texts: How does the Catholic doctrine of free will reconcile with peccability?

texts:
In the Penitential Act at Mass, all present confess that they have sinned and ask for God's forgiveness. The implication seems to be that everyone present has sinned since the last time they made such an act. Indeed, it seems to me (though I may be mistaken) that the Catholic belief is that everyone still on Earth continues to fall into sin, even if it is in the most minute way.

On the other hand, every sin is an act of free will, and hence avoidable. Since there can be only finitely many acts of free will between penitential acts, this should imply that it is possible to go between penitential acts without sinning at all.

So my question is this: What is the Church's true doctrine concerning the ability of human beings to maintain avoidance of all sin? Does it teach that some do, in fact, maintain avoidance of all sin? Or does it believe that while it is possible to avoid all sin, to do so is so difficult as to be impossible in practical terms? Or is it something else?


texts: How did the cross come to be a symbol for Christianity?

texts: I understand WHY the cross became a symbol for Christianity, but HOW did it become a symbol?  How did it start and how did it evolve into the symbol (or symbols since there are many variants) we all know today?


texts: Are prospective Mormons allowed to be baptized during their menstruation periods?

texts: A simple Google search turns up conflicting answers. One source says that some temples have no restrictions on menstruating Mormons, require menstruating Mormons to wear tampons, or bar menstruating women from being baptized. Do these restrictions really apply to new converts? Do they vary within individual Mormon temples? What about churches? In individual churches, are Mormon converts who are menstruating on the day of the scheduled baptism barred from baptism, or do they have to pick a different day? Do menstruating Mormons have to wear a tampon? Would a pad suffice?


texts: Is the date of final compilation of the books of the Old Testament an integral feature of the Wellhausen Documentary Hypothesis?

texts:
So, using the Wellhausen Documentary Hypothesis scholars argue the books of the OT are finally compiled much later than the "Traditional" view.  Are the dates for the final edition critical to the theory?

I accept this is a difficult question because for the last 40 or 50 years proponents of the Hypothesis have splintered into various groupings with differing variations to the theory.  I am not familiar with these splinterings, various alternative models, so maybe someone could summarise the variations as well.

It would be good to see what are the majority opinions about the date of the final redaction/compilation of all the OT books, in the various main modern offshoots of the Documentary Hypothesis.


texts: Why do some seek 'two beginnings' in scripture?

texts:
There are arguments which I have observed which would seek to assert different occasions, or times or phases (depending on how the argument is worded) regarding Genesis 1:1 :

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth [KJV]

and John 1:1 :

In the beginning was the word ... [KJV].

From my childhood, I have accepted these two as synonymous. At school, I vocally resisted the attempts of my Chemistry teacher to teach me of previous ages not spoken of in scripture and I vocally resisted the attempts of my biology teacher to teach me Darwinian evolution. I made my own inclinations quite clear.
Rather I read, as a schoolboy, in 1969, and accepted almost fully, Morris and Whitcomb's book 'The Genesis Flood, in which is set forth, in considerable scientific detail, what is now termed 'young earth creationism'.
In adulthood, I have continued to make myself clear, now as a Licentiate of the Royal Society of Chemistry, and now also as one with further training in Molecular Biochemistry, within the Pharmaceutical Industry.
To me, there is no valid need or reason to see the Genesis statement 'in the beginning' and John's statement 'in the beginning' as being anything other than synonymous.
And I am led to suspect (though nobody is actually admitting to it, thus far) that the unspoken need and reason for these two statements to be parted one from another in logic is that there might be inserted, between the two, a period of time - possibly a period of 'geological ages' - in order to satisfy the requirements of those who do not accept 'young earth creationism'.
In fact, I do not assert any age for the earth, for the first three 'days' (when no sun, moon or stars existed and when there was no intelligent being on the earth to observe, record or document any events) cannot, in my own view, be asserted to be any period of 'time' as we know it. And I am aware, having studied radioactivity and worked with many isotopes, that the age of the earth cannot be asserted by 'backward extrapolation' of current 'relative abundances'.
What I do assert, most strongly, is the fact of seventy generations from Adam to Christ (as made clear by Luke) ; the fact that evolution is not the reason for the existence of distinct species ; and the fact that the Flood was global and catastrophic, as is evidenced in contemporary geology, in unbiased archaeology and in many aspects of human history.
But I am curious as to the motivation of those who see 'two different beginnings'. Am I correct in my suspicion or is there other valid reason or motivation for this ?
My question relates to the two major divisions of 'young earth creationism' and 'old earth creationism' and is not a matter of denominations. I am interested in answers from both of those factions, for I, fundamentally, belong to neither.

EDIT (in response to answers regarding 'Ruin Reconstruction Theory' or 'Re-creation Theory') :
In answer to re-creation or re-construction theories, please see my own studies of 'waste and void' in pp 18-29 of the following link. This is a complex study and cannot be abbreviated.
(Requires sign-in to Google Docs.)
The Gates of Pearl


texts:
I have been raised in Prodestant church all of my life and I have heard several times from members of various churches about an age of accountability—which is an age once a person reaches it they are solely acountable for their own sins. For example, if they died before reaching this age they wouldn't go to hell for any sins they have commited. I have heard various ages for this such as 10 and 13. Considering this my question is:

Is there scriptural evidence that states the age of acountablality? Does it even exist?


texts: Why do Protestants trust what Paul and Luke wrote 100%?

texts:
This has always been a big question for me.

I can understand that many Christians believe there is good evidence for the resurrection of Jesus, and that gives a basis for their faith in the teaching of Jesus and the gospels that speak about him and his disciples.

But the same Christians do not believe, for example, Mohammad's claims. One big reason is that Mohammad basically claimed a personal revelation that only he received. There could be any number of reasons for that, including epileptic episodes etc.

Now Paul by his own account had a personal experience on the road to Damascus, and it kind of resembles Mohammad's experiences. So that by itself wouldn't be enough to have a leap of faith and say that whatever Paul wrote is therefore true.

Having been investigating this matter for quite some time, all the evidence that I see points away from the conclusion that Paul and the author of Luke/Acts are trustworthy. However, if I list all this evidence, the question will get too long. As a result, I will write an answer as StackExchange encourages, and include the evidence there. However, due to the nature of the question and the unsatisfactory (to those who believe Paul implicitly) answer, I will probably get downvoted on both the question and the answer. Hopefully not, since this is a serious matter.

The reason it is serious - especially to Jewish Christians - is because:

God said that many Laws are forever (examples)
Jesus taught in the Sermon on the Mount that any Jews who set aside even the smallest commandment and teach others to do so, will be called least in the Kingdom of Heaven (Matthew 5:19)
Rather than saying the Law was powerless to save, Jesus said, "if you want to enter into life, keep the commandments" (see Matthew 19:16–22). And in fact even as Jesus taught about the Son of Man being betrayed to the Gentiles, and will rise on the third day, he didn't say that the Law would be nailed to the cross.

This makes it crucial to ascertain if Paul and Luke are trustworthy, because if they are not, then it's dangerous for a Jewish Christian to stop following the Law, just because Paul said so.

To summarize the question: if you draw a graph starting with Jesus, and to his disciples and their disciples, you get Paul and Luke as basically "disconnected" from the graph. Paul claims he got the revelation from his own visions. Luke describes miracles Paul did. Luke endorses Paul. Paul endorses himself. Paul says he won the argument with Peter. There is no account from the disciples Jesus set up, about any of those things. Why do Protestants just assume Paul is right, and his theology is right, and Luke is trustworthy?

Just to prevent simple knee-jerk potential answers to this question:

Paul is trustworthy because Acts describes him doing miracles. The issue here is that Acts is attributed to Luke, a student of Paul. This man also never met Jesus in real life.
Luke is trustworthy because his details were verified. Being able to correctly name people and places around you doesn't automatically mean the miracle claims are true, how do we know this wasn't just propaganda to boost Paul among the Gentile churches?
2 Peter 3:16 endorses Paul. Yes as far as I know this is in fact the ONLY place outside Paul + Luke that Paul is even mentioned by name. However there is a huge problem. Most modern New Testament scholars don't believe 2 Peter was written by Peter. So if your only evidence for Paul's authority outside their own writings is 2 Peter, then that means you are disagreeing with most New Testament scholars. Also, the original Church acceptance was also quite contentious.

In short, do Protestants have any logical reasons to believe in the authority of Paul and Luke? These reasons have to be better than the reasons they reject in other cases, such as Mohammad, Joseph Smith, etc. I can understand that you can just choose to believe on faith, but I am looking for solid logical arguments.


texts: Looking for a website with the 1984 NIV Bible version

texts:
All the Bible websites that I know of have updated their NIV Bibles to the 2011 version. I used to use biblestudytools.com to access the 1984 version, but it now looks like it also has been updated to the 2011 version.

Can anyone point me to a site that still hosts the 1984 version? Or perhaps an eBook or other electronic means of accessing it? Whether free or for a price.


texts: What is the origin of the Catholic apocrypha?

texts:
In the Catholic tradition, several "apocryphal" books are used in addition to the same Old Testament canon used by Protestants.

