texts: What exactly does it mean that Jesus Christ is the son of God?

texts:
What does it mean to a Christian that Christ is the son of God? On the one hand, obviously, the normal biological meaning of son does not apply. On the other hand, "we are all children of God", but Jesus seems to be more so.

That God offered up His only son as a sacrifice for humanity's sins is often used as an argument to demonstrate God's love for humanity. This would imply that God loves Jesus more than His other children, that this sacrifice was particularly hard, indicating that Jesus has a filial relationship with God in a sense that we would understand. It implies that sending His son to his death was extremely painful to Him, more so than the deaths of His other children.

Now, these arguments seem to me to be a clear anthropomorphisation of God, Christians seem to be attributing human characteristics such as the love of a father --not metaphorically as when referring to humanity as God's children, but in a very literal way-- to God. This seems to clash with another central tenet of Christianity which states that God is beyond our understanding, that we cannot fathom His plan. If so, then any attribution of human emotion to Him would be wrong.

So, my question is how do Christians interpret Christ being the "Son of God"? What exactly does that mean? I realize the answer will depend on the particular denomination of Christianity whose views are being expressed. I am particularly interested in an overview of the more popular churches such as the Catholic, Protestant and Orthodox but welcome answers explaining the views of any group as long as the group in question is clearly stated.

NOTES

I have read the posts below, but though related, none of them addresses the same question:

If Christ is considered the 'Son of God' then how is He a part of a Trinity?
Does the Bible have any proof that Jesus Christ is the Only-begotten Son of God?

This one was quite interesting, and the accepted answer states that His "sonship" is unique, one-of-a-kind, and distinct from all others, which brings us straight back to my question, how is it distinct?
"Jesus Christ God's Only Son Our Lord"

Again, very interesting, but it while it explains the contradiction inherent in Christ being the only Son of God while we are all His children, it does not explain in what sense Christ is a son of God.


texts: When God works 'all things' for the good, is anything excluded in the word 'all'?

texts:
Assuming these verses in Romans 8 apply to the elect, is anything past, present, or future, in all of creation, circumstance, and world events excluded, or is it literally to be understood as an unlimited 'all'?

  And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose. For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers and sisters. And those he predestined, he also called; those he called, he also justified; those he justified, he also glorified. (NIV Romans 8:28-30)

Note: I take it for granted that  'glorified' means entry into heaven.

I mean this in an extreme sense, like if this was an unlimited 'all' then for example,  'if' it was to my highest good today to win 1 Million dollars, I would, because everything is working out to my highest good -- without exception. On the other hand, maybe their is some theoretical limitation that I can't think of?

Note: Under recommendation from a moderator, here are some facts surrounding the case to contend with as well as a theological framework to use:

-1- All things (πάντα - panta)  can literally means all things such as here, where it is used twice:

  And God placed all things under his feet and appointed him to be head over everything for the church. (NIV Ephesians 1:22)

Or it may be highly restricted by its context, again used twice here:

  What is more, I consider everything a loss because of the surpassing worth of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord, for whose sake I have lost all things. I consider them garbage, that I may gain Christ. (Philippians 3:8)

-2- Both unlimited and restricted views have been proposed by various theologians with some key related versus requiring synthesis being, among others, these:

Romans 8:31-39
1 Corinthians 3:21-22
Ephesians 1:11
Phillipians 4:13

-3- It is requested that a theological framework be used which acknowledges God if, not directly predestinating men individually (Calvinistic) at least knows in advance what they will decide (not necessarily Calvinistic) and that he knows all things and has all power, otherwise he would not be able to have a full view of everything and would not be able to proactively work much of anything out to anyone's good.  It must also be accepted that as he is omniscient, he must be able to plan all this working of good things from eternity.

The question still remains is this good work with all things, restricted or unbounded.


texts: How do local flood proponents explain God's promises to never do it again?

texts:
Some Christians believe that Noah's Flood was a local event, and that the author of the Flood narrative never intended it to be understood as global in scope.
My question is, how then would we explain the following promises from God immediately following the Flood?

The Lord smelled the soothing aroma; and the Lord said to Himself, “I will never again curse the ground on account of man, for the intent of man’s heart is evil from his youth; and I will never again destroy every living thing, as I have done. --Genesis 8:21
I establish My covenant with you; and all flesh shall never again be cut off by the water of the flood, neither shall there again be a flood to destroy the earth.” --Genesis 9:11
and I will remember My covenant, which is between Me and you and every living creature of all flesh; and never again shall the water become a flood to destroy all flesh. --Genesis 9:15

I'm sure ancient readers were aware that local floods still happened after Noah's Flood, so what could God (and the author of Genesis) mean by this if it were just a local flood?


texts: How does Catholicism deal with the apparent paradox/conflict between "love thy neighbour" and "you will be rewarded"

texts:
I am wondering about an apparent conflict between a call for selfless love topped with a promise of a reward for it. Simply speaking, one is called to behave well (love ones neighbour) out of kindness (certainly not selfishness), but at the same time a reward is promised (those who behave well eventually go to heaven). This seems to entangle selflessless with selfishness in an uncomfortable way.

The following example hopefully illustrates my concern. Suppose I am encouraging my kid to go help a person in need by appealing to the kid's kindness and compassion. But when done with encouraging, I add "by the way, you will get $10 if you help him/her". This seems to defeat the point of the motivation through kindness and selflessness.

In yet other words, I am concerned that on the one hand there is a morality, an ideal that is attractive for a well-wishing person, but the promise of a reward downgrades this to an act of buying and selling (I do this and then you give me that).

Worse yet, the  promise of a reward removes the opportunity to choose selflessness over selfishness. There is no longer a choice between behaving selflessly and behaving selfishly because both lead to the same actions in life.


texts:
How are Bible verses referenced? For example what is the meaning of: Revelation 21:5 (NIV)?

Are there any other methods to reference a verse?

(I am not a Christian and this should be treated like a novice question.)


texts: Can anybody identify from which order these nuns are?


texts: How does the Roman Catholic Church interpret predestination?

texts:
I've been trying to determine how the Roman Catholic church interprets the idea of predestination.  From what I have found so far it appears to be a view more rooted in single predestination, though I have yet to find a credible source that adequately explains this.

I will specify my question to how does the Roman Catholic Church interpret the Calvinist view of single or double predestination?


texts: According to Catholicism, did the Temptation(s) of Jesus take place on the same day?

texts: We see the narratives of Temptation(s) of Christ prior to the commencement of His public life, in the Gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke. Even though the narratives lead one to believe that all the three temptations took place on the same day, the locations of the temptations viz. wilderness, mountain and City Jerusalem  would have us believe otherwise--unless of course, both Jesus and the Devil used super-human powers to travel faster than what was normally  possible. My question therefore is: Were the three temptations of Jesus spread out on three different days?  What do the teachings of Catholic Church tell us on such a prospective ?


texts: Why did John the Baptist exist? Did he have any purpose besides Baptizing Jesus?

texts:
I realize this question is somewhat vacuous, since one could ask:

"Why do the OT prophets exist? Why wasn't the story just: Eve + Adam eat from the tree of knowledge of good + evil. Then, God, immediately sends Christ down, who dies for humanity's sins, QED."

Nevertheless, what is the purpose of John the Baptist's existence / ministry, given that it occured in the same time period as Christ?

There is a very significant even of John Baptizing Jesus:

Matthew 3:13-17

  13 Then Jesus came from Galilee to the Jordan to be baptized by John. 14 But John tried to deter him, saying, “I need to be baptized by you, and do you come to me?”
  15 Jesus replied, “Let it be so now; it is proper for us to do this to fulfill all righteousness.” Then John consented.
  16 As soon as Jesus was baptized, he went up out of the water. At that moment heaven was opened, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and alighting on him. 17 And a voice from heaven said, “This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased.”

Besides that, what is John the Baptist's contribution/significance/utility to Christianity?


texts:
In 1 Corinthians 1:10-12 - (“10   I appeal to you, brothers, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree, and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be united in the same mind and the same judgment. 11 For it has been reported to me by Chloe’s people that there is quarreling among you, my brothers. 12 What I mean is that each one of you says, “I follow Paul,” or “I follow Apollos,” or “I follow Cephas,” or “I follow Christ.””)

Paul begins talking about the divisions within the church at Corinth.  Were these divisions each a "house church" or were they divisions within a single church that met together?

• Follow up question 1 - Reading 1 Corinthians 11:17-18 (instructions on the Lord's Supper) it seems that it was one church that gathered together and not house churches. If the church of Corinth was a church that met in a single location - where did they meet?  Would a home be large enough?

• Follow up question 2 - If the church in Corinth is a collection of house churches, then the divisions clearly represent a fragmentation of the early church.  How was this fragmentation halted?  Was it to move towards a single meeting location - as evidenced by early church structures that begin to appear around 200/300 AD?(https://archive.archaeology.org/0709/abstracts/churches.html)
https://www.christianitytoday.com/history/2008/november/why-and-when-did-christians-start-constructing-special.html


texts: How do Congregationalists explain 1st Tim 1:3 and Titus 1:5?

texts:
1 Timothy 1:3, KJV
  As I besought thee to abide still at Ephesus, when I went into
  Macedonia, that thou mightest charge some that they teach no other
  doctrine

  Titus 1:5, KJV
  For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order
  the things that are wanting, and ordain elders in every city, as I had
  appointed thee

These two verses seem to indicate a certain "hierarchy layer" between elders and apostles. Paul is clearly an apostle and he appoints Titus to ordain elders in every city of the island of Crete. On one hand, Titus was appointed by Paul, which means that Titus is in  position of submission to Paul the Apostle. However, Titus has the power to ordain elders in cities of Crete, which means that those elders would be in position of submission to Titus. Thus, we have the following structure: elders -> Titus -> apostles.

I wonder how those Christian groups that deny any such hierarchy levels in their governance—for example, Congregationalists—explain these verses.


texts:
How do young Catholics remember a set of prayers in order to pray the rosary? Do they have to memorize everything by rote, or do they get some help with mnemonics? Should they pray in Latin or in the vernacular? Is there a bit of wiggle room if someone is a little amnesic so that they don't have to remember a set of prayers? Would just reading the prayers suffice instead of actually memorizing, or is memorizing a form of pious behavior for young people who are taught to become faithful practicing Catholics?

