texts: List of old heresies condemned by the Catholic Church now present in Mormonism and Jehovah's Witnesses

texts: The title says it all, I'd like a list of all heresies condemned by the Catholic Church, but note this, it must be before the Protestant Reformation. This time specifically those heresies identified in Mormonism and Jehovah's witnesses.


texts: What do the Apologists mean by three persons as "one in nature" if the Son and Spirit are not eternal?

texts:
The christology of the Apologists is known to be the Logos Christology. Their teaching is summarized as follows:

Logos endiathetos - eternal reason within God
Logos prophorikos - the spoken word of God ( the begotten Son)

The Son, according to the Apologists, was begotten in order to create all things. It means that there is neither eternal Father nor eternal Son. (source)

The Apologists believe that God became a Father when his logos became his Son. Although they are two persons, there is still one God because the Son is from God's being and hence, inseparable to him. They further teach that the Father and the Son are "of same nature" and even used analogies like the Sun and its light are of same nature. The Latin Apologists, Tertullian says:

  Thus the connection of the Father in the Son, and of the Son in the
  Paraclete, produces three coherent Persons, who are yet distinct One
  from Another. These Three are one essence, not one Person, as it is
  said, I and my Father are One, John 10:30 in respect of unity of
  substance not singularity of number. Against Praxeas 25

On the otherhand, Athanasius taught that the Father and the Son are both eternal. He taught that the Son is without beginning because the Father who begot him is without beginning. (source)

So as I understand it we have:

Athanasius ( Son = eternal) of one nature with the Father. I do believe this is logical.
Apologists (Son = not eternal) of one nature with the Father. I can't understand how could they affirm the Son's consubstantiality with the Father when they affirm that the Son has a beginning of existence.

Now, my question is this:

In what sense do the Apologists mean when they affirm the consubstantiality of the Trinity? Both the Apologists and Athanasius ( + all of the Pro-Nicene Fathers) agree that the Three are "of one nature, essence, substance, being", but the former affirm that the Son has a beginning while the latter affirm that the Son has no beginning, so what's the meaning of their affirmation "of one nature"?


texts: Overview of countries using the Gregorian calendar vs the Julian calendar for calculating Easter?

texts:
I hope that this question is okay to ask in here.

I am looking for an overview of countries that are using the Gregorian calendar as the basis for calculating the placement of Easter and/or a list of those basing it on the Julian calendar. Since I would expect them to be mutually exclusive. I have spent quite a lot of time looking for it, but so far with no success.

Thank you in advance :)


texts:
Question
How widespread was the observance of the Jewish Sabbath among Christians during Early Christianity (A.D. 30–324)?
Further Details
As a reminder, the Jewish Sabbath is defined as:

[...] the Sabbath, is Judaism's day of rest on the seventh day of the week—i.e., Saturday. On this day, religious Jews remember the biblical story describing the creation of the heavens and the earth in six days and look forward to a future Messianic Age. Since the Jewish religious calendar counts days from sunset to sunset, Shabbat begins in the evening of what on the secular calendar is Friday.

And Early Christianity is commonly understood as:

Early Christianity is generally reckoned by church historians to begin with the ministry of Jesus (c. 27–30) and end with the First Council of Nicaea (325). It is typically divided into two periods: the Apostolic Age (c. 30–100, when the first apostles were still alive) and the Ante-Nicene Period (c. 100–325).

And to be more precise, given that Early Christianity spans about 300 years, it's quite likely that the answer to the question depends on what specific period of time (and location) we are looking at. For this reason, I would rather like to know how the popularity of Jewish Sabbath observance among Christians has evolved over time. Was it very popular at the beginning and then gradually became less widespread as time went on? Were there specific places where Christians were more likely to be Sabbath-keepers than in others?


texts: How do we know that Judas was a "wealthy landowner"?

texts:
In an interview that the New York Times had with the author Amos Oz, there is a mention of Oz's interest in the New Testament, "which began when he was a 16-year-old, living on a kibbutz and spending his evenings in the library, reading the gospels." We then hear about Oz's thoughts on the Judas Iscariot figure:

  [Oz] saw some glaring inconsistencies. Judas was a wealthy landowner, so why did he need those 30 pieces of silver, equivalent, Mr. Oz said, to no more than $600 today?

This perturbed me since I do not remember ever reading that Judas Iscariot was a "wealthy landowner," despite having had a lot of exposure to the New Testament over the years. The only link between land and Judas that I could think of was the episode at the end of his life where he dies and the blood money is used to purchase a potter's field. I also tried searching for "Judas" on Bible Gateway; the only result that seemed relevant was in Acts 1:16–19:

  (Now this man acquired a field with the reward of his wickedness; and falling headlong, he burst open in the middle and all his bowels gushed out. This became known to all the residents of Jerusalem, so that the field was called in their language Hakeldama, that is, Field of Blood.)

To me, this is at best ambiguous. That "the reward of his wickedness" was the means with which Judas acquired the field implies to me that Judas was only able to buy this field because of the blood money. Furthermore, this does not shed light on Judas' prior financial position.

Am I missing something in my reasoning (both in terms of the text of the New Testament itself, and in terms of relevant historical knowledge or traditional interpretations), or is my scepticism towards Oz's reading justified?


texts: According to dispensationalism, who is 'the dragon' and what are the differences between 'the dragon' and 'the beast'?

texts:
Based in the question: According to full preterism, who is 'the dragon' and what are the differences between 'the dragon' and 'the beast'?

In some passages from the Bible there exists sentences such as: Revelation 12:9

  The great dragon was hurled down—that ancient serpent called the devil, or Satan, who leads the whole world astray. He was hurled to the earth, and his angels with him.

and Revelation 13:4

  People worshiped the dragon because he had given authority to the beast, and they also worshiped the beast and asked, “Who is like the beast? Who can wage war against it?"

Since I am assuming that 'Satan', 'the beast', etc are the same entity then

  Who is 'the dragon' and what are the differences between 'the dragon' and 'the beast'?


texts:
Could December 25 as the birthday of Jesus have come from Pagan influences?

I am asking this due to the information in the following sources:

“NIMROD” – The LORD of
Christmas
Church of Satan Holiday FAQ

This question is asked for information to engage in solid & meaningful apologetics with pantheists & satanists and not to bash Roman Catholics.The comments to Caleb gives more info.


texts: Have Creationists advanced any particular Theories of Origin that they claim are falsifiable via the scientific method?

texts:
This is an attempt at an on-topic and useful version of this question - any  edits or feedback to ensure that it meets both of those aims are welcome.

To clarify the key term in use:

  Falsifiability is the ability of a theory—a working framework for explaining and predicting natural phenomena—to be disproved by an experiment or observation. - Rationalwiki

In my opinion, an ideal answer will be structured as an overview of different forms of Creationism with brief descriptions of any relevant theories including references.


texts: If the Bible has been changed over the years, can we still trust it?

texts:
I read that there are passages that exist today that are not in some of the oldest scrolls.  Since these passages were added along the way—maybe to help explain something—can we trust that the Bible is the same original word of God?

These possible later additions include the following:

the ending of Mark, see Mark 16.
Jesus sweating blood in Luke (Luke 22:43–44).
the story in John of the woman taken in adultery, the Pericope
Adulterae.
an explicit reference to the Trinity in 1 John, the Comma Johanneum.

While many of the changes are small and not important, "Comma Johanneum" is the only place in the entire Bible that the Trinity is directly addressed.  So if this wasn't part of the original text, that would be problematic.

If the original scrolls were inspired, why didn't God preserve them?  Alternatively, how can we trust that the Bible we hold in our hands today faithfully represents the originals?


texts: What happens to Lutherans who become Catholic?

texts:
This question is a two-parter, I know that's bad form but I don't want to justify two questions.

Question 1 - if a Lutheran drifts into Catholic beliefs, like the Immaculate Conception of Mary, the Primacy of Peter and a belief in Salvation through Faith and Good Works are they free to do so?

Question 2 - if they are received into the Catholic Church at some point in time is there formal process of excommunication from the former Church.  I know that as a Catholic they'd be obligated not to take part in Lutheran services but from the Lutheran perspective what does the convert have to give up and what can he or she take?


texts: How do JWs respond to Jude 9 in light of Matthew 4:10?

texts:
Jehovah's Witnesses believe that Jesus and Michael the Archangel are one in the same.  However, in light of these two verses:

Jude 9 (NIV):

  But even the archangel Michael, when he was disputing with the devil about the body of Moses, did not himself dare to condemn him for slander but said, “The Lord rebuke you!”

Matthew 4:10 (NIV):

  Jesus said to him, “Away from me, Satan! For it is written: ‘Worship the Lord your God, and serve him only.’”

We see that Michael was afraid to rebuke Satan directly, but Jesus was not.  This seems to clearly indicate that they are not the same person at all, but that Jesus is a higher authority than Michael.

How do Jehovah's Witnesses explain this apparent discrepancy?


texts: Why aren't there any examples of a child or teen conversion in the NT?

texts:
For instance, in the book of Acts, we can read about men and women converting to Christianity but never about children or teenagers:

Acts 5:14
14 And all the more believers in the Lord, multitudes of men and women, were constantly added to their number,
Acts 8:12
12 But when they believed Philip preaching the good news about the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, they were being baptized, men and women alike.
Acts 17:4
4 And some of them were persuaded and joined Paul and Silas, along with a large number of the God-fearing Greeks and a number of the leading women.

All the figures of the New Testament seem to be adults only: Apollos, Aquila, Cornelius, Gamaliel, Joseph of Arimathea, Lazarus, Luke, Lydia, Mark, Martha, Mary Magdalene, Nicodemus, Philemon, Priscilla, Silas, Stephen, Timothy, Titus...
Why aren't teen and child conversions never mentioned? Did they ever occur?
Maybe minors where not candidates for discipleship.


texts:
Did the Jansenists deny the gratuity of grace? That is, did they think praying more or doing more works of supererogation could always coerce God into granting them more grace, not that God grants or withholds grace as he pleases?

