texts: Are there non-medical miracles that can get a person beatified/canonized?

texts:
It seems like every miracle that is used in the case for beatification in the Catholic Church has to do with some sickness being prayed for and its miraculous cure.  But it seems to me that there are a lot of other things that could have miraculous explanations.  There have been miracles where a sack of money shows up unexpectedly or an inexplicable staircase is inexplicably built.  But these don't seem to be the kinds of miracles that can get someone canonized and making the sun dance is a miracle, but almost too big a thing for one person to be recognized as the intercessor.

Are there any other sorts of miracles that can get someone canonized, or do they have to be medical in nature nowadays?


texts: Are we the result of God's permissive will?

texts:
After listening to this and learning more about the will of God I'd like to ask the above question.

  The active will of God regards what is in perfect accord with the
  perfect goodness and the order established by God. For instance, the
  active will of God would be that Adam and Eve remain perfectly
  obedient to Him, and never have sinned. source

Now we can say everyone was born not in a way God has intended. We can see this clearly in remarried couples. God didn't want them to get divorced and re-marry and have kids in different marriages. And we can basically always find something with everyone's life and come to a conclusion that our lives aren't the result of his perfect will. According to his perfect will we were meant to live in paradise and be children of who knows what parents or even if we were meant to exist(but let's say yes)... But instead, we live in a sinful world and born to a *family God has never intended but he allowed it through his permissive will. *by this I mean if things would go according to his perfect will our parents might have never met or whatever...

So my question is: Are we(humans in current state) according to the Catholic interpretation the result of God's permissive will rather than his perfect will? Is the world running only on God's permissive will since we don't live in paradise and that was his original plan? God only allows things to happen instead of willing them actively since his original plan was abolished by Adam and Eve.


texts: Percentage of Christians to hold pre- or post-tribulation view of rapture

texts: What percentage of all Christians, who believe in pre-millenial Rapture of the Church hold pre-tribulation, respectively post-tribulation view? As far as I know, majority of Christians hold pre-tribulation view. But can anybody tell the percentage?


texts:
I am wondering the following: In Genesis, 3.16, it is quite clear that God multiplies the pain of childbirth, in order to punish Eve (and all women) for eating the forbidden fruit.

So, yes, this explains that childbirth is a punishment for this sin Eve committed.

But then, Jesus dies for all sins of mankind, that is, all sins are forgiven.
He revoked a bunch of other stuff in the old testament (thou shall not eat shrimp).

However, if all sins are forgiven, why does childbirth still cause a lot of pain? Did Jesus forget this detail. Or is there another explanation?


texts: Did Augustine often complain that his contemporaries burdened the church with their traditions?

texts:
In Martin Luther's Table Talk we find:

  Augustine was the ablest and purest of all the doctors, but he could not of himself bring back things to their original condition, and he often complains that the bishops, with their traditions and ordinances, troubled the church more than did the Jews with their laws.

Is this true? If so, where can it be found in Augustine's own writings?


texts: According to the Catholic Church, will people be able to have private conversations with God at any time in Heaven?

texts:
Every now and then, I say to myself, "I'll have to ask God about this when I get to Heaven."

My Question:

According to the Catholic Church, will it be possible to ask such questions once we're in Heaven?

Specifically,

Did Jesus (or anyone in the Bible) ever talk about the nature of our interactions with God in Heaven?
Can humans have a private conversation with God in Heaven whenever they want?
Or do they need to schedule an appointment and wait?
Or do we talk to God through prayer, much like we do on Earth?

I'm especially interested in Biblical support for any answer.


texts:
When and why did the Catholic Church stop the Crusades?

Was there a specific reason why they stopped? Or were they no longer necessary at some point in time?


texts: What does 'ages of ages' mean, specifically?

texts: I run into this phrase a lot in the Orthodox church, particularly as part of the longer phrase 'and unto ages of ages'. I understand that, generally, this means 'for a long time'. However, what does it mean specifically? Where did the phrase come from and what is its history? Thanks!


texts:
I will start by describing some methods (and what I dislike about them) for studying the Bible.

Then, I will describe the method I would like to use to study the Bible.

Lastly, I will ask for supporting material for my idealized Bible study method.

What I have tried:

reading a fixed # of pages per day:

This worked well for a while (and read through the Bible a few times) based on this method -- but I ran into the problem of:

Old Testament was too slow
New Testament was too fast
did not get as much "theology" out of it

reading books / articles by reformed theologists

got a lot of theology out of it (yay)
did not like the fact that I was constantly jumping through verses in the Bible
feels "digested"

What I would like to try:

read a variable # of the pages of the Bible per day, and have supporting commentary that explains the main interesting theological points I should get out of the book/chapter/verse
this is something that is "like a concordance" but at a higher level. What I mean is as follows:

from a concordance, I get things likes: in this particular verse, the world foo means abc in the context ; in this particular verse, in the time/culture of when it was written, bar means def in the context
what I want is something like: this book contributes to developing the doctrine of predestination, verses XYZ relate to this, chapter ABC makes this point, etc ...

so I'm looking for something that is "systematic theology"-ish -- but I don't want to jump through verses of the Bible, I want something that develops systematic theology based on the order of the Bible
so I want something that is like:

in the Book of Genesis, we develop the following theological points

point 1 is developed in chapters A, B, C
point 2 is developed in chapters D, E, F

then, I go off and read the book of Genesis, and reference this supplementary material for the theological points

What is the closest thing that exists?

EDIT: This may be what I want :-)


texts: Jehovah's Witnesses and Shunning Reconciled with New Testament

texts:
Jehovah's Witnesses shun people who fall foul of scriptural law,

  Jehovah’s Witness kids grow up knowing that if they ever mess up, their parents will leave them — and that’s scary (quote from person interviewed in link above)

and looking at what I believe are scriptural reasons for shunning, they seem to be from the following

Proverbs 4:15

  Shun it, do not take it;Turn away from it, and pass it by. (NWT)

Job 2:3

  And Jehovah said to Satan: “Have you taken note of my servant Job? There is no one like him on the earth. He is an upright man of integrity, fearing God and shunning what is bad. He is still holding firmly to his integrity, even though you try to incite me against him to destroy him for no reason.” (NWT)(Job said "It is unthinkable for me to declare you men righteous! Until I die, I will not renounce my integrity!" - Job 27:5 - NWT)

but how can Jehovah's Witnesses reconcile shunning in the manner prescribed by the organisation with Matthew 7:1

  “Stop judging that you may not be judged; (NWT)
  Do not judge, or you too will be judge (NIV)

Romans 12:17-19

  17 Return evil for evil to no one. Take into consideration what is fine from the viewpoint of all men.18 If possible, as far as it depends on you, be peaceable with all men.19 Do not avenge yourselves, beloved, but yield place to the wrath; for it is written: “‘Vengeance is mine; I will repay,’ says Jehovah.” (NWT)

and

  You must love your neighbor as yourself. - Matthew 22:39-40, Romans 13:9, Galatians 5:14 & James 2:8

Plus, should you not be trying to stear them back to the correct way?


texts: Looking for a Copy (Preferably PDF) of ``On the Visible Monarchy'' by Rev. Nicholas Sanders, D.D

texts:
I have been reading a book from the Library of St. Francis de Sales entitled ``The Catholic Controversy.''
https://archive.org/details/catholiccontrove00sain
In it, he makes mention of and references on several occasions a book written by the Rev. Nicholas Sanders, D.D. entitled ``On the Visible Monarchy.''
I have never been able to locate a copy of this book, though another work of his ``The Rise and Growth of the Anglican Schism'' is readily available online.
Would anyone know where I can obtain a copy (preferably PDF) of Sanders' ``Visible Monarchy'' book?
Thank you.


texts: What is the Evangelical Christian argument against Rob Bell?

texts:
I was surprised to read the comments on this meta question1 about Rob Bell. I don't know much about him (except I watched some of the NOOMA films).

What is the Evangelical Christian problem with him? Why has he been called "heretical"?

1 I fully appreciate the irony of the question, in light of the meta question.


texts: Why is "elohim" translated as "God" and not "gods"?

texts:
I was looking at the Holman Christian Standard Bible and I saw that Elohim is plural. Were it to be translated plural it would read something like:

  "In the beginning, gods created the heavens and the earth."

But our English translations all show that "God" created the heavens and the earth, not "gods".

This made me think of a later passage in Genesis (same chapter, though):

  Genesis 1:26 (NIV) (emphasis obviously added)
  Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals, and over all the creatures that move along the ground.”

In both the NIV and HCSB translations, Elohim (plural) says "Let us" in the English translation.

I can't imagine that the entire translation of "God" throughout the bible has been wrong for thousands of years.  Yet, the word is plural!!

Why is the plural "elohim" translated as the singular "God"?


texts:
Mathew 19 : 16 - 24

16 And, behold, one came and said unto him, Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life?
17 And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good?  there is none good but one, that is, God:  but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.
18 He saith unto him, Which?  Jesus said, Thou shalt do no murder, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness,
19 Honour thy father and thy mother:  and, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
20 The young man saith unto him, All these things have I kept from my youth up:  what lack I yet?
21 Jesus said unto him, If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven:  and come and follow me.
22 But when the young man heard that saying, he went away sorrowful:  for he had great possessions.
23 Then said Jesus unto his disciples, Verily I say unto you, That a rich man shall hardly enter into the kingdom of heaven.
24 And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.

This bible passage has really got me confused. Does this mean that Jesus condemns wealth and it is not good to be rich?.


texts: Can somebody summarize the different "branches" of Christianity to me, and explain why they exist in the first place?

texts:
All my life, I've been massively confused about how there exists separate, seemingly incompatible and separate, "branches" of Christianity. I know about "protestant", "catholic" and then there's something else in the "main three" which I probably "should know" by heart but I simply don't. And then there's also things like Mormons ("Latter Day Saints") and many other minor "variants".