What is the origin of these books and how do they differ from from the other books?
Do Catholics view them as infallible?
Are they considered to be on the same level with the rest of the Old Testament or do they have some second rate status such as some form of non-divine wisdom literature?


texts: Do Pentecostals believe that they are speaking real languages or that God purposely uses gibberish?

texts: How do Pentecostals reconcile the babbling of modern "tongues" with the scriptural example of actual languages being spoken? Do they say that the babbling is indeed a real language or that God has chosen now to use babbling for other purposes than to edify by communicating actual messages? In other words, do they teach that the ecstatic incoherent sounds are now the divine order or do they say that what appears to be repeated meaningless pseudo-lingo is actually a real language?


texts: Did Mary pray to give birth to the Messiah although a virgin according to any Church Father?

texts:
I have judged this to be a not-so-impossible theory after some time doing a little investigation into the original intention of, and original Hebrew (or at least non-Greek words) underlying, the angel's greeting to Mary; more specifically, the best interpretation of the word κεχαριτωμενη (Luke 1:28).
The theory began mostly because Jerome's translation (plena gratia) has intrigued me to no end, as a "fullness" of "grace" could only be arrived at by either taking the past perfect tense of the word (lit. "having been graced/favored"), and and taking it for some completedness—fullness—of the action of being "graced" by God. It may be theologically true, and thus justified indeed in this specific sense (and theologically true but linguistically liberal translations are not foreign to the Septuagint, or Targumim), however, in context, "you have found favor with God" which the angel says just after (1:30) appears to be the governing explanation for the greeting, as well as to preclude the "grace" sense of χαρις (i.e. leaving us only with the sense "favor")—although, perhaps confusingly, grace is nothing else than the divine favor).
So, I surmised that it might have been a name (inasmuch as it stands for her name, "Hail, Kecharitomene: the Lord be with thee"), or Hebrew which can be phrased in some name-like way. Immediately, I thought of the Hebrew for grace (Hhen), and thus the name Hannah: I can think of no better translation of Hannah than Κεχαριτωμενη! And thus I'm thinking Gabriel could actually have said the name Hannah, identifying Mary with her (possibly explaining Mary's bewilderment at "what manner of greeting this is" Gabriel used: Luke 1:29), or a similar Semitic word with the same force and result: I'm struggling to think of what else Gabriel could have said that Luke would have translated by so specific a word.
In any case, it led me to the first instance we hear of Hannah in the Bible, when she prays that God looks upon her state of disgrace, which refers to her having no children, and grants her offspring. The disgrace of course is her inability to have children, and the being looked upon or favored is being gifted miraculous conception.
Then I realized that only Mary and Hannah say this:

1 Lᴜᴋᴇ 1:48 My soul magnifies the Lord, and my spirit rejoices in God my Saviour: for he has looked upon the humiliation of his maidservant.
1 Sᴀᴍᴜᴇʟ 1:11
And making a vow, [Hannah] said, "Lord of hosts, if you look upon the humiliation of your maidservant, and remember me, and forget not, but give your maidservant male seed, I shall dedicate him to the Lord for all the days of his life, and a razor shall not come near his head.

The "disgrace" or "humiliation," (עני) per this Hebrew idiomatic usage, refers almost technically to inability to have children and associated negative or low reputation [cf. Luke 1:25] (another proof that Mary intended to remain a virgin, because women only refer to their inability to have children as a disgrace by way of lamentation—not their not yet having had children! just a side note): in Hannah's case, because of physically incapability: in Mary's case, because she has vowed to remain a virgin.
Question
Does this correlation imply Mary, who intended to remain a virgin, nonetheless prayed to God that she could give birth to the Messiah (perhaps thinking of Scriptures like Isaiah 7:14, for example), and did any Church Fathers think this?
Thanks in advance.


texts:
Does the Evangelical Lutheran church see Mormons as Christian?

Do they need salvation or are they Christian/saved?


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

What is the biblical justification for allowing only male pastors?

How do churches excluding women from pastoral and teaching roles justify their stance as The Christian Way?


texts: Did Jesus mean a truly spiritual man should feel this rewarded NOW, or in the world to come?

texts:
Mark 10:28–31 (NKJV):

  Then Peter began to say to Him, "See, we have left all and followed You." So Jesus answered and said, "Assuredly, I say to you, there is no one who has left house or brothers or sisters or father or mother or wife or children or lands, for My sake and the gospel's, who shall not receive a hundredfold now in this time—houses and brothers and sisters and mothers and children and lands, with persecutions—and in the age to come, eternal life. But many who are first will be last, and the last first.”

Note the "now in this time."

Should Christians feel worried if they do not feel spiritually rewarded to that degree in the present age? Or did he mean through the hope of the true joy... that is in "the age to come, eternal life"?


texts: What scriptural arguments are there, if any, that there is hell but it is not eternal?

texts:
The Catholic Church teaches that there is hell and it is eternal [cf. The Hell There Is! | Catholic Answers].

What is the [common] scriptural basis, if any, for the Christian groups which teach that there is a hell but that it is not eternal?


texts: How did the original texts of the Creed relate Pilate to Jesus' Passion?

texts: In the Creed in English we see the mention of Jesus having  suffered and died  'under Pontius Pilate' . In my native language Malayalam, the counterpart reference says ' in the days of Pontius Pilate' and that appears to be a direct translation from Syriac language. My question is: how did the original texts of the Creed relate of role of Pontius Pilate in the Passion and death of Jesus ?


texts: Did Protestant Founders lay their hands on their pastors like the Apostles in Book of Acts?

texts:
In the Book of Acts the Apostles was seen laying their hands on their disciples in particular Matthias who replaced Judas Iscariot to be counted among the Apostles.

Among the Protestant founders like Luther, Zwingli, Calvin, Wesley, etc.Who among them is known to lay his hands on his pastors to transfer or give them a teaching authority? Or how does a Protestant pastors receive their teaching authority coming from Christ biblically?


texts: What is God's definition of forgiveness?

texts:
I have wrestled with this topic for years and have come to all sorts of conclusions along the way. Please, I'm searching for what others perceive is God's definition of forgiveness.

If we are wronged terribly by someone, is it "ok" if there is always a bit of us that is guarded when it comes to talking/thinking/interacting with that person?

We may not feel anger or wish them any harm, but as a human being it sometimes feels almost impossible to forget the hurt that has been caused by someone else.


texts: What is meant by "love covers over a multitude of sins"?

texts:
And above all things have fervent love for one another, for “love will cover a multitude of sins.” (1 Pet 4:8, NKJV)
Hatred stirs up strife, But love covers all sins. (Prov 10:12, NKJV)

What does it mean for "love to cover a multitude of sins"? Does it mean one of the following?

Love prevents you from seeing or noticing sins at all?
Love allows you to see sins, but you overlook/ignore them?
Love allows you to see sins, but you forgive them?
Something else?

Also, in these two verses, the teaching/admonition seems to be directed toward man for human-to-human relationships, but how does "love covering a multitude of sins" play out in God's love toward man?


texts:
I've heard from a friend a theory claiming Jonah died in the whale's belly and then he was raised from the dead to preach to the Ninevites.
He told me it is based on those verses:

  "He said: “In my distress I called to the Lord,
      and he answered me. From deep in the realm of the dead I called for help,
      and you listened to my cry."
  (Jonah 2:2, NIV)

  "He answered, “A wicked and adulterous generation asks for a sign! But
  none will be given it except the sign of the prophet Jonah. For as
  Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of a huge fish, so
  the Son of Man will be three days and three nights in the heart of the
  earth. The men of Nineveh will stand up at the judgment with this
  generation and condemn it; for they repented at the preaching of
  Jonah, and now something greater than Jonah is here."
  (Matthew 12:39:41, NIV)

I told him I don't agree with his theory because Jonah prayed inside the whale, but he was inflexible.

Also, here is an answer to raise this issue: Jonah and the Whale - Is there any scientific proof that it is possible to survive in the belly of whale?

I would especially like to hear answers from a Pentecostal perspective.


texts:
1 Corinthians 2:8

  None of the rulers of this world understood it, because if they had,
  they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.

To me, it seems the speaker is saying that all the rulers from every part of the world crucified Jesus somewhere on 33 AD.

Since it doesn't make sense to me, I'm starting to think that either the crucifixion of Jesus on 33 AD is symbolic (Jesus really died on the cross represents that every human has "crucified" Christ within him/her) or [all the rulers from every part of the world crucified Jesus] which is the symbolic one.

But that's only in my own understanding. That's why I post the question here.

Thank you.


texts: Why did the pope say gender is a property of essence?

texts:
In his 2012 Christmas address, Pope Benedict XVI said:

  According to the biblical creation account, being created by God as
  male and female pertains to the essence of the human creature.

The use of the word "essence" puzzles me here. I wonder whether gender is a property of essence or existence. Does gender still exist in Heaven? Isn't gender a property of the body rather than an attribute of each being?  If so, gender is tied to existence. What is official Catholic teaching on this?


texts: What was the first translation to transliterate the tetragrammaton?

texts:
Some Christians today like to transliterate the Tetragrammaton into their modern language translations, and to pronounce the name when reading aloud (their best reconstruction of the name I mean, usually "Yahweh".) Other Christians oppose this, saying that it goes against centuries and even millenia of Jewish and Christian practice.

So I'd like to know what was the earliest translation of the Hebrew scriptures which attempted to transliterate the Tetragrammaton?

Answers should not be limited to English translations, but they should only give translations which frequently use a transliteration. For example, see Wikipedia for translations which use "Jehovah". The KJV's seven uses of "Jehovah" is not the kind of translation I'm asking about; Young's Literal Translation (published 1862) with 6831 uses of "Jehovah" is.

(Aparently the formal definition of "transliteration" is strictly a one to one mapping, with "transcription" refers to trying to write the sounds ignoring silent or double letters etc. In my experience "transcription" is colloquially called "transliteration". But it probably doesn't make a difference for the Tetragrammaton.)


texts: Why are some words in the King James Bible written in italics?

texts:
When reading the King James Bible, I've noticed that some words are marked with italics. I have yet to discover any pattern, but it seems that all of the marked words are short common English words.

Why is this?


texts: How do Mormons interpret Psalm 110:1 and Matthew 22:41-45?

texts:
Based on the answer to this other question, Mormons believe that Jesus and Jehovah in the Old Testament are one and same person.

Also my understanding is that, based on information such as the answers to this question, that Mormons do not believe in Trinity.

Because of this I wanted to ask about Psalm 110:1 which was referred to by Jesus in Matthew 22:41-45.

I have below listed Psalm 110:1 according to some translations that use the name Jehovah in that passage:

American Standard Version:

  Jehovah saith unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand, Until I make
  thine enemies thy footstool.

Darby Translation:

  Jehovah said unto my Lord, Sit at my right hand, until I put thine
  enemies [as] footstool of thy feet.

Living Bible:

  Jehovah said to my Lord the Messiah, “Rule as my regent—I will subdue
  your enemies and make them bow low before you.”