Ephesians 2:8-10 For by grace you are saved through faith, and that not of yourselves, for it is the gift of God; not of works, that no man may glory. For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus in good works, which God hath prepared that we should walk in them.


texts: Why is Jesus the Son called the Father in Isaiah 9:6?

texts:
In providing this answer with respect to recognizing the Trinity in the Old Testament, I noticed that Jesus is called the Father which could be confusing when trying to understand the Trinity. In what sense is Jesus the Father but certainly not the Father?

  For to us a child is born, to us a son is given, and the government will be on his shoulders. And he will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace. (NIV Isaiah 9:6)

Please do not answer unless your answers uphold the doctrine of the Trinity. I do not want the debate about the trinity to confuse the question. The answer must assume the Trinity is true, that is the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are equal yet different persons that share the same single divine nature and therefore are called the One and true God.


texts: Source of the view that the human will is necessitated but not coerced

texts:
Consider this excerpt from Aquinas:

  Some have held that the human will is necessarily moved to choose things.  But they did not hold that the will is coerced, since only something from an external source, not everything necessary, is coerced.  And so also some necessary movements are natural but not coerced.  For what is coerced is as contrary to what is natural as to what is voluntary, since the source of both the natural and the voluntary is internal, and the source of what is coerced is external.  But this opinion is heretical...
  (De Malo, Question VI, Article I)

It is interesting that the heretical position which Aquinas describes is later taken up by John Calvin in his reply to Pighius.

My question is this:
 Which theologians held the view that Aquinas describes?  Where does it come from?
Secondarily and related:
Where did John Calvin get this idea from?


texts: Was Charles Russel, Founder of the Jehovah's Witnesses, a Freemason?

texts:
I've heard it stated that the founder of Jehovah's Witnesses, Charles Taze Russel, was a Freemason (33rd Degree) which may have been partially responsible for his interest in collaborating bible prophecy with the pyramids, as well as the symbolism he used in some of his books.

There seems to be arguments both for and against this, both convincing. Is there any solid historical proof of as to whether or not this claim is true?


texts: Is Job's statement that his redeemer lives and would stand upon the Earth, a statement of faith or a prediction of Christ?

texts:
Job in his distress stated that he believed that he would be redeemed by a redeemer who would in the latter day.

Job 19:25  KJV

  For I know that my redeemer liveth, and that he shall stand at the latter day upon the earth:.

Since this was said by Job while he was in contention with God, I have wondered if he was predicting the birth of a savior much in the same way that Isaiah did in Isaiah chapter 53 (not quoted here for the sake of brevity).

Are there any theologians, or doctrines from any denominations concerning this?


texts:
Muhammad claimed to be a Prophet of God, even God's last Prophet.  As such his life should have been godly.
There is not much of his life revealed in the Quran.  What is spoken of sometimes needs one of the reliable hadith to explain what is being talked about in the Quran. For Muhammad's life it is necessary to go to the hadith.  The most reliable hadith are gathered in the Kutub al-Sittah sometimes called the Sihah al-Sittah, which includes the Sahih Bukhari, the Sahih Muslim, the Sunan al-Sughra and the Sunan Abu Dawood.  The most reliable is considered to be the Sahih Bukhari (which is available online in English).
My question is "On what basis do Evangelical apologists argue that Muhammad committed sin?"


texts: What is the origin of Angel of God prayer?


texts: Comparison of church services between Church of Ireland and the Catholic Church

texts: I am Roman Catholic and what I would like to know is how does the Mass of the Roman Catholic Church differ from one in the Church of Ireland.


texts: What is the biblical basis against seeking medical advice?

texts: Which scriptures are used to deter Christians from seeking medical advice or the help of a doctor?


texts: What is the meaning of 'the Sun and the Moon' in Joseph's dream?

texts:
And he dreamed yet another dream, and told it to his brethren, and
  said, Behold, I have dreamed yet a dream: and, behold, the sun and the
  moon and eleven stars made obeisance to me. And he told it to his
  father, and to his brethren; and his father rebuked him, and said unto
  him, What is this dream that thou hast dreamed? Shall I and thy mother
  and thy brethren indeed come to bow down ourselves to thee to the
  earth? - Genesis 37:9-10

If we continue to read the book we will see that Joseph's ten brothers bowed before him. Benjamin is a question mark for me, because the Bible doesn't say specifically whether Benjamin bowed or not. But we know that Joseph's father and mother didn't bow before Joseph, because later we read:

  And Joseph made ready his chariot, and went up to meet Israel his
  father, to Goshen; and he presented himself unto him, and fell on his
  neck, and wept on his neck a good while. - Genesis 46:29

So Joseph's father didn't bow before Joseph, and his mother - Rakhel - wasn't alive anymore. The question is, when is the dream fulfilled, and what are the sun and moon?


texts: What are the theological reasons some Protestants are Zionists?

texts:
Zionism, founded by Theodor Herzl, is a movement for reestablishing a political nation for the Jewish people. Thus, what are the theological reasons why some Protestants are Zionists, especially in the U.S.?

(cf. this question)


texts: According to Catholicism, why was Adam alone given the charge of naming the animals and birds?

texts:
Genesis 2:18–20 (NRSVCE) says:

  "Then the Lord God said, “It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper as his partner.”   So out of the ground the Lord God formed every animal of the field and every bird of the air, and brought them to the man to see what he would call them; and whatever the man called every living creature, that was its name.   The man gave names to all cattle, and to the birds of the air, and to every animal of the field; but for the man there was not found a helper as his partner."

One feels that the ritual of naming the animals and birds could have taken place after the creation of Eve so that Adam would have had someone to consult with. My qustion is: Why did God entrust the duty of naming the animals and birds only to Adam? What do the teachings of the Catholic Church say on the subject?


texts: According to the Catholic Church, do animals have free will?

texts: Do animals have free will or are they already pre-defined in what they do?  Also, how does the answer to this question affect humans when we use our free will to interact with animals? I'm looking for the Catholic view point.


texts:
Is there a reason why female Mormon missionaries wear such varied dresses but male Mormon missionaries wear uniforms?

I see male missionaries often. They are easily recognizable, because they all wear uniform outfits - white t-shirt, black pants, and a clean tie to finish. When I go on the Mormon site, the dress code for men seems more varied than what I previously thought, and the dress code for women is not only more varied but also more colorful and vibrant.

My question is, is this true? Do Mormon missionary women get to wear more varied and colorful clothing than Mormon missionary men? And why do the men on the website wear more varied clothing with different-colored ties but the men on the street wear exactly the same style?


texts: Is there any apocryphal gospel where someone else is crucified?

texts:
In Islam Jesus is not crucified but instead of Him someone else is crucified, and Jesus went directly to heaven.

Moslims told me that Mohammed received his information about Jesus from the angel Gabriel. But in Mohammeds' days he probably knew or heared about gospels telling another story of Jesus like He wasn't crucified. But is there a gospel known where that is the case?


texts: How to define an independent interference by God?

texts:
The most clear evidence when people state their belief is experience.
The reasons vary:

logical expressions of belief is somewhat inverted (read this paragraph)
experience is connected to intimate feelings and thus valued over analog reasoning
maybe others...?

During my studies of calculations in probability at the university, I had to be very careful to distinguish events and their relative dependance on each other.
If you do not rightly separate events from their dependencies -  the calculated results can be very surprising because intuition can be misleading. If you are not very familiar with this, there exists a very basic problem that illustrates a simple example: Monty Hall problem
"Two Events are independent...
...when they have no connexion one with the other, and that the happening of one neither forwards nor obstructs the happening of the other.”
I have strong problems of regarding so called personal experiences of god as true evidence of his interference in life because they are not independent. They cannot be verified as being divine in any way.
Usually, the experience...

...can be explained to be a rather unlikely event, but that does not make it divine.
...is only real to the witness. (narrator; one person)

In the last case the experience is not an independent event to a third person like me. The experience is always connected to the witness.
What would true independent divine interference 'look' like?
How can you define divine interference?


texts: How do Jehovah's Witnesses interpret verses like Isaiah 9:6 which call the messiah 'God'?

texts:
For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the
government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called
Wonderful, Counsellor, THE MIGHTY GOD, The everlasting Father, The
Prince of Peace. (Isaiah 9:6)

Indeed if there is one God wouldn't this verse mean that the child, the Messiah, who we know as Jesus, is that God?


texts: Does any Biblical basis exist for a year to be called a day?

texts:
According to Peter 3:8, thousand years is like only one day for God:

But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day.

Thus, God has the  broadest scope of history than anybody else; which also Isaiah alluded to:

“As the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts. (55:9)

Acknowledging that we come up short in comparison with the wiser spiritual entity we call God, I am asking: does any Biblical basis exist for a year to be called a day?


texts: What do Evangelical Christians consider "the traditions" to be in 1 Thessalonians 2:15?

texts:
Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.

What are these "traditions" to Evangelicals?


texts: Why are there people in Protestant countries with the last name "Pope"?

texts: The last name "Pope" is prevalent in places such as England and the USA. Are we to assume that all such people are Catholic? If not i.e. if they are Protestant, is this simply the result of lineage dating back to before the Reformation, or is there another reason entirely?


texts: Did King James have any words put into the book of Deuteronomy in the translation of the Bible?

texts:
I have been told that there is a letter held by the University of St. Andrews, Scotland from King James telling the translators to include words against witchcraft; this being a follow-on from the persecution of those people who were pagans or followers of the dark arts. As a Christian and a firm believer that the Bible is the true word of God, I find it difficult to believe that what I have been told is right.
Therefore my question is this: Did King James ever tell those translating the Bible to include anything that was not in the original Hebrew OT or the Greek NT?


texts: We see in the parables of Jesus, many moments which  provide   for dramatic presentation, like the scene of the prodigal son envying the well-fed swines, or the father running to the gate to receive his son. It is hard to believe that Jesus said all those things without emotional attachment. He would have taken the assistance of the disciples and presented the parables in such a way that they stayed put in the hearts of those who listened. My question therefore, is: what does the Catholic Church say about the manner in which Jesus presented His parables ?


texts: How comparable are the concepts of the Teaching Magisterium in the Catholic Church and the Jehovah's Witnesses view of their Watch Tower society?

texts:
Just how comparable is this particular aspect of each group's ecclesiology? If from an academic viewpoint there are marked similarities, is there an identifiable Jehovah's witness perspective on the significance of such similarities? Would they seek to embrace, downplay or refute a comparison in this area?