I find Wikipedia and all other websites to be utterly exhausting to try to browse. They seem to always assume that you know most of what you're reading about, instead of having basically no knowledge and wanting to hear the most important elements of each "flavour" and preferably a short summary of why they are separate in the first place.

It would be much simpler if there were just "Christians", "Muslims", "Jews", etc., but it's apparently not enough to be "Christian", because all the different groups of Christians will not approve of you unless you use their "variant". At least that's how I perceive things and how they must logically be if they are different branches. I mean, why would they exist if they all agreed to the same stuff anyway?

Some (a lot, in fact) even say that Jesus was a Jew and thus Christianity in itself is branched out from Judaism? That seems like an important fact if true. It makes Christianity as a whole just some kind of "expansion pack" to the "main software product", to speak in computer jargon.

I'm really just trying to get an overview by asking this question. If such a thing can be had. I find that the more basic my questions are, the more vague are the answers.

In fact, I have never heard of any Christians who refer to the "protestant Bible" or "catholic Bible" -- it's always just "the Bible" (by which they mean the old and the new testaments combined, I assume) or "the good book" or "the holy word". Does the Bible in itself talk about and name these branches, or were they created much later, long after the Bible had been finished and spread?

I also know that the Mormons have another "testament" added to the first two, but that's just about it. And I know there's a stereotype about Catholics making a lot of children, but that also seems to be a common cliché for Mormons as well. That's just about all I know, amazingly. (It's why I ask.)


texts: Are crucifixes used in Protestant churches in Germany?

texts:
I want to know if Protestant churches and chapels in Germany have crucifixes with Jesus depicted on them, or just empty crosses.

Correct me if I am mistaken, because I am ignorant of christian theology and practice: a cross is not an object of worship, and is preferred by many Protestants because it is not an "idol", whereas a crucifix is considered by many Protestants to be an idol, and is therefore objectionable.

I am asking all this because someone wishes to visit a Protestant church/chapel in Southern Germany (Karlsbad), but objects to the presence of "idols".


texts: Does being a Christian mean being a Bible literalist?

texts:
Where are the lines for Bible literalism in the Christian faith? Are all aspects of the Bible treated with the same level of literal belief (as actual history), or are some parts considered to be stories that are simply provided to illustrate a principle (parables).

It would seem that as a Christian it would imply belief that Jesus is the Christ. Does that also imply belief in the story of Noah's Ark as literal history?


texts: What is the scientific effectiveness of "street preaching" as a method of evangelization?

texts:
I've been looking around for hard facts on the efficacy of street preaching but can't find any. Are there any hard numbers on the number of people who come to faith through this kind of evangelism? Has its efficacy changed over time? In Acts 2 Peter seems to use the same kind of technique with quite some effect. In my experience street preachers seem to be mostly met with either indifference or derision however that is entirely anecdotal.

So, scientifically, how effective is street preaching as a method evangelism?

Since I know of no studies I cannot define exactly what "efficacy" and other terms are in this instance, but I leave that to any studies if they exist.


texts: What is the Biblical basis for the Holy Spirit being God?

texts:
I know that Trinitarians believe that God exists as one God in three persons: God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit.
That God the Father is God is patently obvious from the entire Old Testament.
That God the Son is God is made forcefully in John, Colossians, and throughout the New Testament.
We also know that Jesus sent the Holy Spirit, but...
Where in the Bible does it say that the Holy Spirit is God?


texts: Authentic reasons to leave Roman Catholicism?

texts: What are some reasons the Roman Catholic Church would consider authentic reasons for leaving the Roman Catholicism for another community in the Church of Christ?


texts: What did the early Christian twice weekly fasts consist of?

texts:
Other than what is mentioned in the Didache regarding the days for fasting, what did early Christian "twice weekly fasts" consist of?  What I'd like to know more about is what they fasted from. For example:

Was it a total fast?
Water only?
Fasting from wine and food?

I would be grateful for any references that could be provided on this.


texts: How is the 'New Perspective on Paul' different from Catholicism with respect to good works?

texts:
Does both the views of the New Perspective on Paul and Catholicism define 'good works' similarly? What is the role of good works towards salvation according to these perspectives?

If there are different answers from the various New Perspective on Paul proponents then I am particularly interested in N. T. Wright's view.


texts: Late for Mass, can I still receive the Eucharist?

texts:
I got to Mass late yesterday (like at the start of the Homily during a weekday mass, so really only about 7 minutes - because of an unexpected detour) and I told my wife that we shouldn't go up for communion and she said that it wasn't our fault and I said nothing because you shouldn't talk at Mass, right?

But my kids heard us and were a bit perplexed. So, rather than not know something and live in ignorance, I'd like to know if there is a hard-and-fast rule for what the latest time one can arrive at Mass and still receive the Eucharist and if any circumstances might change that.  For instance, I'd imagine that people waiting for confession might not be fully engaged in the Liturgy and still be likely to receive Our Lord.  And if we have to take the kids out entirely, etc...


texts: What place do ritual and ceremony have in the church today? (Non-Liturgical POV)

texts:
Scripture, especially in the Old Testament, goes into great detail about the specific ways of doing certain worship-related things. For example, The ordination of Aaron is a highly ritualized procedure. The sacrifices are each a little different and are laid out as detailed rituals performed by priest and worshiper. Even the camp around the tabernacle was highly organized and only set out when the trumpets were blown a certain way.

Given the ceremonial aspect of all the rituals laid out in the Sinaitic law, the specific guidelines for priests and sacrifices, and the ceremonial and symbolic nature of communion and baptism, is there any biblical basis for rejecting ceremony and ritual? In the worship service, this would be a question for non-liturgical churches. For things like weddings and the like, please give biblical support for why the ceremony or ritual of the wedding service itself would be considered unnecessary.


texts: What is the basic Protestant understanding of oneness in these Scriptures?

texts:
While it is quite evident Jesus is making reference to the Spiritual realm in the following Scriptures:

  John 17:20 through 24 NKJV  "I do not pray for these alone, but also for those who will believe in Me through their word; 21  that they all may be one, as You, Father, are in Me, and I in You; that they also may be one in Us, that the world may believe that You sent Me. 22  And the glory which You gave Me I have given them, that they may be one just as We are one: 23  I in them, and You in Me; that they may be made perfect in one, and that the world may know that You have sent Me, and have loved them as You have loved Me. 24  "Father, I desire that they also whom You gave Me may be with Me where I am, that they may behold My glory which You have given Me; for You loved Me before the foundation of the world.

What is not so obvious is exactly how we are all to come together and become one. And of particular interest is an explanation of that they all may be one, as You, Father, are in Me, and I in You; that they also may be one in Us, that the world may believe that You sent Me.

Even with the 11 commentaries that I use in my study, There seems to be no agreement on just what oneness means. They all agree and so do I that it is referring to inhabiting Heaven at some future date.

As close as I have been able to understand this is that when we are all of one common something it will prove the legitimacy of Christ.

If someone has a more complete understanding of these Scriptures I would appreciate knowing it.

Even though I am a Southern Baptist any Denominational doctrine is desired and the Catholic interpretation would also be helpful.

Thanks Bye.


texts: Is there a denomination which espouses hard-determinism?

texts:
"all things are in His hand" John 3v35 yet the churches I have met seem to agree that human behaviour is not in His hand. So is there a part of the church which applies this without compromise?
  As I am a Christian and a divine/hard determinist I reject man as the first cause of man's behaviour. For me there is only One first cause, see Romans 11v36 "of Him.. all things" and Rev 21v6 one "Alpha.. Beginning". The focus of this question is not to justify such thinking, but to inquire if there is an organised group [denomination] with similar thinking in this diverse world.


texts: How does reformed theology view hypnosis?

texts:
In particular, how do reformed theologians address these questions:

Is hypnosis Biblically warranted?
Is hypnosis a form of demon possession?
Is hypnosis basically a bad idea?
Is the question of hypnosis orthogonal to Christianity? (i.e. is the question equivalent to "How do Reformed theologians think about Scala vs Clojure?")


texts:
And Darius the Mede received the kingdom, being about sixty-two years old. [Daniel 5:31]

I have read much about the possible identities of Darius the Mede; to me, the most convincing alias is that of Gabaru (mentioned in Nabonidus Chronicle column iii line 20).

However, there are a number of other theories, and it causes me to wonder: Who exactly was Darius the Mede? I know we cant know for sure (?), but what would make the most sense, in light of our faith?


texts: Why do Jehovah's Witnesses not pray with people of other faith?

texts:
I had it happen several times that Jehovah's Witnesses refused to pray together with me, even though I offered that they say the prayer. The reason, according to them, was that they believe we don't worship the same God.

This happened to me both in France where I was an LDS missionary, and in Germany where I accompanied some.

I understand the reasoning in the case when they would have to participate in a prayer others are saying. But why do they also not want to pray together when given the opportunity to say the prayer themselves?


texts: What is the general interpretation of God creating the humans "in his image"?

texts:
I'm not sure I understand what this means, neither in English nor my native language. "In his image", as I interpret it, means that God intends to create an entity identical in looks and powers to himself.

But that can't be it. Well, I have no idea in terms of the looks, but I certainly don't have God's powers. If so, I would, too, be able to create an identical copy of myself, and an entire world myself, and do all kinds of other supernatural things, which I sadly don't. So, what does the phrase mean? "In his image"?

I've heard this all my life but only recently started really wondering what these fundamental Bible words mean. I find the very beginning of the Bible to be by far the most interesting.


texts: For what purpose were the "Chosen People" chosen?

texts:
I have a good friend who is Jewish, and he often refers to being one of the "Chosen People".  I understand that God "chose" Abraham and his descendants.

With a New Testament perspective, as the answer to this question indicates, Christians are "chosen people" as well.

However, for what specific purpose were Abraham and his descendants chosen?  Being chosen seems to have no meaning unless we know the reason and purpose for which they were chosen.

So, that's my question.


texts: According to Protestantism, what is the significance of Jesus and the Mount of Transfiguration?

texts:
Matthew, Mark and Luke all record the story of Jesus on the Mount of Transfiguration.  Matthew's version is provided below.

