I take the sacrament I can be forgiven of my sins. Also, every day if I have repented and asked for forgiveness, God may clean me of my sins through blood Christ shed in payment for my sins during the Atonement.

  Moses 6:59-60
    That by reason of transgression cometh the fall, which fall bringeth death, and inasmuch as ye were born into the world by water, and blood, and the spirit, which I have made, and so became of dust a living soul, even so ye must be born again into the kingdom of heaven, of water, and of the Spirit, and be cleansed by blood, even the blood of mine Only Begotten; that ye might be sanctified from all sin, and enjoy the words of eternal life in this world, and eternal life in the world to come, even immortal glory;

  For by the water ye keep the commandment; by the Spirit ye are justified, and by the blood ye are sanctified;

Yet, the process of repentance seems to be a constant thing, one we don't really start and end, especially because we can't be 100% sure that we will never sin again.


texts: In Catholicism, do scripted and unscripted prayers have equal importance to one's spiritual identity and development?

texts:
By scripted prayer I mean prayers such as Our Father, Daily Bread, and Eucharistic prayers. I would also include prayers such as the Prayer of St. Francis of Assisi and Prayer to the Holy Spirit.

By unscripted prayer I mean something like, "God, please help me make it through tomorrow."

What does Catholicism teach regarding the importance of each type of prayer for one's spiritual identity and development?


texts: According to Catholicism, does saying "God loves everyone equally" mean that God *likes* everyone equally?

texts:
I have question about God's love:

When, in the Catholic Church, we say "God loves everyone equally", is it same as "God likes each of us to the same extent, and He loves us equally by His action"? or does it mean "God does not like each of us to the same extent, but He loves us equally by His action"?

Someone told me that God's love (or agape love) is an "act of will", which is not dependent on emotion of affection or fondness (or is different than affection or fondness); but I am having a hard time separating agape love from what we would call affection or fondness - and here is my logic:  if agape love is an "act of will", that means it is a loving action that is driven by desire.  But if we are to truly desire the good of someone, we must have affection or fondness towards that someone. If I force myself to conduct a good deed for someone who I dislike, I am not really desiring the good of the person, as my good deed is being carried out forcefully, not from the bottom of my heart. So we cannot really separate God's love from the affection or fondness that He has for us - thus "God loves everyone equally" means "God likes each of us to the same extent, and He loves us equally also by His action".

But I guess if the definition of agape as an "act of will" is to be interpreted as "loving action driven by determination" rather than "loving action driven by desire", then agape is indeed independent of emotions like affection or fondness. Going back to our previous example, if I force myself to conduct a good deed for someone whom I dislike, that means I am "determined" to do good things for him, regardless of my emotion. Is this what God's love is about? Liking some more than the others (more affection towards some of us than the others), but determined to carry out the same loving deeds to all of us? But I have always thought that God likes all of us very much to the same extent, although he does dislike our sins. It would be pretty depressing to think of the possibility that God not liking me at all, but Him carrying out all His loving actions towards me purely out of His "determination".

So again, I am back to my question: According to Catholicism, when we say "God loves everyone equally", is it same as "God likes each of us to the same extent, and He loves us equally by His action"? or does it mean "God does not like each of us to the same extent, but He loves us equally by His action"?

PS: Some may object that God does not have affection or fondness because he is impassible; but there is also a view that God is impassible but also impassioned. However, that is a whole different discussion.


texts: Is it fair to say that Baptists have a liturgy?

texts:
One distinctive of Baptists and many other congregational churches is that they have no prescribed method of worship. Unlike, say, an Episcopalian or a Roman Catholic, there is no prayer book and no guidance "from above" (in the earthly, not heavenly sense) as to the elements and order of a church worship service. Each congregation is free to explore and promulgate its own worship order.

That said, in effect, most Baptist services I've ever participated in or led have boiled down to:

A Welcome
Two or three songs, one of which might be a choir special
A single Bible reading
An offering
The Doxology
A prayer
A sermon
An altar call and a final hymn

Followed by coffee hour in truly progressive churches :)  Additionally, communion, to be held quarterly or monthly  is inserted between the sermon and the altar call.

While there is no strict order, I'm willing to bet that I've just described about 95% of them, and I've probably even got the order right in at least 80%.

Here's the question—is that a liturgy?  I know I'd reject that label, but is it fair to call it a liturgy? If it is, why do Baptists reject the claim. If not, what element is missing to call it such?


texts: Why does the Roman Catholic church consider beatification of the pope?

texts: If the pope is infallible, than what significance does beatifying and canonising him have?  They did both to John Paul II, but it seems odd that the church wants to make him a saint, unless I am misunderstanding the concept of saints.


texts: In the NPP, if Paul's "works of the law" are only circumcision and diet, how is Galatians 3:10 interpreted?

texts:
One of the implications of the New Perspective on Paul (NPP), as I understand it, is that Paul's teachings regarding the "works of the law" (in Galatians 2:16, for example) are meant to refer only to "boundary marker" laws, that is, laws like circumcision, diet, and calendar, as opposed to all of God's law.

This can have a significant impact on one's doctrine of justification, as it opens the door for other "works" (besides circumcision, etc.) to be part of the basis of one's salvation.

One challenge to this aspect of the NPP that I've seen is based on other references to the "works of the law" in Paul's writings, where he uses the same phrase but appears to be referring to the entire law.  For example, Romans 3:20:

  For by works of the law no human being will be justified in his sight, since through the law comes knowledge of sin. (ESV)

Here, critics of the NPP say, Paul is clearly referring to the entire law, not just "boundary marker" laws, since elsewhere he recognizes many other sins besides failure to circumcise.  But to me an even stronger passage appears to be Galatians 3:10:

  For all who rely on works of the law are under a curse; for it is written, “Cursed be everyone who does not abide by all things written in the Book of the Law, and do them.” (ESV)

Here, quoting Leviticus 18:5, Paul's use of "all things written in the Book of the Law," as opposed to some, is seen as plain evidence that "works of the law" to him means more than just circumcision, etc.

Thus, the question:

How do proponents of the New Perspective on Paul respond to challenges to their view of Paul's "works of the law" that are based on Galatians 3:10 and similar passages?


texts: According to Catholicism, does reception of the gift of the Holy Spirit protect against demon possession?

texts:
A Catholic answer to this question regarding instances of animal-like behaviors in spiritual movements in history included reference to the Loudon possessions in 1634 in France in which a group of nuns were possessed:

The nuns claimed the demon Asmodai was sent to commit evil and impudent acts with them. During questioning about the supposed evil spirit thought to be possessing them, the nuns gave several answers as to who caused its presence: a priest, Peter, and Zabulon.
The nuns' increasingly extreme behavior: shouting, swearing, barking, s etc. drew a considerable number of spectators.

A comment questioned the implications for the salvatory state of the nuns:

An interesting thing is that the Scripture strongly indicates that born-again believers (indwelt by the Holy Spirit) cannot be possessed by demonic spirits, so what does that indicate for the Nuns?

The responding comment was that Catholic exorcists and Catholic hagiography indicate differently:

Catholic exorcists would genuinely disagree with that opinion. This is not the place to start an argument, on this subject. Catholic hagiography actually supports it, as happened to even a few canonized saints. The Devil hates the truth!

My question is: Does the Catholic Church actually teach that believers who are indwelt by the 3rd person of the Trinity can still be demon possessed?  Do Catholics have reason to fear that they might get possessed?


texts: Shouldn't Mary’s genealogy be Jesus' family history?

texts:
Matthew 1:1-17 provides a genealogy of Jesus, traced back to Abraham:

  The Family History of Jesus the Messiah:
  .  .  .
  Abraham was the father of Isaac
  .  .  .
  Matthan was the father of Jacob.
  Jacob was the father of Joseph.
  Joseph was the husband of Mary,
  and Mary was the mother of Jesus, who is called the Messiah. (from Matthew 1:1-2, 15-16, ERV)

However, next it says that Joseph had nothing to do with the birth of Jesus: that Jesus was born of the seed of the Holy Spirit, not Joseph's seed:

  This is how the birth of Jesus the Messiah happened. His mother Mary was engaged to marry Joseph. But before they married, he learned that she was expecting a baby. (She was pregnant by the power of the Holy Spirit.) (Matthew 1:18, ERV)

And:

  When Joseph woke up, he did what the Lord's angel told him to do. He married Mary. But Joseph did not have sexual relations with her until her son was born. And he named him Jesus. (Matthew 1:24-25, ERV)

How is Matthew 1:1-17 the family history of Jesus?

As far as any family lines were involved in Jesus' birth as a human, shouldn't Mary's genealogy be Jesus' family history? (I truly don't get this.)


texts: What kind of Roman cross was used to crucify Jesus?

texts:
Possible Duplicate:
  Crucifixion — torture stake or cross?

Apparently there were at least three kinds of crosses used by the Romans to crucify criminals. One was called ‘Crux decussate’ in the shape of an ‘X’. The second, Crux Commissa, in the form of a ‘T’. Finally, they used, the Crux immissa in the form of a small 't' like what we usually see in the movies, typcical church crucifixes, or on jewelry, etc.

Is there any ancient records of the symbol of the cross in church history that would indicate what type of cross the Romans actually used to crucify Christ?

I ask this trivia type question only because this is the type of thing my older Sunday school kids will throw at me and I have no answer.


texts: Does Bunyan's "Pilgrim's Progress" state a position on predestination?

texts:
This question is NOT:

what does John Bunyan believe about predestination
is predestination biblically accurate?

This question is:

Does "Pilgrim's Progress" take a position on predestination?
And if so, which chapter / section?

Thanks!


texts: How do Modalist and Oneness Pentecostals interpret Revelation 3:12?

texts:
In Revelation, after the resurrection, Yeshua says...

  "Him that overcometh will I make a pillar in the temple of my God, and he shall go no more out: and I will write upon him the name of my God, and the name of the city of my God, which is new Jerusalem, which cometh down out of heaven from my God: and I will write upon him my new name." (Revelation 3:12, KJV)

Modalists believe that there is one god, the Father, who takes on three distinct modes or functions as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Why does god refer to god as "my God"?


texts:
He replied, “Because the knowledge of the secrets of the kingdom of
  heaven has been given to you, but not to them. Whoever has will be
  given more, and they will have an abundance. Whoever does not have,
  even what they have will be taken from them. (Matthew 13:11-12)

What does it mean by that?


texts: Is there any real significant difference between Protestantism and Catholicism?

texts: I know a lot of people who have very strong views against Catholics and was really starting to wonder, just as the title suggests, other than Catholicism having priests, what differences are there?


texts: What is the significance of the inverted pentagram symbols on the LDS Temple in Salt Lake City?

texts:
The Temple in Salt Lake has several inverted pentagrams as decorations.  (To see a few, just google "lds temple salt lake inverted pentagrams" and click on images.  Or click here)

According to Wikipedia, the inverted pentagram symbol is used in Neo-Paganism, Satanism, and magick, as well as Freemasonry.

How exactly did it become a symbol of the LDS church?  (It seems like an odd symbol to use, given how it's used by others.)  What does it represent according to LDS teaching?


texts: Can a church pastor prohibit sacraments to people for any reason, other than mortal sin?

texts:
A friend of ours alerted us to an example (maybe there are more) of a Catholic Church (took a little checking to make sure it was really a Catholic Church) that is only allowing people who are vaccinated to receive confessions.  Now, this seems like a constitutional crisis of faith to me.

Does this somehow tie vaccinations to grave matter?  Does it mean there are no private confessions?  Is this even legal, under church law?  What happens if you want to go to confession, but not get vaccinated (or you can't get vaccinated for whatever reason)?


texts: What is the purpose of minor basilicas? What is the difference between them and a normal cathedral? As far as I can tell its purely ceremonial. If that is true, what aren't all cathedrals designated basilicas? Is it just a tradition to have hierarchy of cathedrals?


texts: What does it mean when God 'hardens' a heart?

texts:
I love the answer in this question regarding God giving us free will saying :

"..and without choice, there can be no true obedience, or true love, only mindless followers with no will of their own."

And I do believe so. God gives us free will to be able to genuinely love Him, to genuinely obey. but:

Exodus 11: 10 states ".. but the LORD hardened Pharaoh's heart, and he would not let the Israelites go out of his country."

This kinda complicates things, God - loving, kind, and who has given us free will, is the same God who hardens hearts. Another reference is :

Joshua 11: 20 saying "For it was the LORD himself who hardened their hearts to wage war against Israel, so that he might destroy them totally, exterminating them without mercy, as the LORD had commanded Moses."

This is very clear that the LORD himself hardened their hearts. Is this contradictory to God's claimed character or is there other meaning to it when God 'hardens' a heart? Because by itself it seems as if God is pushing people to wage war, or to do things outside what could have been an individual's free will.


texts: Can someone tell more about this artwork of Jesus Christ?

texts:
Another piece in the belongings of my late grandmother may she rest in peace.

This is a part of 7 pieces in total.

I am really intrigued by the artwork itself.

Is it possible for someone to identify this scene?


texts: What are the main differences between the Seventh Day Adventist church and the Worldwide Church of God?

texts: Both churches are what they call "Sabbath keepers".  What are the main differences in doctrine between the Seventh Day Adventist Church and the Worldwide Church of God, now known as Grace Communion International?


texts:
Catholics believe that Mary is the Ark New Testament and they believe it on a scriptural basis (source).This is the same stance Orthodoxy has (source).

Do Protestants accept the similarity between Mary and the Ark of the Covenant?

If yes,  then, that would mean agreeing with Catholic (and Orthodox) interpretation.

If not, why not?

The following are the similarities between Mary and the Ark of the Covenant as seen in light of Biblical typology (Catholic Interpretation):

The Ark

The Ark of the Covenant was overshadowed (Ex. 40:34-35)
David was rejoicing in the presence of the Ark of the Covenant (2 Sam. 6:16)
David said, Why did the Ark of the Lord visit me? (2 Sam. 6:9)

Mary

Mary was overshadowed by the Holy Spirit (Lk. 1:35)
John the Baptist leaped for joy in the presence of Mary (Lk. 1:41)
Elizabeth said, Why did the mother of the Lord visit me?( Lk. 1:43)

Also, the Greek word ἐπισκιάσει was the same Greek word used in the overshadowing of the Ark ( Exodus 40:35 LXX).In the entire Scriptures, only Mary and the Ark were ascribed of that verb.

Protestants of different denominations are encourage to answer.


texts: What does "one another" mean in John 13:35?

texts:
In John 13:35 it states:

  By this all people will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another.

which is very commonly put in sing-song format as:

  They will know we are Christians by our love.

My question is whether this verse is only concerning love for other disciples, or if it extends to everyone. Additionally, if it is only concerning love for other disciples, are there any additional verses that make it not a far stretch to claim that people will know we are Christians by our love for everyone?


texts: Do you have to have a certain amount of intelligence to get into heaven?

texts: Is there a certain level of intelligence required to get into heaven?  I would expect someone to be able to understand at least some of scripture to be saved, but how much intelligence is needed to understand what you need to be saved?


texts:
Did Moses have a speech impediment?  Because Acts 7:22 says he was powerful in speech and action which contradicts Exodus 4:10.

Acts 7:22 And Moses was instructed in all the wisdom of the Egyptians, and he was mighty in his words and deeds.
Exodus 4:10 But Moses said to the Lord, “Oh, my Lord, I am not eloquent, either in the past or since you have spoken to your servant, but I am slow of speech and of tongue.”


texts: Should every mandatory and unambiguous truth from the Scriptures have to have a dogma?

texts: My question is connected with my previous question Does Catholic Church have any dogma about homosexuality? AFAIK there is no dogma about homosexuality. This my question asks - whether there should be such dogma? Does every truth revealed by the Scripture should be (and is) encoded by some dogma?


texts: According to Anglicanism, is the Pope the Antichrist?

texts:
In the Westminster Confession of Faith, Chapter XXV, article 6, we read:

  There is no other head of the Church but the Lord Jesus Christ. Nor can the Pope of Rome, in any sense, be head thereof; but is that Antichrist, that man of sin, and son of perdition, that exalts himself, in the Church, against Christ and all that is called God.

There is also this document which goes through the wording of several Anglican theologians, leaders, and government officials, arguing precisely that same thing (and thus arguing against any effort of collaboration). The documents states:

  If  the   English  Reformers  are   to  be  believed,   and  the  official  language  of  the  Church  of  England  for  a  couple  of  generations   at  least  after  the   Reformation  is  to  be  accepted,   the  Church   of  Rome  is  the   Apocalyptic  “Babylon   the Great ,” and  the Pope  that “Man of Sin”  delineated by the  Apostle, as one  of the  manifestations of  Anti-Christ.

Thus, is the above article of faith in effect stating that, for the Anglican church, the Pope is the Antichrist? Is this thus official doctrine?


texts: What is the dominant "Other Christianity" of the Members of the US Congress from the Dakotas?

texts:
According to this map:

the predominant religion of a given region is usually more or less close to that of the Member of Congress who represents it.  Wisconsin and the Northeast are heavily Catholic (Svidgen, Peter Turner, I know you vote!), the South is basically Baptist, and Utah, shocker, is all Mormon.  What intrigues me, however, is the big bunch of white in the Great Plains - specificially the Dakotas and Nebraska. Grant you, these are At-Large districts, but I'm still wondering what "Other Christian" would be there.  What is the stated relgiion of the members from the Dakotas and Nebraska?


texts: What is the Biblical Basis for "Schools of Prophecy"?

texts:
1. Question - A Reference Request for a Biblical Basis :

Is there any Biblical Basis for "Schools of Prophecy" - where People are trained how to use the Gift of Prophecy they already have?

Closely Related To:

https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/50930/what-is-the-biblical-basis-that-prophecy-can-be-taught-like-a-skill
In Scripture - Was Prophecy That was Spoken in Good Faith, ever Corrected?
https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/50906/in-scripture-was-gods-voice-ever-mistaken-when-spoken-privately


texts: According to Calvinists, why did God say what He did to Cain in Genesis 4:7?

texts:
Both high and low Calvinists from this Wiki say that God authorized the Fall, by which all deserve to be condemned.

Me: If there is no predestination at all, both Cain and Abel will end up in hell.

From this link Calvinists teach that Ephesians 2:8 declares that faith is given to the elect only.

Now, Hebrews 11:4 says:

  By faith Abel brought God a better offering than Cain did. (NIV, italics added)

Me: because there is predestination, Abel will end up in heaven while Cain will still end up in hell.

But Genesis 4:7 says:

  If you do what is right, will you not be accepted? But if you do not
  do what is right, sin is crouching at your door; it desires to have
  you, but you must rule over it. (NIV)

My question:

If God alone before the creation had already decreed that Cain would end up in hell, and that's why He will never give Cain faith, why did God say what He did to Cain in Genesis 4:7?


texts:
I was recently thinking about the passage in exodus that talks about how the Israelites fell into sin while Moses was up on the mountain. God said that he would destroy all the Israelites but Moses interceded for them and asked that God spare them and he did.

Can God change his mind about these things, especially when it comes to decisions of mercy?


texts: Moral implications of heaven and hell doctrine

texts:
Many Christians believe that when a person dies, they go to either heaven or hell. Catholics believe in purgatory, but most Protestants seem to not believe in this doctrine. Furthermore, the vast majority of Protestant Christians claim that salvation comes about through having the right belief in Jesus - who he was and a theological understanding of what he did.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soteriology#Christianity

This doctrine of eternal consequences without the ability to get purified in purgatory never really made logical sense to me for a number of reasons, including the contradiction between Old Testament righteous people seeming to have a good afterlife without knowing about Jesus, and slippery-slope questions about children, mentally handicapped and others who simply never heard the gospel but were more or less good people. I have encountered at least some answers to these objections, although they seemed logically incoherent to me. However, I have not heard any answers at all to the following:

Let's suppose that the Christian dogma of heaven and hell is correct. That would mean that the ultimate moral consequences are determined by God. If a person cannot bring themselves to believe in "Mere Christianity" -- because, for example, every time they try to examine the evidence for/against Christianity it leads them to the conclusion that this is a man made legend and nothing really supernatural occurred -- what incentive or reason does this person have to behave morally at all? According to Protestant Christianity, no matter how good an unbeliever behaves, even the kindest old lady gets the same exact fate as Hitler and Pol Pot. Isn't this a reductio ad absurdum, showing that the heaven/hell doctrine provides for no moral incentives for unbelievers to act good without Christian belief?


texts: Why does Jesus not want people to repent and be forgiven in Mark 4?

texts:
This is in response to the disciples asking why Jesus teaches in parables:

  He said to them, "The secret of the kingdom of God has been given to you. But to those outside, everything is in parables, so that although they look they may look but not see, and although they hear they may hear but not understand, so they may not repent and be forgiven." -Mark 4:11-12 New English Translation

Why does he say this? Why is he teaching at all if his intent is actually that the people not see, not understand, and not repent. It seems troubling.


texts:
I don't have hard statistics at hand, but a quick search on the web can easily reveal that the use of contraception is controversial among Christians, as not every denomination or church openly accepts it. Just for the sake of sharing an example, this BBC article claims that:

Christian acceptance of contraception is relatively new; all churches
disapproved of artificial contraception until the start of the 20th
century.
In modern times different Christian churches hold different views
about the rightness and wrongness of using birth control.

Question: What is the biblical basis against contraception? What are common exegetical arguments against the practice of birth control?


texts: Where does Calmet write when idolatry began?

texts: I saw someone mention that Calmet writes that idolatry was started by Ham or his son Canaan. Where can I find this passage in Calmet's writings?


texts: Did Pope Francis overstep any official Catholic boundary when he criticized Trump?

texts:
Pope Francis implicitly criticized Donald Trump as not a Christian when he said, regarding Trump's proposed policy to build a wall between the USA and Mexico and immediately deport all illegal immigrants,:

  "A person who thinks only about building walls, wherever they may be, and not building bridges, is not Christian. This is not the [message of the] gospel."
  Pope Francis - CNN - February 18, 2016

Naturally, Trump disagreed with this entirely, saying that "No leader, especially a religious leader, should have the right to question another man's religion or faith" (ibid).

All politics aside and whether Pope Francis' actions lie within some American taboo, did Pope Francis overstep some known Catholic boundary when he chose to enter the fray of politics in the United States by expressing an opinion about the religious faith of a candidate?


texts: Catholic marriage between a Catholic and baptised non-Christian

texts:
How does Catholicism handle the desired marriage of a Catholic to a baptized, yet non-Christian partner?

As I understand it (i.e.: what Wikipedia told me), the Catholic church defines three versions of the Sacrament of Marriage:

"Canonical" marriage: an unmarried man and woman, each a baptized Catholic of age, are married by a Catholic cleric. The marriage is considered valid and sacramental.
"Mixed" marriage: one of the couple is a baptized non-Catholic Christian. Catholic marriage is still possible, but requires the special permission of a Catholic cleric. With this permission, the marriage is also considered valid and sacramental.
Disparitas cultus marriage: one of the couple is an unbaptized non-Christian. Catholic marriage is discouraged, but still technically possible via dispensation of disparitas cultus by a Catholic cleric. This dispensation can only be acquired if three conditions are fulfilled:

The Catholic party is allowed free exercise of their religion.
All offspring are to be raised as Catholics.
The Catholic member of the couple promises to do "all that is possible" to convert the non-Catholic member to the Catholic religion.

The marriage is then considered valid, but is not sacramental (instead considered "natural" marriage).

First off - are there any glaring errors in my understanding of Catholic marriage?

Second - what I find lacking from this definition is the case of a baptized non-Christian seeking marriage to a Catholic. My first thought was that this would fall under disparitus cultus marriage; the lack of one party's Christian faith would "invalidate" their baptism. However, this reasoning is clearly wrong; the Catholic church also holds that Baptism is "indelible" and cannot be repeated or undone [CCC 1280]. Given this belief (and the fact that the Catholic church does appear to recognize non-Catholic baptism under at least some conditions [CCC 1256]), what happens when one of the parties was baptized but is no longer a practicing Christian?


texts: What is an overview of Christian viewpoints on the eternal destiny of individuals who die never hearing the Gospel?

texts:
Many individuals die never having heard the Gospel. Some illustrative examples are: pretty much everyone who was born before Jesus, individuals contemporary to Jesus but who were too far away at the time to hear about him (e.g. Native Americans and all tribes from the Pre-Columbian era during the first and many subsequent centuries), isolated jungle tribes in Africa and the Amazon, and uncontacted peoples in general.
How do different denominations across Christianity view the problem of individuals dying without ever having heard the Gospel's salvation message? What is the biblical basis in each case?
Note that this is an overview question: answers must summarise the positions of several different major Christian branches, and if possible even some of the smaller ones as well.


texts: What is the significance of Palm branches?

texts:
I've been pondering this question for a while. With Easter right around the corner, I figured this is the perfect time to ask. See these verses:

  Most of the crowd spread their cloaks on the road, and others cut branches from the trees and spread them on the road. And the crowds that went before him and that followed him were shouting, “Hosanna to the Son of David! Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord! Hosanna in the highest!”
  Matthew 21:8-9 (ESV)

  The next day the large crowd that had come to the feast heard that Jesus was coming to Jerusalem. So they took branches of palm trees and went out to meet him, crying out, “Hosanna! Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord, even the King of Israel!”
  John 12:12-13 (ESV)

Why did the people lay palm tree branches on the road that Jesus entered on? Did this have a special significance in Jewish culture at the time?


texts: What is the Catholic understanding of 'reign with him' in 2 Tim 2:12?

texts:
2 Timothy 2:11-13 (RSVCE) has:

  The saying is sure:

  If we have died with him, we shall also live with him;

  if we endure, we shall also reign with him;

  if we deny him, he also will deny us;

  if we are faithless, he remains faithful— for he cannot deny himself.

What is the Catholic understanding of 'we shall also reign with him'?

One difficulty, if all reign, who are the subjects?

One Protestant perspective is the thinking that the subjects would be the people in the Millennial Rule of Christ; the ones that were not raptured or survived through the tribulation. Also a thought is that people would still have families and offspring born of them during that time.

Ideas Board

sketches

'Let them be masters ...' [Gn 1:26]; Joseph and Potiphar Genesis 39:8-9 (RSVCE); 31 and he has filled him with the Spirit of God, with skill, with intelligence, with knowledge, and with all craftsmanship, 32 to devise artistic designs, to work in gold and silver and bronze, [Exodus 35:31-32 (RSVCE)]; David's Adminstration[1 Chronicles 18: 14-17]; 'Truly, I tell you, he will set him over all his possessions.' [cf. Lk 12:44]; The Parable of Talents; you who have followed me will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel (Matthew 19:28 (RSVCE), 'I came that they may have life, and have it abundantly.' [John 10:10 (RSVCE)], etc.

Also Kings Pele, Elvis, etc.

Filling the stations abandoned by the fallen angels?

King of kings; All nations shall serve and obey him (nations continue?); you are royal priesthood


texts:
I have been to both the Ordinary and the Extraordinary form of the Roman Rite. Many people at the Extraordinary form told me something that could be understood as "the EF is more reverent than the OF".
They said that the OF is valid but very problematic. The discussed the "EF vs OF" a lot and I couldn't stand it. Many of them had actully studied Liturgy and knew a lot about it so they could argue for their beliefs. Even the Priest (Institute of Christ the King Sovereign Priest) seemed to say that the EF is more reverent but he obviously did not say that one should not attend the OF.
It's like they wished the OF never existed.
They discussed the question "who should be allowed as altar servers?" but that is another question. That has to do with how the OF should be celebrated but even that seemed a little like "EF vs OF". The Bishop allows for female altar servers so bassically it seems like the wanted critize the Bishop. They said very nice thing about him as a kind person but they did critisize him and the pope a lot. Everyone seem to have personal opinions about Liturgy. Many people, especially older people, have said how much problems they had with the EF back in the days. They say that it easier to focus on the Mass nowadays.
Are Catholics allowed to believe that the EF or OF is objectively more reverent than the other?
Allowed: That does not go against Church teaching or discipline.


texts:
I am stalled at the notion that there is but a single way 'up the mountain'.  "No one gets there but by me."  However, it seems as though 'me' could be 'any of me.'  In the sense that Jesus was (a manifestation of) God, could not also, for example, Buddha, Lao Tzu, et al, also be (manifestations of) God?

I am not a Biblical scholar (obviously), but if Jesus is the only way, then those who have not been informed are at a serious loss.  There are (methinks) passages that indicate that we all have a primordial (a priori?) sense of God and so that there is no excuse, but without the Jesus specifics, it wouldn't be enough.


texts: Do Jehovah's witnesses believe that Jesus appeared in the Old Testament?

texts:
Many Christian teachers as far back as the early church fathers have taught it was Jesus that appeared to Abraham before destroying Sodom and Gammorah, wrestled with Jacob in the dessert, and appeared at other times in the Old Testament scriptures.

Do Jehovah's whitnesses also teach that Jesus appeared to some people before his incarnation?


texts:
Ever since his election on March 13, 2013, Pope Francis has electrified the world and is a media sensation

But among Catholics, who it is said tend to love their Popes to a fault, the reception of him is divided [cf. Watch out Pope Francis: the Catholic civil war has begun]. This is by no means limited to Catholics among Christians (e.g. Lee Duigon , Russell D. Moore, and Baptist Press).

For Catholics who have expressed concern about Pope Francis and are wary of his pontificate, what are the key issues?


texts: Is there anyone in heaven? (Catholicism)

texts: In Catholicism people pray to the saints, angels and the Virgin Mary. Is then, in Catholicism, heaven filled, besides angels, with the saints and the Virgin Mother?


texts: What was the difference between Berengar's view of the Eucharist and that of Zwingli?

texts:
Berengar of Tours played a major role in the Second Eucharistic Controversy, which took place in the 11th century.  He opposed the increasing acceptance of proto-transubstantiation doctrines, arguing against materialist understandings of the elements on biblical and philosophical grounds.

Everett Ferguson (Church History, I, 21.II) summarizes Berengar's view as "dynamic symbolism":

  The consecrated elements do not become the body and blood, but produce the effects of Christ on the recipient.

Today the word "symbolic" in reference to the Lord's Supper is often connected to the reformer Huldrych Zwingli, who sees communion as simply a symbolic memorial of the Last Supper.  But I wonder how close the views were of these two thinkers – how similar were the views of Berengar and Zwingli on the nature, purpose, and effects of the elements in the Eucharist?


texts: What are the different views of Evangelical denominations about when Jesus became the High Priest?

texts:
In the Aaronic Priesthood, priests come and go but Jesus is a priest forever.

  Hebrews 7:23-25 (MSG)

  23-25 Earlier there were a lot of priests, for they died and had to be replaced. But Jesus’ priesthood is permanent. He’s there from now to eternity to save everyone who comes to God through him, always on the job to speak up for them.

I would like an overview of when Jesus became the High Priest, according to Evangelical Christian commentators?


texts: Was there a time when bishops were not appointed to other sees and did not generally ever relocate?

texts:
Today it is common for bishops to relocate to another (probably more prestigious) episcopal see. For example Rainer Wölki was first titular Bishop of Scampa, then Archbishop of Berlin and is now archbishop of Cologne. Similarly the current pope was first titular Bishop of Auca, then Archbishop of Buenos Aires and later Bishop of Rome (pope).

A similar case could be found with the apostle Peter who, by church tradition, was first the  Bishop of Antioch and later Bishop of Rome.

On the converse I heard that there were times where bishops were considered to be "married to their respective churches" and thus never relocated to another see.

My question is: Is it correct that there was a time during which bishops were generally not appointed to other episcopal sees and did not relocate otherwise. If this is the case then I would like to hear the resoning for this custom as well as the reason for the development to the current way of handling this.


texts: How big was the wilderness in which John the Baptist lived and preached?

texts:
At Matthew 3:1-2 we read :

In those days John the Baptist appeared in the wilderness of Judea, proclaiming,  “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven has come near.”

One wonders how John the Baptist managed to get a lot of audience in the wilderness. It could be that the place was very much in proximity to human habitation, or was on the way to some centre of pilgrimage.

I wish to know where exactly in Judea  the wilderness in which John preached was, and how big it was .


texts: Why is Pontius Pilate blamed for killing Jesus in the Apostles' Creed?

texts:
In Apostles' Creed, the name of Pontius Pilate is forever associated with the infamy of being Jesus Christ's persecutor.

  I believe in God, the Father almighty,
  creator of heaven and earth.

  I believe in Jesus Christ, God’s only Son, our Lord,
  who was conceived by the Holy Spirit,
  born of the Virgin Mary,
  suffered under Pontius Pilate,
  was crucified, died, and was buried;
  he descended into hell.
  On the third day he rose again;
  he ascended into heaven,
  he is seated at the right hand of the Father,
  and he will come to judge the living and the dead.

  I believe in the Holy Spirit,
  the holy catholic and apostolic Church,
  the communion of saints,
  the forgiveness of sins,
  the resurrection of the body,
  and the life everlasting. Amen.

My question is, why did the authors of the Apostles' Creed include Pontius Pilate as the one who killed Jesus, and not Judas Iscariot or the Pharisees?

From this resource I found (which I am not sure presents a convincing argument), quoting Fr. Hardon, it is because

  it has been “apostate Christians who have used the State to crucify
  the martyrs of Christianity.”

  Pilate symbolizes the sufferings and persecution of the Church, which
  is the Mystical Body of Christ.

That doesn't seem to explain much. Even if this explanation is true, one can still ask why did the Apostle's Creed use Pilate to symbolizes the sufferings and persecution of the Church? Why not use someone or the Roman Empire else?

So, why did the authors of the Apostle's Creed pen Pontius Pilate as the one who killed Jesus, and not Judas Iscariot or the Pharisees?


texts: According to reformed theology, does Satan know who the elect are (during their time on earth?)

texts:
Reformed theology believes in the doctrine of election.

Question: Does reformed theology say anything about whether Satan "recognizes" the Elect while they're on earth?


texts: What is the Biblical basis for the belief that Michael is not Jesus?

texts:
Many Christians believe that the Archangel Michael is actually Jesus, most notably the Jehovah's Witnesses and Baptist preacher Charles H. Spurgeon.

We have a question asking for the Biblical basis for this belief.

This question asks: what is the Biblical basis against this belief, that Michael is not Jesus, but a separate angelic being?


texts: As there are so many documents of Catholic doctorine that are considered infallible in content, how to search them?

texts: In other words, how to track down very particular pieces of infomation or answers...Obviously one can't read the entire lot every time one has a query! Is there some online resource that makes it easier?


texts: What is the biblical justification for permitting female pastors?

texts:
It seems that that 1Timothy 2:12-14 (NASB) says that women shouldn't be pastors.  But there are many denominations that allow this.

  1 Timothy 2:12-14 (NASB)
  12 But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a
  man, but to remain quiet.
  13 For it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve.
  14 And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman being
  deceived, fell into transgression.

This idea also seems supported by the command that women should remain silent in church (1 Corinthians 14:34-35).

What is the biblical basis for allowing women to preach or be a pastor?  Specifically, what is the biblical basis of the doctrine of ordination of women?  Also, how do the followers of this doctrine reconcile their beliefs with that of 1 Timothy and 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 above?


texts:
Is there any particular local traditions amongst any Christian denominations in the city of Damascus for celebrating the Conversion of St. Paul?

The Catholic Church celebrates the Feast of the Conversion of St. Paul on  January 25th each year.

  The conversion of Paul the Apostle (also Pauline conversion, Damascene conversion, Damascus Christophany and The Road to Damascus event), was, according to the New Testament, an event in the life of Paul the Apostle that led him to cease persecuting early Christians and to become a follower of Jesus. It is normally dated to AD 33–36. Since his birth is estimated at 5 AD, he would have been somewhere around the age of 28–31 at his conversion.

  The Feast of the Conversion of Saint Paul the Apostle is a feast celebrated during the liturgical year on January 25, recounting the conversion. This feast is celebrated in the Roman Catholic, Anglican and Lutheran churches. This feast is at the conclusion of the Week of Prayer for Christian Unity, an international Christian ecumenical observance that began in 1908, which is an octave (an eight-day observance) spanning from January 18 (observed in Anglican and Lutheran tradition as the Confession of Peter, and in the pre-1961 Roman Catholic Church as the feast of the Chair of Saint Peter at Rome) to January 25. In rural England, the day functioned much like groundhog day does in the modern-day United States. Supposed prophecies ranged from fine days predicting good harvests, to clouds and mists signifying pestilence and war in the coming months. - Conversion of Paul the Apostle

Outside any liturgical celebrations, are there any local traditional ways for commemorating this event by the Christians of Damascus or it’s surrounding areas?


texts: Is it possible that a new book could be added to the Bible?

texts:
In my early years as a Christian I was taught that Revelation 22:18-20 was a warning that the Bible could not be added to or taken away from.  However reasonable study of this scripture bears out that the verse is talking about the book of Revelation only.
Considering that Christianity spent three quarters of it's history without a ratified Canon, and that there are certainly prophets and apostles leading the church today, what would it take for the writing of a modern prophet or apostle to be elevated to scripture?


texts: Books of NT written after the assumption of Mary

texts: Assuming for the moment that the Assumption of Mary is a historical event (a statement with which certainly some Christians disagree), which books of the New Testament can be considered as written after the assumption of Mary?


texts: Has Revelation 14:9 changed from bibles printed over 40 years ago?

texts: I used to have a nice picture bible growing up and I read and re-read Revelations growing up as a kid. I recently heard that verse but it's not as I remember it. Did it always say "or in the hand?" or just forehead?


texts: Why do Jehovah's Witnesses not celebrate birthdays?

texts:
Wikipedia states this as a fact but does not explain further. In conversations with JWs, I understood that this is based on two birthdays in the Bible:

Job's eldest son: Job was attacked by Satan on that birthday and
Herod's: John the Baptist was beheaded on his birthday

But how do these two instances become translated to a general rule for all Jehovah's Witnesses?


texts: What does "God is just" mean according to Calvinists?

texts:
In our world, what we understand about "justice" is not just a verdict between guilty or not guilty, because it also balances the punishment on the severity of the crime.

Here is an illustration:
There are two people who are not elected before the foundation of the world.
The first is a 16 years old kid who was naughty and sometimes disobedient to his parents who then died.
The other one is a 30-year-old man who raped many women and then died.

The question is, does the Bible say that, because God is just, both of them will have the same punishment tormented in the lake of fire eternally? What is the Calvinist position?


texts: If the flood was recent and local, then when did humans become omnivores?

texts:
After the flood, in Genesis 9:2-3, God gives humans permission to begin eating animals.

We are finding traces of human civilization going back tens of thousands of years for Native Americans, so they must have gotten to the Americas before the flood. If the flood was local and in the last 10,000 years, then when did the Native Americans and people on other continents switch to eating animal meat?


texts: Are Filipino Roman Catholics required to not have meat on all Fridays of Lent?

texts:
Please provide a link to an official document on the rules of Lent for Filipino Roman Catholics (or non-Filipino Roman Catholics who are in the Philippines for Lent or something) specifically and where the rules aren't mentioned only in passing or in an FAQ.

Last night, my parent told me that my parent heard the only days of abstinence are ash wednesday and good friday, even though I've been practicing every friday of lent (plus ash wed and good fri) for over a decade. I have spent over an hour on this but could not find such reference.

What I've gathered so far:

According to this website, the US Roman Catholic law of not having meat on all Fridays of Lent is not necessarily applicable to Roman Catholics who aren't American (or who aren't in the US). It says

  If you are outside the United States, check with the bishops' conference for your country for specific fasting rules.

And this is really under the Roman Catholic section and not the Eastern Catholic section.
I notice phjesuits.org mentions in number 5 but not in number 2. What's up with that? Additionally

2.1. It's only an FAQ, so, ostensibly, this isn't quite a primary source.
2.2. It doesn't seem to specify Filipino Roman Catholics. Is the article implying this is applicable to all Roman Catholics (eg even in Ireland on St. Patrick's Day and in Hong Kong on Chinese New Year, whenever either of those two holidays fall on a day of abstinence - Ah well, maybe that's what 'solemnity' covers, in which case 'solemnity' is local)?

I was able to find A SINGLE BUT ONLY A SINGLE official reference from the CBCP saying that this applies to Filipino Roman Catholics but mentions only in passing as part of an article about love and stuff.

3.1. Note that there's no mention of 'solemnity' here.

Happy Lent!