So, I was reading this article [Cunningham, L. S. (1999). Mary in Catholic Doctrine and Practice. Theology Today, 56(3), 307.], and I noticed that the author was raised Catholic as a youngster, as shown.

  By the time I was in elementary school, I knew how to say the
  rosary-which meant that I had memorized the Hail Mary, the Lord’s
  Prayer, the Apostle’s Creed, and the Glory be to the Father as well as
  the titles of the fifteen mysteries upon which we meditated as we
  prayed.


texts: What was inside the Ark of the Covenant?

texts:
1 Kings 8:9 (NIV) There was nothing in the ark except the
  two stone tablets that Moses had placed in it at Horeb, where the Lord made a covenant with the Israelites after they came out of
  Egypt.

  Hebrews 9:3-4 (NIV) Behind the second curtain was a room called the
  Most Holy Place, which had the golden altar of incense and the
  gold-covered ark of the covenant. This ark contained the gold
  jar of manna, Aaron’s staff that had budded, and the
  stone tablets of the covenant.

1 Kings 8:9 says that inside the Ark of the Covenant there was only the two stone tablets of Moses. But Hebrews 9:3-4 mentions three things, the gold jar of manna, Aaron’s staff that had budded, and the stone tablets of the covenant.

Keeping in mind that the Ark of the Covenant was no more during the time of Jesus, the writer of Hebrews simply recalled from the Torah or from tradition about the contents of the Ark. In fact, even the writer never saw the Ark with his own eyes, let alone what was inside.

Regarding the pot of manna,

  Exodus 16:33-34 (KJV) And Moses said unto Aaron, Take a pot, and put
  an omer full of manna therein, and lay it up before the Lord, to
  be kept for your generations. As the Lord commanded Moses, so Aaron
  laid it up before the Testimony, to be kept.

This verse only says "before the Lord/Testimony" and not inside the Ark.

Regarding the staff of Aaron,

  Numbers 17:10 (NIV) The Lord said to Moses, “Put back Aaron’s staff
  in front of the ark of the covenant law, to be kept as a sign to the rebellious. This will put an end to their grumbling against me, so
  that they will not die.”

This verse also says that the staff of Aaron was placed in front of the Ark.

Questions:

Do these verses from the Old Testament contradict the Epistle to the Hebrews?
What exactly was kept inside the Ark of the Covenant?


texts: In Catholicism, what are the arguments for the reasonableness (see body) of an eternal hell?

texts:
An eternal hell is difficult concept for some to grasp even among those who call themselves Catholic. [Cf. Debunking the myth of hell, by Carol Meyer, Feb. 3, 2011 | NCR]. The last paragraph in the article ends:

  All arguments for hell, however reasonable they once sounded, are debunked by one single truth—God is LOVE. The end of the story.

The Catholic Church teaches that even though Revelation remains charged with mystery, and though faith is above reason, there can never be any real discrepancy between faith and reason, and revealed truths appear as true and intelligible in the light of our natural reason. Therefore even though the mysteries of Faith are beyond reason, they are not unreasonable (i.e. agreeable to reason or sound judgment; logical; being in accordance with reason ) and they can be defended [vs. proven] by employing arguments from reason [cf. Catholicism.org > Faith and Reason].

The question is, in Catholicism, drawing from Catholic patrimony [e.g. Church Fathers, the Saints & Doctors], what are the arguments for the reasonableness [intelligible in the light of our natural reason and/or reasonable and in accordance with the faith and/or not against reason] of an eternal hell?

This question is looking  for arguments:

intelligible in the light of our natural reason
that are reasonable and in accordance with the faith
that are not against reason

for an eternal hell.

The question ought to stand like this and it is not necessary, nor required, nor in accordance with C.SE site criteria to start with the arguments for eternal hell being illogical.

Rephrasing:

If the Church teaches that the truths of the faith are intelligible in the light of natural reason and eternal hell is one of the truth she teaches, what have been the arguments intelligible in the light of natural reason [and/or reasonable and in accordance with the faith and/or not against reason] that have been made, drawing from Catholic patrimony [e.g. Church Fathers, the Saints & Doctors], for an eternal hell?

Some related C.SE questions:

According to Catholic teaching; how long do we go to Hell for?
Eternal existence in hell?
Does Hell exist according to Catholicism?

Reasonable understood here as:

being in accordance with reason  and
agreeable to reason or sound judgment; logical:


texts: Immaculate Conception: Why was it necessary for our Salvation?

texts:
According to many Catholic apologists, like Dr. Robert Sungenis,1 the dogma of the immaculate conception of Mary is not simply binding because it is a divinely revealed dogma, but according to them it is binding additionally because logically speaking without Mary being sinless Jesus could not accomplish the redemptive work in the first place.
What exactly do they mean by this?
The story goes like this, to save mankind Jesus had to be sinless. Therefore Mary had to be sinless to not pass on original sin. But then Protestant apologists just say "the grace could have been given directly to Jesus" or "why wasn't the grace given to the mother and father of Mary, or even further back?"

Accordingly, by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, for the honor of
the Holy and undivided Trinity, for the glory and adornment of the
Virgin Mother of God, for the exaltation of the Catholic Faith, and
for the furtherance of the Catholic religion, by the authority of
Jesus Christ our Lord, of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, and by
our own:
We declare, pronounce, and define that the doctrine which holds that
the most Blessed Virgin Mary, in the first instance of her conception,
by a singular grace and privilege granted by Almighty God, in view of
the merits of Jesus Christ, the Savior of the human race, was
preserved free from all stain of original sin, is a doctrine revealed
by God and therefore to be believed firmly and constantly by all the
faithful. 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; and that, furthermore, by his own action he incurs the
penalties established by law if he should are to express in words or
writing or by any other outward means the errors he think in his
heart.”
Blessed Pope Pius IX, Ineffabilis Deus, 8 December 1854

Questions in formal form is as follows: Why was it necessary for the salvation plan to have specifically Mary the mother of Jesus be utterly without sin?

1. For example, in this video debate at 1:05:18 ("because if she isn't sinless, she's going to produce a sinful Savior") and 1:13:00.


texts: What is the origin of the idea that Michael is Jesus?

texts:
I recently came across the idea of identifying the angel Michael as Jesus. I'm surprised I hadn't heard it before. Wikipedia documents it as common to Seventh Day Adventists and Jehovah's Witnesses. I'm not interested in biblical support of this theory; there are several other questions in that vein with good answers. I'd like to know more of its origin.

Sub-questions to help guide what I'd consider a good answer:

How old is this idea? Wikipedia says "early Protestants", but cites John A. Lees (1939) who in turn cites Ernst Wilhelm Hengstenberg (1849) who doesn't appear to have a source beyond himself. They are far too recent to be "early Protestants".
Who (or what group) came up with the idea?
If it started with the adventists, how did it spread to Jehovah's Witnesses?
Do any orthodox forks* of Christianity accept the idea?
Do any orthodox forks* of Christianity explicitly reject the idea? (I'm surprised not to see it mentioned in the Catholic Encyclopedia.)

* fork: picture the christian religion as a road. Way back, promoters of Arianism were a fork in the road that dead ended fairly quick. The Protestants led many forks in the road. Mormons are yet another fork in the road.

EDIT:

Re: "early protestants". I just found a reference by John Calvin in his Commentaries on Daniel vol. 2, pg 243.

  Some think the word Michael represents Christ, and I do not object to
  this opinion. [...] But as this is not generally admitted, I leave it
  in doubt for the present [...]

and there's a bit more in chapter 12, but so far I haven't found who he is referencing by "some". Calvin does go on to defend associating Michael with Christ.


texts: How much of the Catholic Mass is inherited from the Jewish Shabbat service?

texts:
I was watching this Shabbat video (a service to mark the beginning of the Sabbath, in Friday night), and there seems to be several similarities with the Mass rite (at least the Catholic one). (Notice the service is that of a Reformed Jewish community, and not Orthodox one).

There is the introduction rite (including lighting of candles) and concluding one, singing and reading of Torah (Psalms included), sermon by the Rabbi (?), a sacred place where the Torah is kept (a bit like the Tabernacle), a prayer for the coming of the messianic age, where people get closer together and hold arms or hands (like the Our Father), and so on.

Now, on the one hand, since the first Christians were Jews, it is reasonable to expect that the Christian worship be based on the Jewish one, with the introduction/modification of key elements, like the Eucharist itself (related to the Passover and etc). But also it is true that (early) Church fathers wrote against the "Judaization" of Christian practices (e.g. here and more general here).

The video I showed is however of the Reformed Judaism, a form of Judaism which seems not to have existed in Early Christianity. A more reasonable question is then how Orthodox ritual practices inspired the Mass. If this video gives some light on the Orthodox practice, in the second Century Ignatius of Antioch, arguing against Judaization of Christian practices wrote:

  But let every one of you keep the Sabbath after a spiritual manner, rejoicing in meditation on the law, not in relaxation of the body, admiring the workmanship of God, and not eating things prepared the day before, nor using lukewarm drinks, and walking within a prescribed space, nor finding delight in dancing and plaudits which have no sense in them.

Is there some formal analysis of the relationship between the Jewish service and the (Catholic) Mass?


texts: Why is the Nation of Israel called Israel and not Abraham?

texts:
Is there a biblical, or otherwise extra-biblical, explanation of how the nation of Israel came to be known as Israel instead of Abraham?

I know you could make cases for arguing that it makes more logical sense for the name Israel or the name Abraham to have come to be associated with the people (and I guess the land), however is there a specific reason?


texts: Is there historical evidence for an atheist argument about the New Testament?

texts:
My question is: are the arguments used against the historical legitimacy of the Gospels, particularly Luke and the timeline/events surrounding the birth of Christ relatively recent, or have they been around since the beginning? Are there any works around from the first couple of centuries AD that make any such claim?