It seems that each writer simply records that the event occurred, but none of them seem to indicate why it was important.  Did it fulfill prophecy?  Was it just another authentication of Jesus' divinity?  Are Moses and Elijah somehow significant to be the ones speaking with Jesus?

According to Protestant understanding (and Catholic if it carries over), what is the significance or importance of Jesus on the Mount of Transfiguration?

  And after six days Jesus took with him Peter and James, and John his
  brother, and led them up a high mountain by themselves. 2 And he was
  transfigured before them, and his face shone like the sun, and his
  clothes became white as light. 3 And behold, there appeared to them
  Moses and Elijah, talking with him. 4 And Peter said to Jesus, “Lord,
  it is good that we are here. If you wish, I will make three tents
  here, one for you and one for Moses and one for Elijah.” 5 He was
  still speaking when, behold, a bright cloud overshadowed them, and a
  voice from the cloud said, “This is my beloved Son, with whom I am
  well pleased; listen to him.” 6 When the disciples heard this, they
  fell on their faces and were terrified. 7 But Jesus came and touched
  them, saying, “Rise, and have no fear.” 8 And when they lifted up
  their eyes, they saw no one but Jesus only.

  9 And as they were coming down the mountain, Jesus commanded them,
  “Tell no one the vision, until the Son of Man is raised from the
  dead.” 10 And the disciples asked him, “Then why do the scribes say
  that first Elijah must come?” 11 He answered, “Elijah does come, and
  he will restore all things. 12 But I tell you that Elijah has already
  come, and they did not recognize him, but did to him whatever they
  pleased. So also the Son of Man will certainly suffer at their hands.”
  13 Then the disciples understood that he was speaking to them of John
  the Baptist.  [Matthew 17:1–13 (ESV)]


texts: Do Christians regard speaking in tongues as necessary?

texts:
I have heard that some Christians consider it the only sure sign of having received the Holy Spirit, which would seem quite important.

If not generally, which groups hold to this belief, and in what way do they consider it necessary?

And secondly, does Christian tradition back up this belief? What evidence is there?


texts: How do we resolve the issue with the circular argument that the Bible is the basis for its own authority?

texts:
This is a continuation from the previous question, "Why is the Bible a foundation of theological evidence?"

But this time I'd like the question to focus on the issue of what looks like a circular argument, which was an issue that was raised but looks like it needed further discussion.

So the issue is: it is said that the Bible is authoritative because the Bible says so. But who is to say that the Bible is right in saying so?


texts: All is vanity in the Book of Ecclesiastes

texts: If Solomon claimed that All is vanity in this earth in the Book of Ecclesiastes, what's our purpose of living our lives on this earth?


texts: Why did Mormons stop practicing polygamy?

texts:
I know that early in the formation of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, polygamy was common.  It's my understanding that it was an everlasting command from God to Joseph Smith.

Doctrine & Covenants 132

  4 For behold, I reveal unto you a new and an everlasting covenant; and if ye abide not that covenant, then are ye damned; for no one can reject this covenant and be permitted to enter into my glory.

If the covenant is everlasting, why did the Mormons stop practicing polygamy?


texts: What is the basis of the argument that Open Theism is heretical?

texts:
John Piper has said that open theism (i.e. the notion that God himself changes over time and can choose to be ignorant of His own future if He so chooses) "is an attack, however unwittingly, on the cross and on the work of the Spirit as our only hope of persevering faith and salvation."

What is the basis for this assertion?


texts: What is the meaning of "excellent things" in Proverbs 22:20

texts:
Have not I written to thee excellent things in counsels and knowledge, that I might make thee know the certainty of the words of truth...
  -- Proverbs 22:20 (KJV)

In the KJV of this verse, the Hebrew word 'Shalosh' is translated as "excellent things.' However, most other translations, as well as Strong's Concordance, defines that Hebrew word as "a threefold measure, a triple."

This seems to give the verse the meaning: "Have not I written to thee a threefold measure in counsels and knowledge.

So, what is this threefold measure, or triple?


texts:
What were the ages of the Apostles Peter and John when Jesus was crucified?
What I’ve heard is Peter was about the same age as Jesus (30-33), while John was an older teenage, approximately 18.  This makes sense in the passages:

When Jesus saw his mother and the disciple whom he loved standing nearby, he said to his mother, “Woman, behold, your son!”  Then he said to the disciple, “Behold, your mother!” And from that hour the disciple took her to his own home.  (John 19:26–27, ESV)

A teenager along with women would be less threatened being present at the crucifixion.

Both of them were running together, but the other disciple outran Peter and reached the tomb first (John 20:4, ESV)

For men who were not athletes, you would expect an 18 year old to outrun a 30 year old.

Peter turned and saw the disciple whom Jesus loved following them, the one who also had leaned back against him during the supper and had said, “Lord, who is it that is going to betray you?”  When Peter saw him, he said to Jesus, “Lord, what about this man?” (John 21:20–21, ESV)

Jesus had told Peter to feed his sheep.  Usually younger brothers were given the task of taking care of the literal sheep.  Peter had to get used to the idea that shepherds (pastors) were elders.
What other evidence to we have for the ages of Peter and John at the crucifixion.


texts: Is there any record of a visual method of prayer in the Bible?

texts: Some context: I am deaf, though I can hear because of cochlear implants. As I have been able to hear since I was about 6.5 years old, I have an internal voice like pretty much every single normally-hearing person. Hence, when I pray, I typically pray with words. However, recently, my former roommate came to Christ, and I found out that he communicates with God through images, because he doesn't have an internal voice. Rather, he thinks - and therefore prays - in a visual manner. Given that the books of the Bible were written entirely (presumably) by people who were hearing, I'm curious as to whether there is any record in the Bible of a person praying in a visual way.


texts: What is the basis for saying that B. B. Warfield believed in theistic evolution?

texts:
B. B. Warfield is commonly cited as a leading conservative Reformed theologian during the period leading up to the Fundamentalist/Modernist controversy of the early 20th century. One of the issues of dispute was the origin of the earth – if Darwin's relatively new theory of evolution could be reconciled with the Genesis account of Creation.

Warfield's predecessor Charles Hodge had attacked Darwinism early on, but, according to Wikipedia, Warfield's views were different:

  [B. B. Warfield] came to endorse the ideas now described as theistic evolution (source)

Because of the respect afforded Warfield in conservative circles, his views on this subject are frequently mentioned in the ongoing debate in denominations like the PCA over acceptable interpretations of Genesis 1–3.  Thus, I'd like to better understand the basis for Wikipedia's statement.  In Warfield's writings, did he endorse views often associated with theistic evolution, like:

Adam not a historic, individual person
Adam a historic individual, but a product of evolution from a lesser mammal
Death of mammals prior to the Fall
The Fall not a discrete historical event

What is the best case that can be made for calling Warfield a theistic evolutionist?


texts: Did William Cowper believe himself to be saved at the end of his life?

texts:
The 18th-century poet William Cowper is best-known in Christian circles for the hymns he wrote, like "There is a fountain, filled with blood" and "God moves in a mysterious way."  He had deep evangelical convictions, and was close friends with John Newton, of "Amazing Grace" fame.

But he had a difficult life: he suffered from repeated bouts of depression and insanity, and several times attempted to commit suicide. In 1773, a particularly acute attack led him to believe that he was unsaved, as Robert Manson Myers writes:

  Cowper was seized in 1773 with a conviction that God's displeasure rested heavily upon his soul.  He never lost this persuasion that he was irretrievably damned, and his religious despair thereafter appeared in the gentle melancholy and morbid religiosity of much of his verse. ("Fifty Sermons on Handel's Messiah," Harvard Theological Review, October 1946, 232; emphasis added)

Elsewhere in this essay, Myers seems to reveal a bias against evangelicalism.  That, combined with some statements on Wikipedia, makes me doubt his accuracy on this point; for example:

  [Cowper] continued to suffer doubt and, after a dream in 1773, believed that he was doomed to eternal damnation. He recovered and wrote more religious hymns. (WP)

My question, then, is two-fold.

Did William Cowper continue to hold to his evangelical beliefs until he died in 1800?
Did he die believing that he was going to hell?

Ideally this would be answered primarily through Cowper's own writings, or at least a sympathetic (not hagiographic) biographer.


texts:
Can the Pope speak ex cathedra about the return of Christ?

Specifically, if someone approached the Vatican, met with the Pope, and convinced him that he was the second coming of Christ, could the Pope then "certify" this person as Christ while speaking ex cathedra?


texts: What is the ordering of events in Nahum and Jonah?

texts: I was reading the book of Nahum and it was speaking about Nineveh.  Is the book of Nahum foretelling the destruction of Nineveh, for which the people of Nineveh averted by repenting of their sins, or is Nahum talking about an event that happened after Jonah's time?


texts: Are there passages in the synoptic gospels that could be used to support faith alone?

texts:
I am wondering if there passages in the synoptic gospels that could be used to support faith alone?
I know there are some which seem to be in contrast to faith alone like the sheep and the goats.


texts: Why do Covenant theologians use the word "dispensation," and what do they mean by it?

texts:
The first time I read the Westminster Confession of Faith, a confession reflecting Covenant (or Reformed) theology, I was surprised to see the word dispensations used in it:

  There are not therefore two covenants of grace, differing in substance, but one and the same, under various dispensations. (7.6)

I associate that word most with Dispensationalism, which divides history into a series of "dispensations."  At first glance, it seems like the Westminster Confession accepts such an interpretation.  And yet Dispensationalism is typically seen to be fundamentally at odds with Covenant theology.

Thus, my questions: Why do Covenant theologians like those who wrote the Westminster Confession use the word "dispensations"?  Is their use of the word, and Dispensationalists' use of the word, equivalent?  Do modern Covenant theologians use the word as well?


texts: What is "the spirit of this world." referred to by John-Paul II

texts:
The Wikipedia article on the "Prayer to Saint Michael" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prayer_to_Saint_Michael) says that Pope John-Paul II referred to "the spirit of this world" when recommending the prayer be used by Catholics.

