texts: Is this melody part of the French church mass?

texts:
In this article, in the section entitled The “Great” Aleinu History, the author writes that a particular melody used in Jewish High Holiday prayers was added to the French Church Mass in the late 12th century by French crusaders, and can be heard to this very day. You can directly play the mp3 here.

My question is, is it true that this melody can still be heard in the mass to this very day? What part of the mass is it used for? Are there any audio recordings of it?

EDIT:

Also, from the article linked in caseyr547's answer below:

  Another report adds that the Gentiles 'henceforth used the chant in their church,' and musicologist Eric Werner did in fact locate the melody in the Sanctus of the Ninth Mass of the Virgin.


texts: What biblical verses have been used to justify or even inspire working women?

texts: I was reading this article on How To Be A Good Housewife, and what got my attention was the fact that Mexican women are encouraged to become housewives, because the Bible says so, and Mexico is very Catholic. It also suggests that Proverbs and Song of Songs support the existence of housewives and their important place in the world. Now, if there have been biblical verses that have been used to justify housewives, have there also been biblical verses that have been used to inspire women to work outside the home?


texts: What is the doctrinal or Scriptural basis for a central Church authority?

texts:
As explained in a previous question, one Baptist Distinctive is the rejection of a central Church authority (whether an individual or a governing body).  Instead, we hold fast to the autonomy of the local Church.

This has been my view, and coming from this perspective, I wonder what the doctrinal basis is for having a central authority.  This could be answered from the perspective of any denomination that does have a central authority.  This is not intended to be an argument for or against the validity of any claim.  I would, however, ask that the responses be supported, either by scriptures, or by official Church statements, or other supporting documentation.

I realize that different groups may have different, or common answers, and that there may not be one "right" answer, but rather several "right" answers.  If I need to pick a denomination for the question to be valid, I will certainly do so.


texts: Is there a canon law for what to do if a hostage situation breaks out while consecrating the Eucharist?

texts:
I was told by a friend that the Roman Catholic Church has canon law for what to do if, while consecrating the Eucharist during mass (say, halfway through reciting the Words of Institution), a hostage situation breaks out within the church. His claim was that with two thousand years of tradition, this was bound to happen at some point and did in fact with some militant Irish Catholics.

I have no idea if there is any truth to this, or if they were just pulling my leg. But it sounds plausible given the extensive canon law that the Church has, so I figure it's worth asking. Is there a canon law for what to do if there is a hostage situation while consecrating the Eucharist? If not canon law, are there other official guidelines for what to do?


texts: What is the biblical basis for requiring that a pastor/preacher/teacher/etc be paid for their ministry?

texts:
What is the biblical basis for requiring a minister to be paid for their work?

Put another way, what is the biblical basis for supporting the notion of a solely-vocational pastor?

Note - I am NOT looking for a biblical basis that paying a minister anything  is OK: there are myriad passages that could be turned to for that. This is exclusively about a mandate for such recompense.


texts: Do Lutherans define Justification and Atonement as different things?

texts:
I was considering the doctrine of Lutheran Unlimited/Universal Atonement, which says Christ died for everyone's sins. However, the fact stands that not all people go to heaven – thus not all people's sins were "Paid" for.

So I decided, since Justification is:

  the action of declaring or making righteous in the sight of God.

Then all people who did not go to heaven, are Not Justified.

However, according to Lutheran Unlimited Atonement, all people received Atonement. Yet not all people received Justification – because not all people are given salvation.

So I want to ask a Lutheran, How do you define Atonement?


texts:
In Exodus 6:2-3, why does God tell Moses that He is "the LORD" and that He did not make himself known to Abraham as "the LORD", but only as "God Almighty"? In Genesis 12, when God called Abraham to leave Er of the Chaldeans, it says "the Lord" called Abraham and in Genesis 13 it says that Abraham himself called on the name of the "the LORD".

Are the underlying Hebrew terms for "the Lord" in Genesis 12 different than in Exodus 6? I believe the various names of God refer to one God, are are intended to reveal different aspects of God, but I dont understand what's going on here in Exodus 6.


texts: How do Pentecostals theologically justifiy when "faithful" snake handlers die?

texts:
What does it mean to Pentecostal churches whose pastor dies from a snake bite?  The faith in snake handling comes from the literal interpretation of:

Mark 16:17-18 KJV

  And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they
  cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues;

  They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it
  shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall
  recover.

However, on occasion, a pastor dies from a snake bite.  How does this specific segment of the denomination rationalize the death?


texts: What are the arguments for the Exodus occuring in 1440BC or 1290BC?

texts: There are two schools of thought on when the Exodus occurred, the "early" date of 1440BC, and the "later" date of 1290BC.  How was each date arrived at, and what is the evidence for each?


texts: According to the Catholicism, what exactly is the meaning of “overshadowed” by the power of the most High in Luke 1:35?

texts:
According to the Catholic Church, what exactly is the meaning of “overshadowed” by the power of the most High in Luke 1:35?

And the angel answering, said to her: The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the most High shall overshadow thee. And therefore also the Holy which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God. - Luke 1:35

What interpretations does Catholicism give on this particular verse of Scripture.


texts: Is there a Biblical reason why the church of Christ does not use instrumental music?

texts:
I have heard all of my life that the New Testament does not authorize the use of musical instruments, so the church of Christ does not use them.  They say they are silent where the Bible is silent, and they speak where the Bible speaks.

But, David used musical instruments.  Psa. 33:2,

  "Praise the Lord with the harp;
      make music to him on the ten-stringed lyre."  (NIV)

Or, as in Psa. 81:2-3,

  "2 Take a psalm, and bring hither the timbrel, the pleasant harp with the psaltery.

  3 Blow up the trumpet in the new moon, in the time appointed, on our solemn feast day."  (KJV)

Is there a Biblical explanation for not using instruments of music under the New Testament?


texts: Committing a sin by eating animal's flesh

texts:
According to the Holy Bible, are we committing a sin by eating animal's  flesh?
If No, Why?


texts: Would Nicene Christians consider a Unitarian Baptism sufficient for entry into the Church?

texts: What determines entry into Christendom - baptism or belief? Say a vaguely spiritual person joins a congregation affiliated with the Unitarian Universalist Association of Congregations. Sometimes, the congregation may pull readings from the Hebrew scriptures or the Christian scriptures, and over time, the vaguely spiritual person decides to identify himself/herself as Christian by belief, and therefore repents and does other Christian things. Now, the UUA does not normally perform baptisms as a ritual. Would such a person be considered a legitimate Christian? Would the UUA be willing to perform a baptism for the Christian convert before the congregation, since baptisms are very significant in Christianity?


texts: What is the origin of the story that the Apostle John taught only "love one another"?

texts:
I've heard in a sermon that there is a story about Apostle John's last days, when he was working in Ephesus.

The story tells that usually, at the Lord's Supper, John was invited to give a little speech about the church life, and his words was almost always: "Little children, I tell you to love one another".
When a fellow worker asked him "Brother, I think we've already understood that. You have walked with the Lord, don't you have another teaching from him?" he answered something like "If, one day, you understand that, there is nothing else you need to learn about the church life".

Firstly, I don't think that the very preacher I've heard it from have made up the story, because he is trustworthy and almost always theologically accurate.

Secondly, I don't remember if the words I used was exactly the same from the story.

That being said, someone know a story like that from any source? Maybe from Irenaeus, or Polycarp, or Tertullian or Justin Martyr?


texts: When did a "formal act of correction" of a pope's statement happen in the past?

texts:
In this article Cardinal Raymond Burke has now indicated the cardinals are contemplating a “formal correction” should the pope fail to address their concerns.

Also, he states:

  Historically, in the rare cases where popes have taught heresy, Burke
  explains, “It is the duty…, and historically it has happened...

I did some research but couldn't find any sources that investigate this issue. My question is when and who did it happen that the bishops had to carry out the "formal correction" in the history of the church?


texts: What is the significance of apostolic succession in Anglicanism?

texts:
So my understanding of the issue is as follows: the C of E says it has apostolic succession and it’s bishops can trace themselves back to the apostles.

But I thought one of the principles of the Reformation was the idea that priests are not raised above people or not separate from them?

So my question is if the second part is true, why does it matter that bishops trace themselves back to Christ?

Sorry if this a silly question. Thanks in advance!


texts: Why do some traditions *not* celebrate Christmas or Easter in any official fashion?

texts:
Following-up to these previous questions, why do some traditions not celebrate the birth and death (or, more accurately, His resurrection) of Christ as "official" church "events"?

I understand that celebrating the Communion Table is a celebration of Jesus death - but why not celebrate His birth and resurrection, too, in a "special" way (ie beyond just celebrating His resurrection every Sunday by that being the the church comes together for worship)?


texts: Biblical passages that relate to Christian unity versus doctrinal accuracy

texts:
Christianity is currently split into several denominations due to differences in doctrine. It seems that these denominations consider their doctrinal differences more important than Christian unity. That is, they are unwilling to merge with other denominations if that means compromises in their doctrine.

Are there any good Biblical passages that relate to this issue? Specifically, passages that either talk about the importance of Christian unity or about the importance of doctrinal purity.

Does the Bible say that God wants Christians to unite? Or does the Bible says that it is more important that Christians do what they think God has asked them to do?

To the extent that there are denominations who do not have doctrinal differences, what Biblical passages address this issue? Are there passages that suggest there should be separate organizations despite doctrinal agreement?


texts: What is the Protestant argument against the doctrine of Purgatory?

texts:
The Roman Catholic Church teaches the idea of Purgatory, which is defined by Wikipedia as follows:

  Purgatory is, according to Catholic teaching, the state or place of
  purification or temporary punishment by which those who die in a state
  of grace are believed to be made ready for the Beatific Vision in
  Heaven. Only one who dies in a state of grace can be in Purgatory, and
  therefore no one who is in Purgatory will remain there forever or go
  to Hell.  Wikipedia

However, Protestant theology typically rejects the idea of Purgatory entirely.