Disclaimer: This question was inspired by the following comment: "Put simply, they (Jehovah's witnesses) teach that God always directs teaching through an organization, so those outside that organization have rejected it. They simply do not recognise any other groups as valid." from an answer to this question: Why do JW think other faiths are unbelievers?


texts:
From a Catholic perspective, did Adam's body undergo any change after the fall?

Probably there is no hint in the Scripture, but I wonder if the problem has ever been raised by Catholic commentators.


texts: What is the difference between "love one another" and "love your neighbour"?

texts:
How have “love one another” and “love your neighbour” been traditionally compared or harmonized? The former occurs in the Gospel and Epistles of John, which never say “love your neighbour”.  The latter is in Matthew, Mark, Luke, and James, which do not refer to “love each other”.

According to John 13:34, Christ said:

  A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another.

If this is a new commandment, it must encompass something different from the old commandment in Leviticus 19:18:

  Thou shalt not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself: I am the LORD.

In the early post-apostolic literature, only “love one another” appears in Second Clement, Minucius Felix, Aristides, and the Epistle of the Apostles, while the Didache, Justin Martyr, and Barnabas exclusively say “neighbour”.

Both expressions are found in the Pauline Epistles, in Clement of Alexandria, and Tertullian.  The two appear closely together, in adjoining sentences, only in Romans 13.8-9 and Clement’s Stromata 2.15.

Complicating the issue were Polycarp, Irenaeus, and the Gospel of Thomas, who used neither expression, but say only “love your brother”.  First John 2.10, 3.14, and 4.21 also say “love your brother” while other verses in the Epistle exhort “love one another”.

With such a wide usage of both phrases, how have they been traditionally compared and contrasted? Do they find harmony or are they different phrases commanding different things?


texts: Who are the "extreme Anabaptists" who believed that regeneration makes people incapable of sin?

texts:
While reading Louis Berkhof's Systematic Theology, I noticed an interesting tidbit about the beliefs of "extreme Anabaptists" on regeneration.  He argues:

  [Regeneration is not] a complete or perfect change of the whole nature of man, or of any part of it, so that it is no more capable of sin, as was taught by the extreme Anabaptists and by some other fanatical sects. (4.6.C)

From this I gather that these "extreme Anabaptists" believed that at least some part of the "nature of man" was completely, perfectly transformed in regeneration, making the regenerate unable to sin.

This does seem outside the norm for Anabaptists, and it makes me wonder:

Who taught this, and when?
Did they consider regeneration to be something instantaneous (as in Reformed theology), or a process (like sanctification)?
Did they believe that the whole nature of man, or only a part of it (soul? spirit?) was transformed?


texts: How does the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints reconcile 3 Nephi 15:23 with Jesus visiting Joseph Smith?

texts:
In 3 Nephi 15:23, Jesus says to the Book of Mormon peoples:

...and they understood me not that the Gentiles should not at any time hear my voice-that I should not manifest myself unto them save it were by the Holy Ghost.

Joseph Smith was a Gentile, so every time I read this part of this verse the title question always comes to mind.
I've always reconciled it by interpreting this statement as Jesus meaning that "I shouldn't have to manifest myself to the Gentiles" - but that He ended up needing to do that. I don't like that interpretation, but it's the best I can think of, and I've never been able to find a better alternative in Google searches.
An answer should include official references from The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. I'm interested in explanations from unofficial sources too, because I usually find those to be valuable - on their own though I wouldn't accept them as an answer.


texts: Which Christian traditions value the Gospels more than the Epistles?

texts: I'm wondering if there are (or were) any Christian communities or traditions that pay (or paid) more attention to the teaching of Jesus than to the teaching of apostles.


texts: According to the Southern Baptist Convention, what is the biblical basis for involving the church in politics?

texts:
I live in Kentucky, and a predominant preacher in this state is a man named Paul Chitwood, who is the executive director of the Kentucky Baptist Convention. In 2015, Chitwood wrote an article called Kentucky Baptist and marijuana. My concern is not whether a child should be taken from their parents for consuming a plant that’s less harmful than sugar.

According to the Southern Baptist Convention, what is the Biblical basis for using the government’s aggression against people who do not live up to their own ideological standards- such as people with dependency issues?


texts: Did God use man as a vehicle to bring about death?

texts:
Before creation there would have been no death. All of the Angels God created are eternal.

When God Created everything then time was also created, but Earth and time are both temporary creations.

All scripture is quoted from the King James translation.

  Revelation 21:1  And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth are passed away; and the sea is no more.

Revelation 10:5 and 6

  And the angel which I saw stand upon the sea and upon the earth lifted up his hand to heaven,  And sware by him that liveth for ever and ever, who created heaven, and the things that therein are, and the earth, and the things that therein are, and the sea, and the things which are therein, that there should be time no longer:

Death will be burned forever in the lake of fire:

  Revelation 20:14  And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.

The Earth is apparently a waiting place for Satan and his demons.

  Revelation 12:9  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 then after the great white throne judgment they along with the unsaved will be cast into the lake of fire to be tormented forever.

Revelation 20:10 through 15

  And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever. And I saw a great white throne, and him that sat on it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away; and there was found no place for them.  And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works. And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works. And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death. And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.

Since being cast into the lake of fire is the second death and physical death is the first death, could it be that God used man to create death that Satan and the rebellious angels could experience the second death?


texts: God created male and female.... What about those who do not fit in the box?

texts:
Often times I hear the argument that marriage is between a man and a woman, God made them male and female, (adam and eve not adam and steve ..etc).
My question is for those who do not fit into the gender boxes we like people to fit into.
In fact there are many variations of gender between the poles xmale, heterosexual, masculine
and xfemale, heterosexual, feminine.

For the sake of specificness we will drop the heterosexual part and look a little closer at just the gender aspect.

What happens when a physical check shows one sex/gender and a chromosome test shows another?
"it would seem a simple case of checking for XX vs. XY chromosomes to determine whether an athlete is a woman or a man, it is not that simple. Fetuses start out as female, and the Y chromosome turns on a variety of hormones that differentiate the baby as a male. Sometimes this does not occur, and XX people with two X chromosomes can develop hormonally as a male, and XY people with an X and a Y can develop hormonally as a female."
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/22/sports/22runner.html?em

Stories like Santhi Soundaragjan, who after gender testing failed as a female and was stripped of her Olympic medal. Her condition was possibly "Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome (AIS). This condition includes the existence of a 'Y' chromosome in phenotypic females (typically only associated with a male genotype) and results in an inability to respond to Androgens. This unresponsiveness leads to a female body without female internal sex organs. Although the body produces testosterone, it does not react to the hormone." from http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/sport/archives/2009/06/11/2003445882 (The failed test even led to a suicide attempt)

There is more...amidst the many varying conditions that fall somewhere inbetween, there are those who are born with both genders, the hermaphrodite.

Where do these people fit into normal Christian male/female scenarios? Do they have room for them?


texts: Mere Christianity Chapter 7 ("Let's Pretend") Book IV: Reference to Story of Mask

texts:
In Mere Christianity Chapter 7 ("Let's Pretend") Book IV, Lewis writes that there is a story

about someone who had to wear a mask; a mask which made him look much
nicer than he really was. He had to wear it for year. and when he took
it off he found his own face had grown to fit it. He was now really
beautiful.

Does anyone know what this story is?
Thanks


texts:
While reading 2 Thessalonians 2:1-12 NASB

  1Now we request you, brethren, with regard to the coming of our
  Lord Jesus Christ and our gathering together to Him, 2that you not
  be quickly shaken from your composure or be disturbed either by a
  spirit or a message or a letter as if from us, to the effect that the
  day of the Lord has come. 3Let no one in any way deceive you, for
  it will not come unless the apostasy comes first, and the man of
  lawlessness is revealed, the son of destruction, 4who opposes and
  exalts himself above every so-called god or object of worship, so that
  he takes his seat in the temple of God, displaying himself as being
  God. 5Do you not remember that while I was still with you, I was
  telling you these things? 6And you know what restrains him now, so
  that in his time he will be revealed. 7For the mystery of
  lawlessness is already at work; only he who now restrains will do so
  until he is taken out of the way. 8Then that lawless one will be
  revealed whom the Lord will slay with the breath of His mouth and
  bring to an end by the appearance of His coming; 9that is, the one
  whose coming is in accord with the activity of Satan, with all power
  and signs and false wonders, 10and with all the deception of
  wickedness for those who perish, because they did not receive the love
  of the truth so as to be saved. 11For this reason God will send
  upon them a deluding influence so that they will believe what is
  false, 12in order that they all may be judged who did not believe
  the truth, but took pleasure in wickedness.

I was struggling with these terms (the ones in bold):

1) Verse 10 may be talking about unbelievers or apostates that did not receive properly the love of the truth by xtians.

2) Verse 12 the unbelievers or apostates took pleasure in wickedness instead. Possibly right after having a taste for it. As if being born with the pleasure for wickedness.

Am I understanding that some are born with such a selfish ambition that have no obedience to Christ. No hope. No matter how much love is shown to them.

Or, they never had a chance because the Christians around did a bad job showing them true love.