Here is the quote from the article: "Although this prayer is no longer recited at the end of Mass, I ask everyone not to forget it and to recite it to obtain help in the battle against the forces of darkness and against the spirit of this world."

What did JP II mean when he used this expression "spirit of this world"?  The Saint Michael prayer mentions "the devil", "Satan", and "evil spirits".  Are they all different?  Does "spirit of this world" mean "the devil", "Satan", or "evil spirits" ?


texts:
According to John 12:32 (NRSV):

And I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all peoplea to myself.”
aJohn 12:32 Other ancient authorities read all things

Yeshua seems to be saying- without exception- that each and every individual, or even every thing, will eventually be drawn/dragged to himself. Or does he mean that even an average North Korean inherently knows that the Catholic gospel is true, so they are freely wicked people for refusing the Church’s dogmas?
What is the Catholic interpretation of John 12:32?


texts: Why doesn't the Pope try asserting doctrines ex cathedra to check if they're true?

texts:
My understanding is that the Catholic Church teaches that when the Pope speaks ex cathedra, he is infallible, because what he says in such instances is divinely protected from error. There are a lot of questions that the Church considers open, e.g. the question of whether infants who die without being baptized are saved. It seems like it would be a great idea for the Pope to attempt to assert ex cathedra that they are saved. Either the pronouncement would succeed, in which case we would know with certainty that it is true, or else something would prevent the pronouncement from going through, in which case we would have a hint that it is false.

I assume that I am misunderstanding something about papal infallibility and there is a catch somewhere. What's the catch? Naturally, I'm interested in the teaching of the Catholic Church.

Here are a couple of possible answers:

Technically, the Pope could "exploit" infallibility in this way, but it would be immoral.
If the Pope decided to try this sort of thing, he would be divinely prevented from making the ex cathedra pronouncement regardless of whether the doctrine in question was true or false, so we wouldn't actually learn anything from the exercise.

In either case, I'm left wondering: What exactly differentiates "legitimate" ex cathedra pronouncements, like the pronouncement of the immaculate conception in Ineffabilis Deus, from the sort of "illegitimate" ex cathedra pronouncement that I suggested?


texts: What are the Catholic arguments for God having a free will?

texts:
I have noticed a version of this question (Does God have free will? ) however I would like to ask it in a slightly different way:

What are the most significant biblical and other (patristic, scholastic) arguments for God's free will from the Catholic perspective?


texts: (LDS perspective) How would people before Mormonism have entered heaven since they would not have known the masonic handshakes?

texts:
Related question here discusses the secret passwords and handshakes that are, according to LDS church, required in order to gain entrance to heaven. This question and this Wikipedia article discusses their relationship/similarity with Masonic rituals.

Even if we accepted the view that Masonic symbolism originated before early Christianity (among the builders of Solomons's temple), I have not yet found any reference in the Bible to specific handshake(s) as a requirement to enter heaven.

Unless this is mentioned somewhere in the Bible canon, it looks like early Christians or people living before that did not know of this requirement.

How would worshipers of God who died before Joseph Smith have entered heaven since they would not have known the secret passwords or handshakes?


texts: Will God give us the gift of vision, dream, and prophecy if we request Him?

texts:
In Acts 2:1-4 the believers

were filled with the Holy Spirit and began speaking in other languages, as the Holy Spirit gave them this ability.

Then in Acts 2:14-21 Peter quoted Joel 2:28-32 to explain that they were not drunk:

¹⁶ No, what you see was predicted long ago by the prophet Joel:
¹⁷ ‘In the last days,’ God says,
‘I will pour out my Spirit upon all people.
Your sons and daughters will prophesy.
Your young men will see visions,
and your old men will dream dreams.
¹⁸ In those days I will pour out my Spirit
even on my servants—men and women alike—
and they will prophesy.

Someone I know who belongs to a church that is somewhat related to Pentecostalism (independent, no affiliation) makes a big deal about this, saying that all believers CAN have dreams and visions (if they ask God to "claim His promise" in vv 17-18), which they can then use to "see the spiritual realm" (her terms) which include:

discerning what the Holy Spirit wants them to do, just like how the Holy Spirit guided several individuals in Acts
seeing intrusions by demons that they can use to take appropriate action
etc.

Her church teaching "encourages" (more like an imperative) that all believers are to seek these gifts.  Otherwise:

their spiritual growth is stunted
they "remain in the flesh"
they are unable to grow to their full potential, or even worse,
the lack of "seeing the spiritual realm" will prevent them from seeing warning given by the Holy Spirit to their own peril.

The question: Is the teaching above standard Pentecostalism?
Ideally, I would like a denomination survey, but excepting Pentecostalism and possibly Catholicism, the answer from other denominations would most likely be in the negative.  Please comment if  I should ask this question to other denominations as well, as it might be interesting to see how different denominations provide the reason why the answer is a "no".


texts:
This article has a list of people burned as heretics by the Church in the past. Is there any Biblical basis for burning the heretics? Which specific verse was used for the  judgement on the heretics, which called for the burning at the stake?
I guess, this verse might have influence on the method of execution, if interpreted wrongly.

“I am the vine; you are the branches. If you remain in me and I in you, you will bear much fruit; apart from me you can do
nothing. If you do not remain in me, you are like a branch that is
thrown away and withers; such branches are picked up, thrown into the
fire and burned. (John 15:5-6)

Couldn't the Church simply ignore the heretics? Is there any command in the Bible to burn the heretics? If such command is there, should we continue to burn the heretics in the Church today?


texts: What are the common arguments against theistic evolution?

texts: What are the common arguments from Christians against the idea that God used evolution to create Earth over millions of years? This is not a place to argue. I'm interested in a rundown of the common response from Young Earth Creationists. Source your statements whenever possible.


texts: Is there any biblical basis to support demonic paranormal activity?

texts: Demonic possession of course is biblical, but what about demonic paranormal activity? With some effort it's not hard to come across testimonies from Christians, and even non-Christians, telling stories of paranormal experiences, such as hearing footsteps, scratches on walls, drawers moving in and out, closets opening and closing, things flying off the shelves or walls, beds shaking, chairs moving, objects falling down, light bulbs exploding, stuff levitating, the temperature in the room suddenly dropping, horrible demonic "smell", hearing audible evil growls, etc. I'm pretty sure many of you have heard of similar experiences. Is there any biblical basis to this? Does the Bible record examples of demonic paranormal activity? Do the Scriptures support the ability of demons to manipulate objects and intervene in the physical world?


texts: Why did the popes begin issuing encyclicals?

texts:
It appears as if heavy duty instructions to the world at large began with Pope Leo XIII in the late 19th century.

How did it come about that he issued so many encyclicals?  Did he set a precedent for future popes to emulate in their teaching office?

Check 'em out for yourself


texts: Is Luke's label for Christianity - "the Way" - used in later Christian writings?

texts:
Christianity is referred to several times in the book of Acts as "the Way" (hē hodos), initially at 9:2:

  [Saul] asked [the high priest] for letters to the synagogues at Damascus, so that if he found any belonging to the Way (hē hodos), men or women, he might bring them bound to Jerusalem. (ESV)

See also Acts 19:9, 23; 22:4; and 24:14, 22. To my knowledge this usage is not found elsewhere in the New Testament.* I have learned from commentaries that there is an equivalent phrase (Heb. hadderek) used as self identification by the Essene Community in the Qumran literature (i.e. the non-Biblical documents from among the "Dead Sea Scrolls") that may be the origin of hē hodos. For the purposes of this question, though,  I'm interested in the other side (temporally):

Was this term used to describe the Christian movement in early (post-Biblical) church writings?
Did any of the Fathers† opine about the origin of the label or its meaning within the community?  (I'd be especially interested if they were aware of the [postulated] connection with Qumran, but that seems unlikely.)

* John 14:6 may be related, but that has some deeper Christological significance rather than the more  concrete reference to a sect as it is used in Acts.

† The Greek fathers would be most relevant, although the absolute use of "the Way" is distinctive enough that it would probably be recognizable in Latin as well.  ("Absolute", i.e., without further specification such as "the way of the LORD" [Is 40:3, cf. Acts 18:25].)


texts: On what bases do Eastern-Orthodox reject total depravity?

texts:
Why do Eastern-Orthodox reject the doctrine of total depravity?

Considering evidence like, Matthew 7:11,  Romans 3:10-20.


texts: How do Southern Baptists who believe in the immortality of the soul explain what death means in scripture

texts:
The Bible often speaks of death as "sleep" and Ecclesiastes 9:5 says dead aren't aware of anything. Yet many Christians claim reward or punishment begins immediately when one dies.

If there is really no death, but just immediate transformation from physical to spiritual beings what is death?  Why do these same Christians speak about the resurrection which means standing back up to life?  I would like a Southern Baptist perspective.


texts: Is there any Christian group that takes Matthew 23:8-10 literally?

texts:
Related to: Are there any Christian groups that follow Matthew 23:9? and What is the Roman Catholic view on Matthew 23:9?

  8 “But you are not to be called ‘Rabbi,’ for you have one Teacher, and
  you are all brothers. 9 And do not call anyone on earth ‘father,’ for
  you have one Father, and he is in heaven. 10 Nor are you to be called
  instructors, for you have one Instructor, the Messiah.

Recently I was addressed by my academic title (Master, i.e. synonym of "Rabbi"; but maybe it's even less common to address people by this title in English than it's in Czech, I don't know) and I wondered whether some Christians would consider it wrong or not. So I ask this question: is there a Christian group that considers addressing someone as "mister", calling someone's father "father" or talking about someone as a "teacher" or "doctor" (latin for "teacher") to be wrong or even a sin?