What, then, is the Protestant argument against the doctrine of Purgatory?


texts: Does a Christian have to believe in Hell?

texts: I do remember I've read somewhere that modern Christians are no longer required to believe in Hell. Like, it's optional. I've now googled but no such info appeared again. Therefore asking knowlegeable people here - which Church document says the Hell is optional if it is really so.


texts: What power do spirits have that resurrected beings do not?

texts:
According to Mormon doctrine, Resurrected beings have physical bodies that can only be in one place at one time, which is why the Holy Ghost remains a spirit, so that he can dwell in the hearts of men:

  "The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man’s; the Son
  also; but the Holy Ghost has not a body of flesh and bones, but is a
  personage of Spirit. Were it not so, the Holy Ghost could not dwell in
  us." (D&C 130:22, emphasis added)

It appears to me that some form of power or ability is lost at the resurrection. An essential power that only spirits have, which resurrected beings do not, hence the necessity of the Holy Ghost remaining a spirit.

It seems somewhat paradoxical to me that we would have anything to lose at the resurrection–if anyone understands what I'm trying to communicate by phrasing it that way... Obviously the Holy Ghost is going to be resurrected at some point (I feel it's safe to assume so at least), at which point in time he will forfeit the power that makes his role in the Godhead essential, and receive a resurrected body. My question is, what exactly is this power that the Father and Christ cannot wield as resurrected beings? Or where do I err in my pondering or phrasing of my question?


texts:
For thousands of years, the Devil has been associated with the left hand in various ways and is normally portrayed as being left-handed in pictures and other images.

In the seventeenth century it was thought that the Devil baptised his followers with his left-hand and there are many references in superstitions to the "left-hand side" being associated with evil.

We say "do the right thing" thus favoring the right side to the left one. Jesus is portraited using his right hand and on the contrary, Devil using the left.

What are the traditions of the Church towards left handness?


texts: Are there any Christian sects that believe the Old Testament was written (inspired) by Satan or that these scriptures are evil in some way?

texts: I wonder that if there are Christians that interpret the Old Testament as something so false/deceitful that it may be the work of the Devil himself in an attempt to lead humanity out of God's true path.


texts: Was there a reason why God sent Jonah to Nineveh and not some other city?

texts:
God sent Jonah to prophesy to the Babylonian city of Nineveh, which he did with the greatest of reluctance, thereby effecting the largest mass conversion of a city up to that time.

It's possible that Nineveh was a "random" city, but that's probably not the case, given its size and strategic importance. Instead, what made Nineveh significant enough to be chosen in God's eyes?

Was Nineveh the "second" city of Babylon, after the capital, in the manner of New York City versus Washington D.C.?

Did Nineveh have a "Sodom and Gomorrah" reputation, making it the worst city of Babylon?

Was Nineveh unusually open and "cosmopolitan," thereby making it the easiest city to convert?

Or was there some other reason that I have overlooked?


texts: Is there a term for a theological principle that if a New Testament text is unclear about something, that point is not important for salvation?

texts:
One view is that a significant number of theological issues re Christianity are debated because they are debatable. So, this view says, a relevant text might admit of multiple plausible interpretations, or weighing different texts against each other can lead to different plausible conclusions, and so on.
Is there a term for a theological principle that if the New Testament texts appear to be unclear about something, therefore that point is not important for salvation?
Note: this isn't a question about whether the relevant texts in fact are unclear, whether multiple interpretations are equally valid, and so on. It's a question about whether there's a term for this sort of theological principle.


texts: Could "The human soul is created at the moment of conception." be defined as dogma?

texts:
Could the proposition

  The human soul is created at the moment of conception.

be defined as dogma?

(question idea courtesy Peter Turner, who asked "What paths exist in the Catholic Church for a certain theological position to become recognized as dogma?")


texts: What fancy word describing a church's stance on the Eucharist most closely applies to Mormonism?

texts:
Do Mormons believe in transubstantiation, or consubstantiation, or the Lutheran "sacramental union", or the Calvinist "mystical presence", or perhaps a more Zwinglian "purely symbolic" approach?

Is there a quick and easy way to sum up the Mormon view on the Eucharist such as I have enumerated above? (Leaving aside the fact that they use water rather than wine or grape juice)


texts:
I see different sources of Apostle Matthew's death

staked or impaled to the earth by spears and then beheaded
killed by a sword wound
natural death
he angered a local king who ordered him nailed to a bed, covered his whole body with paper, brimstones, oil, asphalt and brushwood and set him on fire
stoned

Which one is true?


texts: How do Evangelicals understand "holy children" in 1 Cor 7:14, with respect to the salvation of children dying in infancy?

texts:
For the unbelieving husband is made holy because of his wife, and the unbelieving wife is made holy because of her husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy. (1 Cor 7:14, ESV)

If a child dies before being born or dies at a very young age, can we say that he or she is saved?  What if one of the parents is a believer?  And what if neither of the parents is a believer?

What is an overview of what Evangelical Christians believe on this matter?

Since the verse was not mainly addressing the state of children, what is an overview of how Evangelical Christians understand the thought that the children are holy?

How do Calvinists, Arminians, and other Evangelical traditions approach this question?


texts: How did Richard Baxter support his arguments against John Owen (in 1649 and thereafter)?

texts:
In 1648 John Owen (1616-1683) published his definitive work The Death of Death in the Death of Christ which produced an almost immediate response, in the next year, from Richard Baxter (1615-1691) and an ongoing, controversial, public debate between the two.
In a summary, in 1846, of Baxter's theology, Thomas W Jenkyn states part of Baxter's views as follows :

The atonement of Christ did not consist in his suffering the identical but the equivalent punishment (i.e., one which would have the same effect in moral government) as that deserved by mankind because of offended law. Christ died for sins, not persons. The benefits of substitutionary atonement are accessible and available to all men for their salvation.

I have highlighted two parts with bold and italics.
Paul specifically says that 'the Son of God loved me and gave himself for me', Galatians 2:20, and Peter says of Christ, that 'he bore our sins (not just 'sins' - 'our sins') in his own body on the tree', 1 Peter 2:24.
This appears to be personal, to me. I cannot see how it could be more 'personal'.
But I can see in Richard Baxter's theology the beginnings (or the first strong public expression) of what would later become a very widely accepted 'gospel' - that of a 'universally available' 'salvation' which, actually, applies to none, and has to be 'accessed' to 'activate' its efficacy.
I am interested in how Richard Baxter supported his view, particularly regarding such texts as the ones I have quoted, where it would seem that scripture is not on his side in saying 'Christ died for sins, not persons' and 'the benefits are accessible and available to all' (when we are told that 'a sword turns every way to keep the way to the tree of life', Genesis 3:24.).
This view is certainly the antithesis of what John Owen published and I am interested in what arguments Baxter relied upon to counteract Owen's theology.

Personal Note : I have never agreed with the term 'limited atonement' since Jesus says, Matthew 20:28 and Mark 10:45,  that the Son of man 'gave his life a ransom for many' (though 'strait is the gate that leads to life and and few find it' Matthew 7:14) and since John saw in vision, Revelation 7:9, 'a great multitude whom no man can number'.
'Many' and 'no man can number' does not sound 'limited' to my own ear. My own understanding is that some limit themselves, through unbelief, and exclude themselves from benefit and have only themselves to blame. That some are chosen 'before the foundation of the world', Ephesians 1:4, is irrelevant to the culpability of those who spend their life in activity contrary to their own humanity and detrimental to their own, ultimate, destiny.
Perhaps Richard Baxter has arguments against what I have just written in which case I am interested in hearing about them.


texts: What is the significance of the names of the 4 rivers in the Garden of Eden?

texts:
What is the significance of the names of the 4 rivers in the Garden of Eden, mentioned in Genesis (English Standard Version Bible)? Do they all correspond to actual rivers today? I know the 3rd, Tigris River, and 4th, Euphrates River both exist, but what of the first two rivers mentioned?

Gn 2:10-14 (RSVCE)

  10 A river flowed out of Eden to water the garden, and there it
  divided and became four rivers. 11 The name of the first is
  Pishon; it is the one which flows around the whole land of Hav′ilah, where there is gold; 12 and the gold of that land is good;
  bdellium and onyx stone are there. 13 The name of the second river is
  Gihon; it is the one which flows around the whole land of Cush. 14 And the name of the third river is Tigris, which flows
  east of Assyria. And the fourth river is the Euphra′tes.


texts: What are the qualifications for becoming an eternal family according to LDS teaching?

texts:
I understand the LDS Church teaches the concept of an eternal family.  I guess the husband and wife have to have been sealed for eternity in a Temple marriage, and, therefore, have to hold Temple recommends.  I'm wondering if their earthly children also have to be Temple-worthy and if there are any other qualifications.

If one child is not Temple-worthy, then I'm wondering if that child is not a part of the eternal family in the afterlife, but perhaps would still have some relationship with his/her siblings and parents and possibly Temple-worthy children.

So, perhaps let us focus in on the specific qualifications for having an eternal family in heaven.


texts: In John 8, were the scribes and pharisees guilty of the sin of Fornication / Adultery?

texts:
The Lord Jesus said, "He that is without sin may throw the first stone." Since all of the accusers went away beginning with the oldest, does that imply that the scribes and pharisees (accusers) guilty of the specific sin of Adultery / fornication?

  If there be any of you who is without sin, without sin of this nature, that has not some time or other been guilty of fornication or adultery, let him cast the first stone at her.