I mean I'm always thinking that the people that don't love me are ones that don't talk to me or see me when I walk on the street or ride the bus. The one that said hi to me loved me. Even the one that was rude to me. I mean hate and love are the same thing right? And then [Matthew Henry][1] wrote on his commentary about 2 Thessalonians 2:5-12, "God leaves them to themselves". I think he meant to say they were hopeless.

Does 2 Thessalonians 2:1-12 confirm that some are born with a nature to disobey, thus cannot be saved?

Like the narrow gate and the broad road?


texts: Why is it that God the Father is alone capitalised in the third person?

texts:
Usually Christians write He, His and Himself with a capital H when referring to God the Father. I'm not aware of this practice for either Jesus or The Holy Spirit.

Why the distinction?


texts: Do Protestants believe Jesus misquoted Psalm 8:2 in Matthew 21:16?

texts:
In Matthew 21:15–16, Jesus is praised by children in the temple after healing the blind and the lame. When questioned by the chief priests and scribes, he points out that what was occurring was prophesied in the Old Testament.

  Matthew 21:15–16 [ESV]

  But when the chief priests and the scribes saw the wonderful things that he did, and the children crying out in the temple, “Hosanna to the Son of David!” they were indignant, and they said to him, “Do you hear what these are saying?” And Jesus said to them, “Yes; have you never read, ‘Out of the mouth of infants and nursing babies you have prepared praise’?"

But... in the ESV bible and the Masoretic text, Psalm 8:2 uses the word "strength", not "praise" – a completely different word, and not a contextual fit for Jesus' point.

  Psalm 8:2a [ESV]

  Out of the mouth of babies and infants, you have established strength...

However... in the Septuagint (the ancient Greek translation of the Old Testament that pre-dated Jesus' time), Psalm 8:2 uses the word "praise" – exactly as Jesus quoted it.

This is one of a number of differences between the Masoretic text and the Septuagint (another would be that the Septuagint included the 'extra' books of the Catholic bible, which Protestants call Apocrypha).

Most Protestant Bibles use the Masoretic text as the foundation of their Old Testament, believing it to be 'better' (closer to the original) than the Septuagint.

Most Protestants also believe the New Testament is inspired and inerrant, and that Jesus is part of the Triune God.

How do Protestants reconcile this?

Do they believe Jesus just misquoted this verse?


texts: LDS teaching about man being able to become God, and the snake telling Eve that she can become "like God"

texts:
According to the LDS Doctrine of Exaltation that is asked about in other questions (such as this one), a human can eventually become a God.

What is the Mormon teaching about the events described in the Bible about the garden of Eden in which the "snake" is described as having told Eve that she will become "like God"?

Some religions state that a spirit being (Satan) was using the snake as a mouthpiece (e.g. Jehovah's Witnesses in this article).

With this question I wanted to know what the LDS church stand is on the passage.

Are the events in Eden merely fiction or a description of something that actually happened?
If the events are a description of something that happened, was the snake telling Eve the truth, or was he lying?
Was the statement made by the snake a reference to the same exaltation what Mormons describe in the Doctrine of Exaltation?
Is the "snake" (or the spirit being that used the snake as a mouthpiece) considered a good or a bad character?
If what the snake (or the spirit being that used the snake as a mouthpiece) said provided something beneficial for Adam and Eve then (seeing as it went against what God had told them) why did God tell them not to eat from the tree?


texts:
Are there any Old Testament passages that could be or have been taken to refer to Virgin Mary?
If so, what is it they are taken to be saying or prophesying about her?


texts: What evidence exists to support church traditions regarding the deaths of the following apostles?

texts:
The Bible tells us that King Herod had James killed by the sword (Acts 12:2) but says nothing about the death of Peter, although Jesus made reference to his martyrdom (John 21:18).  Is there any evidence to support the tradition that Peter was crucified upside-down in Rome?

The most commonly accepted tradition regarding the death of Paul comes from the writings of Eusebius, an early church historian.  Eusebius claimed that Paul was beheaded at the order of the Roman emperor Nero or one of his subordinates.   Because Paul was a Roman citizen (Acts 22:28), he was not crucified.  Is there a reliable source of information to confirm how Paul died?

Although John died peacefully as an old man, there is a tradition that he was boiled in a basin of boiling oil during a wave of persecution in Rome, but miraculously survived.  He died in Turkey.  Are there any records that support this account of being boiled in oil?

Andrew was severely whipped then crucified on an x-shaped cross in Greece, taking two days to die. Is there any record of this event?

Church tradition says that Thomas travelled by sea to India in AD 52. He was later martyred and buried there after witnessing to the Indian people.  Is there any historical evidence about this?
I suspect that Eusebius of Caesarea (c. 260–c. 340) might be the best source of reliable information given his prolific works on church history.

  In his Church History or Ecclesiastical History, Eusebius wrote the first surviving history of the Christian Church as a chronologically-ordered account, based on earlier sources, complete from the period of the Apostles to his own epoch.[49] The time scheme correlated the history with the reigns of the Roman Emperors, and the scope was broad. Included were the bishops and other teachers of the Church, Christian relations with the Jews and those deemed heretical, and the Christian martyrs through 324.[50] Although its accuracy and biases have been questioned,[51] it remains an important source on the early church due to Eusebius's access to materials now lost.[52]

Sources:

Eusebius of Caesarea

Church History (Eusebius)

However, I simply don’t know where to start!  Any links to reliable sources would be appreciated.  What evidence exists to support church traditions on the persecution and martyrdom of Peter, John, Andrew, Thomas and Paul?


texts: What statistics are there on the age of conversions?

texts:
By age group, what percentage of converts to Christianity are there after age 70?
By age group, what percentage of converts to evangelical Christianity after 70?


texts:
Revelation 8:11 And the name of the star is called WORMWOOD: and the third part of the waters became WORMWOOD; and many men died of the waters, because they were made bitter.

Deuteronomy 29:18 So that there will not be among you a man or woman, or family or tribe, whose HEART turns away today from the LORD our God, to go and serve the gods of those nations; that there will not be among you a root bearing poisonous fruit and WORMWOOD.

I suppose what I am asking is are we the waters stated in revelation 8:11?  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oqcIYFamnrc there is a link to the video I watched about wormwood.  Something else too Matthew 13:8 But other fell into good ground, and brought forth fruit, some an hundredfold, some sixtyfold, some thirtyfold. Bring forth Fruit.  hope this makes sense. Something else too Matthew 13:8 But other fell into good ground, and brought forth fruit, some an hundredfold, some sixtyfold, some thirtyfold. So if Jesus is talking about fruit then that must mean us (people) right. Hope i am wording this right.


texts: Did Arminius believe Adam's actual guilt was imputed against all humanity?

texts:
All early reformers believed in the imputation of 'actual guilt' as far as I know. I am fairly certain, however, that Arminians of the 16th century did not believe in the 'imputation of guilt' as there are books that show Calvinist leaders arguing against them on this issue at this time. For example, John Owen argued against their views in 'Display of Arminianism' and quotes, in many places, their denial of the 'imputation of guilt.'

Does anybody have historic quotes from Arminius that shows if he also did NOT believe in the 'imputation of guilt'?

I ask the question because my answer in this post assumed Arminius did not believe in the 'imputation of guilt' but that Wesley did. Now I am not 100% certain as I find clear direct quotes from Arminius hard to find.


texts: According to reformed theology: Is loving God a choice? If not, do the elect differ from robots?

texts:
According to reformed theology:

God, before the foundations of the universe, chose to elect some humans
God ensures that the elect will come to believe and follow Christ

Thus, the question:

For the elect, is loving God a choice? [this appears to be a "no"]
If not, how do the elect differ from robots?
Also -- some have claimed "the reason Adam/Eve" was given a choice -- was that it was so that they could prove their love to God by not eating of the tree. Is there a way to resolve this with reformed theology? We appear to come back to the point where -- if God ensures that the elect believe in Jesus -- then the fact that the elect love Christ is not a matter of choice, but a matter of God's works.


texts: What is the Biblical basis for death being the last point for repentance?

texts:
Death is seen as a point at which our eternal destiny is decided or the last point for repentance, at least in most evangelical circles.

What is the Biblical basis for this belief?


texts: From an idealist perspective, what are the "seven spirits of God"?

texts:
In Revelation, we see God along with the "Seven Spirits before his throne".

Revelation 1:4 (NIV)
John,
To the seven churches in the province of Asia:
Grace and peace to you from him who is, and who was, and who is to come, and from the seven spirits before his throne,

We see it again later in Revelation:

Revelation 5:6 (NIV)
Then I saw a Lamb, looking as if it had been slain, standing at the center of the throne, encircled by the four living creatures and the elders. The Lamb had seven horns and seven eyes, which are the seven spirits of God sent out into all the earth.

Who/what are these seven spirits?  How are they "before the throne" and also "part of the lamb"?  (Or are these seven different spirits?)
I'm seeking the answers from the view that Revelation should not be taken literally--that it is somewhat metaphorical.  I presume these seven spirits to be a metaphor, but for what?


texts:
I'm wondering why some passages in the NIV are missing when compared to the KJV, like:

Matthew 17:21
Matthew 18:11
Mark 9:44
Mark 11:26
Mark 15:28
Luke 17:36

…and more. Also there are some passages where the NIV deletes some phrases as in Matthew 5:44:

NIV: But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you
KJV: But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do
good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use
you, and persecute you

I don't understand the need to change the Bible from what it was for so many years; I personally find the old versions really rich in culture and those express much more than the new versions do. Also in the old versions, the points and commas were really important to not change the original meaning. And the Bible teaches that God is the one that gives us revelation through the Holy Spirit to understand the scriptures, so there's no need to change the Bible to make it 'more understandable'


texts: What Bible passages do Jehovah’s Witnesses use to support their view on free will?

texts:
I’m given to understand Jehovah’s Witnesses hold to something similar to libertarian free will, the belief that a person’s choices are free from the determination or constraints of human nature and free from any predetermination by God.