I ask this because occasionally I will come across an argument against the legitimacy of the Bible from a historical perspective. Recently I came across a detailed article (sorry, I can't find it now, but there are ones similar in Richard Dawkins and other sites) which discussed how Luke's description of the census, traveling to Bethlehem, etc. defies historical evidence.

I got to thinking: Suppose Luke's (or Matthew's, Mark's, John's) account was just a story made up for the audience of the day as it is often portrayed today. If so, rebutting Christianity should have been a simple matter for the scholars of the time who had either lived through these historical events or had first or second-hand knowledge of them. After all, why wait 2000 years to bring up arguments which were even more valid back then? If the census timeline and other significant events were totally wrong, everyone back then should have known, even a hundred years later? Since Christianity had so many enemies early on, you would think Jewish or Greek scholars of the time would have had a field day ripping apart the Gospels and Epistles in order to make believers look particularly foolish.

If someone began to claim some yokel who died 40 years ago was divine and performed miracles at Woodstock in 1970, a whole lot of people would still be alive to debunk the year at least (1969), if not the yokel. 1500 years from now, nobody may know that exact year of Woodstock, but we certainly do now.

An argument I might make is the absence of such material is highly unlikely if the Gospels were historically inaccurate. It is difficult for me to believe any movement, particularly one as radical as Christianity, could have gotten off the ground like it did without a solid historical basis.

However, if there IS material making such claims from that period, it would at least lend an air of credibility to the argument against the Gospels.

Does anyone know of any? TIA


texts: What is the way of Cain, the error of Balaam and the gainsaying of Core (Korah)?

texts:
Jude 1:11 (KJV): Woe unto them! for they have gone in the way of Cain, and ran greedily after the error of Balaam for reward, and perished in the gainsaying of Core.
Jude 1:11 (NIV): Woe to them! They have taken the way of Cain; they have rushed for profit into Balaam's error; they have been destroyed in Korah's rebellion.

Who is “them” mentioned above and what is the way of Cain, the error of Balaam and the gainsaying of Korah?


texts: Were the councils of the 4th and 5th centuries primarily to deal with Apocryphal writings?

texts: Were the Apocryphal writings the primary motivation behind the cannons and councils of the 4th and 5th centuries or were there other motivations? Did the ancient church leaders cite their reasons for making the canons?


texts: What did Jesus look like or did Jesus look different for certain people?

texts:
Now, I don't go to church, my family stopped when I was like 8 (I'm 13), the church near me, that didn't have a raping problem and was Christian(not Catholic even though that is Christian), was a super church. It didn't really teach me much, since I was little I went with the other little kids, we only watched Veggietales and colored. We really didn't like that it used fast food and drink places, like Starbucks, to attract people since that isn't what church is about to us. I did learn what ellipses were though.
So, I didn't really know what Jesus looked like except the pictures in my grandma's house. The Jesus in her house had (idk if she has them in her new house) a black guy with thick hair and then one with lighter skin, very long hair, and a long beard.
I asked her which one was really Jesus and she said that she said that she thinks that the black one is since nowadays they don't portray peoples' colors correctly and that we were the first people. She has both because she likes to have more than one thing portraying Jesus, even though it isn't the right one to her, she still knows who it is supposed to be. (Her church is a black church and the booklets portray Jesus as black)
I have even seen Jesus with white skin, blonde hair, and blue eyes and for some reason, I don't really like it since it seems fake.
My question is, which Jesus is right? And for the wrong ones, do you know why they changed them or did God make it so Jesus could be seen differently for different people?


texts: Why would a Spanish Catholic priest disapprove of German Catholic texts for Gloria and Sanctus?

texts:
I'm a church organist in a Catholic church in Southern Spain, and due to large numbers of German tourists, we have both German-language and Spanish-language services.

The words to the Spanish Gloria and Sanctus are always the same, but the words for the German Glorias and Sanctuses vary (if they're not the standardized ones, they are called Lied); but my priest considers this variation of the text practiced by German churches to be decadent / a corruption of the true text, and so we always do the same Gloria and Sanctus for the German-language services.

For example, Sanctus words that are OK (Gotteslob 193, old 481):

  Heilig, heilig, heilig Gott, Herr aller Mächte. Erfüllt sind Himmel und Erde von seiner Herrlichkeit. Hosanna in der Höhe. Gebenedeit sei, der da kommt im Namen des Herrn. Hosanna, hosanna in der Höhe.

and that are not OK (Gotteslob 196, old 491):

  Heilig, heilig, heilig Herr, Gott der Mächte Erd und Himmel sind deiner Ehre voll. Hosianna in der Höhe. Hochgelobt sei, der da kommt im Namen des Herren. Hosianna in der Höhe.

Both slightly different from what's listed on Wikipedia as the official Catholic text:

  Heilig, heilig, heilig, Gott, Herr aller Mächte und Gewalten. Erfüllt sind Himmel und Erde von deiner Herrlichkeit. Hosanna in der Höhe. Hochgelobt sei, der da kommt im Namen des Herrn. Hosanna in der Höhe

Could anyone help me understand why that is, and what are the two different philosophies apparently present in the German Catholic and Spanish Catholic churches?


texts: What is the basis for the Apostles devoting themselves to prayer for nine days in Acts 1:14?

texts: We know that in Acts the Apostles prayed in the upper room consecutively until the Holy Spirit descended on them. Oftentimes I heard that this was calculated to be for nine days. How did people reach this number?


texts: What proportion of global Christians belong to denominations that accept evolution?

texts:
I would like to know what percentage of Christians globally belong to denominations which accept evolution of humanity by natural selection (including "theistic evolution"). I can try to calculate these numbers by crossreferencing numbers at Wikipedia "List of Christian denominations by number of members" and "Acceptance of evolution by religious groups", but I'd rather see a published figure somewhere.

I can see a lot published about the percentage among American Christians, but I think this is skewed by fundamentalists in America who are out of step with the global church on this issue. I want to say: X% of global Christians belong to a church which accepts evolution. This would include all Catholics and Orthodox, all Methodists, no Southern Baptists, etc. Just how many is that?


texts: What major changes have American Presbyterians made to the Westminster Confession of Faith?

texts:
As someone who generally affirms the Westminster Confession of Faith, one comment I hear periodically is that I therefore must believe that the Pope is the Antichrist.  However, the Confession published by my denomination (the PCA) does not say anything like that.  It does, however, include the following note:

  This text of the Westminster Confession of Faith is that adopted by the Orthodox Presbyterian Church in 1936 and by the Presbyterian Church in America in 1973.  It is derived from a 1646 manuscript edited by S. W. Carruthers and incorporates revisions adoped by American Presbyterian churches as early as 1789.

So apparently the "Westminster" Confession of Faith I subscribe to is not exactly the same as the one written by Westminster Divines in the 1640s.  This is a bit disconcerting, as I recently argued that Reformed theologians would never simply "update" the Confession if they suddenly changed their minds regarding some core doctrine.

My question, then, is: what is an overview of the changes made by American Presbyterians to the Westminster Confession of Faith up to 1936?  Put another way, what are the several most significant edits to the WCF made by the large/longstanding Presbyterian denominations in the United States, up to and including any changes made by the Orthodox Presbyterian Church in 1936?

In case it's not clear, this means no Savoy Declaration, even though it was adopted by Americans (they were congregationalists, not presbyterians), no Philadelphia Confession (Baptists), and no explanatory notes (a la the "Testimony" of the RPCNA).  Similarly, no mere spelling or grammar fixes, or even "modernizations" or other wording tweaks that generally preserve the original meaning.


texts: What was the early Coptic doctrine for beliefs in the afterlife?

texts:
I can find plenty of information regarding modern Coptic beliefs concerning beliefs in the afterlife, but I was wondering if that was always the same. I imagine, as with all religions, especially ones with such a long and rich history as the Copts, that theology has evolved over time.

Hence, I was wondering where I can go to find what the doctrine for beliefs in the afterlife were in late antiquity (ca. second to fifth centuries CE). Can someone point me in the right direction?


texts: How could Adam and Eve lose their just standing before God if it was given to them as a Grace and not earned?

texts:
I have often heard pastors, internet preachers especially, repeat that, "We did nothing to earn our salvation and there is nothing that we can do to lose it" or something to that effect. These are generally pastors who accept the doctrine of eternal security or Once Saved Always Saved.

I believe we can agree that our first parents, who were in a state of original justice, had done nothing to earn that initial state and that it was a gift of God by virtue of his perfect creation. But if they had done nothing to earn their state of justification before the fall, how is it that they could lose it?

I'm scoping this question to those who accept Once Saved Always Saved and believe in the historicity of Adam and Eve as the original parents of the human race.


texts: According to the Catholic Church about Matthew 5:18-19?

texts:
Matthew 5:18 For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth
  disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen,
  will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is
  accomplished.

what happen to the Law after "everything is accomplished" ? (the end of the world)

  Matthew 5:19 Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of
  these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in
  the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these
  commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven

If I interpret the sentence above to my own language, the meaning become like this : either (A) the one who sets aside one of the least of the law and teaches others accordingly or (B) the one who practices and teaches the law, both goes to heaven. The difference is their status in heaven, A will be called the least - B will be called the great.

Since I feel strange the interpretation if in my mother language, so I would like to know :

what does it mean actually the sentence in verse 19 ?

Thank you.


texts: What is the Biblical basis for binitarianism?

texts:
We hear a lot at times in church, seminary, general discussions, etc about the godhead, so that got me to wondering: what is the Scriptural basis for the Christian doctrine of Binitarianism?

UPDATE:

Binitarianism, as I currently understand it and am currently inferring about, is the belief that the Father and the Son are two persons in one God (similar to the theory of the trinity being 3 persons in one God) and the Holy Spirit is the operational power of God, but not a person.


texts:
Why is it common for pastors to advocate leadership (including their own) when it is easy to conclude that it is anti-biblical according to what Jesus had said?