Or, does Jesus mean in that instance that only he who has no sin at all, may throw the first stone?


texts: Which sacraments can be administered validly but illicitly?

texts:
There are several questions on this site dealing with the difference in licit and valid when it comes to sacraments. A good starting point might be this one.

On this basis one can sort administered sacraments into four categories:

valid and licit (should be the majority of all administered sacraments)
invalid and illicit (does occur but is not of particular interes for me)
invalid but licit (does not occur as all invalid sacraments are Illicit)
valid but illicit

The last one is of interest within this question: Several examples for this can be found on this site as: Layperson baptizing children without them being in danger of death or priestly ordination without papal approval.

What I ask: Could you provide a list of (a) examples cases of validly but illicitly administered sacraments for each of the 7 sacraments where this might occur and (b) for the other sacraments a reason why this case might not occur.


texts: What is an overview of Protestant critiques of Swedenborgianism?

texts:
Swedenborgianism, or the New Church, is a religious movement based on the writings of Emanuel Swedenborg (1688–1772).  My understanding is that he saw a series of visions, and based on what he learned in these visions and his interpretation of the Bible, he developed a system of theology that differs on some points from traditional Christianity.

What do Protestants think of this system?  I'm most interested in points of disagreement, so, what is an overview of Protestant critiques of Swedenborgianism?


texts: Did any of the Apostles travel to present day Saudi Arabia? Apostle Thomas?


texts: What do red garments represent for leaders in the Catholic church?

texts: Why do leaders in the Roman Catholic Church wear red garments? I understand that the color red can mean a variety of things (Holy Spirit, Pentecost, presence of God, blood of martyrs, etc.), but what specific meaning(s) does the Catholic church place on this color of garment, and who is permitted and/or required to wear red, and under what circumstances?


texts: What does "persecute with cups" refer to in Augustine's first homily on 1 John?

texts:
Augustine, in his first homily on 1 John has a phrase that reads:

  ut passiones martyrum imitetur, non eos calcibus persequamur!

Online it is translated:

  that we should imitate the sufferings of the martyrs, not persecute
  them with our cups!

What is the background to the statement "persecute them with cups"?


texts: How to pray and meditate while saying the rosary?

texts:
What to think about when praying the rosary? If one thinks about the mystery (e.g. sorrowful mystery) while praying, then one can not pay attention to the words of Hail Mary but if one concentrates on Hail Mary then one can not meditate the mystery. How to pray the rosary properly, ie. in a way that one concentrates both on the Hail Mary and on the mystery?
I would prefer examples from the lives of saints and an explicit answer to my question from saintly authority (because it is impossible that no one asked this question before). Thanks.


texts: Is confirmation part of the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA) doctrine?

texts:
In my research I have concluded that infant-baptisms and confirmations are practiced in the PCA, however it's not clear whether the latter is a necessary part of PCA doctrine.

The clarify, I regard confirmation as the one-off reaffirmation of the public profession that was made on behalf of the individual's parents and godparents during infant-baptism.

In the comments of this answer there is a dispute over confirmation versus a "public profession of faith". If this distinction does exist, what is the difference?

If confirmation or a similar practice is consistent throughout the PCA, what are the characteristics of it? What sets it apart from other denominations?


texts: When do we as Christians draw the line on self-defense?

texts:
At what line do Christians stop at self defense? Take a look here:
Matthew 5:39

  But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.

So where do we draw the line to defend ourselves? Or are we supposed to let them go as far to seriously hurt us or even to kill us?


texts: What do non-trinitarians mean when they call Jesus the "Son of God"?

texts:
On a different question I got an answer and some comments. One of which said:

  Generally, when a Christian says that Jesus is the "Son of God" they are referring to the doctrine of the Trinity, where Jesus is a person of a three-part godhead. It's a complicated doctrine that necessitates antinomy. As for your friend's reasoning, it is sound, and is the same reason we call Adam, from Genesis, the son of God also, for he also had no human father, instead God fashioned him from the clay of the Earth and breathed life into him. –  fredsbend yesterday

If that is what Trinitarians usually mean when they call Jesus the "Son of God", what do non-trinitarians mean when they say it?


texts: Where does Jesus stand on war and peace?

texts:
I see this quote

  “Do not think that I came to bring peace on Earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I came to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and a man’s enemies will be the members of his household. He who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me; and he who loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me. And he who does not take his cross and follow Me is not worthy of Me. He who has found his life will lose it, and he who has lost his life for My sake will find it.” (Matthew 10:34-39 NASB)

And there are many interpretations (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/But_to_bring_a_sword#Interpretations)

Also, Jesus is known as the Prince of Peace (Isaiash 9:6), so this is quite confusing. What then, does the "sword" refer to? Does it mean that Jesus is por-war? Or does it just mean that Christianity is a contentious doctrine that will lead SOME people to wage war?

Jesus advocates peace, right?


texts:
Reformed Christians, like Presbyterians differ from the Catholic and Orthodox Church in their understanding of forgiveness of ones' sins. One way in which they differ is not having the sacrament of Penance.
Why don't Reformed Christians consider it necessary to confess to a priest?


texts:
God is said to be πνεῦμα (pneuma) in John 4:24 but is he ever said to be a "soul" ψυχή (psuché) in the Bible?

  God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and
  truth.

  John 4:24 (ESV)

The Greek word ψυχή (psuché) is the root of the English words "psyche," "psychology."

Is God ever said to be a "soul" in the Scriptures?


texts:
I'm grappling with the idea of predestination at the moment. I feel it has several problems, or maybe I'm just not thinking things through.

However, one of the basic questions that arises for me is that if the saved and unsaved were predestined from eternity, what is the role of God's incarnation? What does it actually change? Predestination is usually defended on the idea that humans are so totally depraved that they could never merit salvation through their goodness? Isn't the point of Christ that we were formerly unable through our goodness (lack of it) to initiate a relation with God, so that Christ's role was to initiate this relation, to create this mediation? And once that is in effect, we have the choice to accept this relation or reject it? Isn't the point of Christianity precisely that since we cannot merit salvation through morality, we must always depend on Christ, in choosing Him?

This tenet of predestination seems to me to still being stuck with the Law and morality.


texts: My husband and I were discussing an essay my nephew wrote where he says he wants to manufacture cigarettes. I thought it was a good dream but shouldn't we address whether this is something that is good to people who use them? My husband said there is nothing wrong with manufacturing cigarettes because the bible doesn't forbid it. Are there verses that are relevant to my question?


texts: (Related to Was Leo Tolstoy a heretic?) Most know Sir Isaac Newton as the person who discovered gravity when he observed the fall of an apple or his discovery of light being a particle, but few are aware of his religious views. For one, he held much disdain for Catholics and the Anglican church. He was an Antitrinitarian monotheist, declaring the trinity idolatry. Some would call him a heretic. Many did, but he has never been ostracized. He was not public about his views and his study of alchemy. Today, is he still branded as a heretic?


texts: What is the Difference between a Heretic and a Schismatic, according Catholic and Orthodox tradition?

texts:
(This question is aimed at the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox perspective only)

What is the difference between a heretic and a schismatic, and what are the soteriological consequences of each?


texts:
Which Aramaic speaking Christian Church(es) uses a dialect of Aramaic in their liturgy that is the closest to the dialect that Jesus of Nazareth spoke in Palestine some 2000 years ago?

Jesus spoke with a Galilean dialect of Aramaic.


texts: Do the religious figures leading a particular See of Christianity have a specific title(s) for that office?

texts:
For instance:

Pope Francis, Bishop of Rome, _____ of the (Western) See

Emperor Claudius XI, last _____ of the (Eastern?) See

I've also seen the term "synod"; I'm not sure where that fits in either.

I'm not looking for other political distinctions.


texts: What are the best ways to refute the position that Paul started Christianity?

texts:
It is a position that many Christian scholars and thinkers have espoused over the years. I think that this link would provide a good exposition of the position I am referring to.

http://www.sullivan-county.com/news/paul/paul.htm

Basically it says that Luke's writing isn't completely trustworthy and that Paul's epistles show much innovation from Jesus' teaching. The Jerusalem Church started by Jesus, led by Peter and James, believed in salvation through following the Law, as taught by Jesus in for example in Matthew 5:17-20 and Matthew 19:16-21 . Jesus never taught that the Law would be nailed to the cross, even when speaking in the Gospels about the Son of Man being given over to be crucified and rise on the third day.

Paul's background was in a limited Greek version of Judaism, and he bases all his scriptural quotes on the Septuagint. Since he never met Jesus in real life, and did not study with his disciples, Paul relied on his own visions and went on missions to Asia to convert various people to his cause. His encounters with the Jerusalem Church (from which Nazarenes / Ebionites came) are described briefly in his own epistles but also in Acts. Reading Acts 21 one sees that the Jerusalem Church that Jesus set up told Paul to dispel rumors he was teaching Jews not to follow the Law, and he acquiesced. In addition they sent a letter to all Gentile believers (Acts 15) apparently telling them to follow the Noahide laws (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven_Laws_of_Noah).

I am not sure how the standard arguments for Christianity address this possibility. After all, proving that the resurrection occurred does not at all prove that Paul's claims about personal revelation and authority accurate. Mohammad makes similar claims of personal revelation. One might say that Paul is the real deal because Acts says so, but Acts was written by Luke, his student. Luke accurately describing the names of places etc. doesn't mean that his claims about Paul's miracles are actually true. In short if you look at it as a graph, it seems that Paul and Luke are completely disconnected from Jesus and his followers in authority. Except in one place, 2 Peter 3:16, where in a passage that sounds a little suspicious, Paul is endorsed and his opponents are attacked. I thought that would be strong evidence, but looking at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Epistle_of_Peter, it seems that there was always difficulty accepting this epistle and today the "vast majority of scholars consider it pseudoepigraphical."