Young's Literal Translation:

  A Psalm of David. The affirmation of Jehovah to my Lord: `Sit at My
  right hand, Till I make thine enemies thy footstool.'

Jesus referred to this scripture when speaking with the Pharisees in Matthew 22:41-45 (The Living Bible):

  41 Then, surrounded by the Pharisees, he asked them a question: 42 “What about the Messiah? Whose son is he?” “The son of David,” they replied. 43 “Then why does David, speaking under the
  inspiration of the Holy Spirit, call him ‘Lord’?” Jesus asked. “For
  David said, 44 ‘God said to my Lord, Sit at my right hand until I
  put your enemies beneath your feet.’ 45 Since David called him
  ‘Lord,’ how can he be merely his son?”

According to some denominations, Jesus in above question meant that he was the "Lord" that God (or Jehovah, according to above translations) spoke to in verse 44.

How do Mormons interpret these passages, since they believe that Jesus was the same as Jehovah in the Old Testament?


texts: What is the new understanding that emerged about the death penalty that recently entered the Catechism?

texts:
What the heck does this sentence added to the Catechism mean?

In addition, a new understanding has emerged of the significance of penal sanctions imposed by the state.

https://press.vatican.va/content/salastampa/en/bollettino/pubblico/2018/08/02/180802a.html
What new understanding?  What significance?  What sanctions? Is this even a complete sentence?


texts: Is abortion okay, if the mother's life is at risk, according to Catholicism?

texts: Is it okay to abort a baby when the continuation of the pregnancy may result in the death of his or her mother, according to Catholicism?


texts: Which books is Ross Douthat citing in relation to his conversion to Catholicism

texts:
50'35" into this video (Faith Is Not a Sideshow - Ross Douthat at the University of Michigan), New York Times columnist Ross Douthat says this about his conversion to Catholicism (as a teenager):

  [...] I made the conversion to Catholicism more in a straightforward
  intellectual -- I read a bunch of books and found Catholic
  claims convincing -- kind of way [...]

Can somebody tell whether he identified (some of) these books elsewhere and if so, which ones are they?


texts:
My question is: what is a method (step-by-step recipe) in catholic moral theology? Optatam totius 16 provides the following guidelines for the dogmatic theology:

Biblical topics
Patristic reflections
Further evaluation of the topic
Speculation with Thomas Aquinas
Presence of mysteries in liturgy and life of church
Solution of people's problems
Adequate communication of results

For the moral theology, there is no list like that. We only read:

  Likewise let the other theological disciplines be renewed through a more living contact with the mystery of Christ and the history of salvation. Special care must be given to the perfecting of moral theology. Its scientific exposition, nourished more on the teaching of the Bible, should shed light on the loftiness of the calling of the faithful in Christ and the obligation that is theirs of bearing fruit in charity for the life of the world.

I guess that there might be several alternative methods in moral theology to study a specific phenomenon. Perhaps, they might differ for studying a specific situation (e.g. what is a just reward for a specific work) and for analysis of abstract topics (e.g. to what extend is Reiki acceptable for catholics).

The accepted answer will provide a step-by-step way how to work in catholic moral theology, possibly justified and linked to some relevant documents.

Thank you for your help.


texts: Does the nature of God's love for us include what we humans would call "constant, strong, and genuine affection"? (Catholic)

texts:
I know that God "loves" me, but does the nature of God's love include what we humans would call "a constant, strong, and genuine affection"?

I am asking this because in Catholic church, God's love is "caritas". "caritas" is love that is in will that is not dependent on emotion. And I am having a problem with it. I take "caritas" as love without genuine affection towards its recipients, a.k.a. "cold love".
Like, I sometimes hear Christians saying "I love my neighbour, but I don't like them"; they perform various acts of charity for their neighbours, but they don't like their neighbour. They do acts of charity in their commitment to keep the commandments, but if there is no commandments, they would rather not carry out the charity for their neighbours. In terms of "caritas", such Christian do love his neighbour through his action, yet such love is love without genuine affection towards its recipients. I would call it "a cold love"; I also feel that such love is a fake love - love missing its essence. And sometimes I do wonder if God's love for me ("caritas") is, in fact, a cold love.

so my question is:

I do know that God "loves" me, but does the nature of God's love include what we would call "a constant, strong, and genuine affection"? (I know that God doesn't experience emotions like affection, but I am wondering if the nature of God's love for me includes what we humans would call "a constant, strong, and genuine affection" )

Please answer according to Catholic understanding of God's love.


texts:
Lying is a sin. It is a violation of one of the Ten Commandments, and a disobeying of God.
However, there are many instances in the Bible where someone may lie (usually to protect someone), and God does not punish it as he would a sin, thus meaning that the act was not a sin.
When, if ever, is it morally acceptable to lie?


texts: What is the earliest reference to the notion that we killed Jesus?

texts:
In this blog post, Catholic professor Edward Feser discusses the Crucifixion:

  No silly talk here of “Flying Spaghetti Monsters” and the like; Nietzsche, unlike so many of his successors, still had a sense of the noble, indeed of the Holy. (The New Atheist is none other than Nietzsche’s Last Man in rationalist drag.) And what he said of the modern, metaphorical “death of God” is true of the real thing: We are each of us guilty of it. We are each of us the worst of murderers. We have, each of us, slain our Maker and sought to make ourselves gods in His place. And we cannot possibly atone.

  For the crucifixion, in its sublime gruesome blasphemousness, lays bare the true meaning of sin. It is Non serviam, “My will, not thine, be done!” pushed through consistently. To rationalize evil, we must obliterate the Good. To justify lawlessness, we must put to death the Lawgiver. And yet there can be no “rationalization” of any action in the absence of Good. There can be no “justification” without Law. In the crucifixion we see the sheer, satanic madness of sin.

  And we cannot possibly atone. Yet we are not without hope. For the Supreme Lawgiver against Whom we offend is also Infinite Mercy. The God Who can lay down His life can raise Himself up again. And He lays it down willingly, for those He calls His “friends” – for us, His very killers! Even as we commit the greatest of crimes against Him, His thoughts are – astoundingly – with us: “Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do.” Having put Him on a cross, we can but humbly kneel before it – in sorrow, in thanks, in worship.

Now it's standard Christian doctrine that Jesus died for the sins of humanity.  But my question is, what is the earliest reference to the notion that we, i.e. all humans, killed Jesus?  Is it mentioned in the Bible itself, or in the writings of early Church Fathers, or what?


texts: What was the purpose of creating the world?

texts:
Why did God create a world?
Was the act of creation for some profit, or did God in His grace create world only because it was good?

  Genesis 1 (KJV)
  And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the
  waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.


texts: In dispensationalism: Was gracious salvation through Christ an alternative plan

texts:
In the course of doing research in eschatology, I found this quote by the now deceased dispensationalist scholar, and Dallas Theological Seminary founder Lewis Sperry Chafer:

  It may be concluded that the term "kingdom of heaven" as used in the
  early ministry of Jesus referred to the Messianic, Davidic, earthly
  kingdom seen in the Old Testament. As has been noted, the Jewish
  preachers needed no instruction in the details of that message. It was
  the hope of their nation, and it was addressed to that nation alone.
  So, also, an appeal was made with this message for the anticipated
  national repentance, which must precede the setting up of the kingdom
  in the earth, and the requirements set forth were legal rather than
  gracious. Israel's kingdom was faithfully offered to them by their
  King at His first appearing.
   (The Kingdom in History and Prophecy, p. 51)

Here's what I gathered from this quote.

The Lord Jesus Christ "faithfully" offered the Jews of His day a Messianic kingdom.
This Messianic kingdom would be similar to but grander than the Davidic kingdom.
This kingdom age would be totally legal. In other words, no salvation by grace.

According to Chafer's other writings on the subject, the Kingdom was rejected by the Jews, which prompted God to offer salvation through grace. The writings of Darby, Scofield, and Walford generally concur with Chafer's.

How does the dispensationalist view the Jewish rejection: As a matter of Israel exercising free will prompting God to change His original plan? Or as Christ's "faithful" offer to Israel and subsequent rejection part of God's original plan.

If needed, please correct my shortsightedness on any of the above conclusions.


texts: Did God allowed incest before? Did Noah and his family committed incest? If yes when did God start forbidding it and why? If no, how did Noah and his family repopulate the world and how about the risk of genetic diseases caused by the inbreeding?


texts:
Many Catholics pray the Rosary every day. This is very good. They are meditating on the holy Mysteries. What I don't really get is the ten Hail Marys. I am not saying that it's vain repetition. That's not even an issue for me at all. This kind of repetition is very good according to me. I am only thinking about the purpose of the ten Hail Marys.
I myself have tried to pray the Rosary (and the Angelus) and always focused on the words of the Hail Mary and how it relates to the mysteries. The thing is: many people say that you should not even focus on the ten Hail Marys. It's hard to say prayers and trying not to focus on them. I am confused.
There are books with added words to the Hail Marys which allow you to focus on the words of the prayer. It can take some time to learn how to say prayers and never focusing on them. THe Rosary can be difficult for a beginner. All kinds of prayer have things that make them difficult for beginners.
The Rosary is bassically Lectio Divina with some added prayers.
What is the purpose of the ten Hail Marys in the Rosary if you should not focus on them?


texts: Is there biblical reference to Michael, the archangel’s role and being?

texts: I am looking for the biblical references to Michael the angel ? And what are/were his/her role? There are some christian groups that attributes  Michael same with Jesus. Is there any biblical reference to it?


texts: Why did G.K. Chesterton convert to Catholicism?

texts:
G.K. Chesterton is one of my favorite authors. On a lot of subjects, his way of looking at things really astonishes me. He can still show things in a fresh perspective, though his books are about a hundred years old.

In his later writings, he quite strongly scoffs at Protestants at times. This is disturbing, as I haven't quite figured why. I probably would find information about his conversion in some of his books, but frankly there's a lot to read. And with none of his books available where I live, it's also troublesome to get them -- call me old-fashioned, but I only read books on paper.