EDIT: the linked question asks only on forbidding usage of "father". Mine is more focused on "mister", "master", "teacher", "doctor" etc. They are related, but this question is broader.


texts: According to Catholicism, is are there any teachings or traditions about who was the host of the house where Jesus celebrated his Last Supper?

texts:
According to Catholicism, is are there any teachings or traditions that may shed light on who was the host of the house where Jesus celebrated his Last Supper and how such a host may have known how to prepare for the Lord’s Passover?

12 Now on the first day of the unleavened bread, when they sacrificed the pasch, the disciples say to him: Whither wilt thou that we go, and prepare for thee to eat the pasch?
13 And he sendeth two of his disciples, and saith to them: Go ye into the city; and there shall meet you a man carrying a pitcher of water, follow him;
14 And whithersoever he shall go in, say to the master of the house, The master saith, Where is my refectory, where I may eat the pasch with my disciples?
15 And he will shew you a large dining room furnished; and there prepare ye for us.
16 And his disciples went their way, and came into the city; and they found as he had told them, and they prepared the Pasch. - Mark 14:12-16


texts: What does it mean when Jesus say "Love your enemies" (Matthew 5:43-45)?

texts:
This always confused me. We read this in Matthew 5:43-45

Matthew 5:43-45 (NIV) - “You have heard that it was said, Love your neighbor and hate your enemy. But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be children of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous."

But we read that Jesus was severely angry with Jewish scholars (especially Pharisees and scribes) by calling them "hypocrites", "snakes", "offspring of vipers", "fools" etc in Matthew 23:13-36, Mark 7:6, etc.

We even see Jesus saying to Jews that their father is devil (John 8:44). Does this mean we are supposed to love our enemies, but hate God's enemies?


texts:
Nepotism: The practice among those with power or influence of favoring relatives or friends, esp. by giving them jobs.

In the secular world giving a friend a salaried position over another person more qualified is seen as having potentially moral conflict.  However, I am not sure such a moral issue exists within a church setting.  Then again I could imagine, especially for a ministry that has high revenue, where the 'leader' could pass the reins down to his son, raising the moral issue.  Also established denominations that have somewhat standardized salaries which are not inferior to secular professions may also consider the issue but in what sense I am not personally clear.

What I was wondering is that is this actually a recognized issue in any denomination or is nepotism fully accepted within Christianity?

To be honest I have not thought about it enough to have an opinion in if it should, or at least in what sense it should be considered, but that is not my question here.

My real question here is: Do any Christian denominations have any policies to prevent nepotism?


texts: What religious significance is there in marriage for Catholics and Protestants?

texts:
To be clear: This is not a question about why Catholics and Protestants get married. This is not a question about the biblical support for or against marriage. (I am very much for marriage).

I specifically want to know:

Is there a significance to being married from a religious standpoint for these religions?
If there is, what is it?

To give this some context: I was once talking to someone who said she wanted to get married in the church. (She was Catholic, she also couldn't be married in the church as she was a lesbian, but that's not the issue here). What reasons would she — or anyone else for that matter — have for getting married in the church?


texts: Basis for the concept of an "Age of accountability"

texts:
Having attended Baptist Churches for years, I've often heard the term "age of accountability" bandied about.

The idea is that if a child dies at a young age - before reaching the "age of accountability", that child will go to Heaven, because he or she is not yet responsible for his or her sins.  He or she is "too young to understand the Gospel".

This age is not a specific age, but is understood to be different for everyone.  I'm not asking what this age is.

What I am asking, is where is the Scriptural evidence to support such a doctrine?

Quite frankly, one of the reasons I stick to Baptist Churches is not because I consider myself a Baptist, but because it's the one denomination where in my (admittedly limited) experience, Pastors consistently say "If I ever preach anything that's not in the Word, or contrary to the Word, don't believe me."

Yet, I can find no Scriptural evidence for such a doctrine.  Am I missing it?    If so, where is it in Scripture?  If it exists, please point me  to the verses.

Or is it a doctrine based on supposition, attempting to reconcile the idea that a loving God, and the horrific idea that child could go to Hell simply for not being old enough to understand their lost state, repent, and put their faith in Christ?


texts:
If Hell isn't a punishment but instead the logical consequence of our rejection of God, if God doesn't send us to Hell, but we choose to go there on our own; how can Jesus' death on the Cross help us get out of Hell?
If the way out of Hell is to love God again, then I can do that with or without Jesus. If Hell's door is locked from the inside, I can unlock it myself without any help from Jesus. If rejection of God comes from me, and repentance comes from me, why do I need Jesus for anything? I can just repent and return to God on my own.
If I go to Hell because God is giving me infinite punishment for an infinite sin, then I can see that I need Jesus to pay the penalty I can't pay for myself. But if I'm headed for Hell because I don't love God, then Jesus can't help me love God again. That has to come from me, not anyone else. Right?


texts: Why were Pseudo-Dionysius's works accepted as authentic for so long?

texts:
Pseudo-Dionysius was a 5th/6th century Christian theologian who claimed to be the Dionysius that Paul converted in Acts 17:34.  This claim was widely accepted for almost a millennium, which afforded his work significant influence in medieval Christianity.

I know that historiography has come a long way in the last 1500 years, but the idea that these works could have originated in the first or second century seems completely preposterous.  Why, for example, were none of the writings of "Dionysius" quoted in the prolific writings of Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Basil the Great, Gregory of Nyssa, or Gregory of Nazianzus?  Not to mention their complete absence in the Councils and in Western writers like Augustine.

I see from the Wikipedia article that "Dionysius" had some early skeptics, but a number of medieval figures argued for the early dating, such as Severus, John of Scythopolis, and Theodore of Raithu.  My question is: what arguments did these and other early-date proponents make that convinced medieval Christianity to consider these works authentic?

I know that some of these writers had a vested interest in the authenticity of the works, but they must have made other arguments besides "I agree with Dionysius so he must be who he claims to be."  What evidence did they cite?


texts: According to LDS, what is the purpose of the final judgment?

texts:
I used to think that the purpose of the final judgment was to determine which kingdom of glory we would inherit, and then once that was determined we could be resurrected with a body to match that glory (1 Corinthians 15, D&C 88). But I recently learned that the final judgment is after the resurrection (see also the Guide to the Scriptures) which means the glory of our resurrected body has already been determined and therefore our kingdom of inheritance has also been determined.

If our kingdom of inheritance isn't determined during the final judgment, what is its purpose?


texts: What is the basis for seeing Christ's words in the Gospels as part of the New Covenant?

texts:
I see this topic pop up in certain Christian circles.

Certain people make the claim that the "Words in Red" in the Gospels (those regarded as the words of Jesus) are not part of the New Testament believer's covenant.  Because the new covenant began at the crucifixion with His blood, these people claim that Jesus' words were only for a 'transitionary period', for those Jews coming to faith who were yet under the Old Covenant, and therefore are not 'binding' upon the believer.

The teachings are regarded as good and valid, but only when understood in their proper context.  That is, according to this view, just as the Law in the Old Covenant is still read and we prosper by its understanding (2 Timothy 3:16), we do not apply it as binding upon the New Covenant believer.  Since the New Covenant began at the cross, they say, none of the 'Words in Red' are binding upon us today.

Among these people are EW Kenyon, Kenneth E Hagin, and others.

So, what are the arguments (Biblical or otherwise) for considering that the Words of Christ in the Gospels should be considered instructions for the New Testament?


texts: Why do most Christians seemingly not mind swearing on the Bible in light of Matthew 5:33-37?

texts:
Although the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution declares:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Christian Bibles are sometimes used in Courts to swear an oath.
In contrast to the tradition of swearing by the Bible, we are told in Matthew 5:33-37:

[33] “Again, you have heard that it was said to the people long ago, ‘Do not break your oath, but fulfill to the Lord the vows you have made.’ [34] But I tell you, do not swear an oath at all: either by heaven, for it is God’s throne; [35] or by the earth, for it is his footstool; or by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the Great King. [36] And do not swear by your head, for you cannot make even one hair white or black. [37] All you need to say is simply ‘Yes’ or ‘No’; anything beyond this comes from the evil one."

If Matthew 5:33-37 is literal, why would Christians swear an oath on the Bible?


texts: Can we at some point take on a Divine Nature?

texts:
"Through these he has given us his very great and precious promises, so that through them you may participate in the divine nature, having escaped the corruption in the world caused by evil desires." -http://biblehub.com/2_peter/1-4.htm

My understanding is when the person of Christ became human, he assumed a human nature. Now we have this person of Christ with a human and divine nature. I think of it kind or like having a linux OS(Divine Nature) running a windows virtual OS (human nature).

Now I think this elevates our human nature to a nature that God has. But does this also mean that humans will get a divine nature at some point. Perhaps baptism, or death, or final judgment? I am interested particularly in Catholic theological theories/teachings/camps. So back to the computer analogy if we are all running windows, is there a chance we get to install linux at some point?

PS - can someone please tag this with divine-nature *human-nature* and beatific-vision... I do not have enough points.


texts: What is the significance of the donkey Jesus rode on Palm Sunday?

texts: I'm working on different symbols of Palm Sunday. Has anyone done work on the significance of the donkey Jesus rode on?


texts: According to the Catholic Church is it sinful to address someone who is transgender by their biological sex?

texts: As a Catholic, is it considered an offense against charity to refer to a person in a way they wouldn't want to be referred to (such as calling a trans woman "he")?


texts: Was Mary given a glorified or "spiritual body" like the resurrected body of Jesus while on earth?

texts:
In the 4th Dogma of Assumption Mary was assumed "body & soul" into heaven.
Scriptures tells us nothing defiled shall enter the Kingdom of God...(Rev21:27)
And also Gospel of Luke 24:36-ff narrates and describes the "resurrected body" of Jesus.
Jesus Appears to the Disciples

36 While they were still talking about this, Jesus himself stood among them and said to them, “Peace be with you.”
37 They were startled and frightened, thinking they saw a ghost. 38 He said to them, “Why are you troubled, and why do doubts rise in your minds? 39 Look at my hands and my feet. It is I myself! Touch me and see; a ghost does not have flesh and bones, as you see I have.”
40 When he had said this, he showed them his hands and feet. 41 And while they still did not believe it because of joy and amazement, he asked them, “Do you have anything here to eat?” 42 They gave him a piece of broiled fish, 43 and he took it and ate it in their presence.
44 He said to them, “This is what I told you while I was still with you: Everything must be fulfilled that is written about me in the Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms.”