Since I don’t understand the position very well, perhaps a brief explanation of the view would be helpful to me, but primarily my question is concerned with what argument can be made from the Bible for the JW view.


texts:
Proverbs 25:2
  King James Version (KJV)
  2 It is the glory of God to conceal a thing: but the honour of kings is to search out a matter.

I came across this today on this site when I found the question "What does the Bible say about science?"

What is being said in this verse in context to the surrounding verses? Does it mean we are not supposed to learn new things or want to learn?


texts:
If lying is a sin then why is acting not a sin? By 'acting' I mean intentionally deceiving others.

Example: You meet with someone and act happy, but you are mad at them they now are deceived and think you're happy with them.


texts: How does the divine office compare between the different rites?

texts:
I'm wondering how the liturgy of the hours looks different in different quarters of the church. When Byzantine Christians pray the Divine Office, how is it different to when Latin Christians pray the Divine Office? How about Copts? etc. What do they have in common and what is different between them?

If this question is too broad, please scope it to a comparison of only the Latin and Byzantine rites.


texts: Who were the recepients of Christian monumental sculptures in the early middle ages (10th and 11th century)?

texts:
I am in the process of writing a paper about the bronze column commissioned by Bernwardus Hildesheimiensis, the bishop founder of Benedictine Monastery of St. Michael in Hildesheim, completed approximately between 1015-1022.
The question I am trying to answer is who could actually see this monument. There are various theories about why such an expensive and technologically advanced bronze sculpture was created and erected in a "frontier" place like Hildesheim (barely a town, more a muddy farmer village) at the turn of the 10th to the 11th century. One of the theories is that it was supposed to impress the pagan Slavic populations that were being Christianized in this era. The intention was to show Christian superiority in both faith and as an advanced civilisation. But as it was positioned inside an abbey church, there was certainly no pagan who would have seen it.
My question is thus: Who could see this column apart from the clerics? How could it help spread the Gospel and help the conversion to Christianity of the Slavic people?


texts: Why does God command us to have children?

texts:
Genesis 1:28

  Easy-to-Read Version (ERV)

  28 God blessed them and said to them, “Have many children. Fill the
  earth and take control of it. Rule over the fish in the sea and the
  birds in the air. Rule over every living thing that moves on the
  earth.”

There are so many Christian concepts that make me scratch my head as to why God wants us to have children. Things like the ruler of this world is Satan, Christians must suffer in this world, we are anxiously waiting for Jesus' return and the rapture, fighting our carnal nature of a fallen world....etc. Wouldn't it be better to leave unborn children wherever they may originate from?

So what is the reason God wants us to have children?

(Also, if you happen to known - does God NOT want non-Christians to have children?)


texts: Driving out spirits in Jesus's name with discrepancy in Bible

texts:
In Acts 19: 13-17. Several people tries to drive out demons by using Jesus's name.

  13 Some Jews who went around driving out evil spirits tried to invoke the name of the Lord Jesus over those who were demon-possessed. They would say, “In the name of the Jesus whom Paul preaches, I command you to come out.” 14 Seven sons of Sceva, a Jewish chief priest, were doing this. 15 One day the evil spirit answered them, “Jesus I know, and Paul I know about, but who are you?” 16 Then the man who had the evil spirit jumped on them and overpowered them all. He gave them such a beating that they ran out of the house naked and bleeding.17 When this became known to the Jews and Greeks living in Ephesus, they were all seized with fear, and the name of the Lord Jesus was held in high honor.

However, Disciples encountered similar situation earlier. In Mark 9: 38-41:

  38 “Teacher,” said John, “we saw someone driving out demons in your name and we told him to stop, because he was not one of us.”39 “Do not stop him,” Jesus said. “For no one who does a miracle in my name can in the next moment say anything bad about me, 40 for whoever is not against us is for us. 41 Truly I tell you, anyone who gives you a cup of water in my name because you belong to the Messiah will certainly not lose their reward.

How should I understand this? Was this group of people who drove out demons by using Jesus's name any different from the ones that were beaten severely for it?


texts: Translation / bibles / composition bible LXX - Masoretic?

texts:
I have an issue that it seems at least as far as I can tell, that all bibles are incorrect in various ways, as far as I can tell in my opinion.

Is there a bible that exists that has compared all texts rather than one source?

Using the LXX, Masoretic and Others etc? Or are they individually created separate from each other?  If there an Masoretic text with the "flaws" changed to the LXX? etc.
I'm just getting really frustrated with people making bibles without really doing a "proper job".

edited due to comments....

Bibles do this today...

Not really. As the dates don't add up apparently in regards to timelines = Masoretic = does not work apparently, and septuagint does, apparently = 7500 years roughly? Unless others are wrong? Also Sinaiticus & Vaticanus, they are all from 1 text each, and in all modern bibles and they contradict each other, right...

Two dissagreeing points are here from the hebrew in one corner and the septuagint in the other, so where are they right and wrong? and which bible is right?

Septuagint Errors and Question of its Inspiration

The Septuagint (LXX) vs. corrupted Masoretic

these two pages/sites show obvious issues that no-one has sorted out that I have ever heard of, unless someone knows of a translation that includes Pauls Septuagint verses (explaining why because if they were removed, Paul would contradict himself and the hebrew) and the reason why Paul should be included if he is falsely claiming things not true in scripture if the hebrew is read and therefore in error doctrinally.

Apparently, without the Septuagint Paul is basically removed, one site says.  On the other side it says Origin mentions and the dates also, that the verses were removed by Jews from their texts to  remove support to Christianity.

I do not think the Septuagint/LXX is great or the hebrew in particular, I think we all just want the truth.


texts: Why is it usually easier to do things the wrong or unethical way than to do things the right way?

texts:
Jenny Thompson generalized this question from another that I asked earlier, so I thought I'd ask it here.

I have a few suggested answers on this:
(But they're probably all wrong)

Some people have more brain power (frontal lobes) than others  (but this kind of relays me back to God in this case for why that would be the case)
Somebody is probably going to say "because the devil is the ruler of this world", in which  case I still have to ask, "well why Did God create him then?"
Commercialism / Greed has made unethical thought more appealing because of the "short term gains" it provides.


texts: A woman's testimony was considered inadmissible in a court of law. Whose law?

texts:
As an argument for the validity of the Gospels, I have heard it mentioned by multiple pastors that a woman's testimony was considered inadmissible in a court of law, so the fact that women first discovered Jesus's empty tomb (e.g. Luke 24:10) is an indicator that the Gospel writers weren't fabricating their stories.

In reading through 2 Chronicles, however, I have been noticing a pattern in which the mothers of some of the kings have been mentioned (e.g. Jehoaddan in 2 Chron. 25:1, Naamah in 2 Chron. 12:13), and there is even a queen who reigns, Athaliah (2 Chron. 22:10), who is also mentioned in 2 Kings.

I know that certain women play major roles in Biblical events (Sarah, Esther, etc.) I'm also aware that in Judaism, a child is considered Jewish if the mother is Jewish, and I am certain that this plays a role in many of these passages, in terms of validating the lineage of various kings.  There are also cases in which no men are living in a family, and women become heirs to a family's inheritance (Num 27:2-4).

There are other parts of Scripture which have led some Christians to percieve women as "lesser" than men (e.g. 1 Tim 2:12), but the overall impression I get is that women have had very different, but equally critical roles throughout Scripture.

It seems like this argument of a woman's testimony was probably true of the Roman law, but by reading through the Bible, I'm not convinced that it was true in Jewish circles, and I wonder if the argument itself isn't a little misleading.  I think it would pertain specifically to the Roman culture, but the initial push of Christianity was meant specifically for other Jews anyway, not for gentiles.

Note:  I ask because I want to both 1) understand this argument, and 2) this aspect of Jesus's culture more accurately-- so if you have sources, please cite them.  I'm not looking to discount the authority of the Gospels:  I believe the accounts were accurate, and I'm a firm believer that all Scripture is breathed by God (2 Tim 3:16). Nor am I looking at this with an agenda (I happen to be a complementarian, but my wife is not-- God's mercy and love is way more important to me than my own views or blind rule-keeping).  Also, I am not trying to create a controversy, so please keep it civil!


texts: Issue comprehending Genesis and the Great Flood

texts:
Ok so just from an empirically measurable perspective, we know that inbreeding leads to deformed offspring, why didn't this happen with Adam and Eve, and Noah and whoever he choose to go on board the ship with him?

To clarify, how could their siblings then go one to produce offspring without having sex witn their brothers , sisters , father or mother?

I'm also confused as to how humans split into differing distinct racial profiles, how does and where does the Bible explain this part?

Many thanks in advance

reference literature on inbreeding


texts: What is the Full Preterist perspective on ghosts and paranormal activity?

texts:
Generally, according to the Full Preterist position, the resurrection of the dead occurred in 70 AD, when all the Old Covenant saints and prophets in Sheol were liberated and allowed into heaven at the time that the Temple was destroyed. This would mean that when people die they either immediately go to heaven or hell upon death.

How exactly are paranormal activity and ghost/apparition sightings compatible with the Full Preterist perspective? Can one believe in ghosts while being a Full Preterist?


texts: If I undergo baptized am I still Catholic?

texts: I am Catholic and theirs people came in to our boarding house and they undergo me for baptized.am I still Catholic? I need it.i don't want to change my religion.


texts:
What's the reason for loving/worshiping Jesus?  As an extension, what does it mean to love/worship Jesus and how does that help one accomplish spiritual goals (salvation, forgiveness, sanctification, etc.)?

...if the answer is based on scripture (e.g., "because God demands it from the righteous"), then why is that demand made?

Note: apologies for multiple questions in one post. My aim is to get an autonomous answer (i.e., not circular, not rhetorical).

Thanks for your thoughtfulness!