"Do not be called leaders; for One is your Leader, that is, Christ." - Matthew 23:10 NASB

Note: some translations use "instructors" or "teachers" instead of "leaders"

Clarification: I would like someone to try their best to explain the original context of what Jesus said here. Preferably including Greek references.


texts: Receiving the Holy Spirit after conversion Acts 8:14–17

texts:
How would [Southern] Baptist (SBC) churches explain Acts 8:14–17 in the giving of the Holy Spirit after initial conversion or belief? It had always been my understanding that the argument was the Holy Spirit was given to each believer at the moment of faith.

Are we indwelt by the Spirit when we believe and if so why were the apostles needing to pray for them to receive Him?

  Acts 8:14–17
  14 Now when the apostles at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent to them Peter and John, 15 who came down and prayed for them that they might receive the Holy Spirit, 16 for he had not yet fallen on any of them, but they had only been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. 17 Then they laid their hands on them and they received the Holy Spirit. ESV, © 2001


texts: Does Joseph Smith fail the test of a prophet?

texts:
The test of a prophet.

Deuteronomy 18 NKJV
21 And if you say in your heart, ‘How shall we know the word which the
LORD has not spoken?’— 22 when a prophet speaks in the name of the
LORD, if the thing does not happen or come to pass, that is the thing
which the LORD has not spoken; the prophet has spoken it
presumptuously; you shall not be afraid of him.

Joseph Smith has brought new religious beliefs to the table. God has given us a simple test for all prophets. Has Joseph Smith given any prophecies that he said were from God but failed to come true?


texts: What is the biblical basis for concluding that God knows (in any sense) individual people personally (in any sense)?


texts:
I'm questioning my own understanding of the term "Omnipotence" in response so a comment on one of my answers.

In the comment, the poster included a definition of Omnipotence taken from the Wikipeda article on Omnipotence. (Emphasis mine)

  A deity is able to do absolutely anything, even the logically impossible, i.e., pure agency.

This means that God, if He is omnipotent could:

Create a square circle
Create a triangle with four sides
The ever-so-famous create a rock big enough He can't lift it.

I have personally never understood His omnipotence to mean that He could do logically impossible things as shown above.  Instead, I tend to agree with C.S. Lewis, in his statement:

  His Omnipotence means power to do all that is intrinsically possible,
  not to do the intrinsically impossible. You may attribute miracles to
  him, but not nonsense. This is no limit to his power. If you choose to
  say 'God can give a creature free will and at the same time withhold
  free will from it,' you have not succeeded in saying anything about
  God: meaningless combinations of words do not suddenly acquire meaning
  simply because we prefix to them the two other words 'God can.'... It
  is no more possible for God than for the weakest of his creatures to
  carry out both of two mutually exclusive alternatives; not because his
  power meets an obstacle, but because nonsense remains nonsense even
  when we talk it about God.

As far as I know, and in the Christian circles I'm familiar with, the position that I hold, which C.S. Lewis so eloquently states is the commonly held understanding of the word "Omnipotence", but I run into people here and there that stick to the idea that God can do the logically impossible.

So rather than sticking to my assumption, I'm asking the community:

Are there any traditions/denominations that hold to the "God can do anything, even the logically impossible" definition of Omnipotence?


texts:
From  Matthew 2, NIV:

  1bMagi from the east came to Jerusalem...
  11On coming to the house, they saw the child with his mother Mary, and they bowed down and worshiped him. Then they opened their treasures and presented him with gifts of gold, frankincense and myrrh.

Nowhere does it say there were three Magi.  For all I can tell from this passage, there could have been two, or thirty.  The only clue I see about there being three is that three gifts are mentioned.

So what is the history behind the concept of three Magi in this story?


texts: What is the biblical basis that Noah died just before the birth of Abraham?

texts:
In its article on the decline of human life spans, CreationWiki states,

  Interestingly, Noah died only two years before Abraham was born.

Unfortunately for readers they provide no biblical support. What is the biblical basis for this claim?


texts: What does the Bible say about body art/tattos?

texts: I'm not Christian myself but I have many Christian friends who have tattoos/body art. Is this something that is forbidden in Christianity?


texts: Are there any writings from the church fathers teaching Original Sin before Augustine?

texts:
It has been said by some that Augustine was the first to teach Original Sin,

  "It was Augustine (354-430 A.D.) who first promoted the idea that; "the fallen nature of Adam was transmitted biologically through sexual procreation." This became an established pillar of Catholic theology." source

My question is are there any writings from the church fathers teaching Original Sin before Augustine?


texts: How does the gospel turn justice into a defender of the guilty?

texts:
Usually we think of God's justice as his perfect judgment in punishing sin and dispensing equity along perfect scales of measurement.  However as we were born in sin, justice is essentially something we fear.  However upon believing in Christ it seems justice switches around:

  If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness. (1 John 1:9, NIV)

How is it that 'justice' no longer stands as a accuser but a defender? Assuming their is no merit in confession, only admission of guilt, how does the gospel make justice ensure we are always cleansed from sin? In some ways this seems counter intuitive. How does justice and faithfulness defend the guilty?


texts: Is there a Christian denomination that only considers the Son and the Father to be persons of God?

texts: Is there a Christian denomination that holds only the Son and the Father as persons of God? (Only two persons) -- as opposed to Trinitarianism and Unitarianism. Has it been upheld by anyone in Christian history?


texts: How can "burden" in Acts 15:28–29 and Matthew 11:28 be reconciled?

texts:
Acts 15:28–29 (NIV):

  It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us not to burden you with
  anything beyond the following requirements: You are to abstain from
  food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled
  animals and from sexual immorality.

Matthew 11:28:

  "Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you
  rest".

The word 'burden' in Acts witnessed by Holy Spirit and used by Jesus in Matthew seems to mean the same thing, though I haven't done a Greek word study yet.

Wouldn't the combination of these scriptures give license to sin (in human meaning) if it is not violating human rights and legal demands?


texts:
Why does the Son have a source of existence?

Early church fathers believed that the Son has an source or origin of existence (reference).

To have an origin is different from having a beginning. Things could have an origin without having a beginning. For instance, the time a ball is placed onto a pillow, the cushion as well as the ball placed thereon are co-eval.

The source of the Son is the Father himself, the one who begat him from all eternity (cf. John 1:1; 1:18).The Father is expressedly identified as the fountain of the Godhead (source).

Note

This question is not about the Incarnation but about the eternal generation of the Son.


texts: Christian significance of Tolkien and C. S. Lewis putting "heaven" across the sea?

texts:
It is interesting that both of the most prominent Christian fantasy authors (not as in "Christian Fantasy" but Christians who wrote fantasy) put paradise across the sea.  I realize that Tolkien's Númenor (the place across the sea in Middle Earth where Elves go, etc.) was not actually an analog of heaven (despite my title's bait wording :), and probably traces more of its mental origins to Celtic myth and legends of Atlantis.  And I imagine that C. S. Lewis may have derived his idea of Aslan's country from discussions of Númenor with Tolkien as part of their Inkling's group.

But I'm wondering if there is anything in earlier Christian writings or thought (especially the Bible of course) that might have influenced this creative choice?

I also find it interesting that "across the sea" seems to have been picked up by some Christian musicians (Jeremy Enigk's "The Prophet" and I think there was one by Havalina Railroad Co which I can't find, there may be others).

So, lest this be considered off topic, I repeat: what is the Christian significance of the idea of a paradise across the sea (if any)?


texts: Which Apocrypha are part of the Catholic and the Orthodox traditions and which are not? Why?

texts:
How do the Catholic and the Orthodox Churches differentiate between which Apocrypha are part of their holy tradition and which are not?

For example, the story of the Presentation of the Blessed Virgin Mary is not contained in any books of the Bible and is rather coming from the early Apocrypha: "The Protevangelium of James".

However, as far as I know, at least in the Orthodox Church this story is absolutely believed upon and its validity is never questioned. The Orthodox definitely consider this story to be a part of their tradition. On the other hand, there are many Apocrypha that describe exactly the same stories that are described in the New Testaments, however, those Apocrypha are just considered Apocrypha, their authorship and spiritual validity are held under question, and they are not considered by the Orthodox to be the part of their tradition.


texts:
I once heard a Reformed theologian critique Dietrich Bonhoeffer for his Christology, but it failed to stick with me because I have not (yet) read any Bonhoeffer and am not very familiar with recent German theology in general.

What did Bonhoeffer teach about Christ? Was this related to Karl Barth's Christology? What other theologians hold to a similar position?


texts: Does Catholic and Orthodox belief say 'antichrist' has already come and gone?

texts: It seems to be most Protestant denominations believe that right before the second coming, the antichrist will come, so he has not come yet. How is this different in Catholicism and Orthodoxy? Do they believe that he has already come and gone (e.g. perhaps he was Nero)?


texts: What does Paul mean when he says that we are no longer under the law but under grace?

texts:
Romans 6:14:15

14 For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace.
15 What then? shall we sin, because we are not under the law, but under grace? God forbid.

What does Paul mean when he says we are no longer under the law but under grace?


texts: Assuming the Book of Mormon is historically accurate, does this necessarily imply the Great Apostasy?

texts:
Note I am asking this question as someone who has not actually read the Book of Mormon.

I guess my real question is, could I affirm the historical accuracy of the Book of Mormon as a Catholic? But to explain the question title: One of the core convictions of the Catholic Church is that it is the one true church and the gates of hell will never prevail against it, which completely rules out the idea of a "Great Apostasy".

However one of the core tenets of Mormonism is that the church rapidly apostatised and become corrupt, and that the Mormon Church is a "restoration" of the pure, early church. This is obviously incompatible with the Catholic doctrine.

What I am wondering is, does assuming the historical accuracy of the BoM necessitate a belief in such a "Great Apostasy"? Is there anything written in there which compels such a belief? Or is this just something which is foisted upon the Mormon faithful by the church leadership?