I'd like to get an overview of the reasons G.K. left the Anglican church for the Catholic, possibly along with some further reading recommendations.

This question was partly inspired by Why didn't C.S. Lewis convert to Catholicism? I've wondered about G.K.'s conversion for some time. I haven't dared ask about it here before, as I've been afraid it would be off-topic.


texts: According to the Catholic Church, what is meant by the prophecy, "A bruised reed he will not break . . ."?

texts:
Isaiah 42:3 has this prophecy:

  A bruised reed he will not break, and a smoldering wick he will not snuff out.

What does this prophecy imply, and how was it fulfilled? Are there any authentic teachings from the perspective of the Catholic Church available on this prophecy and its eventual fulfillment?


texts: Do Christians need to keep the 10 commandments?

texts:
I have read different opinions. Do Christians need to keep the 10 commandments as explained in Exodus 20? Some people say we only have to keep the two commandments that Jesus said "To love God", "To love your neighbor", others mention that we should keep the 10 commandments, as even James mentions some of them in his letter.

From the 10 commandments the only one I see that Christians don't really do is the 4th, but also the other 9 could be said to be kept if you keep the two commandments that Jesus said. Any thoughts? Thanks!


texts: What was Isaac Watts' theological background?

texts:
Isaac Watts has often been called "the Father of English Hymnody."  He is responsible for many of my favorite hymns:

Joy to the world (arranged by Lowell Mason to an older melody originating from Handel)
Come ye that love the Lord (often sung with the chorus [and titled] "We’re marching to Zion")
O God, Our Help in Ages Past
When I survey the wondrous cross
Alas! and did my Saviour bleed

and many, many others.  I've seen his hymns in Baptist, Anglican, and Methodist hymnals, so I'm assuming he's Protestant in some fashion (although I'd love to know if he is in Catholic hymnals), but I don't know what tradition he himself was.

Does he he make a confession in a particular denomination?


texts: Does Jesus's soul exist before his incarnation?

texts:
I am referring to clause III in "The Anathematisms of the Emperor Justinian Against Origen":

  If anyone says or thinks that the soul of the Lord pre-existed and was
  united with God the Word before the Incarnation and Conception of the
  Virgin, let him be anathema.

This seems inconsistent with an important pillar of orthodox Christianity (not to be confused with eastern orthodoxy) doctrines: the doctrine of Trinity, which states that the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit always exist.

  All three divine Persons—Father, Son and Holy Spirit—share the one
  being of God. The Trinity doctrine explains that Jesus was not created
  sometime prior to his incarnation, but existed eternally as God.

Obviously these two can't be both right, so, how can "The Anathematisms of the Emperor Justinian Against Origen" and the Trinity doctrine be reconciled from orthodox Christianity point of view? Or the view expressed in "he Anathematisms of the Emperor Justinian Against Origen" is never a part of Christianity teaching?


texts: Has there been a paradigm shift in the `image' of devil?

texts:
I am intrigued by this conversation between God and Devil in the Book of Job:

"One day the angels came to present themselves before the Lord, and Satan  also came with them.  The Lord said to Satan, “Where have you come from?”
Satan answered the Lord, “From roaming throughout the earth, going back and forth on it.”

If Job was a historical person and the conversation between God and Devil is the verbatim reproduction of what really happened, I wish to believe that they were not such sworn enemies as we have been trained to believe.  I prefer to believe that heaven is the place where the faithful who choose to live for ever with God go, and hell on the other hand, is that state of continued existence which the people who consciously choose to ignore God are assigned to be in. The very fact that those who choose the 'adversary' above God are deprived of God's presence, itself becomes their agony  after death.
My question is whether there has been a continuous degradation to the 'image' of devil through the history of Church ?


texts: Is there any tradition that argues for prophetical succession under the Old Testament just like some argue for Apostolic succession?

texts: Some Christians argue that Apostles are always brought into their office under the facilitation of another Apostle, like a chain of links succeeding each other.  In the Old Testament, prophets seem just to appear under the direct authority of God, but it makes me wonder is there is any tradition that puts the 'succession' concept upon their view of the Prophets also?


texts:
Someone already asked a question seeking the biblical basis for the personhood of the Holy Spirit, but it seems that no one has asked a question yet seeking the opposite. Thus, in order to fill this gap, I ask:
What is the biblical basis against the personhood of the Holy Spirit?


texts: What is the background of the words "notitia," "fiducia," and "assensus" and how do they relate to the biblical notion of "faith"?

texts:
The book Philosophical Foundations for a Christian Worldview (page 18) describes notitia, fiducia, and assensus as the three essential elements that make up the biblical notion of "faith."

notitia is defined as "understanding the content of the Christian faith"

fiducia is defined as "trust"

assensus is defined as "the assent of the intellect to the truth of some proposition"

I am trying to determine what the background is for each of these three words along with what their origin, context, and usage is. Where did they first appear? What is their relationship to the New Testament or the Old Testament?


texts:
What could be the reason for Jesus not telling His disciples to write down whatever He was teaching them?

He knew His mission here was to bring the Kingdom of God and He knew that the teaching He was imparting to the masses was extraordinary and unparalleled in the history of the world. Recently one member of this site mentioned and it could be true, that in a day whatever He was teaching His followers, would fit into one whole New Testament.  However, we find no record anywhere of Jesus telling His followers to record all that He was teaching them. He however said that when Holy Spirit comes He would teach them everything. Was His plan already in place?


texts: Did early church fathers understand the doctrine of trinity?

texts:
Many historians and religious scholars ... attest to the influence of
  Greek or Platonic philosophy in the development and acceptance of the
  Trinity doctrine in the fourth century.  ... the famous Greek
  philosopher Plato ... believed in a divine triad of "God, the ideas,
  [and] the World-Spirit,". (Source)

The easiest way to verify the authenticity of this claim would be to check if any of the early church fathers believed in trinity. (Please note by early I mean the <= 300 AD)


texts: Does St. Thomas Aquinas think idolatry is the main cause of homosexuality?

texts:
Is idolatry the main cause of homosexuality according to St. Thomas Aquinas?

How does he  interpret Romans 1:24-25:

  Wherefore, God gave them up to the desires of their heart [because they "worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator" (v. 25)], unto uncleanness: to dishonor their own bodies among themselves

?


texts:
Jacob had twelve sons, the firstborn of whom was Reuben.  Yet, the birthright that should have passed on to Reuben did not due to Reuben's sin against his father (1 Chronicles 5:1-2).

Naturally, one would assume that the next in line would be Simeon, the second-oldest.  It did not pass to Simeon either.  In fact, Jacob passes over all of his sons until he gets to Joseph.

Now, he essentially passes on the birthright and blessing to Ephraim, the younger of Joseph's sons.

I have a few questions regarding this.

First, why does Jacob pass the birthright to Joseph's sons, and not Joseph himself?  In fact, before doing so, why does Jacob essentially say that Joseph's sons are now considered to be his sons?  What is the meaning of this?

Second, what is the significance of choosing Ephraim, the younger, over Manasseh, the older?

Finally, even though Ephraim has the birthright, the lineage of Jesus comes through Judah.  Why then, does the birthright not pass to Judah?  Why is there a disconnect between this birthright and the importance of Judah in Jesus' lineage?


texts: Are there any conditions which make oneself completely unredeemable in the eyes of God?

texts:
I am curious if there are any actions or conditions which "seal your fate" so to speak, such that should you do them—no matter how much you repent or accept Jesus or pray—that you are doomed forever to Hell.

For example, Richard Dawkins wrote several anti-God books and has long been critical of religion; is it possible that he's "passed the threshold" of "saveableness"? Or are we all always saveable? Or someone who is born gay, and while I understand not all Christians think gays will go to Hell, there are certainly some major groups that do. Are these people then, genetically determined to go to Hell? A better example might be someone who is born blind and deaf, or extremely mentally ill, such that with no amount of instruction would they be able to understand the Bible, let alone the concept of "book" or "savior". These people would never embrace Jesus; are they damned from birth without any hope?

In other words, is it possible that the conditions of your existence could doom you to Hell inevitably, despite any efforts or willingness on your part?


texts: Were the Old Testament prophets married?

texts: Were Elijah, Isaiah, Jeremiah and Ezekiel married? There is no mention for them, whilst there are for Moses


texts: What is the Biblical Basis for Christ returning with a physical body at the Second Coming?

texts:
I've heard Christians claim that at the Second Coming Christ will return with a physical human body, what is the Bible basis for this belief?
It is clear that he has a physical flesh body once:

And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us
John 1:14

I'm interested in an answer from any mainstream Christian belief that believes Christ will have a physical body at the Second Coming.


texts: Are the any Christian denominations that have doctrines in place that prohibit a national flag in the worship space?

texts:
I am somewhat troubled by the presence of an American flag anywhere in a sanctuary / worship space. This sentiment is especially stark when said flag shares the same space / level as an altar.

I would like to see Christian doctrine / canon / by-laws or some other citation where this is prohibited, if at all.


texts:
After the Holy Spirit came at Pentecost and filled all those gathered together in that upper room in Jerusalem (Acts 1: 13-14), they were enabled to go forth and speak boldly about Jesus of Nazareth and how God raised him from the dead.  They spoke in tongues and performed miraculous healings (Acts chapter 2).
Is the primary objective of the Holy Spirit to imbue believers with the miraculous gifts of speaking in tongues, or of healing, or of prophecy?  Is the manifestation of those gifts of the Spirit in the believer proof that they are somehow superior to those who have never experienced such miraculous gifts?
What, according to Jesus, is the primary purpose and objective of sending the Holy Spirit at Pentecost?
EDIT for clarity: I'm looking for the words of Jesus, as found in the New Testament, which relate specifically to the purpose of sending the Holy Spirit at Pentecost.


texts: Do we have to obey the laws of the bible? If so, what laws?

texts:
I've read a ton about obedience in the bible and I realize that we have a responsibility to obey Jesus Christ. As it says in 2 Timothy 2:19 "God's foundation stands firm, sealed with his inscription. Anybody that professes the name of Christ must repent of their wickedness"

There's really no way around this. However, when I begin to speak about our responsibility to obey Jesus people begin to tell me that I am trying to follow the law or work for my salvation.