COMMENT

As @SteelyDan points out, this question is different depending on emphasis: Jesus, the incarnation, or Jesus, the Christ. @Affable seems to cover both. The incarnation is the great act of God's love, hence Jesus (the incarnation) is love. <-- unless I'm reading into his answer too much.


texts: What is the basis for the Catholic practice of only the priest drinking from the common cup during communion?

texts:
I've heard from a number of people that in most Catholic churches, only the priest drinks from the common cup in communion. Is this true?

Assuming it is true, what is the basis for this teaching?


texts: What is the basis for Calvinist double predestination, as opposed to single predestination?

texts:
I was reading this question, What were the main doctrinal disagreements between Luther and Calvin?, and one of the differences between the two was Calvin believed in double predestination, while Luther believed in single predestination.

So according to my understanding:

Double Predestination – God mandates who goes to Heaven AND Hell
Single Predestination – God mandates ONLY who goes to Heaven

Could somebody give a Calvinist support for double predestination?

Related Question: What is the basis for Lutheran single predestination, as opposed to double predestination?


texts: What is the background of the verse Heb 10:25

texts:
Let us not give up meeting together, as some are in the habit of doing, but let us encourage one another—and all the more as you see the Day approaching.

Hebrews 10:25

What would be the reasons to give up meeting? And a sub question, How can we motivate others for Sunday worship for denominations which have Sunday worship?


texts: What did Jesus mean by his apparent racial taunt to the Canaanite woman in Matt 15 when he inferred that they were "dogs"?

texts: In Christs encounter with A woman from Canaan in Matthew 15, why does He infer that the Canaanites are "dogs" and why does the woman apparently accept this racial slur?


texts: What do Jehovah's Witnesses believe about the nature of God?

texts:
What do Jehovah's Witnesses believe about the nature of God and, specifically, Jesus?

A common Christian belief is that God is One in Three co-equal, co-eternal Persons--the Father, the Son, and the Spirit.

Do the Jehovah's Witnesses acknowledge this?  If not, what specifically do they believe?


texts: What do Jehovah’s Witnesses teach about water baptism and is baptism by full water immersion essential to salvation?

texts:
This question has arisen from answers to a question I recently asked about the Lutheran Church and what they teach about salvation (they call it justification) and whether or not they think water baptism is essential to salvation.  A comment was left suggesting that Lutherans, Presbyterians, most Reformed Protestants and Catholics promote infant baptism and that they recognize the baptisms of other Trinitarian denominations.

However, Baptists and Jehovah’s Witnesses reject infant baptism and advocate full water immersion of adults who fully understand what they are doing and what baptism means.  Many Catholics and Protestants who become Jehovah’s Witnesses have already been baptised (sprinkling) as infants.  What is the official position of the organisation – do they then have to undergo full water immersion in order to be accepted and recognised as Jehovah’s Witnesses?

After a period of intensive study with a U.K. Baptist church, I was baptised by full water immersion as an adult “in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit” (Matthew 28:19). The U.K. Baptist Church has never believed that baptism is essential to salvation.  Neither does their baptism mean you have become “a Baptist”.  Rather, baptism is understood as an outward symbol of having come to saving faith in Christ Jesus.  If I now wanted to become a Jehovah’s Witness would I have to be re-baptised, or would my earlier baptism be valid? I ask because of what I read in the Watchtower Study Edition April 2017 article ‘What You Vow Pay’:

  “11 Have you dedicated your life to Jehovah and symbolized your dedication by water baptism? If so, that is wonderful! Recall that on your baptism day, before eyewitnesses, you were asked whether you had dedicated yourself to Jehovah and understood that “your dedication and baptism identify you as one of Jehovah’s Witnesses in association with God’s spirit-directed organization.” Your affirmative answers served as a public declaration of your unreserved dedication and showed that you were qualified for baptism as an ordained minister of Jehovah. You must have made Jehovah very happy!  Source: https://www.jw.org/en/library/magazines/watchtower-study-april-2017/what-you-vow-pay/

To sum up: Do Jehovah’s Witnesses believe adult water baptism (full immersion) is essential to salvation, and would they recognise the baptism of a person from another denomination who wanted to become a Jehovah’s Witness as valid or would they have to be re-baptised?  This question is not about “right or wrong” but is seeking clarification on how Jehovah’s Witnesses view baptism in relation to salvation.


texts: What do "Templar" and "Soldiers of Christ" mean?

texts:
I have been hearing a lot about Templars in movies such as Ironclad and games like Assassin's Creed. I did a quick look up on Google about "Templars" and still haven't got any clue on what is it about.

Who are the Templars? What does Soldier of Christ mean? How are the Templars linked to Soldiers of Christ? And are all Christians soldiers of Christ?


texts: Many people have seen the Classical depiction of Satan in paintings and statues, but what does scripture say about what Satan looks like?


texts: What is the point to open the Book of Life in the Great White Throne Judgement according to the Calvinist?

texts:
Revelation 20 (12) And I saw the dead, great and small, standing before the throne, and books were opened. Then another book was opened, which is the book of life. And the dead were judged by what was written in the books, according to what they had done.

  (15) if anyone’s name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire

To me, verse 15 if it's to be understood logically, then it leads to a sense of a possible condition, where : "maybe there is none - maybe there is at least one name is found written in the book of life".

But this possible condition is ruled out as in my own understanding, The Great White Throne Judgement is the second resurrection which happen to the non-elect, while the first resurrection is already happened before to the elect.

If I myself answer the question, then maybe the answer is something like this: The Book of Life is there to show them that since the beginning of time, their names are not in it.

But since it's my own answer, I would like to know what is the Calvinist's answer.


texts: Does Deuteronomy 18:21-22 still apply today?

texts:
Deuteronomy 18:21-22 (NLT)

  21 “But you may wonder, ‘How will we know whether or not a prophecy is from the Lord?’ 22 If the prophet speaks in the Lord’s name but his prediction does not happen or come true, you will know that the Lord did not give that message. That prophet has spoken without my authority and need not be feared.

Thus, the test of an Old Testament prophet was whether or not they prophesied correctly. However, I heard last weekend that modern-day prophecies are not always correct, much like when Galadriel (from Lord of the Rings) says (roughly) "Remember that the Mirror shows many things that have not come to pass, and may still not.". Given that prophesying still happens today (Acts 2:16-18, 1 Corinthians 14), I ask: does this Old-Testament test of correctness still apply today?


texts: What are the main differences between Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses?

texts:
Both Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses go from door to door, talking to people about their beliefs. Also neither group accepts the notion of Trinity.

What are the main differences between these two denominations?


texts: If Satan is not omnipresent and supposedly wanders around like a roaring lion, how can he tempt and interact with all humans?

texts: There are millions of human beings and there is no way that Satan can interact/tempt all of us in a one-on-one relationship. So how does Satan perform his evil works?  I know that I am a sinner and have sin inherently in me but I don't see how Satan personally has had anything to do with me sinning.  It all seems to stem from my own evil nature. Thoughts?


texts: What is the biblical basis for the idea that worship brings joy to God?


texts:
I was listening to a homily and here is what the priest said:

  "You would travel with your family to Jerusalem and you would have
  either brought a lamb or you would have acquired a lamb and what you
  do is live with that lamb in your home, the lamb would not leave your
  house, the lamb had to be good, spotless, male, unblemished; the lamb
  would live in your house, typically eating from your table for one
  week. Why? So that you would begin to love the lamb, so that this is not
  just some anonymous sacrifice..."

My issue is about the lamb "eating from your table" part of that preaching. I understand that the priest was trying to make a point and the homily was great. I can take that it might be possible that, in Jewish tradition, an animal might be able to stay inside a house temporarily. However, I understand that Jewish people were obsessed with purity and it just seems fair to believe that having an animal eat from your table might have been deemed as improper.

So my questions are:

Is it possible that Jewish people would keep a lamb inside their house, have them eat from their table, during one week prior to sacrifice?
Are there any reliable resources that support or correct this assertion?


texts:
What is the difference of icon veneration between various Christian confessions?

It will be interesting to hear view of point from representative of each confession, and finally create comparative table of this act.

It seems, that most interesting and fuzzy difference is between east orthodox and catholic Christians. Furthermore, it seems that official doctrines of each confession can differ from how Christians of that confession really do veneration of the icons.


texts: What is the thesis of the church towards asexuality?

texts:
What is the position of the Church on asexuals?

An asexual is a person who does not experience sexual attraction towards any person, thus does not desire to have sex.

Asexuality is distinct from abstention from sexual activity and from celibacy,  which are behavioral and generally motivated by factors such as an individual's personal or religious beliefs.

An answer from the Church tradition is welcome.

Does the Bible mention anything about asexuality? The church? Jesus himself? Is asexuality a sin and is it considered the same as homosexuality?


texts: How does 1 John 2:19 fit with the teaching that Christians can lose their salvation

texts:
A common belief (not my own, but fairly common) is that believers may lose or abandon their salvation.  A number of Bible verses seem to contradict this teaching, but in particular, 1 John 2:19 stands out.

1 John 2:19 (NASB):

  They went out from us, but they were not really of us; for if they had been of us, they would have remained with us; but they went out, so that it would be shown that they all are not of us.

It seems like John is talking about a group (who he refers to as antichrists) who left their fellowship.  He seems to imply that if they had been true believers in the first place, they would not have left - which seems to directly contradict the doctrine of conditional security.

How do proponents of conditional security interpret this verse, so that it does not contradict conditional security?

I'm looking for either:

(1) A logical, natural alternate interpretation of the passage, or

(2) An answer that documents and references the most prevalent "conditional security friendly" interpretations of this passage, even if those interpretations are not necessarily logical or natural


texts: Why are Lussekatter served on St. Lucy's day (i.e. why cats?)?

texts:
In researching this question I got sucked into trying to find a connection between St. Lucy's cats and the Nativity.