My question is, Did Mary experienced or was given by God a "glorified body" while on earth?
I am looking for Catholic Church teaching or Church Father beliefs on Mary's glorified body that hinted similarity on Jesus resurrected body.


texts: Why can't people change their denomination?

texts:
As my profile says, I don't belong to any denomination and I can't answer this question myself.

Recently, there was a question from a Catholic woman having difficulty in her love relationship because her boyfriend  from Jehovah's Witness can't marry her. The main problem  that I suspect is that both of them are not ready to change their denomination.

Here is the thing I can't understand. What is the problem with changing our denomination? Why don't people want to change their denomination? I am ready to join any denomination if required, let it be Catholic, JW, Seventh Day, Orthodox, I don't mind as long as I can read the Bible and worship Jesus. I obviously have my personal choices. I like to go to a church that uses modern instruments, good music system, good worship songs, good sermons, good Bible study programs and a good and supporting community. For now, I prefer to remain denomination-less but I think I can join any denomination and adhere to their doctrines and ordinances, if their is no other choice available.

Why are people reluctant to change their denomination?

What is the reason why some people cannot change their denomination?

What are the major hindrances in changing the denomination?

What kind of challenges are faced after changing the denomination?


texts:
On Catholic Answers' website on sola scriptura, they include a quote from Pope Clement I saying

"Then the reverence of the law is chanted, and the grace of the prophets is known, and the faith of the Gospels is established, and the Tradition of the apostles is preserved, and the grace of the Church exults"

from his Letter to the Corinthians. I am unable to find that quote in his letter. Is it in a different work of his or not a quote of him?


texts: What are the arguments that the book of Acts was written after 70 AD?

texts:
What are the major reasons, whether theological or secular, for concluding that the book of Acts was written after the destruction of the temple in 70 AD?

Please also view the related question: What are the arguments that Acts was written prior to 70 AD?


texts: Is there a prayer to rebuke storms at sea?

texts:
My mom comes from a family of fishermen and ship captains, the vast majority of all men in her city are still doing of those professions, I live in Lebanon, middle east.

She told me more than once that her grandpa used to rebuke or let waterspout or sea tornadoes disappear by prayer to a saint some special prayer, maybe saint George. The grandpa is Catholic Maronite, which is in essence just Catholic.

I googled it, I got nothing, I just want to know if such prayers exist in Christianity and if people used to say them historically, I found few videos like this:

Man Rebukes Tornado in the Name of Jesus Christ (Youtube)

In fact if you google something like "Prayers Rebukes a Tornado" you'll see plenty of videos, most of them are just

'In the name of Jesus I command you to go'

But that's not what my question is about, nor whether these videos are fake or not. My question is this:

Is there a special prayer that only few people know, that people used to pray to a saint in order to rebuke a tornado or a waterspout? My mom is pretty certain of it, all her family are certain too, it's just that, her grandpa never told the prayer to anyone and passed away.


texts: Why did Jesus say "you will be put to death" and yet "not a hair of your head will perish"?

texts:
Jesus' words here contain an apparent contradiction:

  You will be betrayed even by parents, brothers, relatives and friends, and they will put some of you to death. All men will hate you because of me.  But not a hair of your head will perish. By standing firm you will gain life.

Luke 21:16-19

How can someone be "put to death" and yet "not a hair of their head will perish"?


texts: Biblical literalness and the speed of light

texts: How do  biblical literalists defend that if a star is 10 million light years away and we can see the light from it, therefore the Earth would have to be at least 10 million years old?  That is, because one of the laws that God set is that matter cannot be created or destroyed.  All matter would have to have been created at the same time, when God spoke and all was created (secularly known as the Big Bang).


texts: Since Satan was defeated by Jesus on the Cross, why is he still allowed to vex us today?

texts:
In the Revelation it says that Satan was overcome by Salvation, and yet he continues to vex Christians today.

I know that at the great white throne judgment he will be cast into the lake of fire, but it seems that once we give our lives to Christ, and we have through the Grace of God, been plucked out of Satan's hands, that he would no longer have any power to trouble us.

Revelation 12:9-12  KJV  And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him. And I heard a loud voice saying in heaven, Now is come salvation, and strength, and the kingdom of our God, and the power of his Christ: for the accuser of our brethren is cast down, which accused them before our God day and night. And they overcame him by the blood of the Lamb, and by the word of their testimony; and they loved not their lives unto the death. Therefore rejoice, [ye] heavens, and ye that dwell in them. Woe to the inhabiters of the earth and of the sea! for the devil is come down unto you, having great wrath, because he knoweth that he hath but a short time.

Since the Christian has already rejected Satan and his ways and been given eternal life through Jesus, why does Satan still have the power to vex us?


texts: What is the origin of the story of the penitent thief as a young boy?

texts:
During the Easter sermon our priest told a small story. It goes somewhat like this:

  'When Joseph, Mary and baby Jesus fled to Egypt, on the way there was a little boy who was given the task of searching (by Herod) the women for a small child(baby Jesus). And when he did see Him the boy smiled at Jesus and said "Remember me" and let them go. And years later when Christ was being crucified it was the same boy who was crucified on the right side of Christ. The little boy was the penitent thief who repented on the cross.'

Now after this I came home and did a lot of searching on the net but nowhere did I come across such a story. My question is simple: Did these events actually happen or was this meant only as an inspiration for the gathering?


texts:
Islam has a concept that Muhammad is the last prophet of God(Allah). The last message from God was revealed to Muhammad, as they claim. Joseph Smith also received a unique and new revelation from God. And may be the last revelation, that I don't know. I don't mean to relate them but that's how it appears to me.

According to the Latter Day Saints, is Joseph Smith the last prophet of God?


texts: What is an overview of how different Christian denominations deal with demon possessions?

texts: Pretty much everyone has watched at least one horror movie where an exorcism was carried out. Notable examples are The Exorcist and The Exorcism of Emily Rose, to name a few. Yet, these movies only illustrate the Catholic way of carrying out an exorcism. What about the other denominations? What is an overview of how different Christian denominations deal with the topic of demon possession and deliverance?


texts: What have prominent theologians said about Halloween?

texts:
I am not interested in the Truth Question of whether it is a sin to celebrate.

I'm particularly interested in citations of what has been said about having too much fear of evil spirits, and a fear that makes folks seek out some rite of avoiding the spirits to put their faith in, as opposed to faith in Christ's sufficient and fully available work, a fear that looks to great evils outside themselves.  Or does the weight of writing point to the danger of failure to take seriously the idea of devils roaming about?


texts: Is the Society of St. Pius X schismatic or not?

texts: Back in the 1980s, Archbishop Lefebvre of the Society of St. Pius X consecrated four priests as bishops without the Pope's approval. Does this action make the Society schismatic?


texts: Was the Scapegoat of Leviticus an allusion to Barabbas?

texts:
There are several similarities between the selection of the Scapegoat, and the selection of Jesus as our sacrifice.

Leviticus 16:7  KJV  And he shall take the two goats, and present them before the LORD at the door of the tabernacle of the congregation.
Matthew 27:17   KJV  Therefore when they were gathered together, Pilate said unto them, Whom will ye that I release unto you? Barabbas, or Jesus which is called Christ?
Leviticus 16:8  And Aaron shall cast lots upon the two goats; one lot for the LORD, and the other lot for the scapegoat.
Matthew 27:21  KJV   The governor answered and said unto them, Whether of the twain will ye that I release unto you? They said, Barabbas.
Leviticus 16:9  And Aaron shall bring the goat upon which the LORD'S lot fell, and offer him for a sin offering.
Leviticus 16:10  But the goat, on which the lot fell to be the scapegoat, shall be presented alive before the LORD, to make an atonement with him, and to let him go for a scapegoat into the wilderness.
Matthew 27:26  KJV  Then released he Barabbas unto them: and when he had scourged Jesus, he delivered him to be crucified.

Do these passage suggestion a connection betwen the Scapegoat of Leviticus and the figure of Barabbas in the passion narrative?


texts: Are there any surviving (English translated) works by Athanasius about the Apollinarian heresy?

texts:
As I've looked around the internet at reactions to Athanasius' magnum opus On the Incarnation, I've seen some accusations of latent Apollinarism. The work was published before the Apollinarian heresy was formally defined and condemned, but they say that it was materially there in his writings. That's just background, it's not what my question is about. You need not defend his orthodoxy to me.

Before the heresy was condemned at the ecumenical First Council of Constantinople, it was condemned at a local council in Alexandria headed by none other than Athanasius. So clearly Athanasius was as opposed to this heresy as he had famously been opposed to Arianism. But are there any surviving writings I can read where he lays out the case against Apollinarism?


texts: What denomination uses church pews that face each other?

texts:
There are some denominations who arrange their pews so they are on opposite sides of the pulpit (or equivalent for their denomination), or otherwise have pews facing each other. Is there somebody familiar with different church layouts who can perhaps point out a couple major denominations?

What came to mind for me was the church designed by Frank Lloyd Wright, but I heard that some denominations do this as regular practice. "Friendship House" came to mind, but we didn't come up with much of an overview when searching the internet.


texts: What is the status of the New Testament in the LDS teachings?

texts: According to the LDS, are the New Testament scriptures- as they existed and were available at the commencement of that denomination- themselves incomplete or the result of apostasy, or was it the interpretation and application of those works among the Church that needed to be restored through a latter-day revelation?


texts: Was William of Ockham the first sedevacantist?

texts:
Ockham (cf. this article on him by the Catholic logician Paul V. Spade) invented his dead-end nominalist philosophy in order to justify his being against the papacy (cf. Thomist John Deely's Four Ages of Understanding p. 394 ff., which shows how the Great Western "Schism" lead to the adoption of Ockham's nominalism, despite its weakness).