I know that neither of these will earn my way into God's grace, however, I still understand that I have a responsibility.

Where do you draw the line? What do we have to obey and what do we not have to obey?


texts: How did Paul know so much about Melchizedek?

texts: The Old Testament has 3 verses on the subject. 2 in Genesis 14:18 and 19 and Psalms 110:14. That's all. Yet Paul has given a surprising description of Melchizedek, the complete chapter of Hebrews 7 is devoted to the subject.


texts: What attributes does Jesus have from an LDS doctrinal perspective that are different from the Jesus in the Holy Trinity?

texts: I ask this because when I read about the attributes of Jesus in the Trinity and compare him to the Jesus as explained by Mormon doctrine I find very little difference. With that being said if there are differences, how do they effect his divinity?


texts:
If Herod the great died 4 bc

And Jesus was born 2 bc

How is explained that Herod great was alive at the time of Jesus birth

Perhaps I have my dates wrong yet they are what I found on internet

Regards Richard


texts: Are our sins of the future forgiven? (John 20:23)

texts:
Catholics say that our future sins are not forgiven (unless we confess them in the future) and say that John 20:23 (and maybe other verses which I can't remember), uses the past, i.e. "forgiven", so ask how future sins can be forgiven.

Is this interpretation justified?  What information there is on the verb "forgiven" here, and in other verses, that may support or contradict this interpretation?


texts: What is the biblical basis for and against the "filioque"?

texts:
In order to contextualize the question I add the following quote from the wikipedia article concerning Filioque clause:

  Filioque, Latin for "and (from) the Son", is a phrase found in the
  form of Nicene Creed in use in the Latin Church. It is not present in
  the Greek text of the Nicene Creed as originally formulated at the
  First Council of Constantinople, which says only that the Holy Spirit
  proceeds "from the Father"

I've been reading about this issue and cannot find a clear biblical basis either for or against the Filioque clause. However, I think there are some verses that can be applied either for or against.

For example, John 20:22 can be applied for by saying that the Spirit is proceeding from Christ. On the other hand, it can be applied against by saying that the Spirit is actually proceeding from the Father but through the Son.

For that reason I am asking if somebody knows more biblical arguments for and against the Filioque.


texts: Why did St. Peter propose to make different tents at the time of Christ's Transfiguration? (Catholic perspective)

texts:
At Matthew 17:4  we hear St. Peter exclaiming  at the Transfiguration of Christ: “Lord, it is well that we are here; if you wish, I will make three booths here, one for you and one for Moses and one for Eli′jah".

Was St. Peter acknowledging Jesus as a great prophet, rather than as The Redeemer, while he proposed to make three separate tents for Jesus, Moses and Elijah? What are  the Catholic Church's teachings on the subject?


texts: What Christian denominations do not require belief in mainstream Christian core doctrines?

texts:
I grew up in a non-denominational church and was heavily involved until a few years ago.  Some of my personal beliefs don't agree with the commonly accepted "core doctrines" of Christianity (which is a separate issue here), and I've found it hard to feel accepted in a church.

For reference, here are some of the doctrines that I don't accept as infallible:

Doctrine of the Trinity
Deity of Jesus
Millenialism
Predestination
Dispensationalism

I don't see that any of these are core to Jesus' teachings. Accordingly, I don't know whether I would even ascribe myself as a Christian, though I believe in God and very much believe in the lifestyle that Jesus portrayed.  I'm almost certain that most Christians would not consider me part of the "in-group."

However I miss the sense of community that I once had, which leads to the question: Do you have any suggestions for how to find a community in which to belong, one that centers around Jesus's teachings and a love for God, yet doesn't require you to proclaim belief in the core doctrines of Christianity to gain acceptance? Are there a denominations / communities that hold these as core doctrines, but don't require you to subscribe to them to be considered 'Christian'?


texts: What's the difference between predestination and predeterminism?

texts:
Could someone please plainly spell out the differences between the following concepts?

Predestination
Predeterminism
Determinism
Theological determinism

There appears to be some debate over whether or not some of these terms are synonymous and interchangeable. Calvinists undoubtedly believe in predestination, but how does predestination differ from the other three concepts listed above?


texts: In Catholic theology is Yehovah the Father or all three persons?

texts:
When reading the Hebrew scriptures and one encounters a reference to Yehovah, does that map in the NT to the Father? Or to the Father, Son and Holy Ghost? For example, in this passage can we be certain that the "I" is the Father? Or could it be all three persons?

  English Standard Version
  Exodus 3:7 Then the LORD said, “I have surely seen the
  affliction of my people who are in Egypt and have heard their cry
  because of their taskmasters. I know their sufferings,


texts: Why was Jesus afraid/agonizing in the Garden of Gethsemane if the Spirit of God isn't one of fear but of power?

texts:
The scene of Jesus praying in the Garden of Gethsemane has confused me for a time. How could Jesus be overcome with fear or anguish or what-have-you when his Spirit is one of power and self-control, not of fear?

Luke 22:42-44 ESV  “Father, if you are willing, take this cup from me; yet not my will, but yours be done.” An angel from heaven appeared to him and strengthened him. And being in anguish, he prayed more earnestly, and his sweat was like drops of blood falling to the ground.
2 Timothy 1:7 ESV for God gave us a spirit not of fear but of power and love and self-control.

Could it be that Jesus was not actually afraid, but anguish means something else? Other translations, actually most, say he was in agony or "in agony of spirit". What is an overview of doctrinal opinions on this?


texts: What was Isaac Newton's view of the Trinity?

texts: The Trinity is a complex topic and I know Isaac Newton studied deep into it, and that his views were somewhat contrary to mainstream doctrines taught today. So I was curious what his view is, and what is different about it from mainstream Protestant and Catholic theology.


texts: How were the blood globules of Lanciano weighed?

texts:
A long time ago, an RCC priest had addressed my doubts about the reality of presence of Christ in Host with the "numerous examples of Eucharistic miracles". The miracles had been:

Five globules of dried blood found in the Host from time to time, which all five weight as much as any one of them

I have recently read a book about such miracles and it seems he has been referring to the miracle of Lanciano, where:

Each individual globule weighed the same as the other individual ones (although different in size) or as all five together or as any other combination

The feature has been reported twice: just after the miracle and in 1574. No further reports of the feature are known despite further testing of the globules.
All sources I have read so far are vague about the method used for weighting the globules. The most they say is:

The archbishop sent a scale for the weighing of the globules

As there is a comparison of one to all five I guess they were not weighted simultaneously on opposite arms of the scale. Rather there were weights used (it seems spring scales were unknown at the time).
This leads me to serious doubts about reliability of that feature - and thus of the whole miracle.
Are there any sources describing the weighting procedure?


texts:
According to the answers here and here, the term person means "an individual substance of a rational nature".

According to trinitarian theology, the triune god exists as three consubstantial persons consisting of one substance.

Does this mean the triune god exists as three individual substances of a rational nature, consisting of one substance of an irrational nature, in which neither nature is divided so that each are fully rational and irrational?


texts: Is the term *Kyrie Eleison* Latin or Greek?

texts:
Kyrie Eleison is a term that is used in the Latin Mass of the Catholic Church. However, I've been told that the phrase is entirely Greek and not Latin at all!

So is the phrase Latin or Greek? Is it transliterated from Greek and therefore Latin?


texts: According to a Catholic interpretation of the Bible, was Jesus being glib in Matthew 6:34?

texts:
When Jesus says "Sufficient for a day is its own evil," was Our Lord making light of the fact that a lot of bad stuff happens every day?

I'm reading this as part of a scripture study with some scouts tomorrow and I'd like to know what Catholic commentators and saints have to say about this, and the particular attitude that a line like this would be stated with.


texts: Do any Christian traditions think that evil desires are not sin?

texts:
There are several related questions already about this topic on C.SE, such as "What does it mean that Jesus was tempted in every way like us (yet without sin)?" and "What is temptation?".

My question is focusing on the phenomena that some people say that having evil desires isn't sinful in itself, but yielding to them is sinful. Others say that sinful desires are inherently sinful. It seems that there isn't agreement within broader Christianity about this issue, so I'm curious about which particular traditions (if any) teach that having evil desires does not necessarily mean that one is sinning. No doubt the answer to this question is especially related to this question: "Would it have been possible for Jesus to sin?", with particular regard to the question of whether Jesus had evil desires (I don't think he did).


texts: Why were Saints risen after the death of Jesus?

texts:
In Matthew Chapter 27, Verses 52-53 King James,

  And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the Saints which slept
  arose (53) And came out of the graves after His resurrection, and went
  into the holy city, and appeared unto many.

This is all given about the subject, since none of the other gospels mention this event. Though I know it wasn't a sort of soul sleep, it still confuses me on why they rose from the grave. Does anyone know?


texts: Is the Catholic declaration of an extra biblical saint infallible?

texts: Is the canonization of a person not found in the Bible (for example, Thomas Aquinas) an infallible decision? By this I mean that their sainthood can never be denied by any of the faithful without meaning a break with the Church's Magisterium.


texts: How do credo-baptists explain baptism in the Nicene Creed?

texts: How do credo-baptists explain "baptism for the remission of sins" in the Nicene Creed? Is this phrase interpreted in some way as being symbolic?


texts: What are the protestant arguments against a sacramental economy?

texts:
Given that all the 7 sacraments (Baptism, Confirmation, Holy Eucharist, Marriage, Holy Orders Anointing of the Sick and Reconciliation) are each explicitly mentioned in the Bible as commands put forth by Christ and/or practiced by the apostles and established in the earliest traditions of the Church.  On what grounds did early protestant reformers decide that participation in the seven sacraments weren't essential in forming, guiding and preserving the Church?