So that kind of removes the last argument I know for the authority of Paul. Meaning, maybe Paul was the real deal and maybe not, but I don't know how to argue against the position in the link. It seems that Paul might be like Mohammad or Joseph Smith, and I don't understand the reasons for taking his writings or Luke's writings on faith, especially since his conception of Christianity contains many concepts Jesus did not teach.


texts: What clues for the "sola scriptura" Church did the Apostles leave behind?

texts:
The question is based on an article, stating

  For me, powerful evidence that sola scriptura was not in the minds of Christians living in the post-apostolic period is that there isn't a hint in the writings of the apostles that it would be.

So what hints did the Apostles leave behind in scripture that upon their departure, the Church should subscribe to sola scriptura?


texts: Modern revelation. Is there Biblical evidence against it?

texts:
Many people I talk to claim that there cannot be a living prophet. They cite Revelation 22:18-19 claiming that the words there speak for the entire Bible.  Certainly it wasn't compiled until after the Revelation was written (sometime around the Council of Carthage).  Also, a similar verse is found Deut. 4:2.

In the history of the Bible, there are plenty of times where there was no prophet on the earth and then a new one was called. For example:

Joseph of Egypt (about 1800 BC) and Moses (about 1550 BC)
Malachi (433 BC) - John the Baptist/Christ (30 AD)

Also, Amos 3:7 says that God will do nothing unless he tells his prophets.

This gives evidence that God calls prophets, but does not necessarily prove anything.

Are there any passages in the Bible that say a prophet couldn't/won't be chosen by God today?

Some sects believe that God calls prophets today (Restorationist):

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints
Iglesia ni Cristo
Catholicism (the Pope, kinda)


texts: When the child shall play at the hole of the asp, will it be newly created or re-created?

texts: The Bible tells us that the elements will melt to form the renewed earth. Since neither the physical world, nor this world's animals + plants can apprehend the Good News, but the eath is to be renewed, why would the animals and plants not be renewed? The verse that comes to mind is the one where "the lion will lie down with the lamb, and the child will play at the hole of the asp". So there will be animals in the renewed earth~  ~so my question is will we have this world's animals living in the new earth or will God create different animals?   ((and where would this world's animals go to, in either case, when we enter the renewed world?))


texts: According to LDS teaching, Does God have a God?

texts:
This question discusses the LDS teaching that

“As man now is, God once was; as God is now man may be.” ( The Teachings of Lorenzo Snow, ed. Clyde J. Williams [1984], 1.)

The teaching is partially motivated by the passage from John5:19,

So Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, the Son can do nothing of his own accord, but only what he sees the Father doing. For whatever the Father does, that the Son does likewise.

Joseph Smith himself said:

As the Father hath power in Himself, so hath the Son power in Himself, to lay down His life and take it again, so He has a body of His own. The Son doeth what He hath seen the Father do: then the Father hath some day laid down His life and taken it again
-- History of the Church 5:426
I want you to pay particular attention to what I am saying. Jesus said that the Father wrought precisely in the same way as His Father had done before Him. As the Father had done before? He laid down His life, and took it up the same as His Father had done before. He did as He was sent, to lay down His life and take it up again; and then was committed unto Him the keys. I know it is good reasoning.
-- History of the Church 6:373

From LDS.org:

The Prophet Joseph Smith himself publicly taught the doctrine the following year, 1844, during a funeral sermon of Elder King Follett: “God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens! … It is the first principle of the Gospel to know for a certainty the Character of God, and to know that we may converse with him as one man converses with another, and that he was once a man like us; yea, that God himself, the Father of us all, dwelt on an earth, the same as Jesus Christ himself did.”

As to this notion in the modern LDS church, President of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles Joseph Fielding Smith said in an address in 1971:

“This is a doctrine which delighted President Snow, as it does all of us. Early in his ministry he received by direct, personal revelation the knowledge that (in the Prophet Joseph Smith’s language), ‘God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens,’ and that men ‘have got to learn how to be Gods … the same as all Gods have done before.’

So, in summary:

God the Father was once a man who became exalted to Godhood, and created us in his own creation.
The man who is exalted now will be God of his own creation, as God is God of this one.
All Gods have endured this process.

My question is:
From a Mormon perspective, does God still worship the God he worshipped when he was a man on his own Earth?


texts: As a Christian, I know we shouldn't have a "canon within the canon", but I'll admit, I just can't get worked up over Ezra.  I love Malachi. I could for a long time on 2 Peter.  I can even find stuff in Leviticus worth reading, but try as might, I just don't see anything interesting in Ezra. Understanding that I really do see theology in really obscure places, can someone help me see what is theological about this book?


texts: What is the significance of the Eucharist's sacramental species?

texts:
When we receive the Holy Eucharist we consume Jesus's glorified body. Now many say it is purely spiritual food.

  The sacrament of the Holy Eucharist was instituted as a food, a
  spiritual food(source).

Also

  Since the Holy Eucharist is a spiritual food, it does for the soul
  what physical food does for the body. When we eat physical food, it
  becomes united to us—it is changed into our own substance and becomes
  a part of us.

  In Holy Communion, something analogous happens to us spiritually, but
  with a great difference: in this case, it is the individual who is
  united to the Food, not the Food to the individual. The lesser is
  united to the Greater. We become one with Christ.

Now my question is: if the Eucharist is a spiritual food why does it need to be presented in a physical form? As a host? Did Jesus embed a physical union with his body too?  Does the physical form have any effects on our physical body too? What does the Catholic Church have to say about this?

He could simply say for example: Pray: Our Father as your spiritual food...or read the bible as your spiritual food but since he established the Eucharist in a physical form there must be some meaning behind it too.

Note: I found some answers here but I wondered if someone found something more in regards to this statement How is a glorified body related to molecules, to that which constitutes non-glorified material objects? The answer is a mystery.


texts: How do Catholics understand the gathering of Jews in Isaiah 43:5–6?

texts:
Isaiah 43:5–6 reads:

  5 Fear not, for I am with you;
        from the east I will bring back your offspring,
        from the west I will gather you.
  6 I will say to the north: Give them up!
        and to the south: Do not hold them!
  Bring back my sons from afar,
        and my daughters from the ends of the earth: [NABRE]

This seems to indicate a gathering of all Jews back to the Land of Israel.  I'd like to know the Catholic understanding of these verses, in particular:

Is this something that will happen?
Are we talking about the geographic land of Israel?
Is there a deeper meaning behind it?

How do Catholics interpret the gathering of Jews in these verses?


texts: Does Catholicism teach that the Wise Men from the East in fact, Jews settled in a far away place?

texts:
At Matthew 2:16 (RSVCE), we read about the visit of the Wise Men to Infant Jesus, and the massacre of children  by Herod :

"Then Herod, when he saw that he had been tricked by the wise men, was in a furious rage, and he sent and killed all the male children in Bethlehem and in all that region who were two years old or under, according to the time which he had ascertained from the wise men."

That implies that Child Jesus was nearly two years of age when the Wise Men reached Him. Surely, they should have come from a far away place.
The book "Travel in the Mogul Empire AD 1656- 1668" by Francois Bernier, with an English translation published in 1891 (available online on Rarebooks online State Central  Library, Kerala), cites the presence of settlement of Jews in Kashmir, India in ancient times. Of course, other parts of the world could also have had Jewish settlements at the time of Jesus' birth.
My question, therefore, is: Were the Wise Men from the East, in fact, Jews who had settled in a far away place, say India? What  do the teachings of Catholic Church say about such a prospect?


texts: Did the Apostles' Creed originate with the Apostles?

texts: The Apostles' Creed is perhaps the oldest statement of faith in the Christian tradition. Is there any evidence that it was used by Jesus' first followers? If not, when did it originate?


texts: What denominations believe that Jesus Christ has a current physical body?

texts:
As a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, I believe that Christ after his death took up his physical body and that it was this now-perfected body that he showed the disciples, and that he still lives and has a physical form that can eat fish and has wounds.

What other denominations believe that Christ has a physical body at this time?


texts: What is an overview of what the kinds of things the beast in Revelation represents?

texts:
I've asked many people this question, but they all have different opinions. Some say that the beast is a disease or war or something along that line. Others tell me that the beast is an actual beast.

I am looking for answers among the broad spectrum of all denominations Christianity. I know there is no way of knowing, but I would just like to know the different beliefs about the kinds of things the beast might be.

This question refers to ALL of the beasts.

I would also like to know what types of denominations think that the end of times have already come.


texts: What is the baptist view on "gambling" in scenarios like "Jeopardy!"?

texts:
I realize there are many variations even among Baptists, but I personally have never heard this area discussed.

How do baptists view the "gambling" associated with games like Jeopardy!? For those unfamiliar with the game show, a variety of trivia clues are hidden on a board with varying dollar amounts in front of them, arranged more-or-less by category. When a contestant has control of the board, they ask for a clue (eg "Potent Potables for $400, Alex"), at which point the host reads the clue and the contestant must answer in the form of a question.

If they get it wrong, they lose the $400. If they respond correctly, they gain the $400. During the game, some squares will allow the player to wager on their response to the as-yet-unshown clue.

Given the popularity of the program, and other similar games like it, what is the Baptist view on this type of "wagering"? Technically it's not gambling, because it's not your money until you end the show (and then only if you're the highest-placing after Final Jeopardy!).

Do other denominations / traditions take different views of this type of "gambling"? If so, how do they differ?