If not, there would be a slim ecumenical possibility that one day the Catholic Church could recognise the BoM as historical, which would be an interesting development.


texts:
In Matthew 23, we are told that Yeshua addresses the multitude and his disciples:

"Then spake Jesus to the multitude, and to his disciples" Matthew 23:1

A few verses later, he says:

"But be not ye called Rabbi: for one is your master (διδάσκαλος: teacher), even Christ; and all ye are brethren.
And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven.
Neither be ye called masters (καθηγητής: instructors): for one is your master, even Christ.
But he that is greatest among you shall be your servant.
And whosoever shall exalt himself shall be abased; and he that shall humble himself shall be exalted." Matthew 23:8-12

Yeshua says that he is our only teacher. Why do Mormons believe that Joseph Smith is necessary to teach us?


texts: Matthew 18:10 "Children's angels always behold the face of the Father" - what does this mean?

texts:
Matthew 18:10 seems to put forth an idea that children have a certain privilege over adults:

  Take heed that ye despise not one of these little ones; for I
  say unto you, That in heaven their angels do always behold the face of
  my Father which is in heaven (Matthew 18:10)

Since any child, if it doesn't die in early age, grows up and sooner or later becomes an adult, one can suggest that children are losing that privilege as they grow up.

How has this verse been traditionally interpreted in Catholicism, Orthodoxy and Early Protestantism? What is an overview of the major views in mainstream Christianity in this regard?


texts: What problems, if any, do Swedenborgians have with the Apostles' Creed?

texts:
As a follow-up to previous questions, I'd like to know: Do Swedenborgians disagree with or "reinterpret" any phrases in the Apostles' Creed?

Here's the context: I'm listening to an audio series in which the Apostles' Creed is used as the framework for "Christian theology," implying that those who believe the Apostles' Creed are orthodox.  But in this series, non-trinitarians are not considered orthodox.

This makes me wonder – how do certain non-trinitarian groups understand the Apostles' Creed?  Do they accept it as written, or simply reject it?  Or perhaps they accept it, but interpret particular phrases in ways that trinitarians don't?

Here, I'm most interested in how Swedenborg himself viewed the creed.  If he did not address the Apostles' Creed in his writings, I'd be interested in the analysis of prominent Swedenborgian theologians (in overview style, if there is disagreement).

Related: Same question for Christadelphians, Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons, and Oneness Pentecostals.


texts: Can a male Catholic and a female Non Catholic have their marriage blessed at the Sacristy?

texts: I had my customary (traditional marriage in Ghana witnessed by the two families) marriage ceremony about seven months ago with a baptized Christian who is not a Catholic. The marriage was held at her family home and was led by pastors from her church without any official approval from my priest. We intend to have our marriage blessed soon, but not in the presence of the entire congregation as a matter of making every thing very simple. Can it therefore be held at the Sacristy or the priest's office?


texts:
Friday the 20th was my birthday and as usual, I'll just have a quiet time thanking God for my life. I don't fellowship with JWs anymore but my conscience will not allow me as to why at all I should hold this 'special' day for merry making. I couldn't  devalue their view of this as ungodly.

As far as I know, there are 3 instances of birthday celebrations which all ended in killing of people.
1st account is when Pharaoh puts his chief baker to death.

  And it came to pass the third day, which was Pharaoh’s birthday, that he made a feast unto all his servants: and he lifted up the head of the chief butler and of the chief baker among his servants...But he hanged the chief baker: as Joseph had interpreted to them.(Genesis 40:20-22).

2nd account is at Job who lost his children during their birthday feast. However and whenever they celebrated, Job knew it didn't please God.

  And his sons went and feasted in their houses, every one his day; and sent and called for their three sisters to eat and to drink with them. And it was so, when the days of their feasting were gone about, that Job sent and sanctified them, and rose up early in the morning, and offered burnt offerings according to the number of them all: for Job said, It may be that my sons have sinned, and cursed God in their hearts. Thus did Job continually. (Job 1:4-5).

  While he was yet speaking, there came also another, and said, Thy sons and thy daughters were eating and drinking wine in their eldest brother’s house: (Job 1:18).

From Job 3 we note that "their day" denotes birthdays.

3rd instance is where Herod beheaded John the Baptist on his birthday only to please his daughter.

  But when Herod’s birthday was kept, the daughter of Herodias danced before them, and pleased Herod. Whereupon he promised with an oath to give her whatsoever she would ask..."And the king was sorry: nevertheless for the oath’s sake, and them which sat with him at meat, he commanded it to be given her. And he sent, and beheaded John in the prison. (Matthew 14:6-10)

I personally think that God has shown us how to celebrate our lives keeping the true purpose in mind. ( John 10:10, John
17:17, II Tim. 3:16-17).

Today, people may not lose their lives at the celebrations and nowhere does the bible directly stop us from this activity but indirectly, what does it seem to be telling us, perhaps about the origin? All posts and counter-claims from any denomination will be helpful.


texts: According to Catholicism, does the last judgement include a last chance to reconcile?

texts:
I was reading a Catholic Magazine a few years ago (it might have been Catholic Answers) and I remember reading an article on the last judgement that seemed to suggest that at the end of time there would be a chance for those who weren't certainly in damned to have a final opportunity to reconcile their sins. Possibly I misunderstood, so my question is:

According to the Catholic Church (or writings of a revered saint), does this idea actually have any real ground in catholic teaching?

Note: I could only sorta buy this idea because I could see the Resurrection being a final opportunity where all of humanity is united by being alive at the same time... and have the chance to repent of sins against God an each other. After this, all who are guilty of final and complete impenitence would be damned.


texts: Are there any Church traditions or legends that state what species of fish Tobias caught in the Book of Tobit?

texts:
Are there any Church traditions or legends that state what species of fish the young man Tobias caught in the Book of Tobit according to the Catholic, Orthodox or other local churches of the East?

  The Book of Tobi is a book of scripture that is part of the Catholic and Orthodox biblical canons, pronounced canonical by the Council of Hippo (in 393), Councils of Carthage of 397 and 417, Council of Florence (in 1442) and confirmed for Roman Catholics by the Council of Trent (1546). - Book of Tobit (Wikipedia)

Here is what the Book of Tobit has to say about Tobias and the fish:

  1 And Tobias went forward, and the dog followed him, and he lodged the first night by the river of Tigris. 2 And he went out to wash his feet, and behold a monstrous fish came up to devour him. 3 And Tobias being afraid of him, cried out with a loud voice, saying: Sir, he cometh upon me. 4 And the angel said to him: Take him by the gill, and draw him to thee. And when he had done so, he drew him out upon the land, and he began to pant before his feet. 5 Then the angel said to him: Take out the entrails of the fish, and lay up his heart, and his gall, and his liver for thee: for these are necessary for useful medicines. 6 And when he had done so, he roasted the flesh thereof, and they took it with them in the way: the rest they salted as much as might serve them, till they came to Rages the city of the Medes. - Tobit 6: 1-6.

The Jewish Encyclopedia states that the Book of Tobit is was probably composed between 200 and 50 B.C.


texts: What should a Catholic know about Pilgrims Progress?

texts:
I'm listening to the Librivox version of Pilgrims Progress and I like it a lot, I really liked reading Pilgrims Regress which I read before I ever even heard of John Bunyan.  So far, in listening to the first 6 parts there are a couple biting remarks about Catholicism (I'm thinking of Formality, Hypocrite and Pope) which may as well have been true as far as Bunyan's perception of the Catholic Church was concerned.

But as a Catholic myself, is there anything in the works that I should be worried about in reading. In other words are there any roads which Christian would walk down that a Catholic priest would advise me against walking down? And are there any portrayals of Biblical characters that are at odds with Catholic belief (I'm thinking we don't believe Moses is such a jerk)


texts: Confessional Lutheranism: How does Unlimited Atonement work?

texts:
I recognize that concerning the mysteries of the faith that Lutherans do not typically like to answer "how does this doctrine work?" type of questions, but I'm hoping for an explanation.

Issues, Etc. has a post on Lutheranism vs. Calvinism. I'm more or less in total agreement with the pastor on the first two of the five Calvinistic points. However, he loses me when talking about limited atonement.

At 29:37 in the audio, he begins to tell a story about a friend from seminary who was a Calvinist, and this Calvinist's need for assurance of absolution following a grievous sin. The pastor goes on to explain from 31:40 - 32:46 that because Christ has taken the form of man, that he represents all men. Every sin has been paid for, for every man.

I understand and believe this. Christ was spoken of as the last Adam, a title which confers universality (in the same way that the first Adam did). How is it that if every sin has been paid for that we are still able to speak in terms of particular redemption, meaning that some set of men will still pay for their sins in eternal hell? What makes this work? How does this doctrine mesh with Paul's argument in 1 Corinth 15:22 that in Christ, all will be made alive?


texts: Why does the Mosaic Law demand the death of so many innocent people?

texts:
What do these Bible verses mean? Why does it demand the death of so many innocent people in the Bible?

Leviticus 20:13 – demands the death of homosexuals.

“If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads."

Exodus 35:2 – demands that we kill everyone who works on the Sabbath day.

For six days, work is to be done, but the seventh day shall be your holy day, a day of sabbath rest to the Lord. Whoever does any work on it is to be put to death

Deuteronomy 21:18-21 – demands that we kill disobedient teenagers.

"If someone has a stubborn and rebellious son who does not obey his father and mother and will not listen to them when they discipline him, his father and mother shall take hold of him and bring him to the elders at the gate of his town. They shall say to the elders, “This son of ours is stubborn and rebellious. He will not obey us. He is a glutton and a drunkard.” Then all the men of his town are to stone him to death. You must purge the evil from among you. All Israel will hear of it and be afraid"


texts: According to LDS doctrine, what is the source of God's power?

texts:
According to modern revelation - from an LDS perspective, what is the source of God's power?

I'm looking for references from the standard works and quotes from the brethren that may indicate to us what God's power is and how it works.


texts: Is "Christ" a title of Jesus, or a name?

texts: I was at Bible Study the other night where we watched the new Bible Series that was aired on TV. Someone had asked a question (sorry I forget what), and my Pastor responded by saying something along the lines of "Christ is a title not a name", and then went on to give his reason as to why this is. Now I believe it, but I was sitting just the other day, thinking about what he had said, and wondered about when people say "Christ the Lord". This didn't seem to fit his explanation of Christ being used as a title rather than a name, and I could not find anything anywhere else. So if someone could please explain this to me that would be great.


texts: Can a person lose salvation if publicly denies Jesus but keeps living a christian life? (Catholic)

texts:
I just watched the movie "Silence" and made me wonder if a person can lose his salvation if he keeps publicly denying Christ but privately(secretly) still living a Christian life?