But was Ockham really a sedevacantist (i.e., one not explicitly against the papacy per se but against a particular pope claimant)?

The following quote from Salza & Siscoe's True or False Pope?: Refuting Sedevacantism and Other Modern Errors p. 210 is quite convincing.

Ockham wrote—"at the end of his letter to the General Chapter in Assisi in the spring of 1334" (cf. Tractatus de Successivis translation p. 12), defending his opposition to Pope John XXII, who opposed the (then-material) dogma that the souls of the deceased destined to heaven behold the Beatific Vision immediately after death, defined by John XXII's successor Benedict XII in Benedictus Deus—that:

  Because of the errors and the heresies mentioned above and countless others, I turned away from the obedience of the false Pope and all who were his friends to the prejudice of the orthodox faith. For men of great learning showed me that because of his errors and heresies the same pseudo-Pope is heretical, deprived of his papacy, and excommunicated by Canon Law itself, without need of further sentence. … In proof thereof several volumes have been published. … For against the errors of this pseudo-Pope I have turned my face like the hardest rock, so that neither lies nor calumnies nor any persecution (which cannot touch my innermost self in any bodily fashion), nor great numbers of men who believe in him or favor him or even defend him, shall be able to prevent me from attacking or reproving his errors, as long as I shall have hand, paper, pen, and ink. …

  If anyone should like to recall me or anyone else who has turned away from the obedience of the false Pope and his friends, let him try to defend his Constitutions and sermons, and show that they agree with Holy Scripture, or that a Pope cannot fall into the wickedness of heresy, or let him show by holy authorities or manifest reasons that one who knows the Pope to be a notorious heretic is obliged to obey him. Let him not, however, adduce the great number of his adherents, nor base his arguments on reproaches, because those who try to arm themselves with great numbers of lies, reproaches, threats, and false calumnies, show that they are void of truth and reason. Therefore let none believe that I mean to turn away from the recognized truth because of the great number of those in favor of the pseudo-Pope, or because of proofs that are common to heretics and to orthodox men, because I prefer Holy Scripture to a man unlearned in holy science, and I have a higher esteem for the doctrine of the Fathers who reign with Christ than for the tradition of men dwelling in this mortal life.

The Church never condemned Ockham's theories, although Ockham was excommunicated for leaving Avignon without permission.

W. Turner writes in the old Catholic Encyclopedia "Ockham" entry:

  Ockham's attitude towards the established order in the Church and towards the recognized system of philosophy in the academic world of his day was one of protest. He has, indeed, been called "the first Protestant". Nevertheless, he recognized in his polemical writings the authority of the Church in spiritual matters, and did not diminish that authority in any respect.

This is sedevacantism because sedevacantism doesn't deny the papacy (as Protestants do).


texts: What is the Testament of Hezekiah? I know it exists, but I can't locate it

texts: I am currently reading up on of apocryphal and pseudopigagraphical literature, and I see on a list that the Testament of Hezekiah is enumerated as one of them. However, I cannot locate a source or any short blurb on its date, origin, and content? Do any of you know? Thanks!


texts:
I ask the question for a real reason. I would like to make more money to support my family and live in better conditions. I feel I have to rely on myself to go back to school, work hard and then get a great job. However, I hear something different at Church, rely on Jesus for our needs.

How can we apply relying on Jesus in situations where it appears we have to rely on ourselves?

Do you have specific real life examples of how you do this?

How do you define this and where do you draw the line?

EDIT
Marc in his comment below brought up a good topic of: "do what you were going to do anyway" vs (what I interpret as) completely leaning back on Jesus....


texts: Is Galatians 4:6 speaking of the Holy Spirit?

texts:
Galatians 4:6 says:

  And because you are sons, God has sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, crying, "Abba! Father!"

Is Paul referring to the Holy Spirit here? Given that the ESV capitalises the word 'Spirit', it seems likely to me, but I'm interested in knowing what evidence there is either way.


texts:
Does Bible say anywhere that if a woman was raped, she needs to marry the one who raped her? One LGBT activist just told me that.

The only verse that come to my memory is

  If a man seduces a virgin who is not pledged to be married and sleeps
  with her, he must pay the bride-price, and she shall be his wife (Exo 22:16, NIV)

but "seduces" here doesn't seem to be same as "rapes".

Is there any other verse saying that if a woman was raped, she needs to marry the one who raped her?


texts: What is Paul saying in Romans 7:15 - 7:25?

texts:
The way I interpret it is that he's saying that if we commit sin while we are aware that it is sinful and if we hate the sin we commit then we are not really committing sin but rather the "sin which dwells in [us]" is doing it. Is this the generally accepted interpretation?

The NASB text:

14 For we know that the Law is spiritual, but I am of flesh, sold [m]into bondage to sin. 15 For what I am doing, I do not understand; for I am not practicing what I would like to do, but I am doing the very thing I hate. 16 But if I do the very thing I do not want to do, I agree with the Law, confessing that the Law is good. 17 So now, no longer am I the one doing it, but sin which dwells in me. 18 For I know that nothing good dwells in me, that is, in my flesh; for the willing is present in me, but the doing of the good is not. 19 For the good that I want, I do not do, but I practice the very evil that I do not want. 20 But if I am doing the very thing I do not want, I am no longer the one doing it, but sin which dwells in me.

21 I find then the [n]principle that evil is present in me, the one who wants to do good. 22 For I joyfully concur with the law of God [o]in the inner man, 23 but I see a different law in [p]the members of my body, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner [q]of the law of sin which is in my members. 24 Wretched man that I am! Who will set me free from [r]the body of this death? 25 Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, on the one hand I myself with my mind am serving the law of God, but on the other, with my flesh the law of sin.


texts: In Catholic teaching, to what scripture is each of the seven sacraments referenced?

texts:
In Catholic teaching, to what scripture (OT and NT) is each of the seven sacraments referenced?

The seven sacraments are:

Baptism,
Confirmation (or Chrismation),
the Eucharist,
Penance,
the Anointing of the Sick,
Holy Orders and
Matrimony.


texts: What arguments are there that, by him who is Logos, life was not - immediately and purposefully - created on earth?

texts:
In the beginning was the Logos and the Logos was with God. And the Logos was God ...
  All things were made by him and without him was not anything made that was made.[John 1:1-3 KJV]

What arguments are there that life on earth was made by any other means than through Him who, from the beginning, is Logos (who is now named Jesus Christ) ?

I mean this question in the context of arguments made by so-called 'old earth' theorists who argue for an evolutionary 'creation' - which is impossible (see below) - rather than an immediate creative act in producing life on earth.

All life on earth is cellular, whether animal or vegetable. Life on earth is a matter of cells, even viruses. The organic molecules within the cell do not occur in nature, nor do they survive in nature (except, interestingly, DNA). These - the most complex molecules found on earth, only occur in living cells, not otherwise.

Experiments with electric discharges (to simulate lightning) in vessels containing inorganic molecules have, arguably, produced only a few of the most simple amino acids.

Calculations (see YouTube video produced by eminent scientists) show that the chance occurrence of a single protein (of the more simple kind of structure) would take immeasurably longer than the supposed age of the universe.

The chance occurrence of a single cell is simply impossible, requiring the juxtaposition of a vast array of heterocyclic sugars; all twenty two of the essential amino acids; at least three hundred proteins all folded into exactly the correct three dimensional form to facilitate their own, specific, catalytic task; ribosomes, DNA and RNA.

The DNA would need to be already coded (C,G,A and T) to form a living organism, something that is chemically impossible without the active presence of both ribosomes and messenger RNA.

The energy of the cell is produced by the reaction of ADP (adenodiphosphate) to ATP (adenotriphosphate) which reaction (called the Krebs cycle or the Citric Acid Cycle) requires an array of sugars and other organic molecules to be successful.

How do evolutionists explain the impossibility of a single cell ever forming by chance, of its own accord - and not by the immediate oversight and the focused attention of the Intelligent and Eternal Creator of all things ?


texts:
I am very interested in learning about Christianity and would like to purchase History Channel's The Bible.

How close is this to the actual scriptures? Is this series a good introduction to Christianity to non-Christians?


texts: What was the Crown of Thorn in the Lord's Passion made of?

texts:
At Matthew 27:29 we see :

"..and after twisting some thorns into a crown, they put it on his head. They put a reed in his right hand and knelt before him and mocked him, saying, “Hail, King of the Jews!”

I wish to know the name of the plant or the tree, the thorns of which were used by the soldiers to make the crown. Has the Catholic Church made some research into the nature and properties of the thorns ?


texts: According to Catholicism, can demons force or misguide you into receiving communion?

texts:
I was listening to Father Rippergers  online sermon about communion. He said, the demons force to receive  communion even when you have not repented. He also said receiving communion if you have not repented will lead to more sin and that's what the demons want. I had believed that you can take communion only when it's the will of God. The holy ghost will guide you and let you receive communion. And Jesus had said " No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws them, and I will raise them up at the last day".
There are many children's who take communion, have they repented? Can demons force or misguide you into receiving communion?


texts: Are there any churches that do not accept the teachings of Paul?

texts:
From different discussions (including some on this site) it seems that Paul's teachings were different from the teachings of Jesus and the other apostles in some aspects. In light of this are there any churches that do not accept the teachings of Paul? If there are no such churches today, were there any in the past?