Definition of sacramental economy from Catholic Catechism CCC 1076


texts: What guidance has Scripture or church fathers offered on how to deal with sacred objects of other religions?

texts: I've heard of a case of a Christian tearing up a prayer booklet of another religion in a somewhat violent manner.  Is this action in tune with Christian tradition or conflict with any biblical edicts?


texts: What is the biblical basis for valuing virginity, but dispensing with levirate marriage?

texts:
Throughout scripture, marriage practices were a very complicated system. Because women did not have many rights and were unable to own property. As a result, levirate marriage established a system in which women's social security as they aged was protected by ensuring that they had heirs to which to pass their estate and children to care for them in their old age.

Under this system, typically, it was the responsibility of a widow's brother-in-law to marry the widow in the event of her husband's passing before leaving her with an heir as outlined in Deuteronomy 25:5-6. This is seen in the story of Judah and Tamar and complications arising from this tradition are seen in the story of Ruth.

Similarly, the bride-price or dowry was intended to compensate a family and a father for the loss of a worker in agragarian society as well as ensure that in the event of a divorce, a woman would have some recompense upon rejoining her family. This-bride price also had a ripple effect within the familial-social system by allowing a family to use the bride-price received from marrying off a daughter in order to allow a son to find a bride.

One component of this was the virginity of the bride-to-be. Exodus 22:16–17 and Deuteronomy 22:28–29 indicate that if a woman loses her virginity before marriage, she may no longer be able to fetch the bride-price as a result and these verses provide for economic recompense in these situations.

In modern Western culture, we no longer maintain these practices or arranged marriages and purchasing of virginity as they are considered barbaric. Since women are no longer treated as property and have equal rights to men, this is considered a barbaric relic. Despite dispensing with all of the other components of the levirate marriage complex, one component that remains in western culture is the idea that sex before marriage is still un-Biblical today, while the other components of levirate marriage do not enjoy an equal status or treatment. This belief may be more influenced by the virtuization of the virginity of Mary, but what is the Biblical basis for dispensing with Levirate Marriage Customs but not the interlocking requirement of virginity before marriage in Western culture


texts: How are eschatological beliefs distinguished in the Evangelical churches?

texts:
"Pre-tribulation," "post-tribulation," "millennial," and "dispensationalist" are all terms that I've heard used to describe certain eschatological beliefs held by groups of mainstream Evangelicals (among other denominations). The problem is, I don't know what most of these terms mean, or how those who name, develop, or study them categorize these different beliefs about the end-times.

What is an overview of common ways in which eschatological beliefs are distinguished within the Evangelical churches?


texts: Praise and Worship, what is the difference?

texts:
What does "praise" look like?  How does it differ from "worship"?

We are urged/called to/commanded to praise God (psalms 146:1 and others), but what is it and what does it look like?

Romans 12:1-2 states: I appeal to you therefore, brothers,by the mercies of God, to present your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God, which is your spiritual worship.(ESV)


texts: Can we truly know anything about God's character?

texts:
I've seen a few people casually write about how they know God's character—the features and traits that make up His person or existence—yet I've always been taught the opposite (that we can't possibly comprehend his true nature), and upon thinking about it myself I don't see how anyone can really claim otherwise. Yes, we have the Bible, but the Bible only suggests how God wants us to see him as; it does not necessarily show how He truly is. God is the totality of everything; His awesome magnificence is beyond everything our puny minds can comprehend. I find it an insult to God to suggest that we can begin to define him. Specifically, to attribute characteristics to God is to say He is one thing but not another, which in effect is trying to make God human. I like to think of God as more complete than the universe itself, not some bearded guy in the clouds; something that cannot be named or defined, shaped or molded by mere words.

I would say this is a common view in my area (Boston, MA, USA). Are we just a minority who thinks this way? Can we really know anything about God's character?

Note: To be clear, you can use Biblical sources but I'm not sure they will be of great use here; even if the Bible was written directly by God, we could never really prove that it was more than what He wanted us to think about him, rather than how He really is. This is more of a philosophical question pertaining to epistemology — the source and scope of knowledge in general. In theory, it could be placed in Philosophy.SE, but being about the Christian God it's certainly relevant here, and also I'm particularly interested in what other Christian's have to say on this topic, and why they might think they can conclude anything certain about the nature of God's character.


texts: Is the Catholic Magesterium in favor of hard liquor prohibition?

texts:
As long as I've been a fairly globally aware Catholic, I'd always projected G.K. Chesterton's

  We should thank God for Beer and Burgundy by not drinking too much of them

as a universal maxim enjoyed by the whole church towards temperance, but not "extreme temperance".  But this article in the National Catholic Register struck me as odd.  Apparently Bishops in India are lobbying against all sales of hard liquor, and winning (probably because of the combined support of Islam against all alcohol?).

I wasn't aware that there was anything eviler in rum than in wine or beer.  But is this just a local cause for a local purpose or, given the opportunity would Bishops everywhere be likely to oppose the sale of hard liquor?


texts: What is the Biblical basis for saying that we won't have a second chance to be saved after we die?

texts:
A commonly held belief is that people need to accept Jesus as Lord during their lifetime on Earth and failing to do so will result in the individual's damnation. Is there any support for this "last call" doctrine?

Since there is life after death, I have wondered if people will have an opportunity to make a decision for Jesus after their death. Is there any support for this "second chance" idea? I have tried to study it and have not able to find anything in the bible that would contradict this idea that we can still make a decision for Christ after this life.


texts: Did Jesus and the repentant thief reunite in heaven on the very day they died?(Catholic view)

texts:
The reading of Luke 23:43 differs depending on how we punctuate it:

  And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, Today shalt thou be with me in paradise.

Or

  And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee today, shalt thou be with me in paradise.

It seems that in fact the repentant thief was granted salvation by Jesus Christ but does not seem possible that before sundown on Nisan 14 both Jesus and the thief were together in heaven since after Jesus resurection he told Mary Magdalene "I have not yet ascended...."

Does the Catholic Church teach that Jesus and the repentant thief were resurrected to heaven on the same day they died?


texts: Luke 16:19-31—Is the rich man in Hell or Purgatory?

texts:
Luke 16:19-31 (NASB)
Now there was a rich man, and he habitually dressed in purple and fine linen, joyously living in splendor every day. And a poor man named Lazarus was laid at his gate, covered with sores, and longing to be fed with the crumbs which were falling from the rich man’s table; besides, even the dogs were coming and licking his sores. Now the poor man died and was carried away by the angels to Abraham’s bosom; and the rich man also died and was buried. In Hades he lifted up his eyes, being in torment, and saw Abraham far away and Lazarus in his bosom. And he cried out and said, ‘Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus so that he may dip the tip of his finger in water and cool off my tongue, for I am in agony in this flame.’ But Abraham said, ‘Child, remember that during your life you received your good things, and likewise Lazarus bad things; but now he is being comforted here, and you are in agony. And besides all this, between us and you there is a great chasm fixed, so that those who wish to come over from here to you will not be able, and that none may cross over from there to us.’ And he said, ‘Then I beg you, father, that you send him to my father’s house—for I have five brothers—in order that he may warn them, so that they will not also come to this place of torment.’ But Abraham said, ‘They have Moses and the Prophets; let them hear them.’ But he said, ‘No, father Abraham, but if someone goes to them from the dead, they will repent!’ But he said to him, ‘If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be persuaded even if someone rises from the dead.’”

Question: Could it be that the rich man was in Purgatory, and not Hell?
The rich man had compassion for his brothers. This does not seem likely if he were in Hell. If the rich man in Luke 16 is in Hell (and Lazarus in the bosom of Abraham, waiting for the Christ to release him to Heaven) why would he, the rich man,  try to keep his brothers from going to where he is?
In Hell they want everyone to die, not live, I believe. Could this mean that the rich  man was in Purgatory instead?


texts:
I heard this from a Catholic friend of mine: He said, in explaining where Orthodoxy is coming from, that because St. Andrew told his brother Simon about Jesus, he's the real leader of the church and hence the Church which claims its succession from Andrew is the true Church and since that Church is the Orthodox Church, they're the real deal.

Is this 3rd hand, 3rd grade articulation of the origins of Eastern Orthodox apostolic succession and legitimacy even close to what they actually believe?


texts:
We see at Genesis 3:1

"Now the serpent was more crafty than any other wild animal that the Lord God had made."

We go on to read at Gen 3: 14:

"The Lord God said to the serpent, “Because you have done this, cursed are you among all animals and among all wild creatures....".

We come across the first mention of the name of Devil in the Old Testament at Wisdom 2:24 :

" but through the devil’s envy death entered the world, and those who belong to his company experience it."

One wonders whether the Devil pre-existed human beings, or whether he was  a creation of the sins of mankind. What do the scripture-based teachings  of Catholic Church say about the origin and development of Devil .


texts:
What is the biblical defence used by Anglicans to appoint female vicars/bishops?

I thought the Bible was explicitly clear:

  1 Timothy 2:12
  I do not permit a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man; she is to remain quiet.

  1 Corinthians 14:34-35
  34 Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law.
  35 And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.


texts: What is the Catholic Church's stance on baptism after death?

texts:
This came up in a discussion. What is Rome's opinion on baptism after death, or more generally, baptism when a body is not available?

We were both pretty sure that the Catholic Church would say such a practice is heretical but we don't know why.

In the opinion of the Catholic Church, is baptism after death permissible? If not, why?

There is a Wikipedia article on baptism for the dead but it's understandably oriented toward the LDS practice and doesn't go into depth on the Catholic opinion on this subject.


texts: Where Catholicism lost influence and property during the reformation,  what did Luther think should be done with the acquired assets?

texts: As a man protesting against the mass of wealth accumulated by the Pope I was wondering what Luther proposed to do with all the lands and endowments obtained in those regions where the Catholic church lost her influence and ownership of various assets. Also what about the nuns and monks still living in those properties formerly owned by the Catholic church? What did Luther think should be done with them?


texts: What is LDS policy/teaching on not taking God's name in vain in languages where it is extremely common?

texts:
Latter-day Saints, like many Christians, are encouraged to not use phrases like "Oh my God!" because they are seen as violations of the commandment to not take the name of God "in vain." However, in some languages (e.g. Arabic), God's name appears frequently in common phrases and is not considered offensive by most. Has an LDS leader ever commented on the application of this commandment in other cultural contexts? Has an exception ever been made for cultures, like Arab culture, where it is so common?