Matthew 10:33

  But whoever denies me before others, I will deny before my heavenly
  Father.

Not many of us must defend our faith to the point of death.  Does God have mercy on us if we deny him publicly(if death penalty) but internally we still follow his commandments and try to live a Christian life or is it ok to deny faith in Christ in order to save someone else's life? What does the Catholic Church say about this?

Note: please avoid commenting on the movie. I know it wasn't the best one and I didn't like the ending too. I already read the reviews and how the role of martyrdom was wrongly understood.


texts: What impact did Karl Barth have on Roman Catholic theology?

texts:
I ran across a book on Amazon called Karl Barth, Catholic Renewal and Vatican II.  It seems strange to me that Karl Barth, a neo-orthodox Protestant, would have an impact like what the book's blurb says:

  From the 1920s on, Karl Barth’s thought was received with great interest not only by Protestants but also by Catholic theologians, who analyzed it in detail. [...] Dahlke shows how the preoccupation with Barth's 'Epistle to the Romans' and the ‘Church Dogmatics’ triggered a theological renewal among Catholic theologians.

What is an overview of Barth's impact on Roman Catholic theology?


texts:
When I pray for someone's conversion and God gives him the grace to convert but he/she rejects it. He won't end up converting and constantly is rejecting God's grace. I can see that God was putting these people in situations where the conversion could have happened but they resisted and kept on living their way of life.

Will this grace be assigned to somebody else? Will it be wasted? What is the Roman Catholic teaching on this matter?

For example, when we pray for souls in purgatory God can assign our prayers to different souls if he things the souls who we pray for can't receive it. Does this happen when we pray for people on Earth?


texts: When was the festival of the see of Peter in the 6th Century?

texts:
I've been researching the Decrees of the second Council of Tours (AD 567), specifically Canon XXI:

  Some still hold fast the old error, that they should honour the 1st of January. Others, on the festival of the See of Peter, present
  meat offerings to the dead, and partake of meats which have been
  offered to demons. Others reverence certain rocks, or trees, or
  fountains, etc. The priests should root out these heathenish
  superstitions. (1)

I understand the 1st of January to have been when Consuls entered office and citizens would renew vows, make offerings to chief deities such as Jupiter and Juno, and take auspice.

But when was the festival of the see of Peter in the 6th Century?

Does it correspond to the Feast of Saints Peter and Paul or some other feast in honor of St. Peter?

Personally, I'm not familiar with the calendrical history and the changes the calendar went through.

(1) A History Of The Councils Of The Church Volumes 1 to 5 by Charles Joseph Hefele D.D. Chapter I, The synods until the end of the sixth century.


texts: Who first compared the Trinity to a musical triad?

texts: Who first compared the Trinity to a musical triad (a three-note chord), where each Divine Person is analogous to a distinct note and the chord analogous to the Divine Substance?


texts: What paths exist in the Catholic Church for a certain theological position to become recognized as dogma?

texts:
I'm trying to parse the words carefully to say "recognized as dogma" instead of "become dogma", but basically.  How does a bill become a law, according to the Catholic Church.

If, for instance, a group of neo-Origenists went balls to the wall interpreting the Bible to mean that souls preexist conception.  What processes are in place to move a something that most Catholics assent to (i.e. the human soul is created at the moment of conception) to something on the level of Doctrine or Dogma?


texts: Why does the Bible say that people no longer need to ‘feel guilty’ under the gospel, as compared to the Old Testament?

texts:
There is the verse from Hebrews that makes me pose the question:

  10 The law is only a shadow of the good things that are coming—not the realities themselves. For this reason it can never, by the same sacrifices repeated endlessly year after year, make perfect those who draw near to worship. 2If it could, would they not have stopped being offered? For the worshipers would have been cleansed once for all, and would no longer have felt guilty for their sins. 3But those sacrifices are an annual reminder of sins, 4because it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins. (Hebrews 10:1-3)

Apparently under the Old Covenant they always felt guilty otherwise the sacrifices would have ceased. Why the difference in these covenants from this perspective?


texts: Can orthodox Trinitarians say, "God died on the cross"?

texts:
In the council of Ephesus (431 A.D.) the question of whether or not Jesus' mother Mary should be referred to as the "Mother of God" or the "Mother of Christ" was debated. On the orthodox (Mother of God) side, they argued that Jesus' two natures were undivided in his person. On the Nestorian (mother of Christ) side they argued that Mary gave birth to the human nature of Jesus specifically and so it would be misleading to talk about her as the mother of God.

In neither case did they believe that Jesus was not God and in neither case did they believe that God derived his eternal existence from Mary. It was essentially a roundabout way to talk about the hypostatic union and the relationship of Christ's two natures to his person.

In light of this dispute, I wonder what an orthodox subscriber to the Council of Ephesus would say about the statement, "God died on the cross." Jesus is God and he did, in fact, die on the cross. Yet something feels off about it like it is suggesting something that happened to the other persons of the Trinity, rather than Jesus only.


texts: Why are psalms in the bible printed with funny spacing?

texts: What is the significance of the awkward spacing (on the right below) when songs are printed in the bible? Is this spacing in the original scripts, or is it assumed by the translator somehow?


texts: What biblical reasons are there for using the Lord's Prayer as a pattern for prayer rather than a prayer to repeat verbatim?

texts:
In Matthew 6:9-13, Jesus gave the disciples what we refer to as "the Lord's Prayer," (though Jesus Himself would never have prayed this, having no sin to confess).

Some traditions use this prayer as something we should pray verbatim, while other traditions see this only as a pattern to follow.

What are the biblical reasons against using it as a prayer that should be repeated verbatim  and for using it only as a pattern?


texts: Can a Christian marry his deceased brother's wife?

texts:
Matthew 22:24 (KJV) Saying, "Master, Moses said, If a man die, having no children, his brother shall marry his wife, and raise up seed unto his brother."

In general do Christians believe it is OK to marry the wife of a deceased brother? How about if she has already children from the first marriage?


texts: Have sons of Orthodox priests often taken over their fathers' ministries?

texts: Orthodox priests are in some circumstances allowed to be married and have children. Many sons of priests presumably become priests themselves. Have local priests often been succeeded in the job by their own sons? What factors have made this kind of transition more or less likely?


texts: Can any sin be forgiven? (According to the teaching of the Catholic Church)

texts:
I was trying to research the influence Christianity had on Hitler and Nazism, when I came across this:

Hans Frank
Frank acted as lawyer and senior official for the Nazi party and legal advisor for Hitler. He also served a tenure as Governor-General of occupied Poland for which he was convicted during the Nuremberg trials for his role in perpetrating the Jewish holocaust and found guilty of complicity in the murder of millions of Poles and Polish Jews. A former Protestant (his father was a Protestant and his mother a Catholic), he converted to Roman Catholicism after his arrest where he felt relieved at the prospect of atoning for his evil deeds.

and following this, the author mentions:

The belief that one can be saved for any atrocious act demonstrates the moral flaw of Christian doctrine.

Quotes from Hitler's Henchmen and Nazi Sympathizers
I myself am a 17 year old, and I belong to the Syrian Christian Church. Now I don't really think this issue of 'forgiving-just-about-any-sin' ever arose whenever I attended church [I was surprised actually, I'd thought the pastor would've touched that topic at some point, but apparently he hasn't), so I was kinda clueless as to where to begin. I thought of asking a few Catholic friends of mine about this, and they were like:

Well, as long as you honestly didn't realize you were doing something (terribly) wrong, and if you repent and quit doing it once you do realize it, then you'd be forgiven.

Now that may seem a little...oversimplified, but hey, we're still teenagers trying to grasp as much as possible from the Bible.
Now I don't seem to recall any direct reference to this 'ultimate absolution' anywhere in the New Testament, and as I'm not able to make any headway here, I resorted to SE.
This issue just keeps gnawing at the back of my mind.
Note-
I did read up on 'similar' questions that were asked earlier here, but none of them specify the extent to which the sins they've conjectured goes. Perhaps murdering one person would've been the limit they've envisioned; but this question deals with a far more horrific sin...the systematic murder of millions, and I'm pretty sure that might elicit a different answer. Hence a request to the Mods here: Please don't close this question, at least not yet.
EDIT 1-
I'd prefer an answer limited to the teachings of the Catholic Church towards this issue.
EDIT 2-
Now if it is true that any sin can be forgiven (In the manner as my friends have stated it); now I'm just trying to look at this from every possible (and extreme) angle, so if the following (add-on) question might seem outrageous, pardon:
Q- Having read (portions of) the Mein Kampf and coming across an endless selection of Hitler's speeches on NatGeo, the History Channel and the like, the kind of rhetoric he employs, and that too with such conviction (eg: Who says I am not under the special protection of God?) gives me the feeling that the man truly felt God 'approved' of his actions. So, assuming the man truly, truly, did not believe he was committing genocide...could someone like Hitler even be forgiven?


texts:
@JBH pointed out in the comments within *Could* Adam and Eve have children before the fall? that on the latter day saints website it states that

  The fall is an integral part of Heavenly Father's plan of salvation (see 2 Nephi 2:15–16; 9:6)

I am confused. So the latter day saints are saying that God planned for Adam and Eve to fall from grace and bringing sin into the world?


texts: Prior to the scientific consensus regarding the age of mankind, were there any theologians who argued that the date of Adam's creation was unknowable?

texts: Prior to modern scientific consensus regarding the age of mankind, were there any theologians who argued that the chronology in Genesis 1-11 could not be used to calculate the date of Adam's creation?


texts: Are Catholic priests not supposed to get paid or have any belongings?

texts:
According to some Catholic friends, a Catholic priest is not supposed to own any belongings and they're not supposed to get paid. They are to be "married to the church" in that sense.