The question could be extended to other forms of "wager" games (eg spades, pinochle, etc), too.


texts: I have some question about joining the Catholic Church

texts: I'm 14 and plan on joining the Catholic Church once I am a adult , I plan on studying the religion tell im am a adult to know if it's right for me , I was wondering if there was any reason a priest would tell me no I can't join or can anybody sign up RCIA , also wondering if there is a age limit to join


texts: According to the Catholic Church, is practicing spiritism moral?

texts: What does the Catholic Church teach about Spiritism, especially the Kardecist Spiritualism Doctrine (covered in the link above)?  According to the Catholic Church, it is wrong to try to communicate with the dead and to gain knowledge from spirits?


texts: How many times does the New Testament quote the Old Testament?

texts:
I found this resource [1] that lists all the references to Genesis found in the New Testament, and it made me curious if there is a list of all Old Testament quotes found in the New Testament. Have you come across any such list?

[1] Quotations from or Allustions to Genesis in the New Testament


texts: According to the Mormon doctrines, who created the universe?

texts:
This may be related to a previous question about the first god who began eternal progression.  This is something I've really been wondering for a while.

If the Almighty God began life as a man, he must have been part of this universe.  As part of this universe, it would've been impossible to create the universe--since that requires a deity that it outside the universe.

Do Mormons believe that the universe existed before God?  Or that God existed as God before the universe began (and therefore is one who didn't ascend to godhead, but was always a deity)?

In essence, either the universe always was and there was a first god who created everything (related to this question) or there is a god who existed, as god, before the universe.  Yet the Mormons teach that God was once a man.  So, who created the universe?


texts: How are passages vetted for inclusion in officially sanctioned liturgical readings?

texts:
Inspired by this question, I am very interested to find out how specific passages are "vetted" for inclusion into official church liturgical use?

I realize this process may be different for Roman Catholic, Anglican, Episcopalian, etc traditions. Not relevant to this question would be any denomination/tradition that just reads from the Bible based on a cycle (eg, one chapter per Sunday in consecutive order), or on the pastor's volition.


texts: Where in the Bible does it say "I will destroy those who destroy My land"?

texts: Where in the Bible does it say "I (God) will destroy those who destroy My land"?


texts: According to Reformed theology, when did the New Covenant start?

texts:
When instituting the Lord's Supper, Jesus Christ said (Luke 22:20, NIV):

  In the same way, after the supper he took the cup, saying, “This cup
  is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you.

And in Jeremiah 31 the new covenant is also mentioned, with the blessings of the covenant listed.  Hebrews 8 talks about the new covenant superceding the old in some way (the details of which perhaps I will put in another question).

At which stage did this new covenant supersede the older covenant, according to Reformed theology?


texts: What are the major criticisms of the NIV?

texts:
While researching for this answer and reading different posts on this site over the past few days, I've come across some criticisms of the NIV I'd never heard before. I've seen articles claiming that it changes the Bible to make it more friendly to homosexuality, but these claims were more general and more significant. For example, the one that stuck out to me the most was where someone said that the NIV translators knew no Koine Greek, just modern Greek, and that they used two secular translators to translate the NT into modern Greek.

These are some pretty serious claims. I've never liked the NIV myself, but that’s never been anything but my personal preference. I'd link to the places I saw these claims if I could remember. What arguments exist against the NIV? I'd like to find reliable references if at all possible. I’m not looking for small, minor issues like a few missing verses. I’m looking for larger, more significant problems that could conceivably affect the integrity of the text as a whole.

I'm not just looking for valid arguments; I'd also love to hear about any well-refuted claims against the NIV, so long as they had some intelligent basis in the first place. I know this question seems a bit open, but if any of these claims are true, I want be sure to avoid using an unreliable translation of God's words. I’m sure the same goes for others on this site and across the Internet.


texts: As I read from the internet that according to some people - sometimes "The Son" appear in Old Testament era which today it is called Christophany, my question : is the name Yahweh referring to the Father according to the "Christophany" group ?


texts: In Western communion services, when was the origin of the practice of consistently offering only the bread to the laity?

texts:
The practice of "communion in both kinds" by the laity, that is, both the eating of the bread and drinking of the cup, seems to have been the typical practice in the early church.  1 Corinthians 11:28 reads:

  Let a person examine himself, then, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. (ESV)

And the Didache implies the taking of both kinds by baptized Christians in 9.5:

  And let none eat or drink of your Eucharist but such as have been baptized into the name of the Lord

But at some point along the way, it became normal for the laity to receive only the bread; so much so that the 15th-century Council of Constance "banned" the offering of the cup to the laity (so says Wikipedia).

That Wikipedia article associates the practice with the Middle Ages, and suggests that the transition may have begun in order to accommodate the celebration of the Eucharist away from the normal gathering place, such as in the home of a bedridden church member.

Here though I'm interested in when this became the normal, week-to-week practice in the local church.  What is the first evidence that a church in Western Christendom was consistently offering only the bread to the laity?


texts: Other than Augustine, which Church Fathers have directly influenced John Calvin's teaching of "double-predestination?"

texts:
"By predestination we mean the eternal decree of God, by which he
  determined with himself whatever he wished to happen with regard to
  every man. All are not created on equal terms, but some are
  preordained to eternal life, others to eternal damnation; and,
  accordingly, as each has been created for one or other of these ends,
  we say that he has been predestinated to life or to death." (Calvin,
  Institutes, Book III)

I've noticed, from my theological discussions with various Calvinists,  that the "go-to" early Church Father figure concerning the Calvinist view of double-predestination is St. Augustine.

Who else in the early Church directly influenced Calvin's doctrinal formulation of predestinarianism.

I prefer references to writings of the Church Fathers preceding St. Augustine, but any Patristic texts will do...as long as they are not Augustine's.


texts: Does God cause the punishment or is that the effect of his absence?

texts:
Genesis 3:7

  Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they knew that they
  were naked; so they sewed fig leaves together and made loincloths for
  themselves.

Romans 5:12

  Therefore, just as through one person sin entered the world, and
  through sin, death, and thus death came to all, inasmuch as all sinned

In these 2 verses, we see when Adam and Eve sinned they immediately underwent death, started to age and their body were susceptible to diseases. They realized they were naked and the inability to repent right away shows us the decrease of their intellect and will.

My question is: What is the Catholic understanding - Did God made their body corruptable(tweaked the DNA so it slowly dies) and everything else in nature or was/is this the result of the absence of his presence?

When they rejected God, God's supernatural presence stopped keeping their bodies and this whole world to function properly? Or does God actively make things defective to punish for sins?


texts: Did the Lord God agree with "an eye for an eye"?

texts:
In the Old Testament there is a scripture about an eye for an eye law:

[Exodus 21:23~25] And if [any] mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.

However, things changed in the New Testament:

[Mat 5:38~42]Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth:
But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have [thy] cloke also.And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain.Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away.

So it seems the 'an eye for an eye' law was agreed in the Old Testament, but disagreed in the New Testament, a contradiction!

It confused me. What was the genuine opinion of the Lord God in the end? Or did his mind get changed?


texts: In what work does Thomas Merton discuss atheists or people who do not accept faith?

texts:
I vaguely recall (from some lecture or reading) that supposedly somewhere in Merton's writings he comments on people who struggle with accepting faith.

I'm looking for a passage where he is describing the case of those who feel obliged to be intellectually honest about their faith and thus struggle with their inability to accept the Christian teaching.

Also a passage where Merton is expressing sympathy, understanding and maybe even some admiration for these people. Can anyone provide a quote or reference?

I have already checked the Apologies to the Unbeliever and it is not what I am looking for.


texts: On what basis does the Catholic Church teach that women cannot be ordained?

texts:
The Catholic Church maintains that it does not have the authority to ordain women. I.e., the Church can't ordain women. It's assumed then that God set a precedent or gave a mandate to ordain only men.

According to the Church, in what way, how, and when was this mandate or precedent given? What [sound] theology and Patristic writing supports the Church's interpretation of that mandate and/or precedent?

To clarify: I'm looking for the justification the Catholic Church does/might give, which I expect is supported by Patristic writings, theology, and scripture.


texts:
Eze 38:2 Son of man, set thy face against Gog, the land of Magog, the chief prince of Meshech and Tubal, and prophesy against him

Which are the countries/locations mentioned here in this verse?
When I heard some sermon long back, the preacher was comparing it with some countries. What is the authenticity of that? What present day countries are where Gog and Mogag are/were/will be, and how can we verify this?


texts: Is there an explanation in Catholicism as to why it was the Son and not the others of the Blessed Trinity to become man and be crucified for our sake?

texts:
According to Catholic faith and theology, once God decreed to save mankind, redemption would be by the work of God-made-man.

  For us men and for our salvation,
  he came down from heaven:
  [...]
  and became man.
  For our sake he was
  crucified. - The Nicene Creed.

And

  But God decided that man should be shown mercy and be pardoned. His
  mercy was to be above all His works; and He also decreed that this
  mercy and pardon were to be granted because of the full satisfaction
  of justice by adequate atonement. Hence it became necessary that One
  of the Trinity assume created nature and in that nature offer
  reparation to God for man's great sin. - Library: The theology of
  the Precious Blood | Catholic Culture.

Within Catholicism is there an explanation of why it was the Son and not the Father or the Holy Spirit who for us men and our salvation became man and was crucified?


texts: According to Pentecostal doctrine why is a Catholic Christening not a valid Baptism?

texts: I've got a Pentecostal friend who says that my Christening (Catholic doctrine) does not count as it is not a true Baptism to receive the Holy Spirit. Why don't Pentecostals accept Catholic Christening?


texts: What are the major problems that Chalcedonians have with Miaphysite Christology?

texts:
The Council of Chalcedon of 451 gave a clear definition of the Hypostatic Union, the doctrine that in the incarnation, the Son of God took on a full human nature, so that in this one person are united two natures, divine and human. Hypostasis refers to one of the three persons of God, so the Hypostatic Union means that the union between divine and human takes place in the person of God the Son.