It got my mind wondering if they even have cats in Sweden, but then I remembered that St. Lucy was from Italy and recollecting Madeline's visit to the Eternal City, I know there are lots of cats there.  However what connection this has to do with St. Lucy is beyond me.  I know she had her eyes plucked out as part of her martyrdom.

I guess I don't see how those rolls resemble cats, they do look like eyes, not necessarily cat eyes. And I think both St. Lucy and cats had an uncanny ability to see in the dark, but she wasn't a cat herself. No saints, I've been told, are in fact cats.

Is there some story about St. Lucy and cats that all the modern day hagiographers have neglected or is this just cat by association?


texts: Why do Protestants say: "In Jesus' name. Amen.", whereas Catholics say: "In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Amen."?

texts:
Why do Protestants oftentimes seem to say: "In Jesus' name. Amen.", whereas Catholics generally begin and end prayers saying: "In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Amen."?

Do Protestants object to praying "In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.", or, conversely, do Catholics object to praying only "In Jesus' name."?


texts: Does the Pope teach infallibly ONLY when he speaks ex cathedra?

texts:
The Vatican Council (opened on 8 December, 1869) defined as "a divinely revealed dogma" that "the Roman Pontiff, when he speaks ex cathedra — that is, when in the exercise of his office as pastor and teacher of all Christians he defines, by virtue of his supreme Apostolic authority, a doctrine of faith or morals to be held by the whole Church — is, by reason of the Divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, possessed of that infallibility with which the Divine Redeemer wished His Church to be endowed in defining doctrines of faith and morals; and consequently that such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are irreformable of their own nature (ex sese) and not by reason of the Church's consent"1 - Source: Explanation of papal infallibility | Infallibility | New Advent.

1. cf. Denzinger 1839 And so We, adhering faithfully to the tradition received from the beginning of the Christian faith, to the glory of God, our Savior, the elevation of the Catholic religion and the salvation of Christian peoples, with the approbation of the sacred Council, teach and explain that the dogma has been divinely revealed: that the Roman Pontiff, when he speaks ex cathedra, that is, when carrying out the duty of the pastor and teacher of all Christians by virtue of his supreme apostolic authority he defines a doctrine of faith or morals to be held by the universal Church, through the divine assistance promised him in blessed Peter, operates with that infallibility with which the divine Redeemer wished that His church be instructed in defining doctrine on faith and morals; and so such definitions of the Roman Pontiff from himself, but not from the consensus of the Church, are unalterable.

The question is, does the Pope teach infallibly ONLY when he speaks ex cathedra? Are there instances when a Pope has taught infallibly but not precisely as according to the definition by the Vatican Council? If so, what are some examples?


texts: I want to know that where did Cain Son of Adam and Eve get his wife? As there was nobody except Adam and Eve after he killed Abel.


texts:
I am agnostic and rationalist and I spend quite a lot of time reading the arguments of tenants of intelligent design (but rarely interacting with them). Regularly, one of these tenants claims something like "there should be a reason/cause for us to exist" or "life must be hard/meaningless without a purpose/goal".

I disagree with that statement, but it made me wonder:

What was God's purpose, according to the Bible, to create life?

I got that, once life is created, God, being a benevolent deity, wish for us to live a good life according to his Word, in order to go to Heaven and enjoy eternal happy life (in opposition to an eternity of torments in Hell).

But, why creating life in the first place? In opposition to not creating anything or creating a universe with no life (a clockmaker is satisfied with the mechanisms he created, even though they don't bear life).

Boredom? Curiosity? Because he simply could?

Is there anything about his intent in the creation in the Bible, or, is it claimed to be beyond our understanding?


texts:
When is the first documented case of Christians praying to the dead saints?

(A point in comments was brought up that "asking the dead saints" does not mean "praying to the dead saints" as "prayer is always addressed to God only". For this case, the phrase "praying to the saints" in my question can be replaced then with "communicating to saints" or "addressing the saints" in hopes that those whom they address will somehow hear them.)


texts: Are translations of the book of Mormon into other languages made from English, or are the golden plates stashed in a temple somewhere?

texts: I was poking around the Internet to see if there are any LDS-sanctioned modern translations of the Book of Mormon in English, and it seems there are not. (Although there's an unofficial one, A Plain English Reference to the Book of Mormon by Timothy B. Wilson.)  However from another question on here I saw that the book of Mormon is still being translated into foreign languages.  My question is, how is that the case?  It was my understanding that Mormons say Joseph Smith returned the golden plates to the angel, so how are new translations made? From the English?  And if foreign translations can be made from the English, why not a NIV-style English translation from the English?


texts:
Catholics, Protestants, and Eastern Orthodox Christians agree that Jesus was both God and man as described in the Chalcedon Definition in 451. However at Galatians 1:1 Paul says that the source of his apostleship was not from or through men or "a man" ("any human being", Catholic NJB)

  Gal 1:1: Paul, an apostle sent not from men, nor by a man, but by Jesus Christ, and God the Father, who raised him [a man?] from the dead), (NIV)

Paul says that his assignment as an apostle was not from (Greek από) or through (δια)  a man.   But it was through Jesus.  See the excursus for how the word Άνθρωπος is used in scripture.

Those who adhere to Chalcedon also teach that a human body was raised and Paul says God the Father raised Jesus.

If Jesus was resurrected as a man how can Paul say his apostleship was not through a man but it was through Jesus at Galatians 1:1?

Excursus: Does Άνθρωπος mean a man or human nature?

άνθρωπος does not mean "human" in contrast to ανήρ or αρσην with the meaning "man."

At Eph 5:31 and 1 Co 7:1 it obviously and contextually means "a male person, man". (BDAG)

In contrast, when  preceded by κατά and in the accusative case as in Gal 1:11, it refers to "status" and is rendered "human."   (Cp. 1 Co 9:8, Ro 3:15, Ga 3:15).   The contrast between Ga 1:1 and 1:11 shows how Paul represents άνθρωπος as "human."   This idiom is not found at Ga 1:1.

When contrasted with God it is seen as inferior  to God and has a "focus on limitations and weakness, a human being."    This definition applies to all human beings when compared to God.  This is the case at Galatians 1:1.


texts: Is it possible for The Bible to contain errors?

texts:
For those who profess to follow the word of Christ, everyone agrees that the Bible is the infallible word of God as transcribed by many different men compiled together in one book. But for this question, I'm not talking about "The Bible" as in the idea of the perfect Bible, but of the copies and translations mankind reads; the one you and I have on our bookshelves. This may seem like a stupid question for some, and I apologize, but is it possible for these books to contain errors?

The way I see it, The Bible is a product of mankind, written by man, transcribed by man, duplicated on printing presses created by man, and thus it may contain errors, mistakes, even contradictions; these mistakes are the result of man's imperfection, not God's.

It occurred to me after reading through many questions on this site that some people think that The Bible is 100% infallible, let alone that their particular copy may be a poor/inaccurate translation. It's almost as if they believe it was written by God himself, so they tend to blame errors on our own reasoning and interpretation of the Bible, as opposed to the simple fact that a particular passage could have been translated incorrectly (which often seems more likely, especially when it stands out from all the rest).

Note that whether errors/mistakes do (or do not) occur in The Bible is irrelevant; this questions asks merely whether it is conceivably possible that it could contain errors.


texts: What is the Biblical basis for the "one" in "the Trinitarian God is one being in three persons"?

texts:
In the Trinity, the one divine being is three persons whereas one human being is only one person (source: Is The Trinity a philosophical contradiction?).

A "being" is an independently existing thing.

The Father, Son and Holy Spirit are not three "beings".
For instance, Adam is a human being, Eve is a human being and Seth is a human being. You have three human beings because you have three independently existing things.
But the persons of the Trinity are not independently existing things, so we cannot say that there are three divine beings. But rather the Trinity is one being existing as three divine persons.
The point is that they are not three separate things in the way Adam and Eve are three separate beings precisely because they cannot exist apart from each other.
The three do not exist independently. They cannot exist apart from each other. They are one being (literally, one independent thing) and thus, they are one God.
What is the Biblical basis that Trinity is "one being in three persons"?
Did the Scripture say that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are not three separate beings?
Usually, the Trinity is being defined as of one substance, nature, essence and being. This question specifically asked what exactly does "one being" mean in regards to the Trinity because being is different from nature and person.


texts: Are there tenets of Rastafarianism that run counter to Baptist theology?

texts:
I am a Baptist and I have no desire to call myself a Rasta but I believe in some things they believe in such as living clean, peace, unity, etc. Is it wrong to identify with those things?

Many say that Rastafarianism isn't a religion but more a way of life. Would any of their practices (excluding calling Haile Selassie god) be considered sinful by a Baptist congregation?


texts: What is a Catechism and when and how did they originate

texts:
One Protestant source says it wasn't until the 16th century that the word "catechism" came into use and it refers to the Heidelberg Catechism, first published in 1563 and approved by the Synod of Dort in 1619.

However, the Catholic Encyclopedia suggests that a catechism was established much earlier:

  By the end of the second century we find the catechumenate in force in all its main lines. Source: https://www.catholic.org/encyclopedia/view.php?id=2661

I seek information on when and how catechisms first came into use, and welcome Catholic, Orthodox and Reformed Protestant input.  Ths is NOT a who is right or who is wrong question - it's a genuine enquiry into how and when catechisms originated within the Christian faith.