(I am asking this in an LDS context specifically, although I understand this issue is applicable more broadly as well.)


texts: What's the evangelical take on "Tebowing" and genuflection

texts:
I recently read this blog post from a Catholic blogger who shed some light on the ancient history and purpose of genuflection.

  While striking his pose, Tebow is praying, and I don't believe any person objects to that.  But what is clear is his use of an ancient Catholic practice—genuflection, which is done before Christ in the Eucharist—and only then. For a religion that has no history, no scriptures other than the expropriated scriptures of the Catholic Church, and no sense of sacred and profane, the barrowing (sic) of the gesture becomes fair game.

I don't think the author would have any reason to know much about when Evangelicals do genuflect or if genuflection is even what they'd call it. I'd imagine Tim Tebow is just "taking a knee" and praying like we did in my public high school before a game. But is there any circumstances where an Evangelical Christian would have reason to genuflect or is this just a quick aspiration to the Holy Spirit?

In other words, what is he doing and why is he doing it?


texts: What significance did the "heart" possess in the ancient cultures contemporary with the biblical era?

texts:
I've had as hard a time with the concept of the heart as I've had with the concept of the soul.  Currently I am thinking the heart is a reference to what your goals are and what you direct your attention to. However, I am not sure.

What does the Bible mean when it refers to the word "heart"? Did they only use it in the sense of a four-chambered organ that circulates blood throughout the body, or did they use it in other ways? How do emotions relate to it? How do thoughts relate to it? What other insight does the scripture provide with respect to the heart?


texts: Are Calvinism and Arminianism compatible?

texts:
This question may seem ridiculous at first glance, but bear with me... As I learn more about Calvinism and Arminianism I am struck with the notion that they are each based on Scripture, and each emphasize important elements of the teachings of Scripture.

From what I understand, Calvinists believe that God has predestined some to Paradise and some to Hell; They believe that functionally the blood of Christ will only cleanse those who are in Christ; They believe that it is impossible for a man to prevent God from doing what He has purposed to do; They believe that those who are predestined for Paradise will most certainly arrive in Paradise.
From what I understand, Arminians believe that God predestines some to Paradise, but His decision is based on foreknowledge of something about that person; They believe that Christ died to provide salvation to anyone and everyone, if they will accept it; They believe that man can choose to reject the grace of God; They believe that those who come to Christ have a responsibility to continue in faith or they will no longer be "in Christ".
Both believe that we are all messed up from birth and unable to choose to do good aside from God's intervention.

My question is: Are these two views really incompatible?

Frankly, I think I believe all of the things listed above. Is it possible that both doctrines are rooted in Scripture and each camp could grow in their understanding by learning from teachers on "the other side of the table"? Or, is there something fundamentally incompatible about these two views that extends beyond semantics and strawman arguments?

Please stick with the standard, classical views, and avoid discussions about "hyper-Calvinism" and other fringe interpretations of these two doctrines.

Also, please let me know if I have misrepresented the views of either camp.


texts: According to the Roman Catholic church, who can baptize a new believer?

texts:
As far as I remember, there is no rule in the Bible as to who can baptize a new believer. However, I'm almost certain that sometime in the early history of the Roman Catholic church, someone or some group of people decided on some rule, such as being a pastor. Or, perhaps they instead decided that anyone could baptize a new believer. I don't know, so I'm asking: according to the Roman Catholic church, who can baptize a new believer?

Related: In general, in the Protestant branch, who can baptize a new believer?


texts: Were celebrations for the 400th Anniversary of the Reformation held in Germany during World War I?

texts:
The 400th anniversary of Luther posting his 95 Theses was October 31, 1917. At this point, Germany was suffering heavy losses in World War I, and the war would continue until November 11th of the following year.

Were celebrations for the 400th anniversary held in Germany during World War I?


texts: Does the Orthodox Church accept Gay marriage and why?

texts:
Some say that it is "okay" some say that it is not, but these are just opinions.
What does the Orthodox Church thing about that, and how do they deal with it?


texts: Does Roman Catholic doctrine recognize a moral distinction or difference between abortion and birth control?

texts: Understanding that birth control is renounced in Catholic doctrine, is there a sense that abortion is weightier because in involves the death of a person in addition to the ethical problems Catholics recognize in birth control in general?


texts: What verse in the Bible talks about bad people preaching the gospel being a good thing?

texts:
Some time ago I read this verse about greedy people who announce the gospel because of their own greed, which is a bad thing, but it ends up that this is a good thing because more people will hear about Jesus.

I can't tell if the verse says exactly this, but I'm pretty sure that is something very likely. Can someone help me?


texts: How do those who believe that Jesus is a created being understand the verses which say everything that was created was created by him?

texts:
There are some people who claim that Jesus is a created being, but this claim is nowhere confirmed, rather the Bible says:

Everything became through the Word, and without the Word did not
become one that has become. (John 1:3)
From him and through him and for him are all things; to him be the
glory for ever and ever. Amen. (Romans 11:36)
Colossians 1:15-16 (NIV): The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him.

I mean, that's pretty obvious.
So if the Bible says that everything was created through him, how is it possible that he is a created being? Did he create himself?


texts: Why is beating one's breast used to show sadness and guilt?

texts:
According to the Cambridge Advanced Learner’s Dictionary & Thesaurus definition:

  Beat your breast/chestTo show how sad or guilty you feel in an obvious or public way

I understand what is meant by beating one's breast, but why is this the preferred way to express sadness and/or guilt? Apes beat their breasts also, but not with the same aim.

  Isaiah 32:12-13 (ESV)

  Beat your breasts for the pleasant fields, for the fruitful vine, for the soil of my people growing up in thorns and briers, yes, for all the joyous houses in the exultant city.

  Luke 18:13 (ESV)

  But the tax collector, standing far off, would not even lift up his eyes to heaven, but beat his breast, saying, ‘God, be merciful to me, a sinner!’

  Luke 23:48 (ESV)

  And all the crowds that had assembled for this spectacle, when they saw what had taken place, returned home beating their breasts.

(n.d.). Retrieved July 29, 2016, from http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/beat-your-breast-chest


texts:
In my Bible I discovered that the word “baptism” is not present in the Old Testament.
Was there a ceremony or practice that represented baptism before John the Baptist?


texts: Where did the idea of deacon's benches come from and what are they for?

texts:
A friend of mine is a few months from ordination to the permanent deaconate, I thought it'd be a fun project for the my Timberwolf troop to make him a Deacon's Bench.  But is that something deacon's typically have or is the whole idea of a deacon's bench just a wide bench that a couple of deacons can sit on in the sanctuary of a church during Mass (or do deacons often have butts that wide?)? And hence, kind of a pointless things to give a deacon.

Also, is it a more properly called a deacons' bench?

Pintrest link
 for people who might want to look at some wide benches.


texts: What is the significance of a church being "consecrated"?

texts:
Related to this question. I've split it into two questions because I didn't want to ask too much in one go.

My local parish church has a sign out the front which says "Australia's oldest consecrated church". That got me wondering, "what's consecration all about?"

If a church is consecrated, does that mean that it has been sanctified? ie has it become a holy site? Does it mean that God dwells inside the church in some special sense (Aside from the Eucharistic presence in the tabernacle)? Perhaps it is invalid or illicit to celebrate mass in a church that has not been consecrated, and therefore the consecration is essential? Perhaps the consecration is optional and is more like a "good luck blessing" which is just a nice-to-have. Does anything about the building actually change (on a spiritual level or otherwise)?

My main question: What is the purpose and significance of consecrating a Catholic church?


texts: Why are some words of Jesus in Aramaic transliterated in the Gospels of Mark?

texts:
There are a few instances in the Gospels where the words originally spoken by Jesus are transliterated . For instance, we see at Mark 5:41 ;" He took her by the hand and said to her, “Talitha koum!” (which means “Little girl, I say to you, get up!”).    We also see at Mark 15:34: " At three o’clock Jesus cried out with a loud voice, “Eloi, Eloi, lema sabachthani?” which means, “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?”

One would be  curious to know as to why only a few original  words of Jesus in Aramaic are transliterated in  the Gospel . Did  evangelist Mark intend to give certain emphasis by quoting the original words ? What is the Catholic Church's teaching on this topic ?


texts: How do opponents respond to the Grace Gambit?

texts:
You might be familiar with Pascal's Wager, also known as Pascal's Gambit. It states that one is best off believing in Christianity, because, if it is true, you'll be saved and go to heaven, and if it is not true, it has still led you a decent life of moral behavior.
As Pascal said, "If you win, you win everything, if you lose, you lose nothing" - i.e, if you're right, you get eternal life, if you're wrong, you only sustain (if any) temporary injuries.
I personally disagree with this wager, but I thought of a related gambit that addresses those that believe in a pseudo-works salvation. It is as follows:

If you are saved by grace, you should want to serve God as heartily
and fully as possible, loving him and your neighbor and doing good
works. If we assume that, if salvation is not by grace, that it is by
works, than you are best off believing in grace in the first place, as
it will fuel you to do good works, and if it turns out to be wrong,
you'll still most probably get into heaven given the amount of good
you've done.

This goes for any degree of human participation, be it a light view of faith/works salvation or a full-fledged Pelagian view of salvation by works.
My question is, how would those that this gambit addresses respond to it? Catholics, Arminians (sort of), Pelagians, any who hold to any degree of human participation of works to salvation, how would you respond to this logic, both biblically and logically?
In sum, why not believe in salvation by grace? It'll fuel you to do good works, and if you're right, you'll be saved. If you're wrong, and salvation is by works, no sweat! You've already done all those good works as a result of grace anyways, so you'll be saved that way too.


texts: What is the point of Jesus' crucifixion?

texts:
I'd like to obtain moral, not faith explanation - In the story about Jesus' crucifixion: how can it be considered moral that God allowed or destined the unjustified murder of His own son?