Following, then, the holy Fathers, we all unanimously teach that our Lord Jesus Christ is to us One and the same Son, the Self-same Perfect in Godhead, the Self-same Perfect in Manhood; truly God and truly Man; the Self-same of a rational soul and body; co-essential with the Father according to the Godhead, the Self-same co-essential with us according to the Manhood; like us in all things, sin apart; before the ages begotten of the Father as to the Godhead, but in the last days, the Self-same, for us and for our salvation (born) of Mary the Virgin Theotokos as to the Manhood; One and the Same Christ, Son, Lord, Only-begotten; acknowledged in Two Natures unconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, inseparably; the difference of the Natures being in no way removed because of the Union, but rather the properties of each Nature being preserved, and (both) concurring into One Person and One Hypostasis; not as though He was parted or divided into Two Persons, but One and the Self-same Son and Only-begotten God, Word, Lord, Jesus Christ; even as from the beginning the prophets have taught concerning Him, and as the Lord Jesus Christ Himself hath taught us, and as the Symbol of the Fathers hath handed down to us.

The Chalcedonian Definition was written to refute several positions considered heretical: that Christ is not of the same nature as the Father (Arianism), that he does not have a full human nature (Apollinarism), that Christ was a fusion of divine and human (Eutyches), that the two natures of Christ were not joined in one person (Nestorianism).
This Chalcedonian theology was not accepted by all churches who attended the council, and to this day is rejected by the Oriental Orthodox churches. The Oriental Orthodox churches too say that they reject the four positions above, but rather than saying that Christ has two natures, they teach Miaphysitism, that

in the one person of Jesus Christ, Divinity and Humanity are united in one "nature" ("physis"), the two being united without separation, without confusion, and without alteration. (orthodoxwiki.org)

This sounds on the surface quite similar to the position of Eutyches, but the Oriental Orthodox are adamant that they too reject his teaching.
While there have been some moves towards declaring the dispute between Miaphysitism and Chalcedonian a difference purely of terminology and not of substance, support for this has been limited on both sides, with many strongly opposed to saying that the dispute has been resolved.
So for those Chalcedonian theologians who do reject that Miaphysitism is compatible with the Christology taught in the Chalcedonian Definition, what are the major problems they see with Miaphysitism?


texts: What biblical or historical reasons have been given for avoiding creeds & catechisms?

texts:
I read a book by George Fox, founder of Quakerism, where he spoke of his reluctance to endorse any creed, and part of the reason seemed to be the abuse he received in prison for being a heretic.

Q: What biblical or historical justifications have been given by those who eschew creeds & catechisms in their Christian faith walk?


texts: According to the Bible where exactly did God create Adam?

texts:
Where did God create Adam according to scripture?
Is this in the garden or somewhere else according to scripture.


texts: Why was the gift of the Holy Ghost not operative during Christ's mortal ministry according to LDS doctrine?

texts:
According to the doctrine of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints the Holy Ghost was operative during the mortal ministry of Jesus Christ, but the gift of the Holy Ghost was not given until after Christ's resurrection (see John 7:39; 16:7; Acts 1:5; John 20:22).

On the other hand, the gift of the Holy Ghost was present in earlier dispensations, since it was required as part of the everlasting gospel.

My question is: Why was this gift withheld during Christs mortal ministry? In the LDS Bible Dictionary it states:

  For some reason not fully explained in the scriptures, the Holy Ghost did not operate in the fulness among the Jews during the years of Jesus’ mortal sojourn.

Are there any statements from latter day prophets explaining this though?


texts: Did Mary stay with Elizabeth till the birth of John the Baptist?

texts: We read at Luke 1:36 that Elizabeth was six months pregnant when she was visited by Mary. We also read at Luke 1:56 that Mary stayed with Elizabeth for nearly three months. Read together, these two verses mean that Elizabeth had either completed or was in the final month of her pregnancy the day Mary went back to her home.  One is, therefore, curious to know if Mary stayed with Elizabeth till John was born. Evangelist Luke, having once been a doctor, ought to have highlighted that Mary stayed with Elizabeth till the birth of the latter's  son, just to emphasize the helping hand Mary had extended to her . My question is: Are there any Catholic traditions which conclusively state that Mary in deed stayed with Elizabeth till the birth of John the Baptist ?


texts: What is the Biblical basis against inter-faith marriages?

texts:
Setting aside marriages of couples from two different Christian denominations, what passages in the New Testament prohibit a Christian from marrying a non-Christian?

I believe that the Old Testament prohibits Jews from marrying non-Jews, but I am interested in answers relating to Christians specifically.


texts: What distinctive kinds of Bible translations are there?

texts:
Obviously there is a lot decisions and elbow-grease that go into producing any Bible translation. I hear a lot of different terms used to describe the different methodologies that guide those decisions such as literal, word-for-word, figurative, dynamic equivalence, formal equivalence, paraphrase, simplified, and at least a dozen others.

Can somebody unscramble these and try to bring some order to the relations between them. If it is possible to group an of them and gives specific examples of how different methodologies are compatible or at odds that would be lovely. If there is some kind of sliding scale between different ends of the spectrum, please describe what that spectrum is.

Let's try to avoid preferences about what we think are the best kind of translation, but expand on the motivations for each. I have strong opinions but will try to make my choice of "right" answer based on how well different methodologies are represented, not based the priorities I use in choosing a translation.


texts:
Genesis 4:8

  Cain said to his brother Abel, “Let us go out in the field.”* When they were in the field, Cain attacked his brother Abel and killed him.

* [4:8] Let us go out in the field: to avoid detection. The verse presumes a sizeable population which Genesis does not otherwise explain.

My question is how did Cain kill Abel? I was wondering if there is a commonly accepted method of murder, or if a religion, such as Catholicism, has a tradition about how he was killed.

I have read that he used a rock. I think the more believable guess is a spear. (Based off of the meaning of the name Cain.)


texts: Is the Canaanite woman from Tyre and Sidon a Gentile or not?

texts:
As far as I know the Canaanite woman, she is a gentile, yes?

Or is she from Ham's son's lineage Canaan etc?

What makes a gentile?

Is it only not being in one of the twelve tribes of Israel?

Or something else?


texts:
Acts 13:39 (NIV) —

  Through him everyone who believes is set free from every sin, a justification you were not able to obtain under the law of Moses.

If the law of Moses is not anymore valid, then why does the Catholic church still obey the ten commandments (which is the law of Moses)?


texts: Contradiction or translation problem with Moses in Exodus?

texts:
Exodus tells of Moses meeting face to face with God.
Shortly thereafter there is a warning that nobody can see God's face or they will die.
So  contradiction,  translation problem,  or other explanation?
How can both statements be correct.
There are other instances that seem to contradict each other including some in the NT.


texts: How does the existence of the Tomb of the Blessed Virgin Mary fit with the Assumption of Mary?

texts:
One site that tourists can visit in Jerusalem is the Tomb of the Blessed Virgin Mary. But Catholics and Eastern Orthodox Christians believe in the Assumption of Mary (that she was taken body and soul into heaven).

How does Mary have a tomb if there was no body to bury because she was taken into heaven?


texts: How is the New Covenant consistent with Deuteronomy 4:2?

texts:
The King James Bible; Deuteronomy 4:2, says:

  Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you.

How does this make sense with the New Testament? How can there be a New set of laws given when the Old Testament clearly says not to add on?


texts:
Is there a formal practice to the preparation of first-grade relics? How are the remains of a saint divided? Is there a method of preservation involved? Is there now an authority in charge of requisitioning the remains of a saint and then preparing the relics in-house?

I'd like to clarify that I'm asking what the formal ritualistic practices are which takes place upon the death of a saint in order to create relics from his remains. For example, what happens when a saint dies? Does the Vatican claim the body and store it somewhere for quite some time? Is there a doctrine/ritualistic process by way of which the body is divided? And what is the significance of these processes, in a spiritual sense?

Since there is a veneration of the cult of saints, I feel like the Vatican has a say in how the remains of these godly men are handled, especially since The code of canon law says:

  The ancient tradition of placing relics of martyrs or other saints
  under a fixed altar is to be preserved, according to the norms given
  in the liturgical books.

Can. 1237 - §2.

Additionally, if you can please provide information on how the process has evolved over time, that would be appreciated. Some texts for additional reading are also greatly appreciated.


texts:
I was looking for a suitable name for my future daughter. I visited this Catholicity website and I got Nessa as an interesting name. But then my friends and home people said it is not a catholic baptism name.
So I would like someone here to help me clarify this.


texts: Is spirituality different than superstition?

texts:
Since Enlightenment we seem to have entered an age where “reality” is often confined to empirical explanations. Yet the Bible speaks of a spiritual reality that is not open to empirical investigation.

Are there any generally accepted (within Christianity) writings on this subject?  If defining "reality" is a branch of philosophical thought, who are the writers of such thought and are there any summaries of their perspectives?


texts: What constitutes a "serious" crime for the purpose of LDS baptism preparation?

texts:
According to Preach My Gospel, the official LDS (Mormon) missionary guide, missionaries are supposed to ask potential converts

Have you ever committed a serious crime? If so, are you now on probation or parole? Have you ever participated in an abortion? a homosexual relationship?

The book later explains:

Question 4 in the baptismal interview asks if a person has been involved in a serious sin, such as an abortion, a homosexual relationship, or a serious crime. What should I do if someone confesses such a sin?
...Do not schedule a baptismal date or make any promises about whether they will be cleared for baptism and confirmation. Express your love and review the principle of repentance. Kindly explain that these sins are serious and that a person with more maturity and experience (your mission president or someone he assigns) will talk with them and help them with these matters. Then send a baptismal interview request directly to the mission president.