Question: Is there any biblical basis to support the use of a catechism within the Christian faith and how did they originate?


texts: Why does Jesus value leap of faith more than those who rely on direct evidence?

texts:
As told in the gospel according to John, following the crucifixion, the resurrected Jesus appears
in front of his disciples and greets them (John 20:19-21). The disciples then run off to tell the only disciple who was not present during Jesus' visit, Thomas, that they had witnessed the resurrected Jesus.
John 20:24-25 (NIV)
Now Thomas (also known as Didymus), one of the Twelve, was not with the disciples when Jesus came. 25 So the other disciples told him, “We have seen the Lord!”
But he said to them, “Unless I see the nail marks in his hands and put my finger where the nails were, and put my hand into his side, I will not believe.”
Since Thomas did not encounter the risen Jesus as the other apostles did, he decides to maintain skepticism regarding his resurrection. Speaking for myself I respect Thomas' approach. Just because he was not there with the other disciples does not mean Jesus had not actually revealed himself, but if he were to merely take their word for it then by that standard he would have to accept any word of mouth relating any miraculous claim that was supposedly witnessed by anyone ever.
So until Jesus reveals himself personally to Thomas he declares that he would remain unbelieving.
Jesus then in John 20:26-27 reveals himself to Thomas and he comes to acknowledge his resurrection.
But then Jesus says the following:
John 20:29 (NIV)Then Jesus told him, “Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.”
Jesus in a way rebukes Thomas, telling him that he has believed because he had seen, but that if you have believed without seeing then you are blessed. What is deduced from this is that those who make the leap of faith are "better" or more appreciated than those who rely on concrete evidence and who are otherwise unconvinced.
Evidence should be the basis of anything purporting to be the truth. If Christianity is true then it should be substantiated by evidence in order that one might be convinced. A person who does not base his faith on evidence might as well have believed in anything other than Christianity, because his faith is arbitrary and not founded on anything. Therefore Thomas in his sincerity declares that he is unconvinced by the words related to him by other disciples and demands superior evidence.
So why is the person who is sincere in his pursuit of truth and who requests better evidence is lesser (according to Jesus) than that who had made the leap of faith?
EDIT: I have just been reading "The Case for Christ" by Lee Strobel, where the author interviews acclaimed New Testament scholar Dr.Craig Blomberg who shares my understanding of the verse at-hand, as page 76 of the book reads:
"He [Blomberg] was quiet for a moment, then continued 'You know, it's ironic: The Bible considers it praiseworthy to have a faith that does not require evidence. Remember how Jesus replied to doubting Thomas: "You believe because you see; blessed are those who have not seen yet believe"'"


texts: Which U.S. bishops are unfaithful to Church teaching on homosexuality and LGBT ideology?


texts:
Possible Duplicate:
  What is the purpose of Prayer?

What the question says, why do people pray if God knows everything?


texts:
God's name is written as the Tetragrammaton יהוה (YHWH) in the Old Testament. The name is not vocalized in the manuscripts and it's considered ineffable, forbidden to say aloud, by Jews. For that reason, the original pronunciation hasn't been preserved.

The two most commonly suggested possible originals are Yahweh and Jehovah. Long ago I heard it claimed that the vocalization Jehovah is based on a misunderstanding, but I don't remember the reasoning.

Which is the probable vocalization, or is it some altogether different one?


texts: Relationship between Mary/Elizabeth or Jesus/John?

texts:
How were Mary and Elizabeth related, outside of the obvious of being of the children of Abraham.  Mary was of the tribe of Judah, and Elizabeth would have been a Levite.  How could Mary and Elizabeth be related that would make Jesus and John to be considered cousins?

Luke 1:36

  And behold, your relative Elizabeth in her old age has also conceived a son, and this is the sixth month with her who was called barren.


texts: Why do Christians appeal to personal gain and inducing fear when attempting to "convert" people?

texts:
I have many times witnessed christians trying to convince or convert atheists or people of other religions to christianity as well as all sorts of arguments and quarrels regarding christianity. I'm sure you've witnessed some too...

Among other things, I've noticed christians persistently using two arguments that I find hard to reconcile with the rest of Christianity / Jesus' teachings:

Appeal to personal Gain

I'm sure you've heard someone say "Start believing in God and Jesus Christ, that way you will be saved and after death you'll go to heaven and be happy for eternity".

Sounds great, the trouble is, if this becomes the sole or main reason for faith, is that faith really worthwile? It seems to me that this argument reduces christianity to a simple trade: Do something that is asked of you and in reward you will be happy forever. I'd think that a real faith would be based on something more... sincere.

I don't understand how can someone venerate Jesus for his act of ultimate selflessnes and love (the crucifixion) but at the same time try to lead people to Jesus by appealing to their desire for personal gain.

Inducing fear

A.k.a. the age-old "If you don't listen, you will go to hell". This is similar, usually used along with the former argument, but it's a bit more drastic. My concern about this argument is essentially the same: If someone believes simply because they want to avoid hell, is that a sincere faith?

It troubles me even more considering that Jesus himself used this argument, although perhaps in somewhat less threatning way (The weeping and gnashing of teeth, "Fear that who kills the soul in hell").

I've heard people say that fear of God is a "good kind of fear", referring to a couple of verses in the Old Testament, but that doesn't really help since fear of God isn't necessarily the same as fear of hell (or is it?) and also (in my experience, anyway) fear is an obstacle to faith or love, that works against them. How could I possibly truly love God while having fear he might as well let me burn in hell? I don't think I could.

Why are these arguments used?

Are they valid or do people use them just to draw attention to themselves?


texts: Are there any references to "four canonical Gospels" prior to 100 AD?

texts:
According to the "Institut für neutestamentliche Textforschung" eleven manuscripts of NT are from within the second century alone, which include: P52 (100-150), P90, 104 (2nd century), P66 (c. AD 175-225), P46, 64+67 (c. AD 200), P77, P103, 0189 (2nd or 3rd century), P98 (2nd century).

It means that P52 was not only written, but had spread to a provincial town in Egypt  by the middle of the second century, confirming the its date of composition, in the last years of the first century. It is presumed that books of the New Testament were written between the years 50 and 100 after Christ. If we assume a later date, than it only shortens the period that elapsed between the composition of the books and the date at which the earliest manuscripts now extant were written.

P52 gives us a physical testimony for existence of the fourth Gospel of NT, at the start of second century.

Prior to say around 80 AD, are there any other references to these “four Gospels as books” in any of these sources?

Non Christians and Christians literatures
From any early Christian Fathers
Any historians or
Non Christian authors.


texts: Is it only Catholicism that says grace on food?

texts: I've heard it referred to as saying grace when you say a prayer to bless the food. Which denominations do this? Is this only a Catholic thing? Where did it come from?


texts: Looking for an apologetic to the "Cosmic Child Abuse" objection

texts:
Recently during a discussion I got smacked with the "Cosmic Child Abuse" argument. I had heard of it before, but never really had to wrestle with it in real life. I discovered that I don't actually have a satisfactory answer.

The situation: Assume Universal salvation for the sake of argument. So God loves everyone, is able to save everyone, is willing to save everyone, and will in actual fact save everyone. That's all well and good, but in order to save everyone, the father sent his son to be tortured on a cross and also (for the sake of argument) descend into the deepest depths of Hell and endure further ineffable tortures there too.

The problem: Doesn't this compromise both God's love and his justice? How was it loving for God to torture his own son? How was it just/fair for Jesus to take the punishment that we deserve?

Scope: I would be happy to hear apologetics from any tradition, seeing as this is a problem which plagues almost all if not all Christian traditions.


texts: Who is the king described in 2 Kings 8:1–6?

texts:
2 Kings 8:1–6 (ESV)
  1 Now Elisha had said to the woman whose son he had restored to life, “Arise, and depart with your household, and sojourn wherever you can, for the Lord has called for a famine, and it will come upon the land for seven years.” 2 So the woman arose and did according to the word of the man of God. She went with her household and sojourned in the land of the Philistines seven years. 3 And at the end of the seven years, when the woman returned from the land of the Philistines, she went to appeal to the king for her house and her land. 4 Now the king was talking with Gehazi the servant of the man of God, saying, “Tell me all the great things that Elisha has done.” 5 And while he was telling the king how Elisha had restored the dead to life, behold, the woman whose son he had restored to life appealed to the king for her house and her land. And Gehazi said, “My lord, O king, here is the woman, and here is her son whom Elisha restored to life.” 6 And when the king asked the woman, she told him. So the king appointed an official for her, saying, “Restore all that was hers, together with all the produce of the fields from the day that she left the land until now.”

In the story of The Shunammite's Land Restored, we see a king who asks Gehazi to tell great things that Elisha has done. Who is this king? Where else in the Bible he is mentioned? Was he a king of Israel?


texts:
My question is, did Jesus have to die for our sins?
If no, then how would we have obtained salvation.
If yes, if Jesus did in fact have to die for our sins, I do not understand this.

Why would God make our salvation only possible through the death and torture of His son? Why would the gates of heaven opening be contingent upon a select group of humans committing atrocities (i.e. torture, murder). This seems problematic in regard to christian ethics. In the process of bringing us salvation a few had to commit great sin, is this true?


texts: What does the Lutheran Church teach about Justification by Faith and is the sacrament of Baptism essential to salvation?

texts:
Recently I have been doing research into the Lutheran Church and it seems that they believe in baptismal regeneration.   My understanding is baptismal regeneration is the belief that baptism is necessary for salvation, or, more precisely, that regeneration does not occur until a person is water baptized.  If this is the case, it would seem that the Lutheran Church believes water baptism is essential to a person’s salvation.

In America the Evangelical Lutheran Church of America (ELCA), and the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod (LCMS) hold to the Augsburg Confession, which teaches that all men are born in sin, and therefore need to be justified through faith in Christ's sacrifice on the cross. Along with faith in Christ, baptism is “necessary for salvation” and therefore “children should be baptized, for being offered to God through baptism they are received into his grace” (Art. IX).

What I want to avoid is discussion about whether or not baptismal regeneration is “right” or “wrong”.  The subject of baptismal regeneration is merely one example of what the Lutheran Church might teach about salvation.  What I am looking for is an official source that clearly declares what the Lutheran Church believes a person must to do be saved.  Simple would be good!


texts:
Stop trusting in mere humans,
  who have but a breath in their nostrils.
  Why hold them in esteem?
  (Isaiah 2:22, NIV)

All humans breathe with nostrils. So, should we distrust all people?