If the reason for Jesus' death was to satisfy his fathers' anger or rule, wouldn't the moral thing be for the father just calm down or change his mind? He did this before: Genesis 18,20-32. And Paul explains that love should prevail: Corinthians 13.

If the whole story was just a "game" or dramatic way to make people think about their sin and need for God, that is, the father knew that Jesus will just experience human dying, but won't be really sacrificed - I mean cease to exist - is that moral to use his own son in this way?

If Jesus opened the way to salvation for non-Jews somehow, is it moral to achieve such a desired end in such a sadistic way? It is hard to believe the thought behind: a kill will be better than love.

Or is there any other explanation how such a deed could be moral?


texts: Why did Virgin Mary call herself the servant of the Lord?

texts:
We see at Luke 1:38 the response of Virgin Mary to the Angel Gabriel  "Here am I, the servant of the Lord; let it be with me according to your word."

One wonders why Mary called herself the servant of the Lord. She could have very well said "daughter of the Lord". Is it that she was hinting at a total turn in her life that she had not been prepared for, before the Annunciation and something which only  a servant could have meekly accepted?

My question therefore, is: How does the Catholic Church explain the nuances of the attribute "servant of the Lord" that  Virgin Mary used for herself?


texts: Revelation 1:8 declares that Jesus Christ is God Almighty, on what Biblical basis do the Jehovah Witnesses deny this declaration?

texts:
We read at Revelation 1:4, "John to the seven churches that are in Asia; Grace to you and peace, FROM HIM who is and who was and who is to come; and from the seven Spirits who are before HIS throne," So who is the "HIM" and who is the "HIS" in this verse? The eternal God.
Verse 5, "and from Jesus Christ, the faithful witness, the first-born of the dead, and the ruler of the kings of the earth. To Him who loves us and released us from our sins by His blood." From this verse it is obviously Jesus Christ.
At verse 6 where He/Jesus Christ has made us to be a kingdom, priests to His God and Father was one of the reasons Jesus incarnated as a man. He not only released us from our sins by His blood, (vs5) but He also (as a man) presented us to His God and His Father.
Verse 7, "Behold, He is coming, with the clouds, and every eye will see Him, even those who pierced Him, and all the tribes of the earth will mourn over Him. Even so, Amen.
Remember, at verse 4, I stated the "Him" is the eternal God. You cannot assume it's the Father because the Father does not qualify as coming in the clouds and because you cannot see the person of God the Father.
Revelation 1:8, "I am the Alpha and the Omega," says the Lord God, who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty."
Verse 17, "And when I saw Him, (saw who?) I fell at His feet as a dead man. And He laid His right hand upon me, saying, "Do not be afraid, I am the first and the last, vs18, and the living One, and I was dead, and behold, I am alive forevermore, and I have the keys of death and Hades."
Since we know the various text identify Jesus Christ as coming in the clouds, and every eye will see Him (vs8) He must be "God Almighty" and not just a "mighty" god as the Jehovah Witnesses teach. Revelation 22:12-13 also confirms that Jesus Christ is both the Alpha and Omega and the first and the last, the beginning and the end."
The Apostle John closes out the book of Revelation at verses 20, "He who testifies to these things says, "Yes, I am coming quickly." Amen, COME LORD JESUS.
I'm going to add some new information from the jw.org site by quoting the following:

While Jesus Christ is referred to in the previous verse as “coming with the clouds,” the words of Revelation 1:8 and the surrounding verses show that he could not be “the Alpha and the Omega.” In the Scriptures, only the Father of the Lord Jesus Christ is spoken of as “the Lord God” and as the “Almighty.”

Please note in this statement that, only the Father" of the Lord Jesus Christ is spoken of in Revelation 1:8. This is an "assumption" on their part. The word "Father" nowhere appears in Revelation 1:8.
At verse 4 it specifically says, "Grace to you and peace, from HIM who is and who was and is to come." verse 5, and from Jesus Christ etc. As I stated the "HIM" is the eternal God who is God Almighty. I think the following example of what I mean can be explained from Genesis 1:26-27.
Verse 26, "The God said," notice it does not refer to any particular person. It then says, "Let US make man in OUR image." Whatever argument that can be made regarding who the "Us" and the "Our" is really beside the point, why?
Genesis 1:27, "And God created man in "His" own image, in the image of God "He" created him; male and female He created them." In this verse the "His" and the "He" refers to God, and only God, not some specific person.
The same is true at Revelation 1:4, "Grace and peace from "HIM" who is and who was and who is to come; and from the seven Spirits who are before "HIS" throne;" Revelation 4:8-10 identifies the Lord God, the Almighty is on the throne.


texts: What is the biblical basis for commemorating the birth of Jesus?

texts:
For many Christian denominations, Christmas is the highest holiday of the year.
What is the biblical basis for commemorating/celebrating the birth of Jesus, regardless of the particular day of the year on which it is celebrated?


texts: Many of the Psalms feature the word "selah" which as I understand is a musical or liturgical term.  When the Psalms are read aloud, how should selah be uttered?  I've heard it both said aloud, or left as a pause for empahsis.


texts:
How many commandments in the New Testament are in the imperative in the Greek?

I ask this, because I came across a Christian book that says, there are over 1,000 commandments in the New Testament, but when someone checked each of the so-called commandments, he found that not all the underlying text is in the imperative in the Greek. Perhaps another question is, does it have to be in the imperative in the Greek, why or why not, before a commandment can be designated as a commandment in the New Testament?


texts: Were some parts of the law abolished or "not one jot will by any means pass from the law"?

texts:
Were some parts of the law cancelled or the whole law in its completeness should continue untill the heaven and the earth disappear?

Some parts of the New Testament clearly state that some portions of the law have been abolished with the death, resurrection and ascension of Christ (see examples in the end of this question). How does it go along with the following words of the Savior:

  I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the
  smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means
  disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished (Matthew 5:18 AKJV)

Examples of some portions of the law that are pronounced as cancelled in the New Testament:

Circumcision:

  For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision avails any thing, nor
  uncircumcision, but a new creature (Gal. 6:15 AKJV)

Sacrifices:

  7:11"If therefore perfection were by the Levitical priesthood, (for under
  it the people received the law,) what further need [was there then]
  that another priest should rise after the order of Melchisedec, and
  not be called after the order of Aaron?

  ...

  15[yet] there arises another
  Priest,

  16who is made not after the law of a carnal commandment, but
  after the power of an endless life

  ...

  18For there is verily a
  disannulling of the commandment going before for its weakness and
  unprofitableness.

  19For the law made nothing perfect, but the bringing
  in of a better hope [did]; by which we draw nigh unto God

  ...

  28For the
  law makes men high priests which have infirmity; but the word of the
  oath, which was since the law, [makes] the Son, who is consecrated for
  ever

  ...

  8:6[He] has obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also
  He is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon
  better promises.

  7For if that first [covenant] had been faultless, then
  should no place have been sought for the second.

  8For finding fault
  with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I
  will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house
  of Judah

  ...

  13In that he saith, A new [covenant], he hath made the first
  old. Now that which decays and waxes old [is] ready to vanish away

  ...

  10:1For the law having a shadow of good things to come, [and] not the very
  image of the things, can never with those sacrifices which they
  offered year by year continually make the comers thereunto perfect.

  2For then would they not have ceased to be offered? because that the
  worshipers once purged should have had no more conscience of sins.

  3But
  in those [sacrifices there is] a remembrance again [made] of sins
  every year.

  4For [it is] not possible that the blood of bulls and of
  goats should take away sins

  ...

  14by one offering He has perfected
  for ever them that are sanctified"  (Heb. 7:11, 15-16, 18-19, 28,
  8:6-8, 13, 10:1-4, 14 AKJV)


texts: According to Jesus in the New Testament, where by name are the three places one ought to worship God?

texts: Someone in The New Testament mentions two places where one ought to worship God. Jesus says that in the Messianic Era neither place will be where one ought to worship God. Which are these two places by name, and—according to Jesus in the New Testament—where will be the one place by name where the true worshipers will worship God in the Messianic Era?


texts: Why is there no archaeological evidence that Christians existed for 200 years after 70 AD?

texts:
This is from the 2/1/2018 issue of Biblical Archaeology Society:

...For almost two hundred years after the crucifixion, Roman cities are entirely devoid of any trace of early Christians; to date, no one has ever found any object that’s been plausibly connected to them. As an archaeologist and a historian, I think it’s time we start taking this silence seriously and stop trying to fill it with any more sensational “discoveries.” Many of Jesus’ followers—men and women who lived in the first, second and even third century Roman Mediterranean—simply didn’t want to be found.
That’s not exactly the first thing that usually comes to mind when we think about early Christians, but the evidence is insurmountable at this point. For almost four hundred years, there were no manger scenes anywhere in the Roman world. There were no crucifixes displayed in homes or schools. There weren’t even any bound Bibles tucked into church pews. In fact, we actually don’t even know what “churches” looked like, at least, not until the middle of the third century. For a community that would later come to remember its earliest history as a time of vicious persecution, answered with outspoken acts of martyrdom, this archaeological silence poses a slight problem. Where are these people?...


texts: What denominations/people don't take Genesis 1 as a historical event and why?

texts:
I read somewhere here on Christianity.SE that the Genesis 1 is not taken literally by some people and considered more like a parable than a real historical event ?

So what Christian denominations don't take Genesis 1 as a historical event, if there are any ?

And why people take it as a parable/metaphor ? and is it just Genesis 1 ?


texts: If marriage is not a sacrament, why should Christians care how the civil authorities define it?

texts: The reformers rejected the sacrament of marriage and turned marriage over to the civil authorities. (I understand that reformation churches even stopped conducting weddings for a few centuries.) Today, many Christians object to how the civil authorities are redefining marriage. But if marriage is under the purview of the civil authorities, how can this be a valid objection? Should churches take marriage back from the civil authorities?


texts: Do Christians believe that more sinful people suffer more on Earth?

texts: I wonder what Christian groups believe that more sinful people suffer more on Earth due to God's punishment?