From context, the items other than crimes that are listed in the same passages are all related to reproductive or sexual issues, so one could infer from context that "serious crime" only refers to sexual offenses or crimes against children, but I'm not sure that that is how it is actually supposed to be interpreted.
According to LDS teaching or practice, what crimes are "serious" enough to require escalation of a baptismal interview to the mission president? I'm guessing that neither jaywalking nor second degree mopery with intent to deface a postage stamp would count as "serious", but how serious would a crime need to be before this clause would apply? Gambling violations? Using a product in a manner inconsistent with its labeling? Possession of a firearm without a license, but without intent to harm anyone? DUI first offense? DUI second offense? DUI fiftieth offense? Operating a Ponzi scheme? Voluntary manslaughter? Murder only? Is this based on a holistic judgment call made by the missionary, or are there strict interpretive guidelines defined somewhere? For example:

Only felonies "count", misdemeanors are not serious enough to warrant escalation to the mission president.
Only crimes that would "shock the conscience" of an average Mormon count. If an average Mormon would react to the revelation of a crime in a convert's past with "whatever, meh, yeah I did that a few times too", then it doesn't count and the baptism can proceed without the involvement of the mission president.
Only crimes that would "shock the conscience" of an average local citizen (whether Mormon or not) count.
Only crimes that create a victim count, "victimless" crimes like possession of drugs or unlawful weapons don't count.
Only crimes that would constitute a per se violation of the Ten Commandments count (borrowed from a possibly somewhat similar if you squint concept in Roman Catholicism).
The LDS church has a schedule of "harm thresholds" for various statutory offenses above which an offender's participation counts as "serious", for example committing tax evasion in an amount over $10,000, possessing more than 100 grams of cocaine, defacing more than 10 postage stamps in a 48 hour period, or possessing more than 2 unregistered machine guns, counts as serious enough to require the mission president to become involved.


texts: Why do Mathew and Luke present a different order of Satan's temptation of Jesus?

texts:
Matthew 4:1–11 and Luke 4:1–13 presented a different order of the temptations Satan offered after Christ completed his forty days fasting in the wilderness

Matthew

If you are the Son of God, command these stones to become loaves of bread
If you are the Son of God, throw yourself down . . .
All these I will give you, if you will fall down and worship me.

Luke

If you are the Son of God, command this stone to become bread.
... If you, then, will worship me, it will all be yours.
If you are the Son of God, throw yourself down from here . . .

So why did they differ? Is it because either one of them forgot the order of the temptations presented? Who is right? Or, is there a theological point that is being highlighted for different purposes between the two Gospel writers?


texts: Does the Roman Catholic church recognize marriages outside of the church?

texts:
I'm curious about the status of marriages performed outside the auspices of the church. For example, if a non Catholic converts to the Roman church, but was married beforehand, does it "count". Based on an earlier question, I understand now that the church annuls marriages - but, if these two went on to divorce, wouldn't the church be in the position of denying a marriage they never blessed?

Along these lines, what happens if two people get married by a justice of the peace, or If ignoring the advice of a priest, they choose to find some other minister to perform the ceremony.

I realize that the church's recognition of a marriage is completely different from the state's recognition (and truthfully the practical effect of a non recognition by the church is slim), but it still makes me wonder if, say, two baptists who marry and then convert are "living in sin" until the priest recognizes the marriage.

At the extreme side of things, Im assuming that the church would never recognize a "gay marriage," considering it annulled from the beginning- but would that extend to legitimate unions simply conducted outside the aegis of the church as well?

Just curious.


texts: Is it possible not to be contented in heaven?

texts:
Is it possible that after reaching heaven, you find yourself discontented? Like what if the things that make you happy are not there? Like your family, your wife and children. What if the people you love are in hell.

Is it possible to go to hell after deciding you don't like heaven?

Or is it that when we get to heaven we lose our own sense of happiness and become like robots that don't have a choice but to be happy with whatever is happening in there?

Do we still have free will?

What else would we do there if heaven is already perfect then there is nothing to improve.


texts: Does the passage in Luke 9:49-50 support the diversity of denominations?

texts:
It appears that this passage in Luke allows for the diversity of denominations.

  Luke 9:49-50 KJV
  And John answered and said, Master, we saw one
  casting out devils in thy name; and we forbad him, because he
  followeth not with us.   And Jesus said unto him, Forbid him not:
  for he that is not against us is for us.

Does this passage, spoken by Jesus, allow for differing denominations?  If it doesn't, what does the verse mean?


texts: What is the function of dreams according to Christianity?

texts:
Various people claim to have seen Jesus reveal himself to them in dreams.
We also know from the OT that God may use dreams to communicate a prophecy of the future.
What is the general thought of the function of dreams when none of these things occur? A natural phenomenon of the human body?


texts: Where do the names of books of Bible come from?

texts:
Where does the name of each book come from?

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


texts: Will there be a second chance for salvation after the Rapture?

texts: Does the Bible say anything about there being a second chance for salvation after the time of rapture? I would assume that God is doing this rapture so that people would recognize Him and repent. But I don't have a Biblical basis for my assumptions.


texts: Can theological trends explain reasons for male / female divide in (US) worship?

texts:
It's been said that women are better represented in the pews of US congregations. This link says it's 61% female.

Questions:

1) Is the ratio this strong if you account for higher female longevity?

2) Has any scholarly study looked at the reasons for the divide as a function of the theological outlook of the congregations?  Such as fundamentalist/revisionist, patriotic/peacenick,  theology of cross/glory, high/low worship style?


texts: What evidence do we have that the book of Enoch was translated correctly?

texts:
How do we know that the book of Enoch was translated correctly, are any of the original writings still intact? Or were the supposed "originals" found already translated?

I ask this because some valuable words can be "lost in translation" such as the commandment "Thou shall not kill" or "Thou shall not murder", which can and has been interpreted differently throughout history. Another example would be some Christians believing in "Hell", and others believing in the "abyss", and again others believing that the two are separate, one being a place of holding and the other following eternal damnation by god's judgement.


texts: What happens to marriage on the New Earth

texts: I think I can safely say that humans were designed not to operate as a single solitary person but as part of a unit of two -- both as referenced by Gen 3:16-17 (see mentions of husband and wife in said passages) and ingrained feelings that appear to be a part of every person I know of (near as I can tell anyway...). However, there also seems to be support for there being no marriage after we are resurrected in Matthew 22:30. Can someone clear up my confusion on this topic?


texts:
Lent is approaching and during Holy Week, it is my understanding that every year at the Colosseum, the Pope leads the faithful in a devotion called the of the Way of the Cross [cf. this photo gallery].

According to Catholic Church tradition, where, when, how and by whom did the devotion of the Stations of the Cross begin?

Seeking answers from Catholic documents/sources. Please note the question is asking when, according to Church Tradition did the devotion start. Who , according to the Church Tradition did it first, when, and where?


texts: Did anyone try to convert Catholics on the Isle of Man to Protestantism?

texts: Was there any person who tried converting the Catholics there?


texts: Do JWs believe the water canopy theory and do they think it will be restored?

texts:
Many creationist have beliefs concerning the pre-flood environment on earth.
Are Jehovah Witnesses adamant about the water canopy being the source of flood waters? Do JWs believe the restored earth will have a restored canopy?


texts: Which Christian denominations believe there is a biblical basis for hunting animals for sport?

texts:
We learn from Genesis (1:27) that man is created in the image and likeness of God.  Christians are commanded to be perfect, even as your Father in heaven is perfect (Matthew 5:48).

These taken together suggest to me that the ideal Christian life lies in striving to live as befits one created in God's image and likeness to the greatest extent possible.

One cannot imagine (I think) God arbitrarily destroying His creatures for pleasure.  This being the case, are there Christian denominations claiming to be "Bible-based" that see a Biblical basis for killing animals solely for sport?  If so, what Scriptures do they refer to?


texts: Why is the Feast of the Visitation held on May 31st, during the Easter/Pentecost season?

texts:
The Feast of the Visitation is held on May 31st (May 30th in Eastern churches), which depending on the year will fall into either the Easter or Pentecost season.

It seems really strange to me that the Feast celebrating a pregnant Mary visiting a pregnant Elizabeth is celebrated at a time when the church is focused on the direct aftermath of an adult Jesus being resurrected and the sending of the Holy Spirit. Celebrating an event concerning an unborn Jesus at that time seems to distract from that, whereas it likely would not if it were held sometime later.

So why is the Feast of the Visitation held on May 31st, during the Easter/Pentecost season?


texts: Are LDS required to take their hats off when they pray?

texts: Is it part of the LDS religion to remove your hat during prayer? Or is that just part of western culture as a sign of respect? Are LDS required to remove their hats when they pray? Or can they pray with hats on?


texts:
Some like Elijah, and Moses, can create miracles, like Jesus. Many of the miracles are not that public though. Still, it's reasonable.

Some, like Abraham have "voices" in their head. Most of the time, we call those people shizoprenia.

What do we know about each prophets and how do people there knows that he is a prophet?

An easy way to pinpoint false prophet is to see if the prophecy is false. But how to identify true prophet.


texts: Were the medieval popes examined on a toilet-lid-like chair to establish their masculinity?

texts:
Is one of the consequences of the Pope Joan story, whether it was true or false, the use of a marble chair with a large, toilet-like hole in its seat?

As the picture above shows, it seems that that chair has been a part of the papal enthronement, when the pope-elect had to sit on the seat naked from the waist down while cardinals filed past, either peering or feeling to confirm his masculinity.

According to this Wikipedia article (which is in Dutch; there is no English version), the cardinals said 'Testiculos habet et bene pendentes' in confirmation of the pope having passed the inspection.

What is the truth of such a papal testing?


texts: The first premise of the Kalam Cosmological Argument for the existence of God

texts:
The first premise of the KCA is stated as:

Premise 1: Anything that begins to exist must have a cause.

The contrapositive statement for this should read. If something is not caused to exist then that something does not have a beginning.