Is there an official Catholic doctrine that states this or something like it?


texts: If you are a cardinal, does that mean that you are an immediate successor to a dead or resigned pope?

texts: Being a cardinal means that you are one of the "Princes of the Catholic Church". If a pope resigned or died while in reign, the College of Cardinals is in-charged of the Catholic Church during the Sede Vacante period. If you are a cardinal during that time, are you an acting pope or the College of Cardinals is leaidng the Church as one and not divided group?


texts: Doesn't Calvinism turn God into a monster?

texts:
Another question was posted about Calvinism that asked, "Does God force people to be saved?"

The consensus, was that yes, He does.  But the question then becomes, "Does God force people to go to hell". If He forces people to be saved, He also, in effect, is forcing people to go to hell. He chooses some, He does not choose others.

If God forces people to spend eternity apart from Him, then God is not loving, but a capricious monster.  And before you say that we are all sinful, consider how that came about. It wasn't something God didn't have any control over. He created Satan, knowing Satan would rebel. He allowed Satan into the garden knowing Adam & Eve would sin and taint all of creation and all born after. You can't say God is omniscient without allowing that He knew this would all happen. You can't say He's omnipotent if you say He couldn't have stopped it.

I don't believe this is a duplicate question because similar questions do not call into question the origin of man's total depravity. God set into motion the events that would cause mankind to have a sinful nature.

Personally, I believe that Calvinism is wrong, but because my church loosely adheres to Calvinism, I want to understand how this view is incorrect.

My own theory is that God wanted true followers, rather than beings created to follow who had no choice but to follow. Calvinism seems to put God back into the tyranny camp because He picks some for salvation and some for damnation. Their sinful nature is nothing they had control over - it was predestined. But by allowing a choice between coming back to God or not, He in effect created the greater good - a way for His creation to choose Him, rather than be forced to choose Him.  That can't be compatible with Calvinism can it?


texts: Do God and Satan Celebrate Earthly Triumphs?

texts:
Many people talk about "A Never-Ending Battle Between Good and Evil".

The Bible mentions specific interventions by God and Satan to influence earthly events.

'The Binding of Issac' stands out in my mind as an example of God's intervention.
And 'The Temptation of Christ' stands out in my mind as an example of Satan's intervention.

My question:

Do God and Satan celebrate earthly triumphs?

For instance:

Did God celebrate after Abraham did as He commanded him to do after 'The Binding of Issac'?
Would Satan have celebrated if Jesus succumbed to his temptations in the desert?
Does either continue to celebrate as we live life on planet Earth?


texts: What does St. Augustine allude to when he writes in 'Confessions'?

texts:
In Book 1 of St. Augustine's 'Confessions', we read "Tell me, O God, I beg you; in your mercy tell me, pitiable creature that I am, did my infancy come after some other period of my existence which is now past ..."

Does this, and the passages which follow, allude to predestination or reincarnation?


texts: Does Paul in 2 Corinthians 6:14 contradict Jesus in Mark 2:17?

texts:
When Paul says:
"Don’t become partners with those who do not believe. For what partnership is there between righteousness and lawlessness? Or what fellowship does light have with darkness?  What agreement does Christ have with Belial? Or what does a believer have in common with an unbeliever? And what agreement does the temple of God have with idols? For we are the temple of the living God, as God said:  I will dwell   and walk among them,  and I will be their God,   and they will be my people.     Therefore, come out from among them  and be separate, says the Lord;  do not touch any unclean thing,  and I will welcome you.
2 Corinthians 6:14-17 CSB"

Does it mean to not be friends with unbelievers? If yes, doesn't it contradict Jesus in Mark 2 when He was eating and drinking with sinners?


texts: During the Mass, may the Priest skip the Act of Penitence and the Kyrie Eleison?

texts:
cf. General Instruction of the Roman Missal, A. The Introductory Rites.

At a certain church during a weekday Mass, the priest goes from the Sign of the Cross to the Collect, skipping 51. The Act of Penitence and 52. The Kyrie Eleison.

The Priest won't explain himself.

The question is during the Mass, by what Church permission or instruction is the priest allowed to skip the Act of Penitence and the Kyrie Eleison, and what effect has that on the entire Mass?


texts: Into how many languages has the Book of Mormon been translated?

texts:
I understand that the Bible, consisting of the Old and New Testaments, is the most translated book in the world.  It seems that giving the Word of God to all the world is considered part of the Great Commission.

Since the LDS church holds the Book of Mormon to be the Word of God, just like the Bible, what is the current total number of languages into which it has been translated.  I would also be interested in statistics for the Pearl of Great Price and the Doctrines and Covenants.


texts: What specific good does Catholicism attribute to play and entertainment?

texts:
In cases where a leisure, entertainment, play activity is questioned for its morality, the moral analysis tends to hinge on at least one evil aspect of the activity—one that either glorifies an evil (e.g., violence in video games) or is evil in and of itself (e.g., pornography or stealing lunch money from sissies).

However, if we agree that evil is an absence of good, and if we agree that leisure, games, and entertainment in general are not evil, we must be able to recognize some inherent good in those activities, or in the active participation thereof, for the activity to be not evil—and therefore good.

For the leisurely challenged, examples of "leisure and play" include things like:

Sporting events (either participating or watching)
Dancing
Video games
Board/Table-top games
Building unnecessary things out of:

Legos
Popsicle sticks
JavaScript

And other activities not done with a practical purpose in mind.

From a Catholic perspective, what is it about these types of activities that is explicitly and specifically good?

Furthermore, should we (and can we) as Catholics be able to attribute some specific good to each particular form of leisure, entertainment, or play? Or, are there an overarching "leisurely good" that applies to any and all activities that are not explicitly evil in some facet?


texts: Is the orientation of a grave facing East required in the Catholic Church?

texts:
I noticed in a local rural cemetary that all the graves run east-west.  It also appears that the Head stones are on the West end of the vault/coffin.  Thus, I intuit that the Head is near the West placed stone, so as implied in Matthew 24:27 the body will rise facing east.  I also understand this is generally normal for Catholic cemeteries.

Note: This was not a Catholic cemetery.

1.) Generally, do Catholic cemeteries follow the same tradition or would the head of the coffin for some reason face West?

2.) Considering the image below, I would think you would need to stand facing West to read the print normally.  The vault/coffin would be there in front of you -- east side of the headstone.  Is this a correct understanding?

3) Another Catholic cemetery is similar to this image but the printing is on the other side(west) of the headstone.  This seems to be at odds with tradition?


texts: Is there any doubt among New Testament scholars that "and then to the Twelve" in 1 Corinthians 15:5 refers to an appearance to a group?

texts: Just to be clear, this isn't a question about whether there were ten, eleven, or twelve in the group, but rather how certain we are, perhaps based on the syntax of the original Greek, that "and then to the Twelve" in 1 Corinthians 15:5 is a reference to an appearance of Christ to a group of apostles, as opposed to a series of individual appearances to the rest of the apostles besides Peter. Perhaps this is an odd question, as I've never seen it asked before. Is there any dispute about this among New Testament scholars?


texts: What is the relationship between Gabriel and Noah in LDS/Mormon teaching?

texts:
In the summary of Noah on the lds.org site, it states that Joseph Smith taught that Noah is, in fact, the angel Gabriel.  How exactly is this believed to have progressed?

Did Noah exist as an angel first and then become a man?  Or did Noah eventually become an angel?  If he became an angel, does that mean he did not attain godhood?

Is it a common believe that men become angels or angels become men?


texts:
Multiple times in the Bible Jesus declares that He is the Truth, or that He is on the side of Truth.

  John 14:6 NIV

  Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes
  to the Father except through me.

  John 18:37

  “You are a king, then!” said Pilate. Jesus answered, “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.”

What is Jesus referring to with this word, Truth? Pilate then asks Jesus this same question. But I don't think that Pilate was actually looking for an answer, this is more of a sarcastic rhetorical question to in my opinion.

  John 18:38

  “What is truth?” retorted Pilate. With this he went out again to the
  Jews gathered there and said, “I find no basis for a charge against
  him.

Can you answer that for me?


texts: Why did God relent on killing Moses when Zipporah circumcised their son?

texts:
In Exodus 4 we are told that God sought to kill Moses for not circumcising his son in accordance with the law given to Abraham in:
Genesis 17:11 KJV

And ye shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin; and it shall be a token of the covenant betwixt me and you.

but he relented on killing Moses when Moses' wife Zipporah took a sharp stone and circumcised the child, even though Moses himself did not circumcise the boy.
Exodus  4:24  through 26 KJV

24And it came to pass by the way in the inn, that the LORD met him, and sought to kill him.
25Then Zipporah took a sharp stone, and cut off the foreskin of her son, and cast it at his feet, and said, Surely a bloody husband art thou to me.
26So he let him go: then she said, A bloody husband thou art, because of the circumcision.

It seems strange that God relented with Moses and yet killed the men of Bethshemesh:
1 Samuel 6:19  KJV

And he smote the men of Bethshemesh, because they had looked into the ark of the LORD, even he smote of
the people fifty thousand and threescore and ten men: and the people lamented, because the LORD had
smitten many of the people with a great slaughter.

and Uzza for using his hand to keep the Ark from falling off thee cart:
1Ch 13:9 & 10  KJV

9And when they came unto the threshingfloor of Chidon, Uzza put forth his hand to hold the ark; for the oxen stumbled.
10And the anger of the LORD was kindled against Uzza, and he smote him, because he put his hand to the
ark: and there he died before God.

While I full well understand that God does not need to explain his reasons, it would seem that a just God would treat both Moses and Uzza the same.
God must have had his reasons for doing it this way; are there Biblical reasons for believing his behavior in this case was consistent with the other behavior I've mentioned?


texts: Did Jesus or any of the New Testament authors ever quote a textual variant?

texts:
Among many (good) arguments against KJV-onlyism, I have heard the following argument:

  The idea that “preservation” requires us to have 100% accurate knowledge of the original words of scripture is a standard that was not demanded by Christ or the Apostles.