I am asking regarding the teachings of Paul. This has nothing to do about the person Paul. And again, I am just asking for information, not any type of argument for/against Paul.


texts: Why was St. Joseph given instructions in dreams? (Roman Catholic perspective)

texts:
We see that St. Joseph was given instruction by the Lord in dreams, as follows:

But after he had considered this, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream and said, “Joseph son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary home as your wife, because what is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit. (Matthew 1:20 - NIV)
When they had gone, an angel of the Lord appeared to Joseph in a dream. “Get up,” he said, “take the child and his mother and escape to Egypt. Stay there until I tell you, for Herod is going to search for the child to kill him.” (Matthew 2:13)
After Herod died, an angel of the Lord appeared in a dream to Joseph in Egypt. (Matthew 2:19)

But then we also see that St.Mary was directly met by the Angel of the Lord during the Annunciation.
One might argue that the role that Joseph was assigned with, as both the foster father and the guardian of infant Jesus, was no less important than the role that was given to Mary. Given that, I wonder why Joseph was not given instructions in person by an angel. Do the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church mention anything to explain the difference?


texts: What is the proper use of money in Luke 16:1-13?

texts:
This is the parable of the dishonest manager, about to sacked for squandering his master's property.  (We don't know if used the property for personal gain, or made bad investments, or what have you.)  The manager secures his future by slashing the bills of his master's debtors.  As the old joke goes, he made friends in low places.

Jesus says: "Make friends for yourselves by means of dishonest wealth [mammon] so that when it is gone, they may welcome you into the eternal homes."

The story is clearly rich in irony: the bad manager saves himself by becoming an even worse manager.  But does Jesus's conclusion rise (or perhaps sink) to the level of sarcasm?  In other words, how am I to understand what Jesus is saying specifically about mammon?

Update (previously posted outside the question as fodder):

In long form, here are some of the readings and questions that it would be helpful to have clarified by an interpretation aligned with doctrine:

Taken as straight sarcasm (an oxymoron): "Go ahead, use money to make friends, and when it's gone and you're gone, then you'll know who your friends are. No doubt they too have a mansion of many rooms, and you can take the guest house by the pool."

Taken straight (albeit also with irony): There is a use even for money, and how you use it can, guess what, buy your way into heaven.  (Obviously there is no quid pro quo, so it's not as crude as that.)

This is a different policy from "render unto Caesar," and is closer to the rich man who followed all the commandments but could not give away his wealth (any more than the camel could squeeze through the needle's eye). That is, there is a direct call to dispose of wealth, but how does making friends enter into it?

The policy position is laid out in the rest of the passage: you can't serve God and mammon, you must love one and despise the other. But you must be "faithful" with mammon, that is, trustworthy with it.

What does it mean in this context to be faithful with mammon, a very little thing? Jesus doesn't seem to be talking about tithes or donations to good causes or avoidance of greed (cf Luke 12). Nor is he talking about money management per se, putting coins in a bank to learn deferred gratification. In particular, the dishonest manager was praised for acting shrewdly, "for the children of this age are more shrewd in dealing with their own generation than are the children of light."

If this shrewdness is just a kind of carnal wisdom, a sophia of mammon, can we take this praise at face value? If the master who praises the manager is the Lord, as usual in these parables, then perhaps it just means that you have to cut the children of darkness some slack. But it's a backhanded sort of praise at best; Jesus is telling his disciples, But don't you children of light go acting that way. What is this shrewdness? Knowing whom to buy off? How big a discount to give? Maybe that's why the children of light must go whole-hog and give it all away. Otherwise, they'd just get taken.

Even in this view, I'm not sure which of the first two conjectures is more stable: that his crack about the proper use of mammon to buy friends and influence or at least grease the pearly gates is sarcasm of a high sort, or that his crack about the proper use of mammon reveals the deep irony in pursuing Christian ideals when dealing with our own generation.

Note: @AffableGeek's link to a broader bounty question is fruitful. A recent comment suggests plainly that Jesus is being sarcastic; there are interesting suggestions that the discounts dispensed by the manager represent his own cut, i.e., what he was skimming from the accounts, so that maybe he had learned to sacrifice money for more enduring relationships; there are suggestions that Jesus does mean for the children of light to learn from the worldly; and also a suggestion that the text is corrupt.


texts: If God cannot cause or be evil how did he send an evil spirit to Saul?

texts: He sent an evil spirit to Saul to cause him to attack David. How is this possible if God is good?


texts:
There are some sentences which are difficult to read in the Gospel of John, some of them lead me think that the Comforter will be a person, which has not come yet (A) whereas there are some which lead me to believe that the Comforter was the Holy Spririt (B).

(A)

  When he comes, he will prove the world to be in the wrong about sin and righteousness and judgment: about sin, because people do not believe in me; about righteousness, because I am going to the Father, where you can see me no longer; and about judgment, because the prince of this world now stands condemned. John 16:8-11

It seems to me that it has not happened already that those 3 fact were fulfilled, in particula the last one, I can't say Satan has been defeated again since Jesus death.

  13 But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all the truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come. John 16:13

How can we say that a spirit hears? Additionally the greek word is ἀκούω, https://studybible.info/strongs/G191 shows the common usage on persons.

(B)

  And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another advocate to help you and be with you forever, the Spirit of truth. The world cannot accept him, because it neither sees him nor knows him. But you know him, for he lives with you and will be in you. John 14:16-17

This can only be the spirit because of the last sentence, and because otherwise how can he be forever?

So what are your thoughts?


texts: What is the Catholic Church's view on curses and their after-effects?

texts:
We see at Exodus 20:232-24 (NRSVCE):

"You shall not abuse any widow or orphan.  If you do abuse them, when they cry out to me, I will surely heed their cry;  my wrath will burn, and I will kill you with the sword, and your wives shall become widows and your children orphans."

It is not uncommon for someone to curse another- sometimes with deep feeling of hurt, and sometimes out of ego. Some  parents curse their children in certain situations. But, in the post-Prodigal Son scenario, one wonders whether God prefers to have the parents, build up patience with the prodigal children, or to go ahead with executing their curse. My question therefore is: What is the Catholic Church's view on curses, especially those of parents, and their after-effects.


texts: Why did Jesus favor Peter, James and John more than the other disciples?

texts: It's clear that Peter, James and John witnessed more miracles that Jesus did than the other disciples.  Why weren't the other disciples permitted to see the miracles that Jesus performed like Peter, James and John did?


texts: What is the Biblical support for a distinction between veneration and worship?

texts:
I was reading a question about icons, and this raised some questions for me.

Catholic and Eastern Orthodox beliefs hold to there being a difference between worship and veneration. What is the Biblical support for drawing a distinction between worship and veneration?

I was not able to find an answer on SE for this that does not rely on external sources.


texts: What is the Lutheran doctrine of consubstantiation and how does it differ from transubstantiation and a more general protestant sacramental view?

texts:
In transubstantiation, the bread and wine are said to become the literal body and blood of Jesus. Consubstantiation appears to affirm that "this is my body" does apply to the bread and wine, but not in Aristotelian categories of substance, but in some mysterious, but still actual sense.

A more general protestant sacramental view might say for example, "Jesus really actually gives us the gift of his body and blood in eating the bread and drinking the wine but we need not think that something has happened to change the bread and wine or that it is appropriate to worship or adore Jesus in or as the bread and wine. Rather, these are gifts to build up the people of God."

Lutheran consubstantiation seems to straddle transubstantiation and general sacramental protestantism in a way that makes it difficult to tell where the actual distinctions are.

So did I get the Lutheran view right? What are the real distinctions here and why do they matter?


texts: Has the Categorical Imperative ever been denounced by the Catholic Church

texts:
Lots of enlightenment thinking (particularly those leading towards too much collectivism or capitalism, freethought and rationalism) have been denounced by the Popes and the Saints and the Bishops and lots of other people,  but has Immanuel Kant ever been denounced?   I only took one introductory Philosophy class in college and the only system that I remotely took a fancy too was the Categorical Imperative.

What I want to know is, in a broad sense, has it been found lacking in some way by the philosophical arm of the Catholic Church?  It seems to me a great way of refuting a number of the moral evils of the day (from littering to gay "marriage"), but is a Catholic justified in using it as a justification for anything?

I'd prefer any answer not go in to great detail about Kant himself; just the very basic nature of "something that is good for me, should be good for everyone".  Because it sounds to me like proto-personalism.


texts: God's patience towards the demons in 1 Peter 3

texts:
I understand that there are three popular interpretations of 1 Peter 3:18-20.

Jesus preached salvation, a second proclamation of grace to those who are in Hell.
Similarly, Jesus preached to those in Hell, but only to those who rejected Noah's preaching while he built the ark.
Jesus gave a proclamation of his victory over death to the demons in Hades.

I would like to ask a question regarding this third position related to a phrase in verse 20, taking for granted it is the correct interpretation.
Verse 20 in the NASB says (emphasis mine)

who once were disobedient, when the patience of God kept waiting in the days of Noah, during the construction of the ark, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through the water.
— 1 Peter 3:20

Is Peter saying that God was patient with the demons despite their disobedience for a time?
In Genesis 6:1-8

Now it came about, when men began to multiply on the face of the land, and daughters were born to them, that the sons of God saw that the daughters of men were beautiful; and they took wives for themselves, whomever they chose. Then the Lord said, “My Spirit shall not strive with man forever, because he also is flesh; nevertheless his days shall be one hundred and twenty years.” The Nephilim were on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of men, and they bore children to them. Those were the mighty men who were of old, men of renown.   Then the Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great on the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. The Lord was sorry that He had made man on the earth, and He was grieved in His heart. The Lord said, “I will blot out man whom I have created from the face of the land, from man to animals to creeping things and to birds of the sky; for I am sorry that I have made them.” But Noah found favor in the eyes of the Lord.
— Genesis 6:1-8

...it says that the Nephilim intermarried with daughters of men so they bore them children. If it's not clear, I am assuming the Nephilim are demonic entities for the sake of argument. When Peter writes that God was patient, is that referring to a period of time where God chose not to judge these demons and that comes after Christ was in the grave according to this third position? Or is it referring to something else?
I understand that Peter is using parallelism of sorts in the surrounding context by comparing baptism to the ark saving (non-salvifically) Noah's family. So maybe there's an element of that as well that I am not understanding.