My question is related to the trinity. Would it also be true that anything that has a cause must have a beginning? If applied to the second person of the trinity should it not follow that since the Son depends on the father for his existence. ie. The second person of the trinity is the only begotten Son of the Father, then the preexistent Son of God must have had a beginning?

Please help.


texts: What does it mean when Archbishop Ganswein stated that Pope Benedict XVI expanded the Petrine Ministry?

texts:
Archbishop Gänswein: "Benedict XVI Sees Resignation as Expanding Petrine Ministry".

In a speech reflecting on Pope Benedict XVI’s pontificate, Archbishop Georg Gänswein has confirmed the existence of a group who fought against Benedict’s election in 2005, but stressed that "Vatileaks" or other issues had "little or nothing" to do with his resignation in 2013.

Speaking at the presentation of a new book on Benedict’s pontificate at the Pontifical Gregorian University in Rome May 20, Archbishop Gänswein also said that Pope Francis and Benedict are not two popes “in competition” with one another, but represent one “expanded” Petrine Office with “an active member” and a “contemplative.”

Archbishop Gänswein, who doubles as the personal secretary of the Pope Emeritus and prefect of the Pontifical Household, said Benedict did not abandon the papacy like Pope Celestine V in the 13th century but rather sought to continue his Petrine Office in a more appropriate way given his frailty.

“Therefore, from 11 February 2013, the papal ministry is not the same as before,” he said. “It is and remains the foundation of the Catholic Church; and yet it is a foundation that Benedict XVI has profoundly and lastingly transformed during his exceptional pontificate.”

Archbishop Gänswein: Benedict XVI Sees Resignation as Expanding Petrine Ministry

It would seeems that Catholic Church really have Two Popes both functioning and having a universal power emanating from the Chair of Peter since 2013.

Does the Vatican II Church affirmed the view of Arch.Ganswein on the expanded Petrine Ministry?


texts: What is the biblical basis for the belief that God loves individuals?

texts:
I need to find a Bible verse that states that God loves me as a person, as an individual. Many verses refer to God's love for the world, for the church, for the nation. No verse specifically says that God loves me. Not as part of a group, not as part of a church, not as part of the world, but as me! The Bible tells me that God loves the 'building', but not each individual brick.

Many, many commentators infer God's love for individuals. But as far as I can see, the Bible does not say it!

What is the biblical basis for the common Christian belief that God loves individuals?


texts: According to Protestantism, are we saved by faith into a repentance of law-following?

texts:
Just have a question regarding faith and works:
A person has eternal life solely by faith in Jesus Christ (as in believing every word Jesus said, including his claims that he is God), but by believing that Jesus is God, the person also believes that following the law is what he/she should do, and thus the person repents; which is why although John and Romans quote salvation is by faith alone, Jesus urged in Matthew, Mark and Luke for people to repent, and James says that faith without works is dead.
According to Protestantism would the above view be correct?


texts: Is Obeying a Stay at Home Order Biblical or Not Biblical

texts:
As a protestant, is a general stay at home order fall under Romans 13:1

Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God.
Romans 13:1 ESV

Or Acts 5:29

But Peter and the apostles answered, "We must obey God rather than men.
Acts 5:29 ESV

So, by not gathering are we denying a Command of God, or are ok in not doing so when ordered?

Whoever is not with me is against me, and whoever does not gather with me scatters.
Matthew 12:30 ESV

And they devoted themselves to the apostles' teaching and the fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers.
Acts 2:42 ESV


texts: Diocletian's four decrees & Persecution of christians

texts: I am looking for a link or reference to the four decrees from Diocletian in 303 re the Roman Persecution?


texts: Do Anglicans believe the decision on the 66 book canon was infallible?

texts:
Do Anglicans believe that the decision taken on the 66 book canon was an infallible decision? (like the attitude the Catholic Church has to the definition of the Canon in the Council of Trent).

If so, then do they still call to these people, organization(s) or decision-making process for more infallible decisions?

If not, how can we know the inspiration of a book isn't just an inappropriately high opinion of scholars and early Christians?


texts: Is being "sinless" the same as "being perfect"?

texts:
Jesus taught us to be perfect He also taught us to be without sin.

Furthermore, He came to make us perfect and to take away our sin.

My question is: are these two states identical? If I were perfect, I would presumably be sinless. But if I were sinless, would that in and of itself be enough to be perfect? Or would I just be "not doing some things" but I would need to change other things in my life to meet my redemptive potential?


texts: Is the Catholic Church NOT against all birth control?

texts:
Card. Kasper made the following comments in an interview with WNYC Radio’s Brian Lehrer as transcribed in this article ‘The Church is not against birth control at all’: Cardinal Walter Kasper:

  Lehrer asked whether married couples who already have “three children
  and live in poverty” should not be “allowed to use birth control to
  prevent more conception?”

  [Card.] Kasper responded, “Well, the Church is not against birth
  control at all. … It’s about the methods of birth control. … I
  do not want to enter into this characteristic…how they have to do it.
  It’s their personal conscience and their personal responsibility.”

The audio is here: The Pope's Theologian | The Brian Lehrer Show.

The question is whether the Catholic Church is NOT all against birth control, and from the Cardinal's words, whether there are licit methods of birth control.

cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2366-2372 |  The fecundity of marriage


texts:
I've done a lot of googling but can't turn up any information about what Arian liturgy was like. Apparently the "Mozarabic rite" in Spain is connected somehow to traditional Arian liturgy.

I'm curious what their theology of liturgy was, and whether it resembled a mass/divine liturgy.  Was it focused on the eucharist?

I'm aware that Arianism covers a wide geographical area and a wide period of history. I'm interested in information from any time and any area.


texts: Why would Fundamentalists think Set Theory is anti-Christian?

texts:
I read this article entitled "What do Christian fundamentalists have against set theory" and was shocked since I grew up (Grade 1 - 8) in several (what could be described as) fundamentalist/evangelical private schools, and I majored in Computer Science / Discrete Math in college and if the two concepts had some sort of conflict I'd be the person to know. However, I had never heard of a Christian objecting to set theory on religious grounds.

To summarize the article he basically cites this by a christian textbook publisher:

  "Unlike the "modern math" theorists, who believe that mathematics is a creation of man and thus arbitrary and relative, A Beka Book teaches that the laws of mathematics are a creation of God and thus absolute....A Beka Book provides attractive, legible, and workable traditional mathematics texts that are not burdened with modern theories such as set theory." — ABeka.com

Then he explains set theory and goes on a rant (which may or may not be derived) against fundamentalists who object to modernism and all things tainted my modernism. Then talks a little tiny bit about how they may be offended by any type of theory that can contain infinities.

If this is actually a valid portrayal of fundamentalist belief, why would they object to set theory?


texts: Does the Eastern Orthodox Church have guidelines on which language to recite the Jesus Prayer in?

texts:
Does it matter in which language the Jesus Prayer is recited, in order to bring about the Prayer of the Heart? I can find some reasons for using one's mother tongue, but also a few for using for example Greek, as on Mount Athos.

If different sub-groups of Orthodoxy have different schools of thought, I'd like an overview of the different perspectives.

In contrast with Islam, the language and its intrinsic power does not seem to play a central role in Christianity, but I was somehow expecting that it would in Hesychasm.


texts: Seeking a richer Catholic understanding of passion vs intellect as it applies to our first parents

texts:
I was tempted to answer this question about freewill and Adam and Eve but I chose not to because all I've got it conjecture and I'm not even sure if it's not borderline heresy on the matter.  What I'd like to know is if what I would have answered lines up with Catholic thought.

I would have said:

  Adam and Eve could sin because they chose to follow their intellect and made a rational decision that being like God was in fact a good idea. They could give in to temptation, without following their passions (as they had complete self-mastery in this regard) for the same reason that Lucifer could want to be like God.

Then I might have gone on with:

  In this way God shows us the difference between following divine law (i.e. not eating an apple because God commanded it) and not following natural law (i.e. not intentionally eating (or giving someone) a poisoned apple because it will cause death) and divine law is a kind of law that can be violated without giving into your passions.  That is to say, an act of pure intellect can violate divine law, but violating natural law requires giving in to the passions (intentionally diverting your will from your intellect).

If someone could run that through their Catholic fluff and heresy parser and give me a readout I'd sure appreciate it before I go and tell it to my Religious Ed. kids, should the matter arise.


texts: Given that Mormons believe the father has a physical body, what is the significance of the incarnation?

texts:
In mainstream Christianity, the incarnation is a really big deal. The idea that the transcendent and ineffable God could enter into creation and become a man is a mind-boggling concept (and provides much for a religious mind to meditatively feast on)

However in Mormonism both the father and the son have physical bodies, and neither of them seem particularly transcendent, supreme, ultimate, absolute or ineffable. (in fact, when put next to the God of classical theism, the Mormon God doesn't really look like "God" at all!) Furthermore, our eternal destiny is to become Gods just like Jesus and the Father are Gods, and we will retain our fleshly bodies.

In other words, "Incarnation" seems like an every day occurrence in Mormonism. It's all rather pedestrian.

With all that in mind, what does the doctrine of the incarnation look like in the Mormon tradition, and how important/profound is it for Mormons?


texts: Are Iraqi Chaldean (Suraye) related to the Chaldean mentioned in old testament?

texts: I am looking for a reliable resource about the history of the christian Chaldean in Iraq and where the name "Suraya" come from.


texts: Are there any statistics that show how many scientists are Christians or otherwise believe in a personal God?

texts:
I was reading The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins and he mentions a study regarding the percentages of believers in the National Academy of Sciences and Royal Society. I was wondering if these figures mirrored the numbers for all other scientists, not merely those elected to prestigious societies. Unfortunately, googling "number of christian scientists" doesn't get me the kind of christian scientists I'm looking for...

Does anyone have any statistics on the number of scientists (Ph.D.-level researchers) who are Christian?