To bolster this argument, it is suggested that Christ or the NT authors will occasionally base an argument on a textual variant from the OT (probably from the Septuagint) where the original reading actually says something different.

Thus, the argument goes, it is possible to acknowledge that we do not have 100% perfect accuracy in our copies while still holding to a doctrine of preservation... one defined by the belief that the message of the Bible is perfectly clear, even though some meaningful and viable textual variants exist.

I do not remember any specific passages cited where Christ or the NT authors did this sort of thing (made applications based on textual variants).  Does anyone know of any?


texts: Have any Wesleyan theologians compared Outler's Quadrilateral to PaRDeS?

texts:
In 1964, Methodist theologian Albert C. Outler outlined the Wesleyan Quadrilateral in his introduction to John Wesley's anthology of works.

This establishes a hermeneutic framework in which truth, revelation and so forth are interpreted through the lenses of Scripture and Tradition, reason and Experience.

Similarly, Jewish Scholarship has a similar framework, PaRDeS, an acronym formed from the following hermeneutic approaches:

  Peshat (פְּשָׁט) — "surface" ("straight") or the literal (direct) meaning.[1]
  Remez (רֶמֶז) — "hints" or the deep (allegoric: hidden or symbolic) meaning beyond just the literal sense.
  Derash (דְּרַשׁ) — from Hebrew darash: "inquire" ("seek") — the comparative (midrashic) meaning, as given through similar occurrences.
  Sod (סוֹד) (pronounced with a long O as in 'soda') — "secret" ("mystery") or the esoteric/mystical meaning, as given through inspiration or revelation.

Have there been any Weslyan theologians and scholars that have sought to compare and equate the two frameworks and methodologies.


texts: What's the Biblical basis for "Without God I could do nothing"?

texts:
Often times I have had or come across the thought of "Without God I could do nothing" in a general sense, not something as specific as doing good nor our ability to fix ourselves (i.e. I'm not talking about total depravity but about all actions).

The primary Biblical evidence I can find possibly backing this is the following:

The fact that God created humans with all of their abilities/being/situation/etc. so as such without God at all we would never be able to do anything because we could never exist
Jesus' quote "By myself I can do nothing" in John 5:30 (how much more so can we do nothing)
"I am the vine; you are the branches. If you remain in me and I in you, you will bear much fruit; apart from me you can do nothing." in John 15:5
The fact that God ultimately controls the world and has the power to destroy us or do whatever He wants

The first potential problem that I see with these supporting the general claim that "without God I can do nothing" is that 1. doesn't really address the issue of our ability to do something now but rather the past (meaning yes, without Him we wouldn't exist, but since we do exist it doesn't determine if we can do something). The second potential problem is that 2. and 3. might only be implying a more specific case such as "apart from me you can do nothing good". The third is that in 4. if God didn't do anything ("without God") then Him stopping us wouldn't happen.

Is there any other Biblical basis for the general claim of "Without God I could do nothing"? Or is the evidence above generally enough to convince most theologians that this claim is true?


texts: What Christians connected the Great Schism and Crab Nebula Supernova (1054 A.D.)?

texts:
What Christians connected the occurrence of the Great Schism* and the Crab Nebula Supernova, which both occurred around the middle of 1054 A.D.?

This question is not about Christians speculating in astrology—a form of divination, which is unlawful foreknowledge of future events.**

This question is related to how Christians have applied Genesis 1:14,

  …let them [i.e., the stars] be for signs…

to the 1054 supernova—namely, how they saw the supernova as a sign, not of a future event, but of, for example, God's displeasure at the Great Schism.

* Also called the "Eastern Schism" or "East-West Schism"

** St. Thomas Aquinas defines astrology as when "one desires to foreknow the future that cannot be forecast by their [i.e., the stars'] means." (Summa Theologica II-II q. 95 a. 5, "Whether divination by the stars is unlawful?"). Basically, "to know with certitude future human actions" by means of the stars is unlawful because humans have freewill, which the influence of the stars cannot take away; "to foreknow those future things that are caused by heavenly bodies" is "neither an unlawful nor a superstitious divination." (ibid., corpus).


texts: What do those who practice the gift of 'tongues' consider the purpose to be?

texts:
In Acts 2, we read of how the apostles received the gift of tongues so that people heard the gospel in their own languages. Is the gift of tongues, then, specifically evangelistic or does it have a purpose in a congregation where there are only believers?

I was under the impression that only Charismatics currently practice this gift. What do they consider the purpose to be and are there others who actually practice the gift that consider the purpose to be different? How are these purposes defended using either Old or New Testaments?


texts: Does the Bible or Church tradition differentiate marriage from partnerships?

texts:
Today "marriage" generally appears to be elevated over civil unions and other partnership relationships, has this been consistent throughout Church history?

Marriage appears to be about much more than sexuality, what stance do mainline Protestants hold regarding the sanctity of marriage?


texts: Which denominations believe in modern (ongoing) revelation?

texts:
Which denominations believe in the concept of modern revelation?

The one that immediately comes to mind is the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, but what about other denominations?

EDIT: An answer should also explain what various denominations, or groups of denominations if the list grows large, believes about modern revelation.


texts: Why can't cardinals over 80 vote in the conclave? Is there a reason given anywhere?


texts: What happens if a Pope is unable to continue his duties due to physical or mental illness?

texts:
Say that a Pope becomes bedridden and so he cannot go out in public and does not have the stamina to perform other duties. Or he begins suffering from Alzheimer's and thus cannot remember that he is the Pope. At that point, the Pope is unable to continue his duties due to physical or mental illness.

Assuming that the Pope does not voluntarily resign due to his health (as Pope Benedict XVI did in 2013), would the Pope be removed from office and a new election be called? Or would he still nominally hold the role while others perform the duties of his office?


texts: What did Clement mean when he said: "Fasting is better than prayer, and charity than both"?

texts:
In his second letter to the Corinthians (16:3), the anonymous church father, believed to be Clement of Rome, wrote:

  "Fasting is better than prayer, and charity than both".

What did he mean by that?

The line in question is from the below passage, which in turn comes from this link

  So, brothers, since we have been given no small opportunity to repent, let us take the occasion to turn to God who has called us, while we still have One to accept us. For if we renounce these pleasures and master our souls by avoiding their evil lusts, we shall share in Jesus’ mercy. Understand that "the day" of judgment is already "on its way like a furnace ablaze," and "the powers of heaven will dissolve" and the whole earth will be like lead melting in fire. Then men's secret and overt actions will be made clear. Charity, then, like repentance from sin, is a good thing. But fasting is better than prayer, and charity than both. “Love covers a multitude of sins," and prayer, arising from a good conscience, "rescues from death." Blessed is everyone who abounds in these things, for charity lightens sin.


texts: Which Roman Catholic doctrines are infallible?

texts:
I know that the Pope can speak infallibly (ex cathedra), and that this has officially been done once, as well as three times before Papal infallibility was formally declared. I would assume that any doctrine he talks about or mentions would be infallible, at least with regards to the bits spoken while in ex cathedra mode. Additionally, however, I can't immediately think of a reason why ex cathedra statements would be the only ones to result in infallible doctrines. Thus, my question is: which doctrines of the Roman Catholic church are infallible?

If none, many, or all of Roman Catholic Church doctrines are infallible, then say so. In the case of many, a broad classification would be appreciated. If there is a small number of them, then a list would be greatly appreciated.


texts: Animal Kingdom before Sin Came into The Garden

texts: Were animals back then dangerous to each others, such as predators stalking and killing their prey? And were they dangerous to people like they so often are today?


texts: Which non LDS Christian denominations believe in baptism after death?

texts:
The LDS Church believes that it is possible for individuals to be baptized after death (in particular, their descendants can be baptized on their behalf, and if they accept the covenant of baptism they will be able to gain its blessings).

Does any other Christian denomination believe that individuals will have a chance to be baptized after their death if they did not get baptized in life? (This does not necessarily have to be in the form of proxy baptisms, but perhaps after the resurrection, for example.)
 If so, which ones?

As far as I know, most other Christian churches either believe those that were not baptized by the time they die have lost the chance to go to heaven, or do not believe that baptism is necessary (or have no beliefs on the issue), except the LDS Church and the early Christian church.


texts: What caused people in Jerusalem to change so much from "Palm entrance" to crucifixion day?

texts:
Are the same people that received Jesus with flowers when he entered the city the ones that also condemned him for crucifixion a couple of days later?

Every single preacher I've heard suggested they were the same, but other sources depict the judgement given in Pilate's courtyard as done in a rush with many men "planted" by the priests. After the judgement was given, none of Jesus' followers, no matter how many, could stand the Romans fulfilling their order.

Are there any references that encourage any of these views or maybe some other perspective?


texts: Why Many Who Believe That “All Are Born Sinful” Hold That “None Are Born Gay Or Trans”?

texts:
Many Protestants, though not technically or officially Reformed, are nevertheless strongly influenced by Calvinistic theology; as such, they espouse the doctrine of total depravity, teaching that all men are born under the power of sin (Psalm 51:5).
However, a large part of them are also politically active, and I couldn't help but notice that this important segment (ascribing to conversion therapy and associated with the ex-gay movement) also holds to the notion that no one is born gay, trans, etc., but rather, they embrace certain discarded psychoanalytical ideas about the latter being a product of upbringing; in other words, of nurture, rather than nature. Granted, I am not exactly arguing that all sin is inborn, and that no vices are learned or (self)taught, but the (religious) zeal with which they (communally) cling to this opinion seems to border on dogma.
My bewilderment stems from the (apparent or perceived) contradiction between the two views. Am I missing something ? If so, then what ? (Your contributions are greatly appreciated).


texts: Do those who pray to saints ascribe to them the quality of being able to hear many people at once?

texts: I mean, there could be thousands of Orthodox Christians at this moment praying to, say, Saint Blessed Xenia of St. Petersburg, and there could probably be even more of Catholic Christians praying right now to, say, saint Patrick, let alone Mother Mary. Does that mean that all those saints have the All-knowing God's ability to hear all of those praying to them, distinguish their prayers one from another, and later adequately act on each one of them